Lords Sitting of 26 April 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a.
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BELL
  Read 2a.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  3.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF How): My Lords, a Bill of the kind for which I am asking your Lordships' approval this afternoon is necessary for two reasons: first, to place the pensions schemes for England and Wales and Scotland on a sound financial footing; and secondly, to introduce a number of improvements which will greatly benefit the teachers. The immediate cause of the Bill is the Government Actuary's Report of 1948, which revealed an actuarial deficiency which was then very substantial and which has increased greatly between then and now.
  There has been much dispute as to how these deficiencies should be met, but I believe there is none at all as to the accuracy of the estimates. I have the greatest respect for teachers. They taught me a lot—and I have forgotten a great deal of what they taught me—but I do not ever remember any teacher trying to teach me what an actuarial deficit is, and the irreverent thought passes through my mind that perhaps they did not know. Even so, I must try to tell your Lordships how it is that this formidable gap between the monies which are credited to the superannuation accounts and the drawings which are debited to them arises.
  1270
  As I understand it, if this had been from the start an insurance fund, premiums would naturally have been related to ultimate benefits, and if the benefits had increased from time to time, so, too, would the premiums have increased. But the superannuation accounts have not worked in that way. The teachers have had the automatic right to higher pensions whenever there has been a salary rise, without being required to pay any additional premiums. The contributions which are being paid in at the present rate will not build up a sufficient credit balance, even with the interest at 3½ per cent., as it runs on the accounts, to meet the pensions for those now in service and the benefits for new recruits., Therefore, the accounts for England and Wales and for Scotland have been in the red, and are running further into the red each year.
  The contributions at present paid in amount to 10 per cent. of each teacher's salary, made up as to 5 per cent. from the teacher and 5 per cent. from the employer, who is the local authority. At the time the Teachers' Superannuation Act was passed in 1925, this rate was thought to be sufficient, especially with the 3½ per cent. interest rate on the credit balance in the accounts, to meet any future liabilities. But since then several things have happened. Teachers are living longer and retiring earlier, and, most important of all, salaries have gone up many times. So the position has arisen that there is a substantial actuarial deficit. As early as 1.935 a small deficit was detected, but nothing was done by way of increased contributions; and now the deficiency figure stands at £302 million for England and Wales and £36 million for Scotland.
  This Bill makes three major contributions towards dealing with this particular problem. The whole of the deficit as it existed on March 31 of this year—that is, £338 million for England and Wales and Scotland—is to be taken over as a sole charge on the Exchequer. The teachers are not to be asked to pay for the fact that for over twenty years contributions have not been enough to pay for pensions. Under Clause 1 and Clause 30 of the Bill the Exchequer will at once credit £340 million, attracting, 3½ per cent. interest, so that the taxpayer is, in effect, making a present of £12 million a year to the superannuation accounts. I think

  1271
  your Lordships will agree that this is a generous concession and that it clears the decks, so far as the accounts are concerned, for putting them on a sound basis for the future. Secondly, the Bill tries to find a realistic contribution which will preserve solvency for the future. At present, the joint contribution is 10 per cent. The Bill proposes to raise it to 12 per cent. of a teacher's salary. There have been attempts to argue that the Treasury—I prefer to use the words "the taxpayer"—should find all the additional monies for any future bill which has to be paid. There have also been attempts to argue that even if 12 per cent. is necessary, it is wrong to raise the teacher's contribution from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent.
  Like some of your Lordships, and many in another place, I have delved back into the past to the 1925 Act. Arguments about what was meant by Lord Eustace Percy in 1925 seem to me to be endless. While it is true that by the Local Government Pension Act, 1937, contributions were increased for new officials only, there cannot really be any absolute comparison between one pension scheme and another. The Government have taken the view that we have to arrive at a solution which would be fair—or as fair as we could make it—to all the parties concerned; to the teachers, to the local authorities, to the ratepayers and to the taxpayers. Having taken the view that the principle of increased contributions from the teachers was fair, the Government had to decide what addition was right. A figure of 1½ per cent. has been mentioned as sufficient. But soon after that figure was suggested it became clear that it would have to be not less than 1¾ per cent. to take into account the improved benefits written in in the earlier stages of the Bill. But taking into account the salary increases which were bound to come soon, the Government thought that 12 per cent.—6 per cent. from the teacher and 6 per cent. from the local authority —was the fair figure. The teacher, then, as we see it, is being asked to start to pay now the rate of contribution appropriate to the benefits that a new entrant will receive and to a new and a solvent scheme.
  Let me give one example—and I have not picked it out as a particularly favour-
  1272
  able one. Under this Bill, a teacher retiring in 1965 will have paid contributions amounting to less than one-third of the benefit he will receive. I think it is true to say that for this extra 1 per cent. which the teachers are being asked to pay, they will get solid and substantial returns. I have given the figure of the actuarial deficiency as it has been calculated. Perhaps I might express what is needed in terms of income. The teachers' accounts need an income of £49 million a year to support the benefits. At present, contributions and interest together are producing only £33 million. The extra £16 million will be found, under this Bill, in these proportions; £12 million from the Exchequer, by way of interest on the £340 million which will be found by the taxpayer; £2 million from the local authorities and £2 million from the teachers.
  The decision that the rate of contribution should be equal as between the local authorities, the employer, and the teacher, the employee, should be read in conjunction with Clause 4 in the Bill, which affects England and Wales, and Clauses 29 and 30, which affect Scotland. If subsequent inquiries reveal a deficiency—and inquiries are now to be held every five years—then the higher percentage contribution required to make up the deficiency will be paid entirely by the employer, that is, the local authority, helped by Exchequer grants. So the future levels of teachers' pensions, in so far as they cause a deficit, will be met entirely by the national and local taxpayer. I have tried to understand and to find substance in the opposition which the teachers have expressed to this Bill. I have tried to do so genuinely, because I have no doubt—and the same, I am sure, is true of your Lordships—about the value of teachers to the community; nor any doubt that the taxpayers wish to do them well. Nor have I anything but sympathy for them in the plight in which they find themselves, along with many other skilled persons—and they are extremely skilled—when they think that their skill is not sufficiently rewarded. But there are very real benefits which will accrue to them from this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will agree that those who have to pay the bill for these pensions are giving the teachers not only a good, but a generous deal.

  1273
  In conclusion, I should like to mention, shortly, one or two improvements, because my right honourable friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland have used this Bill to make some improvements which we believe will help the teachers a great deal. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 govern the benefits, a teacher can receive on his retirement, and there are practical improvements made there. Pension and lump sum are, for instance, to be calculated on his total period of service, and not, as at present, on only the completed years. Three years is substituted for five years as the period for calculating the average salary on which the pension will be based.
  Teachers generally (I know this is particularly true of Scotland, from what I remember when I was there) have been keen to find some way to help their widows and dependants. At present, a teacher can provide for his widow or other dependants only by surrendering part of his own pension on retirement. The Minister of Education has been sympathetic to the desire of the teachers for a scheme financed by additional contributions, but neither the employers, the local authority, nor the Government feel able to consider a scheme on that basis at present. Under Clause 8, however, the Minister is empowered to start a scheme whereby the teacher will be able to make provision for his widow and dependants out of the lump sum which he would have received if he had remained single. It is the Minister's firm intention to have discussions with the teachers, to consult with them and to make regulations under his powers.
  I know that your Lordships have always been keen to find a way by which teachers who wish to serve overseas may be able to return to this country without forfeiting their benefits. There is much to be done by teachers overseas—we have only to think of the need of the teaching of English, for instance, in Asia and the Middle East to realise that. Clauses 17 and 18 make practical proposals, so that teachers can go overseas and teach and return to their profession in this country without surrendering their benefits.
  I know that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde would have wished to be here to-day, but lie had engagements in Scotland which he could not cancel. Part II of this Bill makes provisions for Scotland
  1274
  in the same way that Part I provides for England and Wales, but the form has had to be different because our systems of legislation have in the past followed rather different patterns. Technically, this is a Superannuation Bill but with these additions, only some of which I have listed, it has a greater scope and significance. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and accept that it makes a valuable contribution towards establishing social security for the members of this great profession, so helping to recruit to it men and women of brains and character who can give no finer service to their fellows.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl, in introducing this measure, introduced it as if the question had arisen for the first time subsequent to 1948, when the actuarial report showing a deficit on the Pensions Fund was first publishes, but I think I can satisfy your Lordships that this matter has a much longer, a much more chequered and quite a discreditable history. For instance, a Bill was introduced last Session for the same purpose of increasing the contribution of teachers to the Superannuation Fund. In that Bill there was none, or there were very few, of the compensating factors which the noble Earl now prays in aid to induce the teachers to swallow this bitter pill.
  The Bill of last Session brought about severe criticism from all Parties in another place and from the country. It was not proceeded with. It resulted in the downfall of the then Minister of Education, Dame Florence Horsbrugh, and the appointment of Sir David Eccles, who now reigns in her stead The teachers believed that this Bill, having been dropped before the Election, would not be revived; but in fact after the Election it was once more revived and a similar Bill, with one or two sweeteners, was once more introduced. I want freely to admit that there have been certain improvements made as a result of pressure from all Parties in another place, and particularly from the Opposition side of the House, as is quite natural, and the Bill to-day is a substantially better Bill as regards the advantages, apart from the question of superannuation, than it was when it was first introduced. Certainly

  1275
  it is a far better Bill than it was as introduced in 1954.
  But the story begins long before even 1954. In the First World War it was decided for the first time that teachers should be superannuated, and a superannuation fund was established in order to attract teachers and to create a more efficient educational service at the end of the war. As an inducement to people to become teachers, this fund was created without any contributions at all being required from the teachers. Large numbers of teachers were recruited on that basis. Then came the Geddes Axe, and in 1922 teachers were asked to make a contribution. Perhaps that is putting it rather mildly, because the contribution was imposed upon them, but they then believed that this was quite a temporary matter and that they would be relieved of the payments when the financial position of the country improved. But in 1925 a Bill was introduced for the purpose of making this levy, as it then was, a permanent contribution by them of 5 per cent. The teachers believed, and sincerely believed, that a bargain was then struck under which no further additional contribution would be required of them.
  Like the noble Earl, I have delved into the past, but I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the history of what was said and not said something like thirty years ago. The point I want to make—and I make it with all the emphasis I can—is that the teachers have believed ever since 1925, and sincerely believe to-day, that there was a pledge given that the rate of superannuation would not be increased above the 5 per cent. I freely believe that any other noble Lord may well take a different view, and I admit that Lord Eustace Percy, who was the then Minister, has stated that his recollection of the matter is that he had no intention of giving such a pledge; but the fact remains that the teachers genuinely believed that such a pledge was given, and they regard the imposition of an additional contribution as a breach of faith OD the part of the Government. I do not think that anything the noble Earl has said or could say will shake them on that.
  It is therefore not surprising that this apparently innocuous increase of 1 per cent. in the superannuation rate should
  1276
  have created such passion and turmoil among the teaching profession. It is not even as if they are complaining of one act of breach of faith; they regard the 1925 Act as a breach of faith. They were induced to enter the teaching profession at that time on the representation that superannuation would be non-contributory. Then they found that there was this levy of 5 per cent. which was incorporated in legislation, and they find today that there is a further increase.
  But if one is looking for the reason why this Bill has aroused such feeling in the teaching profession, one has to look at the whole picture and not merely at this particular increase. The noble Earl has explained that there are certain improvements in the Bill which will enure to the benefit of teachers. I do not know whether he meant to imply that those improvements in themselves justify the increase in the levy. In fact, they do not. Taken by themselves, the value of the improvements represents one-third of 1 per cent. as an advantage to the teachers, and the remaining two-thirds of 1 per cent. represent their contribution towards the deficiency in accordance with the valuation. The deficiency was not first discovered in 1948, as the noble Earl appears to believe. This deficiency has existed for a long time; I think it was even referred to in 1935 or 1936, although it was then smaller.
  THE EARL OF HOME: As a matter of fact I did say so. The noble Lord must have missed it.
  LORD SILK IN: Then I misunderstood the noble Earl. At any rate, the deficiency has been in existence for a very long time, and its existence has been known. That fact, I think, is worth mentioning, because it gives colour to the feeling of the teachers that there was to-day no particular reason why this deficiency should be dealt with any more than there was some years ago, even before the war.
  Let us just examine this deficiency for a moment. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going into figures or valuations, butone thing is quite clear; and that is, that for a great many years to come the amount of the contributions which will be paid into the fund will exceed the payments out of the fund. For how long that situation will last, nobody can forecast. It may well be twenty years; it

  1277
  may be even longer. The noble Earl spoke of a greater drain on the fund because of increased salaries and because of teachers' retiring early. So far as increased salaries are concerned, that is coupled with increased contributions, and the higher the salary the greater the contribution. Therefore, one would assume that increased salaries would not by themselvs cause a greater drain on the fund; nor necessarily would earlier retirement, because the assumption is that teachers who retire earlier will draw less out of the fund, both by reason of their drawing a lower salary and because the number of years upon which the superannuation is calculated will he less. Therefore, neither of these is a factor which will cast a greater burden on the fund itself.
  We are dealing with a fund which for a great many years will be in balance and will not call for any other contributions from anybody other than those actually settled. In, possibly, twenty or thirty years' time, if things go as they are and if nothing unforeseen happens, there will be a deficiency to be made up each year. The noble Earl said that it will be £16 million a year; the Minister of Education said on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place that it will he £14 million. It may be that between the time when the Minister made his Third Reading speech and to-day the deficiency has increased, or it may be that the figures are so inexact that a matter of £2 million makes little difference. The contribution which the teachers are asked to make towards this £14 million or £16 million is, however, only £2 million a year; and if, in fact, we are talking in such round figures that £14 million or £16 million are interchangeable, and that the deficiency is either one or the other, is it really worth while stirring up this hornet's nest in order to extract an additional £2 million a year from the teachers?
  I have referred to the background to explain why the teachers feel so passionately about this matter. But, quite understandably, behind this background that I have referred to there is a still stronger ground for discontent—namely, as the noble Earl himself said, perhaps not as strongly as I propose to say it, that the profession is hopelessly underpaid. The normal maximum salary for men to-day, that is, after a great many
  1278
  years' service, is £13 18s. 10d. a week —call it f14 a week if you like—before deduction of superannuation contributions. The normal maximum salary for women is less, but it will be equalised by 1961. If superannuation is deducted at the 6 per cent. rate proposed after October 1, if this Bill comes into operation, the maximum salary, after deduction, will be, for men, £13 15s. 0d. a week and, for women, £10 9s. 0d. a week. I admit that in certain special cases there are additions. 'There are additions for people with good Honours Degrees and for people with very special duties; but at present the ordinary run of teacher—95 per cent. of teachers—cannot look forward to anything more than a maximum net salary, after deduction of superannuation, of £13 15s. 0d. a week.
  I do not want to draw invidious comparisons between the profession of teaching and that of any other profession or occupation. Comparisons will madly come to your Lordships' minds, and I am far from saying that, for instance, a person engaged in the building trade or in any other industry, such as the motor car industry, is a less worthy citizen than a teacher. But we have in our minds certain standards, and it is always recognised that professional people have certain standards to maintain and certain expenditure to incur. I believe we should all agree, if we think about it, that a maximum remuneration of £14 a week for the professional man in these times is plainly inadequate. Since the war, the cost of living has gone up two and a half times, but teachers' salaries have not kept pace: their salaries have about doubled, so that they are even worse off than before the war. Furthermore, generally speaking the ordinary worker is better off than he was before the war, even allowing for the increase in the cost of living. Wages have gone up more than the percentage increase in living costs. The teacher has not only not made up for the increase in the cost of living but has not shared at all in the general improvement, so that he is not only absolutely worse off than he was before the war, he is relatively worse off, too. I believe it is important that we should realise these things and appreciate why there is such strong feeling about what might be regarded as a relatively minor increase in the superannuation contribution.

  1279
  Moreover, the teacher's work has increased. He has constantly had imposed upon him additional duties which he has taken on with great cheerfulness and willingness but which have encroached upon his leisure. A teacher normally has a certain period for his lunch, but he has been asked largely to sacrifice that by concerning himself with children's meals and with collecting meal money. I have known a great number of teachers who have devoted their Saturday mornings and other leisure days to taking their children, quite voluntarily, to places of educational value. They have done so without any complaint. Now they feel, I think with some justification, that this imposition upon them is really the last straw.
  As the noble Earl has said, teachers are an important section of our community, and traditionally we pay them great tribute. Apart altogether from this question of the standard of living, I feel that if teachers are to do their duty to the children in the community, they ought to have the opportunity of engaging in cultural activities, in travel, in seeing places abroad, in reading the latest cultural works, in hearing the latest music and in similar things. We want our teachers to be cultured and to instil some of that culture into the children they teach; but on a maximum salary, after deduction of superannuation, of £13-odd a week, at a time when the teacher may have a family of his own to maintain and educate, is it really possible for him to indulge in anything except the struggle for ordinary bread-and-butter for himself and his family? Any thought of engaging in cultural activities is entirely out of the question.
  This Bill strikes a further blow at the standard of living of the teacher. Every Member of this House has at some time paid lip service to the value of the work which teachers are doing. This Bill is a very poor practical recognition of that work, and it is for that reason that I feel it ought not to be supported. Naturally, the Bill has made progress in another place and I suppose it is too much to hope that this House will not approve of the Second Reading. It has become a tradition that we, in this House, do not vote against Second Reading; but if the tradition were otherwise there is no measure which has been brought before this House in recent times that I myself would more cheerfully vote against.

  TALKS WITH SOVIET LEADERS
  3.46 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, before we proceed further, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to intervene for a few moments to repeat a brief statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is as follows:
  "The discussions which have been taking place between Her Majesty's Government and Soviet leaders have been concluded. The results of the talks will be embodied in a statement which will be published early to-morrow."
  For the convenience of the House, the statement will be laid as a White Paper which will be available in the Printed Paper Office when your Lordships next meet.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  3.47 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I agree with all that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has said on this Superannuation Bill and if I do not pursue the references to the salaries at present being paid to teachers it is because I feel that the question of their adequacy or otherwise is a matter quite apart and distinct from the question of superannuation. It is better to keep the two questions quite separate so that we can apply ourselves to the question of salaries when the time comes, and deal to-day with what is contained in this Bill. To me, the significance of this Bill lies not in the fact that it purports to deal with what is called "an actuarial deficiency", but rather in the fact that it has given rise to a spontaneous outburst of feeling on the part of the whole of the teaching profession and has driven this responsible and well-informed body of citizens to say and do things which I feel in normal circumstances they would have preferred not to say or do. It seems significant, also, as my noble friend has indicated, that this is the second time that a Bill of this kind has been submitted; and although there have been made in the present Bill what the noble Earl has

  1281
  called "improvements" and what I prefer to call "adjustments", those by no means cover the whole of the grievances felt by the teaching profession.
  Nor is it without significance that not very long ago the provision of monies for further education was being attacked. The outburst then was so great that not only did the then Minister of Education feel it necessary to resign but Her Majesty's Government felt it necessary to set up a Committee to inquire into the whole of the facts concerning further education. The question, therefore, arises: why are teachers singled out for this irritating attention? Why is it that in these days, when the supply of teachers is admittedly so chronically short, when industry is crying out for more highly educated young men and women and when it is generally recognised that the teachers have such an important part to play, the Government are adopting this attitude towards them?
  The noble Earl, understandably, said that while he had heard of such things as actuarial deficiencies he had never been able to understand exactly what the term meant. I think the probability is that we are all in a similar position. My own feeling about it is that, in cases such as this, an actuarial deficiency amounts to nothing more than the falsification of a prophecy which certain actuaries made; and the method by which they are attempting to remedy that false prophecy is not to drop the prophecy but to try to twist the facts in order to suit the prophecy which they made some time ago. I will go further and say that my feeling is that this so-called deficiency is not a deficiency at all: it is a phantom entity, the outcome of the difference between certain receipts and certain payments. Whatever results from that is called a deficiency. If we went on paying, in times of deficiency, pensions that we had undertaken to pay, no one would be any the worse for it. But we pretend that here is an account which is what is nowadays called "in the red" and which must somehow be brought into balance. That seems to me to be a very unnecessary kind of calculation and quite unreal in relation to present-day conditions. When I try to think of an explanation why there should be this persistence with this phantom item, I can only assume that it is a continuation of a private enterprise concept in a public enterprise situation.
  1282
  I wonder whether I can explain what that means by an example, because it seems to me that this is how it works In the year 1938 or 1939, a man I know decided that he would retire from business. He calculated that if he sold his rather flourishing but small business he would he able, with the proceeds, to buy himself an annuity of an amount sufficient to keep himself and his wife in modest comfort for the rest of their days. And in fact he did that. For a year or two things seemed to work according to plan. But to-day that man is in the humiliating position of having to depend on friends to assist him to live. Similar cases must be known to your Lordships. But what is the significance of that case? We should all agree that the man was honest in paying a premium adequate for him in return for a certain annual payment. The insurance company, we may say, was in a sense equally honest in that it has fulfilled its part of the bargain by paying the particular figure it undertook to pay year by year. But, in fact, the man is going short, and it would almost appear as though he, having paid good 1938 or 1939 pounds, is being repaid with a kind of clipped coinage in 1955 or 1956 pounds. The effect is that though the paper bargain is being kept and the man is being paid the sums contracted for, in actual fact he is now suffering a standard of living that he never thought he would have to suffer. And yet he has carried out his part of the bargain. The same sort of thing appears to me to apply to this case.
  There are numbers of different kinds of superannuation schemes. As noble Lords will know, a Working Party drew up the details of a number of schemes now in operation, running through the Civil Service as a whole, the nationalised services, the local authorities and the like; and while the headings are similar in each case—"Contributions", "Money Benefit" "Methods of Finance" and so on—there are considerable variations in the derails. In the case of the Civil Service, as many of your Lordships know, there are no contributions by the employees. There is no fund, or, shall we say, there is no funded account. Any so-called actuarial deficiency is made up by the State. In other cases there are funded accounts, but there, where there is a deficiency, the employer, whether it be a local authority, the Scottish National Health Service or some

  1283
  other such organisation, makes up the deficiency. Why should we insist on treating this particular superannuation fund as though it were a permanent fund, as though sums were definitely fixed for all time, when this very day in your Lordships' House we are to deal later with a Bill which is called, I think, a Pensions (Increase) Bill—a method by which on six previous occasions we have had to alter what presumably were actuarially arrived at figures which have turned out to be false in course of time? I repeat that we are to-day to consider the seventh Bill dealing with increased pensions, though those pensions were the outcome of actuarial calculations made in the past.
  I would therefore suggest that if the Government did the right thing they would take back this Bill, bring in a third one, ignore this business of actuarial deficiencies, and adopt what I think is the modern method of regarding remuneration of an employee. They would say that every worker is entitled not only to be paid for the work he does but also, after his years of work are over, to a pension for the rest of his life. And they would simplify the calculations by assuming that he would receive so much during his working life, but that there could be variation of the figure during his pensioned life. They would say to him: "If you want further benefits in the way of widow's pension, dependants' pensions and so forth, we can arrive at some kind of calculation whereby perhaps sums over and above what you receive as a right can be arranged for." In that way, I think we could simplify this matter and do more than anything else to restore that social prestige which I very much fear the Government is doing a good deal to destroy in the case of these valuable servants of ours.
  3.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate to say only a very few words. I listened with both attention and respect to the two speeches which have been made from the other side of the House, but it occurred to me that both the noble Lords were in some danger of confusing two rather separate issues, and none more so than the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat in the last remarks he made. I think we should all recognise
  1284
  that deep feeling has been aroused among teachers in the last two years, most of which has centred round this Bill. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has conceded, that relates not so much to the question of the additional 1 per cent. payable as a contribution to the pension as to the feeling which they have that they are generally underpaid and under-respected in the community. That general feeling is one with which I must confess a very real sympathy. I do not believe, as apparently the noble Lord allowed himself to say in his last sentence, that any respect or prestige in which the teaching profession is held in this country will he affected one way or another by the additional 1 per cent. I cannot believe that a matter of that kind can be dealt with on so small a scale or can be affected by such a trifling matter.
  The noble Lord is certainly preaching to the converted so far as I am concerned when he claims that the prestige of the teaching profession ought to be respected and that it has probably not been sufficiently respected in this country in the past. Happily, that suggestion is outside the range of Party politics. I know that there is the Burnham Committee and that from time to time there is legislation, and I hope that that matter will be taken care of in the proper way by the proper authorities at the proper time. I was glad when my right honourable friend the Minister announced in another place that these provisions would not take effect until after the next review. I should conceive that it was a matter which the Burnham Committee would be very much entitled to take into account in the review which they will then make.
  I have accepted that, and accepted that the prestige of the teaching profession ought to be maintained, that one standard of its maintenance ought to be its remuneration, and that the teachers, like a great many other professions, have suffered relatively a great deal more than some other occupations in the community. I recognise that statistically the case of the teachers is undeniably a strong one. I know that my own profession is not generally supposed to be underpaid, though in fact most of us are. I can speak from my own knowledge that the remuneration in my profession has not increased at all since before the war. We are relatively much worse off in relation

  1285
  to other occupations. Therefore I speak with sympathy of the teachers' claims. But I question the wisdom of tying these perfectly legitimate complaints by teachers, and by some other professions, to bitter attacks on an attempt to make a pensions fund actuarially sound.
  It may very well be, as the noble Lord suggested, that an actuarially sound pensions fund is a financial or economic chimera. These are abstruse matters upon which I would speak very much subject to correction, because I am well aware of the pitfalls which beset noble Lords and Members of another place who speak on economic matters without knowing them clearly. It may very well be that many occupations, notably the Civil Service, are better remunerated by a noncontributory scheme. If that were so and such a change were to be effected, it would inevitably be the case that a noncontributory pension, being purely a form of deferred salary, would be taken into account in every review and no doubt the total remuneration would be scaled down by the Burnham Committee in proportion. I do not think that that is a question we ought to go into to-day. I have not heard from the other side of the House any suggestion that that step ought to be taken or whether it would be particularly attractive to the teachers. The step which has been taken is that a scheme, which has been contributory, in principle at any rate, since 1922, and on a permanent basis since 1925, is now being put on an actuarially sound basis. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with that in principle, especially as the additional payment of 1 per cent. is based on a salary which is under review before the 1 per cent. comes into effect.
  Two of the noble Lords who have spoken have put forward an argument on the basis of breach of faith. That is something we hear from time to time in this House in relation to a number of matters, and I confess that whenever that cry is raised I feel a twinge of conscience about whatever it is that is proposed to be done. We hear it on a number of occasions and I think it is worth while reflecting a little on the nature of what is said on those occasions. I know that my noble and gallant friend behind me, Lord Jeffreys, has a particular horse which he rides with great eloquence and, so far as I am concerned, with great persuasive-
  1286
  ness, which is based on the construction of ministerial pledges given some time ago. On foreign affairs we find the bitterest antagonism aroused over the construction of pledges given in the 'twenties to different groups of people in the Middle East.
  My abiding conclusion is that, although Ministers have every right to bind their successors, and while their successors ought to respect the pledges which Ministers give, there comes a time when a pledge ceases to be easily intelligible, and different people form, quite legitimately, different views about what it means. Then the time has come for Parliament to lay down a new policy. I cannot get out of that. It may be a hard doctrine, but I have been a Member of one House and another for more than half my adult life, and the conclusion I have formed about ministerial pledges is that the time has come for Parliament to step in and make up their minds what to do, in the light of the pledge and h the light of the present circumstances. Otherwise, Parliament will find itself saddled with innumerable pledges on which divergent interpretations are inevitably given which hamper and restrict the progress of policy.
  It is now suggested that the teachers' pensions should remain contributory and that the actual deficiency, which I understand amounts to no less than £300 million, should be written off. I think the House will agree that that is the only possible thing to do with it, and that an actuarially sound contributory scheme should be instituted that will involve the additional 1 per cent. I did not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and again I speak with great diffidence on the matter—when he suggested that the mere chance that the increased contribution bore the mathematical proportion of 6 per cent. (or 12 per cent., if we take both contributions), to the teacher's salary meant that the fur d could not be overdrawn if for some external reason the teachers' salaries increased. I should have thought that the contrary was the case. I understand that the pension is payable on the basis of the salary earned by teachers during their last years. It must follow, therefore, that if, as the result of a review, their salaries are increased, the pension fund would tend to run more heavily into debt until the increased contribution which would

  1287
  follow the increase of salary came to mathematical equality with the increased pension calculated on the basis of the last year's salary immediately after the increase has been given. That may be a mathematical fallacy, but I should think it would be the case.
  I cannot help feeling that this Bill has aroused a great deal too much bitterness and antagonism. I cannot speak of its very complicated past. I feel myself that there must be fairly solid reasons for making the scheme contributory, like so many other schemes, both in the public and the private service, all over the country, If it is to be made contributory, I feel certain that a contributory scheme must be actuarially sound. I have heard no demands that the contributions should be abolished, with the inevitable result on the salary. Therefore I come to the conclusion that the Bill is a good one, notwithstanding the antagonism it has aroused. I should like to think that, when the increased contributions come into effect and when the review has taken place, for quite different reasons than can be expressed properly in a debate on this Bill, the teachers will find that their salaries will rise; that the prestige with which they are held in the community will be restored—if, indeed, it has in any way been impaired; that they can cherish the feeling that they are playing the useful part which we all know they play, and that that usefulness will be universally recognised.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken with such significance, as he always does, has, I think, left out one thing, and that is the feeling of the teachers themselves that they are not having a square deal. I do not think he laid any emphasis on that, but that is really the fact. While my own profession is that of a doctor, I have a particular interest in the teaching profession, because I was for many years one of the inspectors of schools for the London County Council, when the Inspectorate of Schools was set up, and I got to know teachers well. I know a great many of them personally, and I have lived a large part of my life in their company inspecting children. Therefore, I do know their point of view.
  1288
  People who go in for teaching do not do so in order to make a large amount of money. They are often no better at accounts than doctors are—I do not know about lawyers, but I should think that sometimes they also are not too good at accounts. What I am getting at is that teaching is a profession which has a very high standard of devotion to its duty and its ideas. As I say, with few exceptions, people do not go in for teaching with the idea of making a large amount of money, but because of their devotion to teaching and their love for children. I do not think the details that have been so largely discussed this afternoon, the amount they pay in and the amount in the account, is the thing which concerns them. If they could get an assurance from this House—and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Home, when he replies, will be able to give it—that the Government mean to do the best they can for teachers, so as to put them in a reasonable condition in their declining years, I am sure it would give great satisfaction. To my mind, it is intolerable that people who have devoted their lives to one of the most important functions in the community, the teaching of children, should in their later years, owing to a change in economic circumstances which nobody could predict and which is affecting every country in the world, be faced with the likelihood of being reduced to a condition of real and serious physical poverty. In my view, that is the thing that we must get into our minds. There must be some definite movement on the part of the Government to show the teachers that they do not intend to leave them in that condition, but will do their best to bring pensions up to a higher level, so that the teachers, in their old age, can live in reasonable comfort.
  4.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. All the speakers from the opposite side of the House have really based their objections as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, not so much on the additional 1 per cent. which the teachers are being asked to contribute as on the fact that there has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, an outburst of feeling from usually very reasonable people; that the teachers feel that there has been a breach of faith,

  1289
  and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has said, that they have not had a fair deal. That charge hinges, I think, largely on the Act of 1925 and what was said in that year. I do not wish, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does, to go in detail back to that Act. All I would say is that since I have come new into this field of education (it is not a field in which I have been active before) I have done my best to study the Act of 1925, and I cannot find in that Act anything which implies that the Treasury should bear all the cast of any increased pensions that might lead to this actuarial deficit.
  On what Lord Eustace Percy said in 1925 there are differing opinions. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has truly said that Lord Eustace Percy himself has said that all he meant was that contributions would not be increased so long as the accounts showed a balance, which, had the scheme been funded, would have been sufficient to meet its future liabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he did not think that anything I could say would remove from the teachers the impression that they had not had a square deal. I doubt whether anything I can say will remove that feeling. However, what I can say is that if the Government felt that there was a breach of faith involved in this, naturally we should not have made, ourselves responsible for this Bill. I think on each side of the House we realise that we take a different view as to that, and we are willing to leave it there. We have tried to find a fair solution between the three parties; that is to say, the State, the local authority, who is the employer, and the employee.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, did not like the Bill; he felt that it should be withdrawn, and that a non-contributory scheme, should be substituted for the present scheme. And the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that there was a long and discreditable history to the Bill.
  1290
  When I. went back only to 1948 I thought I was being kind to the Opposition, because during this long discreditable history there have been, after all, one or two periods of Labour Government. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was making the same sort of impassioned speeches as he made to-day, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lard Greenhill, was advocating a non-contributory scheme; but neither of them seems to have made much impression on his fellows. To ask for a non-contributory scheme would be to ask for the rejection of this Bill and its withdrawal, and the noble Lord will not expect me to go into any detail on that.
  I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, used this opportunity as a peg on which to hang his Views on salaries and remuneration for teachers. I believe that the more the country understands the present financial plight of those people who are skilled, the better. Teachers, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, are absolutely worse off in some cases than they were before the war, and certainly relatively worse off. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, concluded that they were not receiving the value that they expected when they entered into the contributory scheme. Nor is any of us, unfortunately, in this time of inflation I think the answer to that must be the general measures that we hope to take to increase productivity in this country, and the general financial measures which we hope will be successful in stemming inflation. I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading. It may not be perfect, but it is some effort to help the teachers; and so long as there is to be a contributory scheme, then I think there is an obligation on the Government to make it actuarially solvent.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
  4.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am asking your Lordships for a Second Reading of this small Bill—small, but not, I think, without importance. I feel that in a way it is rather appropriate that we should be discussing this matter at the present time, because, possibly emboldened by the success of this Small Lotteries Bill in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken upon himself to conduct part of the country's finances on the basis of what might in a general way be described as the lottery principle.
  I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, especially as, rather to my surprise, I find that there are quite a number of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate, and that there is apparently opposition to the Bill's very modest provisions. The Bill, of course, is a Private Member's Bill, and its existence proves, if any further proof is needed at this stage, that the institution of the Private Member's Bill (about which, quite recently, a useful study by a university teacher has appeared) still serves a useful purpose. Although it is a Private Member's Bill, it has been received with what I think I may quite properly describe as rather more than benevolent neutrality from Her Majesty's Government. The Home Office have given a great deal of assistance to the promoters, for which we are grateful; and, of course, the Bill has been favourably received in another place, where its provisions were extended, rather than diminished, during its passage through the House.
  I make bold to say that the Bill has received the overwhelming support of the great mass of the community. Almost all the Members of another place have received a considerable mass of correspondence from their constituents supporting it, and I understand that there has been remarkably little opposition. I appreciate, of course, that there are a number of people who take the view that gambling in any form is altogether immoral and is to be condemned out of hand. In regard to gambling on a large scale, and particularly in regard to what one might call commercial gambling—
  1292
  gambling for the purpose of making a profit out of it, which involves encouraging people to go beyond moderate "flutters"—I am entirely in agreement with that point of view. But I cannot agree that this Bill falls into that sort of category: obviously it does not; it has been especially designed on the very reverse principle.
  All of us, I think, or nearly all, have a natural tendency to gamble up to a point, and if we keep that tendency in control and do not indulge it beyond moderation, it seems to me that it is a propensity of which none of us need be ashamed. All our natural propensities may be used for good or evil ends. A gambling propensity may be used to make life rather fuller and more colourful than it is to many of us, and provided that we exercise the propensity with self-discipline, and in a moderate way, I am quite sure that it does not do any harm. Of course, on the sort of scale which we often see it indulged, gambling is one of the most evil things—a breaker of families and a destroyer of family life, just as drink is if it is over-indulged. The two propensities are similar. They may give great pleasure and enjoyment, provided they are indulged in moderation; but if overindulged, they may lead to great evil, squalor and even crime.
  I hope that this does not sound like the beginning of a sermon, especially as I have the honour to be followed, I believe, by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I must admit, quite frankly, that the half-crown that I put on Oxford at the Boat Race (and which, I regret to say, during the last few years I have almost invariably lost, but which I live in hopes of getting back in the succession of victories during years which I hope are not too far away) does give an additional pleasure to that most delightful of our annual sporting events. If I may say so, I sometimes think that the fanatical contenders for a particular moral line often do as much harm, if not more, to the very cause which they wish to support—the cause of general morality—as those who ignore moral constraint. We saw perhaps the best example there ever was of that in the attempt to enforce prohibition in the United States, which was carried on over a number of years and undoubtedly led to a distinct degeneration in the general moral climate of that great country.

  1293
  I do not wish to go into the history of lotteries. It has been inquired into, and the whole matter has been investigated by two Royal Commissions within quite a short time. The present state of the law is undoubtedly complicated, and even more uncertain than complicated. That was shown by both Royal Commissions, that of 1932–33 and that of 1949–51. It is a pity, I think, that the Government have not been able to find time themselves to take up the recommendations of the 1949–51 Royal Commission, in particular, which made a number of valuable contributions to this problem.
  The anomalies and uncertainties lead to a great deal of heartburning among many well-intentioned and admirable citizens, because the policy of enforcement varies a great deal from one part of the country to another—from one police authority to another—so that while the organisers of a whist drive in one area may be left quite alone to get on with this harmless activity, in some other neighbouring area they may find themselves brought up before the magistrates. Similarly (and this has been a particular matter of heartburning over the last years), the societies which have come into existence, particularly since the end of the war, when the organisation of football clubs has become such an expensive business, to provide finance for some of the weaker football and other games clubs have continually found themselves in difficulties with the police, while other clubs in the district, where perhaps the chief constable does not think it wise to bring prosecutions, have been left alone. This situation cannot but give rise to a great deal of feeling among the people who are prosecuted when they see others are not, and it undoubtedly brings the administration of the law into contempt; and that, I am sure all your Lordships will agree, is a had thing in the general interests of the community.
  The Statutes enacting this complicated and somewhat unintelligible system of law—if system it can be called—go hack a very long way. I think they go back to the time of Henry VIII who was, believe, not so much worried by the moral aspects of lotteries—after all, he was an adept at what has been called the greatest of all lotteries, that of choosing one's wife. I think he was more concerned to prevent young men
  1294
  from frittering away their time in indulging in lotteries, time which, in his view, could be more profitably spent in the practice of arms. The Statute of 1541 which appears to be the earliest of these Statutes was reinforced from time to time, and particularly in the Victorian period I do not think it can be seriously contended that the law had not become absurdly puritanical. It made criminal a number of quite harmless forms of gaming which I am sure very few of your Lordships would regard with such dis-favour as to think that they merited the sanction of a criminal prosecution. That people who have indulged in these really quite harmless activities should be brought before criminal courts and, in effect, branded as criminals, is quite absurd.
  This feeling became more widespread during the present century, during the years after the First World War. It became the general view in the community that the law in relation to lotteries had been tightened up beyond all reason. I think it is fair to say that that view received the support of the Royal Commission of 1932–33 and also of the more recent Royal Commission to which I have referred. The earlier of the Royal Commissions made certain recommendations for the alleviation of the situation, some of which, as your Lordships will recollect, were enacted in the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the main object, or one of the main objects, of which was to enable societies to raise funds for charitable or other purposes connected with the work for which they had been formed. I do not wish to go into the provisions of that Act. On the whole, it has worked well and has enabled a great deal of mild and quite harmless gambling to be carried on, which has given a great deal of pleasure and, so far as I know, has led to no harmful effects.
  The particular matter on which I wish to concentrate is the fact that advantage was taken of this Statute by numerous societies and, particularly in more recent years, as I have said, by the societies of supporters of football clubs, to raise money for the financing of those clubs. But a number of prosecutions, and at least one decision of the High Court in a fairly recent case (I think it was the year before last) have shown that the law

  1295
  is still, in my contention, unreasonably rigid.
  The decision I have particularly in mind is one relating to the Torquay United Football Supporters' Club. The case may have attracted the attention of some of your Lordships: it caused a great deal of comment at the time when it was decided in the Queen's Bench Division. The case had been regarded as a test case and the decision showed that the holding of these small lotteries in support of football clubs of this kind—a practice which had become widespread all over the country—amounted, after all, to a criminal offence. That, I think, was a great shock to many of the promoters of these schemes. The result has been, partly, a return to the use of football pools for raising the money required. It is significant that, if one damns this sort of natural propensity in one way, it immediately finds a way round in another way; and the way round is often worse. The football pool is, I submit, equally a gamble. It is one which is much more consuming of time and money and in many ways less satisfactory than the small type of lottery which it has tended to replace.
  In my submission to your Lordships, the result has also been to make it clear that it is necessary that the law should be amended further so that provision may be made for this quite harmless form of gambling. That is the reason why this Bill has been introduced into Parliament. Its object is quite simple and not at all ambitious. It is simply to return to what I think most of us believed was covered by the provisions of the 1934 Act, and to enable societies such as those I have mentioned to hold these small lotteries for the purpose of obtaining quite modest sums of money for the support of their clubs and societies, but to do so only subject to quite a number of stringent safeguards which. I hope noble Lords will agree with me, are entirely adequate to keep the whole business under effective control. At the same time, advantage has been taken by the promoters of this Bill to make it clear that small card parties, and other small gaming parties which are held purely for the purposes of entertainment, and in no sort of way for private gain, are also to be deemed legal, a matter which has often been so
  1296
  much in doubt that, as I have said, even the holding of the village whist drive has from time to time been held to be an offence. I think that is all I need say by way of general introduction to the provisions of the Bill.
  I will now ask your Lordships to look shortly at the Bill and some of the main clauses which it contains. The matter is well summarised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which shows that the Bill authorises small lotteries and small gaming parties subject to the stringent conditions to which I will refer in a moment and which are, in fact, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1949–51. If the Bill becomes law, these lotteries will be lawful only for
  "societies which register with the local authority and the purpose of which is either to promote or assist charitable, cultural or athletic or other purposes not connected with private gain"—
  I think the last few words are perhaps the most essential point of all: it is the lottery or gaming which becomes a commercial adventure which, in my submission to your Lordships, does so much harm. If your Lordships will then look further on, you will see how modest are the provisions of the Bill. No prize is to exceed £100 and no ticket is to be sold at more than 1s. The value of all the tickets to be sold is not to exceed £750, so that, by the time the expenses have been taken off—and your Lordships will see that they are not to exceed 10 per cent. of the proceeds—the amount which will be available for the charity or football club as the case may be, will be quite a small sum, not more than £600 or so.
  There are a number of other provisions of rather less importance. For instance, Clause 1 (2) (f) says that the price of all tickets shall be the same. A wise addition which was made at the final stages in another place is that tickets are not to be sold by children under sixteen years of age. Clause 1 is undoubtedly the kernel of the Bill. The latter part of it is taken up with what I may properly describe, I think, as pretty stringent regulations for keeping the whole thing within the bounds of decency. Clause 2 makes the administrative arrangements for the registration with the local authorities of the societies coming under the Bill.

  1297
  Naturally, the provisions there are somewhat detailed in character. Clause 3 requires returns to be made by the promoters so that the whole thing will be above board and everybody will be able to see what is going on. Your Lordships will 11 see that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 are principally concerned with the lotteries in question.
  Then in Clause 4 we find the other aspect of this Bill to which I have referred—namely, the exemption of some card parties and gaming parties when carried on purely for purposes of entertainment and in no sense for private gain. To some extent I think that clause was amended towards the end of the passage of the Bill through another place, in order to permit of a game called "Housey-Housey," with which I personally am not altogether familiar, to be played within the provisions of this clause. Your Lordships will see that in some of the later subsections there are consequential provisions designed to prevent places where this sort of game is being carried on from becoming common gaming houses. Finally, in Clause 5, there are some supplementary provisions of a rather technical character with which I thin I need not take up your Lordships' time.
  My Lords, those, shortly, are the pros visions of this Bill. I suggest that it is a modest measure which in the end will make for decency in the conduct of this type of activity rather than give rise to anything which could possibly be called a public scandal. On the whole:, it will serve a useful purpose in putting into law the recommendations of a Royal Commission of men of considerable eminence who gave a great deal of thought and time to the survey of the whole of this problem, and it will be to the advantage of the whole country that this Bill should become law. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Chorley.)
  4.42 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, this Bill concerns a subject upon which probably our personal experiences are quite different, and most of us have prejudices of one kind or another which make an objective judgment difficult. It is also one in regard to which moral theologians find many
  1298
  perplexities. However, I shall not concern myself with their questions. I shall not discuss whether gambling is wrong in itself; indeed, I find it difficult to know what that means, since you can never find gambling by itself. It always requires the participation in it of at least two people; in other words, it is a social activity, and the Bill is meant in a small way to affect our social life. It is tine effect which it may have which we, as reasonable people, have to try to estimate and evaluate.
  There is almost universal agreement that while some manifestations of the gambling instinct are widely regarded as allowable or even desirable, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, this instinct is, or is easily liable to become, a disturbing factor in social life; and that almost all its organised operations involve elements or possibilities of real social evil. Often, there is disagreement among the churches as to the quality or extent of the social evil involved. Generally speaking, the Church of England and the Free Churches, and the Lambeth Conferences which represent the whole Anglican Communion throughout the world, consider the degree of social evil involved to be so high that they resist any legislative encouragement of gambling and seek to extrude, it altogether from church activities.
  The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, employs the gambling instinct for its own church purposes very freely, and I think approves of large-scale national lotteries and sweepstakes, such as the Irish Sweepstake. But the Roman Catholic Church is, of course, just as aware as we are that a degree of social evil is involved and that it may become serious. Thus a Roman Catholic Archbishop, not long ago, in a pastoral letter called for an end to all games of chance for the raising of funds for church purposes, urging that they should be free from the taint—note the words "from the taint"—of gaming for chance. Everyone would agree that there is little positively right about gambling, and, if not wrong in itself, it presents undesirable and sometimes disastrous social features.
  It is, my Lords, against that background that this Bill must be considered; and we must be as clear as we can what kind of contribution this Bill will make to the health and happiness of our social

  1299
  order. We shall not forget that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, gambling does in fact often bring real family degradation and spiritual ruin to many individuals and to their families; no social worker could ever be forgetful of that fact. But no doubt your Lordships will be thinking, rather as I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was, of the ordinary citizen well able to look after himself, who is very well content to buy a bit of amusement in this way with the chance of a little unearned increment thrown in to make it more amusing. The usual question is: "What is the harm in it?" Indeed, the noble Lord said that it does no harm. But the prime question is: "What is there to be harmed?" Let me in a few sentences say what it is that is liable to be harmed. A nation depends for its health upon the constructive spirit of its people. A constructive spirit is occupied positively with the good to be achieved, and the spirit of a people is to be found in the nature of their ordinary activities and their constant ways of thinking; it is to be found also in the incentives to which they most readily respond. Anything which to a serious degree debases what I will call this spiritual coinage of a people is dangerous and debilitating.
  This Bill about small lotteries certainly does not add anything very significant to the value of the nation's spiritual coinage, nor does it attempt to do anything to check its spiritual devaluation—it does not pretend to. These small lotteries are designed to win support for purposes which people otherwise will not take the trouble to support in sufficient numbers —charitable purposes, athletic sports, cultural activities presumed to be good (but how is anybody to tell that?) and apparently any other purposes of any kind whatsoever, good or bad, which do not involve private gain or commercial undertakings. May I say in passing that there seems something a little odd about carefully excluding purposes of private gain from this Bill, when a lottery by its nature exists only by offering to its supporters chances of private gain. It is strange that there seems nothing in this Bill to exclude purposes of dubious social value or purposes socially undesirable. I do not discover any means of checking the value of these "other purposes". But, of course, the intention of the Bill is to encourage people to support
  1300
  desirable causes which they would not be so easily induced to support otherwise.
  A speaker in another place said, very movingly—and the noble Lord no doubt had this in mind:
  "In my own constituency, many small village clubs, sporting clubs, garden clubs, horticultural clubs and all those causes which are so important in village life and which are a good moral influence have found their finances knocked endwise"
  when such lotteries as these were found to be illegal. No doubt this Bill is one answer. But it does in fact make use of and put into circulation what is in some degree a debased coinage, as will be obvious when it is contrasted with what I would call the gold standard by which those who care for admirable causes such as these take trouble to interest others to care for and support them too; or, if not to care for them, at least to give a subscription as an exercise of social duty discharged without thought of reward or gain.
  As I read this Bill I wonder whether it has not been chiefly inspired by the managerial class, if I may so call it; by organisers of clubs and enterprises who find the task of money-raising very difficult and who are trying to take a short cut to solvency by the risky methods of inflation. I wonder whether it is not a Bill devised chiefly by the middle-aged, too young to dream dreams and too old any longer to see visions. There has been no demand or support for this Bill from youth organisations or those who speak for young people. Young people can, and still do, respond to the simple idea that if things are worth doing, they are worth doing for their own sakes. All education tries to teach them that simple truth. It seems a pity to encourage them—as this Bill does—always to look for a prize, and one awarded not on merit but by pure chance, for well-doing.
  The Bill seems, rather appropriately, to trust to luck that no one will attempt to exploit its provisions in any undesirable way. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke if its "stringent conditions." I cannot find them. It imposes singularly few restraints. Any purpose which is not for private gain or of a commercial nature is allowed. Any "society" not thus excluded can apply for registration. The local authority does not appear to have any discretion about registering a society, and if the application is in due form and

  1301
  £1 is paid, then, so far as I can see, the local authority must register the society. The society fixes the opening and closing date of each lottery which it runs, and, I suppose, can start a new one as soon as the old one closes and thus run a perpetual lottery. For the purpose of the Bill a society includes:
  "an association of persons, by whatever name called."
  How many make "an association"? I find in the Bill that there must be a promoter and also two members to certify the required return. Will two other members suffice, making five in all? Can fifty like-minded enthusiasts register themselves as ten different societies, each promoting its own lottery? The Bill provides that no tickets may be sold by a person under sixteen years of age; but, so far as I can see, tickets may be sold to any member of the public. Does that mean that children of school age may, along with the rest of us, be invited at any time, by any enthusiast over the age of sixteen, to buy a ticket? No wonder the Youth Department of the British Council of Churches and the Council itself has asked that no children or young persons under the age of eighteen shall be in any way concerned in the organisation, sale, purchase or possession of tickets under this Bill!
  It is to be noted that local authorities, apparently, will have no knowledge of what lotteries are actually in operation at any given time. They will not know that until they receive a return from each lottery promoter, and that need not be until three months after the lottery has ended; so that at any given moment the local authority will not know how many lotteries are actually in progress in its area, each trying, or being able to try, to sell up to 15,000 tickets—the maximum fixed by the Bill. There may be quite a lot, all competing to secure shillings from as many people as possible. There is an arrangement by which local authorities control flag days for charitable purposes so that they do not clash with one another or become a nuisance to the public. If promoters of these small lotteries are to be encouraged to do what is now illegal and will become legal—to seek to sell their tickets to the general public—ought not the local authority to have power to control them as it controls flag days, to protect the general public
  1302
  from being unduly exploited by endless small lotteries, or even to protect ordinary citizens from ardent aldermen wishing to organise lotteries in relief of rates?
  My Lords, this title of "Small Lotteries" is very misleading. The noble Lord has said that they are small and therefore quite harmless. Each may be small, although already they are not so small as they were when the Bill first appeared; but if one is to judge their total social effect one must aggregate them, and I believe the Bill should requite local authorities to make an annual return of the number and proceeds of all lotteries in their area. Thus aggregated they are certainly not small. A chief constable stated in The Times two years ago that:
  "Taken in the aggregate small lotteries probably amount to the equivalent of running one Irish Sweepstake each week"
  in this country. If the true standard is to do things for their own sakes because they are worth doing, and without bribery, if the general spiritual currency of the community is to some extent debased by taking this line of least resistance, it is no answer to say that each person has only a few of these debased coins in his pocket at any one time. The whole coinage has been debased.
  On such grounds I should maintain that, in the general interest, this Bill should be rejected. But there is a wider reason which makes it in my view mote important that the Bill should not proceed. This Bill might, perhaps, have crept through as a small, even if a rather small-minded, Bill; but, as we have been reminded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now raised the same general principle on a far larger scale. I know that the Chancellor says that his premium bonds are not a gamble, but there will be all the paraphernalia of a national lottery —the sale of what are the equivalent of tickets, quarterly drawings (which already some would make monthly drawings), publication of winning numbers, the recurrent excitement to see whether one has a winning ticket and all the rest of it. How long will the general public (or, shall I say, future Chancellors of the Exchequer) be aware of some tenuous argument about when is a gamble not a gamble, or remember that because they are only gambling with the interest, they are not really gambling at all?

  1303
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is reported as saying this—and with the first half of it I entirely agree:
  "… it is utterly in the national interest that the sort of people who are spending money without a thought of saving should get the idea that they are doing a service to the nation and to themselves and have a flutter at the same time."
  And Mr. Davies, who first promoted this Bill, said of it in another place:
  "if a person can combine a flutter with charity, he gives more generously and regularly."
  So whether it is the duty of supporting good causes or the duty of saving for one's own benefit and for the nation's good, there must be a "flutter" attached to make duty palatable.
  The Chancellor has compelled us to consider the matter on a national scale. We all agree that we are engaged in a great struggle to preserve, to restore, to re-create, the economic stability and the spiritual capital of this people. The Government know, as well as all the rest of us, that we can regain stability and strength only by unremitting exercise all through the nation of the old-fashioned but essential virtues: integrity of character, strict honesty, the duty of honest work honestly rewarded, thrift, saving and the like. We all know that, at present, calls to such virtues fall on barren soil—not enough people listen when they are told that it is their duty to work or their duty to save. So what? The Government's duty, surely, is by every means in their power to restore the true coinage without which we cannot endure as a great people. They have chosen instead not a dazzling but a rather second-rate expedient, which may attract savings but which adds nothing to the spiritual capital of the nation, and which insinuates on a large scale this, as I should say, undignified and unedifying adulteration of public duty by motives of private gain.
  And it comes, my Lords—if I may keep you for a few moments longer—at a peculiarly inappropriate time. We live in a Welfare State. The whole basis of it is responsible citizenship, and particularly responsibility in the use of money. To make this Welfare State viable spiritually and economically every citizen must develop a sense of responsibility superior, as I would say, to that
  1304
  required under any other order of society that has ever existed. Chance, in the sense of the unforeseeable or the uncontrollable, does, of course, enter into every occupation and often decides whether a State, a society, or a company pays its way and whether individuals are in prosperity or adversity. But the whole endeavour of our society is that each in his own place shall earn and contribute and control his share by the exercise of his own reasoned responsibility. Private gain divorced from responsibility, whether in management or workers or anywhere else, is anti-social. The Government's great concern must be that money gained shall be truly earned and that money earned shall be used reasonably, thoughtfully and for the general good.
  The Chancellor's action and this Bill both contradict that social principle, and do so now of all times, when our existence and influence as a nation depend upon it. The Bill might be regarded as a small and, therefore, unimportant thing; but it is now caught up into this far wider context of concern. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, talks of his premium bonds as being "too small to corrupt." Once more there is this misleading emphasis on smallness. It is as though an athlete in training said that a chocolate was too small a thing to injure his training, and then proceeded to eat chocolates the whole day long. When everybody is making seductive offers all round, fresh offers of the same kind, from the Government of premium bonds, or from this Parliament in this Bill, become of serious concern for the training and disciplined spirit of the nation. Bad currency always drives out good. A long succession of small gambles, always tending to grow larger or more numerous, added on to the commercial gambles as a whole, cannot make a nation great. They can only make it flabby or, shall I say, fluttering in spirit.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt go his own way. But the Government have now undertaken to deal by legislation with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting and Gambling, and your Lordships know that the Royal Commission did not recommend any change in the Lottery Laws. Surely, on every ground, this Bill must now await the general review which the Government have promised, in which the

  1305
  undoubted anomalies to which the noble Lord referred will be dealt with, and any necessary relaxation from an over-Puritanical spirit will no doubt be deliberately made.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can claim to prejudge the issue for his own purposes, this Bill cannot claim the same right. It is no longer a small one. It must now be considered along with all other similar matters. The Bill utters this coinage—what I have called this slightly debased coinage—in maximum denominations of £100, the Chancellor of £1,000 and the football pools of £75,000, But it is all the same spiritual currency, and its value for the public health should be considered by the Government and by Parliament as a single problem. No doubt, the general public will require that a place, a substantial place, be left in the national life for the gambling instinct to express itself, and I should accept the fact. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the promoter of this Bill suggest that their measures are too small to corrupt, they bear witness that large indulgence of the gambling instinct may easily corrupt the life of the nation. But small and large are matters of proportion, and can only be wisely considered when all the elements of the problem are brought together in the general review now promised by the Government. For this reason, also, I suggest that it would be improvident to proceed with this Bill until that general review can take place.
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for speaking before him, but let me assure him that I am only following what I understood was to be the order of speakers. I will not stand between him and the House for long, but I rise as an unrepentant supporter of this Bill, in spite of the most impressive and widely-phrased declamation of the most reverend Primate. My reason for supporting this Bill is that I believe that no great moral issue is raised by this Bill. It is doing nothing new. It is making no extension of gambling. It is simply putting right what all of us, with one: or two exceptions, have in this House and outside indulged in for years——the mild "flutter" in aid of the horticultural society, in aid of the hospital, or in aid
  1306
  of the local church, welcomed by those who received the benefits of such a "flutter". We are putting right the result of the Maynard Williams judgment of 1954.
  I do not feel that it is appropriate today, and I am not competent to go into the wider issues raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, as did the most reverend Primate. We shall have chances later on of going into that question—I use the word "chances" with some hesitation after the speech we have just heard. Perhaps then there will be noble Lords who will take issue with the most reverend Primate on his analysis of the motives and results of the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward and which I think will command a certain measure of support throughout the country. The most reverend Primate started his speech by saying that an objective judgment on gambling was difficult because it was difficult to define gambling. I cannot disagree with that, because we all live to some extent by the hazard, the chance, the gamble of life. What a dreary and dull thing life would be if it were lived according to the law of certainty! I do not know whether the most reverend Primate carries life insurance for the benefit of his dependants when he dies. Some of us do. That is a form of gambling. It is the acceptance by a life insurance house of a hazard on the life of the individual they insure. They assess all the chances of someone living to a particular time. They medically examine him and try to get the chance a little more on their side than on his.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me whether I was insured: yes, I am. In my speech I said that there were chances and that the great endeavour of man was to control his chances reasonably. One fact of which I am certain is that I shall die. Therefore, I try to meet that certainty as reasonably as I can.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, let me say only that the company that accepts an insurance of the most reverend Primate is having a gamble on how long he is going to live. They hope to win. I sincerely hope that they will lose, but it is their hope that they will win. The most reverend Primate went

  1307
  on to say that the authoritative bodies of the churches generally reject gambling. The authoritative bodies of the churches may generally reject gambling, but lower down in the ranks they do not. They enjoy the church raffle. There are great benefits—the new nave is built, the church is repaired. I really think it is hypocritical for the authorities at the top to say that they reject these things while farther clown the ranks they are only too glad to take advantage of them.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, "hypocritical" is a very hard word. I always thought it was the duty of leaders to lead and not to depend on what people were saying down below. I have yet to learn that vox populi has to be accepted as vox dei.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I was not saying that the most reverend Primate was hypocritical. I said that the authoritative church attitude is hypocritical if the authorities go to their councils and condemn gambling and yet do not issue a letter or directive, or whatever the church hierarchy issues, to the authorities lower down to say that no more church raffles should be encouraged and that there should be no more summer fetes where the cake is raffled.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord has asked for it. The church authorities do issue directions, but, thank heaven! the Church of England is a fairly tough and responsible body and knows that not all its orders will be obeyed.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if orders are made and not obeyed, it is not for me to comment on the discipline which exists in the Church of England. The most reverend Primate then said that the national spirit, the coinage of our national life, is all important and must not be debased. I entirely agree. He said that the "gold standard" is tarnished by this Bill. With great respect, I think that that is an exaggeration. The Bill legalises something which has been common practice for many years, and to say that our spiritual life is being debased thereby is something which ordinary men cannot really understand. The most reverend Primate asked whether this is a "middle-aged" Bill. He made an
  1308
  assumption, unsupported by any facts or argument, that it was the managerial class which was behind this Bill and that there was no demand for it by youth. I do not know the figures, but I think we should find that as many people under thirty-five enjoy of mild "flutter" as those over thirty-five. There has been no sort of Gallup Poll of the ages of the populace who enjoy their mild "flutter." I could not quite understand that statement, because it was completely unsupported by any factual evidence.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, that is partly true. I gave it as my opinion, and it has whatever merit there is in that, but I did support it with one small bit of evidence. So far as I know, no youth organisations or persons who speak for youth had ever asked for this Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, and so far as I know no youth organisation has protested against this Bill, except the Church youth organisation which the most reverend Primate mentioned; and, so far as I know, there have not been any supporting resolutions from old age pensioners or any particular opposition by old age pensioners. I do not think that we can really say that sections of the population support or oppose the Bill. I think we must keep a sense of proportion. I regret that the wider issues of gambling in relation to the spiritual life of the nation, and of the introduction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new premium bonds, should have been introduced in the debate on this small measure, which does nothing new and which only legalises what all of us enjoy. I think the objection to this Bill is impractical. Sometimes, quite rightly, the Church tells us of our many and manifold sins of omission and commission. Nevertheless, today nine-tenths of the people, if it is a debasing of the spiritual life of the country, enjoy a slight degree of debasement. I suggest that those in authority in the churches should give some credit for self-control of the ordinary member of the family and of the population. People can exceed in gambling; people can exceed in drink; people can exceed in many different directions to the detriment of themselves, their spirit and the nation in general. Sometimes we hear of empty churches and of the

  1309
  decline of the church. I sometimes think it is because those in authority are out of touch with nine-tenths of the people of this country.
  5.21 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, it is more than fifteen months since I took any share in your Lordships' deliberations, and I have come down to-day in disobedience of doctor's orders because of what I feel is the moral danger of this Bill. Neither I nor, I think, the most reverend Primate, would be prepared to say that one is guilty of a wicked deed if one takes part in a small lottery. But what I am concerned about, in particular, is the danger to our young people. The future belongs to the young people, and it will be determined very much by their character. It is for that reason that I am going to ask your Lordships to reject this Bill.
  I should like to digress for a moment to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who said that no instructions had been issued from headquarters with regard to this matter. Fortunately, If have here a publication, which I had not expected to use, issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. It says:
  "As a way of raising money they (lotteries) are wasteful and pernicious … pernicious because of the unholy alliance between altruism and self-seeking. For this attempt to bribe people to subscribe to charities by an appeal to self interest there is nothing to be said. It is an insult to charity and a source of offence because it tends to blunt men's consciences."
  That is an official statement issued on behalf of both the Anglican and the Free Churches. By happy coincidence I, as a member of the Free Church, am to-day following the most reverend Primate, who spoke earlier on this matter.
  Having said that, I want us to give a little more thought to this matter than we appear to have done. In a letter to The Times some time ago the Bishop of Willesden said this:
  "The effect of such reversal to extend existing facilities for gambling will tend to the degradation of charity and the debasement of sport. It encourages cupidity rather than charity … and will multiply the number of people who have no interest in sport for sport's sake."
  That, so far as I am concerned, is the basis of the opposition to this Bill. It will have a deleterious effect on our young people, and we shall reap the reward
  1310
  later on. I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill described it as a "little Bill." But that is how these things start. Then, when they have started like that and made some impression, we find them difficult to stop. It will be most difficult to make young people believe that there is quite a difference between this sort of gambling and that in the wider field. After all, the whole case was given away by the mover of the Bill when he agreed that certain wrongs had resulted from this to the social life of the country. It began in this degree, first of all, and it is because of that, I think, that we have responsibility placed upon us.
  I speak with some little knowledge on this matter, because I have for many years been concerned with work among young people; and I was for several years on the management committee of one of the probationers' homes. Again and again we found that the beginning of trouble was the gambling instinct among these young people. They get that, and then they get to bigger things; and then they see the huge prizes offered by the pools. Now that gambling is being given this air of respectability it will make things much more difficult. Two or three Bills similar to this have been introduced in the past few years. Two of them were talked out in another place, and this one got through on a narrow majority of only twenty-four in a small House. It is worth noting that in the debate on a former Bill of this sort the then Home Secretary said:
  "Are we to legislate at the level of he present day 'decline in the standard of morals and integrity in our community life'?"
  That Home Secretary has now undertaken higher office.
  I want to remind noble Lords that again and again we have discussed in this House moral issues concerning the health and well-being of young people—in the language of to-day, juvenile delinquency. Anybody who is in touch with these young people will know that the gambling instinct is one of the starting points—putting a "bob" on a horse. First, they do it, and it seems all right; and then they read of the enormous prizes offered by the pools. All these things are lowering. When they get the idea that they can do better in this way than by honest hard work, then we are going a long way to making things more difficult in the future. That is all I can say at the

  1311
  moment. As I say, I have come to this House to make my protest. I feel that I should offer some apology because, having been away for so long, it is unfortunate that I should find myself in opposition to my noble friend Lord Chorley. However, I am bound to say that I shall ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill as and when the time comes.
  5.29 p.m.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it affords me, and I am sure all your Lordships, great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, back among us. I should like to say, as a political foe of his of the old days and as an old and personal friend, how glad we are to see him here to-day. And although I am a supporter of the Bill, I thought that he put the case against the Bill with a moderation which was singularly lacking from the speech of the most reverend Primate. I want to tell the most reverend Primate that I, as a supporter of the Government and a friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resent his bringing into the debate on this Bill a discussion on premium bonds, which in any other assembly in the world would have been out of order.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading himself referred to premium bonds.
  EARL WINTERTON: It is true that h referred to premium bonds, but he did not take the opportunity to make the attack upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer which the most reverend Primate made. I think it was unfortunate.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself indicated that a number of people would be severely injured and hurt by his actions. He was prepared for that. Would he really complain if I make reference to a topic which is common to his action and the action of this Bill?
  EARL WINTERTON: That, if I may say so, is a matter of opinion. The most reverend Primate occupies a position of great eminence in this country, but he must not suppose that when he takes part in debates in your Lordships' House he is not open to criticism.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Oh, no.
  EARL WINTERTON: I think that his whole contention, that there is a close connection, a moral connection, a Christian connection, between this small Bill and premium bonds, is, frankly, ridiculous. That is my description of it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Does the noble Earl deny that premium bonds are a lottery?
  EARL WINTERTON: I should prefer to make my speech my own way. I am not prepared to discuss premium bonds on this occasion, because I think it is an inappropriate time to do so. Really, I must be permitted occasionally to make a sentence without interruption from the most reverend Primate. Sometimes when the most reverend Primate interrupts, I rather regret we are not back in another place with a Speaker. All I said was that I think it is a ridiculous argument to connect this mild little Bill with premium bonds. All that it does really is to clear up the law. That is the principal object of the Bill, because in many parts of the country what this Bill authorises already takes place without any interference from anybody. It is only under some police administrations that the lotteries with which this Bill deals are prevented. I should have thought that it was a perfectly' harmless Bill from that point of view.
  On the general question of gambling, of course the most reverend Primate is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. If I might have his attention for a moment, I was rather interested in one piece of unconscious humour on his part. He was tackled by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye to explain why church raffles were encouraged in so many churches, and why the Church authorities did nothing about it. He informed us that the Church of England was a very tough body and was incapable of imposing discipline on any of its members. That is quite true, otherwise the Dean of Canterbury would not still be the Dean of Canterbury.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If the noble Earl will trail his coat like this, I must intervene again to point out that I stated in this

  1313
  House, at great length, some years ago the fact, which Sir Winston Churchill supported in another place, that there is no law in this country under which the Dean can be excluded from his office.
  EARL WINTERTON: If I may pay a compliment to the most reverend Primate, I remember his delightful and extremely eloquent speech—which is what we expect from him—on the occasion of that debate. But he did mention, in the course of that debate, that the Dean of Canterbury had abased and compromised his position. All I say is that it could not be said of any other Church that I have heard of, that a person who so behaved could not be subject to any penalty. That disposes of that matter.
  I would say that the most reverend Primate was like a man who uses a bulldozer to remove a small twig. To listen to his speech—to which the House always listens with the closest attention, because, if he will allow me to say so with the greatest respect and without impertinence, he is one of the most eloquent speakers I have heard in fifty years of public life—one would have thought that this was a gigantic question, the very summit of moral questions: that the whole social life of the country depended on our not passing a Bill of this kind. I really do not think that is so. I should have thought there were many other questions much more worthy of the head of the Church of England. I should have thought, especially this week, that the Church might have drawn attention to the appalling persecution of fellow-Christians behind the Iron Curtain. I noticed that in the recent Church conferences most of the attention was drawn to questions such as gambling and not to other evils which are far greater in the world to-day than the form of gambling with which this Bill deals. For those reasons, I hope this Bill will be passed.
  I think it is a sensible little Bill. I agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in this country about gambling and a great deal of inequality as between different aspects of it. "Inequality" is not a very happy term, but while some forms of gambling are bad, other forms, I think, do not do much harm. I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, that I really cannot think that anyone would be led on the downward path and become a confirmed gambler
  1314
  through the provisions of this harmless little Bill. I should have thought it much more likely in the case of a man who gambled on the turf or on the football pools. The truth is that we have had in this country for a long time a state of affairs which is ridiculous, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government, with commendable courage—because the Bill is going to meet with a good deal of opposition from different quarters—are going to take in hand and consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It may well be—and we have yet to hear the answer of the Government—that the Government feel that it is inadvisable to pass this Bill because of the general principle involved; the principle of dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. If that is not so, I hope the Government will give this Bill its blessing.
  5.36 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to attempt to come to the aid of the most reverend Primate, whose speech, when it is read carefully, I think will be seen to have been a carefully thought out and balanced statement. What is the object of this Bill? Either it is to increase the facilities for gambling, or else it is to aid charitable objects. I think few of us would wholeheartedly subscribe to the proposition that it is desirable to increase the facilities for gambling, which are already quite abundant in this country, many of them well organised—and another, with all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, is apparently on its way. That is not at all an irrelevant consideration to the discussion this afternoon. If, on the other hand, the object of this Bill is to assist charitable purposes, I would say, in the first place, that that is far from being the whole of its content, because, as it stands at the present moment, it enables lotteries to be conducted for the benefit of any society, no matter what its objects are. Its objects might, in fact, be quite uncharitable and quite detrimental to the community. But if this Bill is passed into law, it will have ample legal facilities to conduct as many lotteries as it pleases. So that this is not a pure case of assisting charitable objects.
  After all, it seems rather strange that if people want to undertake some purpose which is beneficial to the public, or even one which is beneficial to some private

  1315
  society and not beneficial to the public at all, they should not have sufficient public spirit to be able to subscribe the money which is necessary for that purpose but have to depend upon cajoling other people into supporting it by taking part in a lottery on the chance that they will win a prize. With all respect to the noble Earl who has just spoken, that seems to me to raise an issue of fundamental moral importance. I admired very much the speech which he made in this House comparatively recently when we were discussing a matter relating to foreign policy, in which he made a spirited protest about the neglect of the moral issues which were involved in certain questions; and I think moral issues ought not to be neglected in this case either. It is a matter which deserves consideration: whether the result of this Bill is not simply to increase to a large extent the facilities for gambling, without serving any other useful purpose at all. On that account, I am going to support my noble friend, Lord Ammon.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty, because all my sympathies are with those who oppose the Bill and against those who have spoken in favour. Nevertheless, I propose to support the Bill. The most reverend Primate based the case against the Bill on the effect on our social life and on his objection to gambling generally. I should like to say at once that I—and, I imagine, a great many in this House—am utterly opposed to gambling and am completely out of accord with the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. I do not think that a "flutter" is a good thing. I agree with all the sentiments that the most reverend Primate and the noble Lords, Lord Ammon and Lord Douglas of Barloch, have expressed, but I fail to co-relate those sentiments with this Bill. I do not believe for a moment that a single person will be induced to play bridge or whist over and above those who already play those games. This Bill will give no encouragement to anybody to play whist who does not already do so. Nor, in my view, will it increase in any way the number of lotteries that take place.
  EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he said I was in favour of gambling. I have not said a word in favour of gambling. I myself do not gamble. I said there were differences between different forms of gambling. Probably I did not make that point clearly.
  LORD SILKIN: Of course, I accept that. The point I wish to make is that this Bill will not in any way increase the amount of whist-playing or the number of lotteries that take place. For instance, I would refer to Paragraph 147 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which deals with whist drives. Among other things, it says:
  "Although whist drives are illegal, proceedings are not normally taken against their promoters."
  It goes on to say that, in actual fact, the police have been given instructions not to prosecute. Therefore people can play whist in an organised way with impunity. The same applies to these small lotteries. There have been odd prosecutions but, in fact, we know that these lotteries are taking place under the very noses of the police and people in authority. So long as one complies broadly with the kind of conditions that are laid down in the Bill, no prosecution will take place. If anybody wants to run a lottery for the purposes of a church or of any other charity, he will do so and take the risk of the police interfering. Probably the chances of the police interfering will be very slight indeed.
  The effect of this Bill is that, whereas people who take part in organised games of whist or in these small lotteries are, as the law stands at present, criminals and liable to prosecution, they will, if this Bill is carried into law, not be so. It is desirable that if a thing is permitted with impunity and carried on with impunity, the people who do it should not be regarded as criminals and run even the very slight risk of prosecution. Nobody can suggest for a moment that if we do not pass this Bill the amount of gambling that will take place which this Bill covers will in any way be reduced. I submit that neither will it be increased if the Bill is passed. It will leave matters exactly as they are, except that people will no longer be regarded as criminals and possibly liable to prosecution.

  1317
  There is one small point which the most reverend Primate made about the Bill. No doubt it could be remedied in Committee. I agree with him that it would be wrong if we accepted, under the guise of a charitable organisation, any undertaking, any society, so long as it was not run for gain. But I myself do not understand Clause 1 in that sense. I imagine the most reverend Primate is referring to Clause 1 (1) (c). I take paragraph (c) to mean that it must be a purpose which is broadly covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) and which is covered by what the lawyers describe as the doctrine of eiusdem generis. If I am wrong in that —and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to tell me whether or not that is so—then it is a matter which quite properly can be dealt with and amended in the Committee stage. But, subject to that, with every sympathy for and in full agreement with what all the noble Lords and the most reverend. Primate have said about the ethics of gambling, I fail to understand how this Bill can affect the matter in any way. Incidentally, I cannot resist one final word to the noble Earl, Lord Winterton. He rebuked the most reverend Primate for being irrelevant; but. I wonder what the Dean of Canterbury has to do with this Bill.
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I suggest that he was regarded either as a gamble or as a small lottery?
  5.47 p.m.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I did not intend to take any part in this debate but I was moved by an omission from the speech of the most reverend Primate, in that while he referred to the Church of England and to the Free Churches, he did not mention the Church of Scotland. Since the most reverend Primate has brought up the question of the premium bonds, I should like to say that the late Convener of the Church and Nations Committee of the Church of Scotland has written to the papers to say that he views with very great regret the fact that the Government are making themselves responsible for the lottery bond—I thought that was interesting as a man speaking with authority—and that the Church of Scotland have sent an injunction to all their congregations saying that they disapprove of all lotteries that are raising funds for the benefit of the Church. So
  1318
  the Church of Scotland has spoken definitely with regard to lotteries that are arranged in any form for the benefit of the Church. That has been made clear. Otherwise, it is a matter of private opinion. I am not saying whether I approve or not; we, all have our private opinions; but I think that when we find a Government sanction being given we have to consider the matter very carefully.
  5.49 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I add one word. I have not had the opportunity of hearing all your Lordships' discussion, and in particular I regret that I had to miss the contributions made by my two noble friends who sit immediately below me. I confess to finding myself in some difficulty in this matter. I am not, I hope—indeed, I know that I am not—any more virtuous than any other noble Lord. I enjoy a "flutter," when it conies my way, as much as anybody else does, and I certainly have no scruples whatever about taking part in a village whist drive raffle, or in any other raffle on an even larger scale.
  Although I do not discuss the ethics of gambling, I have always supposed that the two essential features of reprehensible gambling, which I have no doubt the noble Lord opposite who moved the Second Reading was right in not finding in this Bill, are, first, the feature that leads people to commit themselves to a larger financial extent than they can afford; and secondly, the feature that tends to lead them to attach an undue value to money for its own sake. I do not find those two elements in this proposal; therefore I am not greatly shocked by it. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody—certainly not I—listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate, speaking with the responsibility that is bound to attach to anything that he says both in his personal and representative capacity, without being a good deal affected and moved by it.
  Apart from the argument that lie developed on merits, I was impressed with the argument that he advanced towards the end of his speech, in which he said that he thought that there was a strong case for asking the Government to allow this matter to stand over and be brought up as part of a general review, in the light of the consideration that they intend

  1319
  to give to the whole question later. To me, too, that would seem to be a not unreasonable conclusion of this immediate discussion. We could then look at the matter in the light of what might be the general considerations so given. That is all I want to say, beyond adding my appeal to that of the most reverend Primate, that if it were thought possible that course might be followed.
  5.52 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and naturally your Lordships will look to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for guidance upon some of the technical points that have been raised and for help in the Committee stage on any doubts which may be in your Lordships' minds. But I think it would be right for the Government to express some opinion on this Bill, and I should now like to put their views to your Lordships as briefly as I possibly can. As will be within your Lordships' memory. Parliament has discussed the whole question of gambling on two or three occasions in recent months. In February last we had a most interesting debate on the Report of the Royal Commission, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. In a way, I am sorry that although we had excellent speeches from the Bishops of Carlisle and of Sheffield, we were prevented, through circumstances of which we are all aware, from hearing the Archbishop's advice on that occasion. The most reverend Primate has to-day given us a speech of great importance and one to which the country will obviously lend a keen and interested ear. I should rather have wished that the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech had been available to the House at the time of the major debate on gambling two months ago.
  With much of the first half of the most reverend Primate's speech I found myself in agreement. That is purely a personal opinion, because I do not happen to like gambling. On the second half of his speech—a most remarkable second half, in which he succeeded, if I may say so with great respect, in making a Second Reading speech on a Bill which is not to be published until to-morrow—I would
  1320
  only say that on the question of premium bonds there are, I think, many noble Lords here who will, when the time comes, be happy to take a few twigs to his bulldozer and do battle with him on that matter. It seems to me that that matter is not germane to the much smaller issue which is before the House to-day and upon which I think the most reverend Primate has, with some justification, been taxed as attaching a little more importance than it really merits.
  During the course of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I ventured to suggest what the Government felt might be a practical basis for legislation on this whole subject when a suitable opportunity occurred. Of course, my suggestions were based almost entirely on the suggestions of the Royal Commission. It was generally agreed in the course of that debate that there is bound to be gambling in this country and that we may as well face it. Therefore, if there is bound to be gambling, the law about it had better be clear, it had better be sensible, it had better be understood and, most of all, it had better be obeyed. We came to the conclusion that at the moment the law concerning gambling generally in this country is none of those things. I was impressed afterwards at the widespread approval, both in the Press and in the country, of the arguments used in your Lordships' debate, even by those who were fundamentally opposed to gambling and whose conscientious objections were naturally aroused. The general fears of your Lordships' House were towards uncontrolled gambling rather than towards gambling as such, and that view has, I think, been widely reflected in the country and has evoked remarkably little protest—at least, nothing like the protest that we thought at the time might arise.
  This question raises the very small matter of lotteries. It occupied a separate chapter in the Report of the Royal Commission. It is indeed true that the Royal Commission made no suggestions for reforming this very small branch of the law. The reason for that has been made clear since. There have been two cases which have cast considerable doubt on the law, upon which the Royal Commission made no recommendation. It is fairly obvious that if those two cases had occurred before the Report of the Royal

  1321
  Commission, they might well have advised in a different way. All that remains is for me to say that this Bill seeks to put these doubts out of the law and to put the matter in order.
  I can advise the. House, I hope fairly, that the Bill is generally a workmanlike and practical Bill and will succeed in doing what its sponsors set out to do. It sets out to bring the law back into repute. Let us face the fact, as several noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, that the law on this particular subject has been broken time and time again, in all innocence by many people. There can he little doubt that Members of your Lordships' House have on numerous occasions broken this law. This goes back to the fundamental principle of the debate on the Motion of Lord Silkin: that if we are going to have a law, let us have one that we can understand and one that we can obey. That is the principle behind this small Bill, and it is one which I think your Lordships can well accede to this afternoon.
  I deliberately say nothing about the ethics of gambling. I think that is not my duty. Your Lordships have received much conflicting advice in the course, of the debate. I content myself with saying that I think this is a necessary amendment of the law, which need not wait for the major reforms which we contemplate, because it is separate and disconnected from those reforms. It will succeed in bringing the law into repute. If we are going to have a law for gambling, we want it to be a law that we can all understand and obey. Upon that basis alone—I go no further—I, for one, would, I am afraid, vote against the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, in the Lobby should he see fit to take this matter to a Division.
  5.59 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who have supported my Motion. I should like also to thank the most reverend Primate for the admirable—I do not quite know whether to call it a sermon, which he delivered to us, and also my noble friend Lord Ammon, whom I am sure everybody, particularly myself, is glad to see back here taking part in our discussions, even at the cost of his opposition to the Motion which I have put before your Lordships. If I may just take
  1322
  up one matter with him, I understand that he proposes to divide the House on this Motion. If I understood him correctly, he said that the Bill was passed through another place by a small majority. Of course, that is not true; it was unopposed on both the Second and the Third Readings. I would appeal to him, as an old House of Commons man and as one who appreciates the constitutional position, not to attempt to override a decision reached in another place by what was, in effect, an uncontested vote; because so far from there being a small majority, on both Second and Third Readings, as I say, the passage of the Bill was uncontested.
  The most reverend Primate has contributed a speech with much of which I found myself in agreement. But I thought it was rather unrealistic. After all, we are confronted by a situation in this country in which this type of "flutter" goes on and has always gone on. It was going on in the great days of Queen Elizabeth I and in the eighteenth century. The object of this Bill is to regulate the situation and to ensure that, in these particular matters, it does not get out of hand. I believe that the most reverend Primate is setting his sights too high. If we try to get 100 per cent. we may get nothing; if we are content with 75 per cent. we may get it all. That, very largely, is the difficulty with alcohol. It is a poison. Taken in reasonable quantities, it is very pleasant; but if one takes too much, it may kill. It is the same with gambling.
  I believe that it is unstatesmanlike, as well as a quite impracticable policy, to take the view that all gambling, even its mildest manifestations, is so wrong that one must oppose it:. It is easy to pour scorn upon the idea of money being brought in for charities and other desirable objects in this way. Years ago, when the great brewer, Carlberg of Copenhagen, left his brewery and his fortune to the University of Copenhagen, some people shook their heads. Yet the university has done most valuable work through money obtained from that brewery, which is engaged in manufacturing what is undoubtedly a poison but one which, taken in small quantities, is a very pleasant beverage. Taken in large doses, alcohol leads to squalor and the break-up of families and other evils of which we all know. One cannot put it beyond that.

  1323
  The most reverend Primate took the point that all kinds of societies might be established for most undesirable objects. I do not think that could be so. I agree with the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The purpose here is within the general ambit:
  "charitable purposes … participation in or support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities:"
  If the object were to make any kind of society eligible for inclusion within the ambit of the clause, there would have been no point in mentioning charitable purposes, sports, or cultural activities. Obviously there are other activities
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  which, in a general way, fall within classes of that kind, which it is desirable should be indicated in a later clause of the Bill. That is my understanding of the matter, and I adopt the view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I feel that that is all I can usefully add. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Amnion, insists on dividing the House, your Lordships will give the Bill its Second Reading.
  On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a.
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 5.

  CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor).

  Cilcennin, V.

  Digby, L.

  Furness, V.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

  Goschen, V.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Hailsham, V. [Teller.]

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Soulbury, V.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Kenswood, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Amulree, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Boyd-Orr, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Morley, E.

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Rea, L.

  Munster, E.

  Burden, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Rennell, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Waleran, L.

  Winterton, E.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Winster, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Craigmyle, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Halifax, E.

  Ammon, L. [Teller.]

  Douglas of Barloch, L. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  6.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Increase of pensions specified in the First Schedule]:
  LORD BURDEN: Since the first Amendment in my name appeared on the Marshalled List, the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, with his customary courtesy, has agreed that some discussions should take place. In view of that, while reserving my rights so far as the Report stage is concerned, I do not propose to move the Amendment to-day.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Powers to increase other pensions]:
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK) moved, in subsection (2), after "areas" to insert: "in respect of certain service". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really introductory to the two following Amendments which stand in my name. They relate to a matter to which I referred during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and are put down in response to a request made by the noble Lord, Lord Wiley, with regard to Indian pensions. The short point—if may deal with the matter on this Amendment, although it is only an introductory one—is that while there is provision for Indian pensioners to receive pension increases if they terminated their service before August 15, 1947, or if they terminated their service in consequence of the transfer of power in India, if they terminated their service in the ordinary way they would not be getting the increases of pension. These three Amendments will ensure that these other people who terminated their service in the ordinary way will get the increased pensions as laid down in the Bill. I think that that is exactly the point which the
  1326
  noble Lord, Lord Halley, had in mind, and I hope the Amendment meets with his approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 39, after ("areas") insert ("in respect of certain service").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD HAILEY: I am glad to say—and I will say it as shortly as possible because this is so satisfactory—that the Amendment fully meets the point I raised on behalf of my friends. We are very grateful to the Government for putting it forward.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the substance of the Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 46, at end insert ("after the figures '1947' there shall be inserted the words or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fifteenth day of August, domiciled outside Asia'; and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to,
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This also is a substantive Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("and after the figures '1947' there shall be added the words 'or which was rendered by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, was at the date when the service began, being a date before the said fourth day of January, domiciled outside Asia'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  First Schedule [Pensions which tray be increased under section one of this Act]
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after paragraph 1 to insert:
  "2. A pension payable by any local authority partly in respect of local government service as defined for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Act of 1944 and partly in respect of service with the London Passenger Transport Board and the British Transport Commission."
  The noble Lord said: In view of the importance of the matter, I hope your Lordships will bear with me, even at this

  1327
  late hour, if I, as briefly as I can, outline the purpose of this Amendment. As your Lordships will be aware, in 1933 the tramway staffs employed by the metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council were transferred under the provisions of the Act of 1933, to the London Passenger Transport Board—now, of course, London Transport. Those who so decided, continued to pay contributions into the superannuation fund of the local authority by whom they were formerly employed, and the employer's contributions were paid into that fund by London Transport (I am using the shorter name). Section 80 (12) of the Act of 1933 required the Board to make those payments. The former local authority tramways staff transferred to London Transport were not covered by the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1952, but the former local authorities were given power by regulations to pay pensions increase to their former employees who ultimately retired from the employment of London Transport.
  The local authorities concerned have decided—and I see no justifiable reason against it—to pay pensions increase only in respect of that proportion of pension relating to service rendered to the local authority. London Transport, however, have refused to pay pensions increase in respect of that proportion of the pension based on service rendered to London Transport. I submit to your Lordships that this is a particular injustice suffered by these former tramways staff. It is an injustice for two reasons: first, they would have obtained pensions increase as a right on the whole of their pensions if they had not been transferred out of local government employment; secondly, if, instead of being transferred to London Transport, they had been transferred to the Central Electricity Authority or to the Gas Council, they would have received the increases as a whole.
  When this question was raised in another place, it was broadened to include the superannuated staffs of all nationalised undertakings by the Minister, who said:
  "If the honourable Member would think it over carefully, I think he would also accept and sympathise with the argument which I am putting, that the Bill deals with people whose pensions are paid from public funds."
  1328
  He went on to say:
  "It would not apply where pensions are paid by commercial undertakings."
  Surely these pensions are paid out of public funds. The whole of the monies contributed by the staff are in public funds, in the funds of local authorities. Is it suggested that the funds of London Transport are the funds of a commercial undertaking and not public funds?
  It will be within the recollection of noble Lords that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replying on behalf of the Government, made somewhat the same point. May I direct the noble Earl's attention to this point. Section 80 (7) of the Act of 1933 placed upon the London Transport an obligation to pay the employer's contributions to provide pensions for those transferred tramways staffs. If that legal obligation to provide for pensions was placed on London Transport, I cannot see how it is logical for the Minister to say that the Government cannot insist on outside bodies paying pensions increase. What is the difference between placing a statutory obligation on London Transport to provide for the main pensions and asking them to provide for these increases? I submit to your Lordships that once Parliament has required a board to provide pensions on a local government basis in respect of the period of service rendered to the board by those transferred staffs, the Government ought also to require London Transport to pay pensions increase in respect of the proportion of pension based on that service. If the Government can properly require the London County Council to make provision for pensions increase, why should not Parliament similarly require the London Transport Executive to make such provision?
  I understand that there are some 200 employees previously in local government service who are now superannuated. London Transport Executive have refused point blank to do anything to supplement the pensions for the period during which these men were in their employ. May I quote a sentence written by a Member of another place who is interested in this problem, because there are a number of ex-local government employees who were transferred to London Transport now living in his constituency? This is what he says:
  "The Treasury have informed me that they would be quite willing to take all the neces-

  1329
  sary action to put this admitted anomaly right, but they must have the approach made to them by the London Transport Executive."
  Frankly, I cannot understand the attitude of the London Transport Executive. They have been pressed by the Transport and General Workers' Union to do this. They have been pressed by the National Association of Local Government Officers. The Treasury apparently are quite willing to make the way easy and provide the necessary sanctions. Yet London Transport are unwilling to act in the matter.
  And I cannot follow the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter. I cannot see why they cannot insist on this elementary piece of justice to these staffs. I could give instances where, under private enterprise, the Government of the day interfered in matters of this kind. Her Majesty's Government can instruct the London Transport Executive not to apply increases in rates and fares which have been recommended by a responsible tribunal; they cart restrain capital development; they can let the Transport Executive either proceed or not, as they see fit. To bring a recent instance to the attention of your Lordships, when the locomotive men were on strike, did the Government sit idly by with folded arms and say: "All we have to do is to hold the ring and let these people fight it out"? No, they appointed a Committee of Inquiry. And if British Railways had refused to put the result of that inquiry into operation, would the Government have said: "This is no concern of ours"? In all these major matters the Government have power, under the Act, to say that the transport authority shall do this or do that. Why then should they be so delicately-minded in regard to this matter and say that they cannot do anything? I submit that the Government ought to say to London Transport: "You jolly well ought to pay these increases. We are willing that you should. Therefore, do the right and proper thing." I could say more, but at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships further. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.(Lord Burden.)
  6.32 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LESTOWEL: I should like to start by saying that I think my noble friend Lord Burden has raised an important point, and I hope that the
  1330
  Government may be able to meet it, if not in this Bill then in some other way. My noble friend has put his finger on what I feel is a real hardship that is being experienced by former employees of London Transport who have also served in local government, and I am sure that that hardship ought to be removed. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to suggest some way of removing it. I am bound to say that I shall put to your Lordships the view local authorities take about this Amendment, because my noble friend has put the view of the employees and I feel that the Committee should have both views. Having said that, I feel +that the effect of the Amendment would be contrary to the intention that my noble friend has in mind, and would, to sonic degree, defeat the purpose of the Amendment.
  The effect of The Amendment, as I see it, is to include among the pensions that may be increased under the present Bill those payable by local authorities for services rendered not only to them but also in part to the London Passenger Transport Board and the Transport Commission. It would make the local authorities alone responsible for payment of the full increase in pensions, which will cover, of course, the time spent by these persons in the employment of the local authorities, as well as the time they have spent in the employment of London Transport. The London County Council would be directly affected by this Amendment if it were embodied in the Bill, for it would increase their payments of pensions in relation to personnel transferred from their employment to the employment of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933, when the tramways were taken over.
  As my noble friend has pointed out, the London Transport Executive have no power to repay the London County Council for the part of the increased pension which would be due to service to London Transport as employees of the London Transport authority. But it does seem unreasonable—as I am sure your Lordships will agree—that, if the London County Council cannot recover this part of the pension payment, they should be obliged to pay the whole of the increase. That, I understand, is what would happen under the terms of the Amendment as it stands. The London County Council are perfectly willing, like

  1331
  other local authorities, to pay the part of the increase arising from service under the Council. This seems a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. Whether or not the London Transport authorities could be encouraged to repay the Council their contribution towards the pensions payment, or could be put under a statutory obligation to pay, I do not know; but I hope that some way may be found of righting what I think my noble friend has rightly suggested is a genuine grievance.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised the question of tramwaymen who were retired or who were transferred from the tramway undertakings of West Ham, East Ham, Croydon, Erith, Ilford and the London County Council in 1933, first of all, to the L.P.T.B. and subsequently to the L.T.E. I must agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said: that the effect of the Amendment is contrary to that which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind that is to say, it would put an obligation directly on the London County Council, and not on the L.T.E., which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has in mind, to increase pensions subsequent to that date. I think I should make it clear that the regulations affecting the increased pensions, so far as they affect employment under the London County Council right up to the year 1933, have been made right up to date.
  The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised rather a big point here, and possibly bigger than he quite appreciates—at least that is how it appears from the way he spoke. It is true that when various undertakings have been brought under public control of one form or another, Parliament has made that new national organisation take over the existing pensions scheme. But in no case has Parliament insisted that that nationalised organisation should create a pension scheme where it did not exist before, or supplement or increase a pensions scheme that already existed. With great respect, I think that Parliament is quite right to take that line.
  The relationship of a nationalised industry with Parliament is always a delicate one. There are certain subjects on which the Minister can give instructions,
  1332
  and it is a standing measure of control that Parliament can say how much capital is to be invested in the particular industry. But I think it is an entirely different thing to interfere with what is essentially the relations between the management and their employees in these particular industries. The matter of pensions increase may be some long way from what is generally called labour management, but I submit that it is the thin end of the wedge; and I think it would be most unwise for Parliament in any way to lay down the conditions in which men should be employed or should be retired. Parliament has never done that, and I feel that it would be most unwise for Parliament to undertake that particular task. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press this point. I really cannot advise the Committee to accept an obligation on Parliament of that character.
  On the justice of the claim, I would rather not express a view. Clearly, we have made similar increases to various similar pensions, and anyone must judge the particular case as to how far it is due. If there is anything the Government can do to make a pension increase which may seem necessary, we will, of course, do our share. But I think it would be most unwise for Parliament to lay down by Act of Parliament—and it is by Act of Parliament—what should be the particular relationship between one of these organisations and their staff. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will not press his Amendment.
  LORD BURDEN: With the greatest respect, I must say I do not feel that the reply of the noble Earl is adequate. Let us assume that, following this debate, and if the Treasury are willing that this increase should be paid to the retired members from the local government service, London Transport asks for permission to pay it. Surely, it may be necessary to make regulations to enable them to do so. Is not Parliament then acting and determining what should be done? It is a narrow point, and I give it to the noble Earl that it is a debating point. The fact is that they cannot do it without the authority of Parliament, either in an Act or by Regulation.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think there is a slight difference between authorising something to be done and instructing

  1333
  something to be done. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord that if anything is wanted, it will be done.
  LORD BURDEN: I quite appreciate the point, and I agree that it must be a little difficult to instruct them to do so. But surely the resources of civilisation are not exhausted. It need not be in the Act or in the Schedule, so far as the phrasing of this Amendment is concerned. But if the Government, as I believe they do, feel that this is a right thing to do, although they are not prepared to instruct British Transport to do it, if they have that goodwill, then I think we are getting on a long way. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel that on the face of it the Amendment looks as if we were imposing this on the local authorities. As I made perfectly clear in my speech, there was no such intention; but the Amendment had to be put in that form because up to now the only means whereby superannuation can be paid s by and through the local authority fund, and they have dispensed those superannuation benefits previously. To their credit, be it said, they have always honoured the increases up to now, so far as the period during which those employees were in their services is concerned. I feel that this is so important a matter that while, of course, I would not press it to a Division, if the Committee in its good sense negatives it, we shall know where we are.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say that it is a fact that the London Transport Executive have asked the Government
  1334
  for power to refund local authorities for these pension payments?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have no information of that character.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Rate of increase of pension under section one of this Act]:
  LORD BURDEN: I do not think it would be fair to your Lordships to raise the last Amendment in my name this evening. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Minister and the Committee if I did not move it now, but left it over for discussion as suggested.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL CROYDON CORPORATION BILL SCOTTISH UNION AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.