Commons Sitting of 4 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Indonesia, Tanzania and Burma (Seized British Assets)
    Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has now made in negotiating compensation for British assets seized in Indonesia, Tanzania and Burma, respectively
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): As regards Indonesia, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on 6th April.
    Compensation terms have been satisfactorily agreed in the majority of the company claims lodged with the Tanzanian Government, and we hope for a similar outcome in the outstanding cases.
    The Burmese Government have assured us of their willingness in principle to compensate, though they cannot at present proceed to negotiations.—[Vol. 799, c. 5–6]
    Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister agree that it is rather a long time since Indonesia and Burma seized British assets, and, in view of the very high level of taxation in Britain today, is it not a bit pointless for the Government to give aid to countries like Indonesia when they have not settled for these assets which they have seized?
    Mr. Foley: No, Sir. In the case of Indonesia a number of companies' claims have been settled, and the rest are in the process of negotiation. We would like to see this hastened. It is primarily a matter for the firms concerned. We have offered the facilities of the Government. and they are aware of this.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Has the Minister read the Land Acquisition Act recently

    3
    passed in Zambia, and is he aware that this attitude towards the confiscation of European land is clearly tyrannical? Will he take action about it?
    Mr. Foley: The question of Zambia is a different matter. If the hon. Gentleman likes to put down a Question he will get an answer.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now take steps to redefine the purpose of economic sanctions imposed against Rhodesia.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The purpose of sanctions is to bring home to those who are responsible for policy in Rhodesia the unrelenting hostility of the whole of mankind to the racialist principles on which their policies are based; and to maintain the international isolation of the illegal régime until there can be an honourable settlement consistent with our principles.
    Mr. Taylor: As after five years of sanctions the Rhodesian economy grew last year faster than in the previous 15 years, and petrol today in Salisbury is 1s. a gallon cheaper than it is in London, are not sanctions really just a bad joke, and should they not be abandoned?
    Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. If the hon. Member thinks sanctions should be abandoned he should try to persuade the leader of his own party of that doctrine, which his own leader does not share at the moment. It is true that, due to certain fortuitous circumstances, the Rhodesian economy was comparatively fortunate last year, but there has been no growth in the income per head at all in Rhodesia since the illegal declaration of independence.
    Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the purpose of sanctions has now completely changed? Once upon a time it was to bring the illegal régime to the conference table in the hope of securing an honourable settlement. Now that has failed. It is quite clear, is it not, that the object is to inflict the maximum damage to the economy of Rhodesia, including the Africans, who are the hardest hit of all?
    Mr. Stewart: I draw the hon. Member's attention to what I said at the end of my answer:
    " to maintain the international isolation of the illegal régime until there can be an honourable settlement consistent with our principles."
    That is not inconsistent with the original purpose of sanctions which the hon. Member quoted, and I presume that the hon. Gentleman, sitting where he does, is in favour of the continuance of sanctions.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had this year with the Australian Government regarding the operation of mandatory trade sanctions against Rhodesia.
    Mr. M. Stewart: We are continually in touch with Commonwealth Governments, in particular through the machinery of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, regarding the implementation of sanctions against Rhodesia. Such discussions are, of course, confidential.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that Rhodesia has apparently become the major importer of Australian wheat, do the British Government accept that these exports are justified on humanitarian grounds? If so, is there not a case for promoting the humanitarian export of Scottish machine tools, textiles and other commodities to Rhodesia, which would help to reduce the level of unemployment in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, No, Sir, we do not accept that view. The second part of the supplementary question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Henig: Does not my right hon. Friend share the feelings of sheer nausea of many of us on this side of the House at the glee with which hon. Members opposite greet any flaw that they find in the sanctions? Would it not be more in keeping with the spirit of the House of Commons if all hon. Members were to give full support to sanctions and condemn any sanction-breaking wheresoever it may occur?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that is so. The difference between the Government and

    5
    some hon. Members opposite, though, I understand, not the titular leadership of the Conservative Party, is that some hon. Members opposite are in sympathy with the rebellion and want it to succeed. We do not.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now appoint an independent commission to settle any outstanding matters in dispute between Her Majesty's Government and those who have left the service of the Government of Rhodesia since 1964.
    Mr, M. Stewart: Any matter in dispute from 1964 until the illegal declaration of independence on 11th November, 1965, would be for a legal Government of Southern Rhodesia to consider when that is re-established. So far as the period since 11th November, 1965, is concerned. I do not consider this would be appropriate or necessary.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will not the Foreign Secretary realise that the honour of Ministers is in question, particularly that of the Prime Minister following his remarks in November, 1965? Would this not be an easy matter to resolve in view of the relatively few individuals concerned, and will not some British Government one day have to clear the matter up? Therefore, should not this Government clear its own honour?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot accept that. I have examined the matter carefully. If the hon. Gentleman has fresh grounds for believing that such a commission is necessary, I would be prepared to consider them. But, looking at the facts as they now stand and at what has been said, I cannot see that there is any case.
    Mr. Braine: Surely the Foreign Secretary recalls the quite specific pledge made in this House on 11th November 1965 by the Prime Minister that public servants in Rhodesia who resigned because of their loyalty to the Queen would receive compensation? Is it not clear from that statement, which I have here but I will not read out since it is a lengthy one, that Mr. Hall and others should be compensated for financial loss due to the actions they undertook in carrying out the orders of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Stewart: There is a scheme of assistance for those who resigned on grounds of conscience. If there is a dispute about whether any particular individuals come within that category, I will look at any evidence supplied to me. I have no ground at present for supposing that anyone who is entitled is not within that scheme.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communication he has received regarding the conditions on which the illegal Rhodesian régime is prepared to negotiate an agreement with Great Britain on the basis of the Six Principles.
    Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir. Communications from the illegal régime ended with a memorandum in April last year, which was published in Command 4065 of June, 1969.
    Mr. Brooks: In view of the fact that Ian Smith's Government have now declared U.D.I. from the whole of Western Christendom, would it not be a good idea to invite to this country the courageous leaders of the Rhodesian churches, who might be able to explain to some hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are some principles beyond price?
    Mr. Stewart: I am obliged for that suggestion. I will consider it.
    Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I asked him a question the other day about the number of illegal régimes which had been recognised by the British Government in recent years, to which he replied that the information was not readily available and that the research required would not justify the expense involved? Does not he realise that, sooner or later, the illegal régime in Rhodesia—which of course it is—will have to be recognised?
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a great many questions. But I think I remember that one. None the less, this is a very different matter. This is a rebellion against the Crown, which I would have thought all hon. Members would reprobate, especially as it is a rebellion which has not, as other rebellions have, any moral principle behind it. I would have thought that, for that reason, we could all be united in condemning it.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the Government's policy regarding diplomatic relations with Portugal and South Africa, following the decision of their Governments to maintain diplomatic relations with the illegal self-styled Republican Government of Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. M. Stewart: It is not correct to describe such contacts as these Governments have or have had with the illegal régime as diplomatic relations. However, as we have often made clear in the past, Her Majesty's Government regret the failure of both these Governments to comply with Security Council Resolutions on Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Judd: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that de facto full political and economic co-operation continues between Portugal and South Africa on the one hand and the illegal régime in Rhodesia on the other? Does not he also agree that it is intolerable that the Governments of two countries which seek full diplomatic relations with this country should continue largely unscathed their co-operation with a régime which is in revolt against the Crown?
    Mr. Stewart: The position is not quite as my hon. Friend states. The Portuguese Government, for example, have announced that the person at present filling the office of Consul-General in Salisbury is to be transferred. The South African representative in Southern Rhodesia is described in a manner which emphasises that he is not a proper diplomatic representative.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The President of the Board of Trade said last week that he was in favour of the maximum expansion of British trade with South Africa. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman noticed a speech that I made earlier on this matter, he would know that I have made it clear that we believe that peaceable trade should be conducted fully with all nations, whatever their ideology, unless there is an express resolution of the Security Council to the contrary. I think
    8
    that that is a sensible position, and that is what we maintain.
    Mr. Paget: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Republic of Rhodesia exists and has effective control of its territory, that the principles of Christian Science whereby one does not recognise what one does not like the look of do not work in foreign affairs, and that the sooner we clear up this nonsense the better?
    Mr. Stewart: I believe that there is another thing that does not work in foreign affairs, and that is the principle of giving up a policy because it appears difficult to continue. I am concerned not so much with Christian Science as with the principles of Christianity, as are a good many Rhodesians.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take with regard to the result of the Rhodesian General Election.
    Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wall: The Foreign Secretary indicated in answer to a previous Question that the policy of sanctions is designed to secure an honourable settlement. Can he say when that will come about, and whether after the General Election Rhodesia will give up independence? Surely it is time the Government faced facts, as their predecessor, Lord North, was forced to do.
    Mr. Stewart: I always reject this comparison between Rhodesian independence and American independence. As I have pointed out, the American Declaration was for liberty and the Rhodesian declaration is against it. In any event, the Rhodesian General Election is not of itself an event which ought to cause any alteration of policy.
    Mr. Paget: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether his recognition of the régime of Dr. Husak and Mr. Kadar and of Chairman Mao were motivated by his Christian principles or by his recognition of the obligation of international law to recognise régimes which are effectively in control of their territories?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is neglecting two points. First, neither Czechoslovakia nor China has

    9
    ever been part of Her Majesty's Dominions. We are dealing here with a rebellion against the Crown. Secondly, as to the reference to Christian principles, this is not an argument I would normally use in this House, but the Russian Government, after all, have never claimed to be a defender of the faith. Part of Mr. Smith's claim is that he is, as he puts it, defending Christian civilisation. It is important to make clear that that is not so.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's ruling that divorces granted in Rhodesia after the illegal declaration of independence are invalid.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government have given no such ruling, nor would it be appropriate for them to do so. From time to time they have drawn attention to the illegality of certain acts in Southern Rhodesia and expressed a view as to their consequences. But, as I said on 2nd March—
    " the effects of these matters on individuals will however fall to be considered by the courts in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 13.]
    Mr. Hamilton: As Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the illegal régime, does it not follow that we cannot recognise any decisions made by the illegal courts within that illegal régime? Will my right hon. Friend make a further statement to clarify the position, which is causing a good deal of concern to many citizens?
    Mr. Stewart: The statement I made earlier drew the attention, as it was intended to draw the attention, of individuals to possible consequences of the illegality of the régime. It is not possible or proper for the Government to pronounce on individual cases. This is a matter for the courts.
    Mr. Hogg: I realise that this is not properly a matter for the Foreign Secretary, but will he confer with the Attorney-General, because doubts as to the marital status of individuals may cause great unhappiness, not only to the individuals themselves but to many other people of quite different nationalities all over the world? Does not the right hon.
    10
    Gentleman agree that it is not a matter which should be left in doubt simply because of the unhappy situation existing in the international field?
    Mr. Stewart: I am certainly willing to consult my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter.

    Union of Arab Emirates
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the formation of the Union of Arab Emirates in relation to British military dispositions in the Gulf.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Since the foundation of the Union in February, 1968, the Rulers themselves have held a number of meetings and various specialised committees have been set up. As regards British military dispositions in the Gulf, it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to complete the withdrawal from the Gulf by the end of 1971.
    Mr. Marten: Bearing in mind that stability in that area is of absolutely prime importance, particularly at this time, should not the Government give an assurance that if the Union of Emirates is not satisfactorily set up by the end of 1971 they would have to reconsider the decision to withdraw?
    Mr. Stewart: No. I think any announcement of a decision of that kind would not promote the setting up of the Union, and it is the setting up of the Union on which the hopes for the future stability of this area must be based.
    Mr. Mayhew: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that nothing could upset stability more than to know that there would be a postponement of the commitment that British troops are to be withdrawn, and what is the Foreign Secretary doing to persuade all those concerned that there is no prospect whatever of hon. and right hon. Members opposite forming a Government, and that even if they did they would not carry out the policy they are now committed to?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that the last part of my hon. Friend's question is probably self-evident to the people in the region already. I agree with him that for us to announce a change of policy now would be the last thing that would be helpful.
    Mr. Lambton: Would the Foreign Secretary not agree that there appears now a danger that the Union may not be formed by 1971?
    Mr. Stewart: Well, of course, there is that possibility. There are a great many difficulties about it, but I think that the progress which has been made in solving the problem of Bahrain is a good augury for the future.

    Anguilla
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the commission studying the Anguillan problem to complete its report; and if the report will be published.
    Mr. Foley: Although it is making good progress, the commission has not yet completed its inquiries, and it is, therefore, too early to say when it will be able to submit its report to the British and St. Kitts Governments. Subject to the agreement of the St. Kitts Government, I should expect the commission's report to be published in due course.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the continued presence of 80 or more British policemen gives the impression that they are remaining in this peaceful island in case the commission recommends that Anguilla should go back under St. Kitts? Will the Minister reassure the House that, whatever the commission decides, the Foreign Secretary's assurance that the islanders will not go back under a régime that they do not like remains?
    Mr. Foley: I repeat the assurance that has been given at least five times in the last five months.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now state the date of the commencement of formal negotiations on entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation with regard to Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the state of the negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): We have said that we want to start negotiations as soon as possible. I have now completed my consultations in the capitals of the Six and I find good prospects of an early start to negotiations.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the report which was published in The Guardian on 22nd April to the effect that he had said in Strasbourg that three-quarters of the British population regarded our entry into the E.E.C. as inevitable, and will he say where that statistic came from? Secondly, does he not believe that the British economy is now sufficiently strong to enable us to dictate the terms under which we would go into the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Thomson: In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the negotiating position of the Government is infinitely stronger than it has been at any time in the past, as a result of the success of the Government's economic policies.
    In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I was correctly quoted in respect of that particular public opinion poll, which was as I said it was. I was also careful to explain to the journalists who asked me this the facts arising out of other public opinion polls in which scepticism had been expressed by the British people. I gave a fair overall impression, but, as often happens, the newspaper reporting was partial.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister continue to resist the siren voice of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), and, if he cannot give a date. will he assure the House that the Government's policy is to negotiate on as few major issues as possible and to get the negotiations over as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: As my right hon. Friend represents a Scottish constituency, has

    13
    he taken note of a decision of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish Trade Union Congress not to proceed with negotiations, and can he afford to ignore a decision by that body?
    Mr. Thomson: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's description of the proceedings of the Scottish T.U.C. I do not think I am under any illusions about the general state of public opinion in this country on the matter, and I have certainly explained this on my tours around the European capitals. As I have said to the House many times, once the negotiations have begun and are showing signs of progress and success, I think this will be reflected in public opinion in this country.
    Sir B. Craddock: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of reading the April issue of the Journal of the European Community, with particular reference to the article entitled "A political community is on the way", and do he and his colleagues subscribe to the view expressed therein?
    Mr. Thomson: I have not had the opportunity to read the article referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but the Government have always made it clear that they thought that one of the great prizes that could emerge from negotiating satisfactory terms for economic integration would be the strengthening of the political voice of the members of the enlarged European Community.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would be churlish to pursue the application now that so many people in Common Market countries are coming to Britain to buy cheaper food and other commodities? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be interpreted as letting down some of our greatest admirers in Western Europe if we were to close this escape hatch for lower prices?
    Mr. Thomson: I had always understood that my hon. Friend was in favour of putting this matter to the test in negotiations although he had his personal doubts about the outcome of the negotiations. We welcome the people who come to purchase household goods in our shops, their contribution to our balance of payments is very acceptable, and I see no
    14
    reason why British membership of the European Communities should make any difference to that.
    Mr. Wood: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his opinion, the agreement which was reached recently by the Six on economic and monetary unity by the end of the 1970s constitutes an obstacle to British membership of the Community?
    Mr. Thomson: No, Sir; it constitutes no obstacle. We have looked at these developments with great interest, we see no difficulty in principle about them, and we are ready to discuss with the members of the European Community how these matters might develop.
    Mr. Henig: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the favoured method of negotiation by the British Government once negotiations start will be similar to that used rather ineffectually by the Conservative Government between 1961 and 1963. Would not he rather use the method of negotiation advocated by the Commission in Brussels, which would be much more favourable to Britain and lead to the desired result?
    Mr. Thomson: The actual procedure for negotiation is a matter for the Community itself. The Community must decide whom it will put in to bat for it. Our own interest is in getting the negotiations begun and having them as flexible as possible for making progress.
    Mr. Sandys: Would not it be as well for those who have doubts to wait to see what comes out of the negotiations before making up their minds?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I have always assumed that that was the view of the overwhelming majority on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a progress report on consultations with Commonwealth Governments on Great Britain's Common Market negotiations.
    Mr. George Thomson: Commonwealth consultation on this, as on other subjects, is a continuing process. Her Majesty's Government have in recent months had the opportunity to exchange

    15
    views at Ministerial level with a number of Commonwealth Governments.—[Vol. 796, c. 186.]
    Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that there is a difference between keeping Commonwealth countries informed about progress and full consultation? Does he not further agree that, because of the degree to which the economies of many Commonwealth countries are deeply involved in our negotiations, there is an urgent need for formal procedures to be laid down for full consultation as distinct from merely keeping Commonwealth Governments informed about progress?
    Mr. Thomson: I accept the distinction which my hon. Friend draws between information and consultation. It is consultation that we are committed to, and we will fulfil that commitment. At the moment, we are in the process of giving earnest consideration to the best method of doing this with our Commonwealth partners, and we will be in touch with them about these arrangements shortly.
    Mr. Marten: As the Government have been in touch with the Common Market for almost a year over the forthcoming negotiations, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Common Market view about New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Surely he has some idea about this?
    Mr. Thomson: These matters must await the beginning of negotiations. One of the reasons for wishing negotiations to begin is to enable these matters to come to an issue so that we can make up our minds about what progress is possible.
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations have taken place with the Norwegian Government concerning British entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. George Thomson: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade visited Oslo on 17th and 18th February, and he and I will be attending the Ministerial Meeting of E.F.T.A. at Geneva on 14th and 15th May, when I hope to discuss these matters with Norwegian Ministers.
    Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend take note when he meets the representatives of the other E.F.T.A. countries that E.F.T.A. has just concluded a very successful ten years of existence and that it has managed to do it on the basis of a staff of fewer than 100? When he starts negotiations for our entry into the Common Market, will he contrast this with the way in which the bureaucracy in Brussels has grown?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the E.F.T.A. organisation, which I heartily endorse; but I do not wholly support the conclusions he draws from that tribute.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects negotiations to begin on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the negotiations on the proposed British entry into the European Economic Community will begin.
    Mr. George Thomson: I would refer to the reply which I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and other hon. Members.
    Mr. Mayhew: What are the Government doing to bring to the attention of the man-in-the-street the very large rise in living standards which we forfeited through not joining the Common Market earlier?
    Mr. Thomson: It is our view that all the issues appertaining to our application to join the European Communities—both the cost and the benefits—ought to be fully and democratically debated in this country.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the Government are going to enter into negotiations without having the faintest idea of what is to be the basis of negotiations and their details? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this afternoon he was asked a Question about whether the negotiations will consider the New Zealand difficulty, the sugar difficulty and so on, and that apparently he has got no idea about it? What is it intended to talk about when we get there?
    Mr. Thomson: My right hon. Friend is showing less than his usual sense of fairness here. The Government have set out in a series of White Papers since 1967 their views on various aspects of the negotiations. In respect of New Zealand we said in 1967, and we have gone on saying since, that safeguards for the New Zealand dairy industry will be one of the central objectives that we shall seek. As I said earlier, until we get round the negotiating table it is impossible to report with any sort of authenticity what the attitude on the other side of the negotiating table will turn out to be.

    China (Mr. Francis James)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has now had a reply from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Note sent by the British Mission in Peking on 3rd April inquiring about the whereabouts in China of Mr. Francis James, the Australian publisher.
    Mr. George Thomson: At the request of the Government of Australia our Mission in Peking sent a further Note to the Chinese Foreign Ministry on 24th April asking for any information the Chinese Government may have on Mr. James' whereabouts. We have still received no reply to our approaches.
    Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the efforts that he has been making on behalf of the Australian Government at their request. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Australia about the whereabouts of this well-known journalist, who disappeared in China as long ago as last November? Will he renew his efforts to try to get a sensible reply from the Chinese Government so that these widespread fears can be allayed?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes. If we continue to receive no reply to our representations, we shall, naturally, discuss with the Australian Government what further steps might be taken.

    Turks and Caicos Islands (Bases Agreement)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement
    18
    on the progress of the renegotiation of the United States-United Kingdom bases agreement concerning the Turks and Caicos Islands.
    Mr. Foley: The agreement is not being renegotiated. The review, for which provision is made in Article XXIV(2) of the Agreement, began with a meeting between British and American representatives in Grand Turk in May, 1967. Since then a system of severance and retirement pay for local employees at the U.S. base has been introduced. Other matters discussed at the meeting last year are still being pursued in correspondence with the United States Government. We hope to reach an early and satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the fact that there are one or two rather important local issues involved, will the Minister see whether this cannot be expedited. At the same time may I point to the good work carried out by the United States Forces in these islands and, in addition by the British Forces who have been out there this winter?
    Mr. Foley: I am grateful for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. On the first part of his supplementary question, if he has any particular points in mind I would be glad to pursue them

    Muscat and Oman (Guerrilla War)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the guerrilla war which is at present taking place in Dhofar Province in the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, in view of the involvement of members of Her Majesty's armed forces seconded to the service of the Sultan.
    Mr. M. Stewart: So far as Her Majesty's Government's direct responsibility is concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on 25th March, 1970.—[Vol. 798, c. 417–8.]
    Mr. Newens: But is it not a shameful betrayal of Socialist principles for a Labour Government to permit the use of British arms, manpower and equipment to maintain a régime which is completely devoid of any democratic features

    19
    and in which slavery still flourishes? Is it not time that we put ourselves on the side of a régime which will be capable of achieving some sort of stability in the Middle East in the future?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure what is the régime to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Newens: The Sultanate.
    Mr. Stewart: I understood what my hon. Friend was referring to at the beginning of his supplementary question, but when he referred to a régime in terms of establishing stability I was not clear to what he was referring. The Sultanate is now receiving oil revenues on a considerable scale. It should be possible to enable all its people to enjoy the rising standard of living which they are entitled to expect. Our policy is aimed at orderly progress and development for the welfare of the people in the area.
    Mr. Lambton: Will the Foreign Secretary answer the first part of the Question, namely
    "if he will make a statement on the guerrilla war which is at present taking place "
    in view of the fact there is said to be intervention by China and other troops within the area?
    Mr. Stewart: I have replied on that matter so far as Her Majesty's Government have responsibility, and I referred the House to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Since from time to time allegations are made in the United Nations, particularly in the Fourth Committee, of which I have had some experience, would the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of denying the rather extreme allegations about British Servicemen?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. There have been some allegations about the conduct of British Servicemen which are totally without foundation.

    Overseas Governments (Protest Notes)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many protest notes were addressed by Her Majesty's
    20
    Government to overseas Governments during 1969; how many were accepted; how many rejected; and how many ignored.
    Mr. Foley: The term "protest note" is not easily defined. Expressions of displeasure between Governments take an infinite variety of forms, and records of such information are not kept centrally. The cost of compiling this information, even if it proved feasible to do so, would be considerable.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not possible that fewer notes might be more effective and that a kind of Gresham's law operates in this situation.
    Mr. Foley: If the hon. Member has any particular matter in mind, I would be happy to look at it.

    Western European Union (French Participation)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the French Government have attached any conditions to its renewed participation in the Council of Ministers of Western European Union.
    Mr. George Thomson: The terms of the understanding reached by all members of Western European Union were made public on 22nd April. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Digby: While I welcome a return of France to the Council and the fact that the political construction of Europe can be discussed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say how the other three applicant States will be kept in touch with any of these discussions or whether there is no provision for that factor?
    Mr. Thomson: If the other applicant States wish to be associated with discussions in W.E.U. on European political construction, provision could be made for them to attend as observers for that particular purpose. I think there is still an open question as to what sort of arrangements are proposed by the six countries of the Communities in the discussion of political unification after economic negotiations begin.
    Mr. Wood: Is the Minister satisfied that the Six will not take further steps towards political unity in the absence of this country?
    Mr. Thomson: This is still an open question. As we understand the matter at the moment, the great majority of the Governments concerned have made it clear to us that they wish to see us play a full part in the work under paragraph 15 of the Hague Communiqué after economic negotiations have begun. But the Six have still to discuss this matter further. They are meeting in Rome shortly, and we must await the results of those discussions.
    Mr. Henig: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the status of the British proposal made more than 18 months ago to use W.E.U. as a European forum for discussion about the Middle East, and whether in view of the latest Soviet moves in that area he intends to reactivate that proposal?
    Mr. Thomson: The proposal does not need reactivating. It has been active in the last 12 months. We have found the discussions in W.E.U. on various aspects of international affairs most useful, and we hope that they will continue.

    Anglo-Italian Relations
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Conmonwealth Affairs what further steps, now that a new Italian Government has been formed, he intends to take to promote, Anglo-Italian friendship, following on the joint declaration made by the Italian and British Governments on the occasion of the visit of President Saragat to London.
    Mr. George Thomson: We are always locking for ways to strengthen the existing good relations with the Italian Government. My right hon. Friend has accepted an invitation from the Italian Foreign Minister, Signor Moro, to have talks with him in Rome on 25th May, prior to attending the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 26th and 27th May.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for a way, would not the most effective one be for the Government to abandon their present skin-
    22
    flint and Philistine attitude towards the saving of Venice and make a financial contribution to the U.N.E.S.C.O. fund to save Venice from sinking into her lagoon?
    Mr. Thomson: That is a quite different question. As I have told the hon. Member on other occasions, the responsibility in this respect is that of the Italian Government, while we recognise that Venice itself is part of the great international heritage of European culture.

    Sinkiang Border (Soviet Troop Movements)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the threat to world peace involved in the Soviet troop movements on the Sinkiang border, he will raise the matter at the United Nations Security Council.
    Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a very serious matter when massive Soviet concentrations are appearing on the border of the province where China has most of her oil, uranium and major advanced testing sites? Is there not a danger this summer of a preemptive strike being attempted?
    Mr. Stewart: These are speculations. But this is not a dispute in which we are directly involved. There are conversations going on between the parties concerned. I do not believe that either would wish the matter to be raised in the Security Council.

    CS Gas
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, having regard to fresh evidence concerning the effects of CS gas arising from tests carried out by the United States Army, details of which have been sent to him, he will reconsider his policy regarding such gases.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the fact that British exclusion of CS gas from the list of gases banned by the 1925 Geneva Protocol has caused other countries similarly to consider excluding other

    23
    gases, he will reconsider Her Majesty's Government's policy.
    Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: As there is a considerable conflict of evidence about the effects of this gas in various concentrations, is not my right hon. Friend a member of a Government which should be cautious and not rash in such a matter?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that we have been cautious about this. I have examined the evidence carefully. There is nothing in it to upset our previous view that CS cannot be regarded as significantly harmful, except in quite exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Allaun: But if Britain excludes CS gas from the Geneva Protocol, does not that encourage other nations to abstract their pet weapons from a ban which has so far proved very valuable?
    Mr. Stewart: This is also a matter that we considered. The answer to my hon. Friend is "No". It could not be established about certain other gases what can be established about CS, that it is not significantly harmful except in quite exceptional circumstances. It is also true that it is less harmful than some of the smokes which were expressly reserved from this by the British Government in 1929.
    Mr. Blaker: Just now the right hon. Gentleman condemned the giving-up of a principle when it becomes difficult. Will he explain more satisfactorily than he has so far why the Government repudiate their obligations under the Geneva Protocol? Is it not clear, on the basis of the interpretation of that Protocol given us in the past by Labour Governments. that CS falls within it?
    Mr. Stewart: That is exactly the point; it is not clear. We have had to consider what was the meaning of that declaration as applied to something which was not in use at the time that the 1930 Declaration was made. In the light of the facts and common sense, we have tried to make what we believe is the right judgment.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider that a unilateral Declaration by Her Majesty's Govern-
    24
    ment can in no way affect the obligations of this country under the Geneva Protocol, which were perfectly clear in the discussions in 1930, in which I took part? Does not he agree that the Written Answer that he gave on 2nd February does nothing but make foreigners think that we hold in contempt our obligations under international treaties? Will he not reverse this decision, which has aroused such great opposition throughout the world?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that foreigners take that view. As I said, on the matter of principle we had to decide how the Declaration made in 1930 applied to an instrument which was not in existence at that time. We have tried to make a reasonable judgment.
    Mr. Lambton: While I realise the very difficult problems that this raises, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a differentiation between the use of this gas in civil disturbances and its use in war?
    Mr. Stewart: Such a differentiation can be made. But a great many sincere and honourable people, all of whom detest violence and the necessity which sometimes faces Governments to deal with riots, felt that it was right to use this instrument against riots. It is difficult to argue that a nation can use it in riots against its own subjects but not in war against its enemies.
    Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of some of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Blaker: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I, too, will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    European Security
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy of mutual force reductions involves equal or larger reductions for Warsaw Pact Powers than for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Powers; if it is the North

    25
    Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy that these matters should be discussed in a European security conference; and what progress is being made towards the convening of such a conference.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards convening a European security conference.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the replies which I and my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 2nd March and 6th April.—[Vol. 797, c. 23–4; Vol. 799, c. 30–32.]
    Mr. Jenkins: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend's policy in this matter appears to be more enthusiastic for a European conference when he speaks in this House than his utterances abroad lead one to believe? Are not the British Government dragging their feet in this matter and not being so enthusiastic in pressing for a European conference?
    Mr. Thomson: No, I do not accept that. I follow the only sensible path of saying the same in Europe as I say here.
    Mr. Allaun: Has not the question of a European conference been discussed in N.A.T.O. since December, 1967? Is it not time that we were putting forward specific proposals to the Warsaw Pact Powers, particularly as America is proposing unilateral reduction of her troops in Europe next year?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend is right about the time that this matter has been on the table, but the conclusion one draws is that it is time for the Warsaw Pact Powers to make some response to the proposals we have constantly offered them in this respect.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: In considering any agenda, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recent increases in strength of Warsaw Pact Powers' forces?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. There is a significant matter here which was referred to in the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that it is a duty in dis
    26
    armament arrangements to seek to work towards a reduction of forces in a manner which will leave neither side better or worse off than it was before the negotiations began. In a phrase, we seek equality of security in these arrangements.

    Aircraft (Prevention of Hijacking)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the efforts being made to reach early international agreement on the prevention of hijacking of aircraft.
    Mr. Foley: We have not yet fully completed our soundings about the possibility of advancing the date of the conference arranged to consider the draft Convention on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. We have to bear in mind the over-riding need to secure as wide an attendance as possible.
    Sir R. Russell: Has the hon. Gentleman secured any agreement so far with any Powers for bringing this conference forward? As there has been a lull in hijacking last month, and posibly an unfortunate switch to kidnapping, does he still agree that this is an urgent matter and that agreement should be reached as soon as possible?
    Mr. Foley: I agree that it is an urgent matter, and a number of Governments have agreed that there should be implementation as soon as possible of the draft Convention which has been completed. It is in the Library of the House. For many Governments whose representatives were not in the talks this is the first sight they have had of the Convention. It is therefore important that when a full conference is convened there should be full represenation mandated to give support to the Convention.
    Sir B. Janner: What proposals has my right hon. Friend put forward on behalf of the Government in respect of the prevention, or attempted prevention, of these criminal acts? Is he prepared to support the view that the country which harbours these criminals should be compelled to send them back to the country in which they committed the crime?
    Mr. Foley: Under the proposed Convention, a State will have the power not to send back but to prosecute such hijackers under its own law. The initiative we have taken resulted in an emergency conference of the I.C.A.O. to be held in June which will be discussing hijacking, and its terms of reference, we hope, will take up this important question as well.

    Malta
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on British relations with Malta.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 6th April, and to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development on 27th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 24–5; Vol. 800, c. 881–90.]
    Mr. Wall: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the bullying and ungenerous attitude adopted by the Government over what is, after all, a comparatively small amount of development aid, which is to be repaid in 25 years' time, is destroying good AngloMaltese relations and endangering the southern flank of N.A.T.O.?
    Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept either of the hon. Member's adjectives. Far from bullying, we have been patiently discussing this matter with the Government of Malta since 1968, and we are ready to go on discussing it. Far from being ungenerous, we originally offered 25 per cent.—75 per cent. proportions, which were comparable with aid given to other countries in similar circumstances, and then we made a more generous arrangement of 50–50.
    Mr. Moonman: I am sure my right hon. Friend will share the general distress which the whole House feels about the breakdown of the talks in Malta. Will he give attention to a central point of debate, which is whether one should give aid or grant, as the figures given about the tourist industry in Malta have been rather over-generous in their predictions?
    Mr. Thomson: I am certainly conscious of the importance of this and the importance of relations with Malta, since
    28
    I had the responsibility of dealing with them directly when I was Commonwealth Secretary. Like most hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have a strong sense of special obligation to Malta, but I can only repeat we have tried patiently to be as generous as possible.
    Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the aid and defence agreements of 1964 are linked. They are two sides of a mutually advantageous arrangement. In view of the difficulties which are arising out of the aid agreement, can he say whether the Government of Malta still accept all the detailed provisions of the defence agreement?
    Mr. Thomson: The two agreements were, of course, linked in time. I am bound to tell the hon. Member that, in spite of the Motion on the Order Paper signed by a number of his hon. Friends which accuses us of failing in our consequential obligations, we have not failed in our consequential obligations. We are carrying out both the letter and the spirit of the financial agreement.
    Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I was asking him a purely factual question—whether, in view of the difficulties which have arisen over the aid agreement, the Government of Malta still adhere in every particular to the defence agreement?
    Mr. Thomson: Perhaps I may give the hon. Member a factual answer of which he does not appear to be aware. Under Article II of the financial agreement its provisions are subject to the continuing operation of the defence agreement, but there is no similar commitment in the defence agreement making it dependent on the aid agreement. These agreements were made by the hon. Gentleman's Government.

    Suez Canal
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call a conference of Commonwealth countries most directly affected by the closure of the Suez Canal to discuss possible claims for compensation against Israel for the losses incurred by its closure.
    Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hooley: As the Suez Canal has twice in a decade been closed by Israeli aggression, and as it remains closely solely on account of the unlawful presence of Israeli military forces on Egyptian territory, is it not reasonable that the international community should present a bill to the Israeli Government for the losses incurred on this account?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it is any good trying to ascribe the closure of the Suez Canal to the account of any one Government. It is closed as a result of the dispute. What we must try to do, therefore, is to seek a political settlement of the dispute. That is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the Foreign Secretary now think that perhaps the Labour Party was wrong in 1956?
    Mr. Stewart: No. I think it is now universally agreed, even by some hon. Members opposite, that the Government at the time were wrong. I am afraid we are still dealing with some of the problems they left us.
    Mr. Shinwell: What was the amount of compensation paid by President Nasser when he seized private property, namely, the Suez Canal, several years ago? Has he paid any compensation to the private owners? Does he intend to?
    Mr. Stewart: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will table that question. I think that the answer is "No".
    Sir F. Bennett: Will the Foreign Secretary take this occasion to define precisely in whose interest it is, nationally speaking, that the Suez Canal should be reopened at present?
    Mr. Stewart: For the Suez Canal to be reopened there would have to be a proper political settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. I should have thought that, as the two things would go together, that would be in the interests of everyone.

    Mayor of Capetown (Presentation of Book)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to public funds of the book presented by the British
    30
    Consul General in Capetown and prepared by the Commonwealth Office to the Mayor of Capetown at the beginning of April, 1970.
    Mr. Foley: The cost of printing and binding the book in question was £7 4s. 9d.
    Mr. Hooley: Why should we go out of our way to make this gesture to the South African Government, whose policies have been repeatedly condemned by members of the present Cabinet?
    Mr. Foley: Our contribution in this respect in no way implies approval of the apartheid policies of the South African Government. The book in question describes the events leading up to the arrival of the settlers in 1820 and lists their names. This is the 150th anniversary celebration of the arrival of the British settlers in South Africa, and, at least in the early days, they made a considerable contribution to that country.
    Mr. Goodhew: Would the Foreign Secretary care to notify his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) of the trade figures between South Africa and the United Kingdom, which are a quite important factor?

    Middle East
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Middle East dispute between Israel and the Arab States so far as British interests are concerned.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Four-Power talks on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I made our views and our policy clear in the debate on 13th April, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary explained then the difficulties in the way of securing the release of British ships still in the Suez Canal. Since then the deputies of the permanent representatives of the four Powers have held meetings twice a week in New York. Their aim is to prepare a memorandum on the progress so far made by the four. —[Vol. 799, c. 1026–39.]
    Mr. Moonman: I appreciate the efforts made by my right hon. Friend in the whole context of the Middle East dispute. Does he appreciate that perhaps some more challenging action might be taken, particularly in view of the enormous involvement of the Soviet Union in that area, with many millions of pounds of sophisticated weapons and many thousands of advisers or technicians? Would it not be suitable for my right hon. Friend to send perhaps a junior Minister to Cairo to see what possible areas of collaboration and cooperation might emerge from all this?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what my hon. Friend says. We have kept in very close touch with all the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if Soviet pilots are flying over Egypt at least they are not bombing inhabitants? Will he represent to the Israeli Government the tendentious statements which aggravate relations between the Western countries and the Soviet Union do no good to any country in the long run?
    Mr. Stewart: I have been deploring tendentious statements in every direction for some time. We have urged on all the Governments concerned the extreme unwisdom and danger of acts of violence by either side or of anything that escalates the conflict.
    Mr. Amery: Is the Foreign Secretary yet in a position to tell the House how far, in his opinion and according to his information, the Soviets have taken over responsibility for Egyptian defence?
    Mr. Stewart: That is another question.
    Mr. Wood: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to give further consideration to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend for the convening of a special conference?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, but I am not quite sure to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring. This was a special conference—
    Mr. Wood: —under the Geneva Convention.
    Mr. Stewart: I have considered this. I think that at present we ought to go on with the four-Power talks, in which we are making some, though unhappily very slow, progress.

    Ocean Space (Survey)
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions at the United Nations with a view to the undertaking of a survey of ocean space by the United Nations Development Plan.
    Mr. Foley: No, Sir. I appreciate that there are vast areas of the sea and seabed about which we know very little, but there is already a great deal of research being undertaken both nationally and by the various bodies of the United Nations.
    Mr. Archer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first statement. Does he accept that such surveys as there have been have been undertaken by people, however honest, whose objectivity must be in question? If we are to prevent piecemeal expropriation of the ocean space, it not time running out?
    Mr. Foley: I accept, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in February of this year, the desirability of a greater degree of international control over this development.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be some confusion over the answering of Questions Nos. 46 and 64. First, we were notified at about 10.45 a.m. that these Questions would be answered at the end of Question Time. Some of us took action which we cannot mention but of which you will be aware. Apparently a late message said that the Foreign Office had changed its mind. Since we have reached Question No. 46, would it not be possible for the Foreign Secretary to answer Question No. 64? Would you have any objection, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to have objections or to persuade the Minister to answer the Question. I have had no such request.

UGANDA (MR. BRIAN LEA)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The House will have noted with concern the Press reports of the kidnapping of Mr. Brian Lea, a First Secretary in the British High Commission in Kampala.
Mr. Lea received a request on Saturday afternoon to deal with urgently needed travel documents and drove himself to the High Commissioner's Office to attend to the matter. He did not return home and at about 7 p.m. the High Commissioner, and Mrs. Lea, both received telephone calls in which the caller, who did not identify himself, simply stated that Mr. Lea had been kidnapped and rang off.
The Uganda authorities were notified at once and immediately ordered the Uganda police to take every possible step to locate and free Mr. Lea.
As soon as the report was received in London, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister got into touch with President Obote and, with the agreement of President Obote, we sent to Kampala yesterday a security expert from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish continuous liaison between the High Commissioner and the Uganda authorities concerned with the investigations.
I am, of course, in constant touch with the High Commission in Uganda. We do not know who the kidnappers are, nor what they hope to achieve by this senseless crime.
The House will, I know, wish me to convey its sympathy to Mrs. Lea and to their two daughters in their anxiety.
Mr. Maudling: This, clearly, is a very serious matter. Obviously, comment today would be superfluous, but may we on this side of the House be associated with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy to Mrs. Lea and her family?
May we also ask for an assurance that the Government will give every possible aid to Uganda to clear up the crime,
34
and that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House fully informed?
Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart: Certainly, Sir.
Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend remember that in a situation like this the morale of staff in these difficult missions overseas is considerably raised if it is seen that Parliament itself is interested? In those circumstances, will he please make statements here in Parliament, even if a lot of the information in future has been published in the Press?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, I shall be very glad to bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Sandys: While sharing the universal hope that Mr. Lea will return unharmed, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees as a general proposition that the best way to protect our diplomats against this kind of danger is to make it absolutely clear that the British Government never yield to blackmail and that, therefore, kidnapping serves no purpose?
Mr. Stewart: I would agree with that as a general proposition, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House will realise that there is a full responsibility on the Government of Uganda here, a responsibility which they fully and entirely accept.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on these benches wish to be associated in the expression of sympathy which has been extended to Mrs. Lea and that we share his confidence that the Uganda Government will be equally concerned in this matter?
May I also ask whether, while we hope that this is an isolated event, the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there are adequate security arrangements for other members of our mission?
Mr. Stewart: For other members of our mission in Uganda?
Mr. Thorpe Mr. Thorpe: Yes.
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I may add that all our diplomatic posts abroad are alive to this danger and have been sent advice on appropriate measures.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend take the first opportunity of conveying on behalf of the whole House our deep appreciation of the very expeditious manner in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave this matter his urgent attention?
Mr. Stewart Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all of us on the back benches will back whatever action he feels can be taken, and whatever action the Uganda Government are taking, to protect gentlemen in this exposed position and how strongly we condemn this senseless and stupid sort of practice?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I am sure that that is the view of the whole House.

CAMBODIA
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the need for immediate British diplomatic action, including strong protests, against the latest military activities of United States forces in Cambodia and North Vietnam, to prevent an extension of the war in Indo-China and the destruction of all hope of a political settlement."
I submit that the proposition I have put to the House falls well within the Standing Order. Nobody can doubt the scale of the crisis of the last few days, which has been intensified both by the invasion of Cambodia and by the reopening of the bombing attacks on North Vietnam. The response to these events, in all parts of the world, whatever may be the view taken of them, indicates the supreme importance of the subject.
Indeed, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee has asked for a meeting with the President of the United States in circumstances unknown since 1917, and, therefore, I do not think that anybody can possibly doubt the gravity of the crisis with which the world is faced.
Secondly, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have special responsibilities, to which I have referred specifically in my Motion. They have responsibilities because of their co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference. There are also responsibilities of various other Governments who have given their views on these matters. The Governments of France, West Germany and of many other countries have expressed in the strongest terms their opposition to the action which the United States Government took, and it is the desire of many of us that our Government should express our opposition in similar strong terms.
Finally, I wish to emphasise the urgency of the matter. Clearly, if action is to be taken either by the United Nations or by anyone else, which can change things, it should be taken at once.
Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The submission that has been made by the hon. Gentleman is between him and the Chair.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was courteous enough to inform me this morning, and indeed the House last Friday, that he might seek to ask for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
" the need for immediate British diplomatic action, including strong protests against the latest military activities of United States forces in Cambodia and North Vietnam, to prevent an extension of the war in Indo-China and the destruction of all hope of a political settlement ".
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.
This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9 as agreed to by the House on 14th November, 1967.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL
Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

PERMISSIVE SOCIETY
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) to move the first Motion on the Order Paper, I wish to announce that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), to leave out from ' House ' to end and add—
' congratulates the Government on the support it has given to parents, teachers, religious leaders and many others in their efforts to maintain a high moral standard by its measures to arrest the persistent neglect of law and order under the previous administration; to strengthen the police force; to correct patent deficiencies in the control of gaming; to provide comprehensive and flexible legislation to combat the abuse of drugs; and to preserve the necessary balance between the protection of public safety and morals and a due respect for personal freedom '.
I would remind the House that this debate will terminate at 7 o'clock.
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Peter Fry: I beg to move,
That this House views with grave concern the continuing decline of moral standards and the increases of violence, hooliganism, drug taking and obscenity and the consequent undermining of family life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to enlist the support of parents, religious leaders, school and university teachers, broadcasters and social workers to give help to those members of the rising generation who may be in need of adequate discipline and a better example.
I have noted the terms of the Amendment—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must, when leaving the Chamber, do so quietly. We are debating the permissive society. The House is not as permissive as that.
Mr. Fry: May I say that, to enable a full and free discussion, I shall not be asking the House to divide at the end of the debate.
During the by-election campaign which preceded my coming to the House I called attention in my election address to the problems of the permissive society. This resulted in my having a very heated discussion with a reporter from one of the so-called quality Sunday newspapers, who maintained that this kind of discussion had no part to play in contemporary party politics. I disagreed with him and pointed out that many of the people I

39
had met were deeply concerned about the state of the society in which we live and that what was important to them should be important to politicians if politics were not to become unrelated to their lives.
That is why I chose this subject for discussion; and, by pure chance, the day after I had decided on this course I received a letter from one of my constituents from which this extract is interesting:
" Bills have been passed, such as easy divorce, abortion, and suchlike, which are distressing not only to myself, but to thousands of ordinary people like me, who are eagerly waiting for someone who will make a stand, someone who will be our mediator, so that the voice of the ordinary people may be heard."
I may not be the ideal tribune of these thousands—who, I believe, number millions—but the time has come for their point of view to be put forward in the House since, during recent years, the voices of so many of the so-called progressives, who represent a much smaller portion of our nation, have been heard so often and so vociferously.
There is a real feeling among many of the electorate that Parliament does not understand their point of view and does not seem to care about matters which are causing them great concern; indeed, that it may, in certain respects, even be worsening the situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he would prefer to call our society "civilised" rather than "permissive". I can only agree with his choice of words if he is defining civilisation as a state of society that contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.
It is not, however, my intention today to sermonise or launch an attack on the younger generation. Far from it. I trust that the tenor of my remarks will show that what I sincerely believe is required is for the older generation to set a worthwhile example. I do not wish to suggest that all aspects of our present society are undesirable, or that there is not some good to be derived from extensions of personal freedom.
My Motion clearly specifies certain areas of difficulty and complaint. Surely only the mentally blind would deny that
40
the dissolution of many of our former traditions and mores has brought problems in its wake. A decline in moral standards is inevitable in view of the decline in organised religion following the collapse of faith on the part of many people.
However, even if one argues, and many do, that current sexual freedom is good or inevitable, there is little doubt that promiscuity in itself does not make for happiness and that if there is to be greater freedom, it must be accompanied by a higher degree of self-responsibility. This is lacking today and there is a fear that this could result in our society degenerating into a state of complete moral abandon.
Many of the statistics of our age make sorry reading. The illegitimacy rate stood for 40 years, up to 1960, at approximately 5 per cent. Since then, despite the propagation of wider knowledge of birth control—one might think because of it—the figures between 1961 and 1967 increased to over 8 per cent. At a health conference last week a speaker blamed the Abortion Act for having led to sexual irresponsibility among young unmarried girls.
Divorce was, on the figures even prior to the recent Divorce Act, rising, from 32,000 a year in 1962 to 50,000 by 1967. I cannot believe that the passing of the recent Act can do anything to lessen the intensity of that trend. However, I would not like the House to think that my concern over the decline in moral standards is restricted to matters of sex. Crime and dishonesty pay as never before. One writer recently claimed that the amount, in official terms, stolen in 1968 amounted to£51 million and that the amount recovered was about£9 million, giving a net profit of£42 million to the thieves.
These were only the official figures. Shoplifiting alone is reckoned to account for over£75 million a year. When all this is added to the many kinds of petty thieving that never get into the official records, the annual estimate can probably be put at nearly£300 million.
One television set owner in 14 still has not bought a licence, and nor have two out of three car radio owners. Indeed, the situation has become so ludicrous that we will be abandoning car radio licences next year.

41
In 1968, British Railways reported 20,000 ticket frauds, the offenders ranging from titled people to tramps. Cheating, especially of the taxman, has become common practice and dishonesty generally has been allowed to pay. One might well reflect that this is perhaps a side effect of the very high levels of taxation that we in this country suffer.
Apart from the immorality aspect of the problem, dishonesty on this scale makes life much more expensive for the rest of society, since all these losses are reflected in the prices paid by the consumer. Thus, when one looks round our society is it any wonder that Dr. Trevor Huddleston was quoted as having said, on his return to Britain from South Africa:
" I think the country's very sick indeed."
Violence is a growing phenomenon of our time. Although it is part of a worldwide problem, its growth, together with that of hooliganism, has been startling. The number of recorded offences against the person makes most depressing reading, perhaps the most depressing of all—7,500 in 1954, 13,800 in 1959, 23,400 in 1964, and 37,800 last year. In quoting those figures, I am not trying to make a party policital point. They are equally disturbing to all of us.
What is also very worrying is the increase in the exploitation of violence. Here, I shall confine myself to the example of violence on television. The Evening News television critic, Mr. Kenneth Adam, wrote on 24th April about four new series:
"I accuse them of indulging in violence, both physical and mental, for its own sake, of cruelty which goes beyond legitimate dramatic hounds, of horror deliberately cultivated in the name of entertainment."
What can we think will be the effect of such displays of violence on the younger generation, many of whom sit and watch television three or four hours a day?
Another television critic, Mr. Milton Shulman, of the Evening Standard, wrote an excellent article on this subject. He pointed out that the prolonged exposure of young people to television meant that it had become a very important environmental influence, and that the way violence was treated by this medium could well lead a young person to make some interesting conclusions.
42
First, the good man, or the hero, was the one who was toughest, the one who excelled in violence. Second, violence did not hurt very much, as the hero usually made a very swift recovery. Third, there was no real need to feel pity for the victims of violence. There was usually no mention of the wife or children of the unfortunate villain. Fourth, violence was highly acceptable. The tough heroes involved never had to account to the local police for the beatings and killings they administered.
To sum up, there is a danger of violence becoming an accepted part of ordinary life. I am not suggesting that all our young people are becoming violent, but there is in society an element so out of sympathy with it that they feel that the only way to alter anything is by violent action. If has become increasingly clear that it is only too easy to turn what was to have been a peaceful demonstration into a mêlée, if only because so many people panic and try to get away from the scene. It often puzzles me how those who demonstrate so violently in favour of peace and freedom justify their methods, which seem the antithesis of what they claim.
I do not wish to say very much about drug-taking, as this issue has been fully debated in the House lately and the picture is all too clear in the minds of most of us. But the recent revelations about the spread of the quantity of drugs used, the taking of barbiturates, and the resulting pressure on the casualty wards of London hospitals underline the problem. But let us not forget that many of the hippies and drop-outs who take to the dream world of the drug addict do so because they dislike and reject the world they see. Although we may have little sympathy with them, and do not approve of their attitude to life, their very existence is a condemnation of our society.
I know that many headmasters, and probably all, are worried and almost terrified of the drug addict coming to their school. I applaud the Home Secretary for the stand that he has taken on the issue. I hope very much that he will be firm in refusing to legalise cannabis-smoking.
The need for something to be done was instanced by a case in Hampshire recently. Four men were brought before the magistrates for breaking into a chemist's shop, where they stole about

43
£30-worth of drugs, worth£750 on the black market. They admitted 22 other similar offences in chemists' shops. This was where drugs were obtained to be supplied to the poor unfortunates who take them. Yet what were their sentences? Three years probation.
I believe that some of my hon. Friends wish to expand on the subject of obscenity, so I shall confine myself to a brief reference to the state of the contemporary cinema and theatre. Of 43 films advertised in the West End last week, no fewer than 29 were of the X-for-sex variety.
In the theatre never has there been such an obsession with sex. The continual use of four-letter words and gross sexual antics on the stage appear to be the main ingredients of box office success. When a leading figure in the contemporary theatre is responsible for a production like "Oh, Calcutta", we cannot help feeling that taste has reached an exceedingly low level.
The 1959 obscenity law is so difficult to apply that prosecutions are virtually non-existent. This has led some people, including, I believe, an hon. Member opposite, to wish to see it abolished. Surely it would be better to try to make it workable? Amendment is preferable to repeal.
After this brief survey of the problems of our society, the question that must be asked is whether all this has undermined family life. I believe that it has helped considerably so to do. Not only has there been a lowering of standards, but often a very poor example has been set. The younger generation, who enploy greater sexual freedom, dislike the hypocrisy displayed by some of the older generation, who get their thrills from magazines, plays and films of a certain kind.
When, to this, are added the earlier maturity of the young, their increasing financial independence and the high degree of disillusion that seems to have come with the spread of higher education, it is not surprising that many of them are unwilling to accept their fathers' authority. Yet this authority is the cornerstone of family life.
It has been pointed out that we must do more than just double the number
44
of university places, because we have not solved anything unless we have doubled the number of socially satisfying jobs. It is, unfortunately, true that those who go into teaching, for example, are at a financial disadvantage. Satisfying jobs do not necessarily pay very well.
Our education system opens eyes but increases scepticism, and it does little to instil values. Those values that still exist are being continually eroded, as when some hon. Members wish to end compulsory religious instruction in schools.
We might well ask whether we can expect much in the way of values to be transmitted when some young lecturers join in and incite violence, reviling the world in general as being preoccupied with the worship of Mammon and then striking for higher pay. Many of the young people who protest today are protesting against the utter materialism and hypocrisy of our age.
Yet the picture need not be like this. In the words of Cardinal Heenan:
" Most children have a fundamental moral sense. They are not selfish, and they do understand the idea of justice. The problem is how to make the most of their natural feelings."
The trouble is that children are not later in their lives given any clear idea of what is right and wrong. I hope that I am in no way a killjoy; in common, I think, with most hon. Members I could not be described as completely unblameworthy in my past life. But when I was young and did something wrong, I knew it. I had a basic idea of right and wrong which seems to be lacking in many today. If we are to allow the additional freedom which the word "permissive" implies, it is more necessary than ever that restraint shall come from within. This is why I have added the second part of my Motion. The old distinctions, the old dividing lines, become blurred or even non-existent.
Many of the rising generation do and will need help, and yet at the moment there is no single source from which they will accept advice, discipline and leadership. The Government should play their part because after all they do much to set the climate of the times. By permitting so-called social reforms on matters such as abortion, homosexuality and divorce, by allowing such Measures to

45
have parliamentary time and to get onto the Statute Book, they must realise that, while many people appreciate that there is some good in all of these Measures, the collective existence of them has created the impression that a more free and easy atmosphere not only obtains but is to be encouraged.
When we hear the suggestion that the mistresses of students should be given grants or helped financially from public funds, is it any wonder that the public begin to feel that not only do the Government not care but can in some instances be playing an active part in the decline of moral standards? It may be all very well for the Secretary of State for the Social Services to be proud of the fact that abortion has reduced the number of illegitimate children who would otherwise have been born, particularly in view of the statistics I quoted earlier, but can he or anyone else be surprised if this is interpreted by some of the younger generation as an open invitation to promiscuity, as mistakes can afterwards be rectified?
I think that it said much for the good sense of many of our young people when it was revealed in a survey last week that over 50 per cent. of girls aged from 15 to 19 still disapproved strongly of trial marriages. Perhaps they appreciate that it is all very well for film stars to parade their illegitimate offspring to public view, but that it would not do for them; in any case, they realise that people in that class of society have the income to support such things. Most young girls do not.
Can we hope for this good sense to survive, in view of the continuing decline in standards? It is my honest opinion that one of the first things the Government can do to help improve matters is to cease bringing forward or encouraging any further legislation which could carry with it the implication that it is on the side of those who want more relaxation on moral issues. We can do without regulations that give grants to students to support their mistresses. The Government should concentrate their efforts in more constructive ways. Those who believe that there needs to be some authority and discipline have not been set the best of examples by the present Administration.
Despite their declaration that it was essential to do something about industrial
46
relations, which was one of the main planks in the Government's policy, there was a hasty retreat and change of ground by the Government when faced with opposition. Their attitude is comparable with the parent or teacher who threatens the child so as to try and sustain his own authority, but who, as soon as there is a show of resistance, meekly capitulates. Promises freely given by all political parties which are readily and casually broken when in office do nothing to inspire confidence in political leadership. No wonder we in Westminster are often held so low in public esteem by an increasingly cynical electorate.
If the Government of the day, no matter what political colour, do not act with integrity, what example do they expect to set the rest of society? I want to make it clear that I am not blaming the present Government for all the ills and problems I have mentioned. I merely wish to emphasise that there are certain things they can do or refrain from doing to improve the situation. One of the most constructive steps they could take would be to give greater encouragement to organisations like V.S.O. and Community Service Volunteers.
The encouragement of some form of national service—I am not talking of compulsory military service—would be an excellent way of inculcating responsibility in the young. To give young people something to do that is socially useful helps to engender confidence not only in themselves, but in society in general. They can feel that they are achieving something and that there is no need to resort to any kind of violence.
I am too well aware that the Government cannot and should not be the only source of action. All the other leaders of our society have their degree of responsibility, and parents perhaps have the most responsibility of all. It is very difficult for a father who loves his children to say, "No ", when he is told that the parents of their friends have already said, "Yes", or do not care. We must, however, make it clear that parents have to realise that discipline and responsibility start in the home and that one cannot abdicate one's responsibilities by giving a large amount of pocket money.
But the most serious issue in the problem of parents and children would appear to be lack or failure of communication.

47
In this respect, all parents need to make a much more conscious effort. They have to find time to listen to what their children have to say. If the new generation will not accept discipline and authority without explanation, then it is essential that parents should spend some time showing that certain rules are necessary and that there is need for some discipline if anarchy is not to ensue before young people can discipline themselves. All of us who are parents should re-examine our own attitudes towards problems which so many of us deplore in order to ensure that we supply the best example we can.
The Church has a very heavy responsibility. Society without faith is rootless, shifting and subject to all the ills I have mentioned. It is the task of the Church to make its teaching relevant and alive to the young generation. Many religious leaders are doing this already, but still far too many young people have no contact with any form of organised religion.
School and university teachers should remember that their main function is to teach and that whatever example they give is bound to have a great effect on the young and impressionable child. In many ways, the teacher has taken over from the priest as the main influence on the child outside the family circle. It is obvious that there are still too many perhaps of the less intelligent children who need much greater attention if education is to have any real meaning in their lives. Merely raising the school-leaving age is insufficient answer.
This was made clear last week by Sir Alec Clegg, who referred to the 1,000 per cent. rise in delinquency among adolescents in recent years and said that violence amongst this section could well increase in future. This is a challenge which the teachers will need the help of all of us to meet. They therefore have an even greater responsibility to ensure that the difference between right and wrong is made clear and that the need for that difference is transmitted to their pupils. When education authorities make a stand, as they did at Liverpool University recently, they should be commended and supported.
Broadcasters, too, should ask themselves what is the effect upon the young
48
generation of some of the ideas and problems transmitted. If present trends continue, prominence will be given to the ideas of those individuals who want to opt out of society and those who want to end the idea of the family as a unit. Broadcasters must accept responsibility for the effect of the propagation of such ideas on the minds of young people. Have they ever considered that if less notice were taken of the mouthings of some of these so-called celebrities, no one would hear of them. If the Press and television were to ignore the John Lennons of this world, I cannot believe that our lives would be any the poorer. A closer examination of the example television gives in encouraging the idea of violence in our society is urgently needed.
Social workers, also, have their part to play in helping to encourage the very real desire on the part of many of our young people to improve society. I have indicated some of the ways by which I think this end may be achieved through a form of social service. Our young people need a greater degree of participation and a negation of self. This is the example which they should be set.
I hope that in moving the Motion I shall not be accused of being a modern Jeremiah. I have endeavoured not to confine myself merely to a statement of the problems. I have tried to suggest lines by which we may work towards improvement. We need a greater degree of understanding, encouragement of self-discipline and restoration of faith, not least faith in society itself. The problems that the Motion outlines are getting worse. I believe that while the present Home Secretary is tackling some of them—and I give him full credit for that—he will need much more than the co-operation of the Government and his own supporters.
A much greater effort is needed on the part of all of us if we are to find an adequate solution to the problems of the permissive society.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many different points of view want to be expressed in this debate. That will be possible only if speeches are brief.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said at the outset that he did not intend to divide the House on the Motion. For that, probably the House will be grateful. Although we understand, and have understood during the course of the last few weeks and months, that the Tories intend to make a party issue of what they call "the permissive society"—which has never been adequately defined—and questions like law and order, I want to devote my remarks to some of the problems to which the hon. Member referred, but at the same time, to be quite clear what we are talking about and understand the motive behind the Motion.
The motive is quite clear. It is to seek to pin on the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—the blame for all the social problems, in so far as they are social problems as a direct consequence of a Labour Government; that they have all occurred since 1964, that all the present promiscuity, pornography, crime and sexual licence have all begun since 1964. This is a grotesque picture, a mixture of deliberate policy and malicious distortion.
We had an example of that last week, when there was a calculated distortion by three hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench about what the Prime Minister said about freedom to protest within the law of the country. The Prime Minister put the record straight last Tuesday, when he was again accused by an hon. Member of
" promoting demonstrations"
and that he must, therefore,
" accept responsibility for any violence that may occur during these cricket matches."
This was an attempt to pin on the Prime Minister something of which he had never approved and which, indeed, he went out of his way to disapprove of.
The Prime Minister quoted what he said in the House on 16th April and what he said on television:
" I believe that everyone should be free to demonstrate against apartheid. I hope that people will feel free to do that. But not by violent methods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1970; Vol. 800, c. 1049–50.]
That remains the view of the Prime Minister, the view of the Government and of every back-bench Member on this side of the House.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford) rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way. I deliberately did not intervene during the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough.
The hon. Member talked about the increase in crime and quite rightly said that it was a world-wide phenomenon. That is true, as all the statistics show. In England and Wales recorded crime has been increasing for a number of years, not only 1964. The greatest annual increase since 1950 was in 1958. If we want to indulge in party politics, that was during the period of the Conservative Government. There was an increase of nearly 15 per cent.
The average increase between 1960 and 1964 was 9·6 per cent. against an average annual increase between 1965 and 1968 of 4·8 per cent. The number in 1969 was an increase of 6·8 per cent. on 1968, but the average figure for the last five years was 5·2 per cent., which is less than the 9·6 per cent. between 1960 and 1964. If one Member more than any other has incited violence in recent times he is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). By distorting, exaggerating, or inventing alleged facts and figures about immigrants, he has inspired fear, hatred and earned the contempt of millions of decent, fair-minded citizens. He put on the Order Paper a week ago a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland, asking my right hon. Friend for figures showing the origin of persons dying in Scotland and of the parents of persons born in Scotland who were not of Scottish origin.
What the purpose of collecting those statistics or the purpose of the question was I do not know, but that is the kind of thing we are getting.
Mr. St. John-Stevas Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—
Mr. Hamilton: No, I will not give way. I must get on because I have a lot to say and I want to say it in the shortest possible time.
Reverting to crime statistics, taking account of even the worsened figures in London, we find that crime there has risen by an average of 3·3 per cent. annually since October, 1964, compared with an annual average of 8·8 per cent.

51
over the preceding five years. In Scotland, the number of crimes of violence made known to the police in 1955 was 862 and, in 1964, 2,276, a startling increase of 164 per cent. during the nine or 10 years of Conservative government. Over the last five years of Tory government, 1961 to 1964, the increase was over 35 per cent. compared with an increase of 30 per cent. between 1965 and 1969. There was an actual decrease in Scotland in 1969 compared with 1968 of 7 per cent, the first decrease in these figures for many years.
There were 10 murders in Scotland in 1955 and 23 in 1964. That was when the death penalty was invoked and it was supposed to be a deterrent. The number of murders more than doubled in those nine or 10 years. It is true that the number went up substantially in 1968. to 41, but in 1969 it went down to 30. Those figures do not prove very much, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not."] I hope that hon. Members will continue to say that and that they do not prove that the Government are soft on crime, or that as a result of our policy crime, pornography and everything else like that are increasing.
I hope that they will say that on election platforms. It is the height of irresponsibility to seek to use these figures for party political advantages, but it is worth at least a passing comment that, while the number of murders in Scotland is distressingly high—an average annual rate since 1959 of 24—the average annual number of deaths on the roads, which is also a form of violence, was running at 702 since 1959.
As I have tried to point out in the House during the last few weeks, there is a close relationship between excessive drinking of alcohol and crimes of violence and road deaths. I hope that this will be giving a great deal of concern to the Government and that they will devote a great deal of research to it. I wish that the brewers would as well—instead of contributing their£98,000 in 1968 to the Tory Party. Brewers are traditionally the friends of the Tory Party. That is one reason why they do not seek to relate excessive drinking of alcohol with crimes of violence or road fatalities.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to crimes of violence against the
52
person. But in England and Wales these comprise less than 3 per cent. of the total offences. True, there have been serious increases in recent years in this field, and that the hon. Member's concern is my concern and that of every other hon. Member, but it should be remembered that the bare statistics cover a wide range of offences, from homicide to relatively minor assaults, so they are fairly useless unless they are broken down.
Recent increases in these figures have tended to be in the less serious crimes of violence—very often domestic quarrels and quarrels between neighbours, due to the excessive and increasing urbanisation within industrial societies.
Mr. Simon Mahon Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle) rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry. If I give way to my hon. Friend, there will be half a dozen up immediately on the other side.
In other societies, in the United States, for instance, the increase in crime in recent years has been far more terrifying than in the United Kingdom. I have not time to give the figures, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm my general remark. Increases in some urbanised countries have been greater and in others not as great as in the United Kingdom.
What we have to do is increase the means of detection by increasing the numbers and quality of the police, the quality of their equipment and the cooperation between the police and the public and between the police and the mass media—newspapers, television and radio. All this means better pay and conditions and better career prospects for the police, and modernisation of the means of detection.
In Scotland, the number of police rose from 8,751 in 1959 to 10,308 in 1969, and police expenditure, in round figures, from£17 million in 1964 to£26 million in 1969. A total of£82,000 only was spent on radio equipment to the Scottish police in 1963–64, which rose to, I think,£218,000 in 1968–69. The expenditure on vehicles, to make the police more mobile, has risen from£506,000 in 1963–64 to well over£1 million in 1968–69.
I have not given the figures for England and Wales, but I should mention the Police National Computer Project, which has not attracted anything

53
like the publicity which it deserved. It is quite the most important—I almost said the most exciting—development in the prevention and detection of crime in recent years. This computer will store the records of crime and criminals and, when fully operational, will be the largest and most advanced police project in the world. That was instigated by the present Government. It will enable the police anywhere in the United Kingdom to obtain facts about criminal records literally within minutes. Wherever they are, they will have access to that information. It will start operating, I believe, in 1972 or 1973. More interesting from my point of view, the computer will be built gut Glenrothes New Town, in West Fife, so it is bound to be a good one.
Another aspect of the problem is the link between crime and gambling and drug-taking. The hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned drug taking, but I do not think that he mentioned gambling. The 1960 Betting and Gaming Act was passed by a Conservative Government. As a result—perhaps that is unkind, and I had better just say "since then"—commercial profiteering along lines wholly approved by Tory Party philosophy of private enterprise has snowballed. By 1968, about 1,000 big gaming clubs and over 2,000 clubs for bingo were operating in England and Wales—an uncontrolled growth of gaming on an enormous scale, like a social cancer. That was the direct result of a lot of legislation passed by hon. Members opposite. The big profits obtainable from gaming attracted thugs and all kinds of questionable characters from overseas. There were protection rackets of all kinds springing up.
The present Government had to pass the 1968 Gaming Act, designed to bring this under some control, to cut the excessive profits, to curb the criminal elements and to introduce a degree of honesty, so far as that is possible in this sphere, by a combination of national and local control via the establishment of the Gaming Board for Great Britain and a system of licensing of commercial clubs and the registration of members' clubs by the local J.P.s That Act is seeking to reduce the number of gaming clubs to between 200 and 300, that is, a quarter of the number in 1968.
54
Gambling and the development and growth of striptease and other sleazy clubs arose out of the expense account racket. I remember one of my hon. Friends quoting a case some years ago, when the Tory Party was in office, of a businessman who was supplied by his company, on an expense account, tax-free, with a house, a car and a mistress in the house—all on the expense account. My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, sought to destroy that racket. I remember sitting all night and hearing from that side of the House about how we were destroying this kind of incentive to businessmen conducting business over cocktails, and taking their commercial friends to a striptease club on the expense account. All these arguments were produced at that time in defence of this racket by hon. Members opposite.
Similar arguments apply to drug-taking, We all deplore the increase in the extent of drug-taking, and the Misuse of Drugs Bill proposes to increase penalties substantially for drug trafficking offences. So the Government have a record about which they need not be apologetic. We are all in this together. We are all seeking to remedy the evils as we see them, but it is very difficult precisely to define many of these things. What might be pornography to one person might be jolly good entertainment to another. What is obscenity to one individual might be good literature to someone else.
These are some of the difficulties: and then we get busybodies like Mrs. Whitehead, or whatever she is called, wanting to lay down rules and standards for everybody. What I like is my business, and not hers or anybody else's. The great difficulty in seeking to frame legislation is in defining what is obscene or pornographic, or what is a nasty or unpleasant picture, or an unacceptable film or television programme. I do not want any more censors telling me what is good for me—nor do women when they are pregnant. The present law on abortion is a liberal and humane law. A woman who is pregnant but does not want a child can go to her doctor and, with adequate medical provision and subject to medical advice, can have an abortion.
I remind the hon. Member opposite that all these laws reforms—abortion

55
law reform, divorce law reform, homosexual law reform—were Private Members' Measures. What the Government did, and what it was right for them to do, was to provide time for the whole House to come to decisions on occasions when neither side had Whips on and everybody was free to decide how to vote on the merits of the case.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to fasten this albatross round our necks. I want to quote from a document, which says:
" The more rich and influential people I met the more amazed I was at their private lives. Names who are household words take part in the most obscene things. I was invited to a dinner party at the home of a very, very rich man. After I arrived I discovered it was a rather unusual dinner party. All the guests had taken off their clothes. There were both men and women and the men included people I would not have suspected of ever doing anything improper. There was one well-known barrister who, I am sure, would be willing to make stirring speeches in court attacking that sort of thing. There were also some well-known actors and a politician whom I recognised. The most intriguing person, however, was a man with a black mask over his face. At first, I thought this was just a party gimmick, but the truth was that this man is so well known and holds such a responsible position that he did not want to be associated with anything improper. And I can assure you that party was improper. The guests were not just ardentnudists. Even I was disgusted."
Hon. Members may laugh. Very well, I shall read the whole lot. This is a pornographic document, and I want to put it on record. It goes on to say:
" There is a great deal of evidence which satisfied me that there is a group of people who hold parties in private of a perverted nature. At some of these parties, the man who serves the dinner is nearly naked except for a small square lace apron round his waist such as a waitress might wear. He wears a black mask over his head with slits for eyeholes. He cannot therefore be recognised by any of the guests. Some reports stop there and say that nothing evil takes place. It is done as comic turn and no more. This may well be so at some of the parties. But at others I am satisfied that it is followed by perverted sex orgies: that the man in the mask is a ' slave ' who is whipped: that the guests undress and indulge in sexual intercourse one with the other: and indulge in other sexual activities, of a vile and revolting nature."
That quotation is taken from Lord Denning's Report, produced in September 1963 on the Profumo affair.
That is the kind of thing that has been going on for years and years, and if hon.
56
and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to engage in this kind of exercise for party political purposes they can expect all that is coming to them from my hon. Friends and me. If they are not prepared to look at these problems responsibly and seek social solutions to them—in the provision of housing, social facilities and education—if they seek to treat the subject irresponsibly as they have been doing in the last few months, we shall have the right to reply in kind. I just give them that friendly warning.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Gilbert Longden: I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will not object if I do not take up his speech. He made a grossly unfair attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). His entire speech was impregnated with party politics—and cheap party politics at that. There is no call in this debate to talk about party politics, and my hon. Friend did not do so. This debate should be an occasion when the national forum of the nation gets together and considers these evils, faces them squarely and tries to decide what to do about them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the Ballot, and upon his choice of subject and the way in which he introduced it. Over 20 years I have only twice been lucky in being first in the Ballot. Oddly enough, they were on consecutive occasions. On the first occasion the debate came off, and it was a good one. It was on a Friday. Unfortunately, the national Press chose that moment to go on strike. On the second occasion the Prime Minister of the day called a General Election, so the debate never came off.
If I had been lucky in the Ballot during the last few months this is the subject that I should have sought to introduce —a debate on the merits and demerits of the permissive society—or the civilised society, as the Chancellor is pleased to call it. I repeat the quotation made by my hon. Friend:
" I love England "—
said Dr. Trevor Huddleston on television, shortly after he had returned here from Africa to become Bishop of Stepney—
" but the moment I came back I felt that things had gone desperately wrong. I don't

57
want anyone to call me a Jeremiah, but I must say what I think, and I think the country's very sick indeed."
Many other people think so, too. The trouble is that most of us—certainly those in this House—feel uncomfortable at the articulate expression of moral and ethical matters, except from people whose position gives them a licence to behave in so "un-British" a manner.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Is it not a fact that Dr. Huddleston was away from Britain not only during the tenure of office of this Government, but during some years when the hon. Gentleman's own party was in power?
Mr. Longden: I want to impress upon the hon. Gentleman that I am not bringing party politics into this debate.
Mr. Morgan: I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but my impression is that the hon. Member deleted from the passage that he quoted, from what Dr. Huddleston said, the words "during the last eight years."
Mr. Longden: I was not aware that I had deleted anything from my quotation. I think that what I said was exactly what the bishop said on television.
The question is: do politicians have such a licence to behave in this manner? My hon. Friend's journalistic friend thought not, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come when politicians must speak out, especially today, when people whose positions give them such a licence are so divided and uncertain.
I, too, in my last two election addresses —perhaps this will convince the hon. Member that I am not being party political —made so bold as to make some references to the sickness. In 1966, I wrote:
" no doubt all political parties must take some share of the blame for this, but I am certain that …to encourage constant dependence on the State must undermine the sense of individual responsibility. Moreover, it must be becoming clear to most people that there are active influences at work which lose no opportunity, on screen, on stage and in print. of deriding and denigrating such concepts as duty, truth, loyalty and honesty. Such persons are accessories before the fact of much of the murder and brutality which disfigure our national life."
58
I was not thinking of including among such persons members of Her Majesty's present Government.
I will not avail myself of parliamentary privilege to name some of these people. We all know who they are. Everyone know them. Juvenal had a word for them, 1900 years ago:
" Quid enim salvis infamia nummis."
which, freely translated, is as much as to say, "What matter the mischief if there's money in it?" And is it always only money? I recall Lenin's dictum:
"The soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the mortal blow both possible and easy."
In my election address of 1964 I said much of what I later repeated in 1966, and I added:
"The efforts of these people must be frustrated, not by more censorship, but by an informed public opinion which Parliament, parents, teachers and indeed every one of us can help to forge."
Not by more censorship, because I think that it is a cardinal principle of Conservative policy that the adult individual should have as much freedom of decision and action as is consistent with the rights and liberties of his fellow citizens, that the State should encroach as little as possible upon the liberty of the individual.
Free to decide, yes. But to decided aright between right and wrong—if I may address those to whom these concepts still have any meaning—we must have some standards, some criteria, to guide us.
Part of our trouble today is that the official guardians of spiritual values have deliberately allowed those standards to decay. There are dozens of examples of the churches, all the churches, though perhaps the Church of England, my own church, may lead the field in providing specimens of what I once called "Woolwich-mindedness", speaking with divided voices. And if the Trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound, we know what is the result.
One recent specimen of clerical advice comes not from the Church of England, but from the Rev. Lord Soper, who reminded his fellow peers last week that
"…we are under no obligation to obey the Ten Commandments; they have been superseded." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th April, 1970; c. 955.]

59
That was in the debate about grants for students' mistresses and bastards, itself characteristic of the times in which we live. During that debate Lord Ritchie-Calder solemnly assured his audience that promiscuity had always existed in student life and that these facts had existed since Heloise and Abelard.
I do not know what students did before those two tragic lovers, but, of course, students have made love since the beginning of time and they always will. The difference is that hitherto such promiscuity and its results have not been rewarded and encouraged, as they certainly will be encouraged, by hand-outs from the taxpayer and the blessings of the Minister who is charged with the duty of educating our youth.
It is difficult for the young today. What are they to make of the Dean of King's College, Cambridge, the same who was Bishop of Woolwich, writing in the Sunday Times that
" There is nothing obscene whatever in the portrayal, however, explicit, of the erotic as such …"—
whatever those last two words mean.
" The erotic is something to be enjoyed … Other civilisations, notably those of ancient Greece and India, have not found this difficult; and the phallic symbol, even in public, has not been regarded as obscene."
I think I know what he means. But some must surely ask themselves whether they are bidden to enjoy the homosexual eroticism of ancient Greece or the polygamy and concubinage of ancient India.
Nevertheless, I believe that the contemporary attitude towards sex is much saner and healthier than that of our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors. But we have become so obsessed with it that it has become a major cause of broken homes which the Home Secretary, among many others, has, I think, rightly, described as a principal cause of juvenile delinquency. Apart from the effect on the family and the morals of the young, a more serious by-product of the permissive age is not sex but violence, and the gradual sliding down the slippery slope, not by any means confined to any one section or age group, into ubiquitous dishonesty.
The remedies are primarily for parents, teachers and religious bodies.
60
But there are four things which Parliament can and should do, apart from precept and example. First, strengthen the police in quantity and quality. Secondly, curb the positive encouragement of violence by television programmes. Children must be protected. I do not need the help of a psychiatrist to enable me to judge whether the effect of some of these programmes on some people must be to infect them with an urge to emulate what they see and hear. If a whole regiment of psychiatrists were to tell me that they had no such effect on some people I would not believe them, any more than I would believe them if they said that capital punishment was no deterrent—for not one of them could say how many people had been deterred by capital punishment.
Thirdly, we should take an early opportunity to redefine the offence of "obscenity" and to ensure that every charge alleging it is always tried by a jury of 12 good men and true and not by a single judge. I have never understood how anything which
" tends to deprave and corrupt "
can also be held to be
" in the public interest."
There have been many suggestions, apart from abolishing it altogether, for amending the definition, one of the most recent being that of the legal correspondent of The Times on 30th April, a few days ago.
Fourthly, steps must be taken further to protect the privacy of the individual. All hon. Members must have received complaints from their constituents about the impertinent activities of the Julian Press. This firm is circulating unsolicited advertisements of an illustrated book showing various ways of making love. The Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to prosecute on the grounds of obscenity, and with that advice I respectfully agree. If the book is obscene, then so are several other manuals of a like kind which can be bought any day by anybody from any bookstall, even from those run by Messrs. W. H. Smith.
The objectionable feature is the indiscriminate circulation of material, now to schoolboys, now to elderly widows, which so many people consider to be offensive. I am assured by the right hon.

61
Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that the Home Office is very much concerned with this problem and is considering possible ways of preventing this particular nuisance. Meanwhile, her Department has decided to submit evidence to Mr. Kenneth Younger's Committee on Privacy.
Nothing is new under the sun. In 1861, there was published in Moscow a literary-political journal which was criticised in the following terms by Professor Nikitenko, of Moscow University:
" Young people are being incessantly told that sensual pleasure and interests are preferable to any moral considerations … that everyone senior to them in age, position, experience or knowledge is practically an idiot, and unsuited not only to the education of the young, but to any kind of activity in any intellectual, literary, scholarly or political field.
The journal in question "—
said the professor—
" is concerned not so much with the reconstruction of society on the basis of a new system as with the destruction of all existing systems. It strives to demolish every authority —of government, morality, faith or science."
I conclude by quoting some words used last December by the Duke of Edinburgh at King's College, in London:
" Today, it is absolutely certain that material development by itself cannot sustain civilisation. To make life tolerable there must be some criterion of right and wrong, some positive motivation, some vision of an ideal. We have to make a choice. We can either stick to our existing principles and adapt our structures and social disciplines to modern conditions, or we can try to create a new set of principles and structures. What we cannot do with any hope of improving our civilisation is to drift aimlessly, pulled this way and that by self-interest and expediency."
The Duke warned his audience that unless we come to some conclusion fairly soon we shall start sliding down towards what he called
" the end of our relatively free civilisation as we know it."
Fairly soon. And that, I think, is the greatest danger facing our society today —anarchy, from which we could be rescued only by dictatorship.
4.51 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) upon his success in the Ballot.
62
This Motion attempts within a span of 87 words to list the conditions which the hon. Member thinks threaten our society. It suggests a complex of causes and it proposes certain remedies. The House would indeed be churlish if it were to condemn the hon. Member for not having achieved his purpose in each and every respect.
What concerns many of us, however, is not so much what is actually set out in the Motion or, indeed, what has been said in this debate, but the impression which the Motion, taken in its totality, could make upon the ordinary citizen. To the innocent bystander the Motion, in the terms in which it is drafted, could well convey a picture of a country peopled by a Godless, materialistic, hedonistic generation, espousing violence, and wholly given over to sexual indulgence and the pursuit of transient pleasures.
I feel that there are a few things which must be said about this picture. I do not believe it to be a true portrait of Britain today. The doctrine of despair may be popular, but it is damnably inaccurate. It does not apply to the vast majority of the British people, who form a silent constituency which is not represented in the tabloid headlines: good health and normality have too little news value.
Secondly, permissivenes is a term which is often used so loosely as to be extremely misleading. It should not be regarded as being synonymous with any confining of the boundaries of criminality. It can be so, but not necessarily so. Most of what is lightly called permissiveness is outside the purview of the criminal law, and one cannot, in any event, legislate for the major part of our moral code.
The third thing which I want to say about this is that it did not start in 1964. With the permission of the House I will quote from a speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) on 25th April, 1961, to the Primrose League. He said:
"A society which allows the individual moral character and standards of its citizens to fall into disrepair cannot long remain free, for freedom is the reward which comes to a society of individuals self-disciplined in matters of morals and in matters of financial honesty, where freedom from violence renders restraints unnecessary."

63
He went on to say:
" I am bound to record it as my considered opinion that at no period of my life have public and private standards as advertised in the Press and elsewhere in the vital matters of personal integrity, compassion and gentleness, and sexual self-restraint been more openly discounted than they are at the present time. Let no one who is concerned with the future of Britain in this age of change disregard the terrible signs of moral lawlessness previously held in check by voluntary restraint, which can be seen on every hand."
Sir Douglas Glover Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk): Hear, hear.
Mr. Morgan: Lastly, on that picture I would say, great play has been made by some people both inside and outside Parliament—and we have heard echoes of such sentiments this afternoon—that sanctions which existed with regard to certain acts have been removed or curbed during this Government's time of office. Putting aside for the moment the question whether we agree or disagree with those Measures, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the fact remains that they were in each case Private Members' Bills upon issues which had been before Parliament on a number of previous occasions. They were matters involving the individual consciences not only of Members of Parliament but of the people whom we have the honour to represent. If Parliament is to be something more than the mere rostrum for the Executive and the Opposition Front Bench it is right and just that Parliament should discuss and decide upon such matters. To have denied those Bills time would have constituted, in my view, an attack upon one of the fundamental purposes of Parliament.
They passed both Houses not only with the neutrality of the Government but the neutrality of the Opposition as well. In nearly every case the voting went across party lines, but even if it did not, the numbers of Members who voted for those changes were such as to have made it possible for the Opposition, if they had so wished, to have defeated each and every one of them. I believe—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Why is the hon. Gentleman so compounding an error made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—
Mr. Leo Abse: You started it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas:— in treating this as though it were a party political matter?
Mr. Abse: You started it
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There was nothing, surely, new in the speech of the hon. Member. Can we not have a debate on this subject in this House on a higher level than that of purely party politics?
Mr. Morgan: I shall be dealing later with the question of politics in relation to this.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with a series of Private Members' Bills, and he says, quite rightly, that there was no attempt from this Front Bench to blame the Government—or praise the Government, for that matter—about their content. The only criticism which, as a party spokesman, I have ever launched against the Government was for the practice of allowing a Bill to be discussed at an all-night sitting; but that was nothing to do with the moral content of that Bill.
Mr. Morgan: I accept that, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing my point, that there is here a joint responsibility on the Opposition and the Government for those Bills. The Opposition could have blocked them, had they so wished. The Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone, if I remember rightly, did not vote against any of them—with, I believe, one exception, the Sexual Offences Bill.
Mr. Hogg: I voted on a number of them.
Mr. Morgan: I should like to deal with one or two specific matters. There is in the Amendment to the Motion a reference to the battle against crime. I am glad to note that the Amendment, although I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it has not been called, places the matter in its proper perspective.
I say at once that it is extremely proper that there should be maximum public discussion of this matter, but that it

65
should be well-informed discussion, and I doubt very much whether the rhetorical excesses to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is from time to time prone to lend himself is conducive to this end. I say this as a fairly new member of the House who has great respect and admiration for him. It is a disservice to the community as a whole for this matter to have been hurled into the cockpit of party politics, and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone must regard himself as being substantially responsible for that. He is merely following the bad example set by his leader, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) in a speech in February, 1969, to a Conservative Women's Conference when he said:
" The maintenance of law and order is something that the British citizen values deeply. It will be one of the first tasks of the next Conservative Government to restore confidence in the ability of the authorities to control crime and to keep order."
If this is not a political issue, why were such words spoken? If it is freely admitted that the maintenance of law and order is the duty and the prerogative of each Government, why should it be suggested that there would be a return to law and order and a tranquil society with the election of a Conservative Government? The Conservatives cannot get out of it. They have deliberately, perhaps on the basis of market research findings, made this a political issue. It may well be that they will regret that decision; they may regret it already.
Mr. Longden: With great respect, I think that the Minister is mixing up two things. If law and order is not a political issue, nothing is. It is the first duty of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens. We are debating what is, in shorthand, known as the permissive society.
Mr. Morgan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentlemen for telling me the topic of the debate. It is a political topic but, according to what he himself said, it is not a matter which is in issue between the two major parties. If that is so—and he nods—why did his leader speak in such intemperate terms in February, 1969?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse two separate issues. One is concerned with the series of Private
66
Members' Bills on which, as I have said, there is nothing between the two Front Benches. Rightly or wrongly, it is open to the House to take whichever view it likes. Government and Opposition wish to detach themselves in such a way as not to whip their supporters on great moral issues. The other is the question of the reform of the criminal law. That is the responsibility of Government, and it is the responsibility of the Opposition to include or not to include in their election programme specific proposals on that issue. There would be great impropriety in either party not presenting its proposals to the electorate. If the proposals are identical, and in so far as they are identical, these matters are not within the scope of party politics. If they are not identical, then they obviously are.
Mr. Morgan: I take no exception to the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition which he enunciates, but his Leader was not here talking of the reform of the criminal law. He was talking about restoring confidence in the ability of the authorities to control crime and keep order, and that is a totally different matter.
It is admitted between us that for the last 20 years there has been a steadily rising tide of crime in the United Kingdom. This is a phenomenon which should not be minimised by anybody; it would be utterly irresponsible to do so; but it is equally irresponsible to maximise it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone has spoken of crime waves. Presumably he was not talking of any wave that has occurred during this Government's years in office. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, that the average increase during our period in office is 5·1 per cent. perannum. The average increase during the Conservative Government's period in office was 9·6 per cent. per annum.
If, on the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking of individual figures, the figures I am about to give could have some relevance. The sharpest increase in all crime occurred in 1958, when there was an increase of 14·8 per cent. The highest increase during this Government's period in office was in 1968, when the increase was 6·8 per cent.

67
The pattern of violent crime is as follows: in 1956, the increase was 18 per cent.; in 1957, 17·8 per cent.; in 1958, 10·7 per cent.; in 1959, 14·3 per cent.; in 1960, 13·6 per cent. If the word "wave" is to be a fair description of anything that has happened in the last 20 years, it could refer only to the period between 1956 and 1960.
I am sure that, with very different motives, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done great service to the Labour Government. He has made it clear to all that the sharp increase in crime figures year by year has now been checked, and it must be clear to all of us that such a check has not occurred by accident. I quote from an editorial in The Guardian for 13th February, 1970, which reads as follows:
" The increase in crime rates has not been halted, but it has been retarded, largely because of measures introduced by Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Callaghan."
The House is well aware of those measures which have had the effect of strengthening the police as a weapon against the criminal.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The subject of the debate is the permissive society, but the Minister is debating the crime figures.
Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that his first priority in tackling the most serious abuses of what he termed the permissive society would be to strengthen the police. I am taking my cue from him.
The House is well aware of the amalgamations that have taken place which have reduced the number of forces from 117 to 47 and of the substantially greater efficiency which has inured on that account. The police service is now stronger than it was in 1964 by 11,000 men. In addition, the number of civilian employees who are assisting the police has been almost doubled since 1964 and is now 33,000, an increase of 13,400. In 1964 we were spending£.5½ million on equipment and we are now spending£12 million. We are exhorted day in and day out in the House to increase our investment in the police and give it the highest possible priority. It is right and proper that publicity should be given to these matters, and when we are charged with
68
falling down on this task it is essential that there should be a rebuttal of such a contention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West has referred to the police computer. A police constable in a remote station or on the beat who wants to check whether a vehicle is stolen, or who wants to check on fingerprints, can have his query relayed to the computer which stores a reservoir of information relating to crime and criminals and the reply will be sent to him within three or four minutes. I am certain that this can be described as one of the most significant developments in the police service since the time of Robert Peel. As my hon. Friend has said, it is one of the largest police developments, if not the largest, in the whole world.
Gaming is another sector in which the Government have taken firm and decisive action. Before 1960, the amount of gaming in Britain was not substantial but the then Mr. R. A. Butler's Gaming Act of that year brought about a substantial change in the law. It failed, as it was patently obvious that it would. It released the forces of ruthless commercialisation, which had hitherto been kept in check, from casinos to gaming machines. As we have heard, there was a chaotic proliferation in all the agencies of gaming. We had over 1,000 casino licences, whereas a country like France has a maximum of only 150. It was such as to allure dangerous criminal elements to this country from abroad.
The Gaming Act, 1968, has sought to bring gaming under strict controls. Those controls and the board which implements most of them have as their objective purging gaming of criminal elements. eliminating excessive profiteering, reducing the total volume of gaming and ensuring that if gaming must be carried on, it should be honestly conducted in decent surroundings. The Gaming Board has approached this task with great determination and tenacity of purpose. Only time will tell whether it will be successful in pushing back the tide which was released when the dykes were so nonchalantly opened in 1960.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, it is right and proper to pay particular attention to increases in crimes of violence. Like my hon. Friend, however, I also

69
consider that it would be inadequate to think of violence and damage caused by crime generally without reflecting for a moment on one particular category of violence. Like my hon. Friend, I refer to the horrifying toll of death, mutilation and injury which occurs on our roads, a great deal of it caused by bad driving behaviour. In 1969, 7,833 persons were killed and 90,715 were seriously injured on the roads. The totals of victims of the various categories of violent crime were but a fraction of that number.
One must, of course, distinguish between deliberate violence, such as unlawful wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, and non-deliberate injury which is sustained in road accidents. To the deceased victim and his family, however, and to persons who lose limbs, eyes or health, it cannot be greatly different in result. Accidental injury obviously cannot involve the same degree of moral turpitude as intentional violence, but much of the so-called accidental damage reflects to a greater or lesser degree an attitude of selfish indifference, if not, indeed, of aggression, vis-à-vis other road users in situations where tolerance and good manners are essential to human survival and to the avoidance of grievous injury.
The House is already well aware that 1969 was the third successive year in which road deaths and serious injuries were lower than in 1966, the year before the Road Safety Act came into force. Up to that year, there had been a steady pattern of increase in deaths and in injuries over the years. I know that the party opposite feel solicitude for victims of violence, but one can ask this question: what did they do to protect road users from violence? Did they not preside complacently over homicide and mayhem? How many deaths would have been avoided, how many paraplegics, those who are mutilated and crippled, would today be sound in wind and limb if the Opposition, when they had their opportunity, had had the courage to take firm and decisive action in, say, their second or third year of office? It may well be that hon. Members opposite regard that as an outrageous suggestion. That is the measure of the difference between us.
The fields which I have mentioned—police, gaming and road traffic— are all
70
areas in which the Government have acted decisively, and not only to improve a situation which the previous Administration had either recklessly fostered or indolently neglected. It lies not in their mouths to level charges of complacency against the present Government which in each of these directions had the courage, the energy and the determination to deal with tasks which the Tories preferred not to tackle.
Likewise, while on the subject of changes in the law which have been designed severally to meet abuses and threats to society, it is proper to refer to the solid contributions to a more orderly society and to the support given by the Government to parents, teachers and social workers by bringing before Parliament legislation relating to children and young persons and also legislation relating to the misuse of drugs. The former creates a more progressive régime for dealing with the varied needs of the divers problems of children and young people. The Act of 1969 achieves a balance between encouraging the giving of help to young people within the family wherever possible and, at the same time, giving society adequate protection.
The Misuse of Drugs Bill will, I am confident, if it passes through Parliament, create a firmer, more comprehensive and yet more flexible system of dealing with drug abuse. It creates the framework of negative controls and positive encouragement within which a society can have the chance of ridding itself of this malady.
The conditions bemoaned of in the Motion form a federation of situations which have three things in common. First, each is a condition which is harmful to the structure of society. Secondly, each is the product to some degree of changes in society. Thirdly, each is destructive of that state of things which is the goal of people of divers parties and creeds where-under the individual is enabled to assume the fullest and most wholesome potential.
Insofar, however, as the Motion refers to moral standards, it is clear that to a large extent this is not a sphere in which the Government are vested with either direct or indirect authority to act. In an earlier age, society would have expected the spiritual power of the Church to be an adversary to such threats, but it is clear that the capacity of the various

71
religious denominations in Britain to influence behaviour is extremely limited. I do not suggest by this that the Churches are doomed to failure—far from it—but their jurisdiction is now exercised in a narrow compass and among the faithful who are not, by and large, within the scope of the Motion's indictment.
It does not mean, either, that Britain is of necessity less moral in its totality of attitude than it was 100 or 200 years ago. Whatever we may feel about laxity in sexual and other matters, the fact remains that probably more people feel deeply today about the great issues of peace and war, racial prejudice and elementary justice in all walks of life than they did in previous periods. Our eighteenth century ancestors would be shocked beyond words by some of the behaviour that is to be seen today.
Likewise, we recoil in horror at the thought of some of the inconsistencies which belonged to their society, such as John Newton, who wrote the hymn
" How sweet the name of Jesus sounds "
and who was the captain of a slave-trader with men and women chained and dying in squalor below its decks.
The vacuum is one of jurisdiction and influence. The power of the family has diminished and a small, compact community is no longer the authoritative body that it was. The question which is instinctively asked in such contexts is what the Government, in such a situation, can do to protect and to preserve the mores of society. In terms of direct authority, it can do little beyond adopting criminal sanctions where necessary and strengthening the standards of law enforcement, as we have done and are doing. However, the State can use its influence to deepen the individual sense of belonging to a community which is the antithesis of antisocial attitudes. It can give encouragement and leadership in a variety of ways, and I have high hopes of the intermediate treatment for which provision is made for children and young people in the Act of 1969, to which I have referred.
Essentially, the Government's most potent influence stems from what it is in itself. Sociologists often remind us that society precipitates its own deliquencies. In other words, ideals and philosophies accepted by a community do not exist
72
in vacuo. They achieve reality by becoming institutions, and the ideas, the outlooks and the value of individual citizens are to a great extent influenced by the social forms with which they live and with which they are brought up. Social forms such as these often are themselves in a negative or positive way moulded by the acts, policies and stances of the Government.
I have no wish to vilify the party opposite, but a Government who elevate the cult of individualism to a level which makes of life a llaissez-faire jungle of catch-as-catch-can and the devil take the hindmost, cannot expect a community which universally accepts a lofty code of social responsibility. A society which asserts such principles as those which say that industry and commerce must be inviolate from any planning by the Government in the public interest, that the speculator is entitled to dictate to public bodies in land hungry cities and extort massive fortunes from them, that there should be no charter of protection in law—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it, but they are getting it—to save the tenant from a Rachman-like landlord and no protection for the leaseholder from an unjust dictation by the lessor, and places a premium on atavistic selfishness, must inevitably carry within it the seeds of its own jeopardy.
An unjust society cannot help but produce anti-social activities on a wider scale. But there is more to a just society than the mere establishing of an equitable division of material assets. Like an individual, a society cannot live a wholesome life without vesting its belief in something outside itself. Neither man nor his community can live on material things alone. I cannot conceive how any individual can appreciate his full participation in society without some understanding of the general goals and aspirations of that community.
We are dealing with a package of prejudicial conditions which derive from distinctively different but nevertheless unrelated origins. There is no solution which is both precise and all-embracing. But we can say in relation to each of the conditions under discussion that the individual does not stand alone in life. He is a cell in the greater body of society.

73
His wellbeing depends on the interaction between himself and society, and there is a balance to such a relationship.
There is no right without responsibility. There is no freedom without duty. Inherent in duty is discipline, and the highest and most meaningful form of discipline is self-discipline. This is the true meaning of freedom. This is the standard against which all human behaviour must be judged. It is upon that standard that society is founded. As William Morris put it,
" Fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death."
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: I must apologise to the House for rising at this point, which had not been my intention. But I feel now that I am under some responsibility, even though I do not read my remarks at a rapid rate, to put the record a little straight after the speech to which we have just listened and to wrench this debate back to the subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) quite rightly intended should be its main topic.
I do not propose to talk about road accidents, as both speakers from the benches opposite have. I doubt whether this is the right forum in which to do it. I question whether our own thoughts about them were worse than those of the present Government, but I doubt whether much is to be gained by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and the principal Opposition spokesman on home affairs canvassing them in the context of the present debate.
As regards the Gaming Act, the Children and Young Persons Act and the Drugs Act, the hon. Gentleman can hardly complain that the Opposition have been otherwise than helpful in assisting to carrying through the Government's legislation. I think that we have given them every help. However, what the hon. Gentleman said about the reason for the Gaming Act is wholly contrary to the facts. He knows that the Acts of 1960, 1963 and 1964 were not intended to encourage gaming on a commercial scale. When he says that the floodgates were nonchalantly opened and that the Acts were bound to fail, it is odd that the Labour Party never pointed this out at the time.
74
As a matter of fact, the courts must bear a rather larger degree of responsibility for the failure of those Acts to achieve their purpose than the hon. Gentleman was prepared to mention. This degree of responsibility was generously recognised by the Master of the Rolls in a recent judgment.
The fact was that the legislation proposed by the Conservative Government said that games of unequal chance were to be prohibited. However, for reasons which were wholly unpredictable, the courts said that a game was not of unequal chance if the unequal chance was passed round the table. This has now proved to be wrong, because the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, has put the courts right. However, that is what opened the floodgates, coupled with another decision of the courts which has not reached the House of Lords and which has decided, when Parliament said there was a maximum charge per session which would limit the profit that a club could make, that each session could last only 20 minutes. That again was not foreseen by the Labour Party. I frankly concede that it was not foreseen either by the Parliamentary draftsmen or by the Home Office of which, for the time being, the hon. Gentleman is an ornament, or by Mr. Butler, as he then was. To talk in terms of party politics of this extraordinary development in social practice seems to me to be wholly misplaced.
I come to the more substantial matter, and I deal with it quite shortly. I have been responsible on this side for home affairs since 1966. I formed the view some time ago that the fundamental questions of order and law ought to receive a higher priority than they have done for many years past. I still hold that view, and I intend to revert to the subject from time to time in terms of positive proposals, both on the platform and in the House.
Nothing that has happened since then has converted me to a contrary view. It is my hope before we rise for the Summer Recess to have a Supply Day devoted solely to this subject. It would be well spent. Only the sharp yelps of pain which emerged from the benches opposite when I first raised the question have prevented me from doing so hitherto, for I was afraid that the noise that they

75
would make would not be conducive to an objective and rational discussion.
My reason is that I think that there are certain fundamental things wrong with our system of law enforcement which need to be put right in relation to the police, in relation to the criminal law and procedure, and in relation to penal treatment. I take the last as being the most obvious. Our prisons are wrongly sited, hopelessly badly designed and designed for a form of penal treatment, namely, solitary confinement, which is no longer practised, and the prisoners inside them are mostly heaped, or many of them are heaped, three to a cell. I reckon that it would cost between£60 million and£100 million to put things anything like right.
Am I wrong, as Opposition spokesman for home affairs, to try to draw attention to that? Is this a form of rhetorical exuberance? On the whole, I think, not. I happen to know that the Home Secretary was very glad when I drew attention to these things, because, as we all know, spending Departments have great trouble with the Treasury and, obviously, with the Opposition making the running, as I was beginning to do, the Home Secretary's life has been a great deal easier since.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the right hon. and learned Member saying that the improvements which he would wish to be brought about in the prison system would have the effect of bringing about the return to law and order of which his leader spoke in February, 1969? If that is not so, what he is saying outside the House must be rhetorical exuberance.
Mr. Hogg: What I am saying is that this is one of the factors. I hope that as I enumerate them, the hon. Gentleman will not feel disposed to intervene with a rhetorical question on each. It is one of the factors which I had in mind in drawing attention to the subject and to illustrate the point that this matter had not been given enough attention for a very long time.
I shall not be as specific about criminal law and procedure, because I hope to develop that subject on a later occasion, but I am certain that a number of changes are urgently necessary. When the right
76
hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced his Criminal Justice Act, 1967, I ventured to say to him that his proposals, admirable as many of them were, were nothing more than a pot pourri of intelligent suggestions making relatively minor amendments in a structure which was basically in need of a more fundamental provision.
Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that four years ago the Government said that they would build a modern prison in the green belt area in my constituency at Netherwood Aldney but they dropped the proposal because they ran out of funds?
Mr. Hogg: That is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I sympathise with the Government, because, as I pointed out in a public speech in the course of my rhetorical exuberances, a party which goes to the country on a programme of more and better prisons when people want more houses, roads and schools will plainly not receive a standing ovation at every public meeting where the project is unveiled. At the same time, I happen to think that we have to do it whether we say it or not. I hope that they will not be located in the centre of towns! I know the difficulty of country Members, and I do not want to explore those.
I do not think that this was a mistake. As I come to develop my remarks bit by bit, I shall venture to suggest to Labour Members, who seem to be in an emotional frame of mind this afternoon, that parties have an obligation when they prepare an election programme to put forward their own ideas in their priority and with a sufficient degree of particularity to enable the public to judge not the details of every proposal—that would be both politically and morally wrong—but the general direction which they propose to take. The issues of an election can emerge only after both parties have done this.
If it so happens that hon. Members opposite and those who put together the Labour election programme are convinced by my argument that law and order ought to have a higher priority than it has had recently, it will not become an election issue, because we shall both be saying the same things and the only

77
question will be the points of difference between us. But if they say that I am wrong, if they say that it is wicked to talk about these things, if they say that it is almost disgusting to make law and order part of a political programme, the public will undoubtedly think that my party is the one which will make law and order a more important part of its policy. All they have to do, if they want it not to be an election issue, is to give it the degree of priority which I give it, or to say why I am wrong to do so.
I want to deal with this extraordinary business about the crime wave. There is one argument which I wish the Under-Secretary had not used. It was used also by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I wish that we could hear less about the rate of increase of crime. Let me tell the House why I think that this argument, this statistic, is at once foolish and dishonest.
The foolishness resides in the following example. Let us suppose that we have a mythical country, Ruritania, ruled by two parties, the Montagues and the Capulets. Let us suppose that in the Montagues' last year of office there were 100 murders and that under the Capulets there are 200 in the next year, but that the Montagues get back, when there are 300 murders in the first year of their second term. The following things are true: the public ought to be more alarmed in the third term than ever before, because by that time there are three times as many murders as when they started, or at any intermediate time, because there has been an increase of 100 murders a year. Secondly, when the Montagues came in for their second term, if they were as foolish or as dishonest as hon. Members opposite, they could point out the statistical fact that the rate of increase of murder had gone down by 50 per cent., because in the first year of the Capulets it would have gone up by 100 per cent. and in the second year, because the starting figure was 200, it would have gone down to 50 per cent., which would mean that the rate of increase had been halved. I hope that we shall not hear any more of this rubbish about the increase in the crime rate.
Mr. William Hamilton Mr. William Hamilton rose—
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member did not give way to any of my hon. Friends and I shall not give way to him.
I hope that that sort of rubbish will not be talked any more, because it can be put forward only by those who do not know anything of the elementary facts of arithmetic, or else dishonestly with an intent to deceive the public, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary is not in either category.
Mr. Peter Archer: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the latest publication to emerge from the Conservative political centre, written by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), which uses precisely this type of statistic and concludes that part with a comment on the mission of the Conservative Party?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is not in the House, and it would carry me too far from the main current of my argument if I started quoting from or commenting upon all the political literature which is beginning to emerge from both party organisations. It would keep me here for a very long time. All I am saying is that I hope that we do not hear any more about that.
The fact is that the country is undergoing an increasing amount of serious crime. Perhaps the most significant statistic, which I have not got with me. because I did not expect to he making this particular speech until I heard the two speeches from the benches opposite, is the number of indictable crimes per 100,000 of population; because obviously with a rising population there is a natural built-in increase in crime rates. It will be found that from 1955 that figure has risen by a factor of about three, which is very frightening.
When chief constable after chief constable reports that moral standards are declining, that sawn-off shotguns are on the increase, and that crimes of violence, both against the police and against innocent members of the public, are becoming an increasingly serious menace, the public deserves better from its politicians than rival denunciations based upon a statistic which is both dishonest and meaningless. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,

79
hear."] I am glad to have met with such universal approval. It is almost more than I can bear.
Having said that, I hope that I shall be allowed to reserve further comments on the pure question of crime until we have our Supply Day, which I hope will be before we rise for the Summer Recess.
The Motion raises a number of rather different questions from those that I have been discussing—questions which the House does not often have a chance of discussing. It is for that reason rather than that I am afraid of a confrontation with the party opposite that I regret the tone of the two speeches which have been made from the benches opposite. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough deserved something better. Obviously the House is not a debating society. We seldom have a debate like this which is based upon a Motion which could be moved in any debating society from the House of Lords downwards. In many ways, this is the type of Motion which the House of Lords frequently discusses.
Nevertheless, it is worth while for the Front Benches and for the back benches to ask themselves from time to time exactly what society is about and exactly what legislation is about: what part has executive authority and legislation to play in society? For instance, is this a permissive society, as my hon. Friend says in the Motion? What is a permissive society?
As I grow older, I find myself subjected to increasing numbers of legal restraints as compared with my youth. Indeed, when I read about the permissive society I am inclined to think that under Socialism there is only one thing that people are allowed to do and that they are now beginning to do to excess, which may explain a very great deal of what the Motion is about.
More seriously, are moral standards declining? Is there a moral crisis in society? If so, what is the part of legislation in it, and what part can a Government play?
Here I do not start with a completely open mind. I speak, not only as a Conservative, as the House can see, but also as a Christian. I must say that as I grow older my Christianity becomes more
80
and more part of my empirical convictions. Two things have led me to reach this conclusion in life, apart from philosophical and metaphysical reasons.
To begin with, more and more as I see the unhappy side of this world—lawyers and politicians probably see more unhappiness than most; I am both lawyer and politician—I see an extraordinary correlation between the quality referred to as joy and that referred to as love, by which I mean, not the emotion described in the pop records, but the Christian virtue of agape—the respect for other people's human personality as such.
I see also, both as I go round in the political world and as I move in the legal world, an extraordinary correlation between what has commonly come to be known as vice and unhappiness. It is not the prerogative of the poor to be unhappy. It is very largely the misfortune of those who have lost their way to be unhappy, the people without a sense of dedication or purpose. These things strengthen rather than weaken my religious convictions.
But, if I am approaching this matter, as I must do, from a purely secular point of view, I say quite unequivocally that there is a moral crisis at present. I attribute it to two quite separate causes. The first is that there is a collapse, not merely in religious authority, but in the conception of authority as such. People will not take things any longer as objectively true because people whom they respect say that they are true.
In the babble of discordant sounds which has arisen it is very difficult to detect any piece of coherent advice if one is in any doubt.
Side by side with that there are new moral problems. It is a great mistake to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) said, with the author of Ecclesiastes, that there is nothing new under the sun. I think that there are some new things in the present situation. To begin with there are these very extraordinary new biological facts coming into knowledge. Surgical transplants give rise to moral problems of a kind which we have never had to face before. Self-medication with extremely powerful drugs which have been developed and which produce sometimes bizarre and sometimes tragic side effects

81
give rise to a new set of moral problems to a generation which to a large extent has lost belief in moral values.
The practice of contraception clearly has implications for the law and practice of marriage and monogamy which people, though they may seek to sweep it under the carpet, cannot long pretend are not relevant. These things add up to a moral crisis with which it is our function as leaders of opinion to deal.
How are we to deal with it? I have two positive things to say. There is nothing more tragic in the present intellectual state of our country than that people have stopped believing in value judgments. I am not now talking about religion. I am talking about value judgments. The philosophical belief that there is something to the beautiful, something to the true, and something to the good which is not simply a subjective emotive noise, is one of the most serious things which can happen to mankind.
However much teachers think it a desirable educational practice to encourage their pupils by questioning to think for themselves, it is always a mistake for them or for us, or for anyone else who is concerned with the well-being of others, to say that, after they have finished the questioning process, they can get away with nonsense or that the value judgments are not in their own way as effective and as objective in their validity as any other kind of judgment. I know that they are incapable of verification. I know that they are incapable of measurement. But there is no greater fallacy in the modem world than the belief that what cannot be measured or verified does not exist or does not matter. The important thing is to realise that at the end of the day, however much one may question the fundamentals upon which human life exists upon this planet, it is not the same thing to tell lies as to tell the truth, it is not the same thing to be cruel as to be kind, and it is not the same thing to have no regard for the consequences of one's actions as to weigh them carefully, particularly in relation to their effect on other people.
This has a very direction bearing—and this is the second of the two points of a positive kind that I wanted to make —upon the question of law. When I was talking in another context a few minutes ago about law and order, it is
82
my fundamental conviction that we are suffering a very great deal from a degradation of the whole conception of the function of law in human society. I did not think the hon. Gentleman wholly avoided that error in the latter part of his speech. The fact is that the alternative to regulation is not a free-for-all. The alternative to restriction is not simply a free-for-all. Human beings are ruled either by terror or by reason, and law is the constructive attempt to impose reason instead of terror as the means of restraining unbridled conduct. That involves, of course, an attempt, however difficult, to correlate a common set of value judgments about morality with legal sanctions. The public are only too apt to think that law is simply described in terms of command and prohibition. This has been encouraged on the Continent. We know that the Nazis preached this in the maxim:
" Das ist Recht was dem Fűhrer gefällt."
Austin in the 19th century promulgated a similar philosophy in this country.
Law is an attempt to formulate general principles of conduct in a form in which they can be enforced and which is acceptable to the great bulk of society. It is opposed to tyranny, whether it is the tyranny of an anonymous majority or whether it is the tyranny of a tyrant, a single dictator. The great contribution of the West and, indeed, of the Western Church, to human affairs has been the conception that not merely the subject but also the sovereign—and in this context I mean sovereign people, the anonymous majority of the electorate—is bound by law—that is by the rules of reason—a set of rules promulgated in advance and not retrospectively, impartially administered by somebody other than the Government of the day and carried out more or less consistently, changed no doubt from time to time but still rational.
It seems to me that it is that which is the greatest contribution that this House can make to society—to re-establish the validity of the rule of law in that sense, as the first of the social services, as a thing without which the others will not exist at all.
If I am to be accused of making party politics of this, as I have been, or of doing a disservice either to Parliament or the country by bringing this issue forward, I have only one thing to say. I bring it

83
forward for the same reason that Martin Luther said at the Diet of Worms—" I can no other ". I shall try to make my own party say it and hon. Members opposite can do as they please. If they say it themselves there will be no issue. If they do not, we are at variance.
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Simon Mahon: I always listen to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with great interest, and I have had that opportunity for many years. I think that the House has just listened to quite a remarkable speech. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of the law and his dictates to this House and to this country should be heard with great respect not only in this House, not only by both parties, but by the people of the country generally who are showing tremendous concern about the affairs that we are debating today. It will be a pity if any party—I say this to my right hon. and hon. Friends—starts to adjudicate on party lines on this very grave problem which besets the country.
Mr. Stanley Orme: That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman does.
Mr. Mahon: I do not care who does it. I say that it will be a mistake. I have something to say to my own people as well as to the Conservative Party. It will be a grave mistake and a grave misjudgment on the mentality of our people if we adjudicate from a party point of view on the very grave difficulties which beset every aspect of society in this fashion.
I should be ungenerous if I did not say to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that I thought he delivered the essence of his Motion in a modest way. As a young Member he can be forgiven for saying one or two things about us. There are times when we say one or two things about hon. Members opposite. But I congratulate him because, whether we like it or not, the people are interested in the subject that he has chosen to debate and, therefore, he has done the House a service.
What Governments must do when hon. Members put down Motions with which the Government do not agree basically is
84
to answer them so that the people know what is the situation. While I have the benefit of listening to speeches which we have just heard, I am aware of all the pluses and minuses in the long list of crime increases since 1950, and I hope that I shall have some encouraging things to say to the Government; but the plain fact is that in 1950 there were 451,435 indictable crimes committed. In that year there was an increase of 6·3 per cent. Over all those long years the pluses and minuses took place, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but the totality of crime increased at a tremendous rate. It went up from the figure which I have just given to 1,289,090.
This House should and must give more time to this very important subject. It is a subject with which I have had something to do since I have been in this House. I have spoken about the decline in moral standards. It may be that my views became known, not through my efforts, but through the efforts of other people to introduce legislation with which I did not agree. But I have always been concerned about the decline in family life which I believe—and it has been proved to be true in peace and war, in times of economic stress and in times of affluence —has been the absolute basis of the nation.
During almost every election which I can remember, particularly in the days of poverty when we were striving for recognition, those of us who stood on Labour Party platforms spoke as if the system of the Conservatives was against the basis of the nation and, therefore, was not a healthy condition. Leaving aside the question of religious values, if we lose our traditional values what will we use as a yardstick with which to measure society? It is common sense that if our traditional values become too eroded, society will reach a parlous plight. Something must be done to check the present state of affairs.
It is easy to condemn. It is equally easy not to see the goodness in society. Many self-sacrificing attitudes are being adopted by many people. The scores of people who undertake overseas service must be kept in mind. The Church which I represent in this House has been sending people to far flung parts of the world in an effort to succour their family life and show, by example, what we for

85
generations have thought to be worth preserving. It is, therefore, wrong to overdo the anxiety of which we talk about the "all-consuming sickness" of society.
There is bound to be a troublesome minority. We have had a noisy and troublesome minority in this House, but what has been the success of those who comprise that minority? I believe that, generally speaking, the people have good standards. In my constituency, which is beset with difficulties, the people are trying hard, despite the attacks on family life, to keep their standards and keep their sense of family life intact.
I speak as the working-class man. If my family life is undermined by society, what do I have left? That is the question which we must always bear in mind, particularly when Bills of the type that have recently been introduced are discussed. When by such Measures we attack family life, we must decide what will remain after the attack.
I urge the Labour Party to recall that the poorest of the poor have had to put up with everything, poverty and oppression, to preserve family life. The Labour Party knew for a long time what was valuable, and I regret that in one way and another this party to some degree, has lent itself to the undermining of family life.
When we condemn, criticise or discuss any subject we in the House of Commons must have compassion towards all problems and difficulties. Perhaps "compassion" is a better word than "permissive". A "compassionate, understanding and tolerant society" is a preferable phrase to "permissive society". A society filled with compassion and understanding is one at which we should be aiming.
Hon. Members have referred to television and the Press, and there have been occasions when I have condemned these media. Generally speaking, however, the real problems that exist are being brought home to us. When violence of what I would call an artificial kind is shown in television plays and other productions, that is not the real side of life. However, when we see pictures of bodies floating down the Mekong Delta and the privation being suffered by those in Biafra —this in itself is partly the outcome of the sort of society we have created—television is acting as a balancing in-
86
fluence on our modern society. It is not all obscenity. The real condition of the world, with all its violence and oppression, must be brought home to the people. This is the problem that we must diagnose and cure.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, I was brought up to believe that man was created in God's image and likeness. As a youngster, I was in a difficult occupation. Dignity was denied to me in those early years, except the dignity that my mother preserved at home for me. I felt like an economic unit and I could not see a way out of the morass, but all the time my teachers and priests were telling me that I had a soul and that I had been made in God's likeness. I would not, as a result, have wanted to do anything which might not be for the good of mankind.
I do not want to impress my views or beliefs on anybody. However, I sometimes wish that some of my hon. Friends would occasionally be as kind to me as I try to be to them. As we consider the materialistic state of society, there must be times when hon. Members of both parties—indeed, this must sometimes happen to the Home Secretary—feel doubts about their ability to cope with the sort of society which we have created. There can be no sanguine thought at times or easy minds about this issue. Even if the Conservatives became the Government tomorrow they would be beset by these problems. We must get to the causes of the present troubles.
I do not believe the statements I sometimes read about anarchy arising; although, to be frank, we have seen signs of anarchy, and they are ugly. There is no beauty in this business.
I will not discuss the Government's attitude towards abortion, except to mention that during the long days and nights that I spent discussing the issues in the House I thought that the Government were wrong. I also believed that responsible people in the Labour Party were wrong when they told me and others that when people had large families in the past they were socially irresponsible and that if people had large families in the future they would be socially delinquent. That statement brought my resignation from the party of which I had been a member for 40 years; that is,

87
until the Prime Minister gave me and two of my colleagues a personal undertaking that that was not the policy of the Labour Party.
It is no good members of this or any party saying, "Just give it time. It will work out in the end." I fear what will happen if we give abortion and divorce that sort of time. It is no good trying to run away from this problem, just as it is no good for hon. Gentlemen opposite to try to run away from the history of the Conservative Party. The people will obviously note the laws we pass and judge us accordingly. That is the way it must be. There was nothing in any Labour Party manifesto at any election at which I stood which spoke of easier abortion and divorce. When a Government provide more than the normal Private Members' time they should at least tell the people of the country what they basically feel about the matter. There was no great anxiety in the country to introduce the new abortion and divorce laws. I am beginning to feel that there is a bit of conspiracy against the home, family and marriage, and a considerable conspiracy against the child in the womb.
Mr. Orme: As my hon. Friend knows, no hon. Member doubts his sincerity on the matter, but does he take into account that about 69 per cent. of the public are in favour of the Abortion Act, according to the latest Gallup poll? Surely the nation is overwhelmingly in favour of it?
Mr. Mahon: That will be revealed, as other things will be revealed, at the right time. I am telling my hon. Friends that it is no use running away from the past. They did this, and they must stand by it, just as I must stand by what I have said in my opposition to what is loosely termed the permissive society. I did not want to deal with the essence and morality of these things. We are talking about the effects of the permissive society.
In recent days the legislation has caused me a great deal of concern. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in February:
"…what is the average time spent in private clinics and National Health Service hospitals, respectively, when a patient is aborted; and if he will make a statement? "
88
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State replied:
" Up to last September the median time was between one and two days in approved places and between five and six days in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales. As notifications must be made within seven days of the operation, and the length of stays over seven days is therefore not known, no average can be calculated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1970; Vol. 796, c.312.]
Do the Government really feel that, under that permissive legislation, for a girl coming to London, probably with tremendous anxiety, a one-day stay in one of the private clinics for a very difficult operation like that is sufficient? The National Health Service organisations are insisting on a five-, six- or seven-day stay although they also have all the normal gynaecological work to do in the ordinary maternity hospitals. Is it not apparent to the Government that they can no longer support these private clinics treating some of our women in such an offhand way? Is it not time something was done about it, instead of my right hon. Friend's trying to justify 20,000 abortions of perfectly normal children? I would like my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to give him my compliments and tell him that I said that.
I have said in the Standing Committee on the Education Bill that the House will be very happy one day to reverse its decision on divorce. I am concerned about the children of broken homes. The glamour spoken about by hon. Members opposite does not exist when a working class family breaks up. It will be no use the Government talking of doing away with boarding schools, because they will be needed for the children of the broken homes resulting from the divorces which are occurring in modern society. Nothing can take the place of the warmth and affection of a home for a child. If a child has not got the warmth and affection of both parents according to the natural law, there is a good possibility of his joining the ranks of the delinquents.
Mr. Stan Newens: Is it not true that many homes will unfortunately break up whether or not divorces are provided for? In those circumstances the very detrimental effects to which my hon. Friend rightly refers will follow irrespective of whether the break-up is recognised by the law.
Mr. Mahon: I think that my hon. Friend is indulging in hypothetical statements. I am concerned about a divorce law that will now give easy divorce after two years' marriage. After five years an innocent party with the responsibility of children can be divorced without so much as a by-your-leave. I am anticipating what that will do to home life. This matter was not looked into fully when the legislation came before the House. If we break up family life we must make alternative provisions to match that tremendous loss.
I should like to know what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will do about the intrusion into privacy by the document from the Julian Press which has already been mention by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden). It is going to every house in the country. Elderly constituents of mine have received it, including an old man of 75 and his wife, a dignified couple. It was a gross intrusion into their home. I have seen maiden ladies who are most upset about it. Some people smile about the intrusions of modern society into the home, but I know some of my dockers on Merseyside who would have a certain anxiety about what they might do if they knew the address of the Julian Press and if people like me did not dissuade them from taking the action they might take.
It is not sufficient to let the unsolicited advertisements go on month after month until these adventurers get so many orders that they can do the job in the way they want. I believe that the book is not even in print, but that they are waiting for the huge orders they expect. In the meantime, they have affronted the dignity of very many people. I am not at all satisfied with what the Government have done up to now. The total addition to human happiness of all the obscenity and pornography I have witnessed is nil, and the misery it causes is incalculable.
On the more positive side, I believe that those who advocate the abandonment of religious education in schools are most ill-advised. Let us remember what the Churches did for the poor, deprived, badly-housed people of other days. The Churches have had scant courtesy from the House today. I do not think that a favourable word has been said about
90
them; I have been here all the time, and I did not hear one. It seems to be very popular to say that the Churches are not doing their job, did not do it, or will not do it. I go to church, as do many other people. I come from an industrial centre. In my world—and this applies to Anglicans, Methodists and others as well as Catholics—we go to church and take a lot of notice of what we are told. People do give us leadership. It is our fault if we do not take it. But there are people in society who do not want to listen to Popes, bishops, or priests, and will do everything in their power to undermine them because of the sort of society they wish to create. The permissive is not the sort of society I want nor the sort of society which religious bodies want. These critics of the churches to my mind do not know what they are talking about.
Mr. Elysian Morgan Mr. Elysian Morgan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. Many hon. Members wish to speak yet.
Mr. Morgan: I was only speaking of the more restrictive authority which the Church now exercises as compared with previous periods, and I heartily join in everything my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has said about the moral force of the Church. I remind him that I went out of my way to say that I was in no way suggesting that the Church had failed in its duty.
Mr. Mahon: In view of your intervention, Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. I am sorry if I am speaking too long.
I come now to the subject of prisons, which are part of the reform of criminals. I have heard that instructions have been given to make provision for more prisoners in some of our major prisons. But many prisons are already overcrowded and we must do something, irrespective of cost, towards making them more conducive to sending men back into society, after they have served their sentences, in a state of mind which will keep them law abiding. We must set our minds against putting hardened criminals together into cells. There are often three men to a cell in our prisons. I know that many crimes are hatched out

91
years before hand by criminals talking with each other in cells they share.
I want the Government to pay more attention to this problem. When the Home Office tells prisons that they must be ready for larger numbers of prisoners, while of course these men have to be put somewhere we should be more compassionate about the way in which they are kept.
I am very concerned about the situation on Merseyside. There is only one answer to our problem, and that is to have more policemen. We have vandalism and assaults on the police. It is essential to get these assaults on the police in perspective. There were 327 last year, 42 of them of a most serious nature. In other words, almost every day there was an assault on a policeman. This denotes that people are losing respect for the law and for police officers. I say to the public at large that they really must co-operate with the police because otherwise we shall never get in Liverpool the number of police we should have.
In 1930 the authorised strength of the Liverpool police was 2,270 and the actual strength 2,257, leaving only 13 vacancies. There were then 7,100 applicants to join the force. In 1969 the authorised strength was 2,866 and the actual strength 2,248, so that the force was 618 men short of establishment. At the same time, there were only 656 applicants for the enormously enlarged number of vacancies. This is a serious position.
I ask the Home Office to consider seriously this situation. It means that, in practice, we are not able to defend the homes of working class people. I suggest that if we cannot get policemen in Liverpool we should emulate the example of Securicor. This organisation quite rightly defends property of commercial interest. What is wrong with supplementation of the police, in agreement with the police, in order to defend domestic property?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: Again, I appeal for brief speeches.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) on his
92
speech. As always, he commands the respect of the House and he speaks in the Christian tradition of the Labour Party which is a vital part still of that party. I associate myself also with his remarks about the Julian Press, which is a scabrous pest. The evil of the Julian Press is that it invades the home, which is the point made by the hon. Gentleman. There may be other considerations if one has to go outside the home to indulge whatever one's taste happens to be, but one should be protected in one's own home against this kind of assault. It is up to the Home Office to find a means of defending society against this intrusion.
I shall not congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on his contribution, because I cannot. His speech was pitched at a deplorable level. It had a most unfortunate effect on the debate. It turned it into a channel of party political bickering. The speech by the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State was no better. He seems to have misjudged the whole situation, coming here armed with a brief which contained enough political claptrap to have bored even the founder members of the Merthyr Tydfil Labour Party. If Parliament is held in disrepute, it is precisely because of approaches similar to that which the Minister made. On serious occasions such as this that kind of party political dogma is entirely out of place.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I made the points to which the hon. Gentleman objects only by way of rebuttal.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman was replying to. He certainly was not replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who had set the debate at a very high level. I congratulate my hon. Friend on choosing this subject and on the content of his speech, which was a restrained, constructive and valuable contribution. If the Under-Secretary of State had taken his cue from my hon. Friend he would have done very much better.
I want to make plain my own general position because of the remarks I am going to make about the permissive society. I am not quite as pessimistic as my hon. Friend. I think that this

93
is the best country in the world. I think that it is the most honest and the most Christian in the practical sense. If I had to be poor and starving, I would rather be poor and starving here in Britain than in any other country. As a Catholic, I am grateful to divine Providence, which decided that I should be born in a Protestant country, and if things are bad here they are considerably worse everywhere else—except perhaps in Ireland. That is my general approach to the problem.
But when one looks at the state of our society there are things which must give one cause for alarm. We must ask ourselves what exactly we mean by "permissive society". This question has been raised in the debate, but it is odd that at this late stage in the debate it has not been answered. The phrase, curiously enough, was invented by Pope
Pius XII—
Mr. Orme: He has a lot to answer for.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: —not that he was commending it in any way. He was the first to use the phrase. Other people took it up from him. I define it as a society in which the law in relation to morals, and especially sexual morals, plays a minimum role. I would not call it a civilised society, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather rashly, I think, called it. Of course, it may turn out to be a civilised society, and I should welcome it if it did, but equally it may turn out to be a barbaric society in which standards generally have collapsed. Everything depends on the response of individual citizens.
It is the weakness and the strength of a permissive society that it depends on and presupposes a society of adults who, if left to themselves, will choose the right things freely. But we should understand it; whether one deplores or welcomes it, it is essential to see what social, moral and religious conditions have produced it. It did not spring out of the air: it is the product of our own age, and our own age, poor thing though it is, is the only one we have. It is the only age which we are relevant to and the only age that we can do anything about.
One feature of our age is a decline of institutions and therefore of the morality associated with them. My right
94
hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that there had been a decline in authority. I would go much further. I would say that authority has totally lost its legitimacy. We know how much Parliament is denigrated today and we know in what low esteem the representatives of institutions are held. It is the same for all public representatives—for bishops, for generals and for Members of Parliament.
It was the Prime Minister who recognised this the other day in a moment of quite breathtaking frankness. I think that the House gasped when it heard him say that the General Election would present a choice between two evils. He cast himself in the role of the lesser of the two evils. That is open to question, but it is significant that he should have pitched the choice at that level. Can one imagine Gladstone saying that he was the lesser of two evils when compared with Disraeli?
We see this decline in institutions in the decline of institutional religion. In this sense, the Church of England and the Church of Rome are in the same boat. This is one of the foundations of the ecumenical movement—Rome and Canterbury have finally realised that they will sink or swim together. I am not saying that good theology is a guarantee of good government. If that were so Catholics would be placed in a nice dilemma by the history of the Papal States. All I am saying is that unless one has a sound theological or metaphysical foundation it is difficult to have a socially effective morality.
The decline of both political and religious institutions has led to an uncertainty about morality which has never been greater than today. I do not know whether we are more moral or less moral than in the past, but I know that we are much more uncertain about our standards. We have an individual rather than a social morality today and there are different moralities operating within the same society.
It is this situation which has led to the wide range of permissive legislation—homosexual law reform, divorce law reform, abortion law reform, the reform of the censorship laws, the abolition of theatre censorship, all legislation which has pushed the onus away from society, the State, on to the individual, reflecting

95
a state of affairs which already exists. So it is inappropriate to give a blanket condemnation or approval of permissive legislation. It is a reflection of our own society: some of it is good and some of it is bad.
Personally, I approved of the abolition of capital punishment. That is something which shows a higher regard for the value of human life. For the same reason, I deplore the abortion changes—not that a case cannot be made out for abortion in certain circumstances. I fully concede that, but the evil of the permissiveness here is that it has led to society becoming abortion-minded. I warned a year ago that we were heading for a situation in which we would have 100,000 abortions a year. We will have, I am afraid, as the graph shows, a much higher figure than that.
I think that homosexual law reform was, on balance, right. It is unjust to persecute those who, through no fault of their own, are suffering from a particular disability. Equally, I recognise that homosexuality should not be encouraged in society because it leads to personal unhappiness it weakens society as well. But a choice had to be made and I think that the choice was right. The ban on homosexuality, I believe, gave it a certain amount of moral condemnation, but this was at the price of a personal persecution which I think was wrong. This has opened up the choice now of how we are to deal with this problem. Are we going to deal with it constructively, by research, education and psychiatric help, or will we try to turn the clock back and restore the previous position?
On censorship also we have seen a liberalising of the law. That is right, because that reflects a liberalising in sexual attitudes in society. There is not an agreed sexual morality today in society, and if one does not have an agreed sexual morality one cannot have a sensible censorship system. I am not prepared to go all the way with the Arts Council, which wants to abolish censorship altogether. That would be wrong, but we should abandon the rather fruitless argument about morality and immorality and treat the whole thing as part of public nuisance.
Pornography, like prostitution, will always be with us, but equally it needs to
96
be kept in check. It is just as much an annoyance to go into a respectable bookshop and find a whole row of pornographic books looking at one as it is to go down the street about one's own business and be solicited by a prostitute.
Recently there has been the example of the Danish legislation. I was in Denmark recently to attend a legal conference and I took the opportunity—purely for research purposes, I assure the House—of visiting the pornographic bookshops there. I was appalled by what I saw—[An HON. MEMBER: "What did you buy?" I was on a Government allowance and therefore had no money left over for inessentials—[An HON. MEMBER: "What would you have bought?"] I do not answer hypothetical and rhetorical questions. But I was appalled by it just because of the sheer filth of what was produced. This has spilled over so that it is now available not only in the pornographic bookshops but in the legitimate bookshops.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) that one does not need a regiment of psychiatrists to convince one that it is fairly disgusting and low-grade stuff. When one sees—I apologise to the House for having to give details—pages and pages of pictures of women having intercourse with animals and various beasts: that is something of no social value at all and it is purely disgusting. The advantage about having a vestigal law on the subject is that it keeps this sort of thing in check. If we did away with the law altogether, as the Arts Council wants, we should have that sort of infection spreading here.
The other point in retaining this control is that it is much more difficult without it to protect the young and immature. By and large, adults should choose what they want to read; if they want to read pornography they should be allowed to, and if they do not they do not need to. But when the young and the immature come to pornography before their sexual attitudes are formed this can be traumatic. It would be more difficult for parents to protect their children if there was no law at all.
One cannot go back on the permissive society as such. I am sure of that. What one can do is adjust the boundaries. One can show what limits there should be to

97
permissiveness. One important limit is interference with the rights of others. That is why I am opposed to abortion. It is not, as the hon. Member for Fife, West said, just a question of the rights of the mother: it is a question also of the rights of the unborn child and the law has to balance one against the other.
We should also be aware of the risks which the permissive society presents to the continuance of society. The law in the past has been a positive moral force in society and rulers had a function in this sphere. That function has been reduced, but it still exists. It is true that rulers are guardians of the peace rather than spiritual directors, but they are guardians none the less. The essence of a society, its basic value, what makes a society worth living in, lies not in its true power, nor in its material, nor even in its artistic achievements. It is really in its agreement to live together in peace and in amity, respecting certain moral values. Both liberty and equality are dependent upon fraternity.
A total permissiveness in sexuality would, I am sure, be destructive of society. Sexuality is undoubtedly a good thing. We should not be in any doubt about that. We should not fall into the error of the Victorians in this regard. But we would be naïve if we did not see that sexuality is the most explosive force in society. The answer to the dangers of licence which are threatening us is not repressive legalism, but more positive teaching in the subject, to which the law should give a general support.
The sexual protest today is understandable only in terms of a lack of community. How interesting it is that so many people want to go back to National Service, not for any military reason, but because they want to recreate a sense of community! They are hankering after military service because they feel that our society does not offer sufficient communal life to make it worth living in it.
In the sort of society in which we live, the task of any moralist is extremely difficult and the task of Christian moralists is unenviable, having to persuade men of the truth of precepts in a society which has lost all sense of the absolute and which is fast losing all sense of sin.
98
However difficult this task is, it has to be tackled. The law can help in that, but it can play only a subsidiary role. Good laws which are sensible and moral can create a framework in which good morality can be taught and discovered and followed. I recognise that the law is changed with a purpose which is beyond its capacity to accomplish. What is needed today in our society, because there is a crisis in our society, is within the framework of the law, for moral values to be internally accepted and experienced. A major role, therefore, cannot be played today by the law. The major role must be played by witness and it must be played by persuasion. It must be example rather than precept today, persuasion not compulsion.
On the title of that novel by the greatest English novelist, Jane Austen, I conclude these remarks, not thinking that I have contributed the last word on the subject, but hoping that I have put a gloss on the very valuable contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough who today has put the House in his debt both for his choice of subject and for the manner in which he has presented it.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) undoubtedly elevated the debate, as all would agree. All of us would agree that if the debate has had any value it has been because of the passionate manner in which the right hon. and learned Member presented the role of the law in our community. This was well worth hearing at a time when there is so much cynicism about the law and about lawyers.
But the most important factor to come from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was that he had gallantly retreated from his original position. It is no use his pointing his finger at my hon. Friends when they complain, as did large sections of the Press, that in one of his exuberant moments he had unfortunately decided, as a matter of obvious political tactics, to introduce the whole theme of law and order in a manner far different from that in which he made his contribution today. I trust that he will continue in the spirit of today and that he will have the courage to propagate in

99
his own party, so that it should become part of the policy of his party, that he believes it necessary, for example, to spend £60 million to £100 million on prisons in order that they may be brought up to the standards required if they are seriously to undertake the rehabilitation of prisoners.
I never noticed that enthusiasm when the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in Government. It is belatedly that he comes to this conclusion. He has no right to appear to be offended because the Labour Front Bench has unequivocally made it clear that the Labour Party is not prepared to tolerate the notion that the reason we have social and crime problems in our society is in any way related to there being a Labour Government. The Labour Party has been prepared to face up to matters which the other side always dodged.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that some of the legislation which went through the House, legislation with which I was privileged to be associated, did so on an all-party basis. It was sheer humbug and hypocrisy, in the light of what happened during the time of the Conservative Government to affect and pretend that they would not have done anything else. That legislation in Conservative Government was killed by the failure to give the House time to reach an opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accused the Labour Government of being sufficiently democratic to give the House and the country the right to express a view on burning social issues. He evades the fact that the Conservative Government consistently and persistently refused to give time to measures which, if passed at that time, would not be, as they now may be, sometimes bad and sometimes extravagant.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman may be carrying himself away. He was present at the time and he should recall that I made it perfectly plain that I made no such accusation. The only accusation I levelled at the Government was that they used all-night sittings as a device for that purpose and I stand by that accusation. I have never criticised the giving of time. It is for the Government to provide time if the House so desires it.
Mr. Abse: I regret that I must interpret that as a quibble. The House was prepared to stay up all night to do its duty. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to give consolation prizes to those in constituency parties who do not like this legislation, members of his own party, and suggests that it was a wicked plot on our part to keep the House up all night, let him do so.
Unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with two voices. Sometimes he talks as a statesman and at others as a very cheap party politician. When he does the latter it does not elevate him in the esteem of the House or the country or in any future role which he may perform.
If we are to solve the problem, we have to ask ourselves a question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, whether there is something unique, something singular, a particular moral crisis at this time in this generation. Before we attempt to answer the question, we must have some historical sense. The same question has been asked and sometimes answered in every century. In the eighteenth century one quickly finds that the reformers of the day dealt with this problem. Henry Fielding, after a painstaking investigation, came to the conclusion:
" There is not only no safety of living in this town but scarcely any in the country now; robbery and murder have grown so frequent. Our people have become what they never were before, cruel and inhuman. These accursed spirituous liquors which to the shame of our Government are to be so easily had and in such quantities drunk, have changed the very nature of our people, and will if continued to be drunk, destroy the very race."
It cannot, therefore be disputed that these questions have constantly been asked. He was writing at a time when the nation was drinking 8 million gallons a year of gin and when the population of London was 700,000 and when there was a dram shop for every six houses in the Metropolis.
The Victorian age is elevated as having so much self-discipline by the self-acclaimed moralists in the House and the Jeremiahs who say that Britain has been going downhill ever since the time of the Normans. One needs only to turn to Mayhew to see that at that time in an infinitely smaller London there were

101
80,000 prostitutes in London and when the circulating harlotry of the Haymarket and Regent Street constituted 8,600 prostitutes according to the police figures of the day. I hear people talk about the permissive society, but Mayhew's report of the pleasure gardens, near the Thames, within a stones throw of King's Road, where, as night fell, the orgies began and parties were held make the parties of our contemporary Chelsea "swingers" seem really like Sunday-school picnics.
It is easy to sell Britain short. One can do that not only in terms of sterling. One can try to create an atmosphere showing that this country is in an immoral morass. In fact, we are an extremely respectable people. It must have been a great hardship and it must have caused great pain to those self-acclaimed moralists when Geoffrey Gorer, in his recent report in the Sunday Times,revealed that 88 per cent. of our young women were virgins when they became engaged. The act of betrothal is obviously taken seriously. I am aware that many cynics say, "If that is so, the other 12 per cent. must have been working overtime." The plain fact nevertheless remains that a serious survey has revealed—to the dismay of those bizarre communicators on television and to self-acclaimed moralists—that we remain an extraordinarily stable community, where personal relationships are highly valued and our people do not form a promiscuous society.
When I heard the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talking about promiscuity, I came to the conclusion—as, also, when I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon)—that the only people today who wanted to get married and remain married were Catholic priests. The fact is that never in the history of British vital statistics have there been so many married people in Britain. Never in Britain has so high a proportion of the population been married. Our young people have a veritable passion for matrimony. They are marrying younger than ever. Society may, indeed, have some cause to protect itself from young marriages rather than from promiscuity.
For the first time, too, in modern British history the working classes as well as the middle classes have comfortable homes. They have places that are
102
warm and comfortable, equipped with televisions and stocked with more vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, and vastly more furniture, carpets and space heaters. The average contemporary husband is spending his evenings and his weekends not with his mates in a down-at-heel pub or club but at home or pottering around the house maintaining or improving its appearance. We are fortunate that we have a home-regarding society.
When I hear those moralists from the benches opposite, I contrast that with the situation that existed when I was brought up in South Wales. Those were the days when family life was broken down. Those were the days when, with an indifferent Conservative Government, we had mass unemployment, and when vicious means tests were imposed, deliberately calculated to break up homes. How dare people now, in this alliance between prudery and reaction, claim that suddenly there is a decline in the quality of life in Britain? It would be more helpful if those Conservative Members who express this self-acclaimed moralism were concerned about homes and about family life in the homes, and if they would desist from their iniquitous policy of suggesting that they will withdraw £100 million from housing subsidies.
It would do far more good if that were done than for them to make their present comments—these Victorian prurient expressions of concern with obscenity. Pornographic literature is no new mutation. It is not a phenomenon of a permissive society. Let the hon. Member for Wellingborough go to a cupboard in our Library and get the key that is available from the courteous Librarian, and let him open the cupboard, which contains a slight collection of erotica. If he will examine it he will notice that most of that slight collection comes from the Victorian age—from the middle and latter decades of the 19th century, when pornographic writings were produced and published in unprecedented volumes. They became a minor industry. A view of human sexuality represented in those works and the view of sexuality held by the Establishment of the day then, as it is held now by some people, including some of those who have spoken this afternoon, are negative analogues one of another—reversals and mirror images of each other. We notice that in Victorian

103
times for every warning of the consequences of masturbation issued by official voices another work of pornography was published extolling its joys: for every cautionary statement against the harmful effects of sexual excess uttered by medical men pornography represented copulation in excelcis, endless orgies, infinite daisy-chains of inexhaustibility.
Today we are not, or we should not be, deceived by the apparent differences of attitudes. One is the mirror image of the other. In both the same fears and anxieties are at work. In both the same obsessive ideas are at work. One is frantically extolling the importance of sexuality and the other is frantically minimising it. The truth is that it would be far more important—if we are to talk about pornography—to draw attention to the new pornography arising out of the presence in this country of one million coloured immigrants. Our language betrays our fractured sexual attitudes. We speak of the dark passions, and for those who still believe that sex is dirty, black is the colour of sin.
Formerly, we had the inevitable coloured slave heightening the aphrodisical mood seen in nineteenth century paintings; today we have the language that sometimes comes from our Midlands racialists. The language of the Birmingham racialists reveals their mad fear of the potency of the black man—the sexual rivalry felt by those uncertain of their own Wolverhampton virility. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was right to draw attention to the pornography implicit in the speeches made. The constant concern with the birth rate of the immigrants is as miserable and as wretched a piece of
104
masked pornography as it would be possible to spell out. Let there be no doubt —if we had fewer eunuchs we would have less Enochs. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) are really about how many times a week a coloured man copulates, not about the birth rate. It would be far more profitable, if we wanted to protest against obscenity, to protest against the obscenities implicit in the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
If we wanted to turn our minds to the real problems that exist we should be asking ourselves what is the future of the family. We cannot be nostalgic. It is no use looking back to authority, because in front of our eyes, as a result of the impact of technology, we see a massive change taking place from the authoritarian family system to an egalitarian family system—from economic dependence upon one man to a democratic family. With such a tremendous change, naturally there is bound to arise an extraordinary number of stresses in the family. Women are equal with men, and no longer dependent on them. They have new opportunities, and new ways of living. They must now live with much the same sort of temptations as used to fall only upon men. It means, too, that if young people are able to earn money there will be changing family attitudes. When a changing family becomes more nuclear and less extended, there are greater personal opportunities but greater hazards. If we examine the changes in the family—
It being Seven o'clock, Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government business).

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. Speaker: As is my usual custom, I have posted up details of the selection of Amendments and new Clauses. I suggest that with new Clause 1 we take Government Amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

New Clause 1

  APPLICATION TO CROWN
  (1) This Part of this Act shall bind the Crown.
  (2) Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (power of court to order inspection, custody, etc, of property pending commencement of action) shall bind the Crown so far as it relates to property (within the meaning of that section) as to which it appears to the court that it may become the subject-matter of subsequent proceedings involving a claim in respect of personal injuries to a person or in respect of a person's death.
  (3) A court shall not make an order under section 31 or 32 of this Act, nor an order under section 21 of the said Act of 1969, if it considers that compliance with the order, if made would be likely to be injurious to the public interest.
  (4) In this section references to the Crown do not include references to Her Majesty in Her private capacity nor to Her Majesty in right of Her Duchy of Lancaster, nor to the Duke of Cornwall.—[The Attorney-General.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.1 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Clause be react a Second time.
  It is, as you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, convenient for Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 to be considered with the New Clause 1, since the new Clause is intended to replace Clause 35 and the Amendment in Clause 33, page 27, line 19, is consequential.
  Clause 32(2) of the Bill enables the High Court in an action for damages for personal injuries to make an order for the inspection, photographing, preservation, etc., of property which does not belong to a party to the proceedings but which is the subject matter of the proceedings or as to any question that arises in the proceedings. By virtue of Clause 35, this provision binds the Crown, ex-
  106
  cept the Queen in her personal capacity, although the court is precluded from making an order if the court considers that it would be injurious to the public interest.
  Clause 32(2) gives effect to a recommendation of the Winn Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation and is complementary to Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Acts 1969, which enables the High Court, before the commencement of proceedings to make an order for the inspection, photographing, preservation, etc., of property which is likely to become the subject matter of proceedings or as to which any question may arise in the proceedings.
  Section 21 is not confined to prospective proceedings for personal injuries but, on the other hand, it does not bind the Crown. A confusing and anomalous situation will therefore result when Clause 32(2) comes into operation. Both Section 21 and Clause 32 will have to be supported by rules of court prescribing the circumstances in which an order may be made, and it is obviously desirable that there should be a single rule or set of rules providing for the inspection etc. of property before the commencement of proceedings and against a third party during the course of proceedings. But as matters stand this could not be done without introducing qualifications which might easily be overlooked.
  The new Clause accordingly provides for Section 21 of the 1969 Act to bind the Crown, in relation to claims for personal injuries, to the same extent as Clause 32(2) and other provisions of Part II of the Bill. That is to say, in prospective or pending proceedings or personal injuries the court will be able to make orders in respect of property belonging to the Crown, other than the Queen in her personal capacity, unless the court considers that compliance with the order would be injurious to the public interest. The substitution of "this Part" for "sections 31 and 32" in Clause 33(3) is a consequential Amendment to enable the definition of "personal injuries" to apply to the new Clause.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: The House of Commons is indeed a strange place in that immediately following on our previous proceedings the Attorney-General is now moving what can only be described as an esoteric piece of law,

  107
  but it is important and useful. The new Clause is sensible since it includes procedures which are to be dependent to an extent on rules of court. On other parts of the Bill we have criticised reliance on rules of court rather than on the express determination of the House of Commons, but this seems to be an appropriate provision to be included in rules of court.
  Obviously, in actions for personal injuries property belonging to the Crown Office can be involved and it may be necessary to inspect, to disclose and to examine. It would be wrong if we could not make the appropriate provision on behalf of the Crown. Therefore, this new Clause will improve the Bill and I support it.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: I welcome the new Clause. I also welcome the rather sudden change of heart by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General from what he said in the debate on the Freedom of Publication (Protection) Bill. As I understand it, subsection (3) of the new Clause will mean that it will be for the court to determine whether compliance with the order, if made, would be likely to be injurious to the public interest. This means that it will be for the court, and not for a Minister or for Parliament, to decide what is in the public interest.
  The Attorney-General may remember that during our short debate on the Freedom of Publication (Protection) Bill I took him up on his argument that that Bill ought to be rejected because, among other reasons, Clause 8 of the Bill would require to be determined by a court the question whether the public had been injured or prejudiced. The Attorney-General said that was not an issue which could be satisfactorily determined by the courts and that to ask the courts to adjudicate on public interest was what he described as an "unruly horse" upon which the courts were extremely reluctant to pronounce. I urged him to reconsider that matter since I am interested in the Right of Privacy Bill. I am delighted to see that it is thought right that in this instance the court should be free to determine what is the public interest. I hope that the Attorney-General will continue along those lines.
  Sir David Renton: Although I welcome the new Clause, I
  108
  should like the Attorney-General to clear up one puzzling point. There is a cross-reference to Section 21 of the 1969 Act and we must depend on the meaning of the word "property" as described by Section 21 of that Act. May I take it that "property" includes documents of any kind? This would seem to be basic to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. If it does include documents of any kind, this would seem to be a welcome departure from the rules relating to Crown privilege.
  The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) for his approval of the new Clause and the Amendment. If I may deal briefly with the intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), he will see that there is a distinction between the issue of public interest in relation to the inspection of a document and the larger and wider matters which we were discussing on the Freedom of Publication (Protection) Bill.
  On the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) "property" does in fact include documents of any kind, and the ambit of the Clause is as wide as I think he would wish it to be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) does not intend to move his new Clause No. 2 (Interest on damages).
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 1

  REDISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS AMONG DIVISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT
  Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 1, and I suggest that we take with it Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45:
  No. 43, in Schedule 1, page 39, line 43, at end insert:
  Proceedings involving the exercise of the court's probate jurisdiction;

  109
  No. 44, in line 43, at end insert:
  Proceedings under the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act 1938;
  No. 45, in Schedule 2, page 42, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
  Mr. Bruce Campbell: I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
  Clause 1 of the Bill I welcome, as I think do most hon. Members, because it sets up a Family Division of the High Court, and that is something which most of us have wanted for many years. The situation which has prevailed hitherto, whereby family matters have been dealt with in almost every kind of court in the land, has been a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it is a splendid thing that at last we are to have a Family Division to deal exclusively with family matters. The object of the Amendment is to keep within the Family Division matters which, in my submission, are family matters but which, as the Bill stands, are not to be included in the Family Division.
  I refer first of all to contentious probate business. The Bill proposes that contentious probate business should be assigned in future to the Chancery Division. No doubt that is because the Chancery Division is accustomed to dealing with wills. However, the Chancery Division is accustomed to dealing with the construction of wills, and I dare say that those who were responsible for the drafting of the Bill took the view that a court which is concerned with the construction of wills would be a suitable court to deal with questions affecting the validity of wills.
  I think that is anon sequitur and wish to contend that the two kinds of litigation are quite different and that they ought to be kept apart, as they have been for the last 112 years or so. In a probate action the business of the court is to decide whether a will is a valid one or not, and that is something which the existing Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has been accustomed to do and has been doing very satisfactorily, but the proposal is that it shall do it no longer, and that this kind of litigation should be dealt with in the future by the Chancery Division.
  It is to be noticed that the Bill proposes that only contentious probate
  110
  matters should go to the Chancery Division, and that it is proposed to leave with the Family Division all the non-contentious probate business, which by far exceeds the contentious probate business. I believe that there are only about 70 probate actions in a year, and very many of those are not fought out but are settled at some time before they reach court. So that we are talking about a very small jurisdiction.
  It is, however, a very large family jurisdiction. As a rule, when somebody puts pen to paper with a view to making a will he thinks of his family and he makes provision for his family. There was a time, until 1938, when he need not have thought of his family at all, when a testator could leave all his wealth to a cats' home or to his mistress. That is no longer possible because in 1938 Parliament passed an Act which makes it possible for a testator's dependants to apply to the court for reasonable provision for them to be made out of his estate, if he has not made reasonable provision in his will. So especially since 1938 probate business has become very much family business, and, in my submission, it ought to be dealt with in the division of the court to be called the Family Division.
  7.15 p.m.
  There is no similarity between the sort of work which the Probate Court does in deciding whether a will is valid or not and the sort of work which is done by the Chancery Court in deciding what a will means. These are two completely different task, and because one judge does the one does not at all mean that he will be very good at doing the other. Indeed they are two completely different tasks, because the fact is that in the Probate Court a will is merely a piece of paper of no value till the court is satisfied that it is a valid will made by a competent testator. Very many wills are invalid because so many of them are made in circumstances in which the testators cannot bring to bear upon the transactions the judgment and reflection which is required for such important matters. So many wills, for example, are made on death beds when the testators are far too ill to be able to pay proper judgment to these matters. Now it is the business of the Probate Court to decide upon the validity of a will, to decide whether it is a valid will, and the burden

  111
  is on the executors, or those propounding the document, to satisfy the court that this document does fully represent the last wishes of a free and capable testator.
  The business of the Chancery Court is quite different. Its business, once a will has been admitted to probate, is to decide questions as to the construction of the will, to decide what the will means, for some people do make wills which are ambiguous or whose meaning is obscure, and the Chancery judge is traditionally the judge to construe a document, including wills. So it is simply not true to say that because the Chancery Division deals with the construction of wills, therefore it should deal with questions as to their validity. There is no connection between the two.
  There is a further difficulty about sending litigation of this kind to the Chancery Division, and it is caused by the fact that of those probate actions which are tried—as I have said there are not very many, but of those which are tried —quite a number are tried on circuit, not in London at all. Probate actions are tried in Wales, the north of England, and all over the place, and probate judges travel the circuits and are available to try these actions wherever they come on for trial. Chancery judges do not go on circuit; they remain in London all the time. So I do not know what will happen if the Bill becomes statute in its present form. Does it mean that all probate actions in future will be heard in London and that witnesses will have to travel far distances in order to give their evidence in London? Or is it proposed that there shall be a great break with tradition by starting to send Chancery judges on circuit? I apprehend that Chancery judges would not be very pleased about that.
  So I submit that there is absolutely no case for sending probate work to the Chancery Division; that it ought to stay in the Family Division where it belongs; that because this is such a family matter it should continue to be dealt with by judges who are experienced in it, who are all now to be in the Family Division; and that it should remain with non-contentious probate business, because that is going to stay in the Family Division. To try to sever contentious probate from non-contentious probate is a grave mistake.
  112
  I turn now briefly to the other Amendment which affects a different kind of litigation and which proposes that the new Family Division should deal also with proceedings under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938. This Act orders that proper provision be made out of a testator's estate if he himself has not made it. This is surely a family matter if ever there was one. If the testator chooses to leave his whole estate, which may be a large one, to strangers, it is possible for his widow and children to come to the court and say that he should have made provision for them. This is a jurisdiction which hitherto was always been dealt with in the Chancery Division, but now that we are making a change and creating the Family Division, 'this jurisdiction should go to that Family Division as it is so much a family matter, and I can think of no good reason for assigning it to the Chancery Division.
  Since 1958 it has been possible not only for a widow to apply to the court to have reasonable provision made for her out of her deceased husband's estate but also for a former wife to make a similar application so long as she has not remarried. There may be a divorce, so that the wife is no longer a wife and will never therefore be a widow. Nevertheless, provided she has not remarried she may, after her former husband's death, apply to have proper provision made for her out of his estate. This jurisdiction is dealt with in what until now has been the Divorce Division but will in future be the Family Division. Here are two almost exactly similar jurisdictions, one being dealt with in the Family Division and the other in the Chancery Division, the only difference being that in one case there has been a divorce and in the other there has not.
  It is even more ridiculous than that. The former wife may have had children who are still infants and who will have the right to apply to have proper provision made for them out of their father's estate, but they have to go, and will continue to have to go if the Bill in its present form becomes law, to the Chancery Division, while the mother goes to the Family Division. I know that arrangements are made for the two applications to be consolidated and dealt with in one division, but they have to be started in different divisions. That same

  113
  deceased testator may have remarried, so that he will not only have a former wife but a widow as well, and it is nonsensical that these different classes of people, all making the same application, should have to make it in different divisions.
  I earnestly hope that the Government may have second thoughts about these two matters and decide to accept my Amendments, which will enable probate actions to continue to be delat with in the Family Division where they should be, and will give to the Family Division jurisdiction under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: It is an interesting conundrum as to when a contentious probate action becomes a non-contentious probate action. Nothing so stirs up the blood as an argument about wills. In parts of Wales it is almost a national pastime. When the will is published it is often contentious but by the time it gets into the hands of the lawyers and disappears for years it gradually becomes non-contentious.
  There is force in the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) as to why there should be this division between two divisions of the High Court. There is a great deal to be said for leaving contentious probate matters concerning small estates within the ambit of the family court, and this is particularly true of cases that are heard on circuit. My experience is that, even at a very late stage, probate cases tend to be settled, because, however contentious people are, their hearts generally quail and their courage fails them at the door of the court.
  I raised this matter on Second Reading. and there is surely a great deal to be said for ascribing the whole probate jurisdiction to the Family Division, particularly with regard to small estates and matters which are likely to be heard on circuit. There is no reason why the whole contentious business of the present Probate Division should be ascribed to the Chancery Division. It tends to suggest that there has been a compromise agreement between the judges and that the Bill carries this into law. It does not bear examination in the light of the restricted number of cases, and there is
  114
  much to be said for ascribing the whole jurisdiction to the Family Division.
  The Attorney-General: The purpose of these linked Amendments is to leave all probate jurisdiction, both contentious and non-contentious, with the Family Division. The matter was discussed at length in Committee, and I make no complaint about that. I ventured there to point out the massive administrative reasons for not transfering non-contentious probate business to the Chancery Division and I do not think that we are any longer troubled with the suggestion that that should take place. Nevertheless, there is merit in providing for contentious probate business to go to the Chancery Division. The cases are not very frequent. I detected almost a nostalgic note in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) when he referred to probate actions on circuit. I used to enjoy immensely participating in them, and many a tale could be told about them, but perhaps not on this occasion.
  In 1968 the number of contested probate cases was 52 in London and four on assize. In 1969 there were 42 in London and four on assize. I anticipate that cases that come for consideration outside London will be dealt with outside London but, as we have seen from those figures, nearly all contentious probate actions are tried in London anyway and I imagine that the same pattern would continue.
  When contentious probate cases arise they tend to be long and somewhat complex. The dividing line between the Family and Chancery Divisions in deciding where the case should go will be the issue of the writ in the central office for the proof of the will in solemn form. Unless and until that event happens every probate matter will be dealt with in the Family Division, the registry or the appropriate probate district registry. In spite of the submission of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), contentious probate matters seem to come broadly into the same category as cases relating to the construction of wills.
  7.30 p.m.
  Bearing in mind the expertise and experience of the Chancery Division in property matters, I think it is appropriate

  115
  that it should deal with this little corner of the litigation. It has always been the division responsible for all questions concerning administration of estates and the interpretation of wills. The Family Division should deal with truly family matters and not matters which are not essentially family matters. Accordingly, the proposal in the Bill is sensible.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 44, which deals with a slightly different point, is to transfer the High Court's jurisdiction under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, from the Chancery Division to the Family Division. I accept that the 1938 Act and the work arising under it presents us with a border line case between the Chancery and the Family Divisions and I recognise that there are arguments for sending this work to the Family Division. The difference between the two jurisdictions is a slim one, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I am inclined to think that it runs between them.
  There has never been any suggestion that the Chancery Division has not exercised its jurisdiction under the 1938 Act in a perfectly proper and understanding way. The property element in that jurisdiction is sufficient to differentiate it from the wardship and guardianship jurisdiction which is being transferred to the Family Division. Indeed, it might be argued that the Section 26 matrimonial jurisdiction is on the property side of the line and should also be transferred to the Chancery Division.
  The fact is, however, that there can be no satisfactory logical distinction between family and property work, and there are bound to be borderline cases. It is also necessary to bear in mind that we do not want to disturb existing institutions merely for the fun of it. Where the existing institutions, as they do in this instance in the Chancery Division in relation to this work, operate satisfactorily, there is no ground why those arrangements should be disturbed.
  Accordingly, I do not think that the case for transferring the jurisdiction under the 1938 Act has been made, and the arrangements proposed in the Bill are the most practical and the most convenient.
  Sir D. Renton: The Attorney-General's reference to matrimonial property reminds one that two Bills are at present
  116
  going through the House, each dealing to some extent with this question. I should specifically refer to Clause 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, under which the High Court, or in some cases the county court, can make an order varying an ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement—these are the operative words—
  " including such a settlement made by will or codicil ".
  That could involve either contentious or non-contentious probate jurisdiction.
  We are in the difficulty that the Bill which we are tonight considering contains no cross-reference to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, neither does that Bill include a cross-reference to the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]. We need, therefore, to consider in connection with my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment that we are legislating in another Bill which is relevant to it.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has pointed to a problem that always faces us when Bills of this kind are presented to Parliament, usually at the same time, which does not give us the opportunity of reflecting between the first Bill, which goes through earlier in the Session, and the second Bill which goes through later.
  In Committee, I moved an Amendment to which the Attorney-General referred as the exact opposite of the Amendment now moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell). By the time I had completed my speech, I was half convinced that I was wrong. When I had listened to my hon. and learned Friend, I was wholly convinced that I was wrong. When, however, I listened to the Attorney-General, I came to the conclusion that the, as it were, compromise solution which is proposed in the Bill is, for the present certainly, the best that we could do at the present time.
  I then expressed—and I repeat—concern that it was time that the actual division of business between the divisions of the High Court was much more closely examined. There is a case for seeing where we are going if we are now creating

  117
  a Family Division court without considering how the business of the High Court should be distributed.
  Therefore, with reluctance—because I was so persuaded in Committee by my hon. and learned Friend about the wrongness of my own Amendment—I nevertheless still think that the proposal in the Bill is, for the time being, and certainly so that we can see how it works, the best provision. In these circumstances, my view is that while there is much force in what my hon. and learned Friend has said, nevertheless we should try the experiment which is presented in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 3

    COMMERCIAL COURT
    Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take also the following linked Amendments:
    No. 3, in page 4, line 8, leave out ' either or both of the following powers, that is to say '.
    No. 4, in line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
    No. 5, in line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
    No. 6, in line 15, leave out ' any '.
    Sir P. Rawlinson: In this part of the Bill we deal with the Commercial Court and the provision, if the Bill becomes law unamended, that that Court is to be given powers which, I understand, no other court possesses. This is a matter which we debated in Committee, but on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir R. Russell), he being the Chairman, had to give the casting vole as there was a tie between the two sides of the Committee. By your selection of the Amendments, Mr. Speaker, we now have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House.
    Certainly, this is a subject which warrants debate on the Floor of the House. Other right hon. and hon. Members and I referred to it on Second Reading, when we expressed our concern. The Attorney
    118
    General said in Committee that no concern had been expressed at earlier stages of the Bill in another place. Nevertheless, concern was expressed when the implications of Clause 3 were fully understood.
    Subsection (3) of Clause 3 gives wide and general powers for the Commercial Court to sit in secret—that is, excluding public access to the Court and the Press from reporting proceedings within the court. Thus, if we permit subsection (3) to be passed at it stands, litigants in this court can have their issues decided upon in private.
    Courts have, of course, powers to sit in private and on occasions they do so. There is not a right hon. or hon. Member who does not know of the power of a court to sit in private when dealing with State secrets and even with trade secrets. When dealing sometimes with juveniles and sometimes when dealing with matters of particular intimacy—I emphasise the latter—in matrimonial proceedings, the court can exercise power to sit in private. That power is given to the court under Order 72 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
    Parliament has given those powers to the courts, but it should look with the greatest jealousy against any extension. This is a very wide extension indeed. I suggest that Parliament should be very reluctant to grant any extension of the practice of courts sitting in private.
    Save on the most rare occasions, all our proceedings in this House are in public. In the same way, it is a cardinal principle that justice should be administered in public. It is not just an idle principle or one which does not matter. All can watch the administration of justice. Anyone who wishes to listen can do so. In that way, the sanction of public approval is imposed on the administration of justice, the manner of the court administering the justice, the procedure of the court and the behaviour of those who preside over it. That public scrutiny is a matter of the greatest importance, and, therefore, no one would underestimate the importance of the principle.
    It is often said that the court reporter's pencil, more often now the microphone, and the fact that any spectator can go into the public gallery and listen to the proceedings in the court have played and

    119
    continue to play an important part in establishing and maintaining the reputation of our courts. I believe that the judges would be the last to want to see any extension of secrecy unless the strongest of cases was made out for it.
    It may be that, at the end of the day, the observers of judicial proceedings may not agree with the conclusions of the judge who decides a case. But at least they can understand how the court can decide as it does, they can see the court's attitude and behaviour, they can see the conduct of witnesses and can test in their minds whether the administration of justice is carried out in accordance with practice and to a sufficiently high standard.
    In private civil disputes, where the State provides only the tribunal to which the parties come to have issues decided, many litigants would like proceedings to be in private. Some may have good reasons, but those of others may be bad. In the first category, one might put those who want secrecy because, in the public examination and cross-examination to which they must subject themselves, there may be revealed intimate family relationships. In many cases, nothing could be more desirable than to have them given in private. Into the second category I put those who want to avoid a public demonstration of their greed or gross negligence. Both categories may wish to have their disputes decided in private. However, they have to come to the court, the court tries and judges in public, and, therefore, what they have to say and what is said about them must be said in public.
    Many people may think that there is a strong case for having the dissolution of a marriage dealt with in private, for instance. The evidence given in public is no longer reported, but anyone can hear the evidence being given. To that extent, there is public access. Others may think that accident cases should be heard in private. On the one side, such a case may reveal an employer's negligence, his bad management or his callous indifference, and he might prefer that kept away from public scrutiny. On the other side, the employee may not like to have exposed his attitude of scrim-shanking, exaggeration, or willingness to blame others.
    120
    7.45 p.m.
    Another example which is akin to these matters is where the dissolution of a partnership has to be decided by a commercial judge. The behaviour, conduct and affairs of the partnership have to be brought out in public. In this Bill, we seek to create a privileged class of litigants who, if they so wish, may have the matters that they want litigated decided without public knowledge.
    The reason advanced in support of the proposal is that it will attract to the commercial court the business of the law merchant. It has often been held in London that more work would go to our commercial courts if we provided for proceedings to be heard in private and dispensed with the rules of evidence. I suggest that that is not sufficient and good reason for breaching a very important principle.
    It has been said that the Law Merchant has grown up separately from the common law, the Law Merchant being the law which is said to deal with disputes between merchants and, therefore, the Commercial Court. At the Commercial Court Users' Conference in 1962, many representatives of distinguished and important bodies asked that this court should sit in private and said that, if it did, many more people would use the court. Again, is that really sufficient?
    Can the fact that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Baltic Exchange, the Federation of British Insurance Associations, the London Chamber of Commerce and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders would all prefer actions to be heard in private be a sufficient and good enough reason for us to agree to it? I suggest not. Certainly they want it, and I do not criticise theme for wanting it. However, if they choose to come to the courts of this country, it is not for them to make the rules. The rules of the court apply to all, and they must accept those rules. We should not seek to change the rules of the administration of justice merely to encourage business into our courts.
    It is also suggested that the various changes which have to be made are matters which can or should be made under the rules of court. They would specify when and how the commercial judge should sit in private or avoid complying with the rules of evidence. Again,

    121
    I do not think that that is good enough. It is not appropriate for the rules of court to make these provisions. It is for this House to decide how our courts should proceed. When I say that, I do not refer to technical matters for which the Rules Committee is by far the most appropriate body. Its members are experienced practitioners, and their aim is to make provision for the better and more speedy transaction of court procedures. Those are matters of detail, but this is a matter of principle. It is not right that it should be handed over to the Rules Committee.
    On occasions, the experience of the Rules Committee has shown that it may face the ipse dixit of a Minister, the Lord Chancellor, who will say what he wants and get it. That is not right. His decision may be correct, but it is not right that this House should hand over to such a Committee the power to decide an important principle like this. I am neither happy with the powers which are given nor with the way in which those powers are to be extended. We should recollect that a decision made by the Rules Committee can be brought before this House and debated, but we cannot amend those rules. We can reject them but we cannot amend them. It is not appropriate that the Rules Committee should make this decision which is a matter of principle that this House should decide.
    The second provision in subsection (3) is that the courts should be able to dispense with the rules of evidence by admitting
    " evidence which would not otherwise be admissible under the law relating to evidence."
    What makes these people so different that issues of fact which have to be determined by the court are to have different rules of evidence applied to them from those which are applied to other litigants? The rules of evidence have been devised because evidence is different from gossip. Wide powers have been given to the judges. We dealt with this a year or more ago in the Civil Evidence Act. Even wider powers are given as to what is and what is not evidence.
    There are not juries except on rare occasions. The judges are sophisticated enough to exclude from their minds matters which may not be evidence. Nevertheless, we have rules of evidence.
    122
    If judges are to try 99 per cent. of all civil actions and we point them to the rules of evidence in that respect, why should we relieve them in this respect? What is the difference between a partnership action and an action in a commercial court? What is the reason for it? Of course people will come to it only if it is flexible and, they say, if they can have privacy. Is this the appropriate price that should be paid? The courts should follow the pattern of procedure and method of trial which should be followed on the general principles throughout every transaction and before every court.
    This litigation should not be treated uniquely because it is a matter of principle. In Committee the Attorney-General acknowledges that the Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society had written a letter to The Times setting out very strongly the points of view of those whom they represent. I believe there have been other comments. The Law Guardian supported the criticism of these proposals. There have been letters in the Solicitors Journal which supported the principle and a letter from one of the learned masters. If their evidence is to be prayed in aid, what is the categorical reason for having to alter this principle for these litigants? If it is only to attract business, let us hear that. If it is, it is not a worthy or sufficient reason.
    We have provided in the Bill for judge arbitrators. If people want to go to arbitration they can do so. That is a private transaction with a private umpire. With the shortage of judges while the establishment is not up to strength and with the business pressing upon them, how in the immediate future can we contemplate any judge being free to sit as an arbitrator in a private dispute? If one goes to arbitration one goes before a private umpire, but this matter concerns the Royal Courts of Justice where justice is administered in accordance with the rules. We should not make this change. We should acknowledge that this is a matter of principle and we do not wish in any way to extend any forms of secret justice.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) rightly said that this issue was debated at length in Committee. I

    123
    then took an opposite view from his and I still do. He put this matter forward as one of principle, but I regard it as a matter of practical convenience. It is not as though it were something completely novel. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said, rules already exist whereby certain evidence may be and certain evidence must be given in private in our courts. As evidence which may be given in private I have in mind evidence about matters regarded as trade secrets in the Restrictive Practices Court. The interests of the parties are protected by hearing evidence of that kind in private.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the possibility of arbitration by judges, which is being introduced by this Bill. It seems that the argument is the converse of that which he put forward. The very fact that it is possible for the parties to a commercial dispute to have their case dealt with in private by arbitration, and now by judge arbitrators, seems to reinforce the point that by this provision we are not doing anything startlingly novel.
    The Commercial Court has always been a court in which there have been very special rules for the convenience of commercial parties. The commercial parties who make use of that court are often persons or companies domiciled abroad whose law is very different from the law in regard to evidence and sittings in public in this country. They are used to a different sort of law. When they come before our courts this Clause provides that the same sort of provision as to evidence and sitting in private can be applied in our courts as are normally provided in their countries. Subject obviously to what the Rules Committee may provide in future and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, subject to what we in this House or another place say about the rules put forward, I understand that the intention is that those provisions shall apply only where the parties both agree that they should apply. In other words, it would be precisely as in an arbitration.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought that no judge would welcome provisions of this kind. I cannot agree. I can say from my own discussions that one very distinguished and
    124
    experienced judge who tried many cases in the Commercial Court and who is now a member of another place strongly supports this proposal.
    Apart from that, which is a matter of private knowledge, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in Committee, this provision went through the House of Lords without any opposition. In that place are gathered together a wealth of judicial knowledge and experience. If there had been real opposition from the judges, and if they had regarded this as a matter of real constitutional significance, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, it is inconceivable that not one voice would have been raised from the noble Lords who are knowledgeable and experienced in the law.
    I believe that far too much is being made of this as a matter of principle. It is a provision which will be undoubtedly convenient, particularly to parties who come from foreign countries. I hope that the Government will not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's submissions.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir D. Renton: I do not consider that the precedents that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has put forward in support of the Clause as it stands are sound. I enthusiastically support the stand taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson).
    I am deeply shocked by this provision. I say this on broad principles. Not only in this century, but for many centuries, legislators, statesmen, lawyers and others throughout at any rate the western and the free world have tried to ensure that the laws of their countries shall conform to certain basic principles of what has broadly been called natural justice. The various charters of human rights lend weight to those principles. Magna Carta, which is perhaps the oldest human rights charter that there is, enshrined it.
    Two of those basic principles are, first, that justice should be administered openly and in public and, second, that laws should be clear and certain so far as is humanly possible. Paragraphs (a) and (b), which it is sought to delete, are a clear defiance of those two principles.
    The Government invite us to depart from those two principles. I do not

    125
    consider that the Government are choosing a good occasion to depart from them. Occasions can be imagined when it might be as well if an exception were made to the good general rules which I have mentioned. For example, in matrimonial proceedings there are times when one has felt that it is a great pity that the parties' detailed private lives have to be dragged out in open court, whether or not there is a restriction on reporting. The Government say that that can go on just the same but that businessmen must be protected; they must not have their transactions dragged out into the open.
    There is a very important distinction between arbitration, upon which the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich relies, and the proceedings in the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court is the High Court. Cases there will become precedents. Even though they will be held in private, they may be reported— at least, I assume so. To the extent that they are reported, they will become precedents. That does not apply in the case of an arbitration.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. It is only to the extent that trade secrets may be given in closed court that that court is a precedent. That is to a very limited extent indeed and certainly would not justify what could become wholesale departure in commercial cases.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman's point that foreign businessmen are unfamiliar with justice being held in open conditions is a bad point. If it be the fact that businessmen come from countries where lower standards prevail, let them keep their lower standards; but when they come here let them abide by our higher standards, standards which have stood the test of time pretty well. One hears no great complaint that the Commercial Court is other than likely to provide just decisions.
    Therefore, I do not think that the argument that foreign businessmen will not be attracted unless we do this for the Commercial Court is a good one. If foreign businessmen want to avoid any kind of publicity, they can write arbitration clauses into their contracts. Indeed, they frequently do so. Arbitration is a way to secure this privacy, if that is the
    126
    aim. But let it not be secured by making a division of the High Court exempt from good principles of basic justice.
    Paragraph (a) reads in a strange way. To paraphrase it, it means that rules of court may be made to enable the court to exercise
    " a power to admit any evidence which would not otherwise be admissible under the law relating to evidence ".
    In our system we all understand what evidence is. Evidence is, broadly speaking, admissible evidence, admissible according to Statutes which have been passed by Parliament, including the Civil Evidence Act, 1968. This is the whole range of something which is normally regarded, not as evidence, but as inadmissible evidence.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend suggested, we are rather funking the issue by saying that we will pass it to a subordinate law-making body to take these very important decisions on matters on which we have legislated within the lifetime of this Parliament, and done so to a considerable extent in matters of detail. That is not right, quite apart from the broader issue that it will create uncertainty.
    I do not see the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court committing itself to very great detail when exercising its powers. Just as we are passing the buck to that Committee, I think that it will be rather inclined to pass the buck to the Commercial Judge. Therefore, there will be uncertainty as to the rules of evidence which will apply. That will be completely unsatisfactory to everyone concerned, especially to those who will have to resort to the Commercial Court.
    My right hon. and learned Friend has good reason to complain of the contents of the Clause as it stands. I hope that the Attorney-General, who has shown on some occasions a very commendable open-mindedness on some of the difficult matters arising on the Bill, will even at this late stage realise that what is proposed in the Bill is not as good as it seemed to be.
    Mr. David Weitzman: I regret that owing to certain circumstances I was unable to hear the greater part of the speech made by the right hon. and

    127
    learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). In the Second Reading and in Committee I supported the view which he put forward, and I certainly support it now.
    I strongly disagree with the comments made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). It seems to me that we ought to recognise at the outset that this point should not be taken lightly, that it is a point of fundamental importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich queried that. I dare say that he, too, read very carefully the letter in The Times written by the Chairman of the Bar Council and by the President of the Law Society. If he did so I am sure that he noticed in that letter the very cogent reasons for regarding this as a fundamental change. No one can doubt that it is so.
    I wish to express my strong opposition to the inclusion of subsection (3). First of all, I take the point that rules to make provision for conferring certain powers on the commercial judge should be made by the Rules Committee. That is wrong. If it is intended that a power of this kind is to be given, let it be done openly by Parliament and not by the Rules Committee. As the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, the Rules Committee will probably pass the buck to the commercial judge. It will probably say that if in the opinion of the commercial judge, it is right that this sort of provision should be made, the commercial judge shall do it. That is not very satisfactory from any point of view. I think it is utterly wrong that that power should be given to the Rules Committee.
    I now wish to say a few words on paragraphs (a) and (b)—first, paragraph (a) on the admission of evidence which otherwise would not be admissible. It seems to me that over the years we try so hard to remove many of the advantages of our great legal system. When I was a young man at the Bar we used the jury system in most cases, and it was a very good thing. Gradually that right has been whittled away, and now, but for very exceptional circumstances, one cannot get a jury to deal with the case.
    Here we have another change allowing inadmissible evidence to be given. Why
    128
    should it be given in any court? It has been rightly said that the Commercial Court is part of the High Court of Justice. It is one of those courts where evidence is given openly, where the public can be admitted and can hear what is said. Why should there be this provision for the admission of inadmissible evidence?
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave a very cogent reason, namely that apparently we want to attract trade. That is a very unworthy reason indeed. Apparently we want to attract business away from arbitration so that it can be dealt with in a court of law. Why should we do a thing of this kind? Evidence should be given in the same way as it is given in other courts. As has been pointed out, there are powers whereby one can dispense with the giving of evidence strictly in accordance with the rules of law. But why extend it in this way? It is utterly wrong.
    8.15 p.m.
    I pass to paragraph (b)—the power to sit in private during any part of the proceedings. There are certain cases in which the court can sit in private. Surely private sittings should be restricted to matters of that kind. Why should people have the right to have their cases heard in private because they do not want publicity to be given to the matter? We have said again and again so proudly that our courts are open to everyone, that anyone can go and listen to the evidence. The power proposed in paragraph (b) seems to me extraordinary. I do not know why such a proposal has been made.
    I hope that even at this stage my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will recognise the real opposition that there is to a provision of this kind. This is not captious criticism. We regard the present situation as something of a bulwark in the rights of our legal profession. Having built up our great legal system, do not let us tamper with it in this way. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will look at this again and will decide to omit subsection (3).
    Mr. Hooson: I could not disagree more with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzmann) or with those who spoke before him in favour of the Amendment.

    129
    To suggest that we are dealing with basic matters of principle is absolute rubbish. The Commercial Court exists for one purpose alone—to serve the needs of the commercial community. Otherwise there is no purpose in the Commercial Court.
    The country is nothing if not a commercial country. For many decades London has been the centre where international commercial disputes have largely been decided. The reputation of the Commercial Court has been high. The evidence is that over the past years a high proportion of people who formerly used the Commercial Court have been going to arbitration and have had their disputes settled abroad. If we are a commercial country, we are naturally involved in international agreements. The Commercial Court Users' Conference in 1962 was unanimous in the view that there was a great need to reorganise the rules of procedure of the Commercial Court in order to meet the needs of the commercial community in a technological age. Now it is argued that we must regard the Commercial Court as absolutely analogous to the civil and criminal courts —that the legal system is a sort of ivory tower which must not be touched.
    I am told—I am not a commercial practitioner—that in the Commercial Court the practice has grown up whereby evidence is admitted in most cases which in strict law is inadmissible.
    Mr. Bruce Campbell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hooson: I will in a moment. Even when somebody who is unaccustomed to the procedures of the Commercial Court objects to this system, the judge by his tone of voice or by a raising of the eyebrows discourages the point being taken. Certainly where the parties agree, the rules of evidence can be waived. There are cases in which matters are in dispute and where a vital document may not be admissible under our law. One party to the dispute may want to take advantage of the fact in order to ensure that the document does not come to the light of day so that the judgment that is given is not correct. That is why the Commercial Court Users' Conference wants a much broader interpretation of the evidence in commercial disputes.
    130
    What is the purpose of people engaged in industry and commerce going to court at all, unless they have a swift commercial decision in accordance with what they agreed in their contracts? The opposition to this proposal is entirely misconceived. The real question to decide is: does the Commercial Court as at present organised meet the needs of the commercial community? The answer is: in the opinion of all the people who use the court, it does not.
    Sir D. Renton: While I do not claim to be one of those people, I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, having taken the trouble to inform myself by discussing the matter with several of our learned colleagues at the Bar that what he has said is contrary to the facts.
    Mr. Hooson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me, and that is, no doubt, my fault. When I referred to "users" I was referring to the Commercial Court Users' Association who are litigants in the court as opposed to lawyers; and it is the litigants' interest in this instance which is paramount and not the lawyers'.
    If this House is contemplating going into the E.E.C., we should be aware that the Common Market countries have been re-organising their rules to meet the needs of a swiftly developing commercial community. We must be prepared to adapt our rules, otherwise we will find that London, far from being the commercial capital of Western Europe, will be left out on a limb and by-passed. That is why this provision is so important.
    Mr. Weitzman: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that many litigants in ordinary civil suits would desire the rules of evidence to be departed from entirely, so that their cases might be dealt with on that basis?
    Mr. Hooson: There is no evidence to show that any large body of people in this country who litigate in the civil courts wish that change to occur, whereas there is every evidence, from the Commercial Court Users' Association, to show that that body is unanimously in favour of changes of this kind. It said so in 1966, but now, in 1970, the matter has not yet been dealt with; that is, until it was brought forward in this Measure. I

    131
    will, therefore, be voting for the Government on this occasion.
    Mr. Percy Grieve: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) reiterated twice, though in a slightly different form, his view—and I quote the first time he said it—that the Commercial Court had only one purpose, which was to serve the needs of the commercial community. With that, nobody would join issue.
    However, the needs of the commercial community served by the Commercial Court must be subject to the overriding requirements of the administration of justice in the interests of the people of Britain as a whole. It is for this reason and because, in my submission, an inroad is being made into the principles in which we administer justice that I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) in urging that subsection (3) be deleted.
    I did not have the advantage of being a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I have read the debates which took place on that occasion, though I would not be so conceited to think that I could add greatly to the arguments which were adumbrated on both sides. I submit, however, that the subsection, and particularly paragraphs (a) and (b), are liable to grave objection. This applies particularly to paragraph (b), with which I will deal first.
    Already, by the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, trade secrets can be protected in litigation—but beyond that, how far should we go? Cases which come before the Commercial Court can, of course, be of varying importance and, in terms of money, of vary consequences. But among the cases which are likely to come before the court are those involving litigation between substantial public corporations where disputes have arisen in, for examples, such matters as takeover bids.
    In matters of this kind the public are greatly and seriously concerned, as are the shareholders of those companies. If the court were permitted, under rules made by the Rules Committee of the High Court, to sit in private when such a course was thought by the parties to be in their commercial interests, then one can
    132
    foresee a situation in which both sides might wish to have their cases litigated before the Commercal Court in private and behind closed doors because there were matters which they desired to conceal from their shareholders or from the public at large.
    There are many other reasons why we in this country have not merely paid lip service to, but have set on a pedestal, the cardinal principle that in our administration of the law, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. For the reason I have briefly outlined, the importance of which speaks for itself, there may be litigation before the Commercial Court where the importance of that principle is underlined and illustrated as being vitally necessary for the protection of the public.
    Paragraph (a) speaks of
    " a power to admit any evidence which would not otherwise be admissible under the law relating to evidence ".
    I am not one of those who thinks that our law of evidence is sacrosanct or should not be subject to change. Those of us who practice in the courts will have welcomed the changes in the law of evidence in the criminal courts initiated in 1938 and in the civil courts by the legislation of last year. There may be a case for even more radical reform of the law of evidence. but if such reform is necessary, it should be initiated and undertaken by Statute of Parliament and not by rules made by the Rules Committee.
    I say at once that I have the greatest respect for the Rules Committee. However, in my submission it is not the proper body to initiate changes which, although they are by definition are changes in adjective law, which nevertheless vitally and radically affect the rights of the subjects who are litigating because they are likely to affect the outcome of the litigation.
    If changes of this kind are to be made, they should be subject to two overriding principles; first, that such changes, if they are to be made at all, should be effected only by statute, and, secondly, that, once made, they should be universally applied throughout the civil courts and not merely in the Commercial Court. I earnestly ask the Attorney-General to think again about subsection (3).
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bruce Campbell: Our courts spend most of their time trying to ascertain where the truth is in a dispute. Some of them, particularly the higher courts—the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, spend some of their time ascertaining what the law is and then declaring how it is to be applied to a certain set of facts. But by and large the other courts throughout the land spend their time trying to discover the facts and where the truth lies.
    In doing this they are assisted by two rules. One is that the courts sit in public, and the other is that we have rules of evidence which must be complied with. Any relaxation of those two rules is bound to make it more difficult for courts to ascertain the truth, and therefore to do their proper job.
    If courts are allowed to sit in private, that does not simply mean that the public are not allowed in. The situation is much worse, because the Press are not allowed in. Whereas hardly anyone may bother to go to court and listen to a case, thousands of people may read the newspaper reports. It is because witnesses realise that what they say is not said behind closed doors, but may reach a very wide audience, that they are much more careful to tell the truth than they would otherwise be.
    Our rules of evidence are designed to assist the courts in ascertaining the truth, and they are wise rules. The two proposals we are considering, which will enable the courts not only to sit in private but also to ignore the rules of evidence, are a dangerous combination. Either is bad enough, but to have the two together is thoroughly dangerous. Inadmissible evidence, unreliable documents, hearsay evidence, will not only be allowed but will be given behind closed doors, so that no one, even afterwards, will be able to see whether it is sound evidence.
    That is a dangerous precedent which we should not allow. If it is important for the commercial gentlemen concerned to have certain of their evidence given in private, surely the existing provisions of the law are sufficient? Who are these people, that they think they should be in a special position to have courts which sit in private and can hear inadmissible evidence?
    134
    I must repeat, something which I must have said about 16 times since I entered the House, but which I shall go on saying whenever I have the opportunity so long as I have the privilege of remaining a Member, that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory to leave legislation of this kind to a rules committee. I have served on a rules committee and know what happens there. That is not a democratic body. It has draft rules put before it. I know that it is allowed to discuss them, but I also know that if the Lord Chancellor wants a rule in a certain form it must be in that form, even if all the other members of the rules committee want it otherwise, because, he has a veto and no rule would be passed unless he agreed to it. That means in effect that rules are made by the Lord Chancellor, by a Minister. When we are interferring with fundamental principles of law, as we are here, when we are saying that certain people may have their litigation in private and that the court may relax the rules of evidence in certain kinds of litigation, that is an interference with the existing state of our law that should be done by Parliament and by a Minister.
    Therefore, if we are to do this we should do it properly. I understand that it will be said that the rules, when they are made, will provide that only if both sides agree will the rules of evidence be relaxed, or the court sit in private. I do not know whether that will be in the rules. If the Government are so certain that it will, that fortifies my submission that it is the Minister who makes the rules, and not the rules committee.
    If the parties agree to it in private or to the relaxation of the rules of evidence, there cannot be so much objection. But as the Clause stands, there is nothing in it about consent. It will therefore be open for one litigant to say, "I want this hearsay evidence to be admitted ", but for the other to say, "No, I object". In face of that objection, the court will still be able to admit the evidence. We should not allow this but if we are to have such a provision then it is Parliament which should legislate about the conditions and not the Rules Committee.
    Mr. Daniel Awdry: I feel some trepidation about joining in, as a mere solicitor, a debate in which

    135
    so many learned counsel are taking part, but I dislike subsection (3) and support the Amendment. I did not take part in the debate in Committee on this issue, but I listened carefully to all the speeches, including the Attorney-General's. I did not find his case convincing then and I doubt whether I shall find it convincing now.
    My view is simple. If commercial parties want a private hearing, they should provide for it in an agreement to go to arbitration, and they can do this under Clause 4 before a High Court judge. It is common practice to provide in legal agreements that in the event of disagreement the parties can resort to arbitration. Many of us have often drawn up agreements on these lines—for example, for partnerships between doctors or solicitors. There are also leases and service agreements. In all kinds of commercial contract one can easily put in an arbitration clause.
    If there is no such provision in an agreement and there is a dispute, the matter should be argued out in public and judged in public. Despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, I believe that it is a fundamental principle of English law that justice should be administered in public and that we should never depart from that even if we join the Common Market. He said that if we wanted to join the Common Market we would have to get used to this type of legal arrangement. If we do join, then let it be understood that this is a fundamental principle which will remain a fundamental principle of English law.
    Most people involved prefer their cases to be heard in private. Those of us who act in court cases know that to be so. I have spent some time in dealing with domestic and divorce cases and obviously most parties in them would prefer their differences, many of which are of an intimate nature, to be heard in secret. Then there are cases relating to wills or other personal and private affairs. It is, however, the principle of our law that all cases should be heard in public and judgment given in public. Why should businessmen be treated differently?
    I can see no justice in this Clause. I find it utterly offensive and fundamentally wrong. It is clear that all hon. Members
    136
    who have spoken, with two exceptions, also feel it to be offensive. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are troubled on the issue. It is a vital issue, I support the Amendment and I hope that we shall get support from hon. Members opposite when we come to vote upon it.
    The Attorney-General: The proposals in Clause 3, which weare rightly discussing with great care and undoubted concern, are based on the proposition that it is proper to justify modifying, in the specialised area of commercial cases, the more general principles of presumptions which apply to other parts of the legal system. Down the centuries, common law has tended to decay and decline when it disregarded the needs of commerce and to thrive when it showed itself willing to change and adapt itself to meet those needs. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) reminded us in a speech which impressed me, in 1962 the powerful and representative Commercial Court Users' Conference indicated that businessmen tended to avoid litigation in the courts about their affairs because they disliked the formality and publicity of legal proceedings. Thus, they often take their disputes to arbitration instead of going to the courts.
    In the view of the Government, it is desirable for many reasons, legal and economic, national and international, that we should do what we can to attract commercial litigation into our courts. In genuine commercial cases, the desire of the business community for informality and privacy is legitimate, and it should be met so far as we can properly meet it. As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, as most proceedings are and must remain both formal and public, it is right that the special power in relation to the commercial court should be regarded as a limited experiment. That is why the Bill makes no substantive provisions on these points, but merely confers power on the Supreme Court Rules Committee to make such rules as it thinks fit. But the House in dealing with the Bill and in discussing these Amendments will be deciding the principle of the matter and the Rule Committee will have to fill in the details.
    In the interesting discussion on this Clause in Committee, I endeavoured to say why for historical and functional reasons commercial litigation was and

    137
    always had been a separate compartment of our legal system, ever since the days when the law merchant grew up in the Middle Ages, and it is a special term because of the specialised subject matter to be dealt with and because of the demand by the commercial community that its disputes should be decided as speedily as informally and as privately as possible. The Commercial Court Users' Conference, representing 21 separate institutions and industries, the F.B.I., trade organisations and so on concerned with a substantial portion of the international commerce of the country, stated unanimously that revision was necessary if the decline in the use of the commercial court was to be arrested and its greater use encouraged.
    Since 1962, the reasons why commercial litigation should be attracted to our courts have become stronger than ever. The settlement of commercial disputes is an important subsidiary service offered by any major financial and commercial centre, of which London is one. There are many competitors, as has been pointed out.
    The arguments which have been developed against giving our commercial community what it wants are not decisive. There are two aspects to the proposal in Clause 3(3)(a). The first deals with the rules of evidence and with the proposed power—to admit any evidence which would not otherwise be admissible under the law relating to evidence. That law has developed in the last two or three centuries during a period when juries tried almost all civil cases and when rules had to be created in the days when jurors were not as educated as now to prevent them from being over influenced by certain kinds of evidence, such as hearsay evidence, to which they might be disposed to give a disproportionate weight. The outcome has been a body of law of great complexity which has never ceased to confuse and astonish the layman from the days of Dickens when it was observed that what the soldier said was not evidence.
    Mr. Bruce Campbell: Would not the Attorney-General agree that if that is an argument for enabling the commercial court to sit in private and admit inadmissible evidence, it would apply equally to all other courts?
    The Attorney-General: I am dealing with the specific case and the specific special circumstances. This part of the work of the commercial court has always been separate from the general stream of our administration of justice. It is the case, as is said in Cross on evidence, that the tendency of the modern law is in favour of a broad basis of admissibility. In the various Evidence Acts which we have passed in recent years, that has been the trend, so there is nothing revolutionary in this.
    8.45 p.m.
    I do not go so far as the colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Sir J. Foster), who said that rules of evidence should be scrapped altogether because they are a subtle contrivance designed to prevent the court from learning in a given case what the truth is. But the issue about the admissibility of evidence is a practical one. It is nonsense to say that the retention of the law of evidence as it now stands is a fundamental principle of the constitution.
    But I would expect this power to be exercised only in a very narrow range of cases. The purpose of the provision would be, for instance, to allow documents and written statements to be used where appropriate as evidence instead of oral testimony and unsworn documents instead of sworn ones. The judges could be relied on not to make undue use of the power where it would clearly be inappropriate—for instance, where fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or where a party sought to put in hearsay statements by obviously biased persons. In any such case, the agreement of both parties would clearly be required. One can rely on the combination of the Rules Committee which will deal with this matter and the judges who will be administering the law in this court to see that any latitude in this field is not abused.
    Greater feeling was expressed about Clause 3(3)(b) dealing with the proposed power of the Commercial Court to sit in private. The development of our court proceedings has been on the lines that courts of law should usually sit in public but may in certain cases be allowed to sit in private. That is the way in which our law and its administration have developed. The question is, which cases

    139
    are or should be on which side of the line? I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that there is no great issue of principle here but only an issue of practical convenience.
    Parliament has tended during the decades to accept the view expressed by Lord Loreburn that a court should be able to sit in private where publicity would reasonably deter a litigant from proceeding. It appears to be the case, judging from the report of that conference in 1962, that commercial disputants have been so deterred from litigation by reason of the publicity of the proceedings.
    I should emphasise that it is contemplated that the Commercial Court should be able to sit in private only if all parties concerned want it to do so. So there is no question of a private hearing if anyone concerned wants the proceedings to take place in public.
    Mr. Grieve: But is not that precisely the danger—that the parties, both of them, may desire the court to sit in private because they have something to hide from the public which should not be hidden?
    The Attorney-General: The parties will decide whether or not to sit in private if they wish to do so, but of course they can go to arbitration now and arbitrate their differences. It is desirable that the Commercial Court should be the place where differences between commercial users are decided. To say, as was suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) that, if the parties want a private hearing, they should arbitrate—which they can do, of course, before the commercial judge under Clause 4, begs the question.
    The fundamental purpose of the courts is to do justice between the parties. The principle that they must normally do justice in public is a means to that end and not part of the end itself. In my submission it is in the public interest that this class of litigant should be able to bring his dispute before the court, and if he will not do so unless the case can, if necessary, be heard in private and the class of litigation involved is so specialised and distinct from other classes that there can be no danger to the general rule that the public interest usually requires the
    140
    courts to sit in public, I submit that it is reasonably clear that the first factor of the public interest outweighs the second.
    I want to deal briefly with a further point concerning the role played by the Rules Committee in this matter. The Rules Committee consists of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division —or the Family Division as it will hereafter be known—four other judges of the Supreme Court, two practising barristers and two practising solicitors, representing the Bar Council and the Law Society respectively.
    Some doubt has been cast upon the independence of this body. Although the Lord Chancellor has a veto over any rules that the rest of the Committee may propose he cannot make any rules to which they do not agree. There must be mutual consent. The advantage of dealing with this matter by rule, the House having decided on the principle—if the House rejects the Amendment— is that Parliament having laid down the broad framework of principle it is convenient for the Rules Committee to fill in the details by subordinate legislation which, in the fullness of time, will be under the supervision of the House.
    Accordingly, I submit that it is in the interests of London, as one of the world's great commercial centres—it is in the interests of our merchant, commercial and business community—that the latitude that Clause 1 contemplates for the Commercial Court should be part of our administration of justice.
    Sir P. Rawlinson: I regret to hear the Attorney-General reject the Amendment. He and those who supported him—the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)— dismissed this as an issue of principle. They dealt with it pragmatically, as a practical experience. That is what is at issue between us. We do not suggest for a moment that any changes in the rules of evidence are matters of fundamental constitutional importance; of course they are not. We have never suggested that, and nobody who supports the Amendment has done so. But we say that it is a matter of fundamental importance that justice should be public, and we are not willing to see an erosion of

    141
    that principle, purely and simply on the ground that these are special people, they want it, and we want their business. That is what is being said.
    Why are they so special? They are no more special than any other litigant. There is no great need for them to be given this privilege. Nearly every litigant who was asked about it would say, "I would much rather have all this dealt with privately". But what is the public interest in a dispute between two neighbours in an action for negligence? The public interest is not the issue between the parties. The public interest is the administration of justice, with the courts and the State dealing fairly between parties.
    That is the matter of principle involved. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dismissed this argument. I expected that his case would be based
    on the ground that this is purely what is needed and what is wanted—and we wanted to have this business. The Attorney-General ignores a matter of principle. If we start with this court, why not move to other courts? Why should not other Attorney-Generals hereafter say, "The principle has been accepted. Let us try it in other fields, because people want it because it will be more convenient"?
    I very much regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rejected the Amendment. I repeat, it is a matter of principle. For that reason, I propose to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take it to a Division.
    Question put,That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 104.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES

    [8.5 p.m.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Nott, John

    Astor, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Onslow, Cranley

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

    Grant, Anthony

    Peel, John

    Awdry, Daniel

    Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

    Percival, Ian

    Batsford, Brian

    Grieve, Percy

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gurden, Harold

    Pounder, Rafton

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Biffen, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Heald. Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Pym, Francis

    Body, Richard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Holland, Philip

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hunt, John

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roosi, Hugh(Hornsey)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Royal Antony

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kitson, Timothy

    Sharpies, Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Silvester, Frederick

    Clark, Henry

    Lambton, Antony

    Smith, John(Londan & W'minister)

    Clegg, Walter

    Lane, David

    Stainton Keith

    Cooke, Robert

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Corfield, F. V.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple, John M.

    Costain, A. P.

    McNair-Wllson, Michael

    Vaughan-Morgati, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Dance, James

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

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Dean, Paul

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

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Elliot, R.W.(N'C' tle-upon-Type, N.)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    More, Jasper

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fortescue, Tim

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Fry, Peter

    Murton, Oscar

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    Noes

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bessell, Peter

    Coleman, Donald

    Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Binns, John

    navies, Ifor (Gower)

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Bishop, E. S.

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Blackburn, F.

    Dewar, Donald

    Barnes, Michael

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dobson, Ray

    Barnett, Joel

    Booth, Albert

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

    Baxter, William

    Boston, Terence

    Eadie, Alex

    Beaney, Alan

    Brooks, Edwin

    Ellis, John

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

    Loughlin, Charles

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Fernyhough, E,

    McBride, Neil

    Rankin, John

    Finch, Harold

    McCann, John

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    MacColl, James

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Ryan, John

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McGuire, Michael

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Silverman, Julius

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Snow, Julian

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mackie, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Harper, Joseph

    Maclennan, Robert

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hazell, Bert

    Mapp, Charles

    Symonds, J. B.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Tinn, James

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Hooley, Frank

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hunter, Adam

    Moyle, Roland

    Whitlock, William

    Hynd, John

    Newens, Stan

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

    Oram, Bert

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Orme, Stanley

    Woof, Robert

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Judd, Frank

    Padley, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lawson, George

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Mr. J. D. Concannon and

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    The Attorney-General: The verdict of the House having been given against subsection (3) of Clause 3, it is necessary to consider the technical consequences to the rest of the Clause which was intended to benefit the commercial and business community of London. Subsection (4) is entirely dependent on subsection (3) and has no meaning whatsoever without it.
    I therefore beg leave to move a manuscript Amendment in the following terms: in page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, "That the Amendment be made."
    Sir P. Rawlinson: Amendment No. 2 has been carried and this has had a considerable effect upon the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was rising on a point of order.
    Sir P. Rawlinson: Then I rise on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and address myself to you and not to the House. The Bill deals with several subject matters and this subsection is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The elimination of the subsection has consequences on other Clauses and affects the whole Part I of the Bill. The proper course is for the House to adjourn to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity to consider what to do with the rest of the Bill. It would not be satisfactory to consider here a
    144
    manuscript amendment on a very important Bill. I therefore submit that further consideration of the Bill should now be adjourned.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not moved the correct Motion. The Motion should be, "That the debate be now adjourned."
    Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move.
    That the debate be now adjourned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

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

    NEW FOREST [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the New Forest, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,

    (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided—

    (i) under section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act 1919, section 236 of the Highways Act 1959 or section 5 of the Countryside Act 1968; or

    (ii) by way of rate support grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland. —[Mr. Concannon.]

    LONDON (HEATHROW) AIRPORT (MONITORING OF AIRCRAFT NOISE)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Barnes: I am grateful to have the opportunity of discussing on the Adjournment the arrangements for monitoring aircraft noise at London Airport—[Interruption.]—although it has come rather earlier than I had anticipated—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment. I want to hear him.
    Mr. Barnes: I want to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of State upon the progress which has been made with noise certification in respect of new jet aircraft coming into service. This is undoubtedly the way in which the problem of aircraft noise has to be tackled in the future. However. in saying that, one must remember that the benefits of noise certification are very much in the future. Existing aircraft, especially some of the noisier jet aircraft such as the Boeing 707 and the VC10, will be in service for a long time to come. If we are to control the amount of noise made by those aircraft, it will only be done by forcing them to conform to standards and making sure that the monitoring of those standards is effective.
    I propose to concentrate on the noise created by aircraft arriving at London Airport rather than by those taking off. That is not to say that the noise caused by aircraft taking off is less serious than that caused by aircraft arriving. In fact,
    146
    the former noise is much more acute, though in the main, only people living fairly near Heathrow are affected, because aircraft climb away quite steeply after take-off. However, those affected by it suffer tremendous disturbance, and perhaps I might refer in passing to the increased noise which has been suffered by people living in the Englefield Green area since the introduction of new routes last March. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this, since he gave me a reassuring answer to a Question last March about the beneficial effect that the new routes were likely to have on that area. That assurance does not seem to have been borne out in the event, and I hope that he will look at the problem again.
    I come now to the main problem with which I want to deal, and that is the noise caused by aircraft as they approach and land at Heathrow. The present system of monitoring consists of a check on about 5 per cent. of all arrivals. The proportion of infringements which the Board of Trade found in the last quarter of 1969 amounted to 0· 3 per cent. This, of course, is a very small number of infringements and one to which the Board of Trade gives considerable publicity, but because this is a measurement of the percentage of deviations from the three-degree glide slope into London Airport it is rather misleading because it is not very meaningful.
    The glide slope is a three-degree angle up from the runway at Heathrow. Aircraft normally intercept this glide slope at a distance of between five and seven nautical miles from the point of touchdown. That, roughly, is the distance of my constituency from Heathrow. In the case of aircraft which join the glide slope at the nearer limit of five nautical miles from touchdown, this could be over Brentford. This means that there is no check on the behaviour of aircraft when they are further out, over Chiswick, which is next door to Brentford, Hammersmith, Putney, Chelsea or other areas of West London affected by aircraft when they are arriving at Heathrow in a westerly direction. Because there is no check on behaviour of aircraft coming in further away there is no check on the amount of noise they are creating.
    When aircraft join the glide path at the further limit, Chiswick would be

    147
    covered because it is about seven nautical miles from Heathrow, but again it would mean that those other areas of West London to which I have referred were not covered by this measurement. The first reason I have for saying that the present system of measuring the noise of arriving aircraft is not very meaningful is therefore that it tells us nothing about the amount of noise which people who live just outside the points at which aircraft join the glide slope have to put up with.
    The second reason is that, once aircraft have locked on to this three-degrees angle of slope to Heathrow, it would be rather bad, if not dangerous, flying to deviate from that three-degree glide slope. This is why the figures which the Board of Trade publishes are so infinitesimal, 0· 3 per cent. or 0· 2 per cent. whatever they average at present. If this is meant to be a measurement of the amount of disturbance which people immediately under the glide slope are suffering say in Isle-worth, Heston or Hounslow immediately near the airport, it is pretty inevitable and there will be only marginal deviations.
    What is much more relevant is the height at which aircraft are flying when they join the glide slope, because they will fly at that height for some distance before intercepting the glide slope and will be at that height over a considerable area of West London. The impression has been given, certainly the impression which the Parliamentary Commissioner got in the report published in 1967, which is the same impression as that given by the Board of Trade booklet "Action Against Aircraft Noise" published last year, is that aircraft do not join the glide slope at a height of less than 2,000 ft. Although that impression has been given, from correspondence I had with the Board of Trade, and which a constituent has had recently with the Board of Trade, it is clear that aircraft joining the glide slope at the nearer limit of five nautical miles from the point of touchdown join at a height of 1,500 ft. They therefore will be flying over my constituency at 1,500 ft. and they will be at a correspondingly lower level over the whole of the rest of the West London area about which I have been talking.
    148
    This point is illustrated in a letter which this constituent of mine received from Mr. Arthur Vine of the Board of Trade. Mr. Vine said at one point in his letter:
    " The ideal turn on point "—
    that is the turn on point to the glide slope—
    " is 7 nautical miles out, but at busier periods some have to be turned on closer in, and may thus cross Chiswick at 1,500 ft. instead of rather higher."
    The question which is in the minds of my constituents is: how often does this happen? The impression people have in Brentford and Chiswick is that, particularly in the summer, particularly at the busy points in the year, particularly at the time of the year which we are just approaching, this is happening increasingly frequently. One does not need to live under the approach to London Airport for long to be able to judge fairly accurately when an aircraft comes over at 500 ft. or so lower than most other aircraft do.
    My right hon. Friend told me in reply to a Question on 25th March that the number of aircraft intercepting the glide slope at a height of 1,500 ft. rather than 2,000 ft. was of the order of 2 per cent. My right hon. Friend would find it hard to convince my constituents of that.
    The same constituent received a letter from Mr. J. D. Lay of the Civil Aviation Divisional Office of the Board of Trade at Heston Aerodrome, saying:
    "It may therefore be that the aircraft to which you refer were being turned on to the extended centre line of the runway at about six miles "—
    Mr. Lay is using ordinary miles, not nautical miles, I think—
    " and were therefore cleared to descend to 1,500 ft. although the more normal procedure is for aircraft to join the glide path at anything from 8 miles out."
    It is fair to say that the implication of Mr. Vine's letter and of Mr. Lay's letter is that this turning on to the glide slope of aircraft at the nearer limit to the point of touchdown probably happens much more often than the figure 2 per cent. would suggest. Mr. Lay talks about "the more normal procedure" being
    "for airacraft to join the glide slope"
    further out. It one were talking about 98 per cent. as opposed to 2 per cent., one would hardly use the words "the

    149
    more normal", although one might use that phrase if the figures one was talking about were 60 per cent. as opposed to 40 per cent. or 75 per cent. as opposed to 25 per cent.
    My constituents will require much more evidence and much more convincing from my right hon. Friend if he is to get them to accept that the figure of 2 per cent. is the real figure. Nor would they accept that the aircraft that join the glide slope nearer in and which therefore fly at the lower level of 1,500 ft. are the more old-fashioned propeller-driven type aircraft. The daily evidence that people living in this part of London have is that jet aircraft— 707s and VCIOs—can be seen coming in clearly at a lower level than most other arrivals.
    We know that Heathrow will become much busier with each year that passes and will continue to become busier until London gets its third airport. Presumably as Heathrow becomes busier this will entail more and more aircraft joining the glide slope at this nearer limit of 5 nautical miles out and, therefore, flying over West London at the lower level of 1,500 ft. rather than 2,000 ft. I put it to my hon. Friend that as it becomes clear to people living in the area that this is what is happening, the present system of monitoring the noise caused by arriving aircraft will seem very inadequate.
    The Parliamentary Commissioner, in his report in 1967, was fairly critical of the way in which the monitoring of arriving aircraft is carried out. I suggest that the time has now come to try to improve this system for monitoring arriving aircraft. I am therefore asking my hon. Friend whether he will institute a height check of a similar percentage of arriving aircraft prior to interception with the three degree glide slope, as well as the glide slope measurement itself. My hon. Friend would then have the figures that he needs to exercise the control that, in my view, definitely needs to be exercised over the number of aircraft which are permitted to fly over West London before reaching the glide slope at this level of 1,500 ft.
    It is not just the operators, the airlines, who need to be controlled and supervised in this way. Air traffic control itself really needs controlling in the number of flights that it is permitted to
    150
    instruct to join the glide slope at the nearer point to Heathrow and which, therefore, necessitate aircraft coming in at 1,500 ft. instead of 2,000 ft.
    My hon. Friend has a very difficult task here. He is not just air traffic controller, in one sense, himself. The other very important part of his job is to control what the air traffic controllers are allowed to do. I therefore suggest that if the situation in the future, as Heathrow becomes busier, is not to become intolerable for people living in this part of London, it is necessary to have a height check of this kind. This would make the whole system of monitoring arrivals much more foolproof than it is at the moment. It is something for which all those who live in this part of West London and who have to endure this problem day by day and night by night would be grateful, if the Government could agree to institute it, because they would feel that their interests were being looked after much better than they feel is happening at present.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: Far be it for me to complain when we get a bonus of this kind and an unexpected opportunity to debate a matter of such close interest to our hearts, but it would have been nice to have a bit of warning. I had hoped to intervene briefly in this Adjournment debate which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) was lucky to get, but I thought that I could safely wait a little while to collect my notes and prepare my speech. As it is, I can promise the Minister that I shall not detain him very long tonight.
    I take issue with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick on a couple of points. He said that he believed that Heathrow would continue to get busier until London's third airport was constructed. It would be much more true to say that Heathrow will continue to get busier for another four years and that then it will not get any busier because it will have become saturated. When London's third airport exists, Heathrow will not become less busy. It will remain precisely as busy then as it will be by 1974. There is no comfort in the advent of London's third airport in the sense that the hon. Gentleman implied, namely, that it will mean a sudden slackening in the pace at Heathrow.

    151
    It is important that people should understand the true dimensions of the problem. There is no future date at which we can say there will be fewer aircraft coming into Heathrow. What we can look forward to is the date when aircraft coming into Heathrow will be a great deal quieter than they are now.
    The second point on which I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is his statement that there is a small number of tribesmen living in a place called Englefield Green, who are the only people who care about noise made by aircraft taking off. I can assure him that there are other remote hill areas stretching, for example, from West Byfleet to Camberley where noise made at the time of take-off is much resented by some of the population and can scarcely avoid being noticed by the rest of us who live nearby.
    Having had some experience of living under take-off and approach paths, I assure the House that the intensity of noise at the take-off end is greater; and I hope that nobody feels that the noise level experienced at Chiswick is necessarily the same as the noise level experienced at, say, Chobham, where I happen to live.
    I am nevertheless grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this subject, and there are a number of questions which I hope the Minister will answer. First, when we talk about the nuisance which aircraft can cause—and there is no doubt that excessive noise from aircraft is a nuisance—we might just as well include the question of smoke emission by aircraft. It seems that this is becoming a more serious problem as time goes by. Perhaps, in due course, the Minister will explain what control procedures he has under consideration.
    Secondly, the Minister has instituted a monitoring system for take-offs, and this is particularly useful in seeing that there are not infringements by night, when infringements are most offensive. Recently I asked a Question on this particular issue and, in his answer, the Minister gave some details of the airlines which are the principal offenders in this repect. He also gave cases where the infringements could be attributed to work on runways or resulting from weather conditions, and these obviously mitigate the offence in those instances.
    152
    When all due allowance has been made, it still seems to me that one or two airlines are offending more frequently than they should. What happens when there are infringements? Is the pilot responsible asked to explain why his aircraft made more noise than it should have made? What, if any, disciplinary action is taken when a pilot commits this offence? I understand that in, for example, New York when there has been an infringement the pilot must go through a form of inquisition to discover the cause of the offence.
    I know that the Minister is anxious, wherever possible, to minimise the inevitable disturbance caused by aircraft taking off, and is making a number of rearrangements of routes so that they will fly over relatively uninhabited country. The minimum noise route is an attractive idea in principle, but he would be ill-advised to over-sell this idea, for two basic reasons.
    First, the idea that all aircraft follow a fairly precise and narrow path is erroneous. I am glad that this is so, because the Ministry keeps on moving one of its centre lines nearer to my house. It now has about 400 yards to go before the line goes slap over my roof top.
    Fortunately, the actual track of an aircraft following this centre line may vary by half a mile or more in either direction, perhaps because the navigation procedure is not perfect or simply because it is necessary to get that right lateral separation between aircraft taking off at different speeds. There is, therefore, bound to be a degree of diffusion of the path, though this does raise a perplexity in the mind of the public when they see aircraft in places where they do not expect to see them.
    Second, minimum noise routes make sense only in the context of most-noisy aeroplanes. There is not much point in forcing a Viscount, a Vanguard or some of the other turbo-prop types still in service, or some of the relatively less noisy straight jet types, to follow minimum noise routes, because they will not be noisy anyway. They should have a greater degree of freedom in the route they follow. Minimum noise routes should be confined to the types, which hon. Members can probably identify without my naming them, which really rattle our windows. Those are the ones

    153
    to which restrictions should be most closely applied.
    The sooner we can move towards a system of area navigation, the better it will be, because then there will be much more possibility of diffusing the whole pattern of aircraft movements and spreading the burden of noise more evenly over a larger area and a larger number of people. This may sound very unattractive, but when I say that I am faced with some indignation at one end of my constituency because of a possible re-routing that should halve the amount of aircraft noise at the other end, the Minister will understand that the problem is likely to be most easy of solution if we accept that the noise should be fairly spread. It would be wrong in principle to put the whole burden of aircraft noise on to a small number of people, and it indeed is almost impossible to do so.
    I think that everyone is prepared to put up with a reasonable amount of noise if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to limit the period of time he has to suffer it, and if he is taken into the Minister's confidence before changes affecting him are made. When the Minister is considering, as I think he is now, changes of route use and of direction— for example, increased use of the Woodley-Midhurst route or another shifting of the route over Chobham Common—he has nothing to lose by telling the local authorities, "This is what I intend to do. Are there any observations you would like to make before I finally make up my mind?". If he did that, if he was prepared to have his Department represented at public meetings where the matter could be discussed, his representative might have a moderately rough passage, but I believe that where his case can be shown to be good—and I think that the Minister would feel that his changes were for the better and therefore that the case was good—it would be very much in the public interest and the interest of his Department that there should be the widest possible diffusion of knowledge about his intentions and their consequences before a final decision was taken.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Does not my hon. Friend also think that it would be a very good thing if the Minister himself could attend such
    154
    a meeting and answer questions, which are highly political in tone and would be difficult for one of his officials to answer?
    Mr. Onslow: I can assure the Minister that I would make him welcome at any time in my constituency, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) would do the same.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on speaking so strongly and firmly for his constituents. What he has said is bound to give those of us who have been interested in the progress of aviation for many years plenty to think about. The speed of development of this mode of transport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will assist the Chair and the reporters if the hon. Gentleman addresses his hon. Friend through the Chair and not directly.
    Mr. Rankin: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. My action was purely involuntary.
    My hon. Friend will be fully aware of the speed with which this method of transport has come upon us. I can still vividly recollect the days, not so long ago, when I travelled between Glasgow and London at 90 miles an hour in an aircraft which was always full of people. It was not hard to fill it because it carried only about 10 passengers. Today, the speed of transit on that same route is 600 miles per hour and the journey, which took three and a quarter hours seemingly only a short time ago, now takes 54 minutes. That represents progress, but to attain that progress we had to get an engine which would provide sufficient power to drive the aircraft through the air at a rate which would enable it to do the journey in the 54 minutes it now takes. That power cannot be dissociated from noise.
    This situation led to the reaction which came from the people who were still grounded below. They complained, naturally, perhaps at times a little vociferously about the inconvenience of incoming and departing aircraft noise. They suffered. This naturally set the engineer and the technician working to try to produce an engine with power sufficient to maintain a speed of 600 miles an hour

    155
    while creating less noise. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the RB211 which is doing the job on our national routes approximates to the idea of how we can control this speed which those who now use aircraft in increasing numbers desire to attain and maintain in their journeys.
    Without detracting from the case my hon. Friend has so well put forward, I should point out that noise is something which we get not merely from the air and the aero engine. Around airports, I have heard more shattering noises from motor bicycles than I have yet to hear from an aircraft, and if we are to deal with the problem of noise we have to do so as a problem germane to the type of society in which we live. It is not merely a localised problem of the air, caused by descending or ascending aircraft, but one which is part and parcel of the desire of people to proceed between two points with the greatest possible speed. Whether by air or by road, noise is part and parcel of that development. If we are fair, we will admit that we get as much noise from some road vehicles as we get from aircraft, and while my hon. Friend the Minister of State may not have the same responsibility for road transport as he has for air transport, nevertheless I hope that he will not forget that the noise problem extends beyond aircraft.
    Only a few weeks ago, when watching aircraft taking off from London Airport, I first became aware of the amount of pollution caused by some of them. This, too, is associated with power. I assume that it is associated with power not being fully utilised. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick will agree that pollution which derives from speed also deserves the Minister's urgent attention.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on initiating this Adjournment debate. Little did he imagine when he put his name forward that he would provide an opportunity to his colleagues from other parts of the western area of London and on the other side of the river to take part in debating this subject which is
    156
    of such great importance to all residents of the area under the glide path to London Airport. Because the Government were defeated by a majority of one tonight, there is this opportunity which has given pleasure to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who make such a skilful and able speech on behalf of his constituents, and to hon. Members opposite who, although deriving no pleasure from being defeated by the Opposition by a majority of one, will have derived pleasure from taking part in a non-political issue affecting everybody who lives near a major airport, whether Conservatives, Liberals or Members of the Labour Party.
    I fully support what the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick said about the importance of a height check before aircraft join the glidepath, or the glide slope, which 1 gather now is the "with-it" term for what was always called the glidepath. Many aircraft joining the glide slope near Hammersmith Bridge on the edge of my constituency often put on more power to climb, having reached the glidepath, thereby causing more noise. Although they are checked six to eight miles out from the threshold of the runway, many aircraft appear to be climbing to make height, having lost it when originally joining the glide slope at too low height.
    Another aspect which is audible in part of my constituency over Kew Gardens, which is a national park but where there are nevertheless many residents— incidentally, at this point aircraft are liable to cause nuisance in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick on the other side of the river—is that many aircraft lower their landing gear and their flaps. This entails an increase in power which again makes more noise. This has created a great deal of disturbance and nuisance over the past few years. I am not sure that there is an easy answer to the latter difficulty, but there is to the former, which is to monitor aircraft before they actually join the glide slope. On this rather technical aspect, I firmly align myself, as I do on all matters connected with aircraft noise, with the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is a very old friend

    157
    of mine on other subjects, always takes part in aviation debates and is a distinguished member of the Labour Party's Aviation Committee. But he does not represent an area affected by aircraft noise to the same extent as the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick and myself—
    Mr. Rankin: May I correct the hon. Gentleman's impression? In my Glasgow home I sleep under the path on which an aircraft glides into Glasgow Airport. For a long while I was in the same situation in London.
    Mr. Royle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman suffers to the same extent as my constituents, although I am worried that he should talk of aircraft "gliding" into Glasgow. My constituents and 1 only wish that our aircraft would "glide" into London Airport with the soundlessness which that word suggests rather than joining a glide path, which is not the same thing at all.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a question dear to my heart, that of smoke pollution. The Minister has taken a particular interest in this. I get very depressed about the time that the Board of Trade seems to be taking to investigate this problem. Last month, we had a debate about aircraft noise and I mentioned pollution. Because of shortage of time, the Minister could not answer in detail, so I tabled a Question on 23rd April, to ask whether he would include smoke pollution in the Order which was to be debated and which now provides that aircraft approaching major international airports should reach certain standards of noise reduction before being allowed to land.
    The Minister answered my Question in the following terms:
    " Research in this country and abroad has indicated that, even near major airports, aircraft exhausts cause less than I per cent. of total atmospheric pollution. If further research investigation should show the need for, and practicability of, establishing smoke standards for aircraft, I shall not hesitate to seek the necessary powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd April, 1970; Vol. 800, c.161–2]
    Naturally, I welcome that assurance from a Minister, who is very worried about this matter, but why is it taking so long? The Americans are already bringing in regulations for smoke pollution and have done their homework. Why should we
    158
    take so much longer to realise that pollution is caused beneath the glide-path of big jet aircraft landing at major airports?
    We all know that noise from aircraft coming down the glide slope is not caused by the rear end of the engines, which causes the major noise when an aircraft takes off, but by the front end. This is why the noise from the VC10 is more than the noise on landing from an aircraft like the Comet, in which the engines are set back into the wings so that there is coverage at the front of the engine. But the pollution is caused by the smoke coming from the rear of a jet engine.
    Although Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and other major engine developers, both in this country and the United States—
    It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
    Mr. Royle: Although the major engine developers are working very hard on research in this matter, I feel that this country is lagging behind the Americans in trying to discover how extensive is the pollution caused by aircraft flying into the major airports.
    Mr. Onslow: It may encourage my hon. Friend to know that I spent part of today at Heathrow, seeing this problem at first hand, and was told that the amount of smoke emitted by American engines is significantly greater than that emitted by Rolls-Royce engines.
    Mr. Royle: That confirms my argument. Unfortunately, aircraft with American engines are landing at Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick. They are causing significant pollution to fall upon the houses and property of residents. I am glad to have my point confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and to know that Rolls-Royce engines are causing significantly less pollution than are American engines. But that does not alter the fact that American engines are causing pollution in this country, and that the American Government and the F.A.A. are taking measures to deal with the problem by

    159
    way of fairly stiff regulations. Our Government is not.
    The time has come for Ministers to think again about this matter and for the United Kingdom to take action to deal with smoke pollution caused by aircraft landing at our international airports. The Minister knows that I have a bee in my bonnet on this subject.
    Mr. Rankin: A wasp.
    Mr. Royle: It is a wasp—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan says. I shall keep it buzzing round the Minister's head until he produces an answer.
    We have plenty of time tonight. I know that the Minister wishes to give a long and detailed reply to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, but I want to mention another factor that gives me cause for grave concern. Those of us who have the honour to represent areas near our great airports and in the outer areas of London are extremely concerned about the safety problem. Never in the ten years that I have been in the House have I pressed Ministers, of whatever political party, to take action concerning aircraft noise that would in any way endanger the safety of aircraft or the safety of those living below the glide path or the take-off routes from London airport. I know that no Minister, of whatever party, would ever take such action. I also know that no pilot would ever endanger his aircraft simply in order to carry out noise regulations. I welcome that fact. I would not wish him to do so. At the same time, I am very concerned about the latest figures relating to air misses. I read that between 1963 and 1969 there have been nine air misses—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that we are on the Adjournment, but an hon. Member has chosen as our subject the monitoring of aircraft noise.
    Mr. Royle: I realise that, Mr. Speaker, but the monitoring of aircraft noise is closely linked with the subject of air safety because some people—they are few and far between—would like action taken on aircraft noise which might or could endanger the safety of the aircraft, or people living below. I wish to make
    160
    it plain that I want no part of this, nor do any of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister would like me to make that clear.
    The subject of air misses very much concerns the question of our debate tonight. If a major accident took place either over the glidepath or the area covered by the take-off from London Airport it might result in a tragedy on a scale that is not sufficiently realised. I wish to stress that those of us who represent constituencies around airports are very much aware of this fact. It gives all of us—and I am sure that 1 can speak also for the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick—great concern that we should hear so often of many air misses taking place in the London traffic control area.
    I have the utmost confidence in the air traffic controllers at London Airport. They are of extremely high calibre, dedicated to their task and their work and they are of an ability second to none in the world today, dealing with a high ratio of international traffic at London Airport.
    I also have the highest regard for the Minister's officials at the Board of Trade who look after this side of the Department. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will at no time cease to keep public opinion aware of the action which he is taking to make certain that no such tragedy, which many of us fear could occur in the London area, ever takes place. I am sure, and I hope and pray, that it never will, but it can be avoided only by the utmost vigilance by the Minister, by his officials and by the people employed in handling air traffic control in the London air traffic control zone and area.
    I conclude by stressing again to the Minister the great concern which is felt by so many people living in London about the extent of noise from aircraft, pollution caused by smoke from their engines and also the background feeling, which is there the whole time, of the possible danger as well. This noise seems to increase year by year. I know that the Minister, his officials and his Department are doing all they can to try to find methods to reduce this noise. It is equally important that the public should know what is taking place. It is equally important that the Minister

    161
    should put over to the public the steps that he and his officials are taking. I beg him to realise that many of the residents who live near our major airports are finding life becoming rapidly more and more intolerable.
    Whilst the "with-it" and "in" subject today is pollution and dealing with the environment—that is the sort of subject which, I gather, has replaced Vietnam on the campuses of American universities as the "in" subject—I assure you, Mr. Speaker, who yourself live in an area which is polluted by aircraft noise, that all of us realise what an "in" subject this is here in London. I hope that the Minister will be able tonight to give more hope to those living in the London area who suffer from aircraft noise that there is some prospect that in the future this noise will be reduced.
    10.8 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I rise at this point, although I would have been glad to give way to any other hon. Member who might wish to intervene in the debate, because so much of such importance has been said in the various speeches to which I have listened that I should like, with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), to refer to some of the points made by others than himself.
    We all listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said. I assure him that I have taken close note of every point he has made. I agree with him, for instance, that it is necessary to remind people that the intensity of noise at take-off is, or can be, much more than at the points which are undoubtedly troubled by arrival aircraft. This is not to say that the latter kind of nuisance is not very substantial, but I think this is a point we ought to keep in mind.
    Mr. Speaker: I apogolise to the Minister for interrupting, but will he speak up a little?
    Mr. Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am suffering under the difficulty of a cold.
    The hon. Member, like his hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), mentioned the question of
    162
    pollution. I am very glad to repeat my own concern about this problem. The fact is that at the moment it is, as compared with pollution emitted by other forms of public transport, very small indeed, something like 1 per cent., as compared with 98 per cent. emitted from road transport. This does not, to my mind, in any way mitigate the actual or the potential danger of this form of pollution, and I want to give this assurance once more, that the necessary research is certainly continuing in this country, in the volume and with the purpose hon. Members on both sides of the House, though perhaps especially the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, would wish to see it done.
    The hon. Member raised the point about the United States having outstripped us in regulating this aspect of aircraft hazard—for pollution certainly is a hazard. They have not yet, of course. introduced regulations. The Federal Aviation Administration has published what it calls "Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making" which asks questions about standards for pollution without giving any answers. Research is proceeding in both countries, but it would be premature to engage in drawing up regulations, certainly by order in the way which has been suggested. I would assure hon. Members that the pace of research and action in the two countries is by no means disparate, and, indeed, we learn from each other. In relation to the recent order which we jointly carried through this House, I would suggest that it would not have been appropriate to have included a reference to pollution in that order, but once more I say that we do not rule out the possibility of a separate order dealing with pollution as soon as it is clear that it is of a dimension which needs to be treated in this way, and that action is necessary and, at that point, appropriate.
    The hon. Member for Woking gave his views on minimum noise routes and the question of diffusion. I am not without sympathy with this view. There are two schools of thought, as he knows. It is very difficult to strike a balance between the two. At the moment we incline to concentration, but in no dogmatic way. He mentioned a route about which I am considering certain adjustments. I am constantly trying to inform

    163
    myself as to the relative advantages of concentration and diffusion and certainly have no closed mind on that matter. I think that we in this country perhaps proceed best by pragmatism, trying to get the best of two policies. This is the way my mind is working at the moment.
    In regard to consultation, I thought I was fairly forthcoming when I replied to the hon. Member's Question on this. I would wish to engage in as full consultation as possible when announcing any change or adjustment of routes.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about what sanctions are applied to pilots who infringe noise regulations. I am advised that, first, officials seek explanations from the airline. The result may be a revision of take-off procedure or a rebuke for the pilot, but any disciplinary action is for the airline and an infringement does not constitute an offence at law. The ultimate sanction would be to deny the use of the airport to the airline that was a persistent offender through its pilots.
    Turning to my hon. Friend's closely argued speech, the noise monitoring of jet aircraft taking off from Heathrow is an important part of the arrangements for verifying compliance with the operational requirements for aircraft using the airport that are laid down for the purpose of noise abatement. Monitoring arrangements are related to the procedures that aircraft must follow to comply with requirements made by the Board of Trade and published in the United Kingdom Air Pilot by virtue of the powers we have under Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965. It may be helpful if I summarise and explain the relevant requirements so that the role of monitoring compliance with them can be clearly seen. I will deal first with noise monitoring at take-off, and I know my hon. Friend dwelt mostly on noise arising from arrival.
    The first requirement is that a jet aircraft taking off from Heathrow must be operated in such a manner that it attains a height of not less than 1,000 ft. before it reaches the first community under its flight path, that is, when it passes the relevant noise monitoring point. Second, the noise level at that monitoring point must not exceed 110 perceived noise
    164
    decibels by day or 102 PNdB by night, Third, jet aircraft must thereafter, after attaining this height of 1,000 ft. climb at not less than 500 ft. a minute at power settings calculated to cause a progressively decreasing noise level on the ground under its flight path.
    These are the basic requirements to limit the noise at specified noise-sensitive points around the airport under or close to the take-off paths. The monitoring points are chosen with one objective in mind—the protection of the first significant built-up area reached after leaving the airport. Of course, they are closest to the aircraft at its noisiest. It is these communities which otherwise would suffer from excessively high levels of noise generated by aircraft climbing on full power, and to meet these requirements airlines have to work out procedures appropriate to the type of aircraft and the runway in question. Normally the procedures involve a deliberate cut back in power, once the safe altitude of 1,000 feet has been achieved, immediately before the monitoring point. Also, a maximum weight often has to be specified for loading the aircraft which is below its airworthiness maximum.
    I am sure many hon. Members have had the experience on transatlantic flights of making an unscheduled landing at Shannon. They may not always have realised that this stop is sometimes necessary because of the noise limits we impose which has meant that the aircraft cannot comply if it has on board all the fuel needed for the full journey. The type of aircraft, the runway and the load must be taken into account in indicating how the aircraft proceeds on take-off. Monitoring does no more than ensure that these limits are not exceeded and that these requirements are complied with. It does not make the aircraft quieter. The noise monitoring arrangements apply only to jet aircraft taking off, when there is a choice of loading and power settings and we can therefore lay down that that choice will be exercised in favour of the people on the ground who would otherwise suffer excessive disturbance. The same choice of operational procedures is not available when aircraft are on the approach to landing. It is to the landing phase of flight that my hon. Friend addressed himself and to which I shall now turn.

    165
    In the first place, all large public transport aircraft on approach follow, for safety reasons, standard approach procedures which are basically related to the radio beams of the instrument landing system to bring them down to the point where they touch down on the runway. Aircraft need to be lined up on the extended centreline of the runway at some distance from the airport on the directional radio beam before they commence a constant rate of descent along the straight line of the glide slope. This means that there can be no variation of rates of descent, or of routes, in the later stages of approach to landing. The choice for a given runway is limited to the rate of descent that is not too steep to be unsafe for modern high performance aircraft and not so shallow that it would allow prolonged flight at low altitude over congested areas. I.C.A.O. has recommended standardisation on a 2½ degree angle of approach. We have nevertheless retained 3 degrees as the standard. This gives better protection from disturbance to people under the glide path.
    On approach, therefore, the requirement calls for strict adherence to the angle of the glide slope, in contrast to the more flexible situation for aircraft taking off. The noisiness of any given aircraft is a function of the height and the power setting. Once the glide slope has been engaged there is very little that can be done to reduce noise. No meaningful noise level could be imposed and monitored, and all the measuring in the world would not, alas, reduce the noise. Instead we undertake sample height monitoring along the glide slope itself to maintain a check that aircraft are on it. As the requirement relates to height—it could not meaningfully be otherwise—so the monitoring of this phase of flight relates to height.
    We also seek to reduce the disturbance further away from the airport caused by aircraft coming in to land in the stages before they are fixed on to the final approach. Here the purpose is to keep aircraft as high as possible before joining the glide slope, but without causing aircraft unnecessarily to follow longer flight paths over built-up areas. Even here we are, however, under certain constraints. The air traffic control system, and the needs of a busy airport to accommodate large volumes of traffic, means that air-
    166
    craft must be sequenced on to the final approach, often when they differ widely in performance and are coming in at different times and from different directions. We have therefore made a general requirement that, unless otherwise directed by A.T.C., aircraft may not descend below 2,000 feet before joining the glide slope. In the most common mode of operations at Heathrow, where westerly winds prevail some 70 per cent. of the time, this means that aircraft will normally join the glide slope to the east of a point at least six nautical miles from touchdown, or roughly over Mortlake or Chiswick.
    Mr. A. Royle: If the aircraft is below that correct height of 2,000 feet when it joins the glide slope—let us say that it is at 1,800 feet—and then puts on power to get to the correct height, what check is there at the moment that that is taking place?
    Mr. Roberts: The monitoring would indicate this. I would say that the variation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman of 200 feet is not usual, but it happens. In that event, the aircraft has to climb at a higher set of power, and that causes extra noise. I am coming on to height monitoring, and I will indicate what has been done along the glide slope. The point may become a little more clear to the hon. Gentleman when I get on to that part of my speech.
    A very few aircraft, mainly pistonengined light aircraft which are too slow to fit compatibly into this sequence, are fed in at about 1,500 feet., which means over Isleworth or the extreme southwest of Brentford. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey was not referring to those aircraft but rather to the legitimately deviated larger plane which, for quite sound reasons, is flying below 2,000 ft.
    When aircraft are brought on to the glide slope further away, either because they are approaching from directions to the east of London which would in any case take them over more central parts of London, or because they have to be taken round under radar control on longer paths in order to fit them into slots in a busy stream of traffic, we have told air traffic controllers to keep them above 3,000 ft. In other words, we have made a compromise in the interests of

    167
    amenity requiring those aircraft which have to fly the greatest distances over the built-up area to stay at the greatest practicable height. It should be noted that, where aircraft join the glide slope at 2,000 ft. rather than 3,000 feet, they will be flying over a smaller part of the built-up area.
    I have gone into a description of approach procedures in some detail because I know of my hon. Friend's concern and interest in this phase of flight and the effects of it which are felt in his constituency. In the next couple of minutes, since his concern about height monitoring was echoed by one or two other hon. Members, I will give the following information.
    Some hon. Members will undoubtedly know that, early in 1967, a standard procedure was introduced for aircraft on approach to Heathrow to be kept at about 3,000 ft. or above at a point 11 nautical miles from touchdown, or 2,000 ft. or above at a point 7 nautical miles from touchdown, except when already on the 3-degree glide slope. A careful study has established that, for a host of practical reasons, these heights were the best which could be achieved. In 1968, a
    168
    special investigation was made to verify the extent to which aircraft adhered to clearances given them by air traffic control in relation to these minimum heights at the 7 nautical mile and 11 nautical mile distances.
    I now come to the point about effectively checking the height results. We were already using radar to monitor adherence to the glide path itself, taking a random sample of 5 per cent. As might be expected, compliance was and is very good. However, we do not monitor the 7 and 11 nautical mile points regularly, and the question was whether the capital cost was justified in view of the results that we had already achieved, and which we had no reason to doubt would be repeated if we went into a thorough going monitor check at these distances.
    Mr. Speaker, I have not concluded the comments that I wished to make on that part of my hon. Friend's speech but—
    The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.