Lords Sitting of 28 January 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
The Lord Tollemache—Took the Oath.

ADMISSION OF HEREDITARY PEERESSES
3.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that this House has twice resolved in favour of the admission of Peeresses in their own right, they will now introduce legislation to give effect to these Resolutions.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): No, my Lords, the enlargement of this House by this particular extension of the hereditary element would not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be desirable or practical, now or in the immediate or foreseeable future.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am mildly obliged to my noble friend for his reply. Could he perhaps help me, and those who agree with me, in one respect? Could he give any indication of how often this House has to pass a Resolution concerning its own composition before Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any notice of it?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am mildly pleased by my noble friend's supplementary question. We have always sought in these matters—although, of course, it is not necessary—to mobilise the maximum agreement, and this is a matter on which there is
770
clearly no agreement. As I have said, I do not think that either now or in the immediate or foreseeable future Her Majesty's Government would feel disposed to act, although, of course, we acknowledge that the House has passed two Resolutions with comparatively narrow majorities.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House this question? Would it not be competent for any Peeress in her own right to petition the Committee for Privileges to decide whether or not she has the right to sit, bearing in mind that two Committees have sat, one of which reported one way and the other of which reported the other way? Is it not quite open to any Peeress in her own right to make her application now to the Committee for Privileges?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, off the cuff, I would have said that it is open to any Peeress to do so. If I have to give a considered answer to that question, I should like to have it on the Paper, but I should have thought the position was as my noble friend has described it.

POST-WAR CREDITS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering making further concessions in relation to the repayment of Post-war Credits, so that applications for repayment to ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war, who paid heavy taxation during the last war and then contracted tuberculosis with loss of income during treatment and much reduced income since, may be granted even if the fixed age limit has not been reached.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, a man who has reached the age of 63 is at present entitled to claim repayment of Post-War Credits on age grounds. Most of the ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war therefore have already become entitled to claim. My

771
right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in answers to questions in another place on Tuesday of this week that he was closely examining the question of extending the arrangements for repaying Post-War Credits to include the permanently injured and the incurably sick, but that he was not yet ready to announce any decision. He will no doubt take note of the noble Viscount's interest in those members of the class to which he has referred who are not yet old enough to claim.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. Would the noble Earl bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the sort of cases I have in mind? I am thinking of those who may have been in the last part of the 1914–18 war, or others who did not go at all but who were earning good money from then on, but were then taken very sick and have since struggled back to work and are working on a very much lower income. They would like to be able to meet the commitments which have arisen in consequence of their illness, and that would be possible by a more urgent payment of their Post-War Credits.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as your Lordships know, it is very difficult to get a fair objective test of hardship in matters of this kind. For administrative reasons, it is necessary to select categories which can be readily and precisely defined. But I will certainly represent to my right honourable friend, who mentioned last Tuesday that he was considering the whole subject sympathetically, what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said.

NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) to clarify the statements recently made by the Prime Minister at Lagos and Salisbury,
772
Southern Rhodesia, to the effect that British protection will not be withdrawn from the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland until their peoples have agreed to enter an independent Federation, and

(2) whether, having regard to these statements, the Monckton Commission will be free to consider and report upon the question of either of these territories being allowed to secede from the Federation.]

THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister said in reply to a question at a Press conference in Lagos on January 13:
"The Government of the United Kingdom has made it clear—abundantly clear—that we will not remove the protection of the British Government to either of the Northern Territories—Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—until it is clear that the expressed wish of these peoples is to enter into a full and independent Federation."
He said in Salisbury on January 19 that in these remarks on Lagos he was speaking of the independent Federation of the future, and that he was repeating in other words exactly what he had said in another place on July 22, 1959.
The Prime Minister on July 22 made it quite clear that British Government protection will be maintained until the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are agreed that it is no longer needed; and that it is only then that the Federation will be able to go forward to full independence. In all these statements the Prime Minister was merely reiterating assurances which have often been given before, including those contained in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution. It follows that there has been nothing to cause Her Majesty's Government to modify their views, as stated by the Prime Minister in another place on July 21 and November 24, 1959, about the scope of the Monckton Commission in the light of its terms of reference.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we understand from the statement which the noble Earl has kindly made that the situation is that Her Majesty's Government intend that the Conference which is to take place in 1960—I think rather prematurely—will be on the lines which were, I should have thought, foreshadowed in Article 99 of the Annex to the Order in

773
Council, 1953—that is, to review the Constitution as such, and therefore nothing concerning that Constitution ought to be excluded? If the protection of Her Majesty's Government to these two Protectorates is to be continued in the light of the language of the Prime Minister on three occasions, ought there not first to be a very rapid stimulation for providing for the democratic representation of the African population in the Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Legislatures, so that when the Conference does take place on the revision of the Constitution, at which nothing should be excluded, you will have the properly represented views of the native population?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Viscount's supplementary is rather outside the terms of the original Question, but I am perfectly willing to answer it. Her Majesty's Government have always made it clear that they are willing to proceed as fast as possible with the Constitutions and constitutional advance of the two Northern Territories for which they are responsible, and the noble Viscount will remember that it was only the violence which broke out in Nyasaland that prevented the former Colonial Secretary from achieving a considerable scheme of constitutional advance eighteen months ago.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, to give a point to the thing, would Sir John Moffat's speech, which he made yesterday in the Northern Legislature, be in order as evidence before the Monckton Commission?
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Viscount must realise that when a Commission of this sort is appointed by the Government, the Commission lays down its own procedure. It is not for any of the Governments to choose what witnesses the Commission hears.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is not a question of procedure but a question of scope. Sir John Moffat made a most important speech and I am asking whether that speech would be admissible as evidence under the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should need notice of that question, but I am not going to be drawn into saying
774
who should be a witness before the Commission and who should not. It is for the Commission itself.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have not asked any such question. First of ail I would ask the noble Earl why he is answering for Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This is a Colonial Office matter; it has nothing to do with Commonwealth relations except on the side. There is a great tragedy ahead of us here. But I will not pursue the matter if the noble Earl wishes to evade it; I will leave it at that.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was not in the least contesting the noble Viscount's right to ask a supplementary question. All I was going to tell him was that I am answering this Question because this is a review of the Federal Constitution, which is a matter concerning the Commonwealth Secretary and not the Colonial Secretary. The noble Viscount is therefore not right when he says that this is not my concern. As to the question of witnesses, the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is our wish that the Monckton Commission should hear all sorts of views from all sorts of people. As to the particular speech made by Sir John Moffat, of course I would not express an opinion now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we understand from the two replies the noble Earl has kindly given that it is not the intention of the Government—though of course they retain the right to protect the Protectorates in certain circumstances—in reviewing the Constitution of the Federation, to consider the question of the right of either of the Protectorates to secede or to suggest any other form of association than the one existing in the present Federation?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it clear—and I would repeat it—that the purpose of the Monckton Commission (and I am sure this is what Parliament would wish) is to tell us how Federation can be made to work; that is the purpose of the Commission. The Commission is full of very responsible, knowledgeable men, and if they conclude that their task is impossible they will say so. But do not let Parliament hope for that. Let us

775
hope for a constructive proposal from the Commission so that this great experiment can succeed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, is it not the practice of this House, and has it not been for a very long time, that all Questions are asked of Her Majesty's Government and not of any particular Minister?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, in view of his last statement, which seems to me some advance, this further question? If it should turn out that in the view of the Commission some other form of co-operation, or none, is desirable, will such recommendation be taken note of by the Government and acted on?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it very unwise to try to answer hypothetical questions. I would leave these very responsible people to do their jobs, which they are eminently equipped to do, and advise the Governments. The Governments are not bound by the advice of the Monckton Commission, but I think everybody will agree that in the circumstances it will be extremely valuable. In answer to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, it is true that Questions are put down to Her Majesty's Government but in practice we know which Minister covers which subject.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In view of that reply, I hope that we may expect a far more considerate attitude to the Report of the Monckton Commission than we thought the Government gave to the Report of the Devlin Commission.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask whether it would not be more consonant with the public interest and the traditions of Parliament if, as we did both when the Labour Government were in office and when I had to preside over the Federation Conference and pilot the Bill, we were to await the Report of the Monckton Commission, after they have heard all the evidence, and then the Report of the Statutory Commission which is to sit on the general issues?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; and I hope that when we all realise, as we must, the tremendous issues which are at stake in
776
the continent of Africa now, we shall allow the Monckton Commission to sit and to report and, as far as we can, create an atmosphere in which it can work to the best advantage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we are perfectly willing to do all we can to try to create the atmosphere, but the Government do not seem to respond to the efforts we are making? It is the grave mistake they have made in the Commission's terms of reference that is likely to lead to more trouble.

BLANTYRE INCIDENTS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I desire to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement concerning the reports in the Press yesterday with regard to the regrettable incidents in Blantyre, Nyasaland, on January 26 during the Prime Minister's visit.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a Question in another place yesterday, undertook to make a statement on this incident as soon as he had had an opportunity of studying the Governor's report. It is hoped that the statement will be made at the latest by early next week.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged for the noble Earl's Answer. May I ask him whether it would not be most desirable, in view of the comparative unanimity of the reports of the Press correspondents in all classes of papers, that a study of the reports should be urgently made? A great portion of the public must be anxious that the Government should set up an inquiry.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am well aware of the urgency of this Question. That was why, before any Question was put down in either House on this matter, we had already requested from the Governor a report on the incident.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Earl in a position to say what troops were used to restore order? Were they Federal troops or Nyasaland troops?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, so far as I know, there was no question of any troops of any kind or description being used.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I move to-day the Second Reading of a measure which I believe will commend itself to noble Lords on both sides of the House. It is designed to close a gap in the law which makes it impossible to prosecute for indecent assault a man who invites a child to handle him indecently but uses neither threats nor force. That conduct, harmful to the child though it obviously might be, is not at present an indecent assault because in the absence of force or threats it is not an assault at all.
The Home Secretary referred the problem of how best to close this gap in the law to the new Criminal Law Revision Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Sellers. It was that Committee's first task; and, with a speed for which we must all be most grateful to Lord Justice Sellers and his colleagues, the Committee produced a Report last June in the form of a draft Bill with a commentary. That Report was published as a Command Paper in August.
The Committee recommended that it should be an offence for any person to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under 14 or to incite a child under that age to such an act with the offender or with another person. The first limb of this provision, which is embodied in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill now before the House, covers, first, successful invitations of the kind to
778
which I have just referred and, the Committee thought, most other kinds of indecent conduct with children which were likely to occur in practice and which ought to be penalised, and which are not penalised under the existing law.
The second limb, which makes incitement to the act in question an offence, covers cases such as those where the invitation is unsuccessful or, although it is successful, the resulting act of indecency occurs between two innocent children. The new provision has the additional advantage that it removes the difficulty in prosecuting a man for indecent exposure with intent to insult a female when the female in question is of such tender years that she is unlikely to be insulted. In future men guilty of that type of conduct will commit an offence under this Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the acts that I have described are acts which do occur, and in my view it is most important that children should be protected from them.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered most carefully what should be the age limit for protection under the new provision, and concluded that the protection should apply to a child under 14, on the ground that it was intended to protect children incited to do things the full meaning of which they did not comprehend, and that children of 14 or over would have the necessary comprehension and would be adequately protected by the existing law relating to sexual offences. The age of 14 has the additional advantage that a person below that age is a child within the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and a boy below that age is presumed not to have sexual capacity.
The Government have thought it right to consider at the same time another subject which was not referred to the Committee, and therefore not dealt with in its Report—namely, the question whether children are adequately protected by the maximum penalties available for exising sexual offences. For most offences the penalties are adequate, but there are certain anomalies which it is sought to remove in this Bill. The most striking of these, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard has referred, is that while the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl

779
under 13, like the penalty for the corresponding offence of rape, is life imprisonment, the penalty for attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 is only two years' imprisonment, whereas the penalty for attempted rape has, since the Attempted Rape Act, 1948, been seven years' imprisonment. The Government think that this is wrong and the Bill accordingly increases the maximum penalty for attempted unlawful intercourse with a child under 13 to seven years' imprisonment, and the penalty for attempted incest with a girl under 13, which is simply a special form of the more general offence, to the same amount.
We also considered the problem of indecent assault. There are unfortunately very serious cases of indecent conduct with little girls which come near the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse but in respect of which proceedings for an attempt at that offence cannot be taken because the evidence of attempted penetration is insufficient. In such cases the offenders can be prosecuted only for indecent assault, which carries the maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. Two years is an appropriate penalty for the great majority of indecent assaults, many of which are relatively (but only relatively) trivial; but the courts have not found it adequate as a penalty for these very serious offences which approximate to the full offence of unlawful sexual intercourse and may do a great deal of harm to the child. The Bill therefore seeks to increase the maximum penalty on indictment for an indecent assault on a girl under the age of thirteen from two years' imprisonment to five years.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are merely ancillary to these proposals, and follow, where appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. The Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I do not think I need detain your Lordships with a more detailed exposition of what is a simple Bill designed for purposes which, I believe, will commend themselves to all noble Lords who care for the protection of children. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will welcome this Bill and will particularly welcome the speed with which the Criminal Law Revision Committee and Her Majesty's Government acted once their attention had been drawn to this gap in the law. We welcome also the fact that Her Majesty's Government have taken advantage of the occasion to introduce certain other amendments to points in the law which seemed to them to be anomalous. The House does not need me to say how important this is in the interests of young girls and what a terrible and shocking evil can come of conduct of this kind; and how important it is that it should be dealt with, and dealt with drastically. I have nothing more to say on the Bill other than to welcome it. There may be some points on which further discussion might be desirable. For instance, I have some doubts as to whether fourteen is the right age, in spite of the recommendation of the Committee; and I think it would be well worth having a discussion in Committee on what is the appropriate age. There might also be some consideration of the penalties. But I am sure the whole House will be very ready to give this Bill a Second Reading.
3.34 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a moment to make two points in relation to the Bill. It is, of course, very much overdue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, when he was Lord Chief Justice, continually pointed out, ten or more years ago, how serious was this gap. There were quite a number of cases in courts of assize and at the Central Criminal Court, and I believe, therefore, that we shall all be glad that at last we have this very serious gap in the law stopped up.
My other point is that it is a matter of considerable personal pride to myself that the Society of Public Teachers of Law, which is an academic body of law teachers, had something to do with persuading the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to set up this Committee to which he has referred, the work of which has been so speedy and so useful in this connection. I should like to take, for my Society, some little credit for that and give still more credit to the noble and learned Viscount himself, because I believe he already had something of

781
the kind in mind when he was approached. But he certainly welcomed our suggestion very enthusiastically, and within a very short time the Committee was not only set up but at work. Attention should be drawn to that and those who have played such an admirable part in this business should be congratulated.
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may deal first with the point which has been so charmingly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I should like to say that if any Society treats me as the Society of Public Teachers of Law does—entertains me royally in Belfast, shows me the Mountains of Mourne and makes me an honorary member of the Society—it is only right that. I should pay attention to its recommendations. I am very glad that that should have been mentioned to-day, because the noble Lord knows the interest which I generally take in the working of that Society.
I am glad that the Bill appeals to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I will not say anything further to-day, but look forward with interest to hearing the points which he has in mind on the two important aspects of which he gave notice, and I will consider them in anticipation of his speech on the Committee stage. I am grateful that the House accepts the Bill and I trust that it will have, for children, the beneficial effect which we hope.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
BUDE-STRATTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
DERBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE, MALDON) BILL [H.L.]
LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
METHODIST CHURCH FUNDS BILL [H.L.]
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ENGLAND BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L].
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before four o'clock.