Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday, 26th July, 1967

The House met at Ten o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Civil Air Transport (Inquiry)

The Government have decided to institute a broadly-based inquiry into the civil air transport industry.

Since the Board of Trade assumed responsibility for the industry a year ago, I have been impressed both by the achievements of the industry and by the problems it faces. There is undoubtedly a feeling of uncertainty about the future of British civil aviation. This has found particular expression in criticism of the present licensing system, with its influence on the structure of the industry. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown concern and sought reform.

Because our civil aviation industry is of great importance, both as an integral part of our system of transport and as an earner of foreign exchange, the Government are anxious that it should be as strong and competitive as possible. Before considering changes affecting the industry, the Government have decided to obtain independent advice. There has been no independent inquiry since the war, and the time has come to take stock. I am, therefore, setting up a committee with the following terms of reference:

To inquire into the economic and financial situation and prospects of the British civil air transport industry and into the methods of regulating competition and of licensing currently employed; and to propose with due attention to other forms of transport in this country what changes may be desirable to enable the industry to make its full contribution to the development of the economy and to the service and safety of the travelling public.

While the inquiry must be thorough, it is also important that it should be completed quickly. I hope that it will be able to make at any rate a first report with recommendations in spring, 1968. I trust that the industry itself will respond to this opportunity by giving the committee its full support and co-operation.

The House will welcome the Minister's statement and will agree that the economic state of the industry has been causing grave concern. We would also agree that a review of the Air Transport Licensing Board procedure is overdue. May I ask the President, first, who will serve on this committee, and what staff it will have, and whether, in particular, any hon. Members of this House are likely to be invited to serve? When does he anticipate that the work of the committee will be likely to lead to legislation to implement its findings?

May I also ask him whether the committee will be empowered to look at the matter of investment grants; what evidence it will be able to take in this country and abroad, particularly in America; whether it will look into the development of regional air transport and air taxi work; and, finally, whether he agrees that, if this industry is to be strong and competitive, it must be an expanding industry?

I certainly agree with the proposition in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As for the personnel of the committee, I am not at present able to give names. I thought it right to make this statement to the House immediately before it rose. The appointments would be made in due course.

The hon. Gentleman asked when legislation will be possible. The answer is not before next spring, because, first, we must have the recommendations of the committee, and before I know what they will be I would not like to pledge myself to the time when legislation will be introduced.

We would all like to have a practical solution to the problems of the industry as soon as we can. It will be part of the committee's function to look into questions of regional transport and the achievement of the best possible service throughout the United Kingdom.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement of this inquiry? So far as its terms of reference are concerned, will the committee conducting the inquiry be in a position to look at structural changes and the relations between the publicly-owned company and the privately-owned company, bearing in mind that competition may not be the last word, but that co-operation and logical arrangement might be a much better solution?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The issue which he has mentioned will be right in the centre of this investigation.

While I add my welcome to those of other hon. Members, may I ask the President to comment on the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the examination of the investment grants condition for aircraft? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, at the moment aircraft are specifically excluded from invest-grant grants, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given in the House, and with which we do not agree. Could this matter be specifically included in the terms of reference?

I do not think that the committee could reasonably be precluded from taking an interest and having views about this sort of issue.

Would the Minister agree that one of the big drawbacks to fair competition is the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), namely, that part of the industry is nationalised and part is not? Would the committee be able to look into the question of bringing about fairer competition by investigating the proposition that the two nationalised corporations might be denationalised?

All these questions would be within its terms of reference, but I am not expressing any opinion about the merits of that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much needs to be done to encourage executive air travel and private flying generally? Will the committee look into those two aspects?

That is rather on the margin under the committee's terms of reference. It will be mainly concerned with civil air transport used by the public.

Atomic Energy Authority (Culham Laboratory)

Last year, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority appointed a Working Party to review its present effort on plasma physics and fusion research. After considering the views of the Working Party, the Authority has advised me that this effort should be reduced over the next five years by about 10 per cent. a year. I have now endorsed its conclusion.

Since the decision to start fusion research, rapid progress has been made towards economic nuclear fission power. In particular, the fast breeder reactor programme shows real promise. Consideration of this progress in relation to the earliest period when fusion could conceivably contribute to the power programme, leads inevitably to the conclusion that plasma physics and fusion research should be substantially reduced. The present annual expenditure of £4 million on this work will be cut by nearly half.

In so advanced a technology as this, circumstances can change rapidly. I have, therefore, agreed that the Atomic Energy Authority shall keep the situation under review and that in any event there should be a re-examination in five years' time.

Fewer professional staff will be needed on this work. The Authority has told me that it will keep in close consultation with its staff and trade union sides in dealing with this. While I do not intend to authorise non-nuclear work for the Atomic Energy Authority solely in order to absorb surplus staff, whether at Culham or elsewhere, I shall continue to authorise such work where this is appropriate.

In reaching the decision, full account has been taken of the outstanding quality of the work being done, of the high international standing and the considerable scientific achievements of the Laboratory. The Atomic Energy Authority assures me that Britain will still maintain a leading position in this field of research. The work done at Culham has attracted international interest and respect. I am confident that it will continue to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an extremely serious statement, which we should like an opportunity to debate? To get the matter into perspective, may I ask two questions?

First, has there been a general survey by the Government of our total national effort in plasma physics and in the whole field of high energy physics and of the contribution made by the universities and by international organisations, in which Britain participates, because surely the right hon. Gentleman's proposal must be looked at in its total context? Have the Government referred the total matter of plasma physics and high energy physics for survey by the Zuckerman Committee?

Secondly, if the Atomic Energy Authority thinks that the work at Culham is on too long a time scale to make sense to the A.E.A. for its own purposes, has consideration been given to the transfer of Culham from the orbit of the A.E.A. and to its establishment as a separate institution of national excellence and possibly, in my mind, connected with Oxford University?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that any decision on a matter of this kind is very important. He will recall that I first answered questions about this matter a year ago. He can safely conclude that during this period the most exhaustive consultations have taken place between all those who could conceivably be concerned.

On the second part of the supplementary question, there is a very close association between the Culham Laboratory and Oxford University. More recently, we have had the Sutherland Working Party reporting on the need for greater collaboration between Government research laboratories and the universities, and we would expect these relationships to become closer. I am not able to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's proposal that Culham might be separated entirely from the A.E.A. and attached to a university, because the fusion programme was begun as a part of the A.E.A.'s advanced work in the provision of a possible alternative source of nuclear power for general purposes. We are still bound to consider the work by the authority in this context.

While not quarrelling in any way with the reduced expenditure in this field because it is right, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is a quite considerable belief that this Laboratory should be separated from the A.E.A. and possibly put under the Science Research Council? Would he look at the whole structure of the A.E.A. with a view to separating quite a considerable proportion of its research functions?

I am very well aware of the discussion which has taken place on this subject. I understand that the Science and Technology Committee of the House is now giving consideration to this matter. But I thought that it would he wrong to postpone a clear decision on a matter on which I have received advice from the Authority relating to one part of its programme until the Parliamentary Committee had reported. I think that it was right to take this decision in this form at this time.

Bearing in mind that Culham has been successful against foreign competition in getting agreement with E.S.R.O. with regard to the scientific payload for the large astronomical satellite, may we have an assurance, in the light of this very serious and grave statement, that what has been begun will not be undone and that Culham will be enabled to play its part in the international field as well as go ahead, to a limited extent, with fusion research?

It is more than a limited extent. It is proposed that over a period there should be a reduction of about 10 per cent. a year. Although this is a serious matter, to describe my statement as grave is perhaps overstressing it. The work done at Culham in other respects is very well known—the work which is done on super conductivity, cryogenics, vacuum technology, software for the K.D.F.9 computer, and, as he says, its work which led to its getting this contract. This is part of Culham's achievement and has no bearing on the statement which I have made today.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Working Party recommended that Culham be wound up altogether? Would he agree that what he has demonstrated is that we shall have more accountability from our scientists than we have done in the past? They tend to become divorced from economic realities when pursuing objectives like this.

Lastly, would my right hon. Friend devote some of the energy, money and attention of his Department to improving efficiency in conventional power stations rather than pursuing this elusive one?

Although I can understand the thoughts in my hon. Friend's mind about the need for focusing research on economic projects, which is very much part of the philosophy of my Department, it would be most unjust to allow to go unchallenged the suggestion that the scientists at Culham thought this programme up and imposed it on the A.E.A. or the Government. It was the other way round. The possibilities of fusion attracted great interest in the Government and in the Authority and they set up the Culham Laboratory to pursue research in this field. The scientists there include some of the most brilliant in this country or in the world.

On the question of the recommendations made to me by the Authority, it set up a Working Party itself to consider this matter, and everyone who has thought about it realises that this is a very difficult problem. I have considered the views of the Working Party and I have accepted the recommendation made by the A.E.A.

Since both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Penney gave evidence before the Select Committee on Science and Technology on this subject, would it not have been better for the Minister to have the advantage of its Report, which is due to appear in October, when this matter will have been considered?

Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the brilliant scientists to whom he referred consider it shortsighted that he should cut down research into an entirely new source of energy at a time when the United States is stepping up its expenditure on this research?

As to the merits of the decision, all I can say is that the problems of providing cheap power by means of fusion have proved much more difficult than was thought at the time. Indeed, although a great deal of research has gone into plasma physics, we are not yet within sight of a reactor which could provide cheap electricity. Meanwhile, we have to take account of the fact that the fast breeder programme, particularly its integration with the A.G.R. programme, promises us cheap electricity. We are, however, maintaining the research programme which I have described to ensure that we have a stake in the programme and to see how it develops.

As to the constitutional point, it is true that questions were addressed to me and others at the Science and Technology Committee. As I understand it, however, that Committee is looking at the reactor programme and there is no reactor even in view for fusion. This is pure research; this is plasma physics. It does not bear upon the reactor programme. It bears much more, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) made clear, upon the academic research that is done at universities and elsewhere.

Since the matter has been hanging fire for a very long time—I answered my first Question on it a year ago—I thought it wrong to prolong uncertainty when I had had a clear recommendation on this matter from the Atomic Energy Authority.

Hovercraft

My right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation in Parliament at an early date to clarify the legal position of hovercraft. At present, there is considerable uncertainty as to how the law applies to hovercraft on such matters as safety regulation, liability, and the jurisdiction of the courts. The purpose of the legislation will be to establish the separate identity of hovercraft as distinct from ships and aircraft and to make provision for the safety regulation of these craft and for certain other matters, including liability and jurisdiction. In preparing the legislation the Board of Trade will, of course, continue to consult all the other interests concerned.

Until the new legislation comes into force, hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom will continue to be issued with permits to fly by the Board of Trade in consultation with the Air Registration Board.

The Ministry of Technology will remain responsible for the sponsorship of the hovercraft manufacturing industry. The Board of Trade will be responsible for the operations of civil hovercraft as well as the preparation of the necessary legislation.

The House will welcome that elaboration of an undertaking which we wrung from the Minister during the later stages of the Anchors and Chain Cables Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been pressure on this subject and that many of us regard it as high time that there was legislation.

Will the legislation cover private as well as commercial hovercraft, and will it distinguish between them? Will it cover the rights of hovercraft to use public highways and navigable waterways? The Minister will know that there is uncertainty about the future of cross-Channel hovercraft operations. Is it the Government's intention to bring commercial hovercraft operations, here and elsewhere, under public ownership?

I must repudiate the idea that the assurance was wrung from me. It was vouchsafed with eagerness. The answer to the first question—whether the legislation will cover both private and commercial hovercraft—is, "Yes". The answer to the question concerning rights to use public highways and waterways is, again, "Yes". The hon. Member's third question is one which does not come within the legislation.

While the Minister certainly gave a definition during the deliberations on the Anchors and Chain Cables Bill, was it not a definition which contradicted that of his predecessor, who had ruled that a hovercraft was a ship?

Is it the Government's intention when legislating still to pursue the, to me, quite impossible contention that hovercraft fly? They cannot fly more than a few inches clear of earth or water. Is it not quite absurd to try to treat them as aeroplanes, as they will never be using any of our airways above 3,000 ft. and they must, therefore, be land vehicles?

Order. The hon. Member cannot engage in debate now. He may ask a question.

If I may ask one further question? Will such minor hovercraft as those used for cutting grass be subject to the proposed legislation?

That is a perfectly serious question, to which the answer is, "Yes", not only for cutting grass, but for all sorts of agricultural purposes. I made clear in my statement that we will establish by definition the separate identity of hovercraft. They are not ships and they are not aircraft. They are hovercraft.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be very welcome in trying to get rid of the anomalous position of hovercraft generally? Can he inform the House whether, when the legislation is introduced, a scheme will be put forward to incorporate details of hovercraft in future transport legislation so as to integrate them into the National Freight Authority and public transport generally?

I do not think that that would come under this form of legislation.

Sea Fisheries (Grants)

10.26 a.m.

I beg to move,

That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

As the Schemes referred to in the two following Motions are related to the Order, perhaps it may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to debate all three together.

I have no objection if the House has none. So be it.

The Order dealing with the aggregate amount of grants increased the total sums available for subsidies from £46·25 million to £48·75 million, thereby covering expenditure on the subsidy proposals before the House. Perhaps I should make clear that expenditure on the Fishing Vessel Grants Scheme is not included in the Order.

The purpose of the Fishing Vessel Grants Scheme is simply to increase the rates of grant for acquiring or improving vessels by 5 per cent. on expenditure incurred during 1967 or 1968. This proposal has already been thoroughly dealt with. Indeed, we had several morning meetings dealing with the short Act which was created to enable the Scheme to be brought forward. The new rates of grant will be 45 per cent. for vessels under 80 ft. and 40 per cent. for other vessels. These are worth-while incentives to the industry to modernise and re-equip and increase its efficiency.

It is usual in a debate on the fisheries subsidies to look at the economic position of the industry before turning to the subsidy proposals themselves. While I am glad to report that the weight of total landings of herring and white fish in 1966 showed an increase over the 1965 figure, reaching over 900,000 tons, the value was only marginally higher at about £58·1 million. This was a new record but the gratifying totals unfortunately mask a deteriorating position in England and Wales. In Scotland, we saw a substantial value increase of over £1 million which was unfortunately largely offset by the decline in England and Wales.

The distant water fleet began to experience difficulties in 1966, and unfortunately, its position has deteriorated in the first half of this year. The total value of landings in the United Kingdom in the first five months of 1967 has been £16 million compared with £16·3 million in 1966—that is, they have dropped by about 2 per cent. Indeed, during the last few weeks, large quantities of fish have failed to be sold for human consumption at some of our ports.

Combined with a drop in earnings the distant water section of the fleet, in common with the other sections, is just now being faced with increased costs. As the House knows, however, a temporary surcharge has been authorised on oil prices and to the extent that it is put into effect this is going to raise operating costs, if not drastically, at least significantly. It has been estimated that the cost to the United Kingdom deep sea trawler fleets will be about £1¼ million in a full year.

We hope that the surcharge will be of a very limited duration, but neither the Government nor anyone can foresee how the political situation will develop so as to allow a resumption of normal oil deliveries. The cost to the inshore white fish and herring boats will be both absolutely and relatively less, and happily they are also in a better position to stand it.

The subsidy proposals now before the House are a further step in implementing the policy, following the Fleck Report, as set out in the 1961 White Paper and enshrined in the Sea Fish Industry Act of 1962. As the House is aware, the Government is now reviewing that policy in the light of five years' operation. We hope and expect that this review will be completed, and that the Government will have announced its findings, by the end of the year. It may well be that, as a result of our findings, we shall want to propose legislative changes, but in this scheme we are administering the existing Act and policy.

I know that hon. Members are inclined to criticise the Government for not having reached conclusions before now. I am sure, however, that there are many people in the industry who would be prepared to wait for a thorough review. This is a very difficult subject: it involves the uncontrollable natural phenomena of the sea—and this, after all, is a hunting industry—as well as the activities of foreign fishing fleets and the actions of foreign Governments. I think that there are a good many just now who may be saying to themselves that it is a good thing we did not complete this review in 1966, and that we still have an open mind about the future policy.

During the debate on the comparable subsidies scheme in 1965, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced with reference to the deep sea trawlers that the basic rates of subsidy—which in terms of the statute must be reduced annually by between 7½ and 12½ per cent. of the 1962 level—would be reduced by 10 per cent. in that year and in each of the two following years. That course was followed last year, and this would be the third year of the programme of 10 per cent. cuts.

The Government have, however, reviewed this decision and have decided that, without prejudice to any future year, for the subsidy year commencing on 1st August next the basic rates should be reduced by 71½ per cent. We do not pretend that this is a great concession; we appreciate that, in terms of extra subsidy assistance for the industry, it will mean only an extra £55,000 or so in a full year. It is, however, as far as we can go within the Act, and it should be taken as a gesture on the part of the Government to assist in meeting the difficulties which the deep water section of the industry as a whole has encountered.

The payment of supplementary rates of subsidy in addition to basic rates is authorised in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, for classes of trawlers in special difficulties. These supplementary subsidies may not exceed £350,000 in any one year. This summer, the British Trawlers Federation put forward a claim for a number of classes which have recently found themselves in difficulties.

After a close study of the factors involved, we came to the conclusion that, for 15 classes at Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Milford Haven, special circumstances as envisaged in the Act did exist, and the scheme now before the House provides for payments to these classes during the six months from 1st August next. We estimate that this provision will cost £85,000 in the period.

In Scotland, the Scottish Trawlers Federation put forward a claim for special subsidy for all trawler classes at Aberdeen and Granton. This claim was specifically to offset the cost of the oil surcharge to which I referred earlier, for the period during which the surcharge is maintained. In a six-month period, the claim would have cost about £60,000 for the Scottish vessels. The Government considered this claim; but, in accordance with the normal practice to assess the need for special subsidy on the results of a past period, we took the view that the relatively favourable Scottish results in the six months period to 31st March—which was the base period for all trawler classes—did not justify the payment of special subsidy.

We shall, however, be prepared to look at the Scottish position again, as well as the difficulties of the Welsh and English ports, in the autumn when we are conducting the next review, though we have some doubts whether the oil surcharge itself can be held to be suitable grounds for payment of special subsidy rates. Scottish trawler owners will, of course, benefit, with other sections of the trawler industry, in our decision to impose the minimum percentage cut in the basic rates of subsidy; this will be of some help to them.

I should like to turn to our proposals for the inshore and herring fleets. Nearly all the vessels concerned are of less than 80 ft. registered length, though a few of the herring boats are above that. Most of the vessels are dual purpose.

As the House will recall, the 1961 White Paper stated that the level of subsidy assistance for these fleets should be decided at annual reviews with the general intention of achieving a reduction in the level of assistance as quickly as possible in conformity with the needs of the fleets.

Earnings of these fleets from white fish and herring in 1966 increased by £1·2 million to £17·5 million; that is, by over 7 per cent. compared with the 1965 level. These are United Kingdom figures. Increases in costs absorbed some of the increase so that profits came out lower for some classes, while others had higher profits.

The year 1965 had been exceptionally good for the inshore and herring fleets, and the 1966 profits, while lower for some, were still exceptionally good. Excluding the vessels under 35 ft. the characteristic return in 1966, after depreciation, on the estimated capital employed lay between 15 per cent. and 22 per cent. These are average figures for boats grouped according to registered length.

I do not want to attach too much absolute importance to them, but, relatively, they are good figures. The Government took the view that the 1966 position on profitability pointed to a further reduction in the level of subsidies. In reaching decisions, we took account of the fact that the changeover from stonage to daily rates for white fish vessels under 60 ft. was not full reflected in the 1966 accounts. While the percentage cuts vary somewhat between one rate and another, the reduction in total subsidy income to the fleets will be about 7 per cent. of the subsidy earnings in the present subsidy year.

The House will, however, have noted that we have made a substantial reduction in the daily rates for herring vessels over 80 ft. Until recently, this class consisted only of a dwindling group of older drifters, which regularly made serious losses. In earlier years, we did not reduce the subsidy for this category in step with the rates paid to other classes. This was to give these drifters an opportunity to be phased out and because they had become so unprofitable. We now feel that the time has come to bring this rate more into line. There are now new vessels of this size coming into operation, and these should not need any favours. We would expect to take another hard look at this next year.

I should also point out to the House that the quota and subsidy rate for herring surplus to the human consumption market, what is often called the "oil and meal" subsidy, have not been altered.

We gave confidential notice of our intentions about these changes to the inshore and herring fishmen's associations, as is the usual practice. I am not able to say that the associations have endorsed our proposals—indeed, some objections were raised—but I think that I can say that the fishermen regard these changes, if unwelcome, as not totally unreasonable.

The House will recall that the 1966 subsidy scheme provided for all white fish vessels between 35 ft. and 60 ft.—with the exception of those registered before 1st January, 1965, which had in 1965 earned less than £500 in combined white fish and herring subsidy—to be transferred to daily rates of subsidy from the previous stonage rate basis. We are well satisfied with the way this has worked out so far.

We now feel that, in the light of the past year's operation, it would be right to separate the vessels regularly engaged in fishing for white fish and herring from which can be regarded rather as part-time by taking a figure of £300 in place of the £500 figure.

It is, therefore, proposed that all white fish vessels between 35 ft. and 60 ft., with the exception of those registered before 1st January, 1967—we have come forward two years on this occasion—which earned less in combined subsidy than £500 in 1965 or £300 in 1966, will be paid on daily rates. We also propose that herring vessels between 35 ft. and 40 ft. which are now all paid on stonage rates will be similarly dealt with, so that some of these will transfer to daily rates. All herring vessels over 40 ft. are already on daily rates.

That may sound a little bit complicated. The effect would be that any boat which beat the relevant par figure in either year—£500 in 1965 or £300 in 1966—will be on daily rates in the new scheme. So will any boat over 35 ft. registered after 1st January, 1967. The only boats of this size which will remain on stonage rates will be those registered before that date and which did not achieve the par figure in either 1965 or 1966. That is as clear as I can make it. The effect of these proposals in terms of numbers of vessels is not large, but we feel that this new figure will give rise to fewer anomalies between the regular and the part-time fishing vessels.

There are no further changes in the conditions of the scheme. One port, Fort William, has been added to the schedule for the purposes of the surplus herring subsidy.

The House will recall the very valuable Report on the Assistance to the Fishing Industry from the Select Committee on Estimates. My right hon. Friends have recently submitted observations on the Committee's recommendations and these have been laid before the House. There may be some later opportunity for a debate on the Report.

I do not propose to say more today than that we were not able to accept the Committee's recommendation for rates of subsidy to inshore and herring vessels to be put on a regional basis principally because of the practical difficulties involved. Nor, at this round, have we felt it right to adopt the Committee's recommendation tht different reductions should be made in the basic rates as between one section of the deep sea industry and another.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that in arriving at decisions as to the rates and other features of the subsidies which are provided in the main instrument which is now before the House, the Government have worked within the framework of the 1962 Act and along the lines which have been customary. That is to say, the rates largely reflect the known facts about the costs and earnings of various sections of the fleet in the most recent past period for which accounts are available.

We all recognise that, at the present moment, the whole industry is facing a sudden increase in its fuel costs, while because of the industry's freedom from tax on fuel the relative effect of the surcharge, where it is applied, will be greater than for other industries. We also know that some deep-sea sections of the industry have begun to run into unexpected marketing difficulties, and we recognise that these appear recently to have become worse. We do not know for how long these difficulties—fuel costs and marketing—will persist or what other features, some of which may be helpful, will appear. These will be reflected in future reviews.

Meanwhile, we are following a system in which basic rates of subsidy are fixed for 12 months in advance, and special rates for six. We therefore have to have regard to the trends and not to the immediate present. We believe that the provisions set out in the scheme are right and appropriate for the purpose.

10.43 a.m.

I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation of these fairly complicated Statutory Instruments. I commiserate with him on the burden of work which seems to fall on the shoulders of Scottish Office Ministers, particularly as it affects fisheries and agriculture. The hon. Gentleman did not say very much about the crisis which we know has developed in the fishing industry. No doubt this will be referred to by hon. Members on both sides, and will be dealt with by the Minister when he replies.

We all welcome the decision to discuss fisheries at a morning sitting, instead of after midnight, as used to be customary in the old days, but I am disappointed that we have lost half an hour already because of a large number of Ministerial statements. In addition, the Select Committee on Agriculture is now meeting for its final Report to be presented to the House, and I must protest that an important fisheries debate is taking place at the same time as that meeting. I fear that the Leader of the House forgets that the subject of fisheries is part of agriculture. This outlook is too common today. I hope that I have made a point that will be noted.

I propose now to deal with the Statutory Instruments before us. As the Minister said, the first one gives the Government an extra £2½ million to use for the fishing industry. I do not think that there is anything we need say about that.

The first of the other two is concerned with operating subsidies, and the other with building and improvement grants. There are a number of points which arise on them. I propose to deal, first, with operating subsidies for the near, middle, and distant water vessels. Last year, these subsidies were cut by 10 per cent., and no special rate payments were made. This year the cut is to be the minimum of 7½ per cent. and the special rate payments are to be made.

This means that the operating subsidies for vessels over 80 ft. long will vary between £5 3s. 6d. and £8 12s. 6d. per day at sea. The special rate payments which were not made last year, but which are to be made this year, to certain oil-fired steam vessels of 170 ft. and over at £5 a day, and certain motor fishing vessels of 110 ft. and over, at from £4 to £5 a day, are to be paid only for the first six months. Perhaps the Minister will say why this is so. Can he also say approximately what percentage of the vessels operating from the major Ports of Hull, Grimsby, and Fleetwood will be affected by the special payments in the first six months of the financial year? It appears from these provisions that no special grants are to be made to vessels operating from Aberdeen. I presume that this is because these classes do not operate from there. No doubt my hon. Friends from Scotland will take up this matter later.

There are two points which arise on the operating subsidies for near, middle, and distant water vessels. The first is that the basic cut of 7½ per cent. for the full 12 months represents about £125,000, or—and I think that this is the point—about £30,000 more than the British Trawlers Federation vessels are likely to receive from the six months supplementary payments. I think it important to remember that these subsidies are based on operating results, or on information obtained, between October last year and March of this year. As I hope to show later, these results, and, therefore, these subsidies, are completely irrelevant when we are considering the crisis at present facing the industry. They are based on figures when the industry was doing reasonably well, and this is no longer the case.

I turn now to deal with the inshore vessels. Last year, operating subsidies were cut by amounts varying between 10 per cent. and 48 per cent., depending on the size of vessel concerned. This led to strong protests from both sides of the House. This year, the average cut for inshore vessels is about 7 per cent. These cuts are represented by a reduction of 1d. per stone in landings of fish for human consumption, and a ¼d. in landings of fish for other purposes. I thought that the farthing had disappeared as a unit of currency. It is interesting to see it reappear in these provisions. I wonder how the computers, or the adding machines, will work this out? Voyage payments are to be extended to vessels of 35 ft. but, in general, voyage payments for other classes of vessels above 35 ft. show a decrease of from 5s. to 10s. a day on last year's figures.

It is very much the same story for herring vessels. Stonage payments are down by ½d., voyage payments are extended to vessels from 35 ft. to 40 ft., but payments for vessels above this size are down by an average of 7s. to 8s. a day, and then there is the extraordinary cut for the few vessels of over 80 ft. in length which remain fishing for herrings. I wanted to ask whether this cut was designed to drive them out of herring fishing, but I think that the Minister has now more or less confirmed that that is what he has in mind.

It is true that, in general, inshore fishing has had a reasonably good year, but Scottish landings have been declining year by year. In 1966, they were 4 per cent. down on 1965, and, taking the first six months of this year, they are 8 per cent. down on the corresponding period last year Therefore, although inshore fishing generally has had a reasonably good year the trend, even in Scotland, seems to be downwards. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who represent inshore ports, especially in Scotland, will have more to say about these matters.

I now turn to the scheme concerning building and improvement grants. As the Minister said, this was fully debated in May. It allows for a 5 per cent. increase for two years, including vessels bought in foreign yards. Two points were emphasised in the previous debate. The first was the need for competitive tenders and the second concerned scrapping ratios. Both points were raised by the Estimates Committee, but in his introductory remarks the Minister did not refer to those points.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the statement put out by the Department about the recommendations of the Select Committee and it seems to me the answer is that, as usual, both points are still under consideration. I ask the Minister whether the Government have made up their minds whether or not competitive tenders are still required. I am not saying that they should not be, but the industry should know where it stands.

Far more important is the question of scrapping ratios. Will the Government insist upon two conventional trawlers being scrapped for every freezer and 1½ for every new conventional trawler built? This is against the advice of the White Fish Authority, the British Trawlers Federation and the Estimates Committee, and the industry and the House are entitled to know whether the Government intend to make up their minds on this important matter in the very near future.

A rather special problem has arisen under the parent order which is amended by the order that we are discussing. It refers to ships built abroad. Grants to those ships are limited to 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. instead of 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. unless the relevant Ministers

"are satisfied that the expenditure was incurred at a cost which compares fairly with the cost at which the construction of the vessel could be carried out in the United Kingdom."

Surely the normal meaning is that foreign prices must not sunbstantially exceed the United Kingdom prices. That seems to be the common sense construction, but I understand that the Minister has taken exactly the opposite view—that foreign prices must not be less than United Kingdom prices. The industry has taken advice on this matter, and I notice that counsel's opinion refers to the upside-down posture of the Minister. Whether he is standing on his head or on his heels, this decision means a reduction in the 20 per cent. grants for vessels built abroad and, therfore, it is a matter of considerable importance.

Even stranger than this decision is the view expressed by the Minister that British equipment installed in a foreign-built hull is to attract the same grant as the hull. Some ships being built abroad are attracting a 25 per cent. grant although the engines for these ships and their refrigerating equipment are subject to a quite separate contract, and this contract is placed wholly in his country. The ruling is that the contract for the engines and refrigerating plant should attract only the 25 per cent. grant rather than the 45 per cent. grant because they are going into a foreign-built hull.

The hon. Member referred to an important matter when he mentioned counsel's opinion. Will he name the counsel and state the data that were placed before him which caused him to arrive at that opinion?

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will expect me to do that. I referred to a remark of counsel which seemed to me to be interesting.

I want to elicit from the Minister whether these are his decisions. I can understand the first one—it depends on the interpretation of the order—but I do not understand the second. The question whether grants for machinery built wholly in this country attract the grant payable for a hull built abroad is a matter of considerable importance, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

On a point of order. If the hon. Member is relying upon counsel's opinion it is surely right that he should give the House the information that I have asked for.

That is not a point of order for me. The hon. and learned Member has been answered.

I am not relying on counsel's opinion; I am making a case to the Minister and I hope that he will give us a clear explanation of this involved matter.

I turn now to the state of the industry in general. As I understand it, the object of all three Statutory Instruments is to create a viable industry by 1972. That has been the purpose of the Instruments that we have discussed during the past few years. It may be said that subsidies are justified by the fact that competitive agricultural foods are far more heavily subsidised than fish, that Britain is now virtually an open market and that British fishing vessels have been cut off from their traditional fishing grounds and are prevented from landing their fish in many foreign countries.

That is the justification for putting taxpayers' money into the industry for a period. I want to quote from the recently issued report of the White Fish Authority. Paragraph 4 says:

"In England, on the other hand, a large part of the trawling fleet, and notably the distant water fleet, was severely hit in the latter part of the year. Not only did landings decline in quantity, but prices fell in a manner quite contrary to the normal pattern. Worse still, while the whole industry suffered from cost increases, once again the section most affected was the distant water fleet where operating costs rose by no less than 7½ per cent. The effects on the profitability of companies with large distant water interests were serious."

This view is re-echoed in the foreword, by Mr. Basil Parkes, President of the British Trawlers Federation, to the Federation's annual report. I shall not quote it, but I shall paraphrase it. He says that there was an improvement in economic well being in 1964 and 1965, and that this improvement stretched into 1966, but that towards the end of 1966 the crisis now affecting the industry started to develop. Both these reports are considerably out of date, because things moved very quickly in the months of June and July of this year.

I therefore ask the House to consider the problem of the earnings of British Trawlers Federation vessels. Broadly speaking, in 1964 the average earnings were £31·9 a day and in 1965, £31·2, which is a slight decline. In 1966, they fell to £24·5. At this figure they were unable to meet depreciation and therefore showed an operating loss of from £3 to £10 a day, depending on the type of vessel. In June, 1966, they made an average cash loss of £10 per vessel per day, and in December of that year there was an increase, to a loss of £11 per vessel per day.

In the spring of this year there was an improvement in that a greater number of vessels made a profit, but in June of this year the crisis developed and the average cash loss was £4·4 per vessel per day. In July, the position appears to be worsening week by week. Added to this story is the increase of £2 per ton on fuel oil, which means a £25 a day increase in operating costs. It is clear that the industry is seriously worried. The deterioration appears to stem from about last spring. It was concealed for various reasons, particularly because good conditions existed in the North Sea and other fishing grounds in the spring of this year.

I am glad to say that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House, as Members of the Joint Fisheries Committee, have recently had an opportunity of visiting the Humber ports. Thanks to the B.T.F. they visited Hull and Grimsby last week. I am sure that hon. Members would like me to express our thanks to the B.T.F. for its hospitality. This visit was well timed. We were able to assess the seriousness of the situation, which had developed rather suddenly.

I do not blame the Government. This is a world-wide problem. It is affecting the fishing industry throughout the world, and it presents a very serious matter for our own industry. The best advice that we could get was that the basic reason for this recession was the collapse of the American market, due partly to the decision of the Roman Catholic Church not to insist on abstinence on Friday—or perhaps the resulting disinclination of fish merchants of all sizes, from the small fish shop up to the major chains, to build up stocks. In a country the size of the United States, this can have a very big cumulative effect, and it meant that the Americans who had been importing large quantities of fish were very seriously reducing their imports.

To give one example, Norway increased her imports to America by 600 per cent. during the past three years. This market is now virtually closed to Norwegian fish, so that Norway is turning to this country. In Russia, the frozen fish stocks are so high that there is a shortage of refrigerated storage space. I understand that some of the fishing fleet is now being offered for sale. In Canada, the situation is even more serious. I understand that Quebec is giving 30 per cent, to 50 per cent. emergency subsidies for their fleet. In Norway and Iceland, the story is much the same as well as in the E.E.C. countries, where fish is selling at well below cost price, even in markets protected by an 18 per cent. tariff. This is a world crisis in the fishing industry.

Britain suffers from a special disability. We now allow virtually free entry since the E.F.T.A. agreement eliminated duties on imported frozen fillets, processed and preserved fish. On the other hand, although we allow entry into this country, we are not allowed to land our fish in a whole series of countries, for example, France, Belgium, Iceland and Norway. Restrictions, which virtually amount to prohibitions are imposed in Spain, Sweden and Denmark and quotas in Eire, the Netherlands and Spain.

In addition, as the House will know, most countries have extended their limits to 12 miles—so have we. But whereas, if someone is caught poaching in our waters, they are fined £100 to £300, British vessels caught poaching in Iceland are fined anything from £3,000 to £10,000, and have their fishing gear confiscated. The comparison is somewhat stark. Not only this, but our firms have no rights of establishment in countries such as Norway and Iceland. In other words, they cannot set up an operating base or a fish processing plant in those countries. This does not apply the other way around, and if those foreigners want to establish in this country they can do so.

All these matters have built up to contribute to the present crisis which has been accentuated by the fact that the industry has precious little fat to live on, due to the continued, and agreed, cuts in our subsidies, which the House has approved over the years. We on this side of the House believe, and I think that there will be agreement for this on the other side of the House, that the Government must take positive action now.

Grimsby has imposed a ban on the landing of foreign cod, unless other fish is landed at the same time. To land one kit of cod, foreign vessels have to land two kits of some other fish. Obviously, this hits the merchants, who object. I would however suggest that this is really the only way in which one can prevent a glut of foreign-caught cod. Why should we allow foreign countries to dump their cod in this country when British-caught cod remains unsold? In my view, there is a great danger that this prohibition may spread to other British fishing ports. The situation is really serious, and I hope that the Government will take immediate action.

What action? May I make certain suggestions which I hope the Minister will consider carefully. First, the Board of Trade must be persuaded to use its antidumping powers. I know that this takes an awful long time, and I hope that the Government will use their influence to achieve some sort of voluntary limitation by the fish exporting nations. We are all caught up in this problem and everyone tends to dump on this country. Something must be done.

Another suggestion is that the Minister should immediately use the balance of the special fund of £350,000 which is still available. He is using some of it this year, and I think that the present conditions mean that he should use much more. If he wants to give immediate relief, what about giving the S.E.T. premium to the fishing industry? After all, fisheries are a producing industry. It does pay the tax, but it does not get the premium like other producing industries. Again, I would suggest to the Minister that when he has his fisheries review he very seriously considers whether we should not have an annual Price Review for the fishing industry, on very much the same lines as the agricultural Price Review. This matter is extremely urgent.

I am told that the present state of world fishing, even given good conditions, could not be rectified in less than a year and a half. This shows that we have a long-term problem on our hands. Once ships are laid up, crews leave the industry and a rot may set in which would greatly damage the industry and the fishing ports.

Another rather more long-term problem is the question of the statutory minimum prices scheme. This has been rejected because of the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Court, and because of the very strong objections of the inshore fishermen, but, above all, because of the refusal of the Government to make a financial contribution. Everyone realises that this was an essential prerequisite, but it was refused by the Chancellor. The Minister had no option but to shelve the scheme, but it will have to be reexamined in the not too distant figure.

My final point is the whole question of the fisheries review, conceived, the House will remember, in November, 1964. It almost died at conception, and it has been in gestation for nearly as long as the Defence Review. It really only started in April of this year. I believe that it is still in great danger. Joking apart, there is now a recognition on both sides of the House of the real need for this review, because for the first time it can now clearly be seen that because of external factors over which we have very little control, the Fleck Report target will now not be met.

I do not believe that we will have a viable fishing industry by 1972 because of these external problems. There must be some changes in our policy. I conclude by commending to the Minister the prescription of Sir Roy Matthews, which he gave for the industry in his farewell speech. I take this opportunity of paying him a tribute for the magnificent leadership which he has given to the industry as Chairman of the White Fish Authority. I also welcome Mr. Hardie, who has now taken over.

Sir Roy Matthews' description, summed up briefly, is this. A 20-year development programme for the seas under a British Ocean Development Authority; recasting the subsidy system so as to encourage enterprise; step up research and development; improve the ports, and, above all, distribution. I hope that the Minister will consider all these matters in his review.

To that prescription, I would only add one sentence. Whatever party may be in power, it is essential that the Government of a seafaring people should take a real interest in, and have a real understanding of, the sea.

11.9 a.m.

I would begin by pleasing all my colleagues when I say that I intend to make a brief speech, and I hope that others will follow suit. May I say that, I too, take exception to the amount of time that we are allotted. This is our only chance to discuss this industry, perhaps the oldest in our islands. I hope that whoever may be in charge of the business of the House will take note of this.

I begin by quoting from the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1967. The Explanatory Note says:

"The White Fish and Herring Industries Acts of 1953 and 1957, both as amended by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, provide that with a view to promoting the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white fish and herring, schemes may be made for the payment of grants …"

We have a plentiful and continuous supply of fish, but the vessel owners are not satisfied. I will not call the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) the champion of the vessel owners, but he has spoken on their behalf. However, let us not forget, without quoting the landings of the Boyd Line in Hull—it is a very good line—that the fishermen are not satisfied, either.

I was a member of the delegation which visited Humberside. We listened not only to the vessel owners, to whose hospitality I pay a 100 per cent. compliment—they were charming hosts—but also to the union delegates, besides the skippers and merchants. The leader of the T.G.W.U. in Hull said to us that there are deckhands going away for 22 days and longer—sometimes seven weeks—perhaps to the Arctic waters who have a basic pay of £12 for an 84 hour week. Therefore, let us not forget that on the system of added payment on poundage, these men are suffering as much as the owners.

There is a co-operative effort in the fishing industry. The boats could not catch the fish if the deckhands did not go to sea, whatever private capital may be pumped into the industry or whatever Government subsidies may be given to it. Although the industry may not be viable, I do not think that it is ailing in the complete sense about which we have just heard.

Our delegation spent three or four days on our visit and we met, if I may use an old-fashioned word, inspissated gloom on the part of all concerned. I was shocked to hear pessimistic speeches by vessel owners whom I have known for some years, who would never have said what they said I am sure; unless they were convinced about their difficulties.

This industry is almost the most typical of all our activities. We live in an island, and these are people who sail in the waters about it to catch fish. The gloom is present, but it is a global malaise and other nations also suffer. Without mentioning names, Trade union leaders and vessel owners, skippers and merchants all on Humberside said that there is a glut of fish; that the Belgians and Danes are landing fish, and that this glut leads to immense difficulties. I will not go into technical points about how much is paid per kit for what is sold or how much surplus unsold is sent to the pet food manufacturers or to the fertiliser industry.

However, not all sections of the industry are doing badly. I will not comment about the better situation north of the Tweed, but I do understand that the inshore and the middle water fleets are not doing as badly as the people on the Humber, particularly those in Hull, which lands something over 90 per cent. of cod. At Grimsby, we were told of the difficulties of the merchants concerning the one-to-two ratio, that is, 1 ton of cod for 2 of other fish. Continental fishermen of both E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. countries dump—they are equally as bad; it makes no difference whether they are fishermen from a country of E.F.T.A. of which we are a member or of the E.E.C. which we hope to join—are landing fish.

I say, after meeting them, that trade union leaders and vessel owners alike feel that it would not be a bad thing if we were to consider the matter of the 1 to 2 ratio carefully; and the ensuing competition from these foreign landings at this difficult time, during the summer months, when the demand for fish is low and many people eat salads. The hon. Member for Haltemprice mentioned the difficulties which arise from the decision of the Catholic hierarchy in giving their dispensation. There is no doubt that at this time demand is not what it could be, nor has been in the earlier months of the year. I have much sympathy with workers and owners in the industry who face the dumping by Common Market and E.F.T.A. fishermen. There is a case for the stand which the Grimsby people have taken.

I know that there are minor complications about the "bobbers" in Hull and the "lumpers" of Grimsby. Obviously, they are landing fish, and the more fish which they land the more employment they have, whatever union they belong to. Nevertheless, the damage has been done on the Humber by these imports of fish.

This situation was not foreseen by the industry. There was no pessimism. If it had been foreseen, why were the owners so optimistic as to invest in magnificent boats costing over £500,000? They cannot complain of any Government action, because this Government has given more help this year to owners in the fishing industry than any previous Government. I understand that this year over £1 million has been given by way of the 40 per cent. grant towards the building of new vessels. Whatever may be the ins and outs of the matter—whether a certain owner has built two vessels in Gdynia, and received 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. less in Government help—I say that over £1 million has been granted in respect of the building of seven vessels. I stand to be corrected. I hope that the Minister will mention this matter later.

It is no good anyone coming to the Government with a begging bowl too often. I do not say that in any derogatory sense. The fishing industry should get some financial help. I understand that it gets less assistance than agriculture—perhaps 7 or 8 per cent. as opposed to 13 or 14 per cent. of the total costs. It may be argued that much of the present difficulty stems from the fact that the fishing industry is having to compete by selling cod or any other fish with an unfairly subsidised food which has come from the agricultural sector. There are arguments that the fishing industry should be put on an equal footing with agriculture.

Without looking to the future too much, if we go into the Common Market both the fishing industry and agriculture will be on the bottom together. We shall both be flat and we will have to fight upon our own and be viable, tough and efficient to compete with the Danes, Belgians and Norwegians. I believe that we can do so. It would not be so bad if we went into the Common Market on this basis alone, speaking purely as a Member representing a fishing port.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the fishing industry is not very interested in coming to the House with a begging bowl? What it is interested in ensuring is that its position is not undermined and that its subsidies are not undermined by imports over which it has no control.

I think that hon. Members know me well enough to realise that I used the phrase "begging bowl" in a colloquial sense. I could equally well have said that the industry has come legitimately to the Government, which some members of it elected, I hope, for financial aid, just like the farmers. I hope that some farmers also vote for my party.

I warn the House that this situation makes not only vessel owners, but our colleagues in the trade unions, nervous. If vessels are tied up, men may not return to the industry. I compare this situation with the situation in the mining industry. Once a pit closes, miners get a job in the town and do not return to the pit. It is much the same with fishing. There is a great danger that we may lose part, and the best part, of our labour force—the sons of fishermen. I know that there are men going into the industry who are not sons of fishermen and that recruits are coming from the city. Obviously, this is not such good stuff. These men have not been born near the fish dock and their fathers have not been in the industry. There are difficulties about discipline which leads to the danger of accidents at sea, and to a lowering of morale and teamwork on the boat at sea when in dangerous conditions.

Unfortunately I have not time left to talk about the subject of accidents. However, if we wish to keep our labour force, not merely must the men have a ship to go back to after each voyage, but, even more important, there should be good working conditions and maximum safety at sea. Statistics have been bandied about in the House, on television and in the papers for the last six months since we had the sad loss of the "St. Finbarr", into which a committee is now inquiring.

I saw the following in the Hull Daily Mail, a fine paper:

"'New charter for trawling industry'.

A proposal that a joint committee of trawler owners and the unions should be set up to consider the wages structure, trading, hours and conditions for about 12,000 trawler men throughout Britain will be made to the Joint Industrial Council for the industry in September. The proposal was agreed at a meeting of a sub-committee in London today. Its terms of reference include registration and decasualisation, safety in relation to the operation of fishing gear, grievance procedure, shipboard representation and negotiating machinery."

The vessel owners in Hull are doing a a job, but there is still much more to be done about safety and working conditions. If this joint action goes ahead it will not only help the industry to compete with our continental competitors, but also continue to make it a viable and lasting industry into the seventies.

11.22 a.m.

I shall take only three minutes, so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.

I want to make one urgent plea. Last night, I saw three trawler owners from my constituency who are the most heavily hit of the whole lot. They are small owners with half a dozen to two dozen ships. They have not the resources to see them through a long period of depression. They made the point to me that of the £2½ million of the supplementary subsidy fund only £750,000 has been used over the first five years. There is still £1,750,000 to be used. The maximum has been £370,000 per annum.

They asked whether that cannot be doubled now, because unless something is done now some of the private owners may be put out of business and there will not be the men there to receive a subsidy in three or four years' time. Something must be done before the House rises or these people and the men who work for them are likely to be right out of business. This is desperately urgent, and on their behalf I plead for something to be done before Friday.

They also asked me to press that it is useless for their men to go to sea and catch fish and bring it into Grimsby if the market is not protected. They told me that about 25 per cent. of the fish landed in the English ports last year came from foreign-caught fish. Why cannot we have the protection for our fisheries that other nations give theirs?

This is a matter of urgency. Unless the Government act before Friday some of the smaller men in my constituency may be ruined. I beg the Government to take some action now to save the small privately-owned firms. If they go out there will be no one to take their place. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—I know that he is tired, but I should like him to listen to me—promise to do something before Friday?

11.25 a.m.

I prepared an excellent speech, but have put it aside in deference to my hon. Friends and hon. Members who wish to participate.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is being honest or realistic in wanting something done before Friday. I suspect that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have during the past three weeks been anxious to get away from it all on Friday. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. I am sure that the Government are actively examining the policy on fisheries.

The Statutory Instruments are a continuing process following the decisions immediately following the war when we were left with an out-dated and highly unprofitable fleet. The attitude of the Government of the day was supported by the recommendations of the Fleck Committee, published during 1961. Having said that, I look upon the Instruments as merely touching the fringe of the problems of the fishing industry.

The record is remarkable. The distant fishing fleet has been reduced from 290 vessels to 200. Although its problems in relation to profitability and vessel age following the war were not as grave as those of the inshore, near and middle water fleets, since 1962 there have been 22 orders to lay down vessels for construction and 19 of these have involved hold freezing. The inshore fleets have been reduced considerably, but modernised to satisfactory standards laid down by the White Fish Authority. The near and middle water fleets have been reduced in size from 817 to about 400 vessels, which are now up to a standard for which Governments following the war can equally take credit.

The subsidies system the purpose of which was to bring about a better and more efficient fleet, was also geared to the increased problem of competition. It is in the field of competition that our fishing owners and the men working on the vesels are now meeting the greatest amount of difficulty. In addition to the other imponderables, such as weather and the vagaries of the sea, there are the problems of the depletion of known sea fishing areas and the vexed problems arising from fishing limits.

In spite of the fact that modernisation has taken place, questions arising from competition loom very large at the moment. It has to be admitted that it is a grave situation for the industry. I urge hon. Members that, instead of getting involved in technicalities, they should for a moment imagine themselves working on the ships and suffering the immediate impact of the problems that such an occupation involves, such as going to sea for varying periods and facing the hazards. It is one of the most dangerous occupations of all.

I should have thought that it would be admitted that there must be a great deal of uncertainty in the sense that since 1950, arising from the modernisation of fleets and from increasing efficiency, the labour force has been reduced from 39,000 to 20,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to the nature of the employment force. Traditional fishing families are not having their sons continuing in that kind of employment, and he rightly spoke of disciplinary problems arising from that.

Projecting ourselves into the occupation of a fisherman, as I have tried to do, we are bound to be convinced that there is uncertainty. Having noted the statisical information which the hon. Gentleman opposite gave and the amount of other detailed information which will come in the next year, I might well try to end by saying how best to get over the uncertainty.

I am convinced that we are but on the fringe of providing solutions for the fishing industry's problems. We must from now on accept that there is uncertainty, that the industry is subject to cyclical changes, that it has its good and bad years, and that it can be supported only by thinking about it, as a whole—the marketing side, the distributive side, the sales side, even down to the fish and chip shops, form an industry as a whole. Because it is a large industry producing a primary foodstuff, it must have an organisation which reflects that bigness.

That is why I am very sad that the recommendation of the Estimates Committee which looked into the question of assistance for the industry has not yet been accepted by the Ministry. That recommendation was that the Herring Board and the White Fish Authority should be merged into one large department with two sections, one responsible for England and Wales and one for Scotland. There would be one overriding department for the United Kingdom. I felt that the recommendation would appeal to the Ministry because the department could command all the forces and resources for research and development. It would also have had the power to look again at the whole question of the industry's place in its relationship to agriculture.

Why should not the fishing industry be treated on a par with agriculture, having the benefits which the agricultural part of our primary food production has through the annual price review and the other elements subsidising the fertility and proper utility of land? Benefits of this kind could come to the fishing industry if it were treated on a par with agriculture.

The Government would be wise to look at the industry in that kind of way. I hope that that is their thinking on the review that is now going on. I am satisfied that they are aware of the problem and will respond to the wish of the House. Although we have but a short time to speak on a morning such as this, I am sure that the urgency of the matter has been sufficiently expressed on boh sides of the House for the Government to come up with the kind of solutions I have tried to indicate towards the end of the year.

11.35 a.m.

In considering the Instruments, we must look at the economic position of the industry as it is today. I want to consider the position of the inshore fishermen, particularly those in the South West. Other factors besides grants have a very real effect on the industry. It is not much use giving grants to build new boats and modernise others unless other factors are taken into consideration, such as the antidumping regulations and the control of fishing limits.

I should like to say a few words about fishing limits. The continuation of their control and seeing that the rules are enforced very strictly are most important. Otherwise, we shall find that over-fishing will take place within the limits, and there will be no chance of building up the stocks of fish, as is happening now. The livelihood of our inshore fishermen would be severely affected if that happened.

I have recently returned from a trip on a fisheries protection vessel. My eyes were opened to the considerable complications of the job, with the different limits, mesh sizes, and so on. The vessels do a wonderful job, and I only wish that there were more of them so that the boundaries could be effectively controlled. There is no doubt that at present French skippers, in particular, are taking a definite risk as they seek to come into our grounds. They freely admit that the reason is that their own grounds are being over-fished. There is real danger of syndicates of foreign fishing boats being formed, two or three joining together and one "diving" inside the limit and hoping to get away with it. If he fails the rest share the cost of his failure; and if he succeeds they share the success.

There is strong resentment by our own skippers of these foreign trawlers poaching. I agree with what has been said this morning that our sentences are nothing like strong enough. I cannot understand why our lads are penalised so much abroad but our own magistrates are not prepared to deal severely with offenders. The regulations need to be clear. Simple language should be used so that all trawler skippers understand them. The Ministry should have encouraged the use of helicopters to control limits and fix the position of poaching trawlers.

Other hon. Members wish to speak and I must soon end my remarks. I feel strongly that the 12-mile limit, in particular, should be enforced and that more help should be given to our fisheries protection vessels so that they can carry out their job continually.

Grants are given to build trawlers abroad, but I believe that we should encourage trawler owners to have their ships built in the United Kingdom instead. This brings problems, because it is easier to get more favourable financial terms abroad. Appledore shipbuilders, in my constituency, who build quite a large number of trawlers, have found this. There is a particular problem in Lowestoft, because some of the shipping owners there wish to build new trawlers and are finding it difficult to finance them. The smaller rather than the larger boats are the problem, as the financial terms for them are very short. This is a problem which ought to be looked into, because we should encourage the building of trawlers at home, and it means the provision of adequate finance on favourable terms.

I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I make only those two important points. The 12-mile limit must be continued, patrolled and enforced, with consideration given to the use of helicopters in this connection. Second is the question of financing the building of new trawlers. They should be built at home, and favourable terms to finance them ought to be provided to encourage this wherever possible.

11.40 a.m.

I wish to turn attention away from the problem of the inshore fleet to that of the distant water fleet. It is particularly sad and yet apt that this debate should take place today, after the worst day in the history of the markets in Hull since 13th June, 1962. According to that excellent paper, the Hull Daily Mail, to repeat the commercial of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), of the 825 tons on offer, 321 tons were not taken up. That shows the parlous situation into which the distant water fleet and the market have got.

I will not repeat a great many of the points which have been made on both sides of the House, because the sense of urgency and concern for the industry has been eloquently displayed by nearly all hon. Members who have spoken. However, I would underwrite one point made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) when he spoke about the decision of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States. If Friday abstinence is done away with in this country, it will be sad news for the fishing industry. In the diocese of Middlesbrough, of which Hull is one of the major parts, at the back of churches after Mass on Sunday there was a little questionnaire asking what parishioners wanted to do about Friday abstinence. This puts many people into a quandary.

There are certain points which have to be made, some of which concern many people employed on all sides of the industry. One which I wish to stress is that of foreign landings. We should be able to stop foreign landings and the dumping of unwanted fish from abroad on to the British market. It is not a problem which has just arisen. It has existed for a long time in our fishing pods, and the party opposite did nothing about it when in office. It is rather strange that hon. Gentlemen opposite should now call upon the Government to do something about it, as though it is a problem which has just arisen. Nevertheless, it is a real problem and one which affects the wages and livelihoods of the men employed in the industry, as well as the profits of the companies involved.

The rationalisation of the fleets is going ahead, and that is to be welcomed. If we have larger units within the fishing fleet, we are able to get both the amount of capital investment required and the improvement of working conditions of everyone in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West spoke about the miserable conditions of men in a hunting industry at a time when market conditions result in their taking home very low wages, which are made even lower when one considers that before they go to sea they have to purchase from their own money or on tick their knives and overalls and, in the case of Hull, their own bedding.

This is also a particularly sad occasion because of the tremendous improvement that there has been in labour relations in the industry, particularly in Hull. My hon. Friend spoke about the agreement of the N.J.I.C., and there is no worse time for both sides of the industry to be discussing improved conditions, training, the whole ambit of labour relations and the future of the industry than at a time when the market has gone completely for the product which both sides are trying to sell. Therefore, we want to see some positive action from the Government to get the fishing industry back on its feet and to put wages and profits on to a proper basis.

I wish to refer briefly to the suggestion of a statutory minimum prices scheme. When the industry was doing well, there was a great deal to be said for the State not making a contribution towards a statutory minimum prices scheme, but it is particularly important to realise that with such a scheme throughout the industry—inshore, middle and distant water fleets—we shall be able to supply a proper bottom to the market on the basis of which those in the industry can plan properly. I am not convinced of the need for an Exchequer subsidy, because there is a great deal that the industry can do for itself, but, taking the fisheries review as it is going, we must look at the problem again because of the parlous state into which the industry has fallen.

11.47 a.m.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will forgive me if I do not pursue many of the points which he made. But, like other hon. Members, I must protest at the extraordinarily small amount of time allocated to this most important debate. We have a chance to discuss the fishing industry only once a year.

Last year, we saw savage cuts in the fishing subsidies. I am glad to see that the daily rate for this year has been extended to boats under 60 ft. for white fish subsidy and to vessels of between 35 and 40 ft. for the herring subsidy.

On average, the cuts in subsidies this year are between 6 and 9 per cent. overall for the inshore fleet, whereas losses continue to be made. In the inshore fleet, the profitability factor of vessels up to 80 ft. is going down. If that level of profitability is to be taken as a proportion of capital involved or, in turn, the insured value of the depreciation figure, then we find that only in the 35 to 40-foot class of vessel is there any increase in the profitability for the year 1966 as opposed to the year 1965 and that it is only 1 per cent. for that class of vessel.

In the under 35 ft. class, there was a drop of 6·3 per cent. to 2 per cent. In the 40 to 45-ft. class, there was a drop of 2 per cent. to 21·7 per cent. In the 45 to 55-ft. class, there was a drop of 3·7 per cent. to 19·2 per cent. In the 55 to 65-ft. class, there was a drop of 5 per cent. to 17·7 per cent. In the 65 to 80-ft. class, the profitability factor was static at 15·4 per cent.

Any industry—and fishing is not alone—must be economic to survive. The experts will tell anyone who is inclined to find out that a minimum profitability figure of 20 per cent., taking all factors into account, is essential if the fleet is to survive.

To get that into perspective, one has to realise that, in 1966, the profitability factor of no vessel in the Scottish inshore fleet went as high as 20 per cent. The number of vessels only increased in the under-35 ft. class. In the range of 35 to 80 ft. there was a net reduction of 11 vessels. In these classes only one showed an increase. That was the 55 to 65-ft. class where there was an overall increase of four vessels.

Another means of measuring the viability of the inshore fleet is to look at the labour share per man. In 1966, the labour share per man showed very little variation over 1965. The only exception was in the 65 to 80-ft. class where the increase was of the order of 8s. per man per day. That is a tragic situation. If the industry is to progress it is absolutely essential that we must have young men attracted to it. Adequate allowance must be made for the hazards and uncomfortable nature of the problems in the fishing industry. The average working week is 80 to 84 hours. In no other industry are men asked to work that length of time, nor would they work that length of time under the extreme difficulties and hardship that the fishermen have to face.

What about costs? These are continually rising. In spite of what the Government say, they are going up and up. The latest impost is about £2 per ton increase on bunker fuel. In an Answer from the Secretary of State on 19th July, when I asked for a specific undertaking that assistance would be given to the fishing fleet in these present circumstances, he said:

"No, Sir; this cost will be taken into account at the periodic reviews of the costs and earnings of the industry when its full effect is known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 267.]

However, we do not want that sort of pie-crust promise and no implementation. I would like an undertaking from the Minister that this will be taken into account when the next review takes place on subsidies and not just shelved and passed over for the industry to absorb.

I was astonished when, in his opening remarks, the Joint Under-Secretary said that the inshore section of the fishing fleet was better equipped to absorb this increase. I should like some justification for these remarks because, in my view, they are completely unjustified. In the view of the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association the restoration to the 1965 rate of subsidy is the only one which will encourage the industry or which will help it to become viable.

I remarked earlier on the reduction of 6·6 to 9 per cent. in the subsidy rate. This cannot go on if the fleet is to maintain its present position. We have to get away from this so that the fleet can go on. We have difficulty in manning and in landings; in fact, we have difficulties all round the board in this industry. It is a key industry in Scotland and I hope that the Government, in their review, will do something tangible to give the industry a helping hand.

11.54 a.m.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House for restricting themselves so that those of us interested in the fishing industry can say something on the subject.

What troubles me is that I do not see any development in the attitude of the Government and of the administration of fisheries to the present changing situation both in international trade and in the import problems facing this country. We are still proceeding, in dealing with the inshore fishing and distance fishing fleets, on the assumption on which the Fleck Committee reported. The Fleck Committee said that, on the whole, our fishing fleet was too large, we wanted to cut it down, and scrap ratios. It said that we were landing too much fish and what we wanted was a smaller fishing fleet landing a smaller quantity of fish, but economically.

The same policy was pursued in agriculture after the 1957 Act. The theory was that there was too much food in the world. That Act aimed at squeezing the area open to farming in this country by slightly restrictive price reviews. In 1964, we changed that policy in agriculture. Because of the changing position not only of world food supplies, but the import bill that this country faced, we changed to a policy in agriculture of selective expansion. We looked at the agricultural industry for this purpose, and had a very satisfactory price review last year to this end.

What bothers me is that I have not seen the same change in the fishing industry and its administration. I know, as most hon. Members know, that a Cabinet committee looked into the question of how far expanding food production in this country could cut our imports bill. I know that it looked into the question of agriculture. I do not know, and I have seen no evidence, that there was an equal study of the fishing industry.

When I made the point in my speech last year my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) took me to task because I included in the fishing figures the import figures for tinned and frozen products. I asked him a detailed question on this matter, and on 14th February this year he was kind enough to reply. It appears, breaking the whole thing down, that we are spending £96 million on imported fish—I have worked this out as carefully as I can—of which £60 million is fresh or frozen fish which we could catch and land ourselves. I have carefully excluded everything tinned, prepared or preserved.

Therefore, we have to consider whether it is possible to change our fishing policy so that we could land some of the £60 million worth of fish, much of it fresh or frozen white fish, which is landed here. I do not see any careful thought about the structure and status of our industry which would allow us to do this.

Apart from the imports position, which was the same last year, we have, as in agriculture, new trading patterns arising from the development of the Common Market and dumping in this country, as many hon. Members have pointed out. I see no reason why we should not protect our industry. We cannot protect it against our E.F.T.A. partners, but we could protect it against the E.E.C. countries and the non-E.E.C. countries from which fish is being dumped here.

I hope that in the process of this we can have an annual review in the fishing industry, because it is highly variegated. Not only has it many different components, but the factors which determine the end take-home profitability of the industry vary enormously. I will give the numbers which come into the calculations in the fishing ports in my own constituency. I have detailed costs but we have the marketing problem. British Railways' costs of marketing this fish in taking it to London have been increasing. The price of boats has been increasing, but I am glad to see that we have a slight increase in grant for those. The price of fuel is increasing. We do not know fully by how much.

We have comparable wages. The wages of deckhands on the 45, 55, and 65-ft. boats in the inshore fishing fleet have gone down by between £50 and £80 a year, compared with last year. We have the trading policies to take into consideration and we have the problems of the shell fishing industry. I was on a joint deputation with the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir Gilmour) when we put before the Government our case for including shell fishing in the subsidy arrangements. I think it is a pity that this has not been done, because the small shell fishing boats are earning a lower rate of pay, and this is a rapidly declining section of the industry where the import bill is heavy.

I hope that we can have an annual review of fishing policy in this country which will take these varied factors into consideration so that we can have a more flexible policy and can consider building tip the industry, prior to joining the Common Market, as a serious factor to curing our balance of payments problems.

12 noon.

I must join in the protests which have been made about the amount of time allocated for the debate. I am grateful to hon. Members who have made short speeches for the opportunity now given to me. Instead of the speech that I wished to make I want to address my remarks to the Minister mainly in respect of the Port of Fleetwood, which I represent. Many of the other points that I had intended to make have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) or the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).

The factors which apply to Grimsby and Hull apply equally to Fleetwood. I am more perturbed and more than ever impressed by the urgency of the situation because already in Fleetwood there is a serious unemployment problem which, so far, has not been contributed to by the fishing industry. Our percentage of unemployment is 5·5—the highest in Lancashire. If there is unemployment in the fishing industry there will be no jobs available for fishermen or for all the other people who rely upon the port.

As in Hull and Grimsby, the signs are already there. Fish is going to the fishmeal works. Men coming back after a trip and making a good catch are in debt. There are signs of trawlers being laid up. Two of our trawlers have already gone to fish out of Aberdeen. This makes the employment position in the town worse. The Minister must have heard enough from hon. Members on both sides of the House to have become convinced of the need for urgency. We cannot await the outcome of a review or wait even for two or three months. What we need now is first aid, and the first aid that we require can be given immediately by the Government, in the restriction of imports.

I am not too hopeful about a surcharge on imports. The Board of Trade moved unconscionably slowly. I come from an area that has already had one industry—cotton—broken on the wheel of cheap imports without much activity from the Board of Trade. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture can convince the Board of Trade that it should act speedily in this matter, because if it does not, from what I have heard of Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, we shall have ships laid up and men laid off. If those men are laid off they may never come back. I am frightened of the possibility that ports may die. Milford Haven died as a fishing port, and I do not want to see the same sort of thing happen to Fleetwood. That is why I stress the need for urgent action.

That is the message that has been given to me. The responsibility is the Minister's. He has been told by hon. Members on both sides of the House what the situation is and he should be in no doubt about it. I hope that he will take the necessary action.

12.3 p.m.

Very understandably, great emphasis has been placed upon the troubles of the deep sea fleet putting out from the Humber ports. Conditions in the fishing industry are however highly volatile and change is quick. I want to remind the House that although the Report of the White Fish Authority, issued recently, talks about comparatively good conditions in the Scottish fishing fleet in the past six months, it was only in December, 1966, that the Estimates Committee was comparing the much more gloomy forecasts for Scotland with the more optimistic view taken by the B.T.F. That organisation felt then that it had every hope of achieving viability by 1972.

The Scottish inshore and middle distance fleets may be a little better off, or may not be doing quite so badly as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) put it, but over a reasonable stretch of time it will be seen that fixing depreciation at the unrealistically low level of 6⅔ per cent. of historic cost the majority of boats have made a substantial daily loss. In respect of the middle distance fleet there is a strong case for immediate help.

The fishing industry has an enormous future part to play if there is a recovery in the British home market or the world market, and it has golden prospects if we join the E.E.C., but if these opportunities are to be capitalised on we must have a surviving industry, and if that is to be the case we need a sympathetic hearing from the Minister. I do not have time to go over all the possible forms of help, most of which have been mentioned this morning. The balance in the special subsidy should be released, and we should untie our hands from the effects of the 1962 Act and put the whole industry on the basis of the inshore fleet, so that the Minister is not forced to make an arbitrary cut in subsidy.

The problem of rising costs was heavily emphasised by the W.F.A. and calculated at 8 per cent. last year by the B.T.F. I was discouraged by the Minister's reaction to the oil surcharge, which represents an increase of £2 per ton in the cost of oil and about £25 extra a day in running costs. Action in this respect is not apparently likely, but I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position.

Imports have been thoroughly dealt with, and I endorse almost everything said about them. I end on a blatant constituency point. Aberdeen is the dominating fishing port in Scotland, being responsible for about 80 per cent. of the total trawl landings. It has had a difficult time, and conditions will be even more cramped as a result of the loss of 600 ft. of quay that has been found unfit for use.

I hope that when we have to come to the Government, now that the problem of dual control of the fish market is being resolved, and ask for some kind of financial aid for the regrettably heavy outlay inevitably involved not only in restoring the status quo, but in introducing the necessary improvements which must be put in hand if Aberdeen is to be an efficient fishing port, we shall have a more than conventionally sympathetic response.

We fall between two stools. We have too small a general harbour to attract major public investment, and we are ex- cluded from the special provisions of the 1955 Act. In the last few years large sums of money have been given under this, as, for example £200,000 in respect of developments at Peterhead. This can make an enormous difference, but we have been excluded from that kind of help. We are faced with a major problem in the basic industry in Aberdeen, and I hope that in the not too distant future, when we look for aid, we shall not look in vain.

12.8 p.m.

I am grateful for the chance to say a word in this debate. I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has said. I hope that the Government will bear in mind his point about Aberdeen harbour.

The general effect of the Statutory Instruments is to make a cut in subsidy but an increase in the rate of grants for new vessels. No one would oppose the second provision. My experience with the fishermen whom I represent is that their present concern is not so much with the rate of grant as with the overall cost and, sometimes, the slowness in getting permission to move ahead. The price of new fishing boats has risen steeply even during the years that I have been a Member.

The cost of a new boat with new gear today is almost prohibitive for any young man starting out. Thank goodness the industry is rich in self-help and co-operation, because without these qualities it is doubtful whether the young men on whom the future depends could get started. It would not be possible without these grants, and I am glad that the Government have increased the rate. I hope that the Minister will succeed in speeding up procedures. I am grateful for the work that he is doing in that respect.

My hon. Friends have already dealt in detail with the cut in subsidies. As it affects our inshore fleet this year it amounts, on average, to 7 per cent. and the trend in inshore fishing in Scotland is going down—the wrong direction. Sir Roy Matthews has already been quoted. It is very easy to quote men with vision with approbation and do absolutely nothing about their vision.

I very much hope that that will not happen to this industry. Sir Roy said that the spirit in which the future is planned is no less important than the plan itself. I believe that it is more important and that that spirit will be in the industry. I am sure that it will be there, if it is in the Government.

12.10 p.m.

Everyone would agree that this debate has been run on thoroughly cooperate lines, reflecting to take up a point made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the spirit existing among all those within the fishing fleets. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the fact that there is a limit beyond which short speeches, good as they are, ought not to be expected to go when trying to deal with such an important industry as the fishing industry.

We are now half-way towards 1972, from that act of faith undertaken with regard to viability being reached within ten years. We are half-way there, with a crisis on our hands. It is absolutely essential for the Government to take careful but urgent stock of the situation confronting all sections of the fleet. It is for this purpose presumably that the review is going on.

In 1962, one of the factors considered was the size of the fleet. Already, it is down by one-fifth from 1,655 vessels to 1,331 today. This drop has been spread very equally over all parts of Great Britain, but with the heaviest emphasis on the seine netters, and the lightest on the distant water fleet. During the last six years the catch has gone up appreciably, by 20 per cent. Yet despite the reduction in numbers, despite the rising catch, things are by no means set fair.

During a recent visit to the Humber ports it was startling—and here I echo the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson)—to hear that action had to be urgently taken if the fleet there was to survive. This is particularly disturbing, after all the capital which has been spent on modernising it into what all would agree is one of the most efficient fishing fleets in the world.

Urgent action is needed, and only the Government can act. It is here that the Government are open to criticism, because there has been a fairly substantial increase in imports in the first half of this year. If one goes right across the board, including fish processing, one finds that between January and May of last year we spent £25 million on imports. This year we have spent, in the same period, a total of £30 million.

Incidentally, purely from the balance of trade point of view, our exports of fish are down in the same period by nearly half. It is recognised that, bad though things were at the end of May, they have worsened appreciably since, and the momentum seems to be increasing. To isolate the wet fish imports into those ports in the first five months, we have had an increase of about 60,000 kits of wet and frozen fish.

This is a situation in which I see an unhappy similarity to the present meat situation. The price of fresh cod imported during the first five months of this year is 8·7 per cent. lower than it was two years ago. Without question, fish is being dumped on to our extremely substantial market, access to which is more liberal than any other in the world. Whereas, across the North Sea and the Channel, there lie the countries of the E.E.C. with the high common external tariff on fish imports of 18 per cent. all over.

I know that the catch of cod has been extra good, and I appreciate the reasons for the drop in consumption on Fridays in France and the United States. I realise that there is a tendency here for consumption to be slightly on the downgrade. I also know that all the deep-freeze installations of many countries are bursting.

I blame the Government for none of these things, but they must come to grips with the import situation. They must reconsider the position of a statutory minimum price with Government backing. Costs have risen sharply, 4 per cent. in 1965, 8 per cent. in 1967, and the additional costs of fuel will equal or exceed the whole of a boat's profit, so I am informed. That increase will hit the Scottish fleet too, whose position is admittedly better than the position of the fleet in the south, but only relatively so.

In many ways I agree that the increased fuel duty should not be a subject for special subsidies. It should be treated quite differently and there is a very strong case for exempting the fishing fleets from the extra £2 a ton altogether.

I want to say a word about special subsidies. About £2½ million were granted up to 1962. From the calculations that I have made, about £750,000 of those subsidies have been used. This means that with half the period still to go, there is £1½ million left. The moment has surely come to indent upon this. There is a backlog of these special subsidies which was not used in the last 18 months. I can recall the Parliamentary Secretary making it quite clear that this would be available for later years, if it was not used.

Could he say whether it is a fact that the Government, despite having these special subsidies in reserve from a year or two back, are bound by the maximum of £350,000 in a single year, and cannot therefore spend more, even if none was spent last year? If this is the case, there is a strong argument for altering this, and I would certainly say that we would facilitate any move to do so.

I do not know whether the fleet can be viable and free from subsidy five years' hence. I have always had suspicions. Maybe we and the British Trawlers Federation, in agreeing to that prospect, made the mistake of being over-optimistic five years ago. If that is the case, let us admit the mistake now. If the Government find that more than £2½ million is needed, they should ask for it, because they will get a very friendly reception from this side of the House. But immediate action is needed. I can well understand the Government wanting hard facts and figures. If the industry provide them, as I am sure it will, I hope that the Government will act not only with sympathy, but with speed.

12.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(Mr. James Hoy)

I shall do my best to reply to the many points which have been raised.

We always want more time to discuss the fishing industry, but our record compares not unfavourably with that of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. In both March and May of this year we had opportunities to debate the fishing industry. To that extent, our record is much better than that of the Opposition when they were in power. However, I agree that we always want more time to discuss the industry, and I do not object to a request for it.

There has been considerable discussion about imports. In 1966, total supplies of fresh chilled and frozen fish were £84·7 million, of which £23 million was in respect of imports. We think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has included some canned fish in his figures. That can be easily done when dealing with statistics. In January to May, 1966, we imported 55,000 tons of white fish and in the same period of 1967 the comparable figure was 58,000 tons; the value in both years was £6·7 million.

People say that we should ban imports altogether. We cannot do that. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West knows that we cannot do it, because he has been in charge of fishing matters. We have certain international agreements such as G.A.T.T. and we cannot use them when they suit us and break them when they do not. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) knows that. If people were taking action in respect of something which he was exporting, despite agreements, he would be the first to complain. We cannot take unilateral action of this kind. We have to consider the people with whom we have made agreements.

Hon. Members have suggested that perhaps we should impose stiffer penalties on people who contravene our laws. That is not for the Government to do. It is for the judge to impose the sentences. I have been asked what the maximum sentences are. For the first offence, the maximum is a fine of £250. For the second offence, it is a fine of £500. There is also confiscation of the catch and the gear. I am told that for a second offence three months' imprisonment can be imposed as well. We must remember, also, that we are not comparing like with like. Our vessels which get into trouble for poaching in other countries' waters are usually very large, compared with the small vessels which frequent our coasts.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the number of vessels qualifying for special subsidy and also why this was only for a period of six months. Out of 430 vessels in England and Wales, 125 receive the grant. We agreed with the industry that the grant should be paid at six-monthly intervals. We have conformed to this agreement. I should point out, so that it is not overlooked, that my right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the British Trawlers Federation yesterday and we have asked them to submit figures to us. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talked about the industry letting us have hard facts. If we receive hard facts, we will give them sympathetic consideration. That can be done; and we have agreed that we might take into account the four month period which has just elapsed. We do not under estimate the difficulties through which the industry is going.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) asked for the figures of subsidy paid for 1966–67. The evidence submitted to the Estimates Committee was fairly optimistic. It showed a confidence which present circumstances do not bear out. But let us be clear about what the Government have done. In 1966–67, we replaced two distant water conventional ships at a cost of £96,000. We gave permission for five new freezer trawlers at a subsidy of £937,000. In the near and middle water fleet the subsidy amounted to £84,000. In other words, there was a subsidy to these sections amounting to no less than £1,117,000. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that this is a generous form of encouragement. We have stepped it up by the recent action which we have taken to provide more by way of grant.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice said that if owners had boats built overseas the grant was cut. He introduced a note about what counsel said. I am bound to say that it did not impress me. We took action to protect our own shipyards. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if people have boats built abroad, despite whatever subsidy they may be getting from the Governments of the countries in which they are built, we should also pay a subsidy? If countries abroad are undercutting our own industry in certain ways by subsidies, we shall take action to protect it. This is what we have done. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not dissent from that.

indicated assent.

We are agreed about that.

On the second point.

Concerning machinery, I should say that were grant to be paid it would be difficult to keep track of where it was going. If owners have boats built abroad, they have to accept the responsibility for it. We cannot spend tremendous sums of money in tracing the different places to which machines are going.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) referred to the question of assistance for the ports. I do not agree with all that he said about what is happening in Aberdeen. That fishing port has a long history, and it is a very good one. But I should draw attention to another step which we have taken to assist the industry and that is that for the first time we have made provision for 20 per cent. grants for improvements at the major trawling ports. I hope that this will render considerable assistance to the industry.

I know of the deputation which my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) led about the shell fishing industry. This section of the industry has done reasonably well. I do not want to go too much into the figures. But there have been very substantial increases in earnings during the past 12 months.

What about Grimsby?

I hope that I have said sufficient to let the House know that we appreciate what is happening. We gave assurances to the British Trawlers Federation when we met its representatives yesterday, and I hope that the House will accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1967, dated

11th July, 1967 [copy laid before the House 14th July], approved.—[ Mr. Hoy.]

Resolved, Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme, 1967, dated 10th July, 1967 [copy laid before the House 14th July], approved.—[ Mr. Hoy.]

Hospital Doctors (Married Quarters)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

In spite of the advances in the National Health Service, particularly since the present Minister took office, many of the problems within hospitals are bedeviled by an out-moded, archaic and Victorian attitude to human relationships held by a few people with power particularly over both doctors and nurses. Fortunately, these pockets are diminishing, but there are still areas which lead to untold harm which need to be rectified.

One of these is that of the provision of residence for doctors who need to be in the hospitals but are married with families. With regard to the resident married doctors, the attitude of some teaching hospitals seems more appropriate to the initiation rites of tribal Africa or some secret society. Enforced chastity cannot be necessary to make a married doctor into a better doctor.

I quote from the instructions issued by one of the London teaching hospitals to all resident medical staff:

"Wives, husbands and children will be welcomed in residents' quarters on Saturday and Sunday afternoons and at other times by arrangement with the R.M.O.… All visitors will leave residents' quarters by 11.30 p.m. and under no circumstances may any visitor stay the night."

This is in respect of married people, qualified in their profession and prepared to take life and death decisions over their patients.

I have a case of a husband and wife who both happen to be doctors and both resident in the same teaching hospital. They had single rooms. In order to make sure that they did not meet too frequently, one was at the top north end of one corridor and the other at the bottom south end of another. In the same hospital maids were to be dismissed if they did not report when there was evidence that a wife had spent the night with her husband.

In respect of one London teaching hospital a wife has written this:

"My husband works an average of 19 hours per day, and if we are lucky he is able to come home for a night once a week. This means that in order to be with my husband occasionally I have to 'sneak' into the residence once or twice a week. The situation is made more ludicrous by the fact that this is prohibited as a few years ago the hospital governors declared that it was 'unhealthy' for wives to stay the night in residence."

I have another case of a wife who writes:

"I shall not sign this letter as it may cause trouble for my husband and he would not have a cat's chance of ever getting another job let alone taking a consulant's post. I shall also post it in a different town from where he works."

This is the wife of a professional man. It indicates a state of affairs that we should not permit in the National Health Service in 1967.

In 1962 I had a barrage of Questions to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I quote answers to these with regard to Guy's Hospital, London. As a result of my Questions the building plan at that time was altered to provide 11 married quarters instead of 22 single quarters. I was delighted to receive that assurance from the then Minister. But I discovered from the Ministry in January this year that at Guy's Hospital only five flats for married doctors have been provided and of these only one is suitable for a married doctor who happens to have children.

I quote from Guy's Hospital Gazette of 31st November, 1962, that as a result of the Question that I put in this House a plea was made for:

"(1) The provision of flats for married housemen in all hospitals. In the present building programmes… (2) provision now of double bedrooms for all married housemen and facilities for a wife to have meals with her husband and stay the night… (3) All hospitals to make arrangements for flats to be available in the neighbourhood for housemen's families."

Five years later we are still waiting for the implementation of this.

I had a Question about the London Teaching Hospitals where the matter is most acute. I have the pay slip of Dr. X, who is in a hospital not far away from this place. His take-home pay is £73 7s. 5d. He has £15 per month deducted for meals, leaving him £58. He is aged 25 and married with one child. The cheapest flat that he can find in Westminster—hon. Members will have some knowledge of this situation—is £40 a month, which would leave him £18 for food, heating, lighting, clothes and bringing up the baby. It is impossible. What has happened is that he is in London and his wife and baby are 200 miles away with parents. When I charged the Minister on 26th June with the fact that this problem was one of the major causes of emigration of doctors, he said that he had no evidence that emigration was increasing on this account.

I remind the Minister that the second question at his meeting with junior hospital doctors in Birmingham on 16th September made precisely this point, to the great approval of 500 doctors present. Since that Question I have had further evidence and will quote to him an article in the Sun dated 5th July:

"A young hospital doctor leaves Britain for Canada next week—not for a bigger salary, but so that he can enjoy married life."

Dr. Neville Hodson-Walker, aged 24, is now living in Canada, and he said:

"About 50 per cent. of graduate doctors at Birmingham medical schools are either married or about to marry. They have to spend 12 months as housemen living apart from their wives."

Letters to me have shown that this is a major cause of anti-N.H.S. mental attitude among doctors and that emigration is seen as the escape from intolerable pressures.

Another wife wrote:

"I suffered quite terribly in the two years after I first raised this question with you, with the consequence that I lost my third baby, after living and working in appalling conditions quite alone, when it should not have been necessary. It is very hard for us to feel now the loyalty to our country that is needed. Every doctor's wife I meet feels the same. People will not choose to work where it means separation of the family, of husband and wife."

As a result of the efforts that I made in this House I have received nearly 100 letters from all over the country, from West Middlesex, Penzance, Bristol, Suffolk, Sunderland, Norfolk, South Shields, Lancaster, Aberystwyth and Aberdeen among many other towns.

I am not charging the Minister with any lack of intention. I regard him as—I know he is—sincere about it. I know that it is his policy to encourage hospital boards to provide resident accommodation for married staff. His Ministry has doubled the amount available in London. There were in the London teaching hospitals 33 units and 32 have been added. But this is still inadequate if we are to ease the basic problem among junior hospital staff who form the backbone of the hospital service.

I propose to the Minister that he should consider four courses of action which would help considerably in the situation. First, he should get an ad hoc working party from among the junior hospital doctors themselves to work on this problem of how to get residential accommodation satisfactory for the normal married life of a young man. The Latey Report, recently published, shows that many people are now getting married earlier. Therefore it is normal that a man should marry and have a family in the early twenties.

What we must do is to get the doctors themselves involved with the Ministry in constructive combined operations to find a solution to this problem. I feel sure that this will have far more benefit than the present rather sterile arguments. It is necessary that junior hospital doctors themselves shall be involved, because we must bypass the specialists and consultants, who are very much out of touch with the modern generation and very often themselves have an attitude of mind which does not help in the problem. One senior consultant told me that he would prefer that his housemen and registrars should not be married because that gives them more devotion to their work.

There is this attitude which we find so often in life of the boy at school who is beaten at an early age but who, when he gets an opportunity himself to do the beating, says, "I had to go through it, and so must you". Getting an ad hoc committee of junior hospital doctors involved in the problem would yield far more than other attempts which have been made to find solutions. Unless we get away from the B.M.A. establishment, with top consultants having prior consideration of all matters concerning hospital service, this could be a sterile debate. I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of getting the co-operation of junior hospital doctors.

The second thing which I would like him to do is to revise his Hospital Building Note No. 2A which gives instructions to hospital boards about the provision of residential accommodation for staff. Scale F, for example, is impossible to work out in terms of the costings given for the London area. Land costs and the whole question of building are totally out of proportion with those in the rest of the country. It would help considerably if there could be some revision, so that hospital boards and others concerned could be given an opportunity to go a little higher up the scale and provide the accommodation which married resident doctors need.

The third matter which I should like my right hon. Friend to consider is the possibility of a crash programme to provide mobile homes. I would refer him to some of the work which has gone on in this connection under the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. In particular, there has been the recent decision to provide four units at the Barnet General Hospital at a cost of £7,900. I understand that a temporary home in a kind of super-caravan is no long-term solution to the problem, but this decision has allowed four families to be reunited, and four doctors will be able to live a normal happily married life. Although I understand that one would prefer permanent accommodation, the cost of about £2,000 a unit includes the provision of electricity, sanitation and all the other amenities needed to make it not just a super-tent, but a home in which a family can live together—small, but far more adequate than the case which I quoted of a doctor living 200 miles away from his wife and family.

It may be argued that whereas one is seeking a temporary solution very often the houseman is also a temporary appointment. He does six months in one specialty and six months in another in his pre-registration year. In spite of the fact that the families may change, inevitably the hospital will continue to have housemen and junior registrars, and a large number of those will be married and have families. Although the actual families may change, the problem remains, and even a temporary solution along the lines adopted by Barnet would be more helpful in seeking to solve the present problem.

My fourth suggestion is one which has emerged in our debates from time to time, and it is that my right hon. Friend should have immediate consultations with the Housing Corporation to find ways and means of providing cost rent housing or housing co-operatives whereby we could have co-operation, not only through hospital management committees, regional boards and boards of governors, but local authorities as well. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that, in the Housing Act of 1964, £100 million was set aside for this type of cost rent housing. If it could be pursued further, it might be another way whereby young doctors who are just starting on their careers could enjoy normal married life and who, in spite of the large number of hours that they work, still need to be ordinary members of the community as well as being devoted and dedicated doctors.

The problem of removal is more acute for this type of housing, because it means that greater control is necessary, and there is also provision for the protection of tenants in the 1965 Act which creates problems. Nevertheless, if the total number of available quarters can be increased and if there can be flexibility which can be organised at local level between short and long-term requirements, it will help solve the problem.

This is not just an acute human problem for the doctors for whom I am pleading today. I submit that it is basic to the kind of doctors we get and the kind of relationships which they can have with the families whom they serve, having had normal family lives themselves in the formative years when their children are young. We want to break down the barriers between doctors and the community, and I can think of no better way of starting on that process than by making sure that resident doctors can live normal married lives, and this will enrich the benefit they give to the nation at large.

12.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has drawn attention to a matter of considerable and growing importance in the hospital service—the provision of an adequate amount and standard of married quarters for junior hospital doctors. I know that he has taken a particular interest in this matter for many years.

Over the years, due to the great increase—about 60 per cent.—in the number of junior hospital medical staff, the fact that the posts they hold at particular hospitals are of short duration, and the fact that like other people, young doctors are tending to marry at an earlier age, the provision of married quarters has been increasingly important. Thus, hospital authorities have been faced with a need for more residential accommodation, and a greater proportion of this as married accommodation.

My right hon. Friend regards the provision of a good standard of accommodation for resident medical staff, including married accommodation, as a matter of high priority. In a letter he sent to chairmen of hospital boards and hospital management committees in August last he especially emphasised the need to provide reasonable living conditions for junior medical staff.

At this point, let me deal with one of the four points which my hon. Friend mentioned, namely, the setting up of an ad hoc committee to represent the particular interests of junior hospital doctors in discussing the problem. As my hon. Friend knows, the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association is not a body which is recognised by the Minister, but there have been discussions about residential accommodation between the Health Departments and the profession in the context of the current negotiations on the conditions of service for hospital medical and dental staff.

These discussions are continuing. There are nine representatives of the professions in on these negotiations. Eight are doctors, and four of them are junior hospital doctors. There is no need, therefore, to set up ad hoc discussions with junior hospital doctors per se. My information is that there is no difference between the views put forward by the junior hospital doctors in those discussions and those which have been separately represented by my hon. Friend this morning.

Last December we began discussions with the profession on its memorandum on the current problems of hospital medical staff, and have now made good progress. One of the problems is the shortage of married accommodation. It is recognised that hospital authorities are endeavouring to overcome this shortage, but the memorandum suggests that greater efforts are required. I accept that this is so, but the extent of the effort already being made appears from the figures. In England and Wales today there are about 2,300 homes for married medical staff at hospitals. Of this number, nearly ready, one-third have been provided as new buildings in the last three years. Moreover, we have more than 1,200 additional units now being built or in design, and we aim to add to that a further 1,200 within the current building programme.

We should not forget that traditionally the residential accommodation provided was single accommodation. Another problem has been that for many of the older hospitals scope for improvement is not easy, due to the nature of the old buildings, site restrictions, and so on. More important, improvements in residential accommodation and the provision of married quarters involve capital expenditure. These improvements must compete for funds with clinical improvements such as operating theatres. Although we are specifically discussing married quarters for hospital doctors today, this is not a subject which can be treated in isolation. They are only one group amongst hospital staff generally requiring accommodation.

Various types of accommodation can be provided. Residential accommodation can be provided where staff must, because of the nature of their duties, live in or near the hospital premises or where the hospital concerned is remote from any housing development and staff cannot reasonably be expected to find their own accommodation. Staff who satisfy these conditions, and a high proportion of junior hospital medical staff can be expected to, may be housed in accommodation provided in a number of ways, by new building, the purchase or leasing of houses, conversion or adaptation of suitable buildings or the re-allocation of existing accommodation.

I have given the figures for new building done or planned. My hon. Friend will know that in 1964 the Ministry issued a Building Note on Residential Accommodation for Staff. This represented a considerable departure from tradition. In the past staff accommodation had too often been treated both in design and construction as though its function was that of a hospital department rather than that of providing good living conditions for ordinary men and women who happened to be members of the hospital service, sometimes with families, sometimes without. My hon. Friend read the list of rules regarding the meeting of husbands and wives at hospitals. I have no doubt that what he said, and my reply, will be read in the appropriate quarters. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to say more than that. The old tradition in accommodation tended to be unnecessarily expensive, and not well adapted to the needs of those who would have to live in such accommodation.

The new note did not lower standards. On the contrary, it tended to raise them. My hon. Friend says that he has evidence that the scale for the provision of such accommodation, and the monetary funding of it, is in many respects out of date and not commensurate with present-day costs. If my hon. Friend has such evidence, which is not in our possession, we would very much like to examine it. As I say, we have no such evidence, and we have had no such representations.

My hon. Friend talked about a crash programme to provide mobile homes which could be used in this emergency by young doctors and people who are confined to barracks, if I may use that expression. We take the view that this is not a tolerable thing. It is not ruled out, but we do not like it very much.

The new note recommended that staff should be housed in the same type of building as local housing authorities now provide, sometimes in houses or bungalows, but more especially in block of flats. These have two main advantages. First, they are particularly suitable for industrialised building methods which save both time and money. Secondly, it is easy to change whole blocks or individual flats from one use to another. For instance, a flat which has been used by a family can be adapted quickly and cheaply for single people living in bed-sitting rooms, or for that matter having their own living rooms as well as their own bedrooms.

Three blocks of this kind providing 55 units of married accommodation have recently been built at Greenwich as part of the new Greenwich District Hospital. They were recently opened by my right hon. Friend, and have aroused great interest. If my hon. Friend can find the time to see them, I shall make the necessary arrangements.

The other point which my hon. Friend made was about housing co-operatives, and I shall refer to this in a moment. In one way and another we are improving the situation by new building, but it takes time, and is not always the immediate answer to a pressing problem. Arrangements exist for hospital authorities to notify my Department of suitable properties which come on to the market, so that prompt action can be taken to secure them to remove the pressure. Approval is given in all but a few cases, where the property would have been unsuitable.

Some hospitals have been able to make land available to local housing authorities under arrangements which benefit both the housing authority and the hospital, since the authority will allocate to hospital staff some of the dwellings it provides for the general public.

Local housing authorities have been most helpful in accepting hospital employees as tenants where circumstances have allowed, and I would like to acknowledge their assistance in this matter. However many of them have long waiting lists and cannot authorise developments for this special purpose. Several regional hospital boards are making inquiries about using housing co-operatives, and it seems likely that an acceptable solution will be found within this sort of formula.

By all these means, which are alternatives, and additions to new building, we have spent about £1,300,000 on acquiring housing in the last three years. Of this, £800,000, or more than half, went to house married medical staff. Taking old and new buildings together, the total number of homes now available for married medical staff at hospitals amounts to about 2,300, of which about one-third have been provided in the last three years. We aim to double this by new building under the current programme, and of this increase half is under construction or in design. But my right hon. Friend is by no means satisfied that these actions are entirely adequate, and he is keeping the matter very much under review. He proposes to issue further comprehensive guidance in the near future to hospital authorities on the various ways of providing residential accommodation, particularly for junior medical staff.

I have referred briefly to caravans. We cannot rule them out, but we do not like them. I can see that in certain circumstances there is an argument for them to be used, and we are not adopting a dogmatic attitude.

I would like to touch on the question of Guy's Hospital, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Guy's are extremely sympathetic to the needs of doctors who require residential accommodation. Apart from the medical superintendent's house, there are at present five flats available for married medical staff, although three of them are tied to particular appointments whose holders may or may not be married. In addition, two other flats owned by the hospital's Endowment Fund are being converted into four smaller flats for married doctors, and these are likely to be ready by the end of the year.

For the future, Guy's have purchased some property in St. Thomas's Street with a view, subject to planning permission and obtaining vacant possession, to building a combined office/residential block so that the rents for the office accommodation will help to subsidise rents for the married quarters. Guy's hope that they will be in a position to start building in about five years.

The money for married quarters can only be made available at the expense of other desirable hospital development. Guy's, no less than other boards of governors, have the unenviable task of evaluating competing demands on their resources, and are supplementing these resources from their endowments to provide more accommodation for married doctors. But the main difficulty about making a substantial increase is that there is no site immediately available at Guy's where the accommodation can be built. If my hon. Friend has any ideas on this subject, we shall be glad to look into them. We are most anxious to use every possible source of information to deal with this problem.

I hope that I have been able to show my hon. Friend that both the Minister and the hospital authorities recognise the need for adequate provision of married accommodation, more especially for junior hospital staff, and that the hospitals are endeavouring to tackle the problem within the limits of their resources.

I think that my hon. Friend has raised a very important matter, and I hope that I have covered all the points which he put forward. We accept that there is some evidence, which my hon. Friend has provided today, of emigration resulting from this lack of provision, but I hope that I have been able to show that not only is the Minister sympathetic—sympathy is relatively easy to give away—but that we are doing something about this serious problem.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Private Business

Essex County Council (Canvey Island Approaches, &C) Bill

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [ 24th July], and agreed to.

London Transport (No 2) Bill

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [ 24th July], and agreed to.

Ministry Of Housing And Local Government Provisional Order (Greater London Parks And Open Spaces) Bill

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Bill Lords

So much of the Lords Message [ 21st July] as relates to the Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Bill [ Lords] to be considered forthwith.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

So much of the Lords message considered accordingly.

Resolved,

That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Brighton Marina Bill

So much of the Lords Message [ 20th July] as relates to the Brighton Marina Bill to be considered forthwith.—[ The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the Brighton Marina Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,

That on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.

Ordered,

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered,

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read.

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Experiments On Living Animals

Address for return,

"of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1966."—[Miss Bacon.]

Oral Answers To Questions

Agriculture, Fisheries And Food

Central Council For Agriculture And Horticulture Co-Operation

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Central Council for Agriculture and Horticulture Co-operation will be ready to hear applications for aid.

We hope that the Council will be ready to receive applications for grant aid later this year. The date will depend on the approval by this House of the Statutory Instrument and will be arranged as soon as possible thereafter in consultation with the Council.

Is the Minister aware that it is almost two years ago—August, 1965 —that this Central Council was proposed? In that time many schemes have been prepared for approval and are now awaiting approval. If there is any more hold up by the right hon. Gentleman, grave hardship will be caused to many growers of plants.

The hon. Member will appreciate that this was my proposal. I in no way wish to hold the matter up. It is true that there has been a long delay. I am anxious to speed matters up.

Chick Placings

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state the number of chick placings for the last available three-month period and the number for the corresponding period in the year before.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(Mr. James Hoy)

With permission,

CHICK PLACINGS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
			1966			1967
			Egg layers	Table Poultry	Other including breeding	Egg layers	Table Poultry	Other including breeding
March	…	…	6·34	14·53	0·51	6·28	16·71	0·31
April	…	…	7·08	19·23	0·61	7·07	21·57	0·46
May	…	…	4·69	15·12	0·39	4·82	16·95	0·31
			18·11	48·88	1·51	18·17	55·23	1·08

Note: The 1967 figures are provisional.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount at 1966 farm prices he expects to increase production by 1970.

Figures on the basis of 1966 farm prices are not readily available. But our production objective for the industry continues to be that it should meet a major part of the additional demand expected by 1970 for temperate foods, put at some £200 million at 1964 import prices, and also much of the cereals required for the increase in livestock production.

The Minister has referred to "the major part". Can he go to the extent of saying that it is his policy that our home industry shall

I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Minister also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT information showing whether it is a reliable estimate that if the present trend continues we shall have 3 million fewer laying hens next year? Is not that a reflection on the total loss of confidence on the part of egg producers in the right hon. Gentleman's policy?

The hon. Member is quite wrong. Figures of chicks placed for egg laying in the United Kingdom show a slight increase in the period March-May, 1967, over the same period for 1966. The same is true for the 12 months period, June, 1966 to May, 1967, compared with the previous year.

The figures for the last available three-month period, and for the corresponding period in the year before, are as follows:

produce an increasing percentage of our requirements?

I have repeated over and over again—I did it when I referred to the National Plan from an agricultural point of view—that we expect the major proportion to be from British farmers.

13.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the expansion of agricultural production within the programme of the National Plan.

The agreed machinery for keeping under review progress towards the objectives of the selective expansion programme is the Annual Review. Progress was examined at the Annual Review earlier this year and was summarised in the Annual Review White Paper.

We all remember what that White Paper said, that—in the Minister's own words—there was stagnation in the industry. Does he still adhere to the National Plan target? I understood from an earlier answer today that he does. If so, how does he think that he will get the 5 per cent. expansion which is necessary this year to be anywhere near on target?

Yes, I am quite confident. The beef herd has expanded. The dairy herd, which had shown no increase at the time of the White Paper, has shown an improvement; there is an increase in the number of cows and heifers in calf. The pig breeding herd had declined, as I admitted, but the June sample indicates a recovery. The right hon. Gentleman is pessimistic. I am not.

How can the Minister justify continuation of this selective programme of expansion when the rate of slaughter of calves is continually rising?

When the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures—I hope that he will soon see the June returns—he will see that confidence is returning to the industry. This is recognised by producers, despite the political remarks sometimes made by hon. Members.

The right hon. Gentleman complains that his expansion programme is being talked down by the spreaders of gloom. Is he aware that, long before Question Time today, lamb prices and fat cattle prices in Scotland dropped by 40s. a cwt.? Is not this an example of the devastation of his policy?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that the guarantees have been good, and this is important to the producer.

Before the Minister accuses us any more of talking down the beef market, will he study the words of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House yesterday, when he said that there was a serious situation in the beef industry?

I have said that in relation to imports coming in, and I have tried to analyse the reasons for depression in our market. But, at least, my Review decisions meant increased guarantees to producers.

Egg Imports

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average weekly cost of shell egg imports during April, May and June compared with the weekly figure of £72,000 for the months of January, February and March; and whether he will now make a statement of his policy.

38.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will now take to ease the hardship caused to certain egg producers owing to the Government's import policy.

44.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he now has for the protection of United Kingdom egg producers from foreign competition.

The average weekly cost of shell egg imports during April and May was about £58,000. The Overseas Trade Account figures for June have not yet been published. As I have told the House, the Government have under consideration the future level of egg supplies, which will include imports.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already admitted that dumping is taking place? In view of the fact that the trade is suffering a loss of 9d. per dozen, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that damage is not being done within the realms of the dumping legislation?

The hon. Member has certainly quoted correctly the President of the Board of Trade. I am looking at the wider question of egg marketing policy. This is the important question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the point will very soon be reached where it will be necessary for him to intervene in this matter with a view to protecting home producers? Otherwise irreparable damage will be caused to this branch of the industry.

My hon. Friend knows that I have said that the position with regard to future egg supplies is being reviewed. We are looking into it. I regard it as an important matter. I shall be making an announcement in reply to another Question.

How many times has the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with the President of the Board of Trade?

It is customary not to reveal—[Laughter.] It is. I will only say it was several times.

Egg Production

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what organisations he is consulting in relation to his review of the future level of egg supplies; and if he will make a statement.

The farmers' unions and the British Egg Marketing Board have already been invited to let me have their views on the likely level of supplies on the United Kingdom market during the first half of 1968. I should also welcome views from any other interested organisations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many egg producers in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom are facing disaster as a result of the recent high level of egg imports? We appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is having discussions, but will he do something urgently to help the industry and make sure that imports are controlled in future?

I hope that the hon. Member will not continue to indulge in such extravagant language. My predecessors never thought to control them in the way that the hon. Member is suggesting I should do. I am reviewing the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only thing to do immediately in this situation is to bring in a minimum import price for imported eggs?

I do not think that is the answer. It never was held to be the answer by the régime which the hon. Member defended in earlier days.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the position is very much worse both because of the extension of home supplies and continuing imports which have depressed market levels to a serious extent? Is he not aware that many poultry producers are suffering great hardship? Is it not his duty to protect them?

If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures of imports he will see that they are pretty much the same. This year there has been an increase in home production. Hon. Members shouted "Woe" when I cut back the guarantee but production increased. I am looking at the matter and examining the whole question of supplies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that dumping is taking place and that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has very strange ideas of what constitutes material injury concerning the industry? Will he approach his right hon. Friend again with a view to taking measures to stop dumping?

As I have often repeated, we are examining carefully the whole question of supplies—and imports come into this. Naturally, this is a matter which we shall look at.

21.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of egg production in 1968.

31.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts he has made of the level of United Kingdom egg production in September, 1967 to March, 1968; and what proportion of the home market he expects United Kingdom supplies to hold in that period.

It is not possible at this stage to give a forecast for 1968, but our present estimate is that United Kingdom production during the period September, 1967 to March, 1968 will be rather higher than in the same period of 1966–67 and that home production will account for about 98 per cent. of total supplies of shell eggs.

In view of that Reply and the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) earlier, is it not essential to take steps now to limit the import of eggs to ensure that home-produced eggs find a market at a reasonable price?

My right hon. Friend and I have said that the Government are reviewing the whole question of the future level of egg supplies, and I would not want to add anything to that.

Is the Minister not aware that the small egg producer in the outlying parts of the country faces ruination, and that unless drastic action is taken now in readiness for peak-time production in the current and following year, the situation will be more than drastic; it will be calamitous?

There has been a fall in egg prices, which I hope has been appreciated by the consumer. I know the position, and that is why I said quite clearly that despite imports about 98 per cent. of our total supplies are met by home producers.

If the Minister cannot give an estimate, as asked for in the Question, how could he tell me earlier that the calculation I gave of three million fewer laying hens next year was wrong?

I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman exactly what the present position was and what the forecast was. Those figures did not bear out anything like what he said in his supplementary question.

40.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current price paid to producers for eggs.

The current average basic price paid to egg producers by the Board for first quality eggs is just over 2s. per dozen; an additional 4d. per dozen is paid for eggs which qualify for the differential under the Board's contracts scheme.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that not one word that he has uttered today in answer to Questions on eggs will bring any confidence to the industry? What action is he going to take this week?

I am rather surprised by that question. The hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), welcomed my previous Answer.

In response to that, I certainly welcomed the proposal to look into the matter, but does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that unless he contols imports he cannot provide our egg producers with the security that they want? [Interruption.]

One of my hon. Friends remarks that this is a new posture for the Tory Party. I am looking at the whole question of supplies and certainly the control of egg imports.

Fishing Vessels (Grants)

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the full rate of building grants is not being paid for British fishing vessels at present under construction in Poland; and why the full rate of grant is not being paid on British engines and equipment installed in these vessels.

The full rate of grant is not being paid on these vessels because we are not satisfied that in this instance the Polish yards are competing on fair terms with our own. An exception in favour of British equipment cannot be made since it would be impracticable to extend this to equipment from other fairly competitive sources.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the decision to pay the full grant or not to pay it is entirely a matter for him and his Department? Will he look into the question of the grant on British built machinery and refrigeration plant again, even where it is fitted to a foreign hull?

As I told the hon. Gentleman this morning, what we must do is to take steps to protect our own industry. I do not want to go further than that this afternoon. I have nothing to add to it. As I said to him earlier today, if we were to attempt to trace all this machinery it would be a very costly business. If people choose to build abroad, they must accept the terms which are available to them.

Can the Minister give an assurance that any of these ships which are built in Poland will be registered in British ports? Alternatively, will he give as much encouragement as he can to constructing all fishing vessels in British ports rather than in Poland?

It will be for the owners to decide where to register. I hope that all British owners will want to register in their own country. I assure him that we give all encouragement. This is why we made a differentiation in the subsidy, in order to encourage our people to build in our own shipyards.

Fishing Industry (Fleck Committee Report)

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Fleck Committee's target of the viability of the fishing industry by 1972.

This is one of the questions which are being examined in the review of Fisheries Policy. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Home-Produced Beef

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the total of United Kingdom beef supplies he now estimates will be provided from home-produced beef in 1967–68.

In recent years home-fed beef has made up just under three-quarters of our supplies. We should exceed three-quarters this year.

Does not the Minister agrees that over 80,000 more calves have been slaughtered in the first six months of this year than in the first six months of last year? Is he not further aware that prices have dropped by 36 per cent. in the last six weeks? Is he not aware that the abatement is causing the same hardship to farmers as it was in October last year? Will he not admit that this is a case in which some drastic action is immediately necessary?

The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Question. I am answering some of these points specifically in replying to another Question. He should be pleased with the target which I have set and, despite what he said, with the achievements already obtained.

Beef Imports

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he will take to phase imported and home supplies of beef.

14.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has received from the Irish Government, with a view to avoiding a repetition of the collapse of prices of fat cattle and sheep which took place in the markets of this country a year ago.

18.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Government of Eire about an undertaking not to subsidise the export of fat cattle to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

23.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now take steps to limit the quantities of Argentinian beef entering the country.

32.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the prospective numbers of fat cattle coming forward, what steps he is taking to avert a collapse in the meat market at the end of the current grazing season.

37.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has to ensure that there is no repetition this autumn and winter of the conditions that prevailed on the fat cattle market last winter.

49.

asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how he proposes to achieve better phasing of Irish exports to the United Kingdom.

50.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now end the supplement and abatement system under the Fat Cattle and Sheep Deficiency Scheme.

I am concerned about the early and sharp drop in cattle prices this year. But I expect total imports of beef from all sources to be lower in the next live months than a year ago. There has been a welcome increase in imports of Irish store cattle, but the larger volume and low prices of Irish carcase beef have undoubtedly depressed our market. Our exchanges with the Government of the Irish Republic are being vigorously pursued with the aim of securing better arrangements in the interests of both countries.

In the meantime, the Government accept that steps must be taken to safeguard the interests of our own producers. We intend to modify substantially the system of abatements and supplements on fat cattle. These will be limited to a maximum of 6s. per live cwt. for this and the next five weeks, and the maximum will then be tapered off to a nominal 4d. from 18th September until, at any rate, the end of the calendar year. I shall consider before then whether the arrangements need to be extended.

These steps will relieve immediate pressure on the market and ensure stable returns to our own fatteners at a higher level than a year ago. They should thereby ensure better returns also for our store producers whose interests are no less important.

Will the Minister not accept that the situation is very grave and that he must keep a continuing watch on it? Is he aware that between 100,000 and 180,000 more cattle are to come from Ireland this year than in previous years? Is he not aware that there are 60,000 tons of beef waiting to come from the Argentine? Will he, therefore, keep a very close watch on the situation?

I assure the hon. Member that I am aware of those facts. I have specifically mentioned the increase in carcase beef. I accept that. I am glad to be able to assume from what he said that he accepts what I am doing about abatements.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the important statement which he made about abatements, in view of the fact that he accepts that home producers have suffered as a result of the Irish agreement, will he either repudiate the notorious assurance given by the Prime Minister or, if he fails to do so, resign?

If I may say so, that is a rather naive question. I have here a lovely Conservative document which refers to the Leader of the Opposition as saying, "The whole House will like to welcome an agreement of this kind". Indeed, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly praised the agreement. The present situation is not entirely due even to the problem about carcase beef which I have mentioned. Demand in this country for beef has fallen considerably because of the weather conditions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's complete failure to answer the specific point of my Question No. 18 mean that he has not asked the Eire Government for any undertaking that they will stop the subsidisation of exports of beef to this country? Does he not think this unfair to British producers, and will he not stand up for farmers in the United Kingdom and not just for farmers in Eire?

The hon. Member is being unfair. I have repeatedly stressed the position of the British Government and my position to my Irish counterparts. I have said that repeatedly. The hon. Member should not draw those conclusions.

In connection with my Question No. 23, is the Minister aware that Argentine imports of beef have been running at 10 to 15 per cent. above the level for last year? In that connection we are glad to know that he is leaving for the Argentine tomorrow. But does he not think that it is his duty to put affairs in this country in order before he goes for three weeks to South America?

I am not going for three weeks. I wish I were. I do not think that Argentine supplies are a factor in this situation. On average, the supply position is pretty much the same as usual. It has kept pretty steady. Undoubtedly, the main problem has been the closure of the European market to Irish fat stock and Irish meat products and also to some of our own products. That is linked with increasing supplies coming on to our market even from home production and a lower demand for meat. These are the basic factors. I assure the hon. Member that it is a situation which is causing us concern.

Is the Minister aware that the shipping space booked by the Argentine Government for the first two weeks in August is about double that booked for the last two weeks in July? Has he made any representations to the Argentine Government? Secondly, while thanking him for the minor abatement improvements, may I ask him whether he realises that it is the seasonal price scale which is the decisive incentive in marketing the grass-fed animals?

The hon. Member obviously wishes to make a long speech. We are dealing, in respect of the Argentine, with chilled meat arrivals. I say that in the second half of 1967 we should have from all sources about the same amount of chilled meat and substantially less frozen meat than last year. That has not been a factor in this case.

While acknowledging that the Minister has made an important statement, and while recognising that there will be some amelioration as a result of it, does he not realise that the position is serious in a wider aspect, and that if he is to give real confidence to our beef producers, he will have to do more about the restriction of imports, especially if he wants to get long-term confidence back into the industry, which I assume he does, as do we all?

I will certainly look at the question and bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he must remember that that would mean a major departure from the traditional commercial arrangements, which affect other countries. I am not in a position to announce any major step in that direction—such as steps which my predecessor never took.

While he is rightly concerned with protecting the industry and home beef producers, will my right hon. Friend also make sure that more of this drastic fall in beef prices is passed on to the consumer?

I met the retail butchers only last week—on Friday—and I made an appeal on that subject. I believe that meat is a good buy—certainly many cuts of meat—and I hope that more meat will be taken up.

As this is the second occasion in nine months when our beef market has collapsed, has not the time come for a fully managed market?

I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that the market has collapsed. It is not true. There is great danger that, if people spread gloom, they can depress it further.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the importation of beef is part of our foreign trade?

In reply to an earlier question, I said that we have to bear in mind our commercial arrangements. One of the great difficulties here is that the European market has been closed to exports.

In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Minimum Import Prices

12.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has made for extending the system of minimum import prices to commodities other than cereals.

None, Sir.

Does not the Minister recognise that Common Market restrictions have made a major change in the whole situation, and does not he accept that diversion of supplies from the Continent to this country is making the position intolerable in many sectors of the British market? If he will not introduce minimum import prices, what other effective steps will he take to restore confidence to our own farmers?

I am quite certain that, in relation to cereals, there is no question of a fall in confidence among growers, and I am rather surpised to hear that suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not just cereals."] For other commodities as well, apart from cereals. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I should change the pattern. The cereals market is being affected by people talking the market down, as in the case of beef.

Will the Minister do his best to give similar protection to the fishing industry and fish prices?

That is another question.

Irish Free Trade Agreement (Carcase Meat)

15.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of sums to be paid to the Irish Government in respect of fatstock guarantees under the Free Trade Agreement in the year 1967–68.

There are no fatstock guarantees under the agreement, but the estimate of sums to be paid to the Irish Government in respect of carcase meat under the Irish Free Trade Agreement in the year 1967–68 is £1,850,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this large sum of money is not being used further to subsidise the price of Irish cattle and thus depress the market in this country, costing our Exchequer a large sum of money as a result?

It does not affect fatstock; it deals only with carcase meat. This is one matter which I have been considering.

Is it not an excessive and grossly over-generous figure?

I do not think so. This was the agreement reached, and we also have an assurance of the best endeavours of the Irish Government for an increase in stores of 638,000 which our fatteners want in this country. The agreement was a good agreement.

Store Cattle (Republic Of Ireland)

16.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has received from the Irish Government in relation to the fulfilment of their undertaking to supply 638.000 store cattle per annum.

The Free Trade Area Agreement itself provides for the Irish Republic to use their best endeavours to send us 638,000 store cattle in the calendar year. The first full calendar year has not yet been completed, but the number may be within 10 per cent. of the target.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the cattle coming in are, in fact, store and not fat cattle?

All the advice I have from my officers in the regions confirms that there is no—how shall I put it?—getting round the regulations. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence, I shall have it looked into.

Is it not a fact that between 1st July, 1966 and 31st May, 1967 the Eire Government had to default the agreement by about 160,000 store cattle because of the high rate of subsidy in respect of Eire meat plants, and is not this damaging also to Northern Ireland? What is the Minister doing about it?

On the question of stores, we are dealing here with a normal trade between individual dealers and producers. It is difficult to control it. On the other hand, we had an assurance of best endeavours under the Treaty that the figure would be achieved. I am glad that the present figure is an improvement on the figures we saw last year.

Brucellosis (Eradication Scheme)

17.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the voluntary brucellosis eradication scheme.

There has been a good response to the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme. In the first three months we have received over 5,000 applications.

But progess with the scheme depends upon a sufficient availability of sampling centres. Does not the Minister feel that, without a compulsory eradication scheme with compensation, his present scheme will spread over too many years and will damage the industry?

No, Sir. I am sure that it was right to have a voluntary scheme first. This is important at this stage, and I am glad that the response is good.

The figures which the Minister quoted are reasonably satisfactory, but progress is far too slow. Why is Britain dragging its feet behind Northern Ireland and Continental countries? There is real danger to the health of thousands of people in Britain because of the Minister's slow policy.

I have always regarded this as a serious matter, and I have been surprised that my predecessors did nothing about it. I have brought in a scheme, and I hope that it will work.

Forestry Grants

19.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that forestry grants are not paid for planting trees on land that has previously been improved for agricultural purposes with the aid of grants made by his Department.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

(Mr. John Mackie)

We do not propose to interfere with existing procedures. Payment of agricultural grants does not automatically rule out a proper, subsequent change to another form of land use for which a different form of grant can be paid.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been cases where trees have been planted on arable land previously eligible for grant under the M.A.P. scheme? In one case, for instance, on the hillside above grant was being collected for land reclamation while below it arable land was being planted with trees.

There will be such cases. I explained in my original Answer that grant paid in respect of land used for agriculture does not automatically rule it out from another use later on. It is some time now since the M.A.P. scheme stopped.

Agricultural Holdings (Grants)

20.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to restrict the payment of grants under Sections 26 to 29 of the Agriculture Act to individuals who occupy holdings that are not defined as commercial units and who wish either to relinquish their occupation or to increase the size of their holdings.

No, Sir. Grant under Section 27 is already restricted to people giving up uncommercial farms. But to put the restriction suggested by the hon. Member on grant under Section 26 would discourage the relinquishment of many uncommercial farms where the only amalgamation possible is with a farm of commercial size. No grant is paid under Sections 28 and 29.

Perhaps, then, the Minister will tell me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the Act that there is nothing to prevent a man with, say, 1,000 acres obtaining the amalgamation grant for absorbing a smallholding of 40 acres when a neighbouring smallholder with, perhaps, 60 acres is in the market for the same holding?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the scheme is voluntary and there is nothing to prevent the situation being as he puts it.

Therapeutic Substances Act

22.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations he has received from agricultural sources relating to the desirability of relaxing the provision contained in the Therapeutic Substances Act, in connection with the use of penicillin and its associates.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who is responsible for administering the Therapeutic Substances Act, can trace having received any such recommendations or representations since the matter was referred nearly two years ago to the Joint Committee of the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils on antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs.

Is the Minister aware that many farmers feel that the present practice of allowing only vets to apply certain simple remedies, such as penicillin, cause a number of avoidable losses and deaths simply because many farmers find it impossible to afford a daily visit for an injection of penicillin by the vet?

Yes, Sir. I appreciate that farmers would often like to have control of something like this. But we have a Committee dealing with these matters which advises us, and the hon. Gentleman must agree that many drugs can be used excessively. There have been cases of that, and I think that it is far better to have the control that we have now through the veterinary profession than just to allow the drugs to be bought anywhere by farmers.

European Economic Community

24.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the information about agricultural matters which he receives from British embassies in the countries which are members of the European Economic Community is adequate, in view of our recent application for membership.

Yes, Sir.

On what does the right hon. Gentleman base his satisfaction, since the United States of America has four agricultural attaches in Paris, while we must rely on the half-time work of one commercial attaché?

The argument is really one of quality rather than quantity. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the hon. Gentleman should address the Question to him. I am fully satisfied with the information I receive.

Does not the Minister realise that it is his Ministerial responsibility to ensure that sufficient staff qualified in agricultural matters represent this country abroad? He knows full well that it is customary for experts from his Department to be seconded to the Foreign Service. I beg him not to dodge this important issue in this way.

No one is attempting to dodge the issue. I believe that our embassies provide my Department with all the information necessary to make a judgment of the situation in the Community.

Sodium Cyclamate

25.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he will take a decision on the use of sodium cyclamate in food products, following the further report submitted to him by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee.

The latest report published today confirms the Committee's previous advice that there would be no risk to health in allowing the use of cyclamates in food without limitation except for soft drinks and ice cream. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I accept this advice and we have made regulations accordingly, which will be laid before the House early next week. They will come into force the following day in respect of tablets and on 1st December in respect of other foods. This last date is designed to ensure that when the general use of cyclamates in food is permitted they will be covered by new labelling regulations. I intend to keep the use of cyclamates in all foods under continuous review.

Eggs (Marketing And Distribution)

26.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to announce the result of his review of the Egg Marketing Scheme.

52.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the urgency of the situation of egg producers, when he will state his future course of action for the industry; and whether in the meantime he intends to limit imports.

56.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his discussions with the farmers' unions and the Egg Marketing Board on the marketing arrangements for eggs.

As a result of the discussions, it is clear that there are some matters, such as the Government's review of future egg supplies, including imports, and possible modifications to the Board's contract marketing scheme, on which early conclusions are needed. Urgent discussions will therefore continue. But, in addition, various far-reaching proposals have been put forward which involve a fundamental reappraisal of marketing arrangements and we have decided to set up a Reorganisation Commission under the Agricultural Market- ing Act, 1958, with the following terms of reference:

"To consider the present arrangements for the marketing and distribution of shell eggs and egg products, including the working of the British Egg Marketing Scheme, 1956, and any other matters relevant thereto, and to make recommendations for the future."

This will enable the views of all to be taken into account. I fully appreciate the need for speed and shall ask the Commission to report early next year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that statement in answer to the Question. I mean that. But will he bear in mind, in relation to a reply given earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is not only low prices to the consumer but a good return to the producer in this country that are most important?

I accept that. I have always stressed that in the end the consumer benefits if there is stability in the market.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his Reply and I regret that I was not in the Chamber when it was given. I ask him to bear in mind that the producers' position is such at present that there is grave risk that the Egg Marketing Board might collapse altogether. I hope that he will take appropriate steps.

I do not think that the Board will collapse. I have announced the Reorganisation Commission, and I am well aware of the problems in the industry.

I welcome the statement, because I have been asking for a reorganisation and review of egg marketing for the past 18 months. Does the review cover liquid eggs and broken out eggs, and is the statement the one the Minister promised me last week in answer to other Questions?

Yes, Sir. The review will certainly cover the whole of the egg industry.

The Minister's statement is important, and I am glad that he has made it. We shall wish the commission well in any inquiries it makes, and I hope that he can assure us that we shall get an early report. Will he ensure not only an early report but urgent action and will he reaffirm the importance attached by all egg producers to getting matters straightened out? They badly need that.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the statement in that spirit. I fully appreciate his desire for speed and that is why I emphasised it in my statement.

I apologise for not having been here when the Question was answered. I was detained on very important business. Will the Minister appreciate how serious the matter is, particularly for small farmers, and tell us when he can expect to give further news to the House on it?

I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman carefully reads my statement he will accept it.

Milk Production

29.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what interim assurance he will give to milk producers concerned at the dilution of the pool price owing to increased production this summer.

Milk producers already have an assurance, given at the 1966 Review, that dilution due to expansion to meet the beef requirements of the selective expansion programme will be taken into account at future reviews within the period of the programme.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the forecast for the autumn is that the pool price will be much lower and that this, combined with the drop in the price of calves and barren cows, means that the total returns to dairy farmers are dropping considerably? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman put to me a Question about the price of milk, and if he does not mind, I will stick to that at the moment. It is true that on present indications the pool price, as I said in reply to an earlier Question, will be about 3s. 4d. a gallon, and this is about ¼d. a gallon more than the record level last year.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the proposed increase in welfare milk prices is expected to have any effect on the dairy industry?

No, Sir; we do not think it will have any effect.

Butter Oil (Imports)

30.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will initiate discussions with overseas Governments to include butter oil and similar products within future butter quota arrangements.

The Government have already been in communication with overseas suppliers of near-butters, and we are continuing to watch the situation closely.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the seriousness of the position? This is a back-door method of evading regulations and certainly in the long run will not help the British dairy farmer. Therefore, are not urgent decisions and talks necessary now?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping the position under constant supervision. There is no evidence, I assure him, that increased imports of butter oil during 1966–67 have threatened the stability of the butter market or butter prices.

Fisheries Review

33.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now able to make a statement about the fisheries review which was to have been completed in 1966.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 21st June.—[Vol. 748, C. 1694–5]

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the fishing industry is notorious for its ups and downs? Would he consider having a farm improvements debate in the House? Does he not think that fishing, like agriculture, might benefit from a biennial review?

The fishing industry, as my hon. Friend said this morning, is a hunting industry, and, obviously, it has its ups and downs. I hope that in the course of the review which we are now making, which I can claim to be the most substantial one yet made, we shall at least provide some outline of policy to meet the needs of the industry.

As the results of the review may have a considerable effect on the crisis which faces the fishing industry at the moment, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will make every effort to speed up the outcome of the review and then act with great swiftness upon it?

Yes, Sir. But it is not only the fishing industry in this country. Do not let us exaggerate. Fishing industries all over the world, as even the hon. Gentleman admitted this morning, are faced with this problem. We want to find a solution for our own industry, which is so valuable to our economy. I can only hope that if as a result of our review we can find the answer the Government will not lack speed in putting it into action.

Will my hon. Friend add to the statement that he referred to in his first Answer, as to the effect of the new phenomenon in the North Sea fishing grounds—drilling for oil and the effect upon the fishing grounds and the fish?

I think that all want to find oil if they can, especially at the present time, but we hope that this is having no deleterious effect on the fishing industry, because in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we have the job of seeking to combine Britain's economic prosperity with protection of the fishing industry.

Since the review was promised for last year, what has caused the unusual delay, and exactly when are we to get it?

The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends this morning were saying that the fishing industry changes at a very rapid rate. We have been faced with this situation. As I said this morning, the evidence provided to the Estimates Committee has so changed compared with the present time that it is right that we should take the present situation into consideration before we find the answers to the problem.

Farm Animals (Injuries)

34.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had about the increasing number of farm animals receiving injuries from broken glass; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the northern area secretary of the National Farmers' Union has expressed to me his serious concern at the number of injuries to animals? Will he seek further to acquaint the public of the danger of indiscriminately discarding glass containers?

Yes, Sir. I should like my hon. Friend to let me have the complaint that he has had from the N.F.U. in his area. As I said, we have had no complaints in the Ministry. We deprecate the throwing away of empty glass bottles because of the damage which they do not only to animals but to humans, and the litter that they cause in the countryside.

Waste Bog Land And Mountain Land

35.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will cause a detailed survey to be made of waste bog land and mountain land in the United Kingdom which can be developed and put to productive use.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 23rd November last. What was said in that reply applies equally to England as to Wales.—[Vol. 736, c. 319.]

Would my hon. Friend not agree that such reclamation schemes would be of very substantial benefit to marginal rural areas and at the same time constitute a substantial recompense for the 1½ million acres of productive agricultural land that will be taken for roads, buildings and otherwise between now and the end of the century?

Yes, Sir.

Agricultural And Horticultural Holdings (Planning Applications)

36.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now revise his present policy concerning support by his Department to planning applications on agricultural and horticultural holdings, so as to give a clear indication of support when he considers the proposals are of benefit to the industry.

As I informed the hon. Member in my supplementary reply on 21st June, my Department is exploring with the industry the possibility of revising present practice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have had sympathetic noises from the Minister about this for over a year? When will these sympathetic noises be turned into a definite statement of policy?

Definite action‡

I thought that my reply on 21st June was welcomed. I know that it is a few weeks since then. I will do what I can.

Fatstock Guarantee Scheme 1967–68

39.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that paragraph 10 of the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme 1967–68 is restricting the acceptance of fat cattle for subsidy; and if he will take steps to widen the definition for purposes of the scheme.

Taking the country as a whole, the qualifying standard represents the type of carcase most acceptable to the trade. It has been in use since 1962 and we see no reason to alter it now.

Will the Minister agree that cross cattle from a dairy herd are not likely to have such a good formation as pure beef breeds, and will he look at the wording again to remedy this unreasonable handicap?

I am always prepared to see whether we can make improvements. All I say is that it has been the practice since 1962. Indeed, no objection was then raised. However, if there is good reason to do so, I will look at it.

Fat Cattle (Subsidy)

41.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the net abatement of subsidy to fat cattle producers in 1967–68 both to the latest possible date, and for the full season; and what steps he will take to reimburse them.

The estimated net abatement, up to 9th July, 1967 was £300,000. In view of the substantial modification to the system which I have just announced, I expect the total for the year to be within £2 million. We shall discuss with the Farmers' Unions the distribution of any end-of-year payment.

What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about abatement already charged in the last five or six weeks to those who have been selling off cattle?

I made a statement on the whole question of payments, and I will discuss the question of abatement with the N.F.U.

Potato Marketing

42.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will now take to aid the orderly marketing of potatoes in view of the failure of the Potato Marketing Board to obtain agreement from producers for higher contributions.

The Potato Marketing Board has announced that it proposes to discuss with the Government and the National Farmers' Unions the implications of its failure to secure increased contributions from producers of potatoes. My right hon. Friend is expecting an approach by the Board.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent poll among producers was a most disappointing and retrograde step and represented a bad attitude by the producers? Will he give every sympathy and support for any plans that the Potato Marketing Board has to strengthen its powers?

I am sure that the result was greatly disappointing to the Board. Obviously it now wants to discuss the consequences of the poll with the Government and the N.F.U. We shall be only too pleased to take part in the discussions.

Temperate Foods (Consumer Demand)

43.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the expansion of consumer demand within the programme of the National Plan.

For the purposes of the selective expansion programme, the in crease in demand for temperate foods between 1964 and 1970 was assessed at £200 million at 1964 import prices. This estimate may need to be adjusted, but we see no reason for any alteration in the objectives of the selective expansion programme.

Is it not the case that consumer demand is relatively static? Does not this mean that, with the complete stagnation of agricultural output, utter nonsense has been made of the predictions in the National Plan?

No. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information from. We certainly have not got it. If he cares to supply it to us, we will look at it.

Abattoirs (Standards)

45.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs in England and Wales have not yet been brought up to the standards required by the Slaughterhouses Act, 1958; and what action he is taking in this matter.

Fourteen, in six local authority districts. We are in close touch with all the authorities concerned so that days may be appointed at the earliest practicable moment in each case.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does not he agree, however, that this number is too high considering that it is almost 10 years since the passage of the Act? Will he do what he can to see that appalling abattoirs, such as those still being used in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, are closed as soon as possible?

I do not think that progress has been as slow as the hon. Gentleman suggests. There were 1,100 local authority districts with slaughterhouses and only six have not reached their appointed days. I am sorry that the bon Gentleman's own area is one of these We shall do all we can to help.

Catering Departments (Prices)

48.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that, during the period of the Government's wages and prices standstill initiated in July, 1966, many prices charged in the catering departments have increased in price and that outside food prices and wages remained stable; and, in view of the fact that internally no increases in rates, electricity charges or labour charges could account for these increases, whether he will refer them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for investigation and report.

We are aware that during the standstill and period of severe restraint many caterers found it necessary to put up prices since they were faced with extra costs, in particular the Selective Employment Tax, within the criteria of the White Papers. Price increases which seemed unreasonable have been investigated. We see no grounds for referring this industry to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I expected that reply. No doubt, it is due to the fact that the Question is perhaps not as clear as it should have been.

Order. Question please.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, by virtue of the reference to the fact that there have been no internal increases in rates, electricity charges and the rest, I am referring to the catering departments here? As no wage increase has been given to the staff, although they richly deserve one, and no other increases in costs have been incurred, why have prices gone up by 200 or 300 per cent.?

If my hon. Friend got the answer he expected, he will not have been disappointed. But perhaps his Question would be better put to the Chairman of the Catering Committee.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I did put it to the Chairman of the Catering Committee?

Order. No special privilege.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Non-Returnable Bottles

51.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the further report sent to him by the hon. Member for St. Helens about the one-way bottle and the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

We have the reports which my hon. Friend recently sent to us, and we are at one with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) in deploring the habits of those who leave glass bottles, or indeed any other litter. in the countryside.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the one-way bottle produced by the British glass industry has proved a great success? Will he take it from me that the one-way bottle is less dangerous than any other glass container produced?

We have no evidence that the non-returnable bottle is any more dangerous than any other or that any more of them have been left lying about.

Would the hon. Gentleman kindly explain what a one-way bottle is?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is as fond of a gin and tonic as I am. If he has not had one for a while, perhaps we can test the matter out.

Milk Production Advisory Service (Devon And Cornwall)

53.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the recommendations of the South-West Economic Planning Council in "A Region with a Future" he will invite the Milk Marketing Board to augment their low cost production advisory service to milk producers in Devon and Cornwall.

This is for the Milk Marketing Board to determine, but the Board and my right hon. Friend are agreed that its implementation will be of material benefit to milk producers, and at our invitation the Board are discussing with our technical advisers ways in which the existing co-operation between the Board and the Ministry can be further developed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will give considerable encouragement to the milk producers in Devon and Cornwall, and assist the expansion of a section of the industry which produces 40 per cent. of the total farm output of the area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that, as a result of this, we shall see still further improvement in that area.

Sharks (South Coast)

55.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent sharks seen by fishermen off the South coast recently are a danger to bathers; and if he will make a statement.

The species of larger sharks that visit our coasts rarely come close enough to the shore to be of danger to bathers, and there is no record of them having attacked man.

Farm Incomes

57.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to maintain farm incomes in the face of the lower prices for farm produce.

I am making some adjustments to the beef guarantee, but I am satisfied that the support arrangements in general assure the industry the necessary stability.

I welcome this reply, together with the benefits the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. But is he aware that in many sorts of farm produce, including, for example, store lambs and now beef, prices, if they have moved at all, have probably moved downwards in recent times? In view of the constant increase in farming costs, the position is very serious.

I discussed this matter on a previous Question when the right hon. Gentleman was not present. At the last annual price review, we increased the guarantee for this purpose in order to give stability.

Scotland

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

59.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will include in his education formula for schools an element approving a maximum ratio of pupils to certificated teachers, in the interest of a fair distribution.

I do not think this would be practicable or desirable at present, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion, because it could lead to teachers in well-off areas being released to help out in those not so well off and to the elimination of any need for part-time education?

But what my hon. Friend is asking for is a statutory formula, and we have to consider whether it is feasible to get such a formula which would apply to all schools. If my hon. Friend bears in mind all the factors, such as the size and type of school and the age of the pupils, he will appreciate the difficulties. We are looking into it.

New General Hospital (Airdrie)

60.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what date he has now fixed for the start of the new General Hospital at Airdrie; and if he will make a statement.

The planning of this complex scheme has taken several months longer than had been estimated. The provisional starting date for the site works is now the summer of 1969.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had waited half a century for the new general hospital? Does not he agree that that is long enough? Is he further aware that the competent medical authorities have declared that the existing hospital is half a century out of date? Will he do his utmost to expedite the building of the new hospital?

I realise that Airdrie has waited half a century, but perhaps it can wait just a little longer. This new hospital will cost £5¾ million, and time taken at this stage in planning may save not only time but money in achieving this long awaited dream.

Is not this one of the hospitals about which the right hon. Gentleman waxed extremely angry because it was not being started three years ago?

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The hospitals concerned then were those deferred beyond 1970 by the then Government. They were the hospitals in Ayr, Motherwell and Paisley and they have nothing to do with this Question. The new hospital concerned here has always been in the hospital building programmes both of this Government and of our predecessors.

Teacher Distribution (Roberts Committee's Recommendation)

62.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he received the report of the Roberts Committee set up to consider the distribution of teachers in Scotland; and whether he accepts the Committee's recommendations.

I received the Report in April, 1966, and it was published in July of that year. I have yet to reach decisions on the Committee's recommendations.

Is it not scandalous that the Secretary of State should have had this report for over a year with the situation in Scotland deteriorating and nothing being done? Can he at least give us an assurance that if a substantial wage rise for English and Welsh teachers is announced today, there would be similar problems in respect of Scottish teachers' salaries as we had with the case of local government officers and electricians in Scotland?

These things are not analogous. He will appreciate—and I wish he would look into the facts of the situation before racing into it—that the Secretary of State of the previous Administration tried to do something about this in 1963. He tried twice and he failed because the teachers and the local authorities said that it was not possible. It is not so easy and it takes time. We are still considering what can be done about this.

European Short-Medium Range Airbus

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement regarding the outcome of his meeting yesterday with French and German Ministers on the subject of the European airbus project.

Agreement was reached to proceed immediately with the first stage of the joint development of a European short-medium range airbus. A Memorandum of Understanding, the principles of which were agreed, will be signed before 15th September, 1967.

I am happy to say that the aircraft will be powered by Rolls Royce engines and work on them will be undertaken jointly by Rolls Royce, S.N.E.C.M.A. in France and M.A.N. in Germany. The aircraft will be designed jointly by Sud Aviation, Hawker Siddeley Aviation and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Airbus. Sud Aviation will direct the airframe work and Rolls Royce will direct the engine work. A joint company will be formed to promote the sales of the aircraft.

It has agreed that the full development stage—in about 12 months' time—should proceed provided that certain conditions, including national airline commitment, which will finally establish the viability of the project are met.

This is obviously an extremely important decision for the future of British civil aviation, which will have to be probed in much greater depth than is possible today. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman three quick questions.

First, what safeguards have been agreed against unilateral withdrawal by any of the partners in the project, and will he publish the agreement, as the Conservative Government did over Concord? Secondly, what assurances have been received from the European airlines to buy these aeroplanes and at what stage will those assurances have to be converted into firm orders? Thirdly, how does the Government envisage that Britain will be able to maintain her design capability in the future when we do not have the leadership in any advanced airframe project, either military or civil?

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of this project. We regard this as the beginning of a new era in cooperation in European aircraft production, based as it is, unlike any other product, on a national airline commitment which establishes the market base and ensures the product is not a cost to the economy but a bonus to the three economies involved.

On the first point, there can be no safeguards against withdrawal during the first stage, because, as I said, this is subject to certain conditions, including airline commitments, but also including proper industrial arrangements to ensure efficiency. It will be up to the Governments concerned to decide at the end of the 12 months whether these conditions are being met.

On the second quick question, the airline commitment should be delivered by the Governments concerned at the end of the first 12 months when the aircraft is designed and when the airlines have an opportunity of placing a firm order for an aircraft, the characteristics of which they are aware

Regarding the third question, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very important point. We have emphasised during these talks that the British aircraft industry is not only outstanding in the field of aero-engine design, but also in airframe design, and we would expect, in the event of any future joint civil project being developed with Europe, that design lead to come to us.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the accomplishment of this agreement which, I can assure him, will be warmly welcomed by the aircraft industry. However, could he guide us by telling us how he reaches a figure of 1,000 aircraft sales for an aircraft of this particular medium-short range type? Could he—

Order. The question must be reasonably brief otherwise we cannot have many questions.

I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. There has been a great deal of work done on the project over the last two years. It must. be satisfying to all those who have been involved, long before I came on the scene, that this has now come to a successful conclusion.

As to aircraft sales, the production of 1,000 aircraft demanded by 1985 is an expert assessment. Of this figure, something like 400 to 450 will be bought within the United States and about 300 to 350 in Europe. We would hope to achieve sales for the European airbus of approximately 300 aircraft out of the total of 1,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement will be heartily welcomed on this bench where we have always preached the virtues of Anglo-European co-operation? Is he satisfied that the rate of progress of this project is fast enough for us to compete in third markets with the Lockheed projected airbus? Secondly, have any orders been taken for hardware on the engine side that is to say, what orders have been placed with Rolls Royce for preliminary work on the RB207?

On the first point, we are satisfied that concerning the engines there will be no delay in development of the RB207 for the dates that are required for the in-service of the aircraft. The aircraft will come into service in the spring of 1973. This is a little late for one European airline—Air France—but for most airlines it is well in time for their particular requirements for this aircraft, which is 1975 onwards. Provided that we can keep to the in-service date for the European airbus, the spring of 1973, we will not find that the American competition will be very embarrassing to us.

Would the Minister explain how it is that he is answering this Private Notice Question when all this information was given on the 7, 8 and 9 o'clock news this morning and in the papers? Could he explain how it is they got all this information?

After a conference of this character it is usual for the Press to be advised of the results. I answered the question which was asked.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that this decision has been taken it underlines the need both by the aircraft industry and by B.E.A. for an urgent decision on the Trident 3B, which could be in service several years ahead of 1973 and on which a decision is now urgently needed?

This is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but my right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with him about it.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many prototypes are planned for this aircraft? Secondly, has any thought been given yet to its production? Will it be made in the way that Concord is made with separate parts in separate countries and assembled in separate countries?

On the first point, it will be two or three. On the second point, there will be one production line in the interests of efficiency.

Will the Government's willingness to back the project affect their willingness also to back either the Trident 3B or the BAC211, which are designed to fill the gap of capacity which it is commonly accepted B.E.A. will have?

As I have said, this is a matter primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but no decision has yet been made about supporting the BAC211 or the Trident 3B.

Later—

On a point of order, beg to give notice that when opportuntiy affords I shall raise the matter of the airbus agreement before Parliament adjourns.

I suppose I must be generous and take it that the hon. Member missed the airbus.

Questions To Ministers

On a point of order. Before we depart from Questions to the Minister of Technology; you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I asked for leave to put a Question to him about the sudden closing down of the Dounreay—

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that he cannot ask anything about the substance of a Private Member's Question which has been refused.

Race Relations (Legislation)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about race relations.

In reply to a number of Questions on 27th April, I said that the Government were studying the first report of the Race Relations Board, the P.E.P. report on racial discrimination and other available evidence and would consider the need for and the practicability of strengthening the Race Relations Act and the administrative machinery.

Our preliminary studies are now complete. Good race relations must, of course, substantially depend upon voluntary effort and a favourable climate of public opinion. But our conclusion is that these by themselves are not enough. Further legislation is therefore necessary.

The Government have decided in principle that the Race Relations Act should be extended to deal with discrimination on grounds of colour, race or ethnic or national origins in employment, housing, insurance and credit facilities. In addition, public places will be given a wider definition than under the present Act. Details of the necessary amending legislation will now be worked out in consultation with those concerned, including the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the nationalised industries. We propose that, in relation to employment, the new legislation should provide the fullest possible opportunity for industry to use its own machinery for conciliation.

I believe that legislation on these lines will strengthen the position of all those who are anxious to co-operate in removing racial discrimination from our national life and will provide a necessary ultimate sanction against the few who are determined not to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been right in considering how far and to what extent he can translate into terms of actual legislation the terms of the two important documents to which he referred at the beginning of his statement, and there can be no dispute about the ends which it is desirable to achieve. But as almost everything will depend upon the detailed proposals when they come forward in the five separate fields in which he is proposing to legislate, perhaps he will forgive me if I reserve comment until I see them.

He said that consultation will take place with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the nationalised industries; will he not also contemplate consulting the House, which has not yet had an opportunity of discussing these important matters since the publication of the documents? Will he also bear in mind that in recent days there have been some rather striking breaches of the Race Relations Act by Mr. Stokeley Carmichael and Mr. de Freitas? Will he give us the assurance that this legislation, when it is brought into force, will not be one way only?

I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general position, and I understand his desire to reserve comment until he has seen our detailed proposals. It has been my endeavour to take soundings of opinion in the House so far as possible in arriving at this general decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] There have been many questions and exchanges of views and expressions of opinion in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I will certainly endeavour to bear in mind the opinions in both parties in framing the details. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three parties."] All three parties; I have pleasure in amending that.

Four parties.

629 parties.

I accept your amendment, Mr. Speaker, although it makes it a little more difficult to have detailed consultations.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned two particular cases. I assure him that it is certainly my view that any incitement to racial hatred, from whichever side of the colour frontier it comes, is equally undesirable and to be dealt with equally firmly. There are a number of Questions down to me for tomorrow about Mr. Carmichael and I had better not comment until I answer them. As for the other gentleman, any question of prosecution, as the House knows, is a matter exclusively—and it is important that it should be exclusively—for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and not for me.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this statement will be widely welcomed by everyone concerned to ensure that the growing number of coloured Britons born in this country receive a fair deal? Can he say specifically whether the composition and structure of the Race Relations Board will be changed as part of this new legislation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I would not like at this stage to say exactly how the structure of the Board will be changed, but it will certainly need changing. It will need strengthening with experience, particularly on the industrial side. It will be our endeavour to get a body which will be able to do the new job as effectively as the existing Board has done the old job.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any extension of legislation into this field will be strenuously resisted by those who regard such legislation as a gross encroachment on the traditional freedoms of this country?

I regard the hon. and learned Gentleman's question as tautologous, because if he holds that view I presume that he will resist the legislation.

I add my congratulations to the Home Secretary for the steadfast way in which he has dealt with this matter. Can I ask two questions? When he says that industry should set up its own machinery for conciliation, will that be ultimately enforceable by law, and can he tell me whether the recent utterances by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), which I regard as likely to cause—

Order. One question is enough. The hon. Lady has no more rights at Question Time than anybody else.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said in the statement that we would give industry the fullest possible opportunity to use its own machinery for conciliation, but I indicated that we intend to bring within the purview of the new law employment as well as other matters.

I fully accept the need for appropriate legislation to avoid the appalling situation which has arisen in the United States. However, will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that the Government will use every power of persuasion in industry and will also continue to set an example to industry in employment policy, and also in the granting of Government contracts?

Yes. Government contracts should now be considered in relation to the new legislation which we propose to bring in, but I am glad to have the opportunity to reiterate the point which I made in my statement to which I attach the greatest importance, which is that it would be a great mistake to think that legislation can do the whole job. The climate of opinion is overwhelmingly important, but it is our view that legislation appropriately phrased may help the climate of opinion to develop in the right direction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has just said is entirely in line with a document which, as it happens, was today approved for publication as a discussion pamphlet by the National Executive Committee of our party, and that the new legislation should reinforce those who may not feel prejudice themselves but who are too cowardly to resist it in their neighbours?

I appreciate and entirely concur with what my hon. Friend says.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this Bench do not wish to reserve comment but to give a wholehearted welcome to the statement which he has just made? Would he say whether, to assist consultation in the House, he will be publishing a White Paper before the Bill, giving the principles and details of his proposals?

I will certainly consider that, as, indeed, any other proposals, though I would not like to be taken as giving an undertaking that that would be the best way to proceed.

Is the Home Secretary aware that any stand that he takes in protecting people in employment will be approved by those people who realise that every country in the world faced with this problem has had to have legislation in the end? Would he bear in mind that this country, too, has a proud record in protecting people in their places of employment, and that it is about time we brought in legislation to protect their dignity as men and women?

I think my right hon. Friend's thought is very much in line with my own. I am sure it was the Government's view that we should have to come to such legislation eventually. I am sure, from lessons overseas, that it is the case that the sooner the nettle is grasped and the sooner the problem is dealt with the better.

Is the Home Secretary not aware that there is a general feeling throughout the country, and in all sections, that one of the best ways of easing the recent tension that we all deplore in this country would be to reduce the inflow of immigrants into this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—and that unless he does so the dangers will grow, no matter what legislation is introduced?

Of course, we shall preserve the strict control of immigrants coming in, but as the hon. Member must know, if he follows the subject, as I believe he does, from his frequent interventions on it, those coming in at the present time for jobs are a tiny trickle, and the great majority coming in are families coming to join the heads of families who have established themselves here. I cannot myself conceive of anything which would create a more dangerous situation than to say that men, having come here, should be forced to live in isolation from their families.

rose—

Order. This is important, but we shall be debating it eventually.

University Expenditure (Parliamentary Control)

With permission I wish to make a statement about the recommendations of the Special Report of the Public Accounts Committee on "Parliament and control of university expenditure".

As the House will recall, the Committee unanimously recommended that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be given access to the books and records of the University Grants Committee and the universities.

The Government accept this recommendation. They share the view of the Committee that this large item of Government expenditure, which has risen over the last twenty years from £4 million per annum to well over £200 million can no longer continue to be the sole major exception to the normal requirements of Parliament regarding scrutiny and report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Accordingly I shall make it, from 1st January, 1968, a condition of grant to the universities that their books and records in respect of grant should be open to his inspection. The same will apply to the books and records of the University Grants Committee. The Accounting Officer arrangements will remain as at present.

The Government do not propose to alter the present well-tried and flexible arrangements for financing universities by the capital grants and block recurrent grants made available and distributed on the advice of an independent University Grants Committee. We shall therefore maintain the present system by which block grants are allocated to universities by the U.G.C. with the consequent freedom of discretion on the part of universities as to how they should be spent. It is no part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's duty to question policy decisions or decisions reached on academic grounds. His function is to comment and advise on the propriety, regularity and efficiency with which moneys voted by Parliament are administered by those to whom they are entrusted.

The P.A.C. recommended that steps should be taken, in consultation with the universities, to devise suitable procedural conventions and to explain to the universities what would be involved. Besides having the advice of the University Grants Committee, I have already had consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers. Further steps will now be taken to carry out this recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, the existence of an independent check on how the universities spend public money should serve to reassure Parliament and the public. It need not infringe the academic freedom of the universities. It does not denote any lack of confidence in the existing system whereby the University Grants Committee stands as a "buffer" between the Government and the universities. It was in this spirit that the P.A.C. made its recommendations. It is in this spirit that the Government accept them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three questions arising out of his very important statement, which we shall certainly wish to debate along with other aspects of higher education before the end of the year? First, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government have received the advice of the U.G.C. Can the Secretary of State tell the House that the statement he has made has the approval of the U.G.C.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and especially of its Chairman? Secondly, the statement said in the last paragraph that the "new system need not infringe the academic freedom of universities". Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side wish to state categorically that the new arrangements must not infringe academic freedom, especially as regards freedom of admissions, freedom to decide what is taught and how ii is taught, and the freedom to appointment?

Lastly, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the acceptability of these arrangements must depend on the fostering of mutual confidence between the universities, the Department and Parliament; and would he not also agree that if we in Parliament very properly want to have a voice in the public discussion of university policy, we must show ourselves to be responsive to university opinion, both anywhere the shoe pinches for them and over the kind of inquiries we pursue?

I note and welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss this matter later in the year. On his first question, he must know that it is not the custom under any Government for the Government to quote the advice they have received from the U.G.C., whether collectively or from its Chairman, and I think it would be improper for me to alter that custom today. On the second point of academic freedom, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the interpretation which he has placed on the phrase. I do not think there is any difference between us on this question between the two sides of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two and a half sides."] On the question of mutual confidence between the Government and universities, I know from some experience that it is not always easy to keep this up to the highest possible level, but I entirely agree that it is of vital importance for the Government to try to maintain it both in terms of financial decisions and in terms of making clear, as I hope my statement strongly did, how much importance the Government attach to the basic principles of academic freedom.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members of the Public Accounts Committee will be glad that the Government have accepted the recommendations which we put forward? Does he agree that the Committee also recommended that vigorous efforts should be made to reassure the universities by the giving of a full explanation as to how the Comptroller and Auditor General actually works, and that efforts should also be made to establish conventions which manifestly would make it clear that academic freedom was neither in issue nor in jeopardy? Can we take it from his statement that the Government propose to use the five months before this decision comes into operation for the purposes the Committee recommended?

In answering that, I do not know whether it would be proper for me to pay my tribute to the lucidity of the Report which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues produced and also to the questions which were put to the very distinguished witness who came in front of them. To take the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's question, Yes, he is certainly right in saying that we propose to use these five months to carry out what effectively was the second of the two recommendation of the Committee. A good deal of informal consultation has already gone on, but now I shall invite the Chairman of the U.G.C. to bring together the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Comptroller and Auditor General to give effect to those recommendations.

While welcoming the Minister's statement on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, will he make it clear to the accountancy profession that it has nothing to fear, in that the statement by the Minister does not in any way infringe upon the work of the auditors, carried out by members of the accountancy profession?

I can certainly give that assurance. The P.A.C. made it very clear in its Report, and my hon. Friend contributed to this, that the task of the separate auditors of the individual universities was different in nature and did not impinge on the task of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that younger members of university teaching staffs, as distinct from vice-chancellors and principals, who have not had any control over how universities spend their money, will warmly welcome these proposals? Will he also take note of the fact that there is some slight concern among university teachers that there may be a danger of some limitation on open-ended research projects of the type which do not show immediate returns? Can he give some assurance on this point?

I am delighted to hear the opening remarks of my hon. Friend. As to the latter part of his remarks, if he reads the Report of the P.A.C. he will see from the assurances given by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and from the tone of the Report, that the danger which he has in mind could not possibly arise from the effect of public accountability.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House welcome any extension of the Parliamentary accountability of universities, except that we would view with great alarm any infringement of academic control? Can he say how he has reached the apparently contradictory conclusion that this statement does not, and will not, infringe academic freedom?

With respect, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Report of the P.A.C. he would have seen that the whole endeavour made was to reconcile the two principles, of public accountability and the other of maintaining the academic freedom of the universities. It went into a most lucid explanation of why in its view, which I share, these two principles could be perfectly well reconciled.

Arising from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and in view of the very widespread apprehension there is among many circles in academic life, particularly that this move may in some way restrict academic freedom, could my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will do everything possible in the coming months to make perfectly clear that the kind of control envisaged relates entirely to past expenditure and not to the coming expenditure by universities? This is a source of widespread confusion among many people in universities.

It is extremely important to make it clear that the recommendations of the P.A.C. have no bearing on the amount of grant which Government makes for future expenditure. As for the more general point, of course I will do everything I can, but I must say that by far the best way in which universities can reassure themselves on the subject which my hon. Friend has in mind is for them to read the Report, which is the most reassuring document there could be.

The right hon. Gentleman is obviously aware of the fears about academic freedom. How far has he been able to assuage the fears of those people concerned in his discussions?

I hesitate to speak on behalf of either the vice-chancellors or the Association of University Teachers, which are the two bodies that I have formally seen. I would like to think that I went a considerable way in assuaging the fears which they initially held, and I think that it is clear from general public discussion that the initial fears expressed to the Committee by a number of its witnesses have been a good deal assuaged as a result of the explanations in the last few months. I do not think that it would be safe for me to go beyond that.

While there would be agreement with the statement made by my right hon. Friend in the spirit in which he has made it, will he accept that it is quite possible, not only having read the Report of the Committee, but also having been a member of it and having listened to the original discussions with the Comptroller and Auditor-General, still to agree with some of the concern shown in university circles, particularly those directing research, that there could be a dangerous line that ought not to be blurred between accountancy and the right of universities to decide on their own free research? We do not want everything governed by accountants in this country.

I accept the fact that some people in the universities share the fears which my hon. Friend has expressed. However, if one reads not merely the Report but the very detailed meetings that were held with the various witnesses, if one listens to the assurances given by the Comptroller and the Auditor General, I do not think that it is possible at the end of the day seriously to take the view that his endeavours and activities will threaten the kind of research considerations made possible.

rose—

Order.

Orders Of The Day

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 4—(Notice Of Result Of Com- Mittal Proceedings)

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 38, leave out from "court" to end of line 40 and insert:

"determines to discharge him, describing the offence charged and stating that it has so determined."

4.7 p.m.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "A"—(Proof Of Criminal Intent)

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 22, at end insert new Clause "A":

"A. A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,—
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of this Clause is to implement the Law Commission's proposal in its Report on imputed criminal intent and the effect is that the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Smith, which was decided in 1961 should be reversed and it should be made clear by Statute that a subjective test applies to murder and other crimes.

I rise only to say that I fully agree with the proposal for the reasons which have been given.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10—(Notice Of Alibi)

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

"(4) Any evidence tendered to disprove an alibi may, subject to any directions by the court as to the time it is to be given, be given before or after evidence is given in support of the alibi."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment to clear up a possible difficulty in a rule of practice, making no substantive alteration to the law.

I must ask the Under-Secretary of State one or two questions on the Amendment because I do not think that it is merely a drafting Amendment.

I understand that when an alibi is set up the defence has to give notice in advance of the fact of the defence so that the prosecution can inquire into it, and, if necessary, call evidence in relation to it. The Amendment states:

"Any evidence tendered to disprove an alibi may, subject to any directions by the court as to the time it is to be given, be given before or after evidence is given in support of the alibi."

Is this to be a general direction given by the courts, or will it be an individual direction in each case in which this question arises? How do the Government visualise this working in practice? If the evidence is to be given before, will the prosecution have to give notice by way of additional evidence to the defence of the evidence which it intends to call? Presumably it will. Unless it does so, it cannot make it part of its case.

I should have thought that, in justice, if the defendant is to have to disclose his alibi, it is only right that the prosecution should disclose its answer to it. If it does not, will the judge have free discretion to allow it to produce that evidence later, or will it be bound by the rules which are extremely limited, about giving rebuttal evidence? There is clear authority as recently as 1957 in the case of Flynn which says that one can call rebuttal evidence to an alibi if one has no reason to think that the alibi will be raised. If one is to be given notice of it, one is bound to have notice of the fact that it is likely to be raised and under the present rules one would not be able to call the evidence after the defendant had given evidence.

I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would say how he sees this working in practice and, in particular, whether he expects it to be the duty of the prosecution counsel or solicitors to serve any evidence which they propose to call by way of additional evidence before the trial commences.

It would be very helpful if we could have clarification of the words

"subject to any directions by the court as to the time it is to be given".

One would not expect the court normally, of its own initiative, to give any such directions but only on application by one side or the other. The question is: at what point should the evidence be tendered? There may be disagreement between counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defendant as to which is the right moment.

It would seem that the court not only will have a discretion to exercise after an application has been made by either side, but may also have an initiative to exercise once it has been alerted that such rebutting evidence may be given. It is necessary that we should have a clear understanding of the functions of the court.

rose—

The hon. and learned Gentleman needs leave to speak again.

4.15 p.m.

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the questions which have been raised.

May I deal, first, in general terms with the effect of the Amendment. The difficulty arises from the rule of practice con- cerning the calling of evidence by the prosecution to rebut evidence called for the defence. The general rule is that the evidence for the prosecution must all be given in the main part of its case, and if the defence evidence raises a particular issue, then the prosecution may be allowed to call rebutting evidence. But, in general, this rebutting evidence is allowed only when the evidence to be given in rebuttal cannot conveniently be given in the main part of the prosecution's case. It is difficult to state the exact scope of the rule. In some cases courts have practically required that the rebutting evidence of the prosecution must relate to a matter raised by the defence which the prosecution could not have foreseen. But other cases suggest that the rule is not as strict as that and that it is very much a matter for the judge's discretion.

The subsection of the Amendment allows the prosecution to give evidence in rebuttal of an alibi either before or after the evidence is given in support of the alibi and thus abrogates the old rule. The court, in its discretion, could restrict the prosecution so as to prevent any prejudice to the defence.

It has been argued that the Clause as drafted does not make it clear enough that the discretion to allow the prosecution to call evidence to rebut the alibi of the defence will be unfettered by any requirement such as that the rebutting evidence must not be allowed if the prosecution could have foreseen the defence. It has also been suggested that under the subsection the discretion given to the judge applies only to cases in which the notice has been given and that therefore the court should apply a stricter test in deciding whether to allow the prosecution to call rebutting evidence where the prosecution knows of the intended alibi from a source other than a notice given under the Clause. That was never the intention of the Law Commission when it put forward the draft of the Clause. It seems desirable to put the matter beyond doubt and therefore to provide in the way proposed in the subsection.

Does not the Clause, as drafted, have the effect of allowing the prosecution, at least in theory, to bring in evidence in anticipation more or less at any stage in the proceedings? That is what it looks like.

The prosecution is in a position to bring in evidence in anticipation—

At any stage.

—related to the notice given of the alibi of the defence.

rose—

Order. We are not in Committee.

Is it not a fact that the Amendment makes no difference whatever to the existing practice? The prosecution has the right now to do this in exactly the same way.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B"—(Applications Of Sections 8 To 10 To Courts- Martial)

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 10, line 23, at end insert new Clause "B":

Without prejudice to section 99(1) of the Army Act 1955 or of the Air Force Act 1955 (application to proceedings before courts-martial of civil rules as to the admissibility of evidence) and to any power to make rules or orders for the procedure of, and otherwise for the trial of offences by, courts-martial, the three last foregoing sections shall apply to such proceedings as they apply to proceedings on indictment subject, however, to such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, being modifications which appear to him to be necessary or proper for the purpose of the operation of those sections in relation to proceedings before courts-martial.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Would it meet with the concurrence of the House if I were to suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 247 at the same time—page 118, line 42, at end insert:

"3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18.	The Army Act 1955	Section 99(2).
3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c.19.	The Air Force Act 1955	Section 99(2)."

I have no objection, if the House agrees.

The object of this Clause is to apply the provisions of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to courts-martial. Clauses 8 and 9 which deal with proof by written statement and formal admission, would, in the absence of specific provision in the Bill, apply to Army and Air Force courts-martial, but modifications are needed to adapt these Clauses to the circumstances of courts-martial.

It is also considered desirable that Clause 10 should apply to courts-martial, but again modifications are needed. These are similar in nature to those required for Clauses 8 and 9, but in addition the "prescribed period" within which notice has to be given under subsection (1) will need to be extended since the accused is not normally given legal aid until after investigation proceedings.

The new Clause refers only to the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955. What I do not understand is why it does not apply equally to court-martial proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, 1957. I can see that there is no equivalent to Section 99(1) of the Army Act or of the Air Force Act in the Naval Discipline Act, but I should have thought that the powers to make rules or orders would apply equally to the Naval Discipline Act. I think that perhaps we should have an explanation on this point.

The Secretary of State referred to in the Lords Amendment is, presumably, the Home Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Defence. I would be glad of confirmation of this. The matter is rather important because one finds that the Secretary of State will be allowed to make modifications by regulation in the application of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 to courts-martial. Those are important Clauses, which both Houses have discussed at great length, involving important matters of principle. One would hope that great caution would be exercised before modifications are made even in the application of those Clauses by means of regulations made by the Secretary of State.

It is by no means self-evident that the notice of abili provisions should apply to courts-martial. To begin with, the tribunal is not a jury and, secondly, the law comes from a judge advocate and not a judge. If this is to be done, the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill should communicate with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence asking him to try to incorporate in the Manual of Military Law and in the Manual of Air Force Law a strong warning against refusing leave in appropriate cases.

If one hands it to a court-martial—I have had some experience of courts-martial when serving in the Forces—to refuse leave to a defendant to produce an alibi, it will very likely use its discretion against a defendant in circumstances when it is quite inappropriate to do so. It is a great mistake to think that we can translate from a civil code into a court-martial the same regulations, because the atmosphere, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, is utterly different.

I was asked, first, why the Lords Amendment does not refer to the Naval Discipline Act. The answer is that there is no need for it to do so, because powers to make these modifications exist under that Act. Different powers exist under that Act from those under the Army Act and the Air Force Act.

I was asked which Secretary of State is referred to in the Clause. "Secretary of State" covers any Secretary of State, but I understand that in practice it would be the Secretary of State for Defence.

Am I right in assuming that when the Secretary of State makes the regulations, they would not be prayable against or subject to the supervision of the House of Commons in any way?

I am sorry, I do not have the answer to that question. Accordingly it must remain unanswered.

There are two questions concerning the modifications, the first being whether the principles of Clauses 8 to 10 should be applied. I hope that the answer of the House would be "Yes", although it may well be desirable in certain cases that consultation should take place and appropriate advice should be given on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

Secondly, what modifications have to be made? It is envisaged that they would be purely formal. For example, there would have to be different references from those under the existing Clause to magistrates, judges, chairmen of quarter sessions and the like. Subject, however, to this technical modification, it is envisaged that, broadly speaking, the principles of Clauses 8, 9 and 10 should be the same.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11—(Majority Verdicts Of Juries In Criminal Proceedings)

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 33, after "verdict" insert "of guilty".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is an Amendment of some importance. The Government have reconsidered the question of revealing a majority verdict where there has been an acquittal. Accordingly, they accept the Amendment which was moved by Lord Brooke in Committee in the House of Lords. In the past, the main reason for including subsection (2) in the Clause was twofold. It was felt that the announcement of the voting figures would be a check to ensure that the right proportions of majority were obtained and that, secondly, it would provide desirable data on the use which is generally being made of majority verdicts. As against this, it was recognised that there was always the disadvantage of some people who were acquitted being given, as it were, a second-class acquittal.

The Government accept the Amendment. They believe that it is less important where there is a majority acquittal than where there is a majority conviction to make sure that the voting figures are correct. Although in accepting the Amendment there will be the disadvantage of the loss of certain information and statistics, nevertheless this seems a reasonable price to pay to allay the fears which some have felt, obviously with justification, that the Clause as it stood would prejudice the work of innocent people.

I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend a question arising from his opening remarks in explanation of the Amendment. His opening remarks appeared to suggest that it would be only in the case of a majority verdict of guilty that the fact of a majority verdict would be announced. I do not follow how that would operate in the light of the provisions of subsection (1,b). Can my hon. and learned Friend explain the procedure which will enable paragaph (b) to operate without its being generally announced that the verdict is a majority verdict?

I welcome the Government's change of heart in this matter, although I do not believe that it goes the whole way. I still think that it would have been better if the subsection came out entirely, as several of us argued in Committee, when we were strongly opposed by the Government. At least, the Amendment will get rid of the feeling, which a majority acquittal would cause, that there has been a second-class acquittal.

I should like the Under-Secretary to explain how, in practice, he envisages that this will work. Whilst the Lords Amendment represents an improvement to the Clause, although it will not be as good as it would be without subsection (2), undoubtedly it will lead to difficulty in the matter of interpretation of the Clause about what advice will be given to the jury when they make their verdict.

One is now in the position of having three or four separate stages. Am I right in assuming that, first, the jury will be sent out and told that they must be unanimous, but that after two hours they will be sent for and then told that they can agree by a majority? What happens when the jury comes back? If they agreed either unanimously or by a majority, the whole purpose of the Amendment would be defeated.

What are the terms of words which judges are to use? Will they use those to which the Lord Chief Justice referred in the House of Lords, or what? If, by misfortune, on a number of occasions due to a misunderstanding the foreman says that the jury have agreed by a majority and then announces a verdict of not guilty, the whole purpose of the Amendment will be defeated.

hope that the Home Secretary has considered the form of words to be used when putting the charge to a jury to ask them for their decision. I would be grateful to know what those words are.

This is, I suppose, just one more anomaly arising from the most unsatisfactory situation as a result of the decision to introduce majority verdicts for the first time. I, too, wish to know from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what procedure is to be followed and how there is to be any concealment of the fact of majority verdicts. Has any suggestion been made that any of this information would be passed up to the judge in written form? If so, how does he propose that this should be authorised? I cannot see that the Bill provides for anything of that kind.

4.30 p.m.

With the leave of the House, I will reply to some of the points. All of them relate to the complicated procedure which in some cases may have to be evolved, because it may be that the court will have to follow a different procedure if a jury returns with a verdict before two hours have elapsed from the one which would be followed in a case where it returned with a verdict after two hours. The same would apply depending whether the verdict was one of guilty or one of not guilty.

The Lord Chief Justice was consulted about the way in which the new Clause with the Lords Amendment inserted would be operated. He was satisfied that, although it would not be easy in particular cases, the courts could operate the Clause as amended in a satisfactory manner. The procedure for obtaining a verdict when there are a number of counts in the indictment may be more complicated than at present, but he does not consider that any real difficulty should arise.

The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) is another which was put to the Lord Chief Justice. He was asked whether he considered that a practice could be agreed which satisfied Clause 11 (3), which is the one to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, and yet which concealed a majority acquittal. He is satisfied that it can be done and that an appropriate practice direction can be given to the judges. I do not think that I should go further and say exactly what procedure should be followed by the judges. When the Lord Chief Justice says that it can be done satisfactorily, that is good enough for me.

But how will it be done? If it is a majority verdict of not guilty, what is the court to do? Is it to inquire what is the majority, order a new trial, or what? Surely it cannot be sufficient to say that the Lord Chief Justice is satisfied. We ought to have some information about this.

Obviously the court will not inquire what the majority is or whether, in the case of acquittal, there is a majority. That would reveal that there had been a majority acquittal. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that that will not happen. However, what form the practice direction will take, I cannot say.

On that point, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will have very much in mind that in an indictment containing a number of counts there might be unanimity on some but not on others, and that that in itself will increase the practical difficulties.

I have already mentioned that. I have said that the greatest complications will arise where there are a number of counts. As I say, the Lord Chief Justice says that it is workable, and that is sufficient for me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12—(Disqualification Of Ex- Prisoners From Serving On Juries In Criminal Proceedings)

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 11, line 8, at the end to insert:

"() For the purposes of the foregoing subsection a person sentenced to borstal training shall be treated as if he had been sentenced for a term of more than three months, and a person sentenced to be detained for an offence during Her Majesty's pleasure or during the pleasure of the Governor of Northern Ireland shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention for life."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear, first, that persons sentenced to borstal training fall within the temporary disqualification from jury service provided by subsection (1,a), and, second, that permanent disqualification from service extends to young persons sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

I am a little puzzled about the inclusion of a person detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. One can well understand that such a person might not make a very good juror, because a juror is expected to have a rational judgment, and someone who on a previous occasion has been ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure might, therefore, be unsuitable to serve. However, one likes to think of the justice of this matter.

If a person who has been so detained in the past is called by mistake to serve on a jury and, not being one of the people of the brightest and most alert mentality, continues to serve on the jury, is it right that he should make himself liable to be punished quite heavily? It may be that the Government have considered this point, but it is one on which we are entitled to an explanation.

I must make it clear that these are not persons of unsound mind. Normally, they will be young murderers, in effect.

Half of this Amendment arises out of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act as substituted by Section 1(5) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965. There may be cases of people of unsound mind, but, in any event, one is faced with whether one should disqualify such people from jury service, and I think that the answer is that there should be permanent disqualification. The second question is, if such people are disqualified, should there be any sanction against those who wrongly serve on juries? It can be left to the courts how severe the sanction should be, but there must be some sanction and, therefore, some penalties.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in line 11, to leave out "£100" and to insert "£250".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The effect of the Amendment is to raise the penalty for serving on a jury when disqualified from a maximum of £100 to one of £250.

One small point which is important in deciding whether this Amendment should be accepted is that, as it stands, the Clause lays down an absolute offence. Am I right in saying that mens rea has no part? Therefore, should we pass new absolute offences and then increase the possible fine by Amendment from £100 to £250?

If the Clause had said: "If a person knowingly serves on a jury …", I should agree with the increased penalty. However, as it stands at the moment, it appears that it is an absolute offence. If it is an absolute offence without the necessity of proving mens rea, I should have thought that the existing penalty was adequate.

With the leave of the House, I will answer that point. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) asked me for a legal interpretation off the cuff. The absence of the word "knowingly" does not mean automatically that mens rea is excluded. It depends very much on the total context.

My immediate view is that mens rea would be required, but that is something which would have to be left to the interpretation of the courts. I should have thought that there is nothing in the context in which this offence is created which would require an absolute statutory offence, and I should be very surprised if the courts took the view that, even though a person did not know that he was disqualified, he was still guilty.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in line 15, at the end to insert:

"() Any sheriff or other officer having power to summon persons to serve on juries in criminal proceedings shall send with every summons for that purpose a notice stating the effect of the foregoing provisions of this section."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment makes it a statutory duty for the summoning officer to issue with every jury summons a notice relating to disqualification. It was always intended that that should be the practice, but we agreed to accept an Opposition Amendment moved during the Committee stage in the Lords that the practice should take the form of a statutory duty.

It seems to me that this Amendment deals to some extent with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) on the last two Amendments. Surely the question of knowledge depends on whether the person knows that he is disqualified? If he receives a notice setting out the disqualification, surely that should meet the necessities of the case? It is for this reason that I welcome the Amendment.

One point which I think is important has occurred to me following the interesting suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). In the event of the sheriff summoning a juror, but failing to put in a notice, may we have an assurance that the juror will not be deemed to have committed the offence?

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I cannot give any such assurance, and certainly one cannot now further amend the law. As I see it, it will depend on whether the juror knew that he was disqualified.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "C"—(Validation Of Ver- Dict Where Juror Disqualified)

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 11, line 27, at end insert new Clause "C".

"C. It is hereby declared that the verdict of a jury in criminal proceedings (as in other proceedings) is not void by reason only that a member of the jury is disqualified from serving on the jury in those proceedings."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Clause is designed to put beyond doubt that the verdict of a jury will not be invalid because a disqualified person has served as a member of it. There have been decisions of the courts to this effect, but in view of the changes made by the Bill it seems better to have a declaratory provision to prevent there being any doubt in future.

I rise only to say that in Committee we suggested such a Clause, and we were told that we did not know what we were talking about.

I am not sure that this is such a trivial Amendment as has been made out. I can understand the need to avoid the situation in which a slip might lead to the invalidation of a long and expensive trial in which the evidence has been overwhelmingly in favour of the accused, and has led to a conviction, but what will happen if the situation arises in which more than one juror is found to have a conviction? There was a long debate in the other place during which the noble Lord made inquiries into the number of persons who had criminal records and who were summoned to the Central Criminal Court for jury service, and it was found that the proportion was higher than one out of twelve. What will happen if three or four persons of the number required for a majority verdict are persons of bad character, and ought not to have been summoned? Surely such a situation will cast doubt on the validity of the trial? I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend would deal with that.

Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to speak again. I stand corrected. It was probably I who told the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that his Amendment was not necessary. Certainly there was a decision in Kelly's case which suggested that it was not, and at first this view was taken in another place, but later it was felt that it was as well to make the position abundantly clear, and we have therefore bowed to the wisdom of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) does not, in a sense, relate directly to the merits of the Clause, because what we say is that all that is happening under it is that the law is being made clear. My hon. Friend has raised what may be a difficulty, but it is not one which really arises on the basis of the Clause. It is difficult to foresee what the result will be in every case, but I can imagine circumstances in which, if there is a requisite majority, and five of the ten jurors in favour of the verdict were found to be disqualified, it would give rise to certain difficulties.

In other words, the Amendment is either otiose or bad.

It is not bad. It is not otiose if it is desired to make clear what would otherwise in some cases be unclear. This is what the Clause does. It is declaratory in form, not only in criminal proceedings, but in other proceedings. I do not feel that this is an occasion on which I need answer the difficult proposition which has been put to me.

Is my hon. and learned Friend right about this? The Clause says:

"It is hereby declared that the verdict of a jury in criminal proceedings (as in other proceedings) is not void by reason only …".

If there is a majority verdict of 10 to two, and one of the 10 is a person who is disqualified from serving on the jury, does not this mean that although it is only nine to two, the verdict remains?

4.45 p.m.

I am not sure that that is right. I would not have thought that it was necessarily right. All we are saying is that it is not void only by reason of the fact that a member of the jury is disqualified. If there is a unanimous verdict, and one of the 12 members is disqualified, it does not mean that we must have a retrial and start again. This is what the Clause says.

It is extraordinary that the Minister should say that the Clause is designed for clarification, and yet be unable to tell us what the position will be after the so-called clarification. Where one member of a jury is disqualified, the position is clear, and by the terms of the Clause a verdict will not be bad because of that fact. The position does not appear to be clear when more than one member of the jury is disqualified, and we would like to know what the position will be, especially as this is a so-called clarificatory Amendment. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us what the position will be, and what the Government desire it to be, if two members of the jury are disqualified.

I have always understood the position under the Interpretation Act to be that unless the contrary appears, the singular includes the plural, and it seems that if every member of the jury is disqualified the verdict will still be good. Surely that applies whether there is a majority verdict, or a unanimous one?

The Amendment does not make the law any more difficult than it was in the past. There may have been a difficulty in the past, because the position then was that the verdict of a jury was not rendered void simply because a member of the jury was disqualified. This is the position which is being stated.

All that the Clause is saying is that the verdict shall not be void, but there may be reasons for upsetting the verdict because in a number of respects the trial is unsatisfactory. There is nothing here which says that the verdict shall be valid even though some members of the jury—and I take the point made by my hon. Friend—are disqualified. There is nothing which is introduced by way of confusion. It is declaratory, in the way first suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15—(Restrictions On Refusal Of Bail)

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 12, line 32, after second "offence" insert:

"and is punishable on summary conviction with not more than six months' imprisonment".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is to produce consistency between subsections (1) and (2) of the Clause. It seems generally desirable, for the sake of consistency between the two subsections, that no offence punishable by the magistrates with more than six months' imprisonment should come within the terms of a Clause which, in general, restricts the power of magistrates to remand in custody only in cases of offences punishable with more than six months' imprisonment. As subsection (2) stood there might have been cases when it applied to offences in respect of which a sentence of more than six months could have been imposed. That will no longer be so. The two subsections will now be in harmony.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 13, line 11, at end insert:

"or detention in a detention centre."

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The words inserted in another place would enable magistrates to remand in custody a defendant who had on a previous occasion been sentenced to detention in a detention centre. These words were in the original Bill, but after the Second Reading the Government came to the conclusion that it was best to narrow the scope of the provision to restrict it to persons previously sentenced to imprisonment or to borstal training, and so to tighten the restrictions to remands in custody.

Subsection (5,a) makes it possible for a magistrates' court to refuse bail where a defendant has a bad record. This has always been regarded as a proper factor to be considered in refusing bail under common law. The question before the House in deciding whether or not to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment is the question whether a previous sentence to detention in a detention centre should be taken into account in the same way as a sentence of imprisonment or borstal training. Our conclusion is that it should not.

The reason for this conclusion is that a sentence of detention in a detention centre is often passed for a comparatively minor offence which would not merit imprisonment or borstal training. Again, the régime in a detention centre is different from that in a prison or in borstal, in a way that a former detention centre inmate cannot be said to have been conditioned to or contaminated by imprisonment.

One of the primary objects of the Clause is to avoid conditioning people to prison and to avoid blunting the deterrent effect of a custodial sentence. In the case of someone who has already been to prison or to borstal the conditioning may already have occurred, and sending him to prison on remand may not do him further harm. This consideration does not apply in the case of someone who has been sent only to a detention centre. Since detention centres have been in existence for only a few years such persons will be comparatively young, and there is therefore a real risk, if the Amendment is accepted, of increasing the numbers of young persons remanded in custody and who will therefore, in most cases, be sent to prison.

The Government Amendment to delete the reference to detention centres in this part of the Clause met with no objection when it was moved in Committee last February. I invite the House to take the same view now as that which the Committee took and to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment raises a question of some importance. It is another example of the way in which the Government have been unwilling to leave a discretion to the magistrate and are trying to tell magistrates' courts what they should do in every case, without giving magistrates the opportunity of using a discretion which is often necessary in deciding not only questions of sentence but also of remands. Subsection (5,a) restores to the magistrates the discretion which is taken away by the earlier part of the Clause,

Paragraph (a) applies only where there is a charge which is, of itself, of a quite serious nature. One does not come within the field of paragraph (a) unless the offender whose bail is being considered is charged with an offence punishable by a term of not less than six months. We begin with the proposition that at any rate the question will arise only where a man has previously been convicted and is being charged again with an offence which is almost certainly indictable, and is most probably one of the more serious type of offence.

It is an absurdity wholly to remove the discretion from magistrates and to say that when a man is charged with a serious offence which may involve life imprisonment and he has previously been convicted on a number of occasions, on one of which he has been sent to a detention centre, the magistrates are not to have discretion to say that he is a man who ought to await his trial in custody.

Do we understand the right hon. and learned Member to say that this may apply to a person who is facing a very serious charge? This applies only to offences tried summarily by magistrates.

Magistrates can deal with fairly serious charges if the prosecution agrees to have the offence dealt with in the magistrates' court. I remember one case which plainly should have been and was in the end dealt with by the assizes, when the man concerned had committed a very serious offence, although initially the local police had decided to consent to trial before the magistrates. The fact that the offence is being tried before magistrates alone is a sufficient argument.

It also seems odd that a man who has been previously in prison for one or two months will come within the discretion of magistrates on the question what should be done with him, whereas a man who has been in a detention centre for three or six months will not be. It is odder still when one remembers that the question whether a man has been sent to a detention centre or to prison in these days frequently depends on whether a place is available in a detention centre.

It could be that two people in almost exactly the same position, with two previous convictions in respect of which they have been placed on probation, appear one before a magistrates' court which is able to send him to a detention centre while the other comes before a magistrates court where no detention centre is available. The discretion of the magistrates to deal with the men on their fourth appearance before the court is limited in one case and not in the other, although the only difference between the two hinges on the question whether a detention centre had been available on a previous occasion.

The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to point out that the first thoughts of the Government were that this provision should be in, and that if a man had been in a detention centre it should be a qualifying condition to allow the magistrate to consider the position. I think that the Government's first thoughts were the best.

I do not follow the Under Secretary's argument that this will affect only young people who are remanded or placed on bail. The first detention centre has now been open for over 12 years and persons at present over 30 years of age may have been at detention centres in the past. The age at which people will have to have this problem considered will, with the passage of time, increase, so that in 16 years time there will be people of 40 or 45 for whom this will be considered. The argument that this is dealing only with young offenders bears examination, because as time goes on it will be increasingly concerned with people who at one stage in their lives were subject to a detention centre order but in respect of whom a substantial passage of years has lapsed since that event occurred.

5.0 p.m.

This is a matter in which the magistrates ought to be trusted. The Under-Secretary has not suggested that they are wrongly refusing bail. I agree that it is in the general interest that bail should be granted as frequently as possible, and I greatly support that proposal, but the way in which we should achieve it is by publicity, discussion and circulars, and by suggesting to magistrates through the Magistrates' Association that the greatest care ought to be exercised before people are remanded in custody and that bail should be granted on every possible occasion. My impression is that in the last year or two, as a result partly of the discussion of the Bill, there has been a considerable shift towards this end, but that is not to say that in every case the magistrates must grant bail to a person who has quite a number of convictions and who has already been to a detention centre.

The Under-Secretary of State said that people are sent to detention centres often for quite minor offences. That may be true, and it would be a reason why, on a subsequent offence, magistrates would decide not to remand them in custody. But unless he can say that every person sent to a detention centre has committed only a minor offence, then his argument does not hold water. If a substantial number of persons who have committed serious offences have been sent to detention centres, then on a subsequent occasion the question of their record ought to be considered when bail is decided, as with the case of people who have been sent to prison.

It is true that the régime is different from that in prison, but to some extent it turns on the availability of detention centres. Dealing with the point of contamination, the solution is to have more remand centres. I accept that, particularly with young persons, it is highly desirable that while awaiting trial they should not be in prison, but this only emphasises the necessity to have the provision of remand centres particularly for young persons. If the Bill is to stand on the Statute Book for 20 or 25 years or any substantial period, then we can hope that fairly early in that period remand centres would be available to which young people could be sent. That is the solution—not putting this additional shackle on the sensible exercise of discretion by magistrates simply because of the present shortage of remand centres.

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) I am unimpressed by the arguments of the Under-Secretary of State. The effect of Clause 15 is to deprive the justices of a discretion which they have hitherto had to decide the question of bail in every case upon its merits. The purpose of Clause 15(5) is to restore that discretion to the justices in cases in which it appears in the public interest, for one reason or another that they should have it. Surely it is in the public interest that justices should have that discretion in cases in which a person has already served a term of imprisonment or has been sent to borstal or has been to a detention centre.

My right hon. and learned Friend took up the point made by the Under-Secretary that such persons are often sent to detention centres for minor offences. Frequently, however, they are sent to detention centres for quite serious offences.

Very serious offences.

The whole object of the detention centre system is to keep young men out of borstal and out of prison if there is a hope that by teaching them a sharp lesson they may be restored as honest citizens to society. In my experience of quarter sessions and assizes, young men are sometimes sent to detention centres for their first offences when those offences are very serious. Sometimes—and I am not sure that this is not an abuse of the detention centre system—a young man is sent to a detention centre as his first form of custodial treatment after a long series of offences for which he has been dealt with leniently by fines, discharges and under the probation system.

It therefore seems to me that it would be ludicrous to deprive the justices of discretion in the matter of bail. When justices are appointed it is recognised that they are fit to exercise discretion. That is one of the considerations which authorities have in mind when justices are nominated. The purpose of justices is that they should exercise their judicial discretion in the administration of the law and in matters which affect liberty and freedom. I submit that we ought not to disagree with the Lords Amendment but instead should support it and restore discretion to the justices in this respect.

On the same initial briefing as that of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) I have reached a different conclusion. It is correct that Clause 15 restricts the discretion of magistrates to remand in custody and that we are giving back some measure of that discretion by the conditions in Clause 15(5). But in what sense can it truly be said that it is a consideration for remanding a man in custody that he has previously served any kind of custodial sentence?

In my view it would have been better to leave out of the Bill Clause 15(5,a), because it does not stand alone. There are a number of other considerations which magistrates may bring to mind in order to decide whether to remand in custody. If it were suggested that having served a period in a detention centre for a serious offence meant that a man was more likely to commit another offence, that could be dealt with under Clause 15(5,g). If it were suggested that because he had previously had a term in a detention centre he was more likely not to appear at a subsequent hearing, that could be dealt with under one of the other considerations. The discretion of the magistrates is not completely fettered. They still have a wide discretion.

I think it wrong that magistrates should simply ask, "Has this man previously been sent to prison?"—and on the answer to that question decide whether to remand in custody. I therefore support the proposal to disagree with the Lords Amendment although I would have gone further and left out Clause 15(5,a).

I am glad that the Home Secretary is here. I know that he has not been able to hear the whole of the discussion, but I very much hope that when he has heard still more of it he will change his mind about the Government's proposal to disagree with the Lords on this Amendment. We are dealing with a very wide variety of circumstances. It might help if I explained the two extreme types of case which would be covered by the Amendment. First, there is the case of the man who was sentenced as a youth to detention, many years ago when detention first started, and who has thereafter gone straight for ten years. He is brought before the magistrates for an offence which invokes the provisions of the Clause but is not a very serious offence. Clearly, it would not be right for the magistrates to refuse to grant him bail, and it is most unlikely that they would refuse.

At the other extreme, there is the case which, with respect, the Under-Secretary of State has overlooked, the young thug who has committed an offence of violence and who, in the court's view, whether it be a first offence or not, deserves the short sharp shock of sentence in a detention centre. He completes that sentence. Although the success rate of detention centres is generally high, he is one of the failures and, within a few days of his coming out of the detention centre, he commits another offence, perhaps of violence again. Obviously, it is right that he be refused bail.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that, if it is an offence of violence, there is no obligation on the magistrates to grant bail. It is subsection (5,a).

I am much obliged. I should not have added "perhaps or violence", and I withdraw those words. But he has committed another offence. Obviously, his character has not been redeemed by the short sharp shock, and to compel the magistrates to grant him bail in those circumstances would be quite wrong.

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the issue. We are concerned here with the question of bail or remand in custody for a man charged but not yet convicted of an offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the man has done it, but we are not yet at the stage of having tried the issue. We are considering whether a man should be granted bail pending the decision about his guilt or innocence. It is not a punishment because he has again done what he did previously.

If I may say so—I am not trying to be rude—the hon. Gentleman has stated the obvious. Every time bail is refused, one puts in custody a man who may eventually be found to be innocent. This is one of the features of the matter which we have to face when discussing it. Surely, the right thing to do is to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates. They will have to consider a wide range of cases. From their experience, and from their knowledge of the circumstances of the case before them, they will be able to judge pretty well whether it will be fair, just and necessary to keep a person on remand in custody awaiting trial or whether it will be right to grant bail. To fetter their discretion so that they cannot deal even with the worst type of case coming before them, for instance, the person recently released from a detention centre who has done something wrong again, would be most unfortunate.

No harm would be done if the Home Secretary left the matter open. On the other hand, there will be the occasional case in which harm will be done if he fetters the magistrates' discretion. This is why, even at this late stage, I urge him to think about the matter again.

5.15 p.m.

In my view, the Government are right in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment. Everyone agrees that it is proper to grant bail where a prisoner will turn up to stand his trial or where there is no likelihood or little likelihood of his committing another offence during his period of bail. Everyone will agree, also, that there has been considerable criticism of the way in which magistrates have hitherto exercised their discretion with regard to bail. Often, they have taken the word of the police without any proper examination of what the police have said and refused to grant bail. In my view, therefore, the discretion of the magistrates ought to be limited as much as possible on the question of granting bail.

Hon. and learned Members opposite have discussed the matter as though there were a duty to grant bail in all cases. But it is only in the three restricted sets of circumstances covered by subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Clause that there is the duty to grant bail. There are then the limitations laid down in subsection (5). I was myself about to intervene when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State rose to direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to the provisions of subsection (5,a). Substantial limitations are provided under subsection (5), so that the magistrates in those cases have a perfect right not to grant bail.

What the Bill does—I myself think that it goes too far—is to provide for considerable discretion in the hands of magistrates regarding the granting of bail and considerable limitation upon the duty to grant bail. I hope that the Clause will be in no way extended, and I urge rejection of the Lords Amendment.

I enter the debate with some diffidence, being the only Member without legal qualifications to do so so far. I strongly support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). Anyone who has visited our prisons recently will have no illusions about the problem facing the Home Secretary in trying to reduce the number of people in custody for one reason or another. Naturally, any measures to that end have our support, but I find the division between the sentence of detention and, in particular, the sentence of borstal training quite illogical. In some ways, I agree with the logic of the case put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). If one is to exclude any class of people from the discretion of the magistrates, the exclusion should be applied to all young people and not to those who have had only a sentence of detention. However, I am certain that, in drawing the line at the point between the detention centre and borstal training is absolutely wrong in relation to the whole principle of the treatment of juvenile offenders.

As I understand it, in deciding on a sentence of borstal training or detention, the courts take into account not only the seriousness of the offence but the offender's background. Very often, there is little difference between the type of offence which commits a person to a longer period of borstal training, which may be in an open borstal, and the one which commits him to the somewhat more rigorous custody of a detention centre.

In parenthesis, I must say that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his references to the short sharp shock of sentence in a detention centre. Everyone knows that in the modern detention centre those conditions no longer exist in the same form as they did originally. Whether a young person goes to a detention centre or borstal should not necessarily be determined wholly by the seriousness of the offence but by the various considerations relating to his background and so on. The sentence should be that which will do him the greatest good. In drawing the distinctive line, I think for the first time, between the borstal sentence and the detention sentence, the Government are doing a great deal of harm to the whole concept of the treatment of the juvenile offender. Therefore, I urge the Home Secretary, who I know thinks very carefully about these matters, to consider carefully the representations from this side of the House.

I am afraid that my faith in the discretion of magistrates was somewhat shaken recently. Not very long ago I was present at the committal proceedings of a boy of 17 with no previous convictions of any kind who was charged jointly with several slightly older persons of offences which, whilst they were certainly not trivial, were by no means of the most serious kind. At the end of the committal proceedings, application was made for bail for the youngster, and the comment of the chairman of the bench deserves to be repeated. We must remember that these were committal proceedings and nothing to do with the court's ultimate decision about his guilt or innocence. The chairman's comment was: "If these young people get into trouble they should not be allowed bail".

The young man was eventually convicted and sentenced to a short period of detention. In the meantime, the case went to a judge in chambers, who promptly reversed the magistrate's decision on bail. I said "promptly", but because of the difficulty of the vacation and one or two administrative matters the youth spent several weeks in custody before being released for trial, which did not take place for some time.

In the face of that sort of situation, I consider that anything done to limit magistrates' discretion in this respect is to be welcomed. I think that the hon., Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) is right to attack the logic of this. I concede that there may not be very complete logic in a distinction between offences for which the potential sentence is detention on the one hand and prison or borstal on the other, at least as the law is administered at present. But, surely, the whole object of our penal system is to draw more and more of a distinction between the two, to use detention sentences for remedial treatment of young persons who are certainly not far advanced in crime? The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who said that he thought that it was an abuse of the detention procedure to send persons to detention for serious offences, is quite right.

The point that I was making was not that sending people to detention centres for serious offences was an abuse, but that frequently, instead of being used for novices in crime as they should be, they are used for people for whom numerous other methods of treatment have been tried. Such people often have long criminal experience when they find their way to detention centres which are not therefore the proper method of treatment in such cases.

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but surely the answer is more careful counselling of courts and the standardising of sentencing policy to avoid that sort of anomaly? If that were done, I think that the only objections raised by hon. Members opposite would be met. I can understand their feelings, but I do not think that there is much of a gap between the two sides on the matter. I think that, on the whole, this is a move in the right direction, and that the Government are right to resist the Lords Amendment.

There are so many right hon. and learned Gentlemen about that I feel slightly apprehensive, as a mere magistrate, about daring to interfere when they are pontificating about what they think magistrates should do, or what they think magistrates do. But I want to put in a word for the magistrates.

I have noticed with great regret over the past year or two that the Home Office seems to spend a great deal of time criticising courts of summary jurisdiction. If there were time and it were in order, which it is not, I should like to say what the magistrates think about the Home Office and some of its practices. I am very much in favour of accepting the Lords Amendment. I am perfectly prepared to think occasionally that the Home Secretary, his hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Lady, who is not learned—although she draws strength from the Department she serves, which perhaps entitles her to be called "learned"—sometimes do their best to help. But I do not think that it is in the interests of justice to keep on talking as if magistrates did not give a great deal of care and consideration to the cases that come before them. In fact, they do.

An hon. Member made adverse comment about magistrates and their taking information from the police for granted. That is quite untrue, but I have great respect for the police officers who must deal with the people who come before the magistrate. It is a great pity that there are not more magistrates in the House who can knock a bit of common sense into the Front Bench opposite and a lot of other hon. Members who want to pontificate about what we should do and do not do.

One of my right hon. and learned Friends talked about remand centres. If the Government would get busy with letting us have a few more, that would help magistrates to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.

I resent the Home Office always wanting to chip away the powers of the courts of summary jurisdiction. It should be jolly grateful for the work done by those courts. I should like to know how many people in the Home Office—not only those on the Front Bench opposite—have experience of taking part in magistrates' courts. Of course, there are all sorts of mistakes. I have just put down a Question about a mistake by the Home Office in telling me that a man in prison had not made certain representations, and then writing to me and apologising for having given me the wrong information. I take exception to that, because I do not think that it is right.

Order. It does not appear to me that the hon. Lady's observations are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

They are not relevant, but I had a jolly good chance of saying that. If the Front Bench will attack courts of summary jurisdiction as they and other hon. Members have, I shall take the opportunity, whether it is in order or out of order—

The hon. Lady cannot pursue this.

She is not going to pursue it now, but she was just going to have her say.

The hon. Lady must observe the ruling of the Chair. What she is saying is out of order.

All right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said your bit and I have said mine. All that I can say is that people in the North of England will take note of what I have said and will be very glad that I have stood up for our magistrates' courts, the police, and the advice they genuinely and generously try to offer to the benches, which have a very responsible job to perform. I should like to know—I am sorry that I was not in at the beginning of the debate—how much attention the Home Secretary pays to the Magistrates' Association. I do not think he pays very much attention because he always seems to be in conflict with it.

I have had my say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am looking forward to the next Amendment when I may be able to say a few more things. However, before people come to the House of Commons and talk about how this, that or the other ought to be done by courts of summary jurisdiction, they ought to know a little more about their job than they do, and from what I know about them, I think they know very little.

5.30 p.m.

I make no apology for intervening in the debate. Some good sense has been talked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) about the Lords Amendment, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who always speaks common sense. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth had to say about courts of summary jurisdiction needed saying. There is a perpetual sneer, particularly from the other side of the House, at courts of summary jurisdiction and magistrates. I need not declare an interest because I am not a magistrate. Perhaps that is a great encouragement and source of strength to evil-doers in the district in which I live. However, I am not speaking in this matter with a vested interest.

All through there is a feeling that magistrates must not be given any discretion. But they are given discretion to decide whether a person is guilty and announce the sentence, even to send people to prison, and if they are considered to have that wisdom they ought to be allowed the same discretion in deciding whether a person should be remanded in custody or remanded on bail. I do not think that what was said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) about what a magistrate said in a certain case is overwhelming. I am not saying that there

Division No. 487.]	AYES	[5.34 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Carmichael, Neil	Ellis, John
Alldritt, Walter	Carter-Jones, Lewis	English, Michael
Anderson, Donald	Coe, Denis	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Concannon, J. D.	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Conlan, Bernard	Faulds, Andrew
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Finch, Harold
Barnett, Joel	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Baxter, William	Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Foley, Maurice
Beaney, Alan	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Ford, Ben
Bessell, Peter	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Forrester, John
Bishop, E. S.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Freeson, Reginald
Blackburn, F.	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Galpern, Sir Myer
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Garrett, W. E.
Boardman, H.	Dempsey, James	Ginsburg, David
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert	Dewar, Donald	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Boyden, James	Doig, Peter	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Driberg, Tom	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bradley, Tom	Dunn, James A.	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Brooks, Edwin	Dunnett, Jack	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Buchan, Norman	Eadie, Alex	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Harper, Joseph
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

are not bad magistrates, or, to put it another way, that there are not magistrates who may make very unfortunate remarks. Judges have also been in the Press for saying similar things.

Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. We are discussing a very limited Amendment from Another place.

I was only replying to what an hon. Member opposite had said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Apparently when he said it he was in order and so I thought that I was entitled to reply to it.

The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) who made the remark was marginally out of order, and so it would be wrong for the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to pursue it.

I do not want to pursue it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have made my point, which is that all wisdom does not reside in or outside magistrates' courts. If one is to get people to volunteer to do these jobs, one has to treat them with respect and realise that they require to be given some discretion. They know far more about an individual case than we can possibly do in this House. Therefore, I hope that we shall support the Lords in the Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 145.

Haseldine, Norman	Maclennan, Robert	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Hazell, Bert	McNamara, J. Kevin	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Hooson, Emlyn	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Horner, John	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Rose, Paul
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Manuel, Archie	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Mapp, Charles	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Marquand, David	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Howie, W.	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Shaw Arnold (llford, S.)
Hoy, James	Mason, Roy	Sheldon, Robert
Huckfield, L.	Maxwell, Robert	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Mayhew, Christopher	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Millan, Bruce	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Hunter, Adam	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Slater, Joseph
Hynd, John	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Small, William
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Molloy, William	Snow, Julian
Janner, Sir Barnett	Moonman, Eric	Spriggs, Leslie
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huit, W.)	Moyle, Roland	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
	Neal, Harold	Symonds, J. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Newens, Stan	Taverne, Dick
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Thornton, Ernest
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Norwood, Christopher	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Lawson, George	Oakes, Gordon	Tinn, James
Leadbitter, Ted	Ogden, Eric	Tomney, Frank
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederlck (Newton)	O'Malley, Brian	Tuck, Raphael
Lee, John (Reading)	Oram, Albert E.	Urwin, T. W.
Lestor, Miss Joan	Orbach, Maurice	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Oswald, Thomas	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Wallace, George
Lomas, Kenneth	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Loughlin, Charles	Palmer, Arthur	Weitzman, David
Lubbock, Eric	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	wellbeloved, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Pardoe, John	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Park, Trevor	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Winterbottom, R. E.
McBride, Neil	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
MacColl, James	Portland, Norman	Woof, Robert
Macdonald, A. H.	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
McGuire, Michael	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)	Probert, Arthur	Mr. Alan Fitch and
Mackie, John	Rees, Merlyn	Mr. Harold Walker.
Mackintosh, John P.	Rhodes, Geoffrey

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Doughty, Charles	Jopting, Michael
Awdry, Daniel	Drayson, G. B.	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Baker, W. H. K.	Eden, Sir John	Kimball, Marcus
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Kirk, Peter
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Emery, Peter	Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Biffen, John	Errington, Sir Eric	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Eyre, Reginald	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Black, Sir Cyril	Farr, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Body, Richard	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fortescue, Tim	Loveys, W. H.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Foster, Sir John	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Gibson-Watt, David	MacArthur, Ian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Glover, Sir Douglas	McMaster, Stanley
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)	Coodhew, Victor	Maginnis, John E.
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Grant, Anthony	Marten, Nell
Bullus, Sir Erie	Grieve, Percy	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Carlisle, Mark	Curden, Harold	Mawby, Ray
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Channon, H. P. G.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Clegg, Walter	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Miscampbell, Norman
Cooke, Robert	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Monro, Hector
Cordle, John	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Montgomery, Fergus
Corfield, F. V.	Heald, Rt. Hn. sir Lionel	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Costain, A. P.	Hill, J. E. B.	Murton, Oscar
Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Crouch, David	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Neave, Airey
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Holland, Philip	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Currie, G. B. H.	Hordern, Peter	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dalkeith, Earl of	Hornby, Richard	Osbom, John (Hallam)
Dance, James	Hunt, John	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Smith, John	Weatherill, Bernard
Pike, Miss Mervyn	Stodart, Anthony	Webster, David
Pounder, Rafton	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Summers, Sir Spencer	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater
Pym, Francis	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir peter	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Worsley, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Temple, John M.	Wright, Esmond
Ridedale, Julian	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.	Wylle, N. R.
Robson Brown, Sir William	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Russell, Sir Ronald	Walker, Peter (Worcester)	Mr. Anthony Royle and
Sharples, Richard	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek	Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Ward, Dame Irene

New Clause "D"—(Restriction On Justices Sitting After Dealing With Bail)

Lords Amendment: No. 13 in page 14, line 9, at end insert new Clause "D"

"D.—(1) A justice of the peace shall not take part in trying the issue of a defendant's guilt on the summary trial of an information if in the course of the same proceedings the justice has been informed, for the purpose of determining the question of the defendant's admission to bail, that he has one or more previous convictions.

(2) For the purposes of this section, any committal proceedings from which the proceedings on the summary trial arose shall be treated as part of the trial."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose is to remove the possibility of prejudice being caused to a defendant by the disclosure of his previous convictions when magistrates are determining whether, under Clause 15(5), they have discretion to refuse bail. It arises out of a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) in Committee. Once again, this is a case where, somewhat late in the day, the wisdom of remarks made by hon. and learned Members opposite has been accepted.

To a large extent, magistrates' courts now try to arrange their business in the way in which it will have to be done under this new Clause, but it gives statutory force to the principle that the tribunal deciding the issue of a defendant's guilt should not know of his previous convictions. We understand from clerks to the justices in various areas that this procedure can be made to work.

Some years ago, in proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act, I expressed the view that a judge trying a criminal case with a jury should not be made aware of any previous convictions of the defendant because this might tend to bias him in his view. I understand that the procedure now is that the judge has this information before the trial. The Amendment which I moved was unfortunately defeated.

I am, therefore, glad that this Amendment to some extent recognises the position with regard to bail because it is important that justices, whether in summary or committal proceedings, should have no knowledge of any previous convictions, that they should be free from any possibility of bias. This Amendment will clearly help to achieve that. I am sorry that it does not go further and exclude any such knowledge on the part of a trial judge before the verdict.

I only desire to say to the Under-Secretary of State, "Thank you very much."

How in practice is this to be worked in the case of a stipendiary magistrate, who has to deal with the question of committal and bail at the same hearing? He cannot send the accused to another magistrate without a good deal of delay. I understand that it will be possible for a bench of magistrates to say that a case will be remanded to brother magistrates to consider the matter of bail but how can it be dealt with where there is only one stipendiary magistrate sitting in the court?

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "E"—(Power Of Magis- Trates' Court To Commit On Bail For Sentence)

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 14, line 9, at end insert new Clause "E":

"E. Where a magistrates' court has power to commit an offender to a court of quarter sessions under section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 (incorrigible rogues) or section 28 or 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (committal for sentence), the court may instead of committing him in custody commit him on bail."

5.45 p.m.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps at the same time we can discuss Lords Amendments No. 89, No. 217, No. 220, and No. 230.

If the House agrees.

The substantive Amendment is the new Clause, the other Amendments being consequential. At the moment, where magistrates commit an offender to quarter sessions for sentence under the provisions of Section 28 or Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, or Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, they have no discretion as to bail and must commit him in custody.

We do not think that there is sufficient reason to make a remand in custody mandatory in these cases. In the first place, if an offender committed for sentence under these provisions appeals against his conviction by the magistrates, bail can be granted by the High Court. It does not seem right that bail should depend upon the somewhat fortuitous existence of an appeal against conviction. Indeed, the anomaly may have the effect of encouraging frivolous appeals for this purpose. Just under one quarter of the offenders so committed in 1965 did not receive custodial sentences at all. There seems, therefore, good reason for granting this discretion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16—(Special Conditions Of Bail)

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 14, line 10, leave out "bail is granted to any person" and insert:

"any person is admitted to bail"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It would be convenient also to discuss Amendments No. 16, No. 18, No. 19 and No. 20.

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and may I suggest that we also consider Amendments No. 17 and No. 242?

If the House agrees, so be it.

The object of the new Clause is to extend the range of circumstances in which the High Court may admit a person to bail or vary the conditions upon which bail has been allowed by a lower court. The Law Commission has told us that it considers that there are a number of inadequacies as regards the grant of bail by a judge in chambers when bail has been refused.

These are, first, that there is no power in the High Court to admit to bail where the magistrates' court has remanded an accused in custody after conviction, for reports before sentence, although the magistrates have power to admit to bail under Sections 14 and 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.

Secondly, there is no power in the High Court to admit to bail where a court of quarter sessions has remanded an accused for reports after conviction.

Thirdly, there is no power in the High Court to interfere where the court below has offered bail in such terms, as to sureties or other conditions, that the defendant cannot comply with such terms.

It would seem right that the High Court should have power to grant bail in all these cases and that the power should be stated in terms which do not admit of doubt. The New Clause provides that, without prejudice to any existing power of the High Court, it may allow bail in any case in which the lower court could have allowed it, and vary any conditions on which bail was offered by the lower court.

The Amendment to Schedule 6 is the consequential repeal and there are five drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18—(Process For Minor Offences)

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 15, line 18, after "15" insert "(2)".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenience if with this we take Lords Amendments Nos. 22 and 246.

If the House agrees, so be it.

The substantive Amendment is the second, the first and third being purely consequential.

This is a fairly difficult provision and I might have to explain it at slightly greater length.

After the passing of the Bill a magistrates' court will be able to issue a warrant for a defendant's arrest if the offence is punishable with imprisonment or if the court proposes to disqualify him. It will be able to do this even though he may not have acknowledged receipt of the summons, since the Magistrates' Courts Rules will be amended to dispense with strict proof of service. Similarly, without proof of service, the court will be able to proceed in the absence of the accused. If, however, the court chooses to do neither, but instead adjourns the hearing, perhaps to give the defendant the opportunity to be present, it would not subsequently, under the Clause as originally drafted, have been able to proceed in his absence or to issue a warrant for his arrest unless it is satisfied—by strict proof of service—that the notice of adjournment came to his knowledge.

Under Clause 20 of the Bill

"Restrictions on passing sentence in the absence of the defendant"

the court is under a duty to adjourn if the defendant fails to appear. His presence is necessary for a sentence of imprisonment to be passed, and he must be appraised of the court's intention to disqualify him. In effect, therefore, if the court adjourned, either because it must do so, or if it merely wishes to give the defendant a second chance to appear before issuing a warrant, it would, under the Clause as originally drafted, lose the procedural advantage that will accrue from Clause 18 and the subsequent Amendment of the Magistrates' Courts Rules.

The Government consider that there is no reason why, on the non-appearance of the defendant at an adjourned hearing, a warrant should not be issued without strict proof that the defendant received the notice of adjournment. Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment a warrant could have been issued in the first instance, instead of a summons, and on the first occasion of non- appearance a warrant could similarly have gone out. If the court does not have the power to issue a warrant on the second non-appearance without strict proof that the defendant received the notice of adjournment, there may well be a tendency to issue one on the first occasion instead of following the perhaps more enlightened course of adjourning.

Section 15 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 is therefore amended to dispense with the need for the court to be satisfied that a defendant received the notice of adjournment before issuing a warrant under that Section for his arrest.

There are some important provisos. The court is not enabled to proceed with an adjourned hearing in the absence of the defendant unless it is satisfied that he received the notice. Where, under Clause 20 of the Bill, the court necessarily adjourns in order to give the defendant an opportunity to be present at a hearing where it is proposed to disqualify him, it would obviously be wrong for it to proceed in his absence without being satisfied that he received the notice. In other cases, where the question of disqualification has not arisen, the fact that the court has adjourned will usually indicate that it would prefer him to be present, and it would be incongruous then to proceed regardless of whether he had received the notice of adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed.

New Clause "G"—(Period Of Adjourn- Ment Under Sections 14 And 26 Of The Magistrates' Courts Act 1952)

Lords Amendment: No. 23, in page 17, line 23, at the end to insert new Clause "G"—

"G. The maximum period for which a magistrates' court may adjourn a case at any one time—
(a) under section 14(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (adjournment after conviction and before sentence) for the purpose of enabling inquiries to be made or of determining the most suitable method of dealing with the defendant; or
(b) under section 26(1) of that Act for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made on the defendant;
shall be a period of four weeks instead of three weeks except where the court remands the defendant in custody."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It has frequently been represented to the Government, by such bodies as the Justices' Clerks Society and the Magistrates' Association, that the three weeks' restriction is most inconvenient in that the majority of magistrates sit at fortnightly or four-weekly intervals. An Amendment to the effect which is now before the House and which was moved in the House of Lords was also moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). On that occasion we said that his Amendment was not acceptable. However, time and further reflection has convinced us of the merits of one of the propositions advanced.

The New Clause, therefore, provides that, where the defendant has been remanded on bail, the maximum of the adjournment under Sections 14 and 26 of the 1952 Act may be four weeks instead of three. We feel that there will be a sense of urgency, which is still required, and this will not apply to those cases where a person has not been remanded on bail where we feel that the same sense of urgency should prevail. Otherwise we have gone some way to meeting the point originally made by the hon. Member for Runcorn. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.

I welcome this new Clause and thank the Under Secretary of State for the courteous way in which he moved the Motion. When I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, his rejection was somewhat scathing. But in the House of Lords, when the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor moved it, he almost reversed the Under-Secretary with regard to the Amendment I had put forward.

I am sure that this will help magistrates. It will save many an unnecessary additional week's adjournment merely to get back to the same constituted court to try a case a second time, and it will be of added advantage for the procedure in the magistrates' courts.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "H"—(Extension Of Costs In Criminal Cases Act 1952)

Lords Amendment: No. 24, in page 17, line 23, at the end to insert new Clause "H"—

"H.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 shall apply to proceedings for dealing with an offender under section 6, 8 or 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (probation orders and orders for conditional discharge), and to proceedings under section 31(1) of this Act for dealing with an offender in respect of a suspended sentence, as if the offender had been tried in those proceedings for the offence for which the order was made or the sentence passed.

(2) The provisions of the said Act of 1952 other than section 6 (costs as between parties) shall apply with all necessary modifications to proceedings in which it is alleged that an offender required on conviction of an indictable offence to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour has failed to comply with a condition of that recognizance, as if that failure were an indictable offence committed in the same place as the offence of which he was convicted.

(3) Where any proceedings mentioned in either of the foregoing subsections take place before a court of assize or quarter sessions and the fund out of which the costs of those proceedings fall to be paid by virtue of that subsection is maintained by a local authority other than the authority for the local government area in which that court is held, those costs shall—

(a) be paid in the first instance by the local authority for that area; and

(b) be recoverable, together with such sum (if any) in respect of the expenses of holding that court as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18(3) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1962 (contributions to certain costs), from the local authority maintaining that fund.

(4) Where proceedings under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 for dealing with an offender subject to a probation order or an order for conditional discharge, or under section 31(1) of this Act for dealing with an offender in respect of a suspended sentence take place before the court of assize or quarter sessions before which the offender is convicted of an indictable offence committed during the operational period of the sentence, or by which he is sentenced for any such offence after being committed for sentence to that court, the costs of those proceedings shall be treated for the purposes of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 as part of the costs of the proceedings in which he was convicted or sentenced.

(5) Where any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) of this section take place before a magistrates' court and relate to an order made or a sentence passed for an offence committed outside the local government area for which or for part of which that court acts, the offence shall be treated for the purposes of section 7(1) of the said Act of 1952 (local funds out of which costs are to be paid) as having been committed in that area.

(6) In this section 'local authority' means the council of a county or county borough or the Greater London Council, 'local government area' means a county, county borough or Greater London and 'operational period' has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act".

Read a Second time.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Although at a later stage I will be asking the House to consider a slight Amendment to the new Clause, the purpose of the new Clause is to extend the application of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952, to certain criminal proceedings which are at present outside the scope of the Act in order that a court may have power to make an Order for the payment of prosecution or defence costs, including witnesses' expenses, arising in those proceedings.

I think it would be convenient if the hon. Member first moved his Amendment.

I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 32, to leave out from "proceedings" to "under" in line 34 and insert:

"for dealing with an offender under section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (commission of further offences by probationers and persons conditionally discharged) or proceedings".

This and the next Amendment are purely drafing Amendments and do not alter the substance in any way.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment, put and negatived.

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

I beg to move, in line 38, after "during", to insert

"the period of probation or conditional discharge or".

Question, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment, put and agreed to.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Clause 24—(Amendments Of Costs In Criminal Cases Act 1952)

Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 17, line 38, at end insert:

"() Sections 1 and 5 of the said Act of 1952 (costs awarded by assizes, quarter sessions or magistrates' courts out of local funds), section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 (payment of expenses of witnesses in connection with criminal appeals out of local funds) and paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1966 (payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of witnesses in connection with appeals to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court) shall apply in relation to a registered medical practitioner making a written report to a court in pursuance of a request to which this subsection applies as they apply in relation to a person called to give evidence at the instance of the court, and in the case of a report made in pursuance of such a request made by a magistrates' court shall so apply notwithstanding that the proceedings for the purposes of which the report is made are not proceedings to which the said section 5 applies.

() The last foregoing subsection applies to a request to a registered medical practitioner to make a written or oral report on the medical condition of an offender or defendant, being a request made by a court—
(a) for the purpose of determining whether or not to make an order under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (probation orders requiring treatment for mental condition) or section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (hospital orders and guardianship orders) or otherwise for the purpose of determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender; or
(b) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 26 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (remand of a defendant for medical examination and requirement of such an examination on committing a defendant for trial on bail).

() Sections 1 and 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 shall apply to a person properly attending at the instance of the court to give evidence as they apply to a person called to give evidence at the instance of the court."

6.0 p.m.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The main purpose of the Clause is to enable the courts to order the payment out of local funds of a fee to a medical practitioner who furnishes a written medical report on a defendant at the request of the court.

Question put and agreed to. [ Special entry.]

New Clause "I"—(Examining Justices)

Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 18, line 23, at end insert new Clause "I":

"I. It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that a magistrates' court before which a person is charged with an indictable offence begins to act as examining justices as soon as he appears or is brought before the court, except where before that time the court has determined under section 18 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 to try him summarily."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that where a man is arrested for an indictable offence and brought before a magistrates' court which remands him without hearing evidence about the offence, the proceedings are proceedings before examining justices. Some doubt was expressed about this at one stage and it has been felt desirable that the position should be made clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28—(Punishment Of Persistent Offenders)

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 19, line 34, leave out from "more" to end of line 37.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may also be convenient if we take Lords Amendment No. 28.

If the House agrees, so be it.

These Amendments would add to the qualifying conditions which must be satisfied before a court can pass an extended sentence on an offender and they will have the effect that fewer offenders will be subject to extended sentences.

Both in Committee and on Report I moved an Amendment to provide that one of the matters which a court had to take into account was the gravity or seriousness of the offence with which the person was then before the court when making the order for an extended sentence. On both occasions the right hon. Lady undertook to look at the matter again and on Report she went so far as to say that if suitable wording could be found, it would be incorporated in the House of Lords. Following upon the Amendment in the House of Lords, she was good enough to write to me and to say that in view of her undertaking, she was drawing my attention to these Amendments.

However, she will be the first to agree that these Amendments do not in any way meet the point which I was making. I welcome them to the extent that they go, but I still regret that there is nothing in the Clause which requires the court to consider the actual offence on which a person appears before it when sentenced, and it still does not get out of the difficulty, which the right hon. Lady agreed should be faced, which is that under these provisions a person can be sent for long-term imprisonment on a minor offence at the time when he comes before the court. I still regret that, despite the efforts of the Home Office, the Government have not found what I believe to be a simple way to meet that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29—(Supplementary Provisions As To Persistent Offenders)

Lords Amendment: No. 29, in page 20, line 37, leave out subsection (6).

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may also be convenient with this to discuss Lords Amendment No. 30.

If the House agrees, so be it.

These are paving Amendments for Lords Amendment No. 168 which adds a Schedule to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30—(Suspended Sentences Of Imprisonment)

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 21, line 18, leave out "subject to the next following subsection".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenient if with this we take Lords Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42 to 49. They are all drafting Amendments.

If the House agrees, so be it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 21, line 34, at end insert:

"() On passing a suspended sentence the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language his liability under the next following section if during the operational period he commits an offence punishable with imprisonment.

() Where a court has passed a suspended sentence on any person, and that person is subsequently sentenced td borstal training he shall cease to be liable to be dealt with in respect of the suspended sentence unless the subsequent sentence or any conviction or finding on which it was passed is quashed on appeal."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment requires a court on passing a suspended sentence to explain its effect to the offender. There are similar provisions requiring the courts to explain probation orders and orders for conditional discharge, and it would be an improvement if there were also a requirement for the court to explain the effect of a suspended sentence.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 21, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 22.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment deals with a subject on which there is a certain difference of opinion which cuts fairly clearly across both sides of the House. I think that it would be agreed by all concerned that the subject was fairly fully discussed both in Committee and on Report. It is the question of whether suspended sentences in certain carefully circumscribed conditions should be made mandatory.

The idea of suspended sentences commands almost universal support in the House, although the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) expressed a little reservation about them in Committee. There was general agreement that they should be almost universally used when dealing with first offenders, although there was some division as to exactly how that should be expressed, and this is the nub of the matter with which we are now dealing.

It is the Government's view—and to some extent this repeats our discussion on Lords Amendment No. 12—that in certain circumstances only it is reasonable to remove the discretion of the court and to say that the court should suspend the sentence. As I assured the House in Committee, it is not desired to keep people out of prison merely for reasons of administrative convenience. Of course we do not want cluttering up the prisons people who need not be there, but what I attach much greater importance to than any question of administrative convenience is my strong conviction, the strong conviction of the Government, that people should not be sent to prison unnecessarily for short sentences for the first time, because of the bad effect which that has upon them and because it makes it much easier for them to go to prison subsequently. I believe that we will achieve our objective in this direction only if we make the provision mandatory.

Neither side of the House is likely to convince the other, as we have debated this matter now for a substantial time. One view was taken in Committee and the House took the same view on Report, while the Lords, by a not very substantial majority, took a different view. The House will agree that in general the Government have not been reluctant to accept Amendments from the Lords. We have almost a record number of Lords Amendments on the Notice Paper which we are accepting, and some of them were inserted in the Lords rather against our view. However, we were anxious to consider whether we could meet the wishes and views of their Lordships and in several cases we have done so even when our view originally was different. That has not held in this case.

I am sure that the House is grateful, as I am, to the Home Secretary both for defining the area of disagreement and doing so so shortly and briskly, because we have a lot of work to do this evening.

He is quite right to say that on this Amendment the question of suspended sentences is not in issue. The only issue is whether they are to be an additional voluntary weapon in the hands of the magistrates' or other courts to be used as and when they please, or a weapon which they have to use on a number of occasions. This is the sole issue. It raises once again, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the question how far this House and Pariament will dictate to the courts circumstances in which particular sentences have got to be passed, and how far, on the other hand, as I think most of my hon. Friends think, the matter should be left to the discretion of the magistrates.

The Home Secretary said that a number of magistrates have passed unnecessarily short sentences of imprisonment in the past. The figure which, I think, is usually given is some 5,900. I do not suppose that anybody contends that every one of those sentences or anything like every one of them was wrongly passed. Indeed, I would think that he would be a bold man who would suggest that in the majority of those cases the magistrates had erred in passing sentence of imprisonment. Yet we are now, from this House, going to tell them compulsorily that they, who have seen the persons and heard the circumstances of the cases and considered the whole matter are not to do what they think is right but what we tell them as a general rule of thumb. That really does not seem right to me.

It is estimated that about three-quarters of those cases, which I suppose must be about 4,300 of them, will involve cases where the accused person is liable to a sentence of more than six months, and, therefore, many magistrates, I have not the slightest doubt, will follow the device of simply committing to quarter sessions in order that quarter sessions can pass sentence of six months and one day when the magistrates could have dealt with the case by themselves passing a sentence of six months. That, I think, is highly undesirable. I think that the Lord Chief Justice and the majority of people who have considered this are of the opinion that it is likely to lead to a vast increase of committals by magistrates to quarter sessions simply in order that a sentence of more than six months should be passed when a sentence of less than six months or of six months could very well meet the justice of the case.

Of almost equal importance are the some 1,500-odd cases where the accused is charged with an offence which does not carry a sentence greater than six months. These on many occasions are really very important. There are some really serious offences which carry the maximum sentence of six months—for instance, being in possession of a firearm without a certificate, and, I think, under the Bill, a shotgun. That for a man who has never had a detention sentence before but had several convictions can be a really serious offence. Fraudulently altering or tampering with ballot papers under the election law carries a maximum of six months. If a political party wants to embark on gerrymandering with the ballot boxes it has only to employ some man of straw who cannot go to prison and against whom a fine cannot be enforced if he has got no money, and the penalty will be nil. As has been said, there will be some offences of this nature where a man will know that if he has never had a custodial sentence before he simply cannot go to prison, and may be willing to pay a fine, which is inadequate in the circumstances, or he may be a man of straw to whom a fine means nothing because he knows he cannot pay.

Another offence is abusive behaviour with intent to promote racial hatred. That is dealt with in magistrates' courts, and this can be a very unpleasant offence, using threatening and abusive language, threatening a breach of the peace under the Public Order Act. Hon. Members will remember the charge of the Mosley days when there were clashes between Communists and Fascists in the East End of London. Very important charges may well result from conduct of that sort, if a man knows perfectly well that because he has never ever been inside a prison or a borstal before he can commit that offence without the slightest risk of being sent to prison. It is offences of this nature which people with criminal records do not usually commit but which can have serious public consequences and which have only the maximum of six months and it will in future mean that magistrates either have to fine the man or put him on suspended sentence.

6.15 p.m.

Also the Bill will lead to some rather odd results. For instance, two brothers, perhaps, go out; the 19-year-old will be able to be sent to a detention centre and his elder brother of 21 who has never previously had any custodial sentence will have his sentence automatically suspended and cannot be given any form of custodial treatment.

Another consequence may very well be that magistrates may be tempted in future to say, "We will not put the man on probation but give him a suspended sentence so that we can be jolly certain that the next time he comes before us we can deal with him in the way we think appropriate."

Because what this provision is really doing is to give these potential criminals one extra chance. They are going to have the chance to commit one crime without risk of imprisonment before they can actually be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and this can have quite a serious effect. It may mean that if a man who has been put on probation twice, and been to a detention centre once, comes before the court for the fourth time on a quite serious charge he will have to have his sentence suspended if the maximum is not more than six months. As I say, I fear that one consequence will be that the magistrates will begin sending people to quarter sessions when they could deal with them themselves.

The Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chief Justice both oppose this Clause and would like to see the suspended sentence as a discretionary additional weapon in the hands of magistrates, and not a compulsory form of sentence which they have to use even if they think it is wrong.

I very much regret that the Home Secretary has decided not to accept this Amendment made to the Bill in the Lords. As he has said, he has accepted many other Amendments made in the Lords, and I regret he has not accepted this one as well.

I believe that as a result of the return to the mandatory provisions of this Clause certain results will accrue. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has said, it will, I believe, inevitably lead to a far larger number of committals for sentence. It will also, I believe, lead to people, in cases where the court believes that six months is the right sentence, now getting a sentence of nine months. Thirdly, and in some ways most important of all, I believe it will mean that in future local courts will never be able to take into account particular crime waves in their areas where they believe there is need to deal with them with a short period of firmness.

It has been put to me by a stipendiary magistrate that the Bill assumes that there are circumstances in which a person may be sent to prison for a short period for the first time, and yet accepting that it does, it then presumes that we in Parliament should lay down what those circumstances are. This, I believe, is wrong.

I believe that the local bench and local stipendiaries may well be faced from time to time with a local situation—one may, for example, take an outbreak of vandalism in kiosks, which I believe, happened a good deal in Birmingham last year.

The bench took the view that to deal with the local situation required the passing of short, deterrent sentences. It could not do this under this Bill, because it does not come within the exception that we in Parliament have laid down. I do not believe that we should fetter the powers of the courts to use their discretion to impose short sentences or imprisonment when they believe it to be essential. I will not rehearse all the obvious arguments which, as the Home Secretary said, were put by both sides, for and against, in Committee and on Report.

I do not know if the Home Secretary realises it, but a qualified magistrate has the power to send people to prison for 12 months, not on the one charge, but, if a person appears before him on two charges, two consecutive periods of six months' imprisonment can be imposed. That power is also being taken away, and not even a qualified magistrate who believes that up to a year is the right sentence will be able to pass that sentence. He will still have to send the man to quarter sessions for sentence.

Finally I suggest that while we should all try to prevent the proliferation of short sentences, it may also be advisable to remember that for a person who has never been to prison before it has often been said that the first three months is probably the worst and that the short sentence on many people as a first sentence may have an equally reformative effect on them and have the effect of preventing them committing the crime, just as a longer period of imprisonment would.

The Home Secretary knows that of people going to prison for the first time, something like 80 per cent. never return. What we have to avoid is the continuation of the short sentence for the man who has gone back, but that does not mean that there is not a place for a short sentence, as a first prison sentence, on the man who has committed a crime before but not been to prison. I regret the fact that the Home Secretary has decided to put back the mandatory provisions in this Clause.

The Home Secretary moved this Motion to disagree with moderation and courtesy. It is quite true, as he said, that a great bulk of this Bill is a subject of substantial agreement between both sides of the House, and between various points of opinion on either side. It is true that this one point, of whether the discretion of the justices in this matter of sentences should be circumscribed, has caused more controversy than any other Clause in the Bill, except Clause 11, dealing with majority verdicts from jurors.

I agree with the Home Secretary that almost everything that could be said on either side about this has already been said, in Committee, on Second Reading and in another place. I only rise, having spoken about this twice already, in Committee and on Second Reading, to make one final plea to the Home Secretary to reconsider the Government's attitude to this. I profoundly believe that it is wrong, for the reasons outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Mem- ber for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), to circumscribe the powers of the magistrates in this instance. We have already experience of the various ways in which the sentencing powers of the courts have been circumscribed. They were circumscribed, for reasons which appeared good and sound, in the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, in Section 3, under the powers of the courts to deal with young people under 21, where it was provided that they must have either sentences of less than six months or more then three years.

There have been occasions when that fetter on the power of the court has resulted in the court having to pass a sentence which it has not thought to be the right one in the circumstances. Here the fetter on the discretion of the court is universal in the case of people likely to be sent to prison for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn said, how are the justices courts to deal with waves of a particular crime, such as the telephone kiosks, and, such as frequently happens now, of minor breaking and enterings into stores? The only possible way that they can deal with this will be if the other conditions are fulfilled, to send the offender to quarter sessions for sentence. This must result in a great increase in the work of quarter sessions. It cannot fail to do so. It will inevitably result in men receiving greater sentences than they would otherwise receive. The likelihood is that an offender for whom prison is clearly indicated, instead of getting the six months from the justices, will get eight or nine at quarter sessions.

If the justices are appointed to do justice because it is thought that they can exercise judgment, then surely it is for Parliament to leave them broadly to exercise that judgment in the cases where they think it right. I cannot help thinking, despite the protestations of the Home Secretary, that to some extent, principle is being sacrificed to the convenience of trying to empty the prisons.

As the Lord Chief Justice said in another place, it is not as though the magistrates were sending large numbers of people to prison. It is not so. The figures quoted vary. For instance for 1964, of 1,254,227 persons dealt with by the magistrates, only 2 per cent. went to prison. That puts this matter, in my submission, in perspective. It would be wrong to circumscribe the discretion of the courts in this way, and I make an urgent 59th minute appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider the attitude of the Government.

Once again it is for an ordinary magistrate to support the case being put forward by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends, and to make a further plea to the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision that he is taking. I was intensely irritated when the right hon. Gentleman took great credit upon himself for having accepted some of the Lords Amendments. The reason why they had to be accepted was because such a very bad Bill was sent by the Home Secretary to another place—

Order. We are discussing only this one Amendment.

If I can just have a second, I will put the thing into its proper perspective. We have to have some perspective about this kind of argument, when one is dealing with magistrates, who never seem to have a chance to express their views. If the Home Secretary could say on the Front Bench, that he was pleased with what had happened, surely I am entitled to say I am not pleased with what had happened.

I just want to say that the Home Secretary does not pay nearly sufficient attention to the people like the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chief Justice who, after all, have the responsibility and have a much greater knowledge of matters of administration by courts of summary jurisdiction than the Home Secretary. It is most important that he should change his mind. Some very good reasons have been put forward from this side of the House for doing so.

The magistrates have very great experience in handling these matters. Certainly the Magistrates' Association has extremely valuable advice from courts of summary jurisdiction all over the country. If the Lord Chief Justice puts up his view against the Home Secretary I know that magistrates up and down the country are much more likely to accept the views of the Lord Chief Justice than those of the Home Secretary.

I make this observation, because once again I want to enter my protest against the fact that all the Home Department thinks that it has to do is to tell magistrates how to exercise justice. The magistrates have a great deal more experience in this matter because they know the human side involved in dealing with these problems.

If the Home Secretary would like any help from me as to how I think problems of people who come before the courts could be dealt with, I could give him a great deal more information than appears to be inside the Home Office. He is extremely badly advised.

6.30 p.m.

I hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will accept that magistrates take a pretty dim view of having a matter of this kind removed from their discretion. It is intolerable. I have not great hopes of the right hon. Gentleman because he does not seem to be interested in people like the Magistrates' Association, the Lord Chief Justice or the Lords—all those people who have knowledge of these affairs—or in the advice which they tender. If I remain in this place for some time to come, when things go wrong, as they surely will, I shall enjoy trying to get a Question on the Order Paper pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman how monstrous it is to try to interfere in the courts which, throughout the ages, have been given wide discretion in administering justice fairly and humanely.

This is an attack on the humanity of the courts of summary jurisdiction. There are many human aspects to which the Home Secretary might turn his mind which do not seem to interest him at all. All that he is interested in is attacking the magistrates so that when anything goes wrong he can say that it is their fault. Things would go very much better if the right hon. Gentleman had a better appreciation of the problems which come before the courts of summary jurisdiction. I have great pleasure in hoping that the Amendment will be accepted by the Home Secretary, although I have not very much hope that it will be.

I do not propose to prolong the debate, although if I thought that I could persuade the Home Secretary to change his mind I would prolong it for a considerable time.

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that he was not being pig-headed about this matter. I think that he is. His mistake is not a legal or technical mistake but a political mistake. The reasons which have led a great deal of informed opinion to be against him were very well stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that when the Division bells ring, there having been not many present in the Chamber, the "blancmange" to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) referred earlier in the week will come rolling in. The voice of reason will be lost behind this amorphous but highly reliable body, and the right hon. Gentleman will get a reputation for being a great reforming Home Secretary who stood up to the Tories and reactionary elements.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, all that is nonsense because the truth is—this is the political fact—that whatever the big battalions may do when the time comes the weight of informed opinion is in favour of the Lords on this Amendment and against the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know of any organised body of informed opinion which does not take that view. Of course, they may be wrong and the Home Secretary may be right. But he has to think of a much better reason than his majority and his previous speeches, which most of us have read and all the informed bodies of opinion have read, to make us think so. In this instance he is acting against the body of informed opinion, and politically he is making a mistake in doing so.

The Home Secretary can dogmatise about sentencing prisoners. Many people do so, and usually the extent of their dogmatism is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject. As yet this matter is not a science but only an art which is acquired by experience, reflection and discussion with other people with similar experiences. I think that a

Division No. 488.]	AYES	(6.39 p.m.
Albu, Austen	Anderson, Donald	Ashley, Jack
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Archer, Peter	Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Alldritt, Walter	Armstrong, Ernest	Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alica

not bad rule of thumb would be found in the general proposition that a mandatory sentence or mandatory fetter of sentencing, which is what this is, is almost always productive of injustice.

I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for lay magistrates. If I were to be tried for an offence, I am not sure that I would not prefer a bench of lay magistrates to a "beak". They do a great deal of justice and, like other tribunals, they do some injustice, but I think that they form a very wise tribunal. Of course they make mistakes. That is why we have courts of appeal. Parliament prescribes limits to their jurisdiction. They make mistakes in sending people to prison when they should not and in not sending people to prison when they should. I think that I have known both to happen. One cannot count the latter statistic because in the nature of events one cannot measure it and, therefore, according to general sociological principles, what cannot be measured does not exist, although one may know perfectly well that it does. But if we are to run a system of this kind, it is far better to trust them than not to trust them because, in my experience, they are much more often right than wrong and are more likely to be right in viewing the circumstances of a particular case than Parliament is likely to be right in laying down rather dogmatic rules of thumb.

What the Home Secretary will do with his big battalions is to override informed opinion of quite different types of political thought among the magistrates, the police and the more technically qualified judiciary and substitute his own hunch, not based on a lifetime of knowledge of this matter, but supported by a Parliamentary majority which largely has not heard the debate. I think that he is wrong, and I shall oppose his Motion.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 143.

Barnett, Joel	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Newens, Stan
Baxter, William	Haseldine, Norman	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Beaney, Alan	Hazelt, Bert	Norwood, Christopher
Bishop, E. S.	Heffer, Eric S.	Oakes, Gordon
Blackburn, F.	Henig, Stanley	Ogden, Eric
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	O'Maltey, Brian
Boardman, H.	Horner, John	Oram, Albert E.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Orbach, Maurice
Boyden, James	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Oswald, Thomas
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Howie, W.	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bradley, Tom	Hoy, James	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Brooks, Edwin	Huckfield, L.	Paget, R. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Palmer, Arthur
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Park, Trevor
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hunter, Adam	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Carmichael, Neil	Hynd, John	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Pavitt, Laurence
Coe, Denis	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Pentland, Norman
Coleman, Donald	Janner, Sir Barnett	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Concannon, J. D.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Conlan, Bernard	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Probert, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rees, Merlyn
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Judd, Frank	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Kelley, Richard	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lawson, George	Rose, Paul
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dempsey, James	Lee, John (Reading)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Dewar, Donald	Lestor, Miss Joan	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dickens, James	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Sheldon, Robert
Doig, Peter	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Driberg, Tom	Lipton, Marcus	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Dunn, James A,	Lomas, Kenneth	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dunnett, Jack	Loughlin, Charles	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dutwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Eadie, Alex	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Slater, Joseph
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Small, William
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McBride, Nell	Spriggs, Leslie
Ellis, John	McCann, John	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
English, Michael	MacColl, James	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Ennals, David	McGuire, Michael	Symonds, J. B.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Mackie, John	Taverne, Dick
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mackintosh, John P.	Thornton, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew	Maohennan, Robert	Tinn, James
Fernyhough, E.	McNamara, J. Kevin	Tuck, Raphael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foley, Maurice	Mahon, Simon (Bootle))	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ford, Ben	Manuel, Archie	Wallace, George
Forrester, John	Mapp, Charles	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fowler, Gerry	Marquand, David	Wellbeloved, James
Freeson, Reginald	Mason, Roy	Whitaker, Ben
Calpern, Sir Myer	Maxwell, Robert	Whitlock, William
Garrett, W. E.	Mayhew, Christopher	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mendelson, J. J.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gourlay, Harry	Mlllan, Bruce	Winterbottom, R. E.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gregory, Arnold	Molloy, William	Woof, Robert
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Moorman, Erie
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Mr. Walter Harrison.

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M)	Dalkeith, Earl of
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Dance, James
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Bullus, Sir Erie	Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Awdry, Daniel	Carlisle, Mark	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Baker, W. H. K.	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Channon, H. P. G.	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Chichester-Clark, R.	Drayson, G. B.
Bessell, Peter	Clegg, Walter	Eden, Sir John
Biffen, John	Cooke, Robert	Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Errington, Sir Eric
Black, Sir Cyril	Corfield, F. V.	Farr, John
Body, Richard	Costain, A. P.	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bossom, Sir Clive	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Fortescue, Tim
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Crouch, David	Foster, Sir John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Gibson-Watt, David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Currie, G. B. H.	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Clover, Sir Douglas	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Goodhew, Victor	Loveys, W. H.	Robson Brown, Sir William
Grant, Anthony	Lubbock, Eric	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grieve, Percy	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Royle, Anthony
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J,	MacArthur, Ian	Russell, Sir Ronald
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)	Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)	Sharpies, Richard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Harris, Reader (Heston)	McMaster, Stanley	Smith, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Maginnis, John E.	Stodart, Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Marten, Neil	Summers, Sir Spencer
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Maudlmg, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hastings, Stephen	Mawby, Ray	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hill, J. E. B.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Temple, John M.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John	Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Miscampbell, Norman	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Holland, Philip	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hooson, Emlyn	Monro, Hector	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hordern, Peter	Montgomery, Fergus	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Homby, Richard	Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Hunt, John	Murton, Oscar	Ward, Dame Irene
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Neave, Airey	Webster, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Jopling, Michael	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pardoe, John	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kimball, Marcus	Pearson, Sir Frank (Ciltheree)	Worsley, Marcus
Kirk, Peter	Pike, Mies Mervyn	Wylie, N. R.
Kitson, Timothy	Pounder, Rafton	Younger, Hn. George
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Pym, Francis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Amendments made to the words so restored in the Bill: In page 21, line 36, leave out 'for an' and insert 'in respect of one'.

In page 22, line 13, after 'of', insert 'corrective training'.

In line 27, leave out subsection (6).

In line 29, leave out 'so made' and insert:

'made by the Secretary of State under this section'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Consequential Amendment made: In page 114, line 27, after 'words', insert 'thirty or'.—[ Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31—(Power Of Court On Con- Viction Of Further Offence To Deal With Suspended Sentence)

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 23, line 26, at end insert:

"and where it is of that opinion the court shall state its reasons."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, in the House of Lords. If a court deals with a suspended sentence otherwise than under Clause 31(1,a), the Amendment requires the court to state its reasons for deciding why it would be unjust to order the suspended sentence to take effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 23, line 32, at end insert:

"() Where under subsection (1) (a) or (b) of this section a court orders that a suspended sentence shall take effect with a term of not more than six months and the court would have had power to sentence the offender to be detained in a detention centre for that term if it had convicted him of the original offence on the occasion of the order, the order may include a direction that he shall serve the sentence in a detention centre.

() Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, where under the said subsection (1)(a) or (b) a court orders that a suspended sentence shall take effect with a term of less than three months, the court may include such a direction in the order if the offender is then liable to be detained in a detention centre by virtue of an order or warrant made or issued by that or another court.

() An order under the said subsection (1)(a) or (b) which includes such a direction shall be treated for all purposes as an order under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (detention of offenders aged fourteen to twenty) for the detention of the offender in a detention centre, and subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to any such order.

() In proceedings for dealing with an offender in respect of a suspended sentence which take place before a court of assize or quarter sessions any question whether the offender has been convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment committed during the operational period of the suspended sentence shall be determined by the court and not by the verdict of a jury.

() Where a court deals with an offender under this section in respect of a suspended sentence the clerk of the court shall notify the clerk of the court which passed the sentence of the method adopted."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It adds five new subsections to Clause 31, the first three of which enable a court which orders a suspended sentence to be executed to decide that, in appropriate cases, that sentence shall be served in a detention centre.

The first new subsection is rather technical and provides that, if there is a dispute at a court of assize or quarter sessions about whether an offender has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment committed during the operationable period of a suspended sentence, the issue shall be determined by a court and not by the verdict of a jury.

The fourth new subsection is one which has been suggested by the Justices' Clerks' Society, and it provides that, where a court deals with a suspended sentence, it shall notify the court which passed the suspended sentence. It enables a court to keep a check on the subsequent performance of an offender on whom it has passed a suspended sentence.

Can we have some further explanation of the first of the new subsections which it is proposed to add to Clause 31? No doubt, it is sensible and right in principle, but I want to know how it will work out.

If I understand the right hon. Lady correctly, the position contemplated by the subsection is one where the original court which awarded the suspended sentence which was not to come into operation until other events occurred, awarded a sentence of so many months' imprisonment, and that the court to which the offender is brought for the suspended sentence to be put into operation decides that imprisonment would not be appropriate, but that detention in a detention centre would be.

The question which arises is what length of sentence in a detention centre will that later court impose? Will it have a discretion to impose a shorter sentence than the sentence of imprisonment might have been, or will it be bound to say that the sentence in the detention centre shall be for exactly the same term? This is important because, owing to the very nature of treatment in a detention centre, sentences to detention tend to be shorter than sentences in prison might have been for equivalent offences. I wonder if the right hon. Lady can clarify this position.

In replying to my right hon. and learned Friend, can the right hon. Lady say what is to happen if there is no detention centre? I get rather tired of listening to talk about detention centres, remand centres and the whole paraphernalia of what would be perfect in a perfect administration, but we all know if we have to deal with these matters, though it may not be so apparent to Ministers in the Home Office, that in many cases there are neither detention centres nor remand centres. What is the point of passing legislation if the administrative machinery is not there to put it into effect?

With the leave of the House, I will reply to those points. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has drawn attention to the shortage of detention centres and remand centres. I hope that I shall be in order in replying to that and saying that the provision for remand centres was first made in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and the previous Government opened the first remand centre 13 years later in 1961. If only we had had more action during those years, we should have been in a much better position with regard to the availability of remand centres.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked about tie respective terms. Perhaps I might direct his attention to the Bill. He will see in Clause 31(1,b) that the second court's discretion about the term is the same. It may order that the sentence shall take effect with the substitution of a lesser term for the original term. I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 35—(Restriction On Magis- Trates' Courts' Power To Impose Imprisonment For Default In Payment Of Fines, Etc)

Lords Amendment: No. 50, in page 27, line 1, after "not" insert:

"in advance of the issue of a warrant of commitment"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it might be convenient if, together with Lords Amendment No. 50, we took Amendment No. 51, and Amendment No. 52.

These three Amendments to Clause 35(3) are drafting Amendments, and they derive from an undertaking given in the Standing Committee to see whether the drafting of the subsection could be clarified. This has been done, and the Amendment also expands the subsection a little to state its effect rather more fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 53, in page 28, line 14, leave out from first "a" to "means" in line 16 and to insert:

"fine has been imposed on conviction of an offender by a magistrates' court, the court may, on inquiring into his"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it might be convenient, together with Lords Amendment No. 53, to take Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57.

These Amendments restrict to fines the power of remission contained in Clause 35(10), again meeting the point made by the Opposition in Standing Committee, when it was suggested that it was wrong that the power of remission should extend to other sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction; that is, compensation, damages or costs.

I simply want to say to the right hon. Lady, "Thank you very much".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 38—(Fines Imposed And Recog- Nizances Forfeited At Assizes And Quarter Sessions)

Lords Amendment: No. 58, in page 30, line 1, after "sessions" insert:

"after the commencement of this Act".

I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It might be convenient to take with Lords Amendment No. 58, Amendment No. 61.

These Amendments make transitional provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "J"—(Enforcement In Scoland Of Fines Imposed At Assizes Or Quarter Sessions)

Lords Amendment: No 60, in page 32, line 5, at the end to insert new Clause "J":

".—(1) The power of a magistrates' court or of a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland to make a transfer of fine order under section 72A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (transfer of fine orders to Scotland) or section 44 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 (transfer of fine orders within and from Scotland) shall be exercisable in relation to a fine imposed on any person or a sum due from any person under a recognizance forfeited by a court of assize or quarter sessions the payment of which is enforceable by the magistrates' court or court of summary jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the court of assize or quarter sessions has in pursuance of the last foregoing section fixed a term of imprisonment which that person is to undergo if the fine or other sum is not duly paid or recovered.

(2) Section 24 of the Queen's Remembrancer Act 1859 (recovery of fines and other debts due to the Crown in other parts of the United Kingdom) shall cease to apply to the enforcement in Scotland of a fine imposed or a sum due under a recognizance forfeited by a court of assize or quarter sessions."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it would be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 221 and 224.

These Amendments make provision for the enforcement in Scotland of fines imposed in England and Wales at assizes or quarter sessions.

Question put and agreed to.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 ( Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

City Of London (Various Powers) Bill Lords (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Before I call the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) to move the Second Reading of the Bill, perhaps I might announce to the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), nor the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). This will not prevent them from addressing themselves to the kind of arguments which they would have used had their Amendments been selected.

7.1 p.m.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

There may be a few hon. Members who feel that the powers of the City of London are sufficiently various already, but I hope to persuade them that the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill will be beneficent, and not selfish; indeed, that the City of London, as so often before, is taking action to benefit not just its own citizens, but the public at large, and, moreover, as so often before, is taking the lead in breaking fresh ground from which many other cities and their people will benefit.

The Bill seeks to do six main things: first, to make it easier to qualify for election to the Common Council of the City; second, to enable the City of London to provide and to pay for off-street parking outside its own boundaries in neighbouring boroughs, with the agreement of those boroughs; third, to apply the Coal Market Fund, a large sum of money, for educational purposes; indeed, it is intended that it should be used for technological education; fourth, to increase by nine the permitted number of judges of the Central Criminal Court, and to pay for their accommodation. I think that this part of the Bill really is urgent, as hon. Members will agree. Indeed, questions have lately been put to the Attorney-General on this very point.

I think everyone will agree that so far the Bill is good, indeed urgent, and I hope that we will not lose the four good things which I have mentioned by jibbing at the two remaining matters which are the subject of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). The first of these is the protection of Epping Forest. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), whom I greatly admire, will speak about this, and I would make just a general point.

Epping Forest is by far the largest open space administered by a local authority. It is very close to a large population, and therefore especially valuable for amenity. But, for the same reason, it is very desirable for the installations of the various Ministries and bodies which serve this large population. The law is in doubt about Epping Forest, but the Bill will provide a short, simple, and intelligible statement that Parliament entrusted Epping Forest to the City of London for public enjoyment, and that in future only Parliament shall take away pieces of it. We do not seek to make Epping Forest inviolate. Nothing is permanent, but if it is to be violated, it shall be up to the House to say so.

I know that Ministries and public bodies have regard to amenity, but amenity is to public bodies what sleep is to Members of Parliament. We all think it very desirable, but when it comes to the crunch we sacrifice it to whatever seems more important at the time, and the quality of our life, and of our contribution to life, suffers as a result. We may not be able to run our own lives properly here, but at least we can protect Epping Forest.

The last of the six main objectives of the Bill which I am going to mention is the provision of walkways, which has prompted the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central. This matter has already occupied a Select Committee of the House of Lords for 15 hours. I shall try to condense it, but it is bound to take a moment or so. The City has devised this admirable and forward-looking scheme of which other cities, particularly Liverpool, and perhaps Bristol, may soon feel the need.

The purpose of the scheme is to segregate pedestrians—of which the City of London has an exceptional number—from traffic by promoting a network of footpaths, a project which I hope will please the Chairman of the Pedestrians' Association, who I see sitting on the Front Bench in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). These footpaths are to be called walkways, because they are to be different from footpaths and other highways in certain important legal aspects.

Some of these walkways will be at ground level, others underground, but most of them will be above ground, as terraces, bridges across the tops of other buildings, or through buildings. They will be rights of way, but they will not be highways or streets in the legal sense, for various reasons, but principally because a highway is permanent, and the buildings which support these walkways will not be permanent. It will be necessary from time to time to re-develop them, and at the same time to re-route the walkways which they support, or which pass through them.

Since they are not to be highways or streets, the electricity undertakers will have no right to put their cables in them, as they can in ordinary streets. This is the point of which the Amendment complains. We are asked to throw out the whole Bill unless it declares in effect that all walkways are streets for the purposes of electricity undertakers and so that they can use them for their apparatus as a right.

I can understand the feelings of the electricity undertakers. They are keen to supply us with electricity. They are keen to keep up to date, and to seize this new opportunity. They like a system which has no dead ends, which is in effect a grid, and they are keen to avoid procedures which cause delay and expense. Indeed, the City of London has gone to some trouble, and has discussed the matter with the electricity undertakers and agreed that where walkways are at, or below, ground level they shall be considered as streets, and cables may be buried in them as of right; but where the walkways are above ground level, the City feels that the electricity undertakers shall not have this new right, but they will still be able to acquire what they want in other ways. For example, they can now, and will still be able to, acquire easements compulsorily under the 1947 Electricity Act.

In a street the electricity undertakers have rights to take it up for laying, maintenance, adjusting, repairing, renewing, or removing cables. This is not a suitable activity to conduct as of right on someone else's roof. Surely the rights in streets granted to the electricity undertakers by Parliament many years ago envisage that when they start to dig with their drills they will find earth, or at least a sufficient depth of something or other, and will not immediately uncover the heads of a lot of shoppers and typists. It is not suitable that they should then, as of right, lay a wire carrying thousands of volts in someone's ceiling.

Surely the place for high voltage transmission lines is underground, in the street. An overhead walkway is not like a street. It does not have earth under it. It is of light construction; indeed, that is most important to its appearance. It is a few inches thick, and it is temporary. To give electricity undertakers rights on elevated walkways would be to extend their rights and also the scope of the Bill further than our standing instructions allow, without giving others a chance to object.

The Bill does not deprive electricity undertakers of anything. Their existing rights are protected. They still have all their rights in the streets and pavements as before, and the streets and pavements remain as they were before. They can still put cables in them, and they can put them in in any other place by means of a certain procedure, if necessary. These walkways are additional constructions, and we are being asked to extend the rights of the undertakers needlessly and too far, in the view of the City of London.

Furthermore, whatever we may decide here we cannot effectively extend their rights. If we try to do so, this very desirable network of walkways will simply not get built. As envisaged, the City proposes to make it a condition of planning consent that developers shall pay for making the buildings strong enough to carry the walkway, and that the walkway shall then become a right of way through properties. The City proposes to pay no compensation to the owners of the buildings for these two things, and that has been accepted—just—by the property owners' associations concerned.

The only property owner who jibbed at this a little was a prominent public body, which was in a position to cause a good deal of difficulty. The City proposes to acquire, for no compensation whatever, as much as it can possibly get. If a building had to be made strong enough to carry all sorts of electrical apparatus and the walkway could be broken open at any moment, as a street can, and wires carrying thousands of volts laid into it or through the building, property owners could not be expected to welcome it without any compensation.

I say this in no spirit of patronage, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is technically terribly unsound.

This is a technical matter, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be dealing with these technical matters when he speaks. I can then ask the leave of the House to answer the points that he raises.

Property owners cannot be expected to welcome these provisions without compensation or, indeed, to accept them. What would happen if such a building caught fire? I do not refer to the cables catching fire; I refer to a building catching fire, making it necessary to cut off the current. How would the fireman achieve it, and what would the insurance companies think of it? I would have thought that the property owners concerned would wish to have an opportunity of appealing against the Bill. In my view, the walkways would simply not get built and we and the electricity undertakers would have prevented an important step forward. The undertakers would have gained nothing and pedestrians in this City and, later, in other cities, would be forced into the streets and killed.

The Bill does several things. It protects the rights of the public to enjoy Epping Forest; it relieves the log jam at the Old Bailey; it applies new money to technical education; it provides off-street parking, and it segregates pedestrians from the traffic which kills them. Surely we do not want to lose all this for one point in the Bill. Surely we can accept—indeed, acclaim—the principle of these walkways—not only to the City of London—and let the Bill go to Committee, where all that hon. Members say here will be taken into consideration.

The point concerning electricity undertakers is only one among many relating to the walkways, and the walkways themselves are only one topic among several in the Bill. A Select Committee of the House of Lords has considered the Bill for 30 hours and has concluded that it should proceed. I urge the House to do likewise and to grasp the good in the Bill while it can, by giving it a Second Reading now and thus letting it go to Committee, which is where it should go and where the complicated point raised here can be more properly dealt with.

7.15 p.m.

If it will give any comfort to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) I say immediately that the Bill is a general mixture of excellent intentions—if, in certain limited respects, its application is faulty. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not quarrelling in any way with the broad intentions of the Bill; they are probably excellent, as I say.

The hon. Member should also appreciate that I am concerned with two relatively narrow but important points—Part II, which deals with the City walkways and the pedestrian precincts which are proposed in the City—and, to a more limited extent, with Clause 27, which makes further provision for the protection and strengthening of public rights in Epping Forest. Like anyone else who is concerned with the improvement of our cities and the preservation of the amenities and beauties of the countryside, I support, in their general purpose, both parts of the Bill with which I am concerned.

My doubts arise as to the effect of the Bill, as at present drafted, on the obligations and rights of public utility undertakings, and especially the electricity supply industry, because for technical reasons it is most affected by the proposed changes if this Bill becomes law.

The London Electricity Board is deeply concerned about the provisions in the Bill as it came from another place and its effect, if passed, on their obligations for the planning, installing, management and operation of one of the most densely loaded city electrical networks in the country and probably in the world, with the possible exception of New York.

This very dense loading of the City of London electrical network is increasing all the time. It is due to the erection of much taller buildings, with the very large installations which are now made to provide electrical power, with all its applications, and the extended use of electricity for heating, cooking, air cooling and air conditioning. New electric lifts are being installed all the time, with a heavy carrying capacity. Many industrial processes are still being carried on in the City. New office processes are being operated which involve the use of electrical machinery.

The load on this network is increasing all the time and it is the special responsibility of the London Electricity Board, which is the statutory undertaking to provide for it. I have some figures in this connection. Since 1948, when the London Board took over from its various predecessors, 88 miles of additional cable have been placed within the City of London. That is a considerable mileage. No fewer than 357 extra transformer chambers and sub-station chambers have become necessary since 1948.

When the hon. Member talks about electricity undertakings excavating with picks into overhead walkways, I must tell him that that is not the way in which it is done. I make no complaint because he is not a technical man. But it is necessary that the electricity undertaking should have access to consumers' premises at many points—not just at ground level but at all other levels, too. A more vertical City means the network must also rise. When new means of access are provided to buildings by walkways, the walkways must be suitably constructed in the technical sense.

I assure the hon. Member that the electricity authorities would not place wires charged at thousands and thousands of volts in close proximity to buildings or within conduits in walkways. Engineers know very much better than that. The City of London electrical network is not an abstract matter of business of the London Electricity Board but a matter of general concern to consumers, because it is an obligation on the Board to give a supply efficiently and reliably 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The network is also a matter of vital concern to the industrial and commercial life of the great City of London. When a breakdown occurs, as it can occur all too easily under heavy loading, it is important that engineers and workmen responsible for putting matters right should have immediate and undisputed access to their cables and other apparatus. Without that, much money can be lost by those whose work is impeded by the failure.

The need for this right has long been recognised by Governments and Parliament. The undisputed right of access to cables and apparatus under statute law was recognised in the early days of electricity supply and has been recognised in all the subsequent Acts since the 1880s. In all the statutory provisions from the first Electric Lighting Act, Parliament has not only imposed certain obligations on undertakings but in return has given them rights independent of the local authorities. This does not mean that the statutory undertaker need not notify the local authority. It must notify and consult. But the undertakers have their rights independently, given by Parliament.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand that a highway has been defined hitherto as a place where the public have a right to go—and where the public had a right to go, public utilities had an equal right of access.

But this private Measure proposes to extinguish to a great extent the rights of statutory undertakings granted to them by Parliament, for walkways will be a new kind of legal creation. They will be barred to vehicles and open to the public on foot, but they will not be highways in the ordinary accepted sense. Under the provisions of the Bill, existing streets may be turned into walkways, which means that where the electricity, gas or water undertakings have previously had a statutory right in a street, that will be taken away. If the Bill becomes law, in the City of London the statutory undertakers will lose their right of installation and of access to their apparatus. It will be at the discretion of the local authority or, as the hon. Member conceded, at the discretion of private owners.

On these occasions it is often argued that local authorities and private owners will act reasonably. There is no guaran- tee that they will do so in all circumstances. However, let us take the case not at its worst but at its best and assume that they will act reasonably, that the City of London Corporation will work closely with the London Electricity Board and that private owners will see the good of co-operating with the London Electricity Board. But is it not still fair to argue that if changes are needed in the law relating to the rights of statutory undertakings, because of modern changes in the construction of cities, including the building of elevated walkways, this should first of all be the subject of some general investigation by the Government, which should be followed by general legislation?

It seems to me wrong in principle that rights which have been given on a statutory basis for a long period should be extinguished by private legislation. This is not planning. It is the very negation of planning. I argue very strongly that changes of this magnitude should not be made by the back door of private mixed Bills. Such changes in the statutory rights of undertakers should not be made by the back door of private mixed content Bills but by the front door of properly digested public legislation.

I turn to Clause 27, which deals with the public land held and managed, admirably, by the Corporation, including Epping Forest. Here again I concede that there is no point of difference between us in that the general intention is admirable. But, once again, statutory rights of public utilities are to be extinguished. Under the present law the Minister may investigate and authorise electricity installations after due public inquiry into objections. Also under the present law the Minister and the public utility must have due regard to amenity in the matter of the giving or withholding of approval to installations. Under the Bill, instead of the power being ultimately with the Minister, subject to the right of local inquiry, the decision will be made unchecked, by the local authority.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that while the Minister has power to take decisions after a public inquiry, he does not always agree with his own public inquiry? Stansted is an example.

It is common experience that Ministers, like other human beings, are imperfect. I am not suggesting that because public inquiries investigate matters, the right decisions are necessarily reached. But there is a greater chance of the correct decision being reached in those circumstances than if we leave it arbitrarily to one local authority. There may be a strong case of course for changing public legislation, but it should not be done by a private Bill.

Now, a word about the interest of the Electricity Board and other public utilities in the matter. My interest, of course, is prompted, as the House knows, by the interest which I have in following fairly closely the affairs of the electricity supply industry. It has been said that the London Electricity Board is, as it were, the last obstinate objector. It may well be that it has been strongest on the matter. It has the greatest responsibility and the greatest technical concern. But grave doubts have been expressed about the implications of the Bill as at present drafted by all the public utilities in the country—water, gas and telephones—and, if electricity had been to the front, this is because it is technically the most affected.

In its objections to the Bill the London Electricity Board is fully supported by the Electricity Council. I think that I shall be in order in saying, further, that I understand that in the doubts which it has the Electricity Council is backed by the Ministry of Power. I wish that there were on the Front Bench at present a representative of the Ministry of Power so that that assertion could be confirmed in the House.

One can understand why public utility undertakings are so bothered about it. As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said, what the City of London does today other local authorities may do tomorrow. We could find general public legislation being changed by a whole series of private Acts.

Not all hon. Members, not all my hon. Friends, are enthusiastic about the City of London Corporation.

I am.

I am glad to except my hon. Friend. He can be a little eccentric on many matters. Hon. Members support the Bill, because they believe it to be sound in intention. They are genuine lovers of the countryside; they advocate the improvement of cities. I understand and respect of their feelings, which I often share, but I remind them that if we are to maintain in this country a high and comfortable standard of life, it is no good trying to suppress technology. One has to come to terms with technology and adapt it to modern needs.

It seems to me that because of lack of thought and knowledge a rather crude attempt is being made here to suppress technology. At the discretion of the Chair, the Amendment which I put down was not called, but, as regards the immediate future of the Bill, I, like the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, am confident that the substantial public utility objections will be carefully examined in Committee, and, if I may, I add the hope that they will be rather more carefully examined in a Select Committee of this House than they were examined by the other place. I am open to be convinced that the Bill should now be allowed to go to Committee, but I make no apology for expressing in general debate views on an important issue which requires the most careful investigation in the full light of day.

7.33 p.m.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) because—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether other hon. Members are noticing it, but it seems to me that we are being refrigerated in the Chamber at present. May note be taken of this?

Yes. I shall have the matter inquired into.

Perhaps the cause of the complaint which the hon. Gentleman has just made comes from one of the advances in technology to which my hon. Friend was referring.

My hon. Friend said that it was somewhat eccentric of me to support the Corporation of the City of London. I do not know why. I declare my interest at once. I am pleased to say that my first employment was with the City Corporation. I have always found the City Corporation to be more than fair and honest, even though I strongly disagree with the political complexion of its Council. The City of London, even with its 100 per cent. Conservative Council, has in some respects, and particularly in the respect which interests me, done a magnificent job over the years. I refer to what I call the preservation and maintenance of public lands.

First, I pay a tribute to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) for the way in which he moved the Second Reading. He speaks as representing two of the greatest citadels of Conservatism. I speak as one of the representatives of one of the greatest Socialist boroughs in the East End of London, West Ham. We are proud of the great work which the City of London Corporation has done in West Ham itself, in West Ham Park, and we greatly value all it has done over the years on Wanstead Flats. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) here. He will know that I mean no disparagement when I say that, although his constituency rightly enjoys the benefit of Wanstead Flats, it is not so overcrowded and industrialised as the West Ham docks area.

I am not against technological advance. I am not against progress in the supply of electricity. But it is no good having all sorts of electrical gadgets in one's home if one has nowhere to go to get a bit of sunshine and recreation. In the East End of London we have very limited open spaces. Those which we have within our boundaries or immediately available to us, West Ham Park, Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest, are and have been looked after in admirable fashion by the City of London Corporation.

My hon. Friend has stressed that the electricity authority wishes to keep certain rights which it has and it ought not to be deprived of them. These things always start like that. I remember a terrific row a few years ago when there was a scheme to take over part of Wanstead Flats for schools. That was the original plan. But it was switched to housing. Then the land was wanted for something else. Thank God, we had the City Corporation behind us. It refused, and led a big campaign to prevent any such thing coming about. Once these encroachments start, others follow. We know that this has happened. Land in this part of London is both scarce and expensive, and we are very jealous of it.

First, I speak as Member of Parliament for West Ham, North, but I think that I speak for my three hon. Friends who represent the remainder of West Ham and East Ham which have constituency rights and interests adjoining Wanstead Flats and Epping Forest. I know that I speak for my local authority, which, unlike the Corporation of the City of London, is a completely Socialist authority. I have here a letter from my town clerk in which he says that our council is very much in favour of the Bill and wants every action taken to ensure that it proceeds quickly.

Very often, there are Clauses or parts of Clauses in a Bill which one may not like. I have a statement which the City of London has sent to all M.P.s, although not all hon. Members may have it with them now. In it, the City puts its case for the Second Reading and explains the reasons for supporting Clause 27. It says that if the Bill is referred to the Committee the Corporation will submit for approval Amendments to restrict the Clause to Epping Forest. I hope that it does not do that, because the Clause at present gives it certain powers concerning a number of areas. I could even find fault with its statement on a number of issues which, from the City's point of view, support the Bill, but we all know that this is not the object of the exercise. If the Bill has a Second Reading, as I hope, it will go to a Committee, which will argue the detailed points. Some may be good and others may be bad, but that does not matter; this is the normal procedure. Let the Committee deal with the points already raised and those which I think that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will probably raise.

Far be it from me to stand up for the landlords or those who want compensation. But I agree that they should obviously receive fair treatment. I have no doubt that the City has done that in the past, and that when the Bill becomes an Act it will see that there is fair play. There is appeal to the Lands Tribunal if a matter cannot be resolved amicably.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) went to great lengths to explain that many of the statutory undertakings were of the same opinion as the London Electricity Board. I have nothing against the statutory undertakings. Good luck to them. They are entitled to express their opinion. I am more concerned with the elected authorities, and as far as I know all of those in the area are in favour of the Bill's principle. Some might have objections to particular parts, but they can make them in Committee.

There is also the question of the Minister entering the matter if statutory authorities go through the procedure of public inquiry and appeal. Although we may have a good Minister at the moment, and much as I should like him to be there for life, he may not remain for various reasons. He may get a higher job, which I hope is the case, or even go to higher places. We might get a Minister who was not so good, and even—God forbid‡—a Government which was not so good. There is not much chance of that, but if it happened I would not trust an appeal to Ministers of that sort.

I intervened to mention the Stansted inquiry—a great public inquiry. The local authorities were almost unanimous and the inquiry was against the Government. But the Minister said that he was not concerned with the public inquiry, and this could happen again. The City of London is one authority, but all the authorities concerned would have rights under the Bill if it becomes an Act, which would safeguard the ordinary people of the back streets of the East End of London. That is my point. They have not many places now where they can go, particularly the kiddies. Here is an opportunity for the City to insist on maintaining that which has been handed down to it over hundreds of years, and I think that they have done the job very well.

We all rightly moan and groan about the terrible job we have in getting through traffic in the City because of parked vehicles. The City is trying to do something to get rid of some of the vehicles, by arrangement with the local authorities. It is not my job to worry about how it will work out the question of payment and so on. The local authorities will discuss that with the City of London. The scheme to get the vehicles out of the City and into neighbouring areas, leaving the City a bit freer for traffic, is a very good idea, if it can be worked.

I am not trying to plug our own interests, but sometimes it takes me two hours to get to the House from the other side of the City. I must sometimes park my car and come by tube, and then find that I have to return in the middle of the night to get the car. That is not so good. If the City of London scheme can be worked it will be a step in the right direction.

The City of London will start something with its walkways which a Socialist council may follow. Usually it is the other way around—a Socialist council does something first and the Conservatives follow. We have a big development scheme in Stratford for which our Council has now been given the go-ahead. We waited years for permission under the Tory Government but now we have it we shall have a great shopping centre and hope to have a system of walkways, following the example which the City will set. I hope that we shall improve on its ideas, and perhaps develop a better scheme.

People must now walk on the road or the kerb-side when they go shopping in the City or any of the shopping centres, particularly in the West End, when they are really crowded, on a Thursday night or at Christmas, for example. This happens in Regent Street, Oxford Street and elsewhere because the pavements are so chock a block with people milling backwards and forwards that one is in danger of being knocked down. If the City can work out a system of walkways such as that suggested, it will do a good job, and I support it right up to the hilt. There may be questions of compensation and methods but, generally speaking, I think that they are incidental.

I therefore give my warm support to the Second Reading and hope, as an ex-employee of the City of London Corporation, that it has its Bill, that the Committee does not do too much harm to it, and that the Corporation can make progress in its endeavours.

7.48 p.m.

I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will forgive me if I do not immediately follow what he said. I noted what he said about the Reasoned Amendment, which has not been selected, and I was obliged to him. I shall refer to it later.

I decided to oppose the Bill by a Reasoned Amendment, which will be on the record although it was not called, when I received a letter on the notepaper of a highly respected firm of chartered auctioneers, estate agents, surveyors and valuers, which I think I should read to the House. It says:

"I read with interest a short report in the Estates Gazette of 17th June of your"—

that is, my—

"unsuccessful attempt to introduce a Bill giving owners threatened with compulsory acquisition the right to approach the district valuer."

It was in that context that I deplored that this Bill, promoted by a local authority which uses its own valuation officer and not a district valuer, fails to provide that right, but provides that when the local authority is determined to acquire private property compulsorily a fair market price shall be decided upon not by impartial valuers but by valuation officers who are employed by the acquiring authority itself and are, therefore, regarded by the public as owing a duty to their employers to negotiate the cheapest possible price.

My correspondent went on, with reference to the remarks that I had made in my speech to the House, to say:

"May I earnestly assure you that what you say is true. I can speak with experience insofar as I was—"

I will here paraphrase what he said for reasons that I shall explain later—

"for three years employed by a large local authority as an assistant valuer."

He goes on:

"It was made abundantly clear to me then that my duty was to the local authority, and I was instructed to negotiate the best possible terms when dealing with the claimants rather than pay what I considered to be fair compensation The technique was, and I believe still is, for the local authority valuer to discuss informally with the district valuer"—

who is employed by the Inland Revenue—

"and obtain his ceiling, and the game is then to negotiate a settlement as far below that ceiling as possible. No district valuer likes to be made a fool of, and in consequence the plan is for him to keep reducing that ceiling."

Perhaps I might here interpose that I know that the House will have in mind that the point of the procedure to which my correspondent was referring is that when the local authority valuer is going to acquire property compulsorily for his authority he has to go to the district valuer to get this ceiling price, because when the authority applies to the Treasury for loan sanction in respect of the purchase, the price has to be approved by the district valuer.

My correspondent goes on:

"I can recall a case some years ago where the district valuer told me that his opinion was around £35,000 but, if we could not buy at this figure, he was prepared to reconsider the matter. In the event a settlement was reached below £20,000. A friend in the district valuer's department recently told me in confidence, of a case wherein the local authority valuer has just offered 20 per cent. of the district valuer's valuation."

My correspondent goes on in some detail about a case now current in which he knows for certain that the district valuer's figure was appreciably in excess of the local authority offer. He continues after giving details of the case, which I should not care to reveal:

"There was some correspondence on the lines which you are pursuing in the Estates Gazette some three years or so ago. Unfortunately the Editor declined to print my last letter, 'the laws of libel being such as they are'."

And, of course, what he had in mind was the example of a whole valuation department of a local authority, 134 valuation officers in number, sueing for libel a councillor for having raised the question of the advisability of this policy in the public Press on the ground that their professional integrity was being impugned.

My correspondent continues:

"I write this letter in my private capacity but have used my firm's notepaper so that you can verify my credentials. I must of course, request you to keep the contents of my letter confidential."

I telephoned him immediately and said that I should like to read the letter in the House of Commons, and we agreed certain paraphrasing and I assured him that I would take every possible precaution that his confidentiality was preserved, for reasons which I think I need not explain to the House.

I have heard it said that anyone who has fears that the procedure was as my correspondent had said could appeal to the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. All I can say about that is that it is a good argument, but if anybody seriously maintains it, he is welcome to come to me and I will personally pin on him my personal award of the gold medal for naivety of the year. I therefore think it is important that this man's confidence should be respected, because what he fears is that in his professional life he will henceforth, if his identity comes out, be victimised by the local authority valuers with whom he will have to deal professionally on behalf of his clients.

When I was speaking to my correspondent on the telephone to get his permission to quote the letter he told me of an incident about which I think the House would be interested to learn also. It concerns an old-established shop in a grey area which was being compulsorily acquired by the local authority. The original offer was £1,200. That was increased first to £2,000 and then to £2,500, and then, to my correspondent's surprise, the owner's solicitor settled behind his estate agent's back for £3,500, which my correspondent did not think was a fair price. The solicitor apologised to my correspondent and explained that he had been asked to do this by the owner's brother, who is the director of a large international firm, because he feared that the owner was on the verge of committing suicide or of becoming permanently unhinged and the only thing to do was to close the matter and put an end to the psychological strain of trying to get a fair price from the local authority valuer. That was a totally unsolicited story volunteered to me by this professional man of his own personal experience of dealing with a local authority valuer for a client.

I think that in submitting this evidence to the House of the views of professional people I should put forward the general argument and background upon which this objection of mine to what I regard as an abuse of the rights of private property owners is based. My first submission is that the beginning of justice is that a man must not be judge in his own cause, and that that goes for local authorities just as much as for individuals. Yet it is a fact that some of the greatest local authorities in the world, the councils of many British cities, laugh at this elementary principle by the practice which they employ.

The horrid business of compulsory acquisition of private property is sometimes necessary but always regrettable. But it is rendered far more intolerable by the way that it is carried out in these British cities today. Who does the assessing for the compensation? It is the interested party, the compulsorily acquiring council itself. Most of our local authorities in a similar position arrange for the valuing to be done by the district valuer. He is the employee of the independent Board of Inland Revenue and is not the servant of the acquiring authority.

According to the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who wrote a letter to The Times dated 29th April this year:

"The district valuer is, therefore"—

I emphasise the word "therefore" used by the President of the Royal Institution—

"an impartial assessor",

the implication being that valuers employed by the acquiring authority are not impartial. The position with the local authority that uses its own valuation officers is that its own valuation officers negotiate and assess. Very few people know that such a state of affairs exists. Its existence was specifically denied by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in a letter to The Times dated 18th May.

I tabled a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask him, so that the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors might be authoritatively instructed, which local authorities in England and Wales did not use the district valuer but used their own employees as valuation officers to value property which they compulsorily acquired. I will read the list from the Chancellor's answer in alphabetical order: Birmingham, Brighton, Bromley, Cardiff, Dover, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdon, Liverpool, City of London, Greater London Council, Manchester, Newcastle, Salford, Sheffield, Stoke, Swansea, Torquay and Worthing, making a total of 19.

Therefore, when the House has an opportunity to consider a Bill promoted by one of these authorities, it might reasonably ask whether this situation should exist, because where it does exist there are bound to be pressures to be resisted, and those pressures are all bound to be on the side of parsimony and in the interests of the ratepayers, which certainly should be protected but no more than is absolutely fair to the property owner. The good servant will always wish to please his master with a bargain in the market place. Indeed, economy is bound to be equated with virtue by the employers of the valuation officers, for they are the guardians of the public purse.

I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) here because she has unrivalled experience as a Chief Whip of the majority party in the old L.C.C. In 1962, she told the House, when we were debating the White Paper on the Reorganisation of London Government,

"… valuers … acquire land for the Council, who negotiate to get the best terms … in the Council's interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1962; Vol. 654, c. 283]

Again, I quote the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), who opposed my Motion for leave to introduce the Bill to which my correspondent whom I have quoted referred. Boasting, he said:

"I used to be a city treasurer, and many times I have objected to what I considered to be an exorbitantly high figure fixed by the District Valuer. That may be called pressure, but it was pressure in the interests of the ratepayer. … In one case the parties were the owner of a public house and the ratepayers. I know where my sympathies were in that case—they were with the ratepayers, and not with the publican. I succeeded in getting £1,000 knocked off the valuation. This sort of thing happened more than once in my own local authority, and I should imagine that it has happened with many other local authorities too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 976.]

This was a boast in this House of sympathy for one party in a negotiation in which the duty of a public official was to see that fair market value was paid. I quote also from the judgment of the Lands Tribunal in the case of Ansaldi v. Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. It said of the valuation officer:

"… it is desirable to distinguish his functions from that of a district valuer, who is an independent official whose duty it is to assess value and advise".

It said that the valuation officer acted by contrast as the local authority's

"… agent, and he reflects the obligations of his principals to ensure that the ratepayers acquire property as cheaply as is reasonably possible."

The Tribunal recognised the pressures operating upon officials employed in this capacity. Always, of course, there is the dread shadow in the background of a possible surcharge on the valuation officer by the district auditor. If the valuation officer is too generous, his local authority will be surcharged. None of these pressures operates on the District Valuer.

But the hon. Gentleman has really solved his problem. He has quoted the Lands Tribunal. Under this Bill, the City of London is agreeing that, if there is any argument or question, then the Lands Tribunal, to which he is paying tribute, will have the power to arbitrate and the decision will be final. If it is such a good tribunal, surely that is the sort of thing we want.

I said that I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would forgive me if I did not take that point at thebeginning of what I wanted to say. Of course it is a proper point to make but I would rather deal with it when I think it best in the logical order of my argument. If his argument were absolutely valid, there would be no basis for my case, but there are serious difficulties in accepting that as a complete alibi.

The indignant local authority valuation officers themselves cry out and say with pathetic sincerity, when their ambiguous position is questioned, that they are fair. I am convinced that honourable professional men do their best to be fair but one cannot help wondering who is going to believe them. Certainly it will not be the disappointed owner who ruefully compares his offer from the valuation officer with his own assessment of the value of his home. He must be put in mind of Emerson's phrase:

"The louder he talked of his honour.

The faster we counted our spoons."

This may be unjust on valuation officers. It may be cruel. But can we blame the private owner for this attitude? Justice may be done but in these circumstances it is not seen to be done. I quote from a letter I received from a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who is the head of an old-established and highly regarded firm in north-west London. He said:

"Why is it possible to settle with the district valuer and never with …"

the local authority valuation officer

"—without unpleasantness and a tremendous fight? In fact, I have called the county hall"—

this was the L.C.C.—

"the 'den of Forty Thieves' … I have come to the conclusion that all the affairs of the County Hall are governed entirely by politics and that the word 'justice' simply does not exist."

Apparently, politics is having sympathy with the ratepayers and none with the publican who happens to have money invested in private property.

These are not my personal opinions. I have quoted them to show how responsible people are capable of these feelings. Although I must deplore those feelings, they are held. It is a nasty situation. It is unfair to the owner, who may be forgiven for seeing the local authority valuation officer as a hired assassin moving in to the kill. It is even more unfair to the unfortunate officers themselves for it places them in an invidious position, and one of the prime purposes of my advocacy of a change in this system is to relieve those officers of the odium they incur through carrying out their almost impossible duty.

Quite apart from the pressures, there is also the question of efficiency. The local authority valuation officer is less well equipped than the district valuer to do the job. The district valuer is automatically supplied with details of every property sold and every lease stamped in his area. Facts and figures reach him from the Estate Duty Office whenever probate is granted. The local authority valuation officer merely depends on Press reports of auction prices and the records of his own past deals—apparently, according to the hon. Member for Dundee, West, with a little sympathetic encouragement from the city treasurer.

The local authority valuation officer is not reliably informed of the current trend of the free market and it can hardly be wondered at that the compensation he offers is so unrealistic. One cannot wonder, therefore, that constituents often come to hon. Members in tears, or that their relatives may be frightened by their threats of suicide. It was after all Mr. Pilgrim's suicide which caused the whole principle of a fair market price to be accepted by this House.

The orthodox reply is that the owner can appeal to the Lands Tribunal, and that is true. But life is not as simple as that, as the monkey found when he stuck his hand in the jar, closed it over the nuts and could not pull it out again. The dispossessed householder has to produce the cash for his new house or lose the deal, and for that he must secure the compensation first of all on his old house. It may be that he cannot afford the delay incurred in an appeal. Such a man is often forced, therefore, in order to get the cash, to accept less than he thinks right because money now is more important than more money later. Even when an owner does accept delay through appeal, there is a further deterrent. He may have to pay the costs of his appeal to the Lands Tribunal. Therefore, many thousands of householders who are under the axe accept prices lower than fair market value rather than run the risk of costs and the certainty of delay in appealing to the Lands Tribunal.

Estate agents agree that these valuation officers drive hard bargains and that their initial offers are low. On the books of a chartered surveyor and estate agent friend of mine is a case where, over 12 months, the initial offer almost doubled because his client could wait. One has to ask therefore: Why did it start so low and what would have happened if he could not have afforded to wait?

Let me give an example from the Estate Gazette Digest of Cases, 1951–60, which reports 22 appeals to the Lands Tribunal against the London County Council. In the 12 cases where the local authority valution officer's final offer can be compared with the Lands Tribunal award, the award bumped up the local authority valuation officer's offer on average by 80 per cent. I have quoted this figure in the House before, and it has not been challenged. Details can be found in c. 694–5 of Vol. 698 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

A friend of mine, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, demonstrated to me from his files that his average achievement for clients who were victims of compulsory purchase order proceedings was to bump up the offer by 12½ per cent., but that where his clients could afford to wait and he could protract negotiations for a year or more, his average achievement was to bump up the offer by 72 per cent.

It is doubly wrong that the property owner should be at such a disadvantage for, at best, compulsory purchase creates an abnormal situation. The buyer knows that in the end he can take the property by force. Thus the healthy relationship of willing buyer, willing seller, is upset. The council frequently does not want all that the vendor has to offer. Most of the vendors would prefer not to sell at all. The man who has spent £300 on his garden—draining the lawn, paving pathways, building a wall and greenhouse—is appalled to find that he is not offered a penny for it. In a normal market he can stay in his home or stick out for the price that he really wants. Therefore, one must ask whether the acquiring authorities need make things worse by seeming to load the dice in their own favour. It would be better for them to hand over negotiations and assessment to the independent district valuer.

That we have compensation today based on fair market value is due to the action of Conservative Members, of whom I was among the foremost, in the bias against the private owner in the last 40 years or so when the State and public authorities wanted to acquire his property.

It disturbs me to see that there is a persistent bias against the rights of ownership of private property, and I think it right to use the opportunity of debate on Second Reading of this Bill to ventilate this grievance and encourage those responsible to mend their ways.

8.15 p.m.

I have been asked to intervene in the debate by the Southwark Borough Council, whose interest stems from its desire to build two large estates which will incorporate walkways. As has been so rightly said, it will be glad to have the experience of the City of London to see how far the powers being sought in the Bill will be satisfactory and adequate if it comes to seek such powers. I am, therefore, anxious to see the Bill achieve Second Reading and have such matters as have been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), if they can be discussed in Committee, referred to Committee for careful consideration.

This is the line that the House has taken ever since I have been a Member. It is not customary to issue Instructions to the Committee, nor is it customary to prevent Second Reading unless there is a great deal of feeling against it. We rely upon the adequacy with which the Committee will examine the proposals. I am anxious that the Bill should be given Second Reading and that it should proceed to Committee where notice will be taken of the debate that has taken place in this Chamber. I feel confident that this will happen.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central on the London Electricity Board's objections to the powers which the City of London wishes to secure in respect of walkways, I was a little unclear as to what they might be. It struck me that were there to be no walkways, as the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) has suggested, were the City without power to impose the conditions it wishes to impose, where would be the London Electricity Board's opportunity to deal with this increased load which has impressed the House tonight?

In the Bill definite provision is made for walkways above and below street level communicating with the streets. They will be treated as streets and the rights of statutory undertakers will be preserved. We are all most anxious that what is necessary shall be preserved, but we are likewise concerned that this new development shall not be impeded in any way such as would appear to be possible were the City not to obtain these powers. I hope that the House will pass the Bill as it has been drafted.

I am interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who has now gone from the House, partly because he mentioned my name. I did use one word, which I subsequently corrected, when I mentioned that the valuers were getting the best terms for their councils. I omitted to say "subject to the law". The law states that the vendor is entitled to the market price and it is the business of any valuer to find out what the market price is in the case of any particular property.

It is a matter of opinion, but, as has been pointed out, a valuer is a professional man who has a standard or code of conduct to which he must conform. He must value according to proper standards and to the very best of his judgment the price of the property concerned, having no regard to the parties to the transaction.

I understand that the instructions to the members of the valuation department in the normal way are that they shall use their best endeavours to arrive at a fair price and not do their best for the council. There is no member of the council who would know what a fair price is and there is no member of the council who would even be made aware of what price was being offered. There have been times when I myself have represented to the valuers' department that a price might not have been fair because of the kind of prices being offered privately for similar dwellings in the neighbourhood, but I have always had a reasoned statement of the situation with which I could not but be content.

I make these observations not because it is necessary in the House to protect valuers and to show that the valuers of local authorities are impartial, because this is not the occasion on which that subject should be discussed. But if the hon. Member for Ilford, North is so concerned that the law should be altered—and he recently unsuccessfully tried to persuade the House to allow him to introduce a Bill to do so—he must endeavour and go on endeavouring to change the general law, not make an attack on a private Bill of this nature which contains so many provisions of value to the public. He ought not to be allowed to hold up the progress of such a Bill, and I hope that the House will give it the Second Reading which it deserves.

8.21 p.m.

I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) will forgive me if I do not comment on her remarks in detail, as my interest in the Bill is somewhat different from hers. I would only point out in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) that, having devoted some part of her speech to rebutting my hon. Friend's case, the hon. Lady then said that he ought never to have put it at all. I see that she appreciates the inconsistency of her stand on this matter.

I see no such inconsistency. Perhaps I should have prefaced my remarks by that last remark.

I entirely absolve the hon. Lady from any suggestion that she accepted my charge.

I should like to discuss Clause 27 and to begin by saying that I agree with almost everything said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He and I sit at opposite ends of the political seesaw, but this time we are both firmly at the same end, and I am delighted that that should be so. No Bill introduced in the present Session is of more interest to my constituents than this. They may not recognise that other legislation, particularly the Finance Act, may directly affect them more than this, but this is the Bill on which they have written to me shoals and shoals of letters.

Clause 27 is intended to clarify the law, because the law about the powers over Epping Forest is uncertain, and in so clarifying the law to strengthen the hand of the conservators of Epping Forest in resisting encroachment upon the Forest. I do not need to tell the House the history of this unique piece of common land which lies so near to London, particularly to the East End of London, and I have the utmost sympathy with what the hon. Member for West Ham, North had to say about that.

Suffice it to say that in the 1870s the City Corporation was successful in buying up some 3,000 acres, all that then remained of what had once been a vast and extensive forest. It saved it from being enclosed by the local lords of the manor and eventually succeeded in promoting the Epping Forest Act, 1878, which ensured that Epping Forest, those parts which the Corporation had and anything which could be added to it, should be preserved for the benefit of the public in perpetuity. We now have a unique stretch of natural forest on the outskirts of north-east London lying in a great crescent in a North-Easterly direction and now extending to nearly 6,000 acres and representing in the best phrase—I do not claim any originality for it—a uniquely valuable lung for London which all those who have anything to do with it wish to preserve under the terms of the 1878 Act.

Epping Forest is used by hundreds of thousands of people every year. Many of them like to congregate in large numbers in some of the more popular spots where they can have their picnics. Others prefer to walk in small groups or alone along the beautiful woodland walks which abound in the forest.

In the 19th century the pressure on Epping Forest was enclosure by the lords of the manor but in the 20th century the pressure is encroachment by the mounting tide of suburban and other development. The conservators are facing growing pressures for the use of forest land for roads, for wayleaves of all sorts, for land for electricity substations, or stilling ponds and other things of that sort. They are frequently and inevitably in conflict—and I do not use that word in any pejorative sense—with local authorities in the area who have their own statutory responsibilities.

I mentioned stilling ponds. Last year, there was an argument concerning my constituency when the local authority believed that its new Monkhams Valley drainage scheme required the construction on forest land of a concrete stilling pond to trap the flood water which came down in heavy rainstorms, and in this it was supported by local residents who had suffered severe flooding three or four times in the last decade. The conservators took the view that they had no power to grant the right to build a stilling pond, and they were most reluctant to see it, because it would he an encroachment on and an unnatural use of forest land. They suggested instead scooping a shallow natural pond and fringing it with shrubs which could trap a great deal of the debris which is washed off the forest in heavy rain and which was part of the cause of the flooding. I am happy to say that this argument has now been resolved along the lines of the conservators' suggestion.

I should like at this point to pay tribute to the Forest Superintendent, Mr. Alfred Qvist, who is a most remarkable man. He combines great skill as an expert in all aspects of forestry with great toughness as an administrator, which can often give rise to conflict. Thus he is in the front line of the battle to prevent encroachments on Epping Forest.

The Conservators consist of Councillors of the City Corporation and verderers elected by the commoners of Epping Forest. The local authorities are not represented on the Epping Forest Committee, and in the past, sometimes, there has been a tendency for the Forest authorities perhaps not to take that account of local public opinion that one might wish to see on certain matters, or to warn local people what was likely to happen. We had an argument in Woodford a few months ago when a great avenue of poplar trees had to be felled because they had reached the end of their life; and I think a lot of the outcry could have been avoided if members of the public had been taken into the confidence of the Corporation before anything happened, but they were not.

However, in general, the public—and I certainly speak here for the vast majority of my constituents—fully support the Conservators in their efforts to prevent encroachments on the Forest land, but the point is that the pressures on the Conservators are growing. They are not now from the private landowners, or even, now, the private developers; they are from the great statutory corporations, the boards, the authorities, the local authorities and Government Departments. All these bodies have compulsory powers, and all these bodies, quite rightly, have their own statutory duties and tend to be very cost conscious; they tend to look for the cheapest solution to their problems. What they very often face in this area is a choice between a solution of their own problem which may be expensive, which may be difficult, which may be inconvenient, or a solution which appears to be cheap and easy and highly convenient. They may face the choice of finding land outside the Forest, a way round outside the Forest, or the choice of exercising compulsory powers in the Forest, and this is a great temptation for them. Naturally, they would far rather choose the cheap and easy solution.

Usually—in fact, I think it is probably true to say virtually always—in those circumstances agreement between the authority concerned and the Conservators, is achieved by the wayleave, or whatever it may be, being granted either on terms with regard, for instance, to burying electricity lines, gas pipes, or telephone lines, or, alternatively, on terms obliging the authority to find some other way round—to put its development on some other land.

I was very struck by one of the answers given by Mr. Qvist when he was being examined in Committee in another place. He was asked—it is reported on page 25, of day 2—it is Question 11:

"Your experience therefore is that there has never been any necessity in the past for these undertakers to operate any powers they may have?"

The answer:

"They have never done so. You say there has never been any necessity. I assume from the fact that they have never attempted compulsory powers that they have found alternative means."

I think this reflects immense credit on the Conservators, their skill, their toughness in negotiation, and, if I may say so, also on the statutory undertakers who themselves recognise the value of preserving Epping Forest.

The fact of the matter is, however, that these pressures are increasing all the time. One threat in particular which now overhangs a substantial part of the northern end of Epping Forest is the Greater London Council's plan, or, it may be, a Ministry of Transport plan, for the D ring road. This is one of the orbital roads which will eventually be built round north London and which, if it were allowed to go through Epping Forest, would really strike a body blow at the whole concept of what the Conservators have been striving for over the last 70 or 80 years.

The great virtue of Epping Forest, particularly at the northern end, is that it provides a long, continuous stretch of natural woodland where one can walk for some miles without seeing any vestiges of civilisation. The battle, really, has been lost at the southern end, where the Conservators came into the picture too late to save the forest from being broken up into a number of separate pieces; but at the northern end there are great stretches of natural woodland and forest which are of quite unique value. and if a great dual carriageway road, whether of motorway standard or not, were to be driven through it, it would cut an immense swathe through the Forest and represent an encroachment on the Forest far more serious than the actual acreage of land which would be taken because it would represent the breaking up of the continuous stretch which provides so immensely valuable an amenity in the Forest and for those who use it.

In Epping Forest we are at the point of no return. We need to strengthen the hand of the Conservators; we need to give them the weapons to be able to fight, on equal terms, those who for what may be good reasons are threatening the survival of the Forest. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminister (Mr. John Smith) said in his speech, moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which I much enjoyed, Parliament gave the powers to the Conservators, and only Parliament should over-ride those powers. That is the purpose of Clause 27.

We have two examples at present going through the House where this is happening. I hope that I am not trespassing on anything that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) might want to say, but we have the reservoir and the road straightening of the North Circular at the Waterworks Corner in South Woodford, where Bills are being promoted, in the one case by the Metropolitan Water Board, and in the other by the Minister of Transport, as Private Bills. This is the right procedure.

In this case the City Corporation can argue the case through the Private Bill procedure, through the Committee upstairs, and the essential character of Epping Forest can be maintained. I said that the law is not clear on this. Many of the arguments that have taken place between the Conservators and the statutory corporations have arisen because of that. It is not clear how far the powers of these other corporations can over-ride the express limitations and provisions of the 1878 Act.

The purpose of Clause 27 is to put this beyond doubt. Only Parliament should be able to over-ride the powers which Parliament has given. The Conservators have given the clearest undertaking that the normal, small encroachments, for road widening, bus bays, and things of that sort, will continue exactly as hitherto. There need be no fear that the local authorities will have to promote a Private Bill every time that they want to build a bus bay. I am happy to say, as other hon. Members have, that this Bill and Clause 27 particularly, is supported by the London borough of Redbridge, in which part of the Forest lies.

The Town Clerk of the London Borough of Redbridge has written, saying:

"You will, of course, appreciate that my Council always supports the Corporation of London in its efforts to further the preservation of Epping Forest and this Bill contains such provision".

If the local authority, with all its responsibilities, for highways and other services, is prepared to support the Bill, surely to goodness some of these great statutory authorities could take the same view. The aim of Clause 27 is to help the Conservators to resist major depredations.

There may be objections in detail, as there were in another place, to the precise wording of the Clause, but, as mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham, this is surely a matter for the Committee.

It is difficult to see what the electricity undertakings and other statutory undertakings have to complain about. After all, it is part of public policy to preserve amenity. I am putting it at its broadest and most general. One has elaborate provisions, under planning law, to ensure that private developers operate within that framework of the law and public policy. It is not asking too much that the statutory corporations should, so far as they conceivably can, operate within the same framework. From time to time it may put up their costs, but this is something which they should be expected to meet, as part of the overall policy of preserving the character of the rural environment of the Green Belt, of which Epping Forest forms a part. The main purpose of Clause 27 is to put it beyond doubt that Parliament is the only body which can override the powers of the 1878 Act.

London has many beautiful, historic monuments and wonderful parks. It has open heaths and other valuable assets. But there is not so much in the outer suburbs, and Epping Forest represents a unique survival from an earlier age of incalculable value to past and present generations of Londoners living far beyond the immediate neighbourhood of Epping Forest. Present generations are quite determined to ensure its preservation for future generations. Clause 27 would achieve that purpose. It is my profound hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.40 p.m.

Much of what I intended to say has been said by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). Despite the arguments which have been put forward about certain aspects of the Bill, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I feel that the drafting of a code of legislation governing the construction of upper level walkways in the City is highly desirable. Having visited the area, I much admire the Barbican scheme, with its elevated walkways. I am certain that it will be possible, with give and take on both sides, to work out an Amendment in Committee which will give substantial satisfaction to the statutory undertakers and to the Corporation. I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, but it would be a tragedy if the Bill were delayed because of this issue.

I have no wish to comment on increases in the number of judges at the Central Criminal Court or on most of the other general provisions in the Bill, but, like the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, I am particularly concerned about the Clauses which deal with Epping Forest, a large part of which is in my constituency.

As the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford pointed out, the connection of the Corporation of the City of London with Epping Forest as Conservators dates back to the last century. It is exercised through the Epping Forest Committee and the staff under the Superintendent of the forest. I am not the greatest admirer of the constitutional position of the Corporation in general, but I should like to place on record my great admiration of the excellent work done by the Epping Forest Committee in preserving the forest. I add my tribute to that paid by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to the work of Mr. Qvist, the Superintendent. I have had to go to him on a number of occasions about problems brought to me by constituents. I have always found him not only most helpful, but most assiduous in his duties and in defending what I regard as a very important heritage.

The Corporation has used its funds and energies for the preservation of a great public amenity, because Epping Forest is a boon not merely to those who live on its fringes but to the population of the whole of north-east London. It is renowned throughout the country and wherever I mention that I am the Member of Parliament for Epping, people ask me about Epping Forest. It is a place of recreation for many residents of northeast London and it has been so for generations.

I was born in Bethnal Green, as were my parents and some of my grandparents and great-grandparents. For over a century, all of them have made use of Epping Forest as a place of recreation, and so, of course, have their contemporaries. There is a tremendous variety of facilities there, including boating, bathing and the Queen Elizabeth hunting lodge, where there is an admirable museum. There are fairgrounds and ancient camps and the forest is a haven for wild life and plants. It is vital that we should do all we can to preserve this great amenity for generations to come.

Modern developments, especially roads, inevitably encroach on forest land. If along the length of the A.11 we were to have a dual carriageway and if, in addition, the D-ring road which is envisaged at some future date were allowed to cut through the forest as another dual carriageway, eventually the forest would suffer the death of a thousand cuts. All that would remain would be a fringe of trees on the edge of all sorts of other development. In those circumstances, the powers which are being sought under Clause 27 are vital if the forest is to be preserved against disposal or compulsory acquisition in any form.

I feel this very strongly, particularly when so much countryside near London today is likely to be taken in for development. Hon. Members know how strongly I feel about the siting of a third London Airport at Stansted. If in the end that regrettably takes place—and I intend to oppose it as strongly as I can all the way along the line—it is even more necessary that Epping Forest should be preserved.

It was not, of course, merely the Corporation of the City of London which was responsible for the original preservation of the forest. It was the work of ordinary people—for example, Thomas Willingale, a poor labourer of Loughton, who insisted on maintaining his rights to lop trees in the forest in the face of an attempt by the lord of the manor to enclose the area. His sons went to gaol to preserve that right and gave the opportunity for other people, including the Buxton family, to come in and interest the corporation in the preservation of the forest. A great debt is owed by all present generations to those of the past. It is a debt which we can pay back to them only by playing our part in our day and preserving this heritage for the generations still to come.

I am sorry that there does not appear to be a Clause in the Bill which might deal with the use of the forest by graziers of cattle. The commoners originally had rights to turn their cattle out into the forest, a right which today is to some extent abused by graziers. This is one of the traditional practices in the forest which, I believe, has regrettably to be brought under control.

As I was coming along to the House today, I got involved in a traffic jam along the Epping New Road, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, as a result of a large herd of cattle wending its way across the road.

Is the hon. Member aware that I was late for my very first adoption meeting because of cattle straying across the road, which held up the car in which I was travelling?

The hon. Gentleman will know very well to what I am referring then, and no doubt he will be very familiar with complaints from his constituents about cattle breaking into their gardens and eating their produce and prize flowers. I understand from people who deal with these matters that the cattle are capable of jumping over fences where they are incapable of breaking them down, and quite a number of constituents in my area feel very strongly about it. I should have hoped for some provision in the Bill for the conservators to deal with this nuisance to householders and traffic in this day and age.

Notwithstanding all these matters, I still welcome the Bill. It seems to me that the Corporation has done a magnificent job in many respects in connection with the forest, and I agree with the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and other hon. Gentlemen who have said that the Bill should go to Committee where any issues which arise, particularly those with the statutory undertakers, can be ironed out.

I believe that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to proceed. Certainly it has my fullest support and that of the vast majority, if not all, of my constituents.

8.51 p.m.

I rise briefly to bring to the Second Reading of this Bill my own support and that of the City of Liverpool.

If I may first deal with my own rather sentimental support of the Bill, I was born and brought up in a house situated on the edge of Epping Forest. At the age of 11, I counted myself one of the greatest experts on the byways of that great forest. I could take anyone to glades where wild deer still are to be found and where species of birds and kinds of trees which the average Londoner still dreams of stand in solitary state. My grandfather and one of my uncles were among the Conservators and verderers of the forest. My mother could have testified that I had fallen fully clothed into every pond in the forest by the time I was ten years of age and had brought most of the mud, which is clay, into our house by the age of 14. I should hate to see any of the amenities and special attractions of the forest destroyed, and, therefore, I have the greatest sentimental support for the Bill's Second Reading.

To come to more important matters, the Corporation of the City of Liverpool has written to me and to other hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies urging us to give full support to the Bill's Second Reading.

The chronology in this case seems to have gone wrong. Normally, what the great cities of the North-West think today, the City of London thinks tomorrow. In the present case, the procedure appears to have been reversed. But the City of Liverpool is always ready to take a kindly interest in good ideas which may emerge from the second biggest exporting port in the country.

In this case, it is the idea of the walkway, which the City of Liverpool intends to incorporate in the new planning developments for the centre of that City. In a recent letter from the Town Clerk, the City Corporation urges all Liverpool Members to make it clear that, just as the City of London thinks, apparently:

"It seems difficult to appreciate how any public utility undertaking can expect to have normal street powers in the walkways as envisaged in the Bill."

At this point, with some effrontery, I take issue with the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who speaks with such great authority in these matters. He said that he was worried about these powers because the Bill provides that some existing streets may be designated as walkways and, therefore, powers which electricity authorities have in those streets now may be taken away from them.

If the hon. Gentleman refers to Clause 19, he will see that when a walkway is at, or below, street level these powers are specifically reserved to the electricity undertakings. There is no intention that they should be deprived of them, and as existing streets taken over as walkways will, presumably, be at, or possibly below, street level. I believe that the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman are unfounded.

I appreciate that, but as cities grow upwards and electric loadings go up with them, it is most important that it should be possible for the cables and other apparatus to follow them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes that point.

I was dealing with the narrow point about the taking over of existing streets, in respect of which I thought that the hon. Gentleman had taken a misleading point.

I support the Bill both in my personal capacity, and in my capacity as a representative of the City of Liverpool.

8.56 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

(Mr. James MacColl)

This is a private Bill, and I am not trying to bring the debate to an end, but I think that the House would wish to know the Government's attitude to some of the points which have been raised.

I agree with all that has been said about the value of Part II of the Bill. The walkways are a splendid experiment, and we shall all watch it with great interests. For different reasons, Part III of the Bill is very necessary. In everybody's interest it is important to have more judges in the criminal courts to stop delays in the carrying out of justice. This is one reason why it is important to get the Bill through if we can. I suppose one might say that if Epping Forest was freer, and if there were more Epping Forests, there would be no need for Part III of the Bill because there would not be the problems of delinquency and crime which we are to discuss again in a short while.

In answer to a question which I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I would like to make it clear that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Power and the Postmaster-General reported in the first House against Part II, but they are not continuing their opposition here. Although they are not happy about it, they are not taking the matter any further.

The most difficult Clause in the Bill is Clause 27, and those two right hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, are reporting against it. It is not so much a question of its value for Epping Forest, which is in many ways unique, but the fact that it extends beyond Epping Forest, and that it might create an undesirable precedent for other less responsible and less reliable people who might have the power to delay necessary work which statutory authorities wish to carry out. My right hon. Friend and I are interested primarily in the preservation of amenity. This is one of our principal jobs, and therefore we do not feel quite as strongly about the Clause as do some other Departments which are anxious to remove it from the Bill.

These are all matters which ought to be looked at in Committee. It is clear from what has been said throughout the debate that there is no case for not giving the Bill a Second Reading. It is a very good Bill. The points at issue are complicated and technical. I therefore hope very much that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to Committee, where all these matters can be considered.

9.0 p.m.

I am grateful for the opportunity to give my wholehearted support to the proposal to give the Bill a Second Reading. I want to pay my tribute to the value of Epping Forest for the inhabitants of north-east London. Much that I would have said has already been said and I shall not repeat it, but it is clear that the fact that things have been said before is not necessarily a bar in our proceedings.

This is a unique occasion, for I find myself for the first time, and probably the last time, in wholehearted support of everything uttered by my Member of Parliament. That state of affairs will not necessarily continue.

Since hon. Members have recounted their qualifications for intervening in the debate I want to give my qualifications. Firstly, the whole of my life has been lived on the edge of Epping Forest and I have always enjoyed its amenities. In my boyhood I paddled in the Hollow Ponds, although I am not sure whether I offended against any byelaw. In my youth and early manhood I played cricket and football on the forest and in my late middle age more staidly and sedately I go for walks in this beautiful forest. Secondly, my constituency has in it a beautiful part of Epping Forest.

The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) referred to the current road proposals. As an earnest of the obvious desire of the people living in the area of the Forest that it should not be interfered with there has been considerable opposition to this proposal. Although the case for the road may be argued on transport grounds there is great opposition. I am delighted by the efforts of the City Corporation without which much mischief and the loss of the land of Epping Forest would have occurred.

It has been interesting to hear various hon. Members with constituencies surrounding the Forest talking about the love and affection that their constituents have for it and their resolve that Epping Forest should not be interfered with without extremely good reason. It is very odd that although Members have been speaking from areas widely different in character and political views, the constituents in these areas are united in their pride in Epping Forest and in the history of its acquisition as a public open space. I imagine that most of them have proudly in their possession some replica of the acquisition and preservation of the forest.

The Act of 1878 is to them of almost equal importance as Magna Carta has in the history of England. They have a great desire not only to see the Forest continue in being but to fight any unnecessary steps which would spoil the Forest or encroach upon it. I sympathise with and understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodfnrd about the poplar trees on Woodford Green. We are sincerely grateful to the City Corporation for its efforts in maintaining the forest at no cost to the vast number of people who enjoy the amenities. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I lend my support to the proposal of the City Corporation—a purely altruistic proposal—to maintain the open space for our benefit.

Recently I had the great pleasure and privilege of accompanying the Epping Forest Committee on its tour of the forest. Quite apart from the enjoyable time spent in the Forest I was very impressed by the great care and attention which the Committee paid to the preservation of its amenities. I was also tremendously impressed by the fair and reasonable approach which it made to every request for the use of parts of Forest land. A request was never dismissed out of hand. Close consideration was given to it, and every endeavour was made to see whether it was possible to accommodate the applicant without detriment to the Forest. I am sure that that state of affairs will continue.

We must face the fact that the Forest is naturally a place at which statutory undertakers and local authorities will look if they have developments in mind. It is much easier and less expensive to acquire land for use in Epping Forest than to have to negotiate with private developers, and there is a temptation on statutory undertakers and local authorities to look first at Epping Forest rather than to look at Epping Forest as a last resort, if a resort at all.

I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to the Electricity Board and its attitude towards Epping Forest. I appreciate the problem which faces the Board and I appreciate that the Board would not normally seek to take Epping Forest land if it could be avoided, but I had an experience in my constituency in which the London Electricity Board applied to use some Epping Forest land for an electricity sub-station, quite ignoring the fact that immediately adjoining it was an adequate piece of waste land in private ownership which could equally well have been taken for development and that within 20 yards there were areas of land which had been developed or redeveloped only a matter of months earlier. Presumably the Board had an opportunity of putting a sub-station on that land, but it did not take it. For reasons which I do not know, the Board was more anxious to seek permission to use land in Epping Forest. It is a temptation against which we have to guard.

I appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who quite rightly pointed out that the Electricity Board and other undertakers have powers conferred on them by Act of Parliament to develop their undertakings. But that is an argument for the provision in Clause 27 whereby in cases of dispute, when both the statutory undertaker and the City Corporation have statutory powers, the determination of which statutory powers should supervene should be by Parliament. Parliament gave to the Epping Forest Conservators the obligation to see that the amenities of the Forest were maintained for the people of North and East London for ever, and Parliament ought to accept that where there is a clash of statutory responsibility, Parliament itself should determine where the answer best lies. For that reason I think it abundantly right that the provisions in Clause 27 should be enacted and I am not deterred from that view by the fact that my hon. Friend indicated that certain Amendments are desired.

I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in the debate. Other points were raised in opposition to the Bill, but the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) is not here at the moment. He dealt at length with what he believed to be the arbitrary power which might vest in the City Corporation. I will not go into detail on the matter except to say that I thought that many of the remarks which he made were a slur on members of an honourable profession, the valuers employed by local authorities. As a local government officer of many years standing and as a solicitor who has been concerned in compulsory acquisition, I would say that his description of the process for negotiating a price was grossly exaggerated and highly coloured.

I join all my colleagues from the Forest constituencies in welcoming the Measure and expressing the hope that it will not only have a Second Reading but will go through Committee, and finally Third Reading, untouched.

9.8 p.m.

I join the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in welcoming the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

This is a Second Reading of a private Bill, and to that extent it differs from the Second Reading of a public Bill. Normally on the Second Reading of a public Bill the House is considering whether it approves both the general principle and the expediency of the Bill. When considering a private Bill, as the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) was endeavouring to show, the House is considering approval of the general principle but the matter of expediency is left to the Committee. It is for the Promoters of the Bill to prove whether it is an expedient moment and method for the Bill and not necessarily for the House to consider that point. If the House approves the principle, then it should give the Bill a Second Reading—and who can fail to approve the principles embodied in the Bill?

To turn back to what was said in his opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), there are six points of importance in the Bill. He began with Clause 29, which broadens the field from which members of the Common Council may be elected, surely, a principle of democracy acceptable to the whole House. Next, he referred to Clause 21, the provisions for off-street parking in adjacent London boroughs. We all want to see more off-street parking wherever it can be economically maintained, and the proposal here is that it shall be arranged by agreement between the City and the adjoining boroughs. My hon. Friend turned next to Clause 25, the application of some funds arising from the cessation of the Coal Market to educational purposes, again a matter which we can wholeheartedly support in principle.

My hon. Friend's fourth point, on Clause 22, raises what is, perhaps, the easiest example of the difference between principle and expediency. If there are delays in the hearing of cases, the principle of increasing the number of judges must necessarily be approved. It is for the promoters to satisfy a Select Committee that it is expedient to appoint so many extra judges for so much extra time which they would occupy. Those are details for the Committee, but the principle must be approved.

Now, the protection of Epping Forest, Clause 27. This is an unusual Clause, providing that the common lands of Epping Forest and other areas shall not be alienated by the City Corporation but going further than that and providing that they shall not be compulsorily acquired from the City except under a further statute passed by Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that this was to clarify the law and to strengthen the hands of the conservators.

The principle is accepted—the protection of this wonderful area of unique natural forest, what my hon. Friend called a lung of London—but whether the Clause represents the right way to do it is a question which must be left to the Committee. It is, as I say, an unusual Clause, which should have careful consideration in the Select Committee with a view to seeing whether there is a less drastic way to strengthen the hands of the conservators.

Finally, the question of walkways. Here is a new and exciting aspect of town development. Walkers will see the City and will enjoy the City as they have never been able to do before. They will enjoy it without anxiety on account of traffic, and this will be a great advance in road safety and in traffic regulation. No city which is planning for the future will plan now without walkways of this sort. An even more ambitious scheme is being planned for Liverpool, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said. But few cities will be able to offer the amenities and historical interest which walkers will have when using walkways through the City of London.

The House is, naturally, disturbed by any suggestion that the public supply undertakers will be put in difficulty. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) put to the House a case which the Committee will have to consider in detail, especially if existing roadways were to be declared walkways so that the supply undertakers were prevented from maintaining their existing supply. However, I understand that this is not to happen, and the promoters intend to put forward Amendments to the Bill to that effect. This being so, I cannot see how, in practice, the supply undertakers can be given any rights over upper level walkways. If they have their rights as they exist at the moment in land, in the ground level roadways, these should be sufficient.

As I read the Bill as it stands, there is an element of selling town planning permission in it. It seems that the City could demand a price from the owners in order to provide and support the walkways, and demand it in the granting of planning permission. It has always been a recognised principle in all town plan- ning legislation that permission shall not not be sold, that no land owner shall be required to make a payment to get town planning permission. I hope that if I am reading the Bill correctly, and such a provision is at present in it, it will come out and that the City will be required to acquire rights of way and agreements for support in the normal way, in bargain with the owners concerned.

I cannot suppress my enthusiasm for the walkways system, and as a fringe Liverpool Member, I joint in welcoming the Bill for giving us a legislative code which we can apply to Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned my connection with the Pedestrians Association for Road Safety. I should think that hon. Members know of it through almost tedious repetition in the House of my advocacy for the pedestrian. That is why I am so enthusiastic about the scheme for walkways in the City of London, and to that extent enthusiastic about the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I have disagreed many times about the powers of various local authorities. We are both grateful to have found one Bill about which we have such a wide range of agreement. Perhaps hon. Members from Merseyside should not interfere in it, but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) pointed out, on this occasion we were asked to intervene and support it.

The debate was becoming a meeting of "Royal Epping Forresters". The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) was delayed on his way to the House by Forest cattle—surely a breach of privilege. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) teetered on a seesaw with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—a fascinating thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston were falling in and out of the same pools, which is also a fascinating exercise.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), has said some rather controversial things, departed, and, unfortunately, not returned. He said that if anyone came up to him and claimed that in his own experience he had found valuation officers fair to individuals and corporations he would be delighted to pin on him a gold medal for gullibility or naivety. If it is solid gold, may I put on record my personal experience. Both in local government and outside I have found local valuation officers very fair within their terms of reference. In my experience, if there is any erring it is on the side of individuals as against the authorities. I deplore what sometimes becomes almost a personal campaign against the valuation officers, instead of standards, in the terms of the hon. Member for Ilford, North.

Strange alliances are formed in the House sometimes. While my general belief is that the powers of the City of London, like those of the Whips, have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished, on this occasion the City of London has the support of the City of Liverpool. That is not because the City of Liverpool thought of something after the City of London. We thought of it first, but the City of London got its Bill in first. After all, we have had our fair share of Bills.

There are 32 pages of detailed proposals in the Bill, most of them eminently reasonable. I should like to draw attention to, and perhaps declare an interest in, Clause 25, under which the Coal Market Fund, which has a nice 19th-century flavour, a ring of realism and truth, and an honest title, is to be replaced by something called the "City Educational Trust Fund". If we are to get the Bill through the House, let there be a better title than this. Let it be perhaps "Better terms, and the proceeds will be used for the advancement of education in science and technology, business management and commerce by the promotion of research, study, teaching and training in such subjects." Coal Market Act‡ Let us have something related to fuel technology and fuel research if it can be managed.

The main interest of the City of Liverpool is in regard to the city walkways. The City of Liverpool has a great interest in the proposals. So, we should place on record, has the Merseyside and North- West Electricity Board. There are points of very real interest and concern that we share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central, but, as he has accepted, these can well be sorted out in Committee and we shall watch those proceedings with interest.

My hon. Friend made the point that it would have been better if the proposals had come forward as general powers from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I would not disagree with that, except that I do not think he would have wanted to criticise that Ministry too much at this time. It has introduced over the last three years some very heavy, full and essential measures of legislation. While we would welcome general powers at a later stage, at this time we need these powers to get on with our development, because the City of Liverpool would prefer a precedent established so that later on we can quote it for our purpose.

The debate has been useful. There is no doubt about the intention of the House, and I am happy to give the Bill my suport.

9.23 p.m.

As I am the only Member which this particular City—

Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak again only by leave of the House. He must ask for that leave.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that as I am the only Member which this particular City—unlike Liverpool—has, I wonder if I might have the leave of the House to speak again briefly to comment on one or two of the points raised?

First, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) for not pressing the matter to a Division. I think that is in accordance with the spirit of Second Reading debates on Private Bills. He said that I do not know much about electricity, and indeed I fear I am somewhat in the position of Lord Finchley in the poem in regard to that.

In particular, the hon. Member mentioned five points on which I should like to comment. He said that it was important that electricity undertakers should have access to premises. Of course that is important, but the City believes that they already have adequate powers of this sort. For example, in tall buildings the electricity does in fact always arrive at the top into however many occupations the building may be divided.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that these proposals do not involve cables carrying thousands and thousands of volts: but he also said that as cities go up, loads go up. I think that we should bear in mind that one of the petitioners against the Bill is the Central Electricity Generating Board. I wonder what is the lowest voltage in which it deals. There is a passage in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Lords, where the manager of the Central Electricity Generating Board says:

"With our system there is the minimum voltage, over that 11,000 volts, over that 22,000, 33,000 or 66,000 volts, and when you get to the major transmission you go up to 400.000 volts. It is necessary at all these levels, particularly the lower levels of 33,000 volts and below …".

I feel that if 33,000 volts and below is considered a lower level we are dealing in quite large voltages. At the end of the same piece of evidence it was stated:

"It is the loss of the through routes which is going to be as big a problem as the individual service cables into the premises"

The point about existing streets being turned into walkways so that, in due course, undertakers lose their rights has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). I understand that the undertakers will in fact keep their rights in such streets and this Bill in itself does not affect those rights. He mentioned that a private Bill should not override public legislation. I feel that the Bill does not override anything but simply says that this new object, a walkway, is not a street.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that other undertakers besides electricity undertakers were uneasy, and this really reinforces our point that we should be careful about giving rights over these walkways because, whereas an electricity cable weighs perhaps 20 lb. a yard, the weight of water or gas pipes can weigh immeasurably more, even up to half a ton a yard for a pipe of large diameter. But all these, as he said, are technical points, and I think that they reinforce the need for the Bill to go into Committee.

The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) told us that he was held up by cattle in Epping Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) told how cattle nearly deprived us of his assistance here by keeping him from his adoption meeting. On behalf of the City, I would point out that the Corporation promoted a Bill in 1963, one of the objectives of which was to end the grazing of cattle in Epping Forest. But despite the advocacy of the present Lord Chancellor before the House of Commons Committee, the provisions relating to cattle were disallowed by the Committee. Personally, I have an open mind on that subject. I am rather in favour of delaying the hon. Member for Epping occasionally.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) raised the question of compensation and I am grateful that he did so because I made a mistake. I said that when the City gave planning permission it would insist on support being put in for the walkway, and on the walkway becoming a right of way; and that no compensation would be payable. In fact, no compensation will he payable for the right of way, but it will be payable for such additional structural work as is necessary to support the walkway.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North was the only one who allowed politics to raise its head in the debate. He said that the City of London Corporation was 100 per cent. Conservative. It is, of course, 100 per cent. nonpolitical. [Laughter] The hon. Gentleman worked there and he should know. I usually agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly about motor cars, although not about politics, and if ever there is a political convulsion in West Ham, North I hope that he will come back to the City of London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) raised the question of valuation. I shall not comment on what he said about compulsory purchase, but he mentioned the City as a local authority which does not refer such matters to the district valuer. In the City, negotiations over compulsory acquisition are conducted by the City Surveyor and he does not regard it as his duty to obtain the cheapest price in all cases.

Most owners of City property are well represented and, as has been pointed out, the matter can be referred to the Lands Tribunal. It involves delay but, if there is delay, owners of property in the City are better able to stand up to it than the owners of property elsewhere. There have only been to my knowledge two cases in the last ten years which have had to be referred to the Lands Tribunal and in both the price finally agreed was very close to the City Surveyor's price and quite a long way from the price insisted upon and put forward by the person whose property was to be acquired.

The Minister mentioned the Postmaster-General. I think I should say that the City has agreed to introduce Amendments which have been seen and accepted by the Postmaster-General. I am also grateful to the Minister for his inclination—it does not seem much more than an inclination—to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee.

This has been quite a suitable and agreeable end of term debate. Indeed, it is rather a pity that we cannot have a Division so that we can all squeeze for once into the same Lobby. On behalf of the City of London, which I have the honour to represent, may I thank the House for the way in which it has treated this Bill and express the hope that we will now be able to give it its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session:

Ordered,

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed, and shall be so recorded in the Journal of this House;

Ordered,

That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and all notices of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard given in the present Session, within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Referees relating to such notices, shall be held applicable in the next Session;

Ordered,

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited within the present Session;

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

Criminal Justice Bill

Postponed proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments resumed.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 40—(Supplementary Provisions As To Payment Of Fines, Etc)

Lords Amendment: No. 62, in page 32, line 15, at end add:

"and in section 5(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (construction of references to terms of imprisonment) the reference to section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, shall be construed as including a reference to section 38 of this Act".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "K"—(Selection Of Probation Officers)

Lords Amendment: No. 63, in page 35, line 23, at end insert:

"A probation officer under whose supervision a woman or girl is placed in pursuance of an order under section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, or any provision of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, may be a man or a woman, and accordingly paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 5 to the said Act of 1948 and paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963 (which provide that the officer must be a woman) shall cease to have effect".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

At present, the probation officer supervising a woman or a girl must be a woman, but the National Association of Probation Officers regards this as unnecessarily restrictive. Although in general it might be right that supervision should usually be exercised by an officer of the same sex as the person under supervision, I think it would be better and would accord more with the practice in child care and other welfare services to leave the choice of the sex to the supervising officer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45—(Committal For Sentences For Offences Tried Summarily)

Lords Amendment: No. 64, in page 35, line 32, leave out from "sentence" to "and" in line 33.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It might be convenient if the House were to take with this Amendment No. 169. Both of these are drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 67, in page 37, line 10, leave out from "disqualified" to "nevertheless" in line 11 and insert "it may"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

We will take with this Amendment Nos. 68 to 73 inclusive.

Without the Amendment, subsection (8) would provide that where magistrates commit an offender to be dealt with by a higher court for an offence punishable under the Road Traffic Acts by disqualification, where the disqualification is mandatory, the magistrates would have a duty to order interim disqualification and, where it is discretionary, would have power to do so. This dual provision was designed to make the subsections of the Clause accord as far as possible with the substantive road traffic law.

However, to avoid this difficulty the Amendment makes an order of interim disqualification entirely within the discretion of the magistrates. I hope that hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who is not now with us, will welcome this Amendment, because it gives a discretion to the magistrates rather than making it mandatory upon them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 46—(Social Inquiry Report Before Sentence)

Lords Amendment: No. 74, in page 37, line 45, at end insert:

"() No sentence shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to consider a social inquiry report in accordance with rules under subsection (1) of this section, but any other court on appeal from that court shall consider such a report in determining whether a different sentence should be passed on the appellant from the sentence passed on him by the court below."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Clause 46(1) empowers the Home Secretary to require courts in certain cases to consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence. If in such a case a court failed to consider a report and passed a custodial sentence, there would be some doubt about the validity of the sentence and, consequently, some doubt about the propriety of continuing to detain the offender. To allow the offender to go scot free would give him an undeserved benefit, and in some cases the sentence might be for a long time in order to protect the public.

The appropriate course would seem to be that the appellate court should repair the omission of the sentencing court, and the Amendment accordingly provides that failure to obtain a statutory social inquiry report shall not invalidate the sentence and that on appeal the appellate court shall consider such a report in determining whether to substitute a different sentence.

I welcome this as a good Amendment. On a very superficial view, it might be thought to make nonsense, but the fact that the Government have agreed to the insertion of provisions as to what shall happen on appeal when no social inquiry report was before the court of first instance puts the matter right.

It is worth placing on record, even although the record of the House is not binding on the courts, the fact that the lack of a social inquiry report in the court of first instance will not automatically grant a right of appeal. That will be a matter for the court of appeal to consider, but that does not need to be written into the Bill. I think that the Government have got this right and I welcome the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48—(Constitution And Func- Tions Of Prison Licensing Board And Local Review Committees)

Lords Amendment: No. 75, in page 38, line 17, after "Act" insert "as respects England and Wales".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we shall be considering Lords Amendments Nos. 76–78, 80–88, 90–94, and 192–194.

These Amendments change the name "Prison Licensing Board" to "Parole Board". They extend the provisions to Scotland and make a number of drafting changes.

Strictly speaking, the right hon. Lady is correct in saying that this group of Amendments makes a number of drafting changes, but there is one to which we should draw attention in order that we may follow in future the good example set on this occasion and which is not without precedent.

Sometimes Whitehall does not have the best ideas about the right phraseology to use about great national institutions. The precedent which leaps to one's mind was in 1940, when Whitehall thought they should be called the Local Defence Volunteers, and then Sir Winston Churchill said that they should be called the Home Guard. Now on this occasion I am glad to say that instead of having the Prison Licensing Board we are to have the Parole Board. The conception of a parole board is one which my right hon. and learned Friends on the Front Bench have had in mind from the outset of the discussions on the Bill and I think that these drafting Amendments should be regarded rightly as the proud culmination of what they have thought right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.—[ Some with Special entry.]

Lords Amendment: No. 79, in page 38, line 36, at end insert:

"and of any reports it has called for and any information whether oral or in writing that it has obtained"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment causes Clause 48(3,a) to read:

"the Board shall deal with the case on consideration of any documents given to it by the Secretary of State and of any reports it has called for and any information whether oral or in writing that it has obtained".

The paragraph as originally drafted was too narrowly drawn, in that it might be held that the Parole Board would consider only such documents as the Home Secretary chose to send it in the first place, and that it could not ask for more information or, for example, obtain firsthand information from the prison governor or medical officer to help in reaching a conclusion. It was never the Government's intention that the Board should be precluded from asking further information, and it was always envisaged that there might be cases in which it would want to obtain information from a member of the prison staff either orally or in writing. The Amendment would put the matter beyond doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 53—(Supplemental)

Lords Amendment: No. 95, in page 42, line 46, at end insert:

"(2) The following powers, that is to say—
(a) the power conferred on the Secretary of State by section 49 of this Act to insert or include conditions in the licence of any person released under that section after being transferred to either part of Great Britain from another part of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man;
(b) the power conferred on the Secretary of State by section 51 of this Act to revoke the licence of any such person and recall him to prison;
(c) the power conferred on a court by the said section 51 to revoke any such licence;
shall be exercisable notwithstanding anything in section 26(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (exclusion of supervision of persons so transferred)".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment enables prisoners transferred to prisons in Scotland or England and Wales from Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man, to be released on licence in the same way as other prisoners.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55—(Miscellaneous Amendments Of The Prison Act 1952)

Lords Amendment: No. 96, in page 43, line 15, at end insert:

"() For sections 30 to 32 of the said Act of 1952 (discharged prisoners aid societies and allowances and expenses for discharged prisoners) there shall be substituted the following section:—

'Payments for discharged prisoners.

30. The Secretary of State may make such payments to or in respect of persons released or about to be released from prison as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine'.

() Any statutory instrument containing rules made under section 47 of the said Act of 1952 (prison rules) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and accordingly so much of section 57(2) of that Act as requires a draft of such an instrument to be laid before Parliament shall cease to have effect."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment to Clause 55 is to repeal Sections 30 to 32 of the Prison Act, 1952, and replace them with the new provision, general in its terms, so that to prisoners discharged from Service establishments there may be made payments, for example, subsistence and discharge grants, subject to Treasury approval.

9.45 p.m.

It also repeals that part of Section 52(2) of the 1952 Act which provides that Statutory Instruments made under Section 47 of the Act should be laid before Parliament in draft, and replaces this with the more convenient provision that they should be subject to negative Resolution. Section 30 dealt with the certification of discharged prisoners' aid societies. The reorganisation of the after-care arrangements on the lines recommended in 1963 by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in its Report, The Organisation of After-care made this provision obsolete.

Section 31 provided that an allowance of up to £2 may be paid to a prisoner on discharge, or to an aid society for his benefit. Since 1964, adult prisoners serving sentences of over three months, or serving shorter sentences, if discharged on a Saturday, or unable to reach their local office of the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the day of discharge, have been eligible for a grant of up to £4, in lieu of supplementary benefit, to meet immediate needs of discharge. Other arrangements are made by the after-care authority to meet such needs of young prisoners and persons released from borstal or detention centres.

The provisions of Section 31 are therefore no longer appropriate. Section 32 provides that a discharged prisoner can be paid his home fare and that, under certain conditions, he should be paid the cost of his return to the place of his arrest or conviction, whichever is nearer. Since 1953 the practice has been for every discharged prisoner's fare to be paid to the place where it is agreed that he should go to live on discharge and therefore the terms of Section 32 are out of date.

The new subsection of Clause 55 substitutes for these sections of the 1952 Act a new Section 30 allowing the Home Secretary to make with Treasury approval such payments as he thinks appropriate. I think that the House would agree that this is probably the better arrangement.

I have only one small point. I am sure that the arrangements proposed are more satisfactory, and we certainly do not want to disagree with the Lords in the proposed Amendment, but I detected a small heresy in the right hon. Lady's explanation as to what Parliamentary control there should be. She said that it was more convenient if there was a negative instead of affirmative Resolution procedure. Everyone knows that it is more convenient for every Government to have a negative procedure rather than an affirmative procedure.

That is not sufficient reason for substituting one for the other. There was a Committee of this House which reported upon circumstances in which affirmative Resolutions ought to be used. I do not think that this is one of those. This is a marginal case, but I hope that we shall not have this proposition repeated because it is more convenient to someone unspecified, probably the Government, that therefore the negative procedure is sufficient.

I would like to refer to one other matter on this Amendment, which I am sure is important. We should all try to see that people discharged from prison are not discharged in such circumstances that financial penury sends them straight back to crime. To that extent I welcome the wider powers that the Secretary of State has taken upon himself under this Amendment.

May I ask if any scale of payment has been decided in these cases? I understand that in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, undertook to say whether a scale for these payments would be published before this Bill became law. What is the position and what is the likely financial position of a discharged prisoner?

By leave of the House, I am afraid that I have to say that I am not in a position at this moment to answer that question. I understand that there is no scale at the moment, but it is something that we are looking at, as Lord Stonham said.

Question put and agreed to.—[ Special entry.]

New Clause "L"—(Computation Of Sentences Of Imprisonment Passed In England And Wales)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 22, at end insert new Clause "L":

(1) The length of any sentence of imprisonment imposed on an offender by a court shall be treated as reduced by any period during which he was in custody by reason only of having been committed to custody by an order of a court made in connection with any proceedings relating to that sentence or the offence for which it was passed or any proceedings from which those proceedings arose, but where the offender was previously subject to a probation order, an order for conditional discharge or a suspended sentence in respect of that offence, any such period falling before the order was made or suspended sentence passed shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section.

(2) For the purposes of this section a suspended sentence shall be treated as a sentence of imprisonment when it takes effect under section 31 of this Act and as being imposed by the order under which it takes effect.

(3) No period of custody, other than a period which would have been taken into account before the commencement of this Act under section 17(2) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1962 (duration of sentence) for the purpose of reducing a term of imprisonment shall be taken into account for the like purpose under this section unless it falls after the commencement of this Act.

(4) Any reference in this Act or any other enactment (whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act) to the length of any sentence of imprisonment shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to the sentence pronounced by the court and not the sentence as reduced by this section.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

We can take at the same time Amendment No. 98, new Clause "M" entitled "Consideration of time spent in custody in passing sentence in Scotland", page 43, line 22, at end insert:

A court in Scotland, in passing a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offenders institution as defined in section 31(1)(d) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 on a person for any offence shall, in determining the period of imprisonment or detention, have regard to any period of time spent in custody by that person on remand awaiting trial or sentence.

and Amendment No. 250, in Schedule 6, page 119, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert:

"Section 17(2)".

The Amendment to Schedule 6 is consequential on the repeal of Section 17(2) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1962, which provides that time spent in custody after committal for trial or sentence to the courts of assize and quarter sessions shall count towards any eventual sentence of imprisonment. This provision does not enable any time spent in custody before committal or in connection with a summary trial to count towards the sentence.

The Streatfeild Committee recognised that this distinction between time in custody before and after committal is somewhat illogical, but pointed out that periods in custody before committal tend to be much shorter than those after committal and that to count the former periods would be complicated for the prison administration. But the Government consider that it would be administratively feasible to require all the time spent in custody to count towards sentence provided that the new provision is not retrospective because that would involve recalculating the release dates of about 30,000 prisoners.

Does this proposal affect the position of people on appeal? As I recall, the new provisions regarding the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal strictly prohibit it from increasing a sentence in any circumstances and the only deterrent power left in the Bill concerning frivolous appeals was the right to say that the time spent awaiting appeal should not count towards the period of the sentence. I regret that I speak only from recollection of that Bill and that I have not looked it up today, but I think that that is the position.

I should be grateful to know whether this provision in the Bill affects the situation. If so, I should have thought that the matter should be considered closely. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is heavily overworked. Appeals are waiting many months before they are heard. If anything leads to a greater incentive to appeal, it should be deplored.

Amendment No. 98 is preferable to that of Amendment No. 97 because it leaves the court with a discretion. It simply provides that

"in passing a sentence…"

the court

"shall … have regard to any period of time spent in custody by that person on remand awaiting trial or sentence."

I wonder whether the Amendment is necessary because in my experience that is something which the courts have always done. In pleas in mitigation the judge is always told how long an accused has been in custody and detained. Amendment No. 98 should commend itself to the House.

I entirely approve the principle of the new Clause, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with one matter which I do not altogether follow, namely, the exception in the case of a suspended sentence.

I can understand the exception in the case of a probation order because presumably one is referring to the breach of the order and the court is making a new sentence when the person appears before the court on a breach of the order. I can understand the principle in the case of a conditional discharge when presumably, on a breach of the conditions, the court is starting afresh. But in the case of a suspended sentence which is made when the defendant originally comes before the court, it seems hard on him that if he had been given the ordinary sentence he could have counted the time whereas if he is given a suspended sentence he could not. It might well have the result that he would serve far longer in the end by having a suspended sentence and then, unfortunately, defaulting at a later stage than if he had had an ordinary sentence which was not suspended. What is the reason for that?

I hesitate to speak at this hour of the night because, having been up until 4.30 in the morning, one cannot be sure that one is right on a complicated matter of this kind.

I am puzzled why we need to refer specifically to what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has just described as the exception relating to probation and conditional discharge. I would not think that anyone in his senses would in those circumstances regard time passed on probation or on conditional discharge as being relevant to the computation of sentences of imprisonment in the context of the Clause. Therefore, I do not know why it is necesary to write into the new Clause the passage in subsection (1) beginning with the words

"but where the offender was previously subject …"

The fears of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) were groundless, because the Lords Amendment does not prejudice appellants in any way. With regard to suspended sentences, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) referred, it is impractical to trace and calculate time in custody before a suspended sentence was passed, which might have been two and a half years earlier. While it might be considered fair, it would be impractical to do that.

On reflection, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) will, perhaps, realise that it is important to include the words which, he thought, might be unnecessary. I assure him that they are necessary.

Is the right hon. Lady under the impression that Amendment No. 98 makes no difference whatever to the law of Scotland?

If I may reply to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), the new Clause puts into statutory form what has become established practice in Scotland. It has not, however, become absolutely universal practice. Above all, a prisoner has not always known after conviction that time spent in custody has been taken into consideration. It is, therefore, a question of making a standard, codified practice and,. secondly, of ensuring that where justice is done, it is seen to be done. As the hon. and learned Member knows, no one has a stronger sense of justice than most inmates of Her Majesty's Prisons.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause "N"—(Extension Of Enactments Relating To Persons Sentenced To Imprisonment Or Detention To Young Offenders Sentenced To Detention)

Lords Amendment: No. 99, in page 43, line 22, at end insert new Clause "N":

.—(1) In section 38(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (construction of references to imprisonment or detention and sentenced)

at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—

'(c) any reference to a person serving a sentence of, or sentenced to, imprisonment or detention shall be construed as including a reference to a person who, under any enactment relating to children and young persons in force in any part of the United Kingdom or any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, has been sentenced by a court to be detained for an offence and is liable to be detained in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State, by the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland or by the Governor of the Isle of Man with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and any other reference to a sentence of imprisonment or detention shall be construed accordingly.'

(2) In section 49 of the Prison Act, 1952, section 37 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952 and section 38(2) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland), 1953 (persons unlawfully at large) any reference to a person sentenced to imprisonment shall be construed as including a reference to any such person as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

New Clause "N" relates to the transfer among penal establishments within the British Isles of young murderers sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure and young offenders sentenced to detention for serious crimes. Such offenders are detained in this country under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and there are comparable provisions in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

There is already power to transfer ordinary prisoners, borstal inmates and persons ordered to be detained in detention centres, but offenders detained under Section 53 of the 1933 Act and under the comparable provisions elsewhere were not included in the categories eligible for transfer.

The effect of this oversight is, for example, that a person under 18 convicted of murder in this country but whose home roots are in Scotland cannot be transferred to that country so that his family can visit him conveniently while he is serving his sentence. This puts right that anomaly.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

Business Of The House

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on Government Business, on the Vessels Protection Bill and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Alan Fitch.]

Criminal Justice Bill

Lords Amendments further considered.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "O"—(Prisoner Trans- Ferred From Scotland To England For Security)

Lords Amendment: No. 100, in page 43, line 22, at the end insert new Clause "O":

"O.—(1) Where the Secretary of State, in the case or a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention in Scotland, is of the opinion that in the interests of security or of public safety that person ought to be transferred to a prison in England and Wales, he may make an order for his transfer to that prison:

Provided that the Secretary of State may at any time make an order for the transfer of that person back to prison in Scotland.

(2) A person transferred to England and Wales or transferred back to Scotland under this section shall be treated for all purposes as if he had been transferred to England and Wales or, as the case may be, Scotland under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be useful if I say a word or two by way of explanation.

This Amendment will enable the Secretary of State to transfer a prisoner serving a sentence in Scotland to England or Wales where this is necessary in the interests of security or public safety. It also provides for the prisoner to be returned to Scotland should it prove to be desirable.

In the Mountbatten Report, it was recommended that a purpose-built prison was required for those prisoners who must in no circumstances be allowed to get out. whether because of the security considerations affecting their conviction, or because their violent behaviour is such that mem- bers of the public or the police would be in danger of their lives. The Report went on to suggest that the use of such a type of prison by prisoners of the higher security category from Scotland should be considered.

I recognise that, wherever possible, prisoners of Scottish origin and convicted in Scottish Courts should be retained in Scotland. I am also fully aware of the need to ensure that prisoners who are a danger to security or to public safety must not be allowed to escape. The number of prisoners in Scotland at present falling within the highest security category is less than six.

To attempt to provide a maximum security institution in Scotland for such a small number would be tantamount to condemning these prisoners to solitary confinement. Men confined under such circumstances and in such small numbers would live such a limited and inbred existence that the situation would soon become intolerable. Therefore, because of the recommendation in the Mountbatten Report and notwithstanding the difficulties over visits and other matters which we prepared to face up to, we have come to the conclusion that the best solution is often to make use of the maximum security prison which is to be built on the Isle of Wight. I have no reason to think that the number of Scottish prisoners requiring such maximum security will ever be very high, and I cannot foresee the day when the provision of a sepal ate maximum security establishment in Scotland would be justified.

The transfers will only take place by agreement between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

This is a small but necessary Amendment which I hope will be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "P" (Power Of Magis- Trates To Issue Warrants For Arrest Of Escaped Prisoners And Mental Patients)

Lords Amendment: No. 101, in page 43, line 29, at the end to insert new Clause "P":

"P.—(1) On an information in writing being laid before a justice of the peace for any area in England and Wales or Northern Ireland and substantiated on oath, or on an application being made to a sheriff, magistrate or

justice of the peace in Scotland, alleging that any person is—

(a) an offender unlawfully at large from a prison or other institution to which the Prison Act applies in which he is required to be detained after being convicted of an offence; or

(b) a convicted mental patient liable to be retaken under section 40 or 140 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, section 36 or 106 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 or section 30 or 108 of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 (retaking of mental patients who are absent without leave or have escaped from custody);

the justice, sheriff or magistrate may issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before a magistrates' court for that area or, in Scotland, before any sheriff.

(2) Where a person is brought before a magistrates' court or sheriff in pursuance of a warrant for his arrest under this section, the court or sheriff shall, if satisfied that he is the person named in the warrant and if satisfied as to the facts mentioned in paragraph ( a) or ( b) of the foregoing subsection, order him to be returned to the prison or other institution where he is required or liable to be detained or, in the case of a convicted mental patient, order him to be kept in custody or detained in a place of safety pending his admission to hospital.

(3) Section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1959, section 105 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 and section 107 of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 (custody, conveyance and detention of certain mental patients) shall apply to a convicted mental patient required by this section to be conveyed to any place or to be kept in custody or detained in a place of safety as they apply to a person required by or by virtue of the said Act of 1959, 1960 or 1961, as the case may be, to be so conveyed, kept or detained.

(4) In this section—

'convicted mental patient' means a person liable after being convicted of an offence to be detained under Part V of the Mental Health Act, 1959, Part V of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 or Part III of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland), 1961 in pursuance of a hospital order or transfer direction together with an order or discretion restricting his discharge;

'place of safety' has the same meaning as in Part V of the said Act of 1959 or 1960 or Part III of the said Act of 1961, as the case may be;

'Prison Act' means the Prison Act, 1952, the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952 or the Prison Act (Northern Ireland), 1953, as the case may be.

(5) Section 27 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 (power to issue warrants for the arrest of persons who may be arrested without a warrant) shall cease to have effect."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The primary purpose of the New Clause which was tabled by the Government at the Committee stage in the other place, is to facilitate the recovery of prisoners who have absconded to the Irish Republic.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57—(Power To Order Legal Aid To Be Given)

Lords Amendment: No. 102, in page 44, line 4, at the end to insert:

"and where any such person gives notice of appeal, either of those courts may order that the other party to the appeal shall be given legal aid for the purpose of resisting the appeal."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I must advise the House that privilege is involved in this Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is to preserve the existing power of magistrates courts and courts of quarter sessions to grant legal aid to a respondent for the purpose of resisting an appeal to quarter sessions. The need for the power arises only in the case of a private prosecution where a person who has been convicted summarily appeals against his conviction.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 60—(Liability For Contribu- Tions)

Lords Amendment: No. 108, in page 47, line 42, leave out "fund or".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With that Amendment we are taking Nos. 109, 113, 116 to 119, 126, and 184 to 191.

These Amendments alter the arrangements for the collection of contributions ordered to be paid by a legally aided person towards the cost of legal aid. Responsibility for collection is transferred from local authorities and the Law Society to clerks to justices. The change is made, and is thought desirable, because of objections by the Law Society against being given this responsibility in the case of legal aid in magistrates courts, and also because of representations by the Association of Municipal Corporations against responsibility being played on local authorities in the case of proceedings in the higher courts.

The effect of Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 126 is that the Secretary of State for Defence will remain responsible for collection in the case of appeals to or from courts martial, but in other cases the authority responsible for the collection will be the clerk to the magistrates court in which the proceedings take place, or from which an appeal is brought, or by which a person is committed to a superior court, or, if the person appears, or is brought before a superior court without being committed, the clerk to the magistrates court nominated for the purpose by the superior court.

Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are intended to ease the burden which will be placed on clerks to justices by providing that contributions should be recovered not only as a civil debt, but also in the same manner as arrears are recovered under affiliation orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 61—(Means Inquiry By The Supplementary Benefits Commis- Sion)

Lords Amendment: No. 111, in page 48, line 43, leave out from "into" to "to" in line 45 and insert:

"his means and the Commission shall comply with the request and report on his means".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it might be convenient if with that Amendment we discuss Amendment No. 112.

These Amendments relate to means inquiries by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in relation to legal aid contributions. The first Amendment is a purely drafting one and the second makes it clear that when a court receives such a report after it has made a contribution order it must reconsider its decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 66—(Solicitors And Counsel)

Lords Amendment: No. 120, in page 52, line 7, after "rules" insert "( i)".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 121 and 122.

The Clause enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules setting up tribunals to hear complaints against solicitors and counsel relating to legal aid. The Amendments enable such rules to provide for additional penalties which the tribunal may impose upon solicitors and counsel. The penalties are to reduce or cancel remuneration otherwise payable in legal aid briefs or, secondly, to order barristers or solicitors to pay the costs of the hearing before the tribunal. No doubt this will be a considerable deterrent against improper conduct. The Amendments bring the power of this Tribunal into line with those of the similar tribunal arising out of the civil legal aid scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 69—(Prohibition On Possessing Or Acquiring Shot Gun Without A Certificate)

Lords Amendment: No. 127, in page 54, line 25, leave out from "granted" to first "any" in line 28 and insert:

"by the chief officer of police unless he has reason to believe that the applicant—
(a) is prohibited by the Firearms Act 1937 from possessing a shot gun; or
(b) cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace;
and a shot gun certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides if the officer is satisfied that the holder is so prohibited or cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun as aforesaid.

(2A) A shot gun certificate shall—
(a) be in the prescribed form;
(b) be granted or renewed subject to any prescribed conditions and no others; and
(c) specify the conditions, it any, subject to which it is granted or renewed.

(2B)"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Amendment Nos. 131 and 132.

The effect of the Bill as printed is that a shotgun certificate can be refused if the chief officer of police has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited from having such a firearm or is of intemperate habits or of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with a shotgun. These words were criticised in Committee and in order to confine the powers of refusal to matters having criminal significance the Amendment substitutes the criterion of danger to public safety or to the peace instead of the words "intemperance", "insanity" and "unfitness". The opportunity has also been taken of rewriting Section 2(3) of the 1937 Act specifically in relation to shotgun certificates instead of applying that subsection, with an Amendment, in subsection (5) of the Clause.

The Amendment, coming from another place, is an improvement on the position that we had before, if we accept that there is necessity to have this system of shotgun licensing at all. The Amendment means that we have to consider only the danger to public safety or the peace of the Realm. Does the Amendment mean, however, that if anybody shoots someone else while out shooting and that other person thinks that the first is a dangerous chap and should not continue to have a shotgun, he can tell the chief constable, so that the next time that person applies for a shotgun certificate it will not be granted?

We could think of many cases where this might be useful, although it is taking the matter rather to an extreme at this hour. As I understand the Bill, and from information given to me by the London gun trade, this application could be made under the Clause.

If the hon. Member is making so much about public safety in connection with the grant of a shotgun certificate surely this is the place where we could institute some system of voluntary testing of people before they apply for a shotgun certificate. That step would be welcomed by various organisations interested in encouraging the further use of shotguns. While very much opposed to the proposals which were put forward, if we have to accept that chief constables can refuse a person a shot gun certificate on the grounds of his being a danger to public safety, surely we should develop a system of voluntary testing for people in the use of shot guns before they are allowed to shoot. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will draw the attention of the regional sports councils and other organisations to this Clause to see whether we can build up a few experimental schemes in the voluntary education and testing of young people, in particular, in the use of shot guns.

10.15 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has been a little unfair to some of his colleagues. I cannot imagine, if anyone who was an efficient shot proceeded to shoot one of his friends, that it would not be lethal. My hon. Friend put forward the situation in which someone was shot and then went to the police. Surely if he had been shot he would be in no condition to go to the police.

I do not think that it was ever intended that a person who shot someone else, while out shooting, would be covered by the Clause. If he is covered by it, and if my hon. Friend's remarks are valid, then we ought to have an explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman because it would open up a field which it was never intended that the Bill should cover. The Bill was designed to stop people from having shot guns or other lethal weapons who had felonious intent. I doubt whether the Bill in fact will stop anyone from getting a gun who wants one for evil and felonious purpose. It will only create difficulties for people who want guns for sporting purposes and who will not be able to obtain them as easily as in the past. I do not think that there will be much increased safety for the general public, but there will be a lot more red tape as a result of the Bill.

I should like clarification of the suggestion that if someone, while out shooting, shot one of his colleagus he would be prohibited thereafter from holding a licence.

May I reply by leave of the House? I will not be inveigled into giving an indication of what I think "danger to the public" could mean in a particular case, because it would be unwise to do so. It should be left to a sensible decision on a question of fact whether someone was considered to be a public danger in a particular case.

The Bill does not seek control only those who have a felonious intent. We are very much concerned also with the irresponsible element who have no felonious intent but who may still be a danger to the public—and "danger to the public" is a very suitable phrase.

The question of testing does not strictly arise on the Clause, but I see no reason why organisations should not set up their own testing schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 128, in page 54, line 32, leave out "imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or".

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenient at the same time to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 129 and 130.

The Amendment substitutes a maximum penalty of £50 only for maximum penalties previously proposed of six months' imprisonment and/or a £200 fine. The maximum penalty of a £50 fine applies only under the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act, 1962 to offences of giving to children or accepting from children gifts of air guns or ammunition. But those are much lesser offences than the ones under Clause 69 of having a shot gun without a certificate and the associated offences of making a false statement in order to obtain a shot gun certificate, producing a false certificate, or personating a certificate holder.

It would seem that, in relation to the Clause 69 offences, the maximum summary penalties of six months' imprisonment and £200 fine should continue to apply. All the Clause 69 offences may relate to serious incidents which the courts should be empowered to deal with appropriately. If the shot gun certificate system is to deter at all and not be regarded solely as a matter of local registration, the possibility of imprisonment for uncertificated possession is necessary and it is essential for the courts to be able to impose a stiff fine. It would not have to be imposed in every case. One is dealing simply with the maximum penalty and leaving it to the discretion of the courts to determine what is suitable in each case.

The present maximum penalties in the Clause are the same as those provided under the Firearms Act 1937, as amended by the 1965 Act, that is, the penalties on summary conviction for corresponding offences in regard to Part I firearms. The shot gun certificate is seen as complementary to the firearm certificate system, and it is appropriate that the penalties should correspond. The Part I offences, though not the Clause 69 offences, are also triable on indictment, and this reflects the closer control which is exercised over Part I firearms.

I do not wish to cover ground which we covered when we had the Bill before us earlier. I wish merely to put on record that the Government have been thoroughly inconsistent. On the one hand, they have made it one of the principal themes of the Bill that they want to do away with short sentences of imprisonment. On the other hand, against the advice of the House of Lords and of the Opposition here, they insist that for these offences the courts should have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months.

It does not make sense. However, at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill, one would be beating one's head against a brick wall in saying more. I wish to put on record how utterly inconsistent the Government are.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 129, in page 54, line 33, leave out "£200" and insert "£50".

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 130: In page 54, line 33, leave out "or both".

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 133, in page 55, line 15, at end insert:

"() the following paragraph shall be added at the end of section 11(1) of that Act (prohibition on transferring firearm to person not producing certificate):—

'(c) a person returning to another a shot gun which he has lawfully undertaken to repair, test or prove for the other.'"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment meets the criticism that it might be unreasonable if a customer of a gunsmith had to produce his shot gun certificate for inspection not only when he bought the gun but when he took it away on another occasion. The Amendment would allow the gun to be returned without further production of the certificate.

I am very glad that the Minister admits that having to produce one's shot gun certificate to get a gun back from the gunsmith would be a great burden. Now that he has admitted that it is a very unsatisfactory provision, I hope that when he reviews the Firearms Act, which he has undertaken to do, we will look at this sort of provision most carefully.

Most of us keep our firearms certificate where we buy our ammunition, but we probably take our rifle or gun to be done up somewhere else. Probably we do not buy our ammunition in London, although we take our firearms there to be repaired. It is a great burden to those who use rifles to have to remember to bring their firearms certificate when they send them for repair. The Joint Under-Secretary of State admitted that it would be unsatisfactory procedure with shot gun certificates. Having admitted that, he will, I hope, look most carefully at the workings of the provisions affecting firearms.

I do not believe that I told the hon. Member for Gainsborough that we were reviewing the firearms legislation. I think that I promised that we would consolidate it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 55, line 17, leave out "one month" and insert "thirty days".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think it would be convenient to discuss with it Lords Amendment No. 135.

Lords Amendment No. 134 substitutes the expression "thirty days" for "one month", which might be rather less ambiguous in certain circumstances.

Lords Amendment, No. 135 deletes subsection (7), which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by rules to reduce the thirty days. Three months was originally proposed, with power to reduce it. Later the Bill was amended to reduce the period to one month, and it was then said that it would be unlikely that there would be any need to reduce the period yet further, which might place restrictions on regular visitors and that would be somewhat harsh. The position was reconsidered and it was decided that the power, which was unlikely to be used, should be abandoned.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 136, in page 55, line 26, after the second "a" insert "time and".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment provides specifically that when a chief constable authorises a place for shotgun shooting at artificial targets such as clay pigeons he may do so for a specific period or periods of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 137, in page 55, line 28, at the end insert:

"() A person may without holding a shot gun certificate borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use the shot gun on those premises in the presence of the occupier."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment enables guests who do not have shot gun certificates to accompany their host when he goes shooting, and to borrow and use his shot guns on his land without committing an offence under subsection (1). It is designed to deal with cases where someone has a friend to stay for the weekend and asks him to go shooting as an incidental feature of the visit. It is deliberately restricted to the more intimate occasions and not to weaken the basic policy that regular shot gun owners and users should have shot gun certificates.

We must be grateful for small mercies. The Amendment is obviously necessary, but it should be realised that it does not extend to a very common case. My neighbour in the country sometimes invites me to shoot with him. There have been occasions when I have had a friend staying and he has arrived without a gun, borrowed my spare gun, and we have both gone shooting with my neighbour. The Amendment would not allow my friend to go shooting without a shot gun certificate, which is ridiculous and most unfortunate. We had better take note of that.

Another point shows how limited the concession is, although we are grateful for small mercies, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. Large numbers of people have only shooting rights or rabbiting rights and are not the occupiers of the premises over which they shoot. In those circumstances they could not lend a gun to a friend who was shooting with them.

I am not an expert in shooting, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). But I think that this is most unsatisfactory; the Government certainly have not got this right. Surely, it is not their intention to prohibit the sort of thing which my right hon. and learned Friends have just described. Surely, the intention must be that on what I would call a family or social occasion somebody could lend a gun to another person, even though he or she moved from their own premises to their friends' next door, and that they would be allowed to shoot?

10.30 p.m.

As I understand it, under the present regulations it would be outwith the law. I am sure that the Government never really intended this. Is this really what they intend? If it is, they are making nonsense of most of the social fabric of the people of the country who shoot, who have shoots, who borrow shoots, who rent shoots and who move from one field to another, one being their own private premises and the next being with the leave of their friend next door. The Government are making complete nonsense of what goes on in practice.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give some satisfaction to the House. If he does not, even though this might be an improvement on the Bill, it certainly will produce a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and will result in people appearing in court when the Government never had any intention that they should be anywhere near a court.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 138, in page 55, line 39, at end insert:

"() Notwithstanding anything in section 2(4) of the Firearms Act 1937 (duration of firearms certificate), a shot-gun certificate issued before the expiration of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue in force for such period from that date or from the date when it is granted, whichever is the later, as may be specified in the certificate by the chief officer of police (being a period of not less than one year but not more than five years)."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose is to enable special arrangements to be made to deal with the large number of applications which may be made for shotgun certificates when the new system comes into force. There will be a danger that all the shotgun certificates will be renewable at exactly the same time, and the peak will place an enormous burden on the police. The problem is, therefore, to arrange the renewals so that they will result in an even spread over three years, and this the Amendment seeks to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70—(Restrictions On Gifts Of Shot Guns)

Lords Amendment: No. 139, in page 55, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert:

"(1) No person shall make a gift of any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun to any person under the age of fifteen."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we might consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 141, 144, 148, 149.

If that is the wish of the House.

Clause 70(1) as printed makes it an offence to make a gift of a shot gun to a person under 15 and also makes it an offence for that person to accept such a gift. There are similar offences already existing in relation to Part I firearms and air weapons, although there the age is 14 and not 15. The view was taken in another place that, while it should be an offence to give, it should not be an offence for the juvenile to accept the gift of a gun. We accept this view. The Amendments make the necessary changes in the Bill and also in the 1962 Act which relates to air weapons and ammunitions and a similar change in the 1937 Act in regard to Part I firearms and ammunition.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 71—(Amendment Of Enactments Relating To Firearms)

Lords Amendment: No. 143, in page 56, line 15, at end insert:

"() In section 8(1) of the said Act of 1937 registration of firearms dealers), in paragraph (a) of the proviso, for the words from 'or subsection (5)' to 'the said subsection (5)' there shall be substituted the words 'or by order of a court in Northern Ireland made under section 8(5) of the Firearms Act 1920'.

() In section 12(3) of the said Act of 1937 (power of constables and others to call for and inspect register of firearms transactions kept by a dealer), paragraph (c) and the words 'in each case' shall be omitted."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we could conveniently at the same time take Lords Amendments Nos. 145, 147 and 150.

If it pleases the House.

These Amendments facilitate the consolidation of enactments relating to firearms, to which I referred in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 146, page 56, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is the Amendment which deletes the provision enabling the Secretary of State to prescribe by rule the production of an applicant's photograph and verification of the applicant's particulars and to make different provisions in the rules for different cases. There can be little doubt that, for the policeman dealing with an incident in the street or countryside, the existence of a photograph on a certificate will in nearly all cases make identification easier, and this will be convenient both for him and the law abiding members of the public.

The policeman will be able to see at once whether or not the licence holder is the person who has the licence at the time and is not someone carrying another person's licence. Having to provide and to verify a photograph will certainly cause some members of the public some slight inconvenience but not really any greater inconvenience than they suffer in the case of passports, and it will help the police in dealing with cases. It could also provide a preliminary sifting of applications. It might deter frivolous applications.

It is difficult to see how this could be regarded as a significant infringement of personal liberty. These certificates will be issued on a large scale, but there may well be a temptation, particularly among less responsible persons, for one man against whom little or nothing is known to get a certificate which can be passed from hand to hand to suit the convenience of certain people, including highly undesirable persons who might not have got certificates themselves.

Unless the constable has personal knowledge of the person he asks to produce his certificate, he will have no way of knowing whether that person is the real certificate holder, and the inclusion of a photograph on the certificate would be a real deterrent.

The power is permissive in the Bill. No decision has yet been taken on whether a photograph and verification of particulars should be required. The decision will not be taken until after discussions have been held with the various interested organisations but it is necessary that, when these discussions have been completed, there should be sufficiently wide power to enable the appropriate rules to be made. Since the suggestion about photographs was made by an interested organisation, it is clearly only prudent to take the power.

As I said in Committee, I regard this provision in the Bill as rubbish and gobbledy-gook. There is no reason why a person using a smooth bore gun should need to put in his photograph with an application any more than there is to put one in for a driving licence. If the signature is considered an adequate means of identification on a driving licence, it should be an equally good means of identification on a shot gun licence.

Anyone who suggests to the contrary is tying himself up with red tape and simply serving bureaucracy when they hand us the kind of rubbish they ladle out to this House by the spoonful. It is something like an insult to ask the House to pass rubbish of this kind when, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted, no decision has been taken as to whether the Home Secretary will use the power if he is given it. Since no decision has been taken about using the power, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not the slightest idea whether it is necessary or not, and he was hardly at pains to conceal the fact.

Looking at the proposal the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to re-insert into the Bill, one sees why the civil servants have not yet made up their minds about whether it is sensible or not before asking the House to accept it, hook, line and sinker. The reason is that anyone who wanted to get round this provision —which did not provide for a duplicate photograph—could put a bogus photograph on the certificate. It provides no additional means of verification at all.

It can he more easily evaded than the requirement of a signature because if someone were challenged with a false signature on the certificate he might be asked by an intelligent constable to reproduce the signature. The comparable challenge with a photograph would not be possible. Incidentally, unless I have misread the clause, it provides that the applicant should provide a photograph with his application for a certificate. It does not provide that the photograph should be on the certificate or with him when he shoots. The idyllic picture which was painted by the Under-Secretary of the village constable being assisted in his challenge to the shooting party is not provided for in the Bill. The truth is that this is rubbish and it would have been far better to have accepted the Amendment from the Lords who, whatever else they may know, certainly know something about shooting.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) always weighs his words carefully. It is very rare that he uses the word "rubbish". I have known him for nearly 40 years and it is a word which scarcely ever passes his lips, but it is most appropriate on this occasion.

I hope to show the House that the Government have not even worked out in their own minds how their administrative proposals will be carried out in practice. The Chief Constable, even with Amendment No. 427 which we considered earlier, will not issue a shot-gun certificate unless he is satisfied that it is a sensible thing to do. Clause 69, as now amended, provides that he shall grant it

"… unless he has reason to believe that the applicant (a) is prohibited by the Firearms Act, 1937, from possessing a shot gun; or (b) cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace …"

That means that the chief officer of police has somehow got to satisfy himself in the case Of every applicant. Sometimes he or one of his officers will know the applicant personally and there will be no trouble at all but in other cases he will call for a testimonial from some responsible person, such as a Justice of the Peace. To put it in the plainest terms, the Chief Constable will only issue these certificates to people of good character who can be trusted. If that is so, it is obviously unnecessary to require, from the point of view of the applicant himself, a photograph. The only point that arises is the one which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, namely, the possibility of transfer of the certificate to another person, but a person of good character, about whom the Chief Constable has satisfied himself, is not likely to start hawking round his shot gun certificate.

The more that one looks at this the more one realises that the Government are very unwise not to have let themselves off this silly little hook by accepting the Lords Amendment. At any rate, I implore the hon. and learned Gentleman, who may be taking some responsible decision himself or advising the Home Secretary what decision to take, never, never to use the powers which he is now taking.

10.45 p.m.

I am sorry that the Under Secretary should have said that he was falling into line with a suggestion made by a responsible organisation that photographs might be attached to certificates. He is not being totally accurate in making this suggestion. The suggestion was made at some stage of the negotiations that a photograph might be a useful way of dealing with it, but the suggestion about the photograph was never meant by the responsible organisation to apply when it realised that the police were to have the power of veto over whether somebody should have a certificate. Once the police were brought in, there was no question that the photograph was applicable. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite fair in using the argument that the responsible organisation would accept the idea of the photograph. It does not accept the photograph in the context in which it is now being applied.

We had a long debate in Committee about the difficulty for many people of getting a photograph. If the Home Secretary persists in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, he will still only be taking power to introduce this procedure later, but I urge him not to introduce this photograph procedure lightly, suddenly, or without a great deal of further thought and consultation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has already said that it is rubbish and useless, as it will be from the enforcement point of view, but it will be expensive, difficult and tiresome for many people who want to use shot guns legitimately and for pleasure, and I hope that the House will accept the Lords Amendment.

I agree with every word said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about the Clause. I can take out a licence to drive a motor car, which is a far more lethal weapon than a smooth bore shot gun, without there being any question of a photograph.

How will this provision work? I understand that there is to be only one photograph which, presumably, will be in the files of the chief constable or the chief superintendent and if I am invited to my hon. Friend's exclusive shoot—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) will take note of that—and am then confronted by the police, the police will be unable to find out whether I am entitled to have a shot gun, because my picture will be in the files of the chief constable in Chester.

Do I get handcuffed and put into a Black Maria and taken all the way to Chester so that the police can be certain that the certificate belongs to the chap with the photograph which belongs to me? Is that what is to occur under this procedure if the right hon. Gentleman ever brings it into force? If there were two photographs, while that would be more bureaucratic and more bumbledom, at least it would be logical, because one photograph could be kept with the certificate and the other in the police files.

Even then, I may be 100 miles away from where the photograph on my certificate can be checked with the photograph in the files. If a constable wanted to check my bona fides, the only way in which he could deal with the problem would be to put me into a Black Maria and cart me off to where the photograph was, and while many hon. Members might think that that would be desirable, it would make nonsense of the procedure.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is only taking reserve powers and is not proposing to implement them at this moment, but I ask him seriously to consider again whether the Lords have not shown a great deal of common sense in this matter. The House ought not to give Ministers powers unless that power is essential to their purpose. The Government have not shown that this power is necessary to their purpose and have even shown it to be unworkable, and I therefore hope that they will change their minds and accept the Lords Amendment.

I do not think that I shall be involved in any of these proceedings. I am not expecting to be carted off in a Black Maria to where my photograph happens to be filed, and if it is anything like the photograph on my passport, even when we get there nobody will recognise it as being a photograph of me, and I should probably therefore be thrown into the dungeons as an imposter. That shows the futility of these photographs as it shows the futility of passport photographs. This is bureaucratic nonsense and I hope that the Government will think again.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have deployed enough arguments within a limited time to show that this provision is nonsense. Clearly, what was done in another place was a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has shown clearly how impossible it would be for the photograph system to work. My view, which is shared by a large number of people who use shotguns, is that the whole of Part V of the Bill is unworkable and, moreover, should never have been included in this Criminal Justice Bill.

Many people feel that it would be far better to have produced a carefully thought out Bill rather than this mess of pottage. I particularly hope that the nonsense about photographs, which has clearly been shown to be unworkable, will not be accepted by the Government and that they might yet agree to the Lords Amendment.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the advice from another place in this matter. As the Bill applies to Scotland, I should like to say a word about some of the difficulties which I envisage. I think of peasants in lonely Highland glens who have never had a photograph taken in their lives and would not know how to set about getting one. Even if they did, I visualise circumstances in which they would have to travel a considerable distance to get a photograph, all in the name of a bureaucratic provision of this nature, which will alienate the support of the shooting community, without whose support it will not work. I hope that this short intervention may induce the Under-Secretary to reconsider his view.

This point was argued fully at earlier stages. I am sorry that I must disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his assessment of the value of the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The fact that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone used the expression "Rubbish", or used superlatives is not conclusive evidence that the provisions are ill-conceived.

On this occasion, it was.

There may be other arguments against it, but I have noticed that on occasions the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses superlatives or other extreme words. I do not regard as conclusive the fact that the Lords have sought to delete this provision, because the Lords have a one-sided view of the shot gun problem.

To deal with some particular points, the certificate will have to be in the prescribed form. I see nothing in the provisions which it is sought to delete which would make it impossible to prescribe that the photograph should be on the certificate. The singular includes the plural, and that means that two photographs could be supplied.

Unless the two things are in the same place, the document will not give proof. I could easily steam off one photograph and put on my own. That was done at the end of the war, when enormous numbers of prisoners who had escaped and other people had forged passports and documents. Anybody who wanted to get round the regulations could do so without trouble. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people dealing with these things are perfectly law-abiding citizens.

One is concerned with the irresponsible person or one who may have felonious intent. There may be cases in which it would be a great convenience to check straight away that the certificate has the right photograph.

There is no provision, is there, which requires the certificate to be carried at any time? A person with a shotgun but who did not have his certificate with him could not be checked, and he would be committing an offence.

Someone should have the certificate there. If a person does not have his certificate with him, it would be possible for the police, when suspicious of a person, to seize his shotgun. It would be returned to him when the certificate was produced and someone showed that he was the holder of a certificate.

There would be no question, as appears to have been thought, of arresting or taking a person away. If prima facie there was no certificate, the police could seize the gun, and the certificate could be produced later.

This is becoming more and more puzzling to me. Under what power can the police seize a shotgun belonging to me if I possess a certificate and my only shortcoming is that I am not carrying it with me at the time, when the Bill does not require me to do so? What power have the police to commit trespass to goods in those circumstances?

The power is not in the Criminal Justice Bill, but in Section 6 of the Firearms Act, and it seems a perfectly sensible power.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 81—(New Provision As To Ap- Peal Against Sentence Passed At Assizes Or Quarter Sessions)

Lords Amendment: No. 157, in page 62, line 17, after "offender" to insert:

"who, after the commencement of this section, is".

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss with it Nos. 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, and 201 to 215.

These Amendments are designed to facilitate the consolidation of enactments relating to criminal appeal.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 159, in page 62, line 35, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 37.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment, which omits the closing words of Clause 81(3,d,iii), removes an inconsistency between that subparagraph and Clause 31(4).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 162, in page 63, line 32, at the end to insert:

"() The power of the Court of Appeal under the last foregoing subsection to pass a sentence which the court below had power to pass for an offence shall, notwithstanding that the court below made no order under section 31(1) of this Act in respect of a suspended sentence previously passed on the appellant for another offence, include power to deal with him in respect of that suspended sentence, where the court below—
(a) could have so dealt with him if it had not passed on him a sentence of borstal training quashed by the Court of Appeal under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection; or
(b) did so deal with him in accordance with paragraph (d) of the said subsection (1) by making no order in respect of the suspended sentence."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 81 to extend the powers of the Court of Appeal under subsection (3) of the Clause. The new powers are consequential upon the suspended sentence provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5—(Minor And Consequen- Tial Amendments)

Lords Amendment: No. 217, in page 113, line 14, at the end to insert:

"THE VAGRANCY ACT 1824 (c. 83)

1. In section 5 (committal of incorrigible rogues to quarter sessions) for the words from "to the house of correction" onwards there shall be substituted the words "to quarter sessions, either in custody or on bail"."

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Perhaps it might be convenient to consider at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, and 225–229.

If that meets with the approval of the House.

These Amendments to the "Minor and Consequential Amendments" Schedule are, with one small exception, dependent upon provisions of the Bill or Amendments which have been discussed earlier. The exception is Amendment No. 226 which, as well as making a number of drafting Amendments, enables persons sentenced under the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland), 1950 to detention for certain grave crimes to be subject to supervision in England and Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man if the are released on licence in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.—[ Several with Special Entry.]

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Miss Alice Bacon, Sir John Hobson, Mr. Quintin Hogg, Mr. Roy Jenkins, and Mr. Dick Taverne; Three to be the quorum.—[ Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords A tizendments reported, and agreed to;

To he communicated to the Lords.

Police (Scotland) (No 2) Bill Lords

Considered in Committee.

[MR. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair.]

11.10 p.m.

If it will help the Chair, I have no point to raise until Schedule 5.

If it be for the convenience of the Committee, I will put the Clauses in groups relating to the Parts.

Clauses 1 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5—(Enactments Repealed)

Question proposed, That this be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill.

I wish to raise a question on the last item of Part I in this Schedule. This Schedule relates to enactments repealed because they are consolidated. In the last item of Part I of the Schedule we repeal the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967, which is not an Act as yet. This is anticipating that it will receive the Royal Assent before the Royal Assent is given to the Bill which we are now discussing.

In the third column against "Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967" there is reference to the repeal of Section 52(9). That subsection states:

"In the application of this section to Scotland 'police fund' has the same meaning as in the Police Pensions Act 1921."

This deals with the fixed charge for removing vehicles from the road and states that the fixed charge will be paid into the police fund; and then it defines what the police fund is by reference to the Police Pensions Act, 1921.

In the Bill before us that definition of "police fund" is to be removed. I cannot find the definition anywhere else in the consolidation Measure. We now seem to be removing the definition from statute law and putting nothing in its place. Nowhere else in the Bill is this mentioned. We have the repeal of a number of Sections relating to the chief officer of police, the police area and so on, and, indeed, definitions are within the consolidation Measure for these particular subjects. But there seems to be no definition included for the police fund, and there seems no reason for removing the definition from the consolidation Measure, the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which has so recently passed through this House. I would be grateful if we could have some explanation.

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman will agree, I think, that if the Royal Commission dealing with these matters confirming the Queen's Assent is coincidental, then, of course, the similarity of the reference to the Bill which is here called an Act and this consolidation Measure will fit in. This is our intention.

On the second point, which is much more serious, about the reference to the 1921 Act and the fear that we seem to be leaving the definition unsecured, I am advised by the draftsman that we are leaving the definition intact. But, knowing the hon. Gentleman's assiduity, I will have a look at this again and see if the draftsman is right in his confidence or if the hon. Gentleman is right in his suspicion. If, as I think, the draftsman is right in his confidence, all is well. If the hon. Gentleman is right in his suspicion, I regret to say that there is little that we can do at this stage.

Oh.

What else could we do but withdraw the Bill? Would the hon. Gentleman like us to withdraw the Bill? I have had no notice of this—not that I am complaining about it—so I cannot give an answer straight off the cuff, but I am advised that the draftsman is confident that he has done his job correctly. This is not an argument of political policy; it is an argument of the draftsman's confidence.

11.15 p.m.

That is not a very satisfactory answer. We are in Committee. If there is an error, there is plenty of time to amend it, provided that we do not rush through the next two stages of the Bill. I cannot see how the draftsman can be right. Only last week we passed a consolidation Bill with a subsection in it saying that the police fund is the fund described in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. A few lays later, we remove that. If it were being replaced with another definition of the police fund, there would be an explanation, but nowhere in the consolidation Measure is the police fund defined. Are we to look back to the 1921 Act? If so, why did we try to wipe it out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967? Having abolished it there, we proceed to bring it back a few days later and then remove it again. It is most confusing It all arises from rushing through two consolidation Bills at the same time and having to amend one of them after having passed it through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.17 p.m.

I congratulate the Minister on presenting to the House a consolidation Bill which has at least four unusual features. That ought to go on record. First, by its title it is stated to be a Scotland Bill but in fact it applies to a large part of England—all the Border counties. The Title may be very misleading. It is unfortunate that we have in the Title in brackets "No. 2" and also in brackets "Scotland", when the Bill refers to a large part of England. I hope that it will not be misleading to textbook writers and will not be left out of the Laws of England to which we frequently refer.

The second unusual feature is that it has utilised two functions of the Joint Committee—the function of consolidation and the function of Statute law revision. It is a good Bill in that respect and it is good that it makes a clear distinction in Schedule 5, Part I and Part II, between the consolidation part of it and the repeal of enactments which have been spent. The Government have managed to do without the reference which used to be made to the Joint Committee. Erskine May records that as far back as 1947 the Joint Committee was

"empowered to deal with Bills for re-enacting, in the form in which they apply to Scotland, the provisions of an existing statute".

and Erskine May added that the experiment was not repeated after 1947. The Government have managed to consolidate the law relating to Scotland in the Bill without that reference to the Joint Committee.

The third unusual feature is that the Bill includes substantial references to something which does not exist—the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which is still the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. This causes some confusion because it repeals something which we have only recently passed through the House.

The fourth unusual feature, although I do not know that it is very unusual in connection with consolidation Bills, is that the Government are unable to explain their own Bill. They brought it before the House with some peculiar provision in the Fifth Schedule which is still unexplained on Third Reading, the last stage of this Bill through Parliament. It has been unamended so that it cannot go back to another place. We have to accept it, therefore, with an unexplained provision in it which seems to me to be quite wrong from the point of view of drafting and law and only adds confusion to the law.

11.20 p.m.

May I, with permission, reply to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? I am surprised that he tried to make some advantage out of this matter. All these provisions derive from previous Acts. When he talks about reference to England, he must recognise that these are born of previous Acts listed in the Schedules in considerable detail.

I have had enough time to look at the point which the hon. Gentleman raised about Section 52(9) and his reference to Section 104. I am sorry to say that he is wrong. My advice is that this is quite proper. I am sorry that I did not report to him at an earlier stage in the Bill. I always thought that these consolidation Measures, by general agreement, went through without much difficulty and that if there were any questions of considerable detail we should, as a matter of courtesy, be given notice of them. After all, the Bill went through the other place quite well.

I should have thought that if it was proposed to raise new points we would have notice. Neither my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State nor I have had such notice. The hon. Gentleman is usually extremely courteous. I am sorry that tonight he has chosen to be querulous. No doubt he is tired at the end of the Session. I forgive him, and I am glad that he agrees that we should give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Scotland (Rating And Valuation)

11.23 p.m.

I beg to move,

That the Electricity Boards (Standard Amount) (Scotland) Order, 1967, dated 3rd July, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

May I suggest that at the same time we might discuss, since they are all of parallel interest, the Orders relating to the Scottish Gas Board and the British Railways Board?

Yes, if that is for the convenience of the House.

I am much obliged.

Under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are not subject to valuation and rating in the normal way. Instead, the Boards make annual contributions in lieu of rates which are paid to the Secretary of State and distributed by him among rating authorities in accordance with a statutory formula.

The Boards' contributions are calculated by applying each year to a "standard amount" adjustment factors, or multipliers, which take account of changes in the general level of rates and in the activities of the Boards, measured by reference to the amount of electricity supplied. The standard amounts for each Board are thus basic elements in the calculation of the Boards' annual contributions to local revenues and are, in a sense, analogous to rateable values.

Under Section 17 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966—of glorious memory—the standard amounts for the Scottish Electricity Boards have to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by Order. This Section of the 1966 Act also altered the statutory multiplier with the effect that for the year 1967–68 it stands at one, compared with about 2·7 in 1966–67. The last time that it was one was in 1946–47. A substantial increase in the earlier standard amount is accordingly called for since the Electricity Boards' contributions in lieu of rates would otherwise be greatly reduced. It is also necessary to take account of the general increase in rateable values following last year's revaluation in Scotland and of the fact that electricity showrooms are in 1967–68 being separately rated for the first time.

There is an element of urgency in making the Order since it is important that the local authorities should know soon what amounts they are likely to receive. We could not act sooner because it was only towards the end of June that we heard for the assessors what the showroom valuations were likely to come to. If the Order were delayed, contributions would have to be calculated on the basis of the existing standard amounts—£322,000 for the North Board and £1,227,000 for the South Board—and because of the effect of the 1966 Act in revising the statutory multipliers and reducing them to one for the current year, the Boards' contributions in lieu of rates this year would be only a little more than a third of last year's.

The method adopted for adjusting the standard amount is obviously of close interest not only to the Boards but also to the local authorities, and the question of the Boards' standard amounts was discussed at a meeting of the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Working Party in May. The representatives of the Boards pointed out that their rate contributions were considerably higher as a percentage of gross revenue than those of the Electricity Boards in England and Wales, and argued that the opportunity of the review should be taken to fix the standard amounts at a level which would produce payments more in line with the level south of the Border. They also pointed out that, following the 1963 revaluation in England and Wales, the English Electricity Boards' valuations were increased by less than the general increase in valuations, and that this had markedly reduced the level of their rate contributions for 1963–64 onwards.

As might have been expected, local authority representatives on the Working Party did not welcome the prospect that the rate liability of the electricity industry might be reduced. They were not convinced that the Scottish Boards should pay less by way of rates than they had in 1966–67, and considered that even a standstill in the current Order would be difficult to justify.

As suggested by the Boards, it is the case that their rate payments as a percentage of gross revenue have been higher than those of the English Boards since 1964–65. In 1966–67, the percentage for the South of Scotland Electricity Board was 3·3 per cent. and for the Hydro-Electric Board it was 3·5 per cent., but the average for all the English Boards was only 2·9 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully appreciates that to adjust the standard amounts of the Scottish Electricity Boards in such a way as to give them a rating liability comparable with the English Boards must mean some loss of rate revenue to local authorities which would have to be found from other ratepayers. But, having carefully considered the comments of the local authorities, he cannot find any real justification for continuing to charge the Electricity Boards in Scotland sums significantly greater in proportion to their gross revenue than those paid by the electricity industry in England and Wales since the English revaluation of 1963.

The effect of the Order, therefore, is to bring the Scottish Boards' payments in lieu of rates for 1967–68 broadly into line with the level applying to the English Boards, and thus to restore the comparability which existed before 1963–64. As a result, when account is taken of the amounts payable separately by the Boards as rates on showrooms, which are now separately rated for the first time, the total amounts payable by them in 1967–68 are likely to be about £835,000 and £2,960,600 respectively, compared with £900,000 for the North Board and £3,187,000 for the South Board last year. The sums are distributed among local authorities on a formula based on rating resources, and the resultant loss of income to any particular local authority is unlikely to be material. The amount of the Boards' payments for subsequent years will, of course, vary according to changes in the level of rates and in the amount of electricity supplied. Having regard to the continued expansion of the electricity industry, they may be expected steadily to increase.

That is perhaps the most difficult of the Orders to be discussed tonight, because of the significance of the policy decision taken. In view of last night's debate, I think that we would have the support of both sides of the House in saying that it was the right decision.

The rating of the Scottish Gas Board is related to a basic rateable valuation which is adjusted annually, according to changes in the output of gas. The Board's rateable valuation was adjusted last year, by the Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order, 1966, to take account of the general increase in valuations following the 1966 revaluation in Scotland, but subsequently gas showrooms, in common with electricity showrooms, became separately rateable; from 1967–68 under Section 19 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. The Gas Board was, at the same time, given an undertaking that if showroom valuations turned out to be substantial, a revision of the basic rateable valuation would be considered.

From information received from the local valuation assessors, the aggregate proposed rateable valuation of gas showrooms in Scotland as at 16th May last will amount to £57,679. The Secretary of State considers that this total is sufficiently large to warrant an adjustment of the Board's basic rateable valuation, and the Order before the House provides that, for 1967–68 and subsequent years, this will be the amount of the 1966 Order, less the valuation of showrooms; that is, £732,490. I am glad to say that the local authority associations, which have been consulted, have not dissented from the Secretary of State's conclusions.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if the figure for showrooms includes administrative offices which, under Section 18 of the 1966 Act, are also being rated for the first time? If not, is a separate calculation made?

They come under a separate calculation. These offices are individual subjects in this context. The hon. Gentleman put a Parliamentary Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about this and, in reply, was given an estimate. I would not like to speculate whether or not that estimate will prove correct. We will have to watch the out-turn. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office is watching the situation closely. We must see that the Scottish Gas Board is treated properly. We will know the answer when the out-turn of the figures is known at the end of the year. I am not saying that we are in disagreement with the Ministry of Power; just that we must watch the position, since nobody yet knows the aggregate sum of the individual offices, which, as I say, are taken as individual subjects.

Under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, the British Railways Board is not rated in the normal way but makes annual contributions in lieu of rates, which are paid to the Secretary of State and distributed by him among rating authorities in accordance with a statutory formula. These contributions are calculated by applying each year to a "standard amount", adjustment factors or multipliers, which take account of changes in the general level of rates and in the activities of the Board, measured by reference to numbers of passenger journeys and freight tons carried.

Because of the general revaluation in Scotland last year, it is necessary to review the Board's standard amount, since otherwise its rate liability, relative to ratepayers on the valuation roll, would automatically be reduced. When consulted on this question, the Railways Board pointed out that, following the 1963 revaluation in England and Wales, the Minister of Housing and Local Government had increased the standard amount for the Board in England and Wales by less than the general increase in valuations, with the result that the amount payable in lieu of rates for 1964–65 and subsequent years was reduced and that, in the past five years of continuing operating deficit, there had been a further measured contraction of the whole of British Railways, which in Scotland had halved the number of stations and marshalling yards and reduced by a quarter the number of route miles open for traffic. In the light of these considerations, the Board contended that it would be unreasonable to increase the standard amount. Instead, it considered that it would be realistic and equitable to reduce it.

The Board's payment in lieu of rates for any year is arrived at by applying multipliers to the standard amount for changes in average rates and in the activities of the Board. While the annual value of the average rate multiplier over the last five years has increased from 1·297 to 1·543, the value of the activity multiplier has declined only from 0·984 to 0·973. I find this remarkable, particularly bearing in mind what I said about the halving of the number of stations and marshalling yards and the reduction by a quarter of the number of route miles open for traffic That is quite remarkable. It has had a substantial effect on the multiplier. It is fair to say that the activity multiplier has had only a marginal effect, and the payments in lieu of rates by the Board increased in the period from £181,000 to £211,000.

Thus, taking into account that the railways were given a year's standstill in rates following the Scottish revaluation of 1961, the reduction in the Railways Board's liabilities which was made in England and Wales in 1964·65 and the very moderate effect which the activity factor is having, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it would be reasonable to give the Board a standstill in its rate payments in Scotland in 1967·68. This is the effect of the draft Order.

How the Board's payments in Scotland will move in subsequent years will depend on several factors, into which I do not wish to go now. I am glad to say that the local authority associations, which have been consulted by the Secretary of State, have not dissented from the Order.

I commend the three Orders to the House and shall be happy to answer any questions which are raised.

11.36 p.m.

Perhaps we should apologise at the outset to you personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for detaining you at this hour to discuss problems associated with gas and electricity in Scotland when only this morning, from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock, we were discussing certain other aspects of gas and electricity usage and supply in Scotland. There is this other difference, that we have the question of the railways also before us now. and we have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of State.

The Scottish rating system is difficult to understand, as it is in the rest of the country, and the basis of rate contribution by the nationalised industries is even less comprehensible. Though penetrating and courteous, as always, the Minister of State did not greatly assist us to unmesh the web of irrationality and confusion which surrounds the subject. He explained how the calculations were made, that for electricity the amounts vary according to the rate level in Scotland and the level of electricity produced, on the basis of a standard amount fixed by the Secretary of State under Section 17 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. For gas, we have a standard amount fixed under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1963, and there is power under Section 12(2) to vary the amount on which we work the principle of Schedule 4 to the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1956.

For the railways we have Section 2(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1962, which gives power to fix the standard amount, and Section 66(3) of the Transport Act, 1962, which gives power to reduce that by an amount in respect of waterways. Again here, Section 11 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1963, gives the Minister power to vary both amounts.

Plainly, there is need to tidy up this aspect of our legislation. I hope that these will be the last Orders to come before us in this form.

In arriving at the standard amounts, has the Minister taken proper account of the increased values in 1966 under the revaluation? The hon. Gentleman said that he had taken account of these in the calculations, but I wonder how the calculations square with what actually took place. In answer to a Question yesterday, the Secretary of State told me that in the 1966 revaluation commercial premises generally in Scotland rose in valuation by no less than 60·9 per cent. This was commercial valuations as a whole. We saw in the papers this morning a statement that for some retail premises revaluations had resulted in an increase of 100 per cent.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to the principles of the enabling Acts that he has mentioned. It is not permissible in the discussion of the Orders. He can discuss only the proposed alterations to the standard amounts of the rating valuations.

I fully appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot discuss rating, but under the Act relevant to the Order the Minister has power to fix the standard amount and in arriving at that he has to have regard to many circumstances, and he has assured us that one of these is the general increase in valuations. Many store owners, wholesale warehouses and others in our cities, particularly Glasgow, believe that there is a danger of their becoming deserts within our cities because of the high incidence of valuations. The Minister should look more carefully at the manner in which he is fixing the standard amount and the extent to which he has taken account of the impact of revaluation generally.

With regard to the railways Order, I asked a Question yesterday of the Minister of Transport about the contribution from railways and was told that whereas in 1965–66 the amount payable was £195,000 in Scotland, in 1967–68 it would be about £207,000, representing an increase of only 6 per cent. compared with the average increase in valuations of 60 per cent. For electricity we have an estimate of £3,700,000 in 1965–66, and in 1967-68 it will be £3,728,000, an increase of less than 1 per cent. The Minister explained that there were special factors operating in the special case of electricity, but 1 per cent. appears to be a relatively small amount in relation to commercial valuations. With gas the increase is more considerable but nothing like the figure that I mentioned.

First, has the Minister taken adequate account in his calculations of the standard amount in making the Orders and the substantial increase which has taken place in commercial valuations. The second question, more detailed, is on the matter of making allowance for inequalities in comparing the Scottish nationalised industries with the English ones. The Minister pointed out that a working party had recently told him, in a blinding flash of the obvious, that the electricity industry in Scotland was paying too much. [Interruption.] He said that the working party had drawn his attention to the fact that the electricity supply industry in Scotland was paying more than its share of rates compared with the English nationalised industry.

The hon. Gentleman must get this right. The Local Government Working Party had a case put to it by the two electricity Boards in Scotland. I was very careful to say in relation to gas and the railways that the local authority associations did not dissent from the Secretary of State's decision. I did not say that about electricity, for obvious reasons. The Secretary of State's opinion is that the electricity Boards in Scotland are paying a fair rate. The local authorities may disagree with that or not. I suspect that they disagree. The hon. Gentleman must consider whether the Government are right in thinking that, or would he prefer that the electricity Boards should pay more?

The point that I was making was that in consideration of this matter the Minister should have shown a little more urgency. On 9th November, 1966, on the Report stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Act the point was forcibly put to him in column 1321 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We made an estimate that the South of Scotland Electricity Board was paying £750,000 more in rates than it would have done had it been assessed on the same basis as the English Boards. Has the hon. Gentleman made a similar investigation in respect of the gas industry? From conversations with people in the industry, I have reason to believe that many of them take the view that a similar position exists within it.

I appreciate the difficulty in that gas is generally the responsibility of the Minister of Power in Scotland while electricity is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. But I hope that this administrative demarcation will not prevent a thorough investigation into whether the gas industry should have similar adjustments in the payments it makes in lieu of rates as compared with the electricity industry. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot give a definite undertaking tonight but I hope that he will at least indicate that the problem will be examined thoroughly, perhaps in consulation with the Minister of Power.

What is the impact on the rates of the administrative offices which are being rated for the first time? The Secretary of State, on 9th November made it clear, in column 1320 of HANSARD, that rating liability of administrative offices was an additional factor. Is there any increase in the amounts?

The Minister of State explained that the activity factor of British Railways in Scotland had come down, and this may be the reason why there will not be a substantial increase in the amounts they will have to pay. But in 1961–62 the railways in Scotland paid £182,000 in rates. Next year, they will probably pay only about £200,000. This seems a remarkably small increase over a relatively long period, particularly as the amount of rates raised in Scotland rose by 6 per cent. in 1964, by 9 per cent. in 1965, and by 16 per cent. in 1966.

As appears to have been implicit in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when introducing the Order in another place, has there been any question of taking into account ability to pay? If so, this would be a new factor in valuation.

Finally, can we have an assurance that this will be one of the last of such Orders? There are obvious inequalities and injustices in the rating system but there seems need to tidy up the way in which we deal with rates paid by the nationalised industries. Is there any new thinking by the Government on that matter?

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must be tired of hearing hon. Members apologising for keeping you up late, so I shall not even apologise for making a short contribution.

I have been living in the hope of seeing some change in the attitude of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) as he has moved steadily from the back benches to the Opposition Front Bench. But I have been frequently disappointed because he still talks the same rubbish on the same irresponsible approach.

It is still, however, relevant to ask him what the Opposition's attitude is to these Orders. Are they for or against? Do the Opposition think there should have been some revision or change in the method of assessing the contribution of nationalised industries towards the rates? If they do, why did they not do it when they were in office for 13 years?

The hon. Member read his brief as well as my hon. Friend the Minister of State read his. He gave an interesting account of the historical background, but the majority of the Acts he referred to were passed during the Conservative period of office. I am at a loss to understand, in the light of many of the criticisms made about the higher costs of electricity, gas and transport in Scotland as compared with England, whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of these Orders or not. There is a lot of merit in these Orders in the sense that they are trying to equalise.

The contribution of the fuel industry in Scotland—and I am concerned with the electricity Boards—should be equalised to some extent, in the sense of rating charges, with its counterpart in England and Wales.

I would make the point that if there are satisfactory answers to questions it is our intention not to oppose these Orders.

I appreciate that this is the Parliamentary procedure, but I must say that sometimes the party opposite might show a bit more enthusiasm than it has shown tonight.

The point I was making was that I welcome these Orders. They are long overdue in the sense that they expose some of the difficulties that nationalised industries are operating under in Scotland compared with England. I am not happy about the implications for the electricity Boards, but I think it is a welcome and logical step that showrooms and perhaps administrative offices should be rated on the same basis as any other commercial undertaking. There will be no disagreement on that footing.

I was wondering how the House of Fraser lobby would find an opportunity of saying something about the new valuations which were announced yesterday for Glasgow, and I noticed that the hon. Member for Cathcart dutifully represented that point of view.

Returning to the electricity Boards, I am worried about the effect of this, but not because the local authorities have not accepted it. If they have not accepted it, it is because there is to be a loss of revenue to the local authorities in Scotland. If my figures are right, it seems that the local authorities in Scotland stand to lose about £1 million next year from the electricity Boards alone. This is a serious matter. I have not been able to find out which local authorities got what and why in this calculation which has been made. I am not expecting the Minister to be able to say tonight how much loss this means to Glasgow, for example, but I should be interested to know. If it is not in his brief, perhaps he can advise me later about it.

However, I welcome these Orders, with the proviso that the Minister can give an assurance about this calculation, because this is an additional burden in the sense it is a loss of revenue to the local authorities in Scotland. While I agree that the nationalised industries should be treated on the same basis as their English counterparts, I hope that the Treasury is aware of the loss of revenue to the local authorities and that representations will be made accordingly, especially in the light of the fact that the local authorities are not accepting very happily the Electricity Boards Order. However, I think that the House should approve the Order. These proposals are long overdue. They bring a measure of logic into a very difficult and obtuse subject.

11.54 p.m.

The latest estimates that we have for 1966–67 show that the average householder in Scotland paid slightly less by way of rates than his opposite number in England and Wales. Our present calculation is that it is £40 in Scotland as against £40 10s. in England and Wales, but I would exclude from both domestic water rates, and perhaps later we might be able to get a more precise estimate.

The present Order attempts, in relation to the electricity industry, to do no more for Scottish electricity than the Rating of Industry Order, 1965, achieved for the whole of Scottish industry generally by providing for continuance of derating—in other words, parity of rates burden with England and Wales, and this seems fair.

Since you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed a comment on commercial valuation, I have this to say about the situation in Scotland. These are a reflection of the rentals which could be obtained for the properties in their present use and this is accepted as part of the rating and valuation system which we have inherited from the party opposite. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is not responsible for what his party did, but if he is to be his party's spokesman, he must realise that it was his party which introduced and sustained this system and he must endure the consequences. We shall consider the Report of the Royal Commission to see what should be done about the rating system generally, and we are keeping a close eye on the rating position in Scotland generally in all the different categories and certainly we shall take into account a number of changing factors as we go along and that certainly applies to the Scottish gas industry.

One of the most significant remarks in last night's debate on the cost of fuel in Scotland was made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) who argued a cogent case and who said that there was room to help with those other fuel industries for which the Government were responsible. That is a testimony of what we are trying to do in relation to electricity, gas and the railways. I therefore take it that the hon. Member for Cathcart, on behalf of his party, agrees that we are right to provide for parity in rating and valuation of electricity Boards in Scotland with those in England, and I am very glad to have the support of the Conservative Party in this respect.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that this matter was raised on 9th November last year and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to acknow- ledge it only in general terms, because on 9th November the Local Government Act was a Bill and an Order cannot be passed unless there is an Act to give birth to it. The Bill received the Royal Assent just before Christmas and this Order is a natural consequence. I stressed the urgency of it. We have made a significant change in the policy which we inherited from the party opposite.

The curious thing about the Gas Board is that, despite the hon. Gentleman's conversations, we have not had any formal representation from the Gas Board about this matter. I am surprised about that. I had thought that the Gas Board would want to be treated on the same arguments as the electricity Boards in England and Wales. The Opposition left us with a situation in which the Gas Board's rates were 1·9 per cent of total income in their last two financial years compared with the figure of 1·1 per cent. in England. In other words, on average the rate burden imposed on the Gas Board in Scotland was twice that imposed on those in England and Wales, so that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be the last to complain that the present Government have dealt with the Gas Board in Scotland badly.

In my introductory remarks I deliberately went out of my way to say that we should like to consider the outturn of the estimates for the Gas Board. We would not disagree with the Ministry of Power at this stage, but the estimate given to us gives a tentative figure of £100,000 for the Gas Board's offices. I cannot give a figure for the electricity Boards yet, for we want to see the out-turn to see how we are doing. I take it that the hon. Member for Cathcart supports our decision about the Gas Board on behalf of his party and agrees that we should accept the Order as it stands.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made those comments about the Railways Board, because in the scrupulous way in which I prepared my arguments I thought that I had allowed for that and that I had argued a good case for the Railways Board being marginally different and for the need to help with transport costs in Scotland. I would have thought that I would have had the hon. Gentleman's support for that, and that is why we are making what is virtually a standstill Order.

I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) that we cannot possibly deal with these industries fairly and at the same time not lose income in rating resources. But we cannot have it both ways. Even Jimmy Maxton could not ride two horses at the same time. If we help the nationalised industries in general to have some such protection, the local authorities lose, and if we insist that the local authorities are right, then, obviously, the nationalised industries in Scotland will pay more than the nationalised industries in England and Wales. As a good Scotsman, I prefer that we should treat the nationalised industries in both countries on the same basis, and accordingly I give the assurance that we shall look into the Gas Board case more thoroughly when all the facts become available. We are to review the whole position of the rating of nationalised industries in the light of the findings of the Royal Commission on Local Government. This is a very important matter as we have stressed several times and I gladly give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Electricity Boards (Standard Amount) (Scotland) Order 1967, dated 3rd July, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

Valuation (Scottish Gas Board) (Scotland) Order 1967, dated 3rd July, 1967, [copy laid before the House 5th July], approved.—[ Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

British Railways Board (Amendment of Certified Amount) (Scotland) Order 1967 [draft laid before the House 5th July], approved.—[ Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Vessels Protection Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

12.1 a.m.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

I am glad that time has been found for the Bill. It has not taken up as much as an hour, but it is very valuable all the same. Even since the Bill was introduced, cases have come to light in which damage has been caused to boats but people could not be prosecuted, because there was no offence of taking and driving away, or of paddling away a canoe or sailing away a boat. Now there will be better protection.

I hope that there will be publicity for this change in the law. It is desirable that people should know that they can no longer do these things without being prosecuted. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on his Bill, and I hope that everyone will give it a welcome, and publicity, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Scotland (Large-Scale Egg Production)

Motion, made and Question proposed, That this House do adjourn.—[ Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.5 a.m.

When I raised the question of the financial assistance that was being given to large-scale egg production units in Scotland at Question Time on 28th June, the Under-Secretary of State replied that it was not the practice to disclose information of this kind. In no way do I wish to ask him to disclose confidential information, but I think that the House and the agricultural industry as a whole ought to know what basic help is available, particularly because, as was well illustrated at Question Time today, there is real concern in all sections of the poultry industry about the prices ruling for eggs. Therefore, a general statement of policy on what the Government are prepared to do is a matter which is of general interest.

On 7th June, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) received a letter from the Minister of State at the Board of Trade setting out what was available to producers of eggs, subject to various conditions as to the provision of extra employment.

From the Questions asked today, it is obvious that many hon. Members have personal knowledge from their constituents of falling egg prices, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) ventured to suggest that the Egg Board might even collapse.

It was disclosed today in answer to a Question which I asked of the Minister that we are 98 per cent. self-sufficient in eggs and that hatchings are up, which suggests that there will be a rise in home egg production next year. If we are 98 per cent. self-sufficient, it looks as if we are only 24 million dozen short, and perhaps the only good thing which will come out of these large-scale egg units, if they go on, is that only two or three of them will be required to make up the shortfall.

What effect will the introduction of large-scale egg producing units have on the market and on those producing eggs at present? The answer is quite simple. Last year's Price Review decreased the price of eggs by ¾d. a dozen. The paper which accompanied the Price Review said:

"The underlying trend for some years past has been for production to rise faster than demand. This continues to be the danger, and the guaranteed price is therefore reduced by ¾d. a dozen."

If big egg producing units come into production, the only thing that I can see happening is that other existing producers will be forced out of business.

If such units are set up in the central belt of Scotland, where one of which I know and of which I shall speak in a moment is to be established, it is certain that the areas which will suffer and where we shall lose egg production are such places as the Orkney Islands and the counties of Aberdeenshire and Banff, which are the very places where the Government are doing all that they can to stimulate industry of any sort to make certain that we do not suffer further rural depopulation.

I came to know of the detailed plans for a large-scale egg production unit to be set up by Messrs. Eastwood in my constituency. It is proposed to set up this unit on a farm which happens to be next-door to my own home, and, as a neighbouring proprietor, I was served with a copy of the planning application. It is obviously right that I should declare this interest. In fact, I raised objections to begin with, because I was worried about the effect on public health and water supplies, particularly as its locality was in the catchment area for a local water supply. This matter was thoroughly gone into by the public health authorities, the river purification board, and so on, and it would appear that they are satisfied that there is no danger to public health.

This is a very large-scale unit. It consists, first, of six blocks of buildings with three sheds per block, each shed being 250 feet long by 60 feet wide. Those blocks are for rearing. Then there are five blocks with four sheds per block for breeder layers, and six blocks with five sheds each for commercial egg production. Each block has a farm worker's bungalow for the person responsible for looking after the block. In addition, the unit will have a feeding-stuffs mill, a packing room and a hatchery. Probably between three-quarters of a million and 1 million birds will be in the unit. Whilst I have this knowledge of layout I speak of, I have reason to believe that similar layouts may be set up elsewhere, either in West Fife or in other parts of Scotland.

Exactly the same thing will happen if those units go into the production of feedingstuffs. If, with Government assistance, a new provender mill is set up to supply the needs of the unit, as we are nearly self-sufficient, existing mills will have to decrease their output and will therefore have to pay off labour. I cannot see the result of such efforts being to increase employment in the egg industry in Scotland. The Minister of State, in the letter to which I have referred, said that the unit would obviously provide extra and secure employment, so I want to ask the Under-Secretary some questions.

First, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that an enterprise such as this is really in the public interest? I admit that there are many difficult questions to answer here, because there is no reason for say- ing that egg production units must stay as they are for all time, but if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest, does he think it right that public money should be made available for it? I ask, because all the unit will do will be to replace the production of eggs in one part of the country by producing them in another.

Is the Minister satisfied that if money is given to this enterprise it will not frustrate grants that have already been made? Whenever we have passed agricultural Orders, there has always been a notice in them which says that a grant shall not be payable if it frustrates the purpose of money already paid out by another Government Department. There must have been many occasions when farm improvement grants have been paid to other egg producers, who could now very easily be put out of employment. That would mean that the grants they have received would be stultified if this scheme goes through. As we are 98 per cent. self-sufficient, I cannot see that any new employment will be created.

Again, while the farms on which these sheds I have described will stay in production, between 20 and 30 acres of what is now good agricultural land will be covered by buildings. Is that in the general agricultural interest? In my county of Fife there are many areas of ground which suffer from mining subsidence, but which would be perfectly suitable for putting up buildings like these, which have a low weight-bearing load factor. This ground is not otherwise in productive use, and the unit could well be put on it.

Further, in view of our application to join the Common Market, should Government finance be given without seriously checking up the Common Market regulations in this respect? I find this a little difficult to pursue. I know that suggestions have been made, and I believe measures taken, in various Common Market countries with a view to restricting the number of pigs and poultry which can be kept on any one unit. This may be a measure of protection for British agriculture and not of necessity anything which must apply, under Common Market regulations, to every Common Market country. In other words, if in their wisdom the French Government say that not more than 2,000 hens can be kept on any one agricultural unit, this does not of necessity mean that, if we adhere to the Common Market, we must have the same regulation.

Lastly, what are the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of the Brambell Report? It is true in this case, I imagine, that any grant payable will not be payable on the hen houses or the cages in which the hens which are laying will be housed. The whole enterprise is centred round intensive egg production in cages. If the Brambell Report in any way alters a unit's viability, if alterations are made in the way birds can be housed, if the intensive housing conditions of factory farming are altered, the money destined for, say, the packing station, provender mill, or houses for workers, could go by default, because the enterprise would no longer be the profitable enterprise which obviously Messrs. Eastwoods think it ought to be

Having inquired into Scottish conditions, after having heard from friends of the many complaints they have had in East Anglia, I have discovered that factory farming conditions mean that the laying birds in these sheds will be situated over deep pits and the droppings will go down into the pits. Several generations of hens for many years will sit over the open pit of droppings and the pits will not be cleaned out for, perhaps, 8 or 10 years. Although this may be very economical, it is not what everyone would like to think are the conditions in which hens should be kept. No doubt it can be argued that, if people want to keep hens in other ways which are more expensive, eggs will cost more. However, if Government money is to be used to stimulate an enterprise of this sort, the Minister should give us an assurance that not only he, but the National Farmers' Union and the Egg Marketing Board are satisfied that this is something which is in the public interest, which will not cause rural depopulation, but which will help Scottish agriculture.

I bear no ill will. I am not a poultry farmer of any size, so I have no interest in trying to keep out this enterprise, which will obviously bring employment to my constituency and to my part of the world; but it would be short-sighted to accept an enterprise like this without having a good deal more information than we have at present.

12.19 a.m.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on raising some very cogent points relating to this difficult situation. If the Under-Secretary had been in the House this afternoon, he would have heard the very grave anxiety which was expressed by hon. Members on both sides about the position in the egg market. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and I visited the President of the Board of Trade last week. We were left in no doubt that he admitted that eggs were being dumped, that material damage was being done to egg producers, and the only uncertainty that he gave us to understand was what was actually causing the material damage. He was not convinced that it was the import of eggs. There is no question—and the White Paper of last March bears witness to this—that the Minister of Agriculture was anxious to discourage further egg production. It seems to me an extraordinary inconsistency that we have here an actual encouragement being given by another Government Department for egg producers to do precisely what the Minister of Agriculture is anxious that they should not do, and that grants of a substantial nature are being given to egg-producers to set up within the development areas.

I suppose it is possible that the hon. Gentleman may say that if the Act allows grants to be paid, one cannot start choosing between one undertaking and another. I can see that one might get into all sorts of difficulties about having to make a decision as to whether it was a good thing to give a grant to somebody who wished to open up a licensed undertaking for selling liquor in a district where such a thing might not meet with public approval. But my hon. Friend has pointed out and quoted the escape route that is available, and I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to explain to us that there is not so much inconsistency, although I think he will have a very hard task in doing so.

12.22 a.m.

With those final words I am in complete agreement. In this full House it will be very difficult to be convincing to the two main speakers opposite‡

I recognise the difficulties which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has expressed. I was not present during the discussion this afternoon. I was involved in other matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows. But I do know of the large number of Questions which have been put down on this subject. I know that there is a good deal of anxiety in the general egg producing community, and I would be the very last to suggest that this should not be looked at with a great deal of care. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture showed that he, too, is concerned and cares about the situation.

However, that is not quite what has been raised tonight. What has been raised with me is a very special matter about which the hon. Gentleman has already put down Questions. We discussed it at Question Time when I made it fairly clear that it would be difficult for me—indeed, impossible—to deal with a particular application of this kind. The hon. Gentleman declared his own interests. Therefore, to him the project is not hypothetical. I shall have to treat it to some extent as being hypothetical, as the hon. Member will understand.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points, not all of which I intend to follow. He asked if we were concerned. Of course, we are concerned. We are concerned with all matters that affect agriculture. He asked me for an outright answer to the question whether this would be desirable in terms of employment. This is one of the difficulties. The hon. Gentleman has also raised other matters in the past. I am thinking in particular of sugar beet. We both know the problems facing people in his area concerning a certain factory. What the hon. Member himself—not me, because to me it is a hypothetical issue—must do when he is considering the schemes that have been put forward is to preserve a certain balance. The hon. Member referred to unemployment among egg producers. He and I are both aware of unemployment in other sections of the community in that area and he therefore cannot lightly dismiss this hypothetical project which he has described and which might bring employment to the area. He would be venturing on dangerous ground if he did not also take that matter into consideration.

He also mentioned the hypothetical project purely on the grounds of egg production, but maybe there are other by-products—for example broiler production. There are perhaps other possible uses for the hypothetical building which he described and which do not raise the same problem. That is another question which he should consider before too enthusiastically firing off all guns in attacking measures which might or might not bring employment to this area.

The hon. Member asked me whether I am satisfied that such a project would be in the public interest. It is not for me alone to decide that. I cannot comment on it except to say that I think that any large-scale venture suggested for Scotland, or any large-scale form of industry, let alone agriculture, must be looked at very carefully from the point of view of the balance within the community and of employment as well as from a narrower point of view like that of egg production. These things must be balanced even while we recognise that we face a grave situation in respect of egg production.

If I remember rightly, the hon. Member quoted some figures suggesting that we were producing 98 per cent. and hatching more chicks and therefore were within 100 per cent. of production of all the eggs now needed. He was talking in terms of the United Kingdom. I am not at all sure that we face precisely this situation in respect of Scotland. For example, in so far as we can estimate the Scottish figure—sometimes it is rather difficult to estimate it—an intelligent estimate suggests between 20 and 25 per cent. and possibly more of a shortfall between egg consumption in Scotland and eggs produced in Scotland. We do not therefore break level in terms of Scottish production. When the hon. Member talks about the hypothetical project possibly removing egg production in certain sectors in Scotland, I suggest that it is not as simple as that. We are importers of eggs from England.

Is it not true that the situation has forced poultry keepers out of production, particularly in the Orkney Islands?

I am not at all sure that we can at all times dismiss the economics of industry even when considering agriculture, otherwise we would still be producing as we were in the days before "Turnip" Townsend. Changes take place.

Orkney production is still fairly considerable despite the difficulties which the hon. Member mentioned. The 25 per cent. shortfall is not explained by a decline in areas such as Aberdeenshire or Orkney. We cannot back all kinds of development, much as some of us would often like to do so. Other things must be considered when we put such a question as is it right to make public money available on a project such as this?

The hon. Gentleman said that the project would cover good agricultural land. But at least it would concern if not an agricultural process, at least an agricultural product. To that extent, the equation would balance. But the hon. Gentleman went further and said that there were areas of poor ground—for example, former mining areas—which might be used. I am not sure whether he means that we do not want this project at all or whether, if we have it, we should have it in another place. Was that what the hon. Gentleman was arguing?

I was arguing from the point of view of efficient land use. We know that much agricultural land is being absorbed. Therefore, many areas subject to mining subsidence in, for example, West Fife which have been spoiled by mining operations would be the sort of areas to use for this purpose.

I am grateful for that constructive suggestion. If I encounter the hypothetical scheme, I will make sure that that constructive comment is considered, namely, that if the project is to go ahead we may consider another area with the blessing of the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman wondered whether this might frustrate the other grants in existence—a kind of Government grant versus Government grant situation. Suppose that one wanted to drive a road through land which had been subject to certain improvements grants. It would not be illegal to drive a road through because a hen house had been erected by Government grant. That would be no argument for changing the line of a new trunk road. The hon. Gentleman went further and said that it was a question not merely of the land which would be occupied but of the effect on a whole host of farms in respect of which grants had been given. It is not usual to write into enabling legislation that regard should be had to such possibilities. It is a matter for the Board of Trade.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the E.E.C. This is the "in" subject. Every question on agriculture seems to end with points about the Common Market. The hon. Gentleman said that, despite the fact that the Common Market countries had certain limitations concerning livestock and animals, they would not necessarily apply to Britain. In these circumstances, I cannot understand why he raised the point.

I was not certain on this point. I know from what my hon. Friends on the Council of Europe have told me that there are such regulations, but I believe that they are domestic regulations rather than Common Market regulations.

In other words, they would not necessarily apply to Britain.

The hon. Gentleman stated that there was anxiety in other areas about intensive farming, but not about the kind which we are considering tonight. However, the point is of significance, and I was glad to receive it.

The question of the Brambell Report was raised. I would expect that a firm of the kind the hon. Gentleman described would, of all firms, have the capacity and resources to make sure that it behaved in accordance with any of the Report's requirements.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of public health and pollution really in order to discard it. He said that he raised it because of his interest in the subject, but that the relevant authorities had examined it and found that in the particular project no problem was involved. The answer on all such schemes is that they must still be subject to the normal river pollution boards and other public health authorities.

Since it was hypothetical, I do not know if the hon. Gentleman's description of generations of hens' droppings over a large pit year after year was accurate. I should not have thought it any more unhygenic than the normal hens with which I was brought up, which laid over their own dung.

We should congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having raised the matter and on the way he did so, because it seems to me that he would not discard all the pos- sibilities out of hand. He accepted that farming, like other aspects of our life, must change, that technological advance must go on, and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty five minutes to One o'clock.

Volume 751: debated on Wednesday 26 July 1967

House Of Commons

Prayers

Civil Air Transport (Inquiry)

Atomic Energy Authority (Culham Laboratory)

Hovercraft

Sea Fisheries (Grants)

Hospital Doctors (Married Quarters)

Private Business

Essex County Council (Canvey Island Approaches, &C) Bill

London Transport (No 2) Bill

Ministry Of Housing And Local Government Provisional Order (Greater London Parks And Open Spaces) Bill

Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Bill Lords

Brighton Marina Bill

Experiments On Living Animals

Oral Answers To Questions

Agriculture, Fisheries And Food

Central Council For Agriculture And Horticulture Co-Operation

Chick Placings

Egg Imports

Egg Production

Fishing Vessels (Grants)

Fishing Industry (Fleck Committee Report)

Home-Produced Beef

Beef Imports

Minimum Import Prices

Irish Free Trade Agreement (Carcase Meat)

Store Cattle (Republic Of Ireland)

Brucellosis (Eradication Scheme)

Forestry Grants

Agricultural Holdings (Grants)

Therapeutic Substances Act

European Economic Community

Sodium Cyclamate

Eggs (Marketing And Distribution)

Milk Production

Butter Oil (Imports)

Fisheries Review

Farm Animals (Injuries)

Waste Bog Land And Mountain Land

Agricultural And Horticultural Holdings (Planning Applications)

Fatstock Guarantee Scheme 1967–68

Fat Cattle (Subsidy)

Potato Marketing

Temperate Foods (Consumer Demand)

Abattoirs (Standards)

Catering Departments (Prices)

Non-Returnable Bottles

Milk Production Advisory Service (Devon And Cornwall)

Sharks (South Coast)

Farm Incomes

Scotland

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

New General Hospital (Airdrie)

Teacher Distribution (Roberts Committee's Recommendation)

European Short-Medium Range Airbus

Questions To Ministers

Race Relations (Legislation)

University Expenditure (Parliamentary Control)

Orders Of The Day

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill

Criminal Justice Bill

Clause 4—(Notice Of Result Of Com- Mittal Proceedings)

New Clause "A"—(Proof Of Criminal Intent)

Clause 10—(Notice Of Alibi)

New Clause "B"—(Applications Of Sections 8 To 10 To Courts- Martial)

Clause 11—(Majority Verdicts Of Juries In Criminal Proceedings)

Clause 12—(Disqualification Of Ex- Prisoners From Serving On Juries In Criminal Proceedings)

New Clause "C"—(Validation Of Ver- Dict Where Juror Disqualified)

Clause 15—(Restrictions On Refusal Of Bail)

New Clause "D"—(Restriction On Justices Sitting After Dealing With Bail)

New Clause "E"—(Power Of Magis- Trates' Court To Commit On Bail For Sentence)

Clause 16—(Special Conditions Of Bail)

Clause 18—(Process For Minor Offences)

New Clause "G"—(Period Of Adjourn- Ment Under Sections 14 And 26 Of The Magistrates' Courts Act 1952)

New Clause "H"—(Extension Of Costs In Criminal Cases Act 1952)

Clause 24—(Amendments Of Costs In Criminal Cases Act 1952)

New Clause "I"—(Examining Justices)

Clause 28—(Punishment Of Persistent Offenders)