Lords Sitting of 5 February 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool
The Earl of Cromartie—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his mother, his Lordship having laid upon the Table the Letters Patent of February 25, 1895 determining the abeyance in favour of his said mother.

COSTING OF HEALTH SERVICE DRUGS
2.36 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 how many persons are employed in the costing of drugs prescribed by general practitioners, and at what approximate cost.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, 1,440 staff, at an annual salary cost of about £800,000, are engaged in England and Wales in pricing prescriptions for the purpose of calculating payments to chemists. In addition, 109 staff, at an annual salary cost of about £64,000, calculate periodically the cost of each general practitioner's prescribing.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he satisfied that this money is well spent, and that there might not be better ways—for example, by eliminating unnecessary prescribing—of reducing the cost of drugs than by this detailed scrunity by a very large clerical staff of these prescriptions?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the 1,440 staff are people whose work is essential for the payment of retail chemists. Their salary cost represents about 1 per cent. of the total cost of the prescriptions dis
488
pensed. The 109 other staff are those who work in the Prescribing Investigation Bureaux, and their job is, about once a year, to analyse each doctor's prescribing over a period of a month. It is from their analyses that prima facie cases of excessive prescribing are shown up, and then followed up. Although I cannot give an estimate of how much money the Prescribing Investigation Bureaux save, there is no doubt in my mind that, so far as the national drug bill is concerned, they pay for themselves many times over. Perhaps I might also say that nobody in my Department is in the least complacent about the drug bill. We are constantly trying to seek new ways of persuading doctors not to be extravagant, and any ideas from any quarter of how we can do it better would be most welcome.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that: but one is a little worried. The noble Lord says that the salary cost involved here is 1 per cent. of the cost of the drugs. But the number of people engaged represents, I think, nearly, if not quite, 5 per cent., of the number of general practitioners engaged in prescribing these drugs. Could there not be some sampling procedure instead of this very large growth of an administrative overhead on the National Health Service?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, one must always look to see whether one is employing too many people in any branch of the Government service, but I suppose the important thing is the cost of it all; and 1 per cent. is not a very large proportion.
BARONESS SUMMERSK1LL: My Lords, when are the noble Lord and the Government going to stop fiddling with this really scandalous increase in the price of drugs in this country? The noble Lord says that he will be glad to have some advice on the subject, but has he not read the latest Report of the Public Accounts Committee? Does he not know that it is possible to prescribe a drug on the National Formulary equal to the proprietary drugs, and at much lower cost? Why do not the Government insist that the doctors should do it? At the moment it is a public scandal.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as I have said, there is no complacency about this matter. The noble Lady knows as

489
well as I do that in this country doctors are free to prescribe what they think is necessary for the wellbeing of their patients, and there is machinery, which I have just mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, which checks up on whether or not they are being extravagant. I do not want, by my answers to this Question, to widen this into a debate about prescribing methods of doctors and so on, but it may be of interest to the noble Lady to know that in. England and Wales, for instance, in the calendar year 1957 207 million prescriptions were prescribed, and in the year 1961, 205 million.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord knows, the price went up, all that happens is that doctors prescribe in larger amounts and it becomes one prescription, so that the two prescriptions prescribed the year before become one. These figures, when analysed, mean absolutely nothing.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as I say, there is no complacency about this, but it is a difficult problem.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think Parliament would be inclined to ask this of the Minister. I am sure he has read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. Have the Government referred this Report of the Public Accounts Committee to the machinery the noble Lord says advises them on it, and have they advised the Government that there is nothing that can be done to reduce the cost?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think that is a much wider question, and I should not like to give a snap answer to the noble Earl.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are correct, and there is one man costing prescriptions per every twenty prescribing them, does that not seem a very high proportion? Would not my noble friend have some investigation to see whether these people are really doing their job properly, because the proportion seems very high, when one considers that the doctor is prescribing for only a very small proportion of his time, if it requires one man to check every twenty doctors' prescriptions?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for that supplementary. That, indeed, was the thought that was in my mind. There really is an extraordinary number of persons engaged in checking these prescriptions. I was asking whether there could not be some simpler and cheaper mechanism for the nation to achieve exactly the same result so far as the retail chemists are concerned.
LORD NEWTON: There are only 109 people who are engaged in checking doctors' prescriptions. The 1,440 are calculating how much chemists have to be paid.
LORD TAYLOR: That is precisely it.
LORD NEWTON: I have certainly listened to what has been said. In reply to my noble friend Lord Hawke, I should not like to give a definite answer, because I do not at the moment know whether the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, are correct.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the matter is quite closed, may I say that I cannot regard the question I raised as having made the issue wider? All I want to know from the Ministry—and perhaps the Minister could write to us—is whether the consultations I spoke about have taken place.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I will certainly see that the noble Earl receives the explanation he wants. If he would like to me to write to him, I should be happy to do so. I would say that if he would be good enough to look at the original Question, he would see that it asks Her Majesty's Government
"how many person are employed in the costing of drugs prescribed by general practitioners, and at what approximate cost."
That is a fairly narrow question.

TEMPORARY ABSENCES OF LEADER
2.47 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to raise a matter relating to the traditional practice of the conduct of this House, about which my noble friends are concerned. We do not recollect any previous period in which it was so likely

491
that the Leader of the House would be constantly absent on other business. The Government have told us there is a Deputy Leader, and we have great respect for the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. But this is not the point at all, although we all have great respect for him. We do not know any precedent where the Leader of the House was not able to be in regular attendance and when it was other than a Cabinet Minister who replied to questions of leadership in the House.
We have raised and talked among ourselves about the matter. In the absence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I first raised it privately some two or three weeks ago with the Foreign Secretary, and I have since had private conversation with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. We have heard nothing since, and again for the whole of this week we shall be without a Cabinet Minister leading the House. I should like to ask when we can have some information as to the intention of the Government in this matter with regard to the long and traditional practice that the leadership of the House is in the hands of a member of the Cabinet.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I am sorry that this question could not have been raised when my noble friend the Leader of the House was here, as he will be very soon. This week my noble friend is making an important tour of the North-East of England for which, as your Lordships know, he has special responsibilities. He will be back here in his place next week. In fact, he will be speaking in a debate on Monday next on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Eccles on Industrial Training. He intends to make three or four speeches in the next three weeks. I do not think he expects to be in the North-East again until March 4. As for the other part of the noble Earl's question, I cannot say anything in reply to that except that when my noble friend the Leader of the House is absent it is my duty to do my best, with the cooperation of your Lordships, to represent him, in spite of my many shortcomings, of which I am fully conscious.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I point out that of course the question raised
492
by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, with which we have some sympathy, does not reflect in the slightest upon the Leader of the House himself, for whom we have great admiration? It is just a matter of Government policy and the convenience and tradition of this House. I should not like it to be thought for a moment that we have any criticism of the noble Viscount who leads the House.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that that is the opinion of the whole House. We have no complaint in that direction at all. What we complain about is the danger of long absences because of the extra work which has been placed upon the noble Viscount, and that we should have any other arrangement than the traditional one, which is that the leadership of the House in such circumstances falls for the time being into the hands of a member of the Cabinet. What I suggest is no reflection at all upon the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is a most agreeable person and, I think, very popular in the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask a question? I agree with my noble friend. Personally, I think the noble Earl is a charming man. On the other hand may I just ask him, now that we have a kind of "Lord Pooh Bah" as our Leader, whether he can tell me who will answer for the Minister for Science; who will answer for the Minister of Sport; and who will answer for the Lord President of the Council while he is away?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if it is any comfort to the noble Lady, my noble friend the Leader of the House intends to speak next Monday on Lord Eccles's Motion on industrial training. Then he will speak in the general debate on unemployment which I think it has been agreed shall take place on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill; and on February 27 he will initiate an important debate on science. I do not think he will be called again until March 4. His duties in the North-East are of very great importance to the country. He is rendering a public service of a very great order in being there, and I would respectfully suggest that any further information about this matter, which your Lordships are, of course, well

493
entitled to have, might be better left until my noble friend returns, because I am sure he will be able to reply both fully and satisfactorily to any questions.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope the House will not think I am being unduly pressing in this matter. As I say, I have had two private conversations, with both the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House about this subject. It is only because he is away again all this week that we have not heard anything arising out of this matter. But I think it right for the House as a whole to see whether or not the traditional practice of the House is to be continued.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Earl's concern for the convenience and dignity of your Lordships' House in this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire will be making a statement on National Assistance at a suitable moment after half-past three.

PURCHASE TAX BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a useful piece of consolidation and I am sure that it will be to the convenience of many to find in the Schedules to the Bill what articles are subject to tax and what articles are exempt. For instance, if one looks at the list on page 48 of vehicles exempt, one finds prison vans, bullion vans, pantechnicons, horse boxes and hearses—but not including hearsettes, which, as your Lordships will know, are a rather small and old-fashioned kind of hearse which are rarely seen nowadays and were adapted for carrying the mourners as well as the coffin. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the Bill is put to the House, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when they have any plan for changes to be made in purchase tax, they will give some advance notice so that retail traders may let their stocks run down in order that they may avoid loss, as the retail traders are the people who are most exposed to loss and it falls most heavily upon them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to answer a question of that importance on the Second Reading of a consolidation measure. If the noble Lord requires an answer to that question, no doubt he will put it on the Order Paper.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BURIAL AND CREMATION BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in moving this Bill I should like to tell your Lordships at the very beginning that I am not, at the end of my remarks this afternoon and after all the other noble Lords have had their say, if they so wish, going to ask that this Bill should in fact be read a second time. I will explain to your Lordships why this is so. Nevertheless, since so many noble Lords have evinced an interest in it by putting their names down to speak, I think I ought to say a very brief word upon it.
I realise that it was perhaps a bold undertaking for me to attempt to consolidate a large body of law on so important a subject as this. But I did so, and the Bill was drafted almost entirely by the National Association of Parish Councils because they, in particular, have for a long time been finding that the law on this subject has become so complicated and antique that it is almost impossible to administer at all. Since the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House I have had letters from 21 individual parish councils, four

495
urban district councils, 12 county associations of parish councils, and I have been in touch with all the local authority organisations and many religious organisations, as well as those which deal with burial and cremation, and I think I would not be unfairly stating the case to say that, broadly, they all support some reform of the law.
However, I started by easy stages and, if your Lordships look at the consolidated body of law on this subject in Halsbury, you will find that there is an immense block of what has been described as "verbose muddle and antique legislation", and I did not attempt to deal with all of it because there are two codes and I have tried to consolidate only one of them. Your Lordships may think that I should have done more, but it would have been an extremely difficult thing to do in a Private Member's Bill, and I stuck to the older adoptive code under the Burial Acts, leaving out what is known as the Public Health and Interments Code, starting with the Act of 1879. However, as I understand it, in the Greater London Bill which is now before another place there has been an attempt to bring the two together in order to make one single code. And this I am sure is the right approach to the matter since, after all, in most cases the law of burial is administered by some of the humbler people of this country, although they do it very well. The people I mean are the countrymen in the parishes, the sextons and vergers, and people like that who cannot be expected to plough through over 100 years of legislation upon legislation and the regulations that go with it.
My Lords, it is a very important subject, but of course it does not deal with burial itself and cremation, important as they may be. It is also a vital feature in the public health legislation of this country, and it has a considerable effect upon amenity and open spaces. Your Lordships will think of the wonderful churchyards, and so on, around this country. I am therefore sure that a further attempt at clarification and unification of the law ought to be proceeded with. Your Lordships may, of course, have come across the difficulties which occur in this field. I do
496
not know how many of your Lordships have travelled by train to Oxford and have stopped, as so often is the case, just outside the railway station, opposite what was for a long time an extremely untidy cemetery. If one might be permitted a parody to a very famous poem, somebody upon doing just that wrote in his diary:
"Stinking gasworks burning bright
Beside the sidings half the night;
What immortal hand or eye
Made this awful cemetery?"
Your Lordships will be relieved to know this has now been cleared up, but its state, for so many years a disgrace, was entirely due to the impossibility of finding a way through the legislation as it stood.
My noble friend Lord Hastings has told me where my Bill falls short and he has most generously offered his assistance and the assistance of his Department in producing a bigger and better Bill and one which will bring in, among other things, the code I have attempted to deal with and the Public Health and Interments Code as well, so that one single clear code may apply to the whole of England and Wales. And I am sure your Lordships will welcome that.
I might just mention one thing. I have dealt with one code, and the other is to come in. As I understand it, it is the other code that is to be the basis of the new law. But that other code will have to be augmented to deal with such important matters, which do not at present appear in it, as the method of dealing with the closed and disused churchyards and the rights of bishops, incumbents, clergy, sextons and clerks in the running and administration of churchyards and that sort of thing. When my noble friend comes to reply it would be very good of him if he would give some indication that he is also thinking upon the same lines in that field and that he and his Department will be able to assist me in getting a fully comprehensive Bill on to the Order Paper within, I hope, not too great a time in the future. Therefore, I do not think I will waste your Lordships' time by going through the individual details of this Bill. I shall, of course, be delighted to hear anything the other speakers say, because I am sure their remarks will be constructive, and I

497
am sure my noble friend will feel the same about it. But on the understanding that I am going to withdraw this Bill, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I was very sorry indeed to hear that the noble Viscount is going to withdraw his Bill. I think he has done a very good job in this, and I think his little National Association of Parish Councils have done a first-class job of private enterprise in a field which is normally reserved for Government activities. I am very sorry to hear that the Government are preferring public enterprise to private enterprise on this particular occasion. Moreover, I have considerable doubts about the Government's intentions here. Good intentions in this sphere are not enough. if I may quote from the Local Government Chronicle, of December 15:
"At intervals someone has asked the Government to introduce a consolidation Bill"—
that is, in this particular sphere—
"but although sympathetic"—
and I have no doubt we shall have lots of sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings—
"…the necessary time or manpower has not apparently been available".
Well, have we any guarantee that the necessary time or manpower is going to be available now? I would wager that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not give us a date for the introduction for this much-needed consolidation measure which the noble Viscount has very manfully tackled himself. I would have said this is a case (to parody the Lord Chancellor) where half a loaf is better than no bread, and I would very much rather have the noble Viscount's half loaf than the Government's promise of bread at some time, where graveyards are concerned. The noble Viscount is absolutely correct when he says the law in this connection is chaotic, absolutely staggeringly chaotic. If I may quote from Dr. Davies's standard work on the subject:
"This particular branch of the Laws of England is indeed unrivalled in its complexity of authorities, areas, enactments, procedures and personnel. For instance, more authorities are directly or indirectly concerned with burial and cremation than any other modern public service; the relevant burial legislation is mainly to be found in nineteenth century statutes
498
which have long been in dire need of simplification, amendment and consolidation".
The noble Viscount has produced a Bill which is perfectly understandable to the average parish councillor, and I think that he and the National Association of Parish Councils have done very well indeed. It does not go as far as I am sure the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils would wish it to go in some respects, but I cannot for the life of me see why that should not be dealt with in Committee. I think, on balance, the noble Viscount was probably right to leave out the Public Health Act, because that introduces a number of other complexities. I think he was right; and I think the Government are wrong in suggesting that the thing be postponed until some vast, comprehensive—comprehensive and possibly incomprehensible—measure is in due course produced. It is quite extraordinary! When is a cemetery not a cemetery or when is a graveyard not a graveyard?—and the answer is, When it is a burial ground. A burial ground is not a cemetery and a cemetery is not a burial ground, although they are exactly the same. It depends on which Act of Parliament they stem from.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is not a churchyard, either.
LORD TAYLOR: The noble Viscount is quite correct. In this Bill he is dealing only with burial grounds, and not with cemeteries. I think he is probably right to deal only with burial grounds, but he has in some respects assimilated burial grounds so that in fact they are brought much more in line with cemeteries. For example, in respect of whether a cemetery or burial ground can be within one hundred yards of a dwelling-place, there was a subtle difference between the two under the old Acts, and he has brought them into line: and they can now both he within one hundred yards of a dwelling-place, provided, in the case of a cemetery, that nobody is buried in the hundred yards area without the written consent of the owner of the habitation. He has also consolidated the powers of compulsory purchase so that they are both the same. He has taken out another anomaly, the anomaly which says that once a local authority has bought a burial ground the rateable value of that burial ground shall remain the same in perpetuity, though that is not the case

499
with a cemetery. I think—in fact I am fairly sure—that he has made them the same in this respect.
There is one matter on which he has not touched, and that is in respect of bylaws. A local authority can make bylaws for a cemetery but not for a burial ground, and I think he did omit that. Had he let his Bill rip, I think that is a small point that we might have put right. I still think it is a very great shame that he is not going to let his Bill rip, and I would strongly recommend, subject to what my noble friends who are better in touch with local authority associations have to say, that we should give the Bill a Second Reading, unless the noble Lord, Lord Hastings can give us a very firm date within the lifetime of this Government—quite a short period. I think there is a great deal to be said for giving this Bill a Second Reading and getting burial grounds out of the way. I hope your Lordships will not necessarily heed the noble Viscount's misguided advice, pressed upon him by his Front Bench colleague—the noble Viscount indicates dissent; it is purely a voluntary act on his part. I think he is mistaken. I think he was right in the first place when he drafted this admirable little Bill, and I hope that it will reach the Statute Book in spite of his desire to drop it by the wayside.
3.8 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am sure nobody can discount the great courage and determination shown by the noble Viscount in tackling this extraordinary complex tangle of the Burial Acts. They are one of the pieces of legislation which I myself have come across on various occasions during part of my life, but I never could pretend to know what they were about. Therefore when I saw that the noble Viscount had presented this Bill I was delighted to find there was a prospect that the tangle might be cleared up. I am rather sad that the Bill is not to have a Second Reading, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in pressing on the Government that they will do something about this matter quickly. This Bill would have done a great deal to make life easier for many people involved in the Burial Acts, and although it is not a complete Bill I
500
think it would be very sad if it dropped by me wayside because the Government, through no fault of their own, could not find time to implement their desire to bring in a more comprehensive measure.
There is one point about public health which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. There has been a great deal of muddled thinking about that, and I hope that we may be able to have it cleared up when the new Bill comes along. Because, although it is obviously unattractive, obviously unpleasant, and obviously generally undesirable, that burial grounds should be placed close to a source of water used for drinking purposes—it is not pleasant to think that one may be drinking of the remains of relatives, friends or neighbours—one has to be careful before saying that this is wrong from the public health point of view. So far as I am aware, there has never been a single recorded case of disease coming from a water supply which was placed in fairly close proximity to a burial ground. That it is an extremely unattractive thing to do I agree, but I should not like it to go forth from this House that it involves any particular public health danger. It was a matter which arose from time to time when people wished, for some reason best known to themselves, to be buried not in some burial ground or cemetery but in some part of their private property or land. It is a point of view taken by some, though not many, people. There were various objections to this course, but one of the strongest was always that it might be a danger to public health: that to be buried in their garden might involve danger to the public water supply. If this new Bill does come along, I should like to feel that there will be something done to change that particular point of view, to make it into an amenity or an aesthetic point of view, but not a public health point of view.
In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time, except to say how glad I am that the noble Viscount has introduced his Bill, how sorry I am that it is not to be given a Second Reading to-day, and how much I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the Government should do something quickly to bring in a Bill to take its place.
3.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add my personal tribute to the heroism and initiative of the noble Viscount in introducing this Bill. My purpose in rising is to say that the Churches, as a whole, welcome any considered attempt to consolidate and bring order into the existing legislation about burials and cremations. The present state of the Burial Acts and other Statutes affecting the question is almost chaotic, and if anything could be done to put the whole legislation on a regular basis it would be a great benefit to the Churches.
Whether the present Bill is suitably framed is, of course, a question. At first sight it would appear that it would require considerable amendment, and perhaps enlargement, if it is to meet the difficulties of existing legislation to the satisfaction of the various bodies concerned. That, however, is a major point which the promoters of the Bill and Her Majesty's Government will no doubt consider. Whatever happens about proceeding with the Bill, I think there are certain points which will have to be taken into account. This is a Second Reading debate, and it is obviously not the occasion for a detailed examination of all the individual points of difficulty. There are, however, three general points which I should like to make in my capacity as Chairman of the Churches Main Committee—a body which, as your Lordships know, represents all the main Churches and other religious bodies of the United Kingdom.
First, the definition of "burial grounds" in the Bill is not wholly clear. If, for example, it covers churchyards, there is a possibility that the whole procedure for settling fees under the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, 1962, would be jeopardised. That Measure empowers the Church Commissioners to draw up a table of fees for Church of England churchyards and, subject to the approval of Parliament, these fees have statutory effect. It would create a difficult situation if there were duplicate powers vested in a Government Department to approve fees for Church of England churchyards. Another difficulty about this lack of definition is that the Free Churches are left in doubt whether small pieces of ground adjoining chapels, mainly in country districts, but some in urban areas,
502
are to be regarded as burial grounds and subject to the restrictions contained in the Bill.
A second point that I would mention is that in 1953 the National Assembly of the Church of England set up a Commission to consider the whole question of disused churchyards. The terms of reference for this Commission were
"To consider, in consultation with other appropriate authorities, what changes in the present law and practice relating to disused churchyards are desirable, and the manner in which they can best be achieved."
This Commission held two conferences with representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, and the National Association of Parish Councils. As a result of these conferences, a memorandum was prepared containing draft clauses setting out its proposals, which were submitted in 1957 to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Churches Main Committee were kept in touch with the work of the Commission and, in general, found themselves in agreement with the Commission's recommendations. It was realised, however, that the Commission were concerned only with the Church of England and left untouched the difficulties of the Free Churches. Obviously, in any new legislation, the recommendations of this Commission and the views of the Free Churches and others ought to be taken into account.
Lastly, there is a peculiar position, I understand, in Wales. Clause 15 of the present Bill, I am given to understand, does not apply to Wales, and apparently there would be no liability on a local authority to maintain closed churchyards for which they have already made themselves responsible. The whole position of churchyards transferred to the representative body under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, is most difficult and needs both careful study and consultation with the authorities of that body.
Your Lordships will understand that these are only a few examples of the points which arise in general consideration of the draft Bill. There are other points which will need to be considered. One cannot help feeling that it may be difficult to adopt the present draft and make it satisfactory in all respects. If it were possible I should rejoice, for the sake of the noble Viscount who has taken such

503
infinite trouble in its drafting. But I think we have to face the possibility that the best course might perhaps be to start afresh.
3.17 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to join in the general chorus of appreciation to the noble Viscount, not only for presenting the Bill but also for the excellent speech he made on its introduction. Unlike my noble friend Lord Taylor, I am also grateful to him for having agreed not to press the Bill, following the reply from his own Front Bench; because, while it is quite true, as the noble Viscount said, that everyone will agree that some reform is needed, some would go further and say that modernisation in the legislation, as well as consultation, is required. There is considerable room for discussion, as I am certain the noble Viscount will agree. In fact, the Urban District Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations approached the Association of Parish Councils, or their representatives, with a view to delaying this Second Reading in order that there could be greater consultation on the measure. Between the local government associations and the representatives of the Church Assembly there have been discussions, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, and there is a whole field in which there ought to be discussions and agreement with the Government before they bring in their consolidating Bill. I join with my noble friend Lord Taylor in saying that this ought not to be delayed. The Government ought not to take refuge in saying that they will do something if in fact the delay is going to be considerable.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the question of church fees, but at the present time the Ministry of Housing and Local Government still have to approve a local authority table of fees. There may have been some reason for it at the time it was instituted, but there is no reason for it to-day, particularly when labour charges of grave-diggers and the rest vary considerably from time to time because of the cost of living, and so on. Equally, and more important, there is the question of the considerable sterilisation of ground—ground which ought to be brought into
504
active use, particularly for housing—because of old regulations in regard to burial grounds.
Therefore, while congratulating the noble Viscount, I am delighted that he has agreed not to press the Bill. I think it is the wisest view to take, and I am certain that all the local government organisations will co-operate most heartily with him and with the Ministry in order that the consolidation Bill can be quickly brought forward and effective.
3.23 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill upon his decision to withdraw it. The Bill has as its object
"to consolidate, simplify and improve the law relating to the provision and maintenance of facilities for and places of burial and cremation by public authorities".
One naturally welcomes any legislation intended to simplify and improve this part of the law, which is generally agreed to be much in need of improvement. But, while one supports the intention of the Bill, one cannot but have some reservations about some of its contents. In 1957 a committee, consisting of representatives of the Church Assembly and the local authority associations, considered a number of points upon which amendment of the law relating to burials was considered desirable. Subsequently the Disused Churchyards Commission of the Church Assembly produced a report and an accompanying memorandum making certain recommendations. It has not been possible in the time available to ascertain whether this Bill follows exactly the provisions of those recommendations.
I am informed that the Association of Municipal Corporations has made representations on several occasions to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for the introduction of amending legislation on the lines suggested in that memorandum. The reply has always been that simple consolidation is impossible and that the burial law will have to be clarified and amended at the same time. The Ministry has said that this is a most formidable task. One cannot help wondering, then, to what extent the task has been successfully achieved in the clauses of this Bill.

505
The Association of Municipal Corporations would like a good deal more time to be made available for discussions with the appropriate associations of local authorities, and others, before it can say which clauses of the Bill it supports and what amendment it feels need to suggest. As the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said, since the Bill was introduced the Association has had the opportunity of one discussion with representatives of the National Association of Parish Councils, and feels very strongly that a good deal of further study is desirable so that the legislation to be passed on such a difficult and complicated matter may deal effectively with the whole of this problem. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome the decision of the noble Viscount to withdraw his Bill on Second Reading.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, may I join with those of your Lordships who have congratulated the noble Viscount in putting forward this Bill, which I think is an important contribution towards the solution of this very difficult problem—a problem which ought to be tackled and dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I would beg of the noble Viscount not to be led astray by the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Taylor on this matter, because, as the noble Viscount will have gathered from what has been said by the right reverend Prelate in regard to the work of the Church Commission, and by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and my noble friend Lord Lindgren in regard to the work of the local government associations, there is already a mass of information as to reforms which are required and which ought to be embodied in any legislation which is going to put this matter on a firm basis for the future.
While, therefore, on the face of it we seem to be losing an opportunity in not pressing forward with the Second Reading of this Bill, I am convinced that, with discussions going ahead as quickly as possible, that will be the best way of getting reform on the Statute Book; and a hundred years afterwards the noble Viscount's name may be linked with the great work done by Sir Edwin Chadwick in regard to burial grounds in London and other places. We welcome the decision of the Association of Municipal Corporations.
3.29 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross has described very well the present state of the law on burial, and in the description of the confusion that exists he has been ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. There is no doubt that great sympathy must be felt for all who have to administer these laws and especially for the many parish councils who are obliged to find their way through this legal labyrinth without the guidance of professional officers. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross praised them for the work they are doing, and I should like to add an expression of my appreciation of the way in which they grapple with this complicated task.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned a certain text-book, published in 1956, which described the burial law as "unrivalled in its complexity" and "in dire need of simplification, amendment and consolidation"; but it also added, prophetically, that
"in view of the complexities involved it may well be several years before a satisfactory Bill finally receives the Royal Assent."
LORD TAYLOR: Several years have already elapsed.
LORD HASTINGS: That is what I was pointing out I feel sure that there is now not much longer to wait. Nevertheless, for reasons which have been explained to the noble Viscount, and on which he has already touched, the Government think that the present Bill, despite its merits, does less than is needed, and would not form a suitable basis for the full consolidation of the law which in any case would have to come in due course. In drafting this Bill the noble Viscount and his colleagues in the National Association of Parish Councils have, as my noble friend has pointed out, worked within certain deliberately chosen limits. Within those limits they have tackled the job, if I may say so, with admirable common sense and vigour, as I think has been testified by everybody who has spoken this afternoon. We all join in congratulating the noble Viscount and his advisers on the job they have done.
It seems to me, my Lords, that they have been concerned in the first place

507
—and quite understandably so—to express in modern terms the existing law under which parish councils provide all their burial grounds: the adoptive provisions of the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906. But there is, as we have heard, another and simpler code—that of the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, which is not available to parish councils but enables borough, urban and rural district councils to provide cemeteries. Rural district councils can use only the 1879 cemetery code, whereas borough and urban district councils may provide burial grounds under the Burial Acts, or cemeteries under the 1879 Act, or both. This unnecessarily complicated situation is not materially altered by the Bill which has been presented this afternoon by the noble Viscount. Yet the sponsors have, not surprisingly, found it impossible to exclude some matters affecting both burial authorities and cemetery authorities, as well as cemetery and crematorium companies and the Church.
The conclusion to which this inevitably leads is that we ought not to stop short of a complete consolidation of the law, in the course of which the opportunity could be taken to end the unnecessary duplication of codes for local authorities. I think this proposition has met with general agreement this afternoon, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and possibly a certain amount of nostalgia on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. The situation is not quite as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, imagines, because in fact the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have done a good deal of preliminary work along these lines, along the principle that the adoptive provisions of the Burial Acts—the more complicated of the existing codes—should be repealed. Instead, a set of powers, based on the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, would be made available to all local authorities, including parish councils. Here I am glad to confirm to my noble friend behind me that it is the intention to include within a Bill the comprehensive legislation for which he has asked. In effect, this principle of using only the one code is to be applied to London boroughs, and finds a place in the London Government Bill.
508
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the readiness with which, when these points were put to him, he consented to withdraw his Bill in order to leave the way clear for a more comprehensive Bill to be prepared for him on the lines I have described. I am sure that this was the right decision. I have, as he has said, undertaken, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that instructions to the draftsman will be prepared as quickly as possible. By that I mean without delay, though I cannot yet say definitely, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows perfectly well, when the comprehensive Bill will be ready. Therefore I cannot give a definite date, any more than he would be able to do if he were in my position.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the other interested parties will be consulted regularly and from time to time as the work proceeds, and the House may rest assured that no one will be more pleased than my right honourable friend and I when this bewildering mass of nineteenth century legislation is brought up to date. We intend to proceed on those lines, as I have said, without unnecessary delay and as soon as possible. Once again I congratulate my noble friend on his Bill, and I express my appreciation for his willingness, without being pressed, but after discussion, voluntarily to withdraw it.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether there is any chance of our getting the consolidated Bill before we have the London Government Bill? It seems illogical to reform London's burial laws before we have decided what the national laws should be.
LORD HASTINGS: No, my Lords. I am afraid that is impossible, because the London Government Bill is already going through another place, and the draftsmen have yet to work on the new Bill to which I have referred, which, as we all know, involves very comprehensive and intricate work.
LORD CROOK: Could we not hold up the London Government Bill?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, speaks, may I compliment him upon the reception which the Government have given his Bill—a Bill which apparently

509
is capable, in their view, of some extension and widening? I myself could only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, had received the same kind of reception and approach last Thursday.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, your Lordships have been very kind and, as I had anticipated, very constructive and helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will have realised by this time that it is not because of any pressure from those in front of me that I am proposing to take the course which I have in mind, because I was already aware of the points which other noble Lords have made this afternoon, particularly on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and also on behalf of the Churches Main Committee. What encourages me more than anything else is the promise which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, gave, of co-operation from all local authority associations, and also the promise of help from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester. Both of those are to help this procedure along, and I have certainly no intention whatever of abandoning it. I have already done more work on the subject since my noble friend's views were brought to my notice, and I know that my noble friend, and his Department, will proceed as quickly as possible. Therefore, your Lordships may rest assured that this is by no means the last that you will hear of this matter, and I hope that the next will be in the very near future indeed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE RATES
3.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, with your permission I will make a statement about National Assistance which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. On January 23 my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House informed the House that my right honourable friend was
510
expecting to receive from the National Assistance Board proposals under Section 6 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, for further increases in the rates of National Assistance. My right honourable friend has now considered the Board's proposals and has accepted them. He has accordingly made Draft Regulations, and these have been laid today. They are now available in the Printed Paper Office, together with copies of an Explanatory Memorandum by the Board. The Draft Regulations require the approval of both Houses of Parliament by an Affirmative Resolution.
Subject to that approval the Regulations will provide for increases of 6s. a week in the rate for a single householder and 9s. a week for a married couple, bringing the householder rates to 63s. 6d. and 104s. 6d. respectively. An allowance for rent is, of course, added to these amounts. There are appropriate increases in the other rates. As the House will see when noble Lords have had an opportunity to study the Draft Regulations, on this occasion, as on the last, the Board feel that proportionately rather more should be given to the single householder than to other people.
Subject to the approval of Parliament, it is proposed that the new rates shall come into effect from May 27, at the same time as the increases in National Insurance pensions. The House will appreciate that there has been no significant change in prices since the last increase was made in September, and that the new rates therefore represent a real improvement in standard. As the House may know, the National Insurance Bill now being taken in another place contains a temporary provision to ensure that a person whose unemployment or sickness benefit is supplemented by National Assistance will not get less advantage from the benefit increase in March than he would get if the proposals which I have just announced were in operation at the time.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Duke for giving us this statement. One is always pleased to welcome substantial increases in payments to the needy, and especially to those who are in want of necessities. This action now is a strange contrast to the action in 1931 of reducing the then

511
existing benefit to an unemployed man from 17s. to 15s. 3d. That stands out in my mind. However, I think there are points that are raised by this statement which I would rather were put by somebody who has had experience of a Department, so I would ask my noble friend Lady Summerskill to put those questions.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Duke would answer just one or two questions. Of course, it is realised that, even with these new figures, people will have to live at subsistence level and that it is therefore necessary to pay their rents. But is this a new approach to the matter? Here it says that "a rent allowance" will be made. I remember that when I was Minister—and, I take it, after that—the full rent was paid unless that rent was regarded as unreasonable. I take it that "a rent allowance" means that the full rent will be paid, and not a rent contribution. My second question—because this is riot the time for a debate—is this. In making a statement of this kind at a time when there is a great deal of distress in many parts of the country, particularly the coldest parts, I should have thought that it would be advisable, as a humane suggestion only, perhaps, to remind these people that there are such things as discretionary allowances, and that in the event of their being faced—that is to say, after perhaps a year's unemployment—with the need to replace blankets or other essential household equipment, they can go to the National Assistance Board and receive a discretionary allowance. This is not mentioned here, and I should have thought that at this time of great distress it would be a good idea to embody it in the Regulations.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will take the noble Lady's questions in the order in which she asked them. On the first question, I understand that in 99 per cent. of cases the full rent is paid. I cannot say it is an absolute 100 per cent., but 99 per cent. is the figure. On the very good point of the discretionary allowances, I think the noble Lady will agree with me that the National Assistance Board are, quite rightly, very sympathetic and generous in this matter, and although it has not been referred to in the statement I can
512
assure the noble Lady that there is no change in this generous policy on the part of the Board.

PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships' approval of the Second Reading of the Performers' Protection Bill. This is a measure which bears a curious but remote affinity to the measure of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross which we have just been discussing. This Bill is dull, technical, complicated and, by general consent, largely incomprehensible. It has, however, the compensatory merit of being both short and good. It is concerned with international copyright, and international copyright is a subject which, at the best of times, can hardly be described as cosy. I will therefore be brief.
International copyright is regulated by two International Conventions. The first is the Berne Convention of 1886, and the second is the more recent UNESCO or Universal Copyright Convention of 1952. The 1952 Convention provided a sort of copyright bridge between Europe and the United States. Those of your Lordships who are interested in this subject will remember the trouble there has been in the past with the United States on the subject of copyright. I need remind the House of only two cases: Gilbert and Sullivan—who, indeed, had enough trouble between themselves, without having trouble, as they did, in the United States—and the well-known case of T. E. Lawrence and The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. In order to protect his copyright in America, Lawrence published one copy of the book only and put it on sale at the price of one hundred thousand dollars. Those two cases illustrate the difficulty, now happily resolved, we have had with the United States in the past.
But the two copyright Conventions to which I have referred deal only with the rights of authors, and authors for this purpose include writers, painters, composers and film-makers. It has long been realised, I believe, that there are other rights in this field which call for

513
international protection. My Bill, which seeks to carry out this object, is concerned with three separate classes of people: it is concerned with the rights of performers,—that is, the singer, the pianist or the band; it is concerned with the rights of producers of gramophone records—H.M.V. for instance; and, thirdly, it is concerned with the rights of broadcasting organisations—for instance, the B.B.C. These rights are not strictly copyright in the technical or in the international sense. They are ancillary or neighbouring rights to copyright, and for a long time attempts have been made to provide a single International Convention to regulate these rights. Now we are happy to report that success has at last been obtained in the Diplomatic Conference which was held at Rome in 1961. This conference was called the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms (that is their word, my Lords, not mine) and Broadcasting Organisations. If any of your Lordships want to know what the word "phonogram" means (it is quite irrelevant to my Bill), it appears on page 595 of the Pocket Oxford Dictionary—and the definition is wrong.
My Lords, 25 countries, including Great Britain, signed this Convention. What I seek to do in my Bill is to make the small changes required in our law to ratify this Convention of Rome. I think the very smallness of the changes I seek to make is of some credit to this country, because the Convention very much reflects British practice in this respect, and is also largely the result of our initiative. The rights of record producers and broadcasting organisations are contained in our Copyright Act. 1956. which I had the honour of piloting through your Lordships' House, so it is a certain amount of personal satisfaction to me to be able to ratify by my Bill this Convention without in any way having to chance our own Act of 1956. That is about the record producers and the broadcasting organisations.
Now the performer—the band or the pianist—is in a different position. He is protected in this country not by the grant of a property right, not by copyright, but by an Act known as the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1958. This makes it a criminal offence to record or broadcast his performance without his
514
written consent. The requirement of that consent enables him to strike a bargain about his own remuneration. If further use is to be made of the record or of the broadcast, it is the record producer's or the broadcast organisation's permission which has to be sought rather than that of the performer. That, my Lords, makes sense. It is obviously easier to trace the B.B.C. or H.M.V. than it is to trace all the members of a band; but the fact that the record producer and the broadcasting authority must get the performer's consent in the first instance enables the performer to stipulate that he shall be permitted to share in the remuneration for the uses to which they allow his performance to be put.
From the financial point of view the most important Article in the Rome Convention is Article 12. This provides that if a commercial record is used for broadcasting or for any communication to the public, then remuneration shall be paid by the user to the performers or the record producers or both. It is true that countries are entitled to enter reserves on this Article; nevertheless it establishes a principle of considerable importance to both record producers and performers. We were one of the first countries to recognise this principle and it is important to us, because our record inclustry is, I am told, the second largest in the world—second only to that of the United States. Obviously we stand to gain by the adoption of this principle. It is also of benefit not only to the record companies but to the performers because they share in the proceeds.
The Convention also provides for broadcasting organisations such as the B.B.C. to enjoy internationally the rights to authorise or prohibit rebroadcasting and recordings of their broadcasts. Your Lordships may remember that this was a right that they sought successfully in this country when our 1956 Copyright Act was enacted. Here again, we were the first country to provide copyright in broadcasting. It is comforting to know that this principle, too, should now be enshrined in an International Convention. The only changes necessary in our legislation are in the criminal Statute which protects performers. This is known as the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act. The 1958 Act deals in terms with dramatical and musical works.

515
The Rome Convention defines performers as singers, musicians, actors, dancers or other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim or play or otherwise perform literary or artistic works. This provides an interesting problem. What is the position of Mr. Emlyn Williams giving one of his celebrated performances of Charles Dickens giving a reading from his works? That needs a little working out. What is the position of those who are asked to perform a picture? How can you "perform" a picture? What about the tableaux vivants we did as children? What about the tableaux vivants by the Crazy Gang doing well-known pictures? One remembers the havoc they managed to produce in their representation of "When did you last see your father?" Nearer home, it is interesting to know that our speeches in this House are now recorded on tape in another portion of the building. Which of your Lordships will be prepared to come forward and say in terms of the Rome Convention that his speech is the performance of a literary or artistic work? Fortunately, these are only academic exercises, because the definition of the 1958 Act is widened by my Bill, which uses virtually the words used in the Rome Convention and I hope is a solution of these problems.
Under Section (1) of the 1958 Act it is a criminal offence to make in this country a record of a performance without the consent in writing of the performer or to sell or to use for the purpose of public performance in this country a record so made. To be an offence, the act must be done in this country. The view has been expressed that our 1958 Act is not clear as to whether an offence is committed if the performance takes place abroad: for example, if a record is made here off the air from a performance given by a French orchestra in Paris and broadcast by a French radio. It is the intention that the place of performance should be immaterial. Clause 1 (2) of my Bill has been inserted to clarify this position. The effect of Clause 2 is to extend the provisions relating to the dealings with a "pirate" record made in this country for the sale or use here of such a record when made abroad. Thus, in future, it will be an offence to sell or to use in a public performance in this country a
516
record whose domestic law demands such consent.
I turn to Clause 3 in my Bill. As I have said, the 1958 Act makes it an offence to broadcast a live performance without consent. The Rome Convention speaks of broadcasting and communication to the public. The expression "broadcast" is, by our law, confined to the dissemination of performances by means of wireless. It does not cover wire. To meet the Rome Convention obligations it is necessary to provide, as I have done in Clause 3, that it is also an offence, say, to relay by wire a concert performed in a main hall to an overflow audience in a smaller hall without previously obtaining the permission of the performers. That is common sense.
These are just simply the changes we are required to make to ratify the Rome Convention, and these are the changes I am trying to carry out in my Bill. Little has been done to alter the balance between the three categories most concerned: the performers, the record producers and the broadcasting authorities; or to alter the relationship between any of those three and the public. Our protection system works satisfactorily and there have been very few prosecutions under the 1958 Act. Ratification for this Convention will benefit the performers in this country, the record producers and the broadcasters because the example of our ratification will set a good example to others abroad to follow suit, and the more people who ratify the Rome Convention, as we are doing, the more benefits will be brought to our own performers. This is not an epoch-making Bill, but one which will bring a benefit to a small section of the community. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, may I, in view of the fate which befell a previous Bill before your Lordships' House, rise to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—and rise to praise his Bill and not to bury it? I must say that I find it a little odd that this Bill, excellent though it is in most respects, comes before your Lordships' House as a Private Member's Bill rather than as a Government Measure. It has the most reputable and respectable parentage of the Rome Convention, and

517
it seems to me that it should have come before your Lordships' House as a Government measure, rather than that a private member's time should be taken up for a Bill intended to put into effect an international Convention. One would have thought, indeed, that the Government would be particularly sympathetic to the subject matter of the Bill at the present time, since the last broadcast performance by the Prime Minister that I saw suggested that any measure of protection of any kind which was available was desirable.
Leaving aside that question of principle, I am glad to welcome the Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, clears up a number of anomalies and brings into effect a decision of an international Convention which is well-merited and will be helpful to performers of all kinds. It is nice to know as the noble Lord said, that it is in line with general practice in this country. It is a Bill, primarily technical but admirable in its conception, which deserves the support of your Lordships' House.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and to give this Bill my wholehearted support. I am speaking, as your Lordships will imagine, largely on behalf of musicians, but I wholeheartedly agree with the provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill for performers of other varieties. I believe that the general public recognise very little of the hard work that goes into a musical performance. They think of it as a very pleasant occupation, with somebody just sitting down and playing a piano, and possibly getting a large fee for it. Professional musical performers are among the hardest-worked people in this country, I should say. Their hours are not limited, and besides the enormous amount of travelling and hard physical work, there is also the great nervous strain involved. There is no doubt that they deserve every bit of protection that we can give them.
I must confess that this question of copyright has puzzled me, even though I am a member of the Performing Right Society and to a certain degree have myself benefited from copyright. Even to this day I cannot wholly understand it, and I leave it to those who are more
518
intelligent than I am. But we have to remember that to-day there are many more ways of reproducing or copying a performance than by merely taking a tape-recording of a live performance, as it is generally called. One can take a tape-recording of a broadcast in one's own home. There are many complicated details which have to be taken into consideration.
If we go through this Bill we see that it covers all the details that have been given in the Rome Convention. In our 1958 Act, performers were protected to the point where copies made of their performances could not be replayed for profit. But, in my opinion, we should go even further than that and forbid all copies of performances. It is not generally taken into consideration that a copy of a performance is not the same as the actual performance: to a certain degree it is always distorted. It may be that the copier who makes the recording is not very expert, and the result may be a poor reproduction of the original performance. This poor recording may not be performed in public for profit, but it may be performed privately to a few friends who are interested, and if they have not heard the soloist before they may say, "We do not think this performance is up to much". As a result, the performer's reputation will have been damaged, even though only to a small extent. Therefore, I think that this protection is very much needed.
What I am not clear about, and what I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Mancroft will make clear when he makes his final speech, is whether performances of a non-professional character are also covered—that is to say, whether a performance itself must be for profit in order to be protected. Personally I think that it would be a good thing if all performance of any kind were protected, since a performance might be that of a young student who is not at the profit-making stage but is about to be so. I believe that any protection that can be given to potential professional performers is very necessary. I welcome this Bill with my whole heart.
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, may I first answer the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams? I imagine that there

519
are two reasons why my noble friend, and not Her Majesty's Government, is introducing this Bill. The first one, which I know to be correct, is that my noble friend handled previous legislation on the subject, and we think that it is only right and proper that he should handle this Bill, which to some extent is the culmination of his previous efforts. The second one, which has not actually been told me, though I have assumed it to be so, is that Her Majesty's Government thought my noble friend would handle it very much better than I should.
I think it is fair to say that we in this country are the pioneers in the matter of rights for performers, record-makers and broadcasting organisations. Now we have an international Convention which so closely follows our own ideas on these subjects that we can ratify it without any changes in the rights of record-makers and broadcasting authorities. But there are minor changes necessary in performers' rights, and the passing of this Bill will enable us to ratify the international Convention, which sets the pattern for future international development on lines in which we ourselves have been pioneers. I would only add that this Bill has been examined very closely by Her Majesty's Government. We thoroughly approve of it. We give it our blessing, and we trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading today.
4.8 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the House for the kindly way in which my Bill has been received. My noble friend Lord Derwent has had a shot at two reasons why I was entrusted with the Bill. Either or both of them may be true—I do not know. I had thought the explanation might be that the Government were compensating me for the cavalier way in which they treated my Rights of Privacy Bill a few years ago. However, I do not mind, so long as your Lordships are prepared to give my Bill a Second Reading.
The question which my noble friend Lord Somers has raised is a difficult one. To a certain degree, it is met by Section 1 (1) of the 1958 Act, but I think that he is raising a very difficult point, if he suggests that no differentia
520
tion should be made between the established professional performer and the beginner or the amateur. I will try to see whether I can meet him, but I do not think that it will be possible to draft something that will draw such a fine distinction as that. The other difficulty that arises is, of course, the difficulty of detection. If somebody, in the privacy of his own house, makes a recording (and this is the borderline under Section 1) it is very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to find out whether or not an offence has been committed.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I suggest that this is rather like these unenforceable laws of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit? They cannot be enforced, but, on the other hand, it is possible that if they are there the majority of people will obey them.
LORD MANCROFT: That is true. But this is not really the case of the offence which the law is designed to attack. It is not the man sitting in the privacy of his own room and recording from his wireless who is doing the damage. We are trying to protect a much wider class of persons on the more serious circumstances. I will look into the point, but, as I say, I see difficulties. I will take up no more of your Lordships' time. I thank your Lordships for your kind reception of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, before I go into the details of this short amending Bill I hope I shall not be thought to be wasting the time of the House if I give a brief summary of the history of the Commonwealth Scholarships plan. As the House is aware, at the Trade and Economic Conference held at Montreal in September, 1958, the idea of a Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan was launched, and detailed

521
arrangements for instituting the scheme were worked out by the first Commonwealth Education Conference at Oxford in 1959. Under this Plan Commonwealth Governments agreed to establish over 1,000 post-graduate scholarships and fellowships throughout the Commonwealth, and the British Government undertook to provide 500 of these. Legislative effect was given to the British Government's decision by the Commonwealth Scholarships Act, 1959, which set up the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission to administer the Plan in this country. The purpose of this Bill is to amend that Act.
I have mentioned that 500 awards were promised by Britain. The House may be interested in details of the numbers of awards which other Commonwealth countries have stated that they would make available under the Plan: Canada 250; Australia and India, 100 each; Pakistan, 40; New Zealand, 25; Federation of Malaya, 12; Ghana, 10; Nigeria, 8; Ceylon, 6; East Africa, 4; Cyprus, 3; Sierra Leone, Jamaica and Hong Kong, 2 each; and Malta 1—a total of 1,075, which, as will be seen, is 75 more than was envisaged at the time of the Montreal Conference.
I think the House may like to have some information as to the extent to which these targets have been achieved. The latest published figures for the Commonwealth as a whole are to be found in the Second Annual Report on the Plan, which was issued by the Commonwealth Education Committee last November, but I should point out that the period covered by this Report ended on 31st March, 1962, so that some of the figures have now become out of date. On 31st March, 1962, a total of 724 scholars were studying in thirteen countries. There were also 5 fellows, making a grand total of 729. Subsequently, however, the number of scholars in this country rose from 394 to 475 at the beginning of the current academic year. In Canada, 199 scholars were reported on 31st March, 1962, but by the year's end, some 220 had taken up awards. Similarly, whereas there were 75 scholars in Australia on the earlier date, the Australian section of the Report indicated that 80 awards were expected to be current in 1962. There are also results to come in from competitions which were held by other countries towards the end of last year, in particular, from India and Pakistan, and these
522
figures should shortly be known. Thus although the precise total of scholarships at present held is not available, it will be clear to the House that, since the table in the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee's Report was drawn up, we have been getting still closer to the overall target.
Though the scheme is one for postgraduate awards, I should mention that awards may also be given at undergraduate level to students from countries where there are no universities or where no courses are available in the subjects which the students wish to study. In addition—and this, I know, is something to which noble Lords opposite attach importance—there is provision for our scholarships to be held at other than university institutions: far example, as is illustrated by the directions issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the Scholarship Commission when it was set up, which drew attention to the possibility of giving awards for adult education courses.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Duke give an indication of the number of students who attended educational institutions of non-university standing?
TIIE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord that figure but I can say that, so far, in the field of adult education there have been only three nominations accepted. Only three nominations have so far been made by overseas countries for awards in adult education (and I should like to make the point to the noble Lord that unless nominations come forward the Commission are not in a position to make awards), but of these three, two were successful, one in 1961 and one in 1962.
The scheme, as the House is aware, has been operating since 1960 and has been a very great success. I should like to quote from the Second Annual Report on the Scholarship Plan issued by the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee. On page 10 there is a statement regarding the scholars who have come to this country which reads as follows:
" Reports from their universities indicate that the great majority of scholars have settled down easily to studying in a fresh environment and are in many cases producing work of high merit."

523
I think the House will be interested to know, too, that the tutors of two scholars have reported that they are among the best students they have ever had.
Before I go further, I should like to pay a tribute to Lord Scarbrough, who has just retired after serving for three years as the first Chairman of the Scholarship Commission. In this I know your Lordships would wish to join me. The Commission were singularly fortunate in having a man of Lord Scarbrough's vision, ability and experience to serve as their first Chairman, and the fact that the Plan has got off to such an excellent start is in no mean measure due to the skill and diligence with which Lord Scarbrough has occupied the Chair. Indeed, our thanks are due not only to him but to all his colleagues on the Commission for all they have done. They have served the interests of Commonwealth Relations most admirably. I can only thank him very much indeed.
The Commission have been singularly fortunate in obtaining as a successor to Lord Scarbrough my right honourable and noble friend the Earl of Kilmuir. It is most gratifying that the keen interest in and devotion to Commonwealth affairs that the noble Earl showed while Lord Chancellor still continues, and we are greatly in his debt that he has found time in his immensely busy life to take on the Chairmanship, which carries with it a very considerable burden of work. I can only say to him how deeply grateful everyone concerned with the Plan is.
To turn now to the Bill, the House may be aware that there have been certain difficulties arising out of Section 2 (a) of the 1959 Act, with which Clause 2 of this Bill—the principal provisions—is intended to deal. The power of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission to award scholarships under the 1959 Act to persons coming to the United Kingdom is limited by the requirement in Section 2 (a) that not more than 500 awards may be held at any one time. This has turned out to be too restrictive.
As I have said, Commonwealth Governments agreed at the Commonwealth Education Conference to establish a Commonwealth and Fellowship Plan with Britain undertaking to provide 500 out of 1,000 awards to be tenable at any
524
one time. At that time it was expected that the normal tenure of scholarships would be for two years: that is 250 new awards each year. The Scholarship Commission have found, however, that over half the scholars holding awards in this country wish to read for a Ph.D., and, I am sure, both for their own interests and in the interests of the country they come from, it is highly desirable that they should do so. However, in order to take Ph.D., a course of up to three years is required and, therefore, there have been a large number of students applying to stay on into a third year.
However, a substantial proportion of the scholars who apply for this third year extension do not require to stay for the whole of that third year, but are able to take their degrees and then return home within a few months of the beginning of their third academic year. Whilst the limit of 500 on the total number of awards which may be current at any one time remains in force, these extensions into a third year block a fresh scholarship unit for the full academic year, thereby making it impossible to fill those scholarship units held by part third-year scholars until the following Autumn. It will be appreciated that it is very rarely practicable to arrange for scholarships to be taken up in the middle of an academic year.
To maintain the present restriction means that the total number of scholars studying in this country will fall from approximately 500 in October, when the new batch of scholars arrives and the total is at its peak, to around 450 by the following April each year, due to the departure of a proportion of those scholars who have stayed on into a third year to take their Ph.Ds. The average number of United Kingdom awards current over the year will therefore be less than the 500 originally envisaged by the Government when the Scholarship Plan was launched.
While it is not intended to make any change in existing policy, if the Act is amended as proposed, the Scholarship Commission will be able, at the opening of each new academic year in October, when the carry-over of scholars from the previous year is augmented by the new batch of scholars taking up awards, to have on their books somewhat more than 500 scholars and fellows. This situation

525
will, however, last for only a few months, and the total will then fall during the year so as to give an average of 500 awards current over the year as a whole.
On the assumption that the normal tenure of scholarships would be two years, the Scholarship Commission announced in each of the first two British competitions that 250 new awards would be available. But as a result of granting a considerable number of third-year extensions the Commission is at present limited to offering, on account of the 500 maximum imposed by the Act, around 200 new awards only each year. If, however, the restriction in the Act is removed, it is expected that the Commission should be able to offer between 225 and 230 new awards annually at present costs. This is important, in the light of the Report of the Delhi Conference last January, which recorded that "it would he unfortunate" if third-year extensions should result in a reduction in the number of new awards made annually.
If the Bill is passed, there will be no limit on expenditure in the 1959 Act itself, but the Government intend to continue to make awards within the spirit of an average of 500 awards held in any one year and within the existing financial allocation; thereby the overall limit of £6 million imposed by the Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960, for expenditure under both Acts during the five years ending March 31, 1965, will still apply.
I turn now to Clause 1 of the Bill. By Clause 1 the 1959 Act is brought into line with the Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960, and will cover the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It did not occur to anyone at the time the 1959 Act was being drafted that the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man would raise any question, since there are no universities or other institutions there to which candidates for British Scholarships from abroad under the Act would have gone. The point did, however, come up subsequently in connection with the Commonwealth Teachers Act, and the Islands were therefore expressly covered there. Later, the Scholarship Commission raised the question of the position of a Channel Islander or Manxman under Section 1 (1) (c) of the 1959 Act (which deals with the selection of candidates from Britain for awards offered by other Commonwealth countries). This being a post-graduate scheme, such a person would normally be a gradu
526
ate of a British university, and thus would qualify for selection under the section, but we thought it better to take the opportunity in this Bill of expressly including the Islands.
I hope the House will give its blessing to this short Bill. I am sure it is an excellent Bill and will be a further step in cementing good Commonwealth relations in a particularly vital field, that of education. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this very simple Bill looked at first as if it would need no comment in its own right but would merely give us an opportunity to say a few words on the general question of Commonwealth education, but since the noble Duke has explained the implications of Clause 2, I think one should ask if the Government are happy about whether the scheme will fulfil the intentions of the Conference. Clause 2, by removing the upper limit of 500, certainly gives some much needed flexibility, but I was disappointed that the noble Duke thought that the maximum intake permissible in each academic year is only between 225 and 230. That means that there can never be more than 460 scholarship holders other than those who are staying on for a third year. It seems to me that the people staying on, possibly for a higher degree, are to some extent stultifying the whole scheme if, in fact, we can take a maximum of only 460 instead of 500. That is a thought upon which I should like the noble Duke to give us some views. It was somewhat of a disappointment when we heard that figure.
I wonder, further, whether this tendency to say on for a third year, or part of a third year, is not a reflection of a slight weakness in the original terms of the plan, because we heard that the aim of the whole scholarship scheme is to give awards to men and women who are
"of high intellectual promise and who may also be expected to make a significant contribution in their own countries".
There is further emphasis that
"in the main the awards should be made for a period of post-graduate study or research to men and women who are capable of reaching the highest standard of intellectual achievement".

527
I think it is questionable whether that is the best policy for the countries of the Commonwealth, many of whom, we must remember, have until very recently counted the number of their university graduates on the fingers of one hand.
Some of these countries have been lacking so much in the opportunities for higher education, and I wonder whether this insistence on people with only the highest intellectual attainments is really the best way of helping in their development. After all, it is really a means to an end, is it not? The higher education is needed for the future development, economically and in other ways, of these countries. Obviously, one can never value quality in education too highly, but it is arguable, I think, that the need in a country which is developing from a very low level of academic attainments is rather for quantity. After all, the field of higher education is probably the most important single aspect of technical assistance to the developing countries.
At one time there was argument whether it was better for developing countries to send their people for higher education to the United Kingdom and Europe or to concentrate on building up universities in those countries. I think very few people now would disagree with the view that they must have their own universities; although we shall always welcome their coming to this country to see how we live, to see conditions in highly matured civilisation and to obtain whatever we have to offer them in the way of learning. But the crying need is to build up the universities overseas and for that the need is for teachers willing to go to those overseas countries.
The first thing that should be said is that the Scholarship Plan laid down, in paragraph 10, that the
"holder of an award "
that is, a scholarship award—
"will be expected to return to his own country on the expiry of the award."
I have no doubt that some of the more able and brilliant of the students who come to this country on scholarships are greatly tempted to take posts in this country rather than to go back to their own country. They have tasted the sweets of academic life and life in this
528
country and it must be very tempting to them to stay on and make their careers here; but that is not in the interests of their own countries. I hope that this little sentence in the original plan has not been forgotten and is, in fact, being given due weight by Her Majesty's Government and by all those connected with the Plan.
The other thing I would say is that we need large numbers of university teachers willing to go to overseas universities. This does not come in the Scholarship Plan because it is in a different conception, but, if your Lordships do not mind my being out of order to this extent, I would ask the Government whether they have this matter really in the forefront of their minds? I believe it has been calculated that in African universities alone something like 5,000 university teachers will be needed in the next twenty years if the development of all those universities is to go ahead. The number, of 'course, will diminish as Africans reach the stage of graduation and of taking up a teaching career. All the same, the numbers needed are very great and inducements will be needed to get the required number of good teachers to go abroad. Your Lordships have discussed before now the fear that is in the minds of many young men that their careers in teaching, medicine or in other ways will be prejudiced if they go abroad; and I think it cannot be too often said by the Government and by leaders of the professions that men who go abroad and take posts for a limited time, helping the overseas countries with their higher education, far from prejudicing their careers, will in fact improve their prospects.
4.38 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, as my noble friend his indicated, we have no objection to this amendment. It deals with a very modest aspect of Commonwealth educational co-operation, and far be it for me to object to any amendment simply because the subject demands far more drastic treatment; and, so far as I can see, the proposal embodied in the amendment is that which is recommended in the Report of the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee of 1962. But it is a little unfortunate that the noble Duke's speech seemed to indicate that the Government clearly have no intention

529
of further or additional expenditure upon the Scholarship Plan.
The noble Duke said that it would be operated "in the spirit of" the 500 limit, and that the overall expenditure of £6 million over the five years proposed by the Commonwealth Teachers Act, 1960, will still apply. That, I think, is to be regretted: because, as the noble Duke himself pointed out, this is a period when we have to look still more to the Commonwealth and do all we possibly can to stimulate and develop Commonwealth relations. Perhaps our inability to join the Common Market has highlighted the value of Commonwealth relations. To-day trade is no longer the product of political domination; yet it can still be influenced by close association, mutual help and better understanding. I think all of us would agree that if the Commonwealth is to survive and grow stronger it needs this constant interflow of students and the stimulation of mutual contact. Indeed, I should like to see the day when Britain herself was truly the educational Mecca of the Commonwealth.
To achieve that I am quite sure we need a very considerable increase in our educational facilities. I should like to see in the operation of this educational scheme a far greater emphasis upon nonacademic types. It has already been stated that the Commonwealth is a variety of nations, of peoples, with varying degrees of development. Many of them are emergent nations. Many of these nations are climbing painfully out of the pit of poverty and ignorance, and ahead of those nations is a hard struggle to lift their economic standards. I believe it is realised in our own country that if their standards remain low our chance of developing trade becomes more difficult. I appreciate that under this scheme such nations are sending their quota of students to study at our universities, but in my opinion it is not the lawyer or the politician or the budding Prime Minister they want: I imagine that they have as many of those as they need at the moment. They need technicians, agriculturists, people versed in the simple rudiments of business and administration. And they must have those coming to this country, not in their hundreds but in their thousands.
I am aware that the Department of Technical Co-operation is doing a tremendously good job in this regard. I can
530
speak with practical experience of a good number of years as a member of an advisory committee to the Colonial Office, and at present chairman of one of the advisory committees to the Department of Technical Co-operation. I know how much individual firms, co-operative societies, agricultural co-operatives, are doing in this field by providing facilities for students—not academic types—to come over to this country, learn the way of life and learn something practical that will be of great assistance in building up the resources of their own country. If I may quote an example, in the past few weeks I have received a letter from two Malayan students brought over to this country as guests of a Midlands Cooperative Society. They studied there, travelled about the country and went back knowing quite a lot about Britain. They had, too, I think, a good regard and good feeling towards this country, and returned to their own country armed with knowledge, practice and skill that will be of considerable assistance not only to them but also to the community they intend to serve.
I should like to make some comment upon a point on which my noble friend has already touched; that is, to make a greater endeavour to ensure that the people who attend the universities go back to their own countries where they will be able to make some contribution, if only to teach others what they have learned. I believe that the basic need which the scheme seeks to meet—at least in those types of country within the Commonwealth of which I am speaking, and particularly the less-developed countries—is to provide trained people to help develop their own country. That, in my opinion, must be the guiding principle of awarding scholarships, and certainly in deciding an extension for such scholarships, which is the major subject of this amending Bill.
4.46 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill as it goes some way, if not very far, to meet the needs of the situation. I am a firm believer in having as many co-operative associations (in the general, not in Lord Peddie's sense of the term) in the Commonwealth as we can have. I have always felt that one of the great difficulties of developing the Commonwealth idea among the

531
public is that there are far too few cooperative organisations. There is a limit to which an idea can be sustained without anything practical to sustain it. In my view, that limit has long been reached, so far as the Commonwealth has been concerned.
So far as this particular scheme, the Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, is concerned, as those of us who spoke on this issue when it was announced by the Government some years ago realised, it was, and is, intended for post-graduate study. But to-day the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has questioned the value of that as opposed to general scholarships for undergraduate study. In the original Command Paper (No. 894) this was said:
"In the main the awards should be made for a period of post-graduate study or research to men or women capable of reaching the highest standard of intellectual achievement."
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, was, of course, argued at the time; and it has been argued in the past and will be argued in the future. But my own view is that this decision was the right one. There is obviously a limit to the numbers of undergraduates or scholars one can take from any particular country outside one's own.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, the primary object of higher education is to have a sufficient number of universities in the various Commonwealth countries to satisfy the demands of their own scholars for university education. But in most of the newer countries there are naturally very few opportunities for post-graduate studies, and the slender resources in money and teachers are often best applied to undergraduate study. In many cases—I would say in most cases—they have not the necessary resources to apply them to the comparatively few, indeed very few, students who are able to take advantage of post-graduate studies. It is much better in those cases for the people who desire post-graduate study, who are fitted for it, to go to one of the more mature countries and take advantage of the studies that are available there. I myself think that this is the right course which is being pursued by the Government and the other Governments in the Commonwealth, and that to go back to a general position of taking undergraduate scholars would he wrong. Furthermore, in many cases for
532
a young man or young woman to come from a country which is just evolving as a developing country into a metropolitan country such as this is a tremendous step to take, and very often they are better able to take advantage of the facilities available here if they have done an undergraduate course in their own countries and are more mature.
Secondly, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, raised the question of numbers, and here I must support them. I think it would be unfortunate if the Government gave the idea that 500 was the absolute maximum. We are now going to have a number of new universities; there will be a much larger number of university places. And, after all, these are postgraduate students who will not, in many cases, compete with undergraduates for places in universities. Therefore, I would have thought it a great advantage if the Government could be more flexible. One wonders why this number of 500 was fixed. Was it picked out of the bag, or how was it fixed? It bears no relation at any one time to the number of people who desire to come here for post-graduate study. Perhaps the noble Duke could tell us whether the numbers of those desiring to come here are increasing. One would assume that they would be: as the universities in these various countries develop, their output of graduates will be increased, and one would expect the number who desire to come here to be continually growing. I think it would be a great pity if, by some rule of thumb which was decided some years ago, a number of promising people were unable to obtain the benefit of studies in this country.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, made some rather critical comment about lawyers and politicians and others of that nature. It is highly desirable to have technical people: they are needed. It is difficult to draw the line in defining what is a technical person. Assuming that scientists of various kinds come within this category, it is most important to have agriculturists, veterinary surgeons and doctors and others who are mainly scientific; but it is also vitally important to have the humanists, the people who have done the humane studies. I regret to say that there is often a tendency present

533
in developing countries to believe that anyone, by the light of nature, can become an administrator and a manager. This is not the case. Administrators have to be trained: lawyers have to be trained, and, judges and magistrates are chosen from lawyers. Law and order is one of the first requirements of government, and unless one has a number of people who are trained in these faculties, then the country is going to be faced with grave difficulty.
Take the case of Tanganyika. When Tanganyika became independent the fact was, as I was informed, that there was only one African barrister. Those who believe that the law itself and lawyers are a blight, would probably welcome that fact, but as I have said, it is difficult to carry on the administration of law with one barrister in a country. He would be very busy—
LORD STONHAM: There would be no argument.
LORD OGMORE: It is true that there would be no argument, but neither would there be any law and justice. As a lawyer and a politician, I come into Lord Peddie's two classes of undesirables. But I must say that, quite apart from the fact that without lawyers it is difficult to carry on the administration of the law, they are also the basis of magistrates and judges. How you carry on law and order without magistrates, judges and lawyers, I do not know. So I should not be too keen on excluding politicians and lawyers, and others of that ilk.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I do not deplore the fact that there are a number of skilled politicians and even lawyers in such countries. All I am saying is that you can have too much of a good thing.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not think they have got too much of a good thing in many of these countries. I am glad to think that politicians and lawyers are a good thing, but I can assure the noble Lord that in many countries there are few people with qualifications of any kind. Therefore, as I say, what we want is a balance. I should like to know where many of these graduates go, because the last figures that I saw in this field seemed to imply that a lot of them go to London for their post-graduate courses—I have not got the latest figures with me, and
534
the noble Duke said that the figures in the Report were out of date. I have always thought that this is rather a mistake, and those from overseas who come to me for advice have always been advised by me against going to London.
The University of London has well over 20,000 students, and there can be no real university life in the University of London such as there can be in many of the small towns or cities where there is a university. If you are to lecture at the University of London you will generally find that you are asked to go at lunch time—which is an awkward time for a lecture or a talk—because in the evening most of the undergraduates, who reside a considerable way from the centre of London, travel back home by tile earliest possible train, following the final lecture or tutorial class of the day. I feel that the average student from overseas can have little real university life in those circumstances, and probably finds himself living out in Brixton or Balham, or somewhere like that, and meeting few people, except perhaps other students who have come from his own country. I feel that the Government should do everything in their power to persuade these students, if the courses which they wish to take are available for them, to go to one of the other universities—I do not like calling them "red brick" universities, because many of these universities are far more ancient than the University of London; but universities other than Oxford, Cambridge or London.
What about families? Here again, I have always thought that this is one of the problems which we have not always faced. Does this scheme make it possible for a student to bring his wife and family with him? I hope that it does, because post-graduate students will be slightly older than the average undergraduate, and it is not satisfactory for a man to be here for two years or even three years, away from his family. He would be much happier, and so would the family, if they could be here with him. One of the difficulties in many of these countries is that the educated man naturally desires an educated wife, and educated wives are hard to come by. In some countries they have an enormous bride price. I think it is difficult if the wife has been left at home and the husband has come over here on a post-

535
graduate course for two or three years and has had experience of living in a society such as ours which his wife has not shared. I can see great possibilities of unhappiness if that is the case; so I hope that there is some provision for that.
Finally, turning to the other side of the trencher, I should like to ask a question about our students going overseas. This also is part of the Plan. When I saw the figures previously, practically all of them went to Canada. I do not know whether that is still the case because, unhappily, although the first Report of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan Commission was a Command Paper, the second one was not, and it was not therefore placed in the Printed Paper Office and is not available for us to-day. I should like to ask the noble Duke whether he can give us any figures or details about where exactly these British graduates have gone for their exchange Commonwealth Fellowship courses. As I said, originally most of them went to Canada. I have no objection to this: some of the Canadian universities are extremely good. But I should like to see some of these people going to African and Asian universities.
It is most important that some of our young men and women should go to Hong Kong University, the University of Malaya, Makerere University, and some of the other universities. It would be a great advantage to them, as well as to the students in those universities, and it would also be a great advantage to us on their return to this country. Perhaps the noble Duke could pass on to the Commission dealing with this Plan the desirability of suggesting to applicants that they might care to study in one of these other universities. If, for example, they are studying Oriental languages, they might well find a suitable course in one of those places. In many of them they probably would not find a great deal of post-graduate tuition, but this idea might well be worth following up.
My Lords, what information is given to colleges here as to this scheme? I have an impression that it is not widely known. Perhaps the noble Duke could look to see whether the Committee make this scheme widely known, so that the graduates in our own universities can
536
take advantage of it. With those few remarks, I have nothing further to say on this Bill, except to give it a modified welcome and to hope that the Government will continue in this spirit and that in future they will do even better
5.2 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to intervene very briefly in this debate, my reason being that only four days ago I found myself in a mining town on the Demerara River in British Guiana, in the middle of the jungle, looking at schools and an apprentice training scheme. That visit brought vividly to my mind the enormous importance of increased education of all kinds in every part of the Commonwealth—not only because it is good for the country itself, but also because there is such an overwhelming desire in these countries to be educated.
It is no longer a question of driving unwilling, reluctant pupils to school; it is a question of finding physical accommodation for these very young people, desks at which they can work, blackboards on which the lessons can be taught, and, of course, of finding teachers who can fulfil those jobs. This does not apply only at the lowest level of primary education, but all the way through the educational field up to and beyond the undergraduate stage. When you get beyond that stage there is an overwhelming demand in those countries for trained people, graduates in the sciences, technologists, laboratory technicians, and, above all, teachers. The need for these qualified people who are in such enormous demand should be met from the actual native population of whatever Colony or member of the Commonwealth we are talking about, but the demand cannot be satisfied from those sources and can only partially be met, at great expense, and with great difficulty, by importations from this country and other more highly developed countries.
My Lords, this is a problem of which we are all aware, a problem with which I imagine this Bill in its modified form is trying to cope. When one considers the vastness of this important problem one cannot help saying, in spite of one's sympathies with this Bill, that it is lamentable that the numbers are limited to 500 people in any one year. Admittedly, it is worth doing, and I should be

537
the last to say it is not worth doing, but what sort of contribution is this to a problem involving tens of millions of people—people who are longing for education, searching for opportunities, and yet who are being offered only 500 places in any one year?
We have heard discussions as to whether this scheme should be confined to, or concentrated more upon, the technical side, or the arts, or whether we want to train more lawyers or more politicians—though I must say I do not know how one can train a politician. Perhaps we could benefit from it ourselves if we knew the answer. I would not in any way deprecate the training of lawyers; I think they have very valuable functions to fulfil. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said you cannot have too much of a good thing. That is probably true.
LORD STONHAM: He said you can have too much of a good thing.
LORD WALSTON: That is also true, I would say, but at this stage the question is whether or not we are having too much of a good thing in the shape of lawyers. We are certainly not having enough of a better thing in the shape of the more practical technical sciences which are needed, above all, in these countries. Admittedly, it is important, if you want to go to law, that there should be more than one barrister to choose from. But it is far more important that you should have more than one doctor to look after a population of 100,000 or more; that you should have more than one engineer to construct thousands of miles of roads in primitive countries; that you should have more than one economist or agriculturist to grow food on tens of thousands of acres in under-developed and under-nourished countrysides. These are the things to which we must turn our minds.
We must also, as my noble friend Lord Lucan said, do our best to see that when the people who come over here under these scholarships have got their degrees or qualifications they go to a country where there is a real need for their particular skills rather than remain in this country. I would not go all the way with the noble Earl in saying that it should be a condition that such people must return to the country from which they came. There are many other countries in
538
the Commonwealth just as much in need of such trained people as the country of origin of the graduate student, and it would be wrong for us to insist upon these graduates returning to their own country; we should be satisfied if they go to any of the countries of the Commonwealth where the need for their services exists. But we should strongly discourage them from remaining in this country or in any of the other more highly developed countries in which they have received their training.
We usually look on this matter as something which will be solely to the benefit of the countries who are sending their students to us, and undoubtedly the primary object is that they should be benefited. But we must not forget that we in this country gain a considerable side benefit through having such people here. The more we can have people from other parts of the Commonwealth, with their different habits, different views, different backgrounds, mixing among our own people—mixing as scientists, students, technicians, and mixing as ordinary human beings—the more will our understanding be of such places, and the more will our sympathy be real and practical rather than theoretical and remote. This is an additional reason why we cannot be content with having this paltry number of 500 people, not all of whom are in this country. It should be extended far more—not simply put up by 10 or 20 per cent., not doubled or trebled, but increased tenfold or twenty-fold within the next year. That will be only the very beginning of a very small contribution to the solution of this vast problem, for which we in this country must take the prime responsibility.
5.10 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this extremely worthwhile debate, and I should like to reply to most, if not all, of the points raised. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, was the first to raise this important question of the type of person who should come to this country. I think the first thing to be said on that is that the scheme has the wholehearted blessing of our fellow members of the Commonwealth. They are delighted with it. The fact that they are so pleased with it, and

539
take such an interest in it, shows that the plan as at present devised is meeting a very real Commonwealth need.
Let us remember too, that this is by no means the only contribution to further education that this country is making towards the Commonwealth. There is the Commonwealth Bursary Scheme, under which some hundreds of teachers from Commonwealth countries come here for a year's course. That, I think, meets to a certain extent the need which the noble Earl felt was present; because while it is possibly true that the more developed countries of the Commonwealth are the greatest beneficiaries under the Scholarship Plan, under the Bursary Scheme it is the emerging countries which get the lion's share. Last year there were some 390 of these bursaries current in this country, and of that total of 390. 89 went to Nigeria alone. So I think it is perhaps a mistake to look at the Commonwealth Scholarship Plan in isolation as this country's contribution to further education in the Commonwealth.
The noble Earl also touched on this question of numbers, as did I think all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. It is true that the original intention was that there should be 250 new scholars each year, but in view of the very great importance of obtaining the Ph.D. I think the small reduction in annual intake is more than offset by the value which the students, and through them the country, will receive from the Plan. The overall number of 500 has not been altered; it is merely the annual intake that has been affected. Indeed, once this Bill has been passed there will be some times in the year when there will be more than 500 students here. But in my opinion the small reduction in annual numbers is more than compensated for by the great value to Commonwealth citizens who obtain their Ph.D.
I must confess that I have been a little distressed that two or three of your Lordships should have made reference to what the future should hold for those who take up these scholarships. First of all, in general principle I think it is very undesirable to attach any strings to scholars coming to this country. But what distressed me was that there was a hint of implication about the possible patriotism of
540
scholars coming here under the Plan. It has been my very good fortune to travel extensively in the Commonwealth during the last two years, and one is continually aware of the burning sense of patriotism and nationalism, particularly among the peoples of the newly independent countries. I feel that we are doing less than justice to scholars from those countries if we think that they intend to keep the benefit of their education in this country only to themselves, and not to let their country as a whole share in it. I believe that we can leave it to the scholars themselves to put the extra learning they have acquired in this country very much to the fore in their country's interests.
The noble Earl also raised the matter of the great need to supply university teachers overseas. This is a little outside the scope of the debate, but as the noble Earl raised the point I may just say that we are, of course, acutely conscious of that need. Indeed, the Morris Committee which is now sitting was set up by the Government for the express purpose of inquiring into the ways and means of obtaining people to take up these posts overseas.
To turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, he also touched on this question of who should be the beneficiaries. I think he said that he was all in favour of the non-academic type. So am I, since my own scholastic career would certainly qualify my being described as a non-academic type.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, will the noble Duke pardon me for one moment, in order to make the position quite clear? I made no reference in any derogatory terms to the academic type. I was merely indicating that in the building up of the emergent nations there is a necessity to give encouragement, though the provision of scholarships and the like, to the nonacademic type—the type that has been referred to on a number of occasions the agriculturist, the tradesman, the skilled operator and the technician. Those are the people to whom I was referring.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Indeed, my Lords. I would only say this to the noble Lord: that we are aware—and he paid very generous tribute to the work of the Department of Technical Co-operation—that our interest in the field of education, and in the field of

541
knowledge throughout the Commonwealth, is not confined to these highly knowledgeable scholars who in many cases are working for their Ph.D. But this particular Bill is to deal with that aspect of our contribution towards Commonwealth education. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are acutely conscious that this is by no means the only need, and the D.T.C. was set up largely for the express purpose of helping with technical education in such fields as agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, as did other noble Lords, said that we do not spend nearly enough money. Of course we do not. Unfortunately, no Government has limitless resources. I do not wish to touch on matters which are outside my concern, but I would simply say that you must cut your rug according to your cloth, and that with all the many demands that are made upon this country, and the vast amount of aid that has been provided, everything has to be in proportion. Although, of course, the figure of £6 million over the period 1960 to 1965 is not as much as we should like, it does indicate, taking into consideration the many other demands that are put upon the national purse (because remember that all the money must come from the taxpayer), that the field of further education has not been altogether neglected. At the same time, I should like to say that we fully appreciate that if more could be afforded there is a need to spend literally limitless sums of money in this particular field.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised a number of points, which I should like to deal with fairly briefly. He asked whether a scholar could bring his wife. I understand that under the scheme £200 a year maintenance is allowed in this direction. The noble Lord also asked where students go from here under other countries' schemes? It is true that Canada leads the way, but Australia, New Zealand and India also make very worthwhile contributions to the scheme. The noble Lord also talked at some length about the universities to which the scholars should go when they come to this country. That, of course, depends very greatly upon where awards can be made available. London University has no need of a champion, but I should not like to think that those who are con
542
cerned with the scheme are not deeply grateful to London University for the number of places it finds for scholars under the scheme.
But it is by no means confined to London. While the noble Lord was speaking I looked at the list of places where the awards were taken up. I looked only at the first page of this document and found there were students going to Cambridge, Edinburgh, Oxford, Leeds, Liverpool, Southampton, Durham, Birmingham and Aberdeen—as well, of course, as London. That is on the first page alone, so it is not confined only to London University, though I dare say they have the lion's share, largely due to the tremendous size of the university.
The noble Lord also said that the money was insufficient. I can only repeat what I have said: that if the resources were available, an infinitely great amount of money could be spent; but, fortunately, we are making a significant contribution to the cost of Commonwealth further education.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not imply so much that the money was insufficient, although, as the noble Duke has implied, it obviously is, but asked whether some regard has been had to the extra places to become available when the new universities come into being.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: We are limited to 500 under the Act of 1960, so in the immediate future there can be no question of extending that number. There will be further Commonwealth Education Conferences—the next will be held in 1964—at which such matters as these are suitable for discussion and, if necessary, recommendation; and should a recommendation come for extending the numbers, it will, I know, be given due consideration by the Government. However, for the time being we are confined to 500.
The noble Lord asked whether the number was fixed arbitrarily. I am afraid I cannot answer that question offhand, but it occurs to me that perhaps in 1959, when the scheme was first evolved, it was decided there should be 1,000 places and the British Government felt we should take the lion's share and offer to pay half the total sum—but that is mere conjecture. However, I think we can be reasonably proud that when this scheme was instituted we quite rightly

543
took the lead and undertook to provide half the number of places to be provided by the entire Commonwealth.
There is one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke with some scorn about this pitiful number of 500. Of course it is very small, but it is entirely for one particular field, which is post-graduate education. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, I think, said he wanted to see this country become the Mecca of Commonwealth education. May I say in passing how my heart warmed to him for the feelings of great affection and devotion for the Commonwealth which he showed in his speech? For someone in my office, that was very comforting and pleasing to hear. But there are to-day approximately 35,000 students from different Commonwealth countries studying up and down the country, so to take just this 500 is perhaps not altogether fair. It may be much smaller than noble Lords would like, but it is only part of what we do for Commonwealth education. There are literally tens of thousands of Commonwealth students in this country at this moment, and they increase year by year. So I think that, if it is not the Mecca, we can say that we bring education in one form or another to very large numbers of young people from all parts of the Commonwealth.
Before I close, may I say how warmly I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when he said that we are beneficiaries? Of course we are. It is not only to our interest, but to our great benefit, that people, and particularly young people in their formative years, should see fit to come to this country to study. Apart from the fact that it is a great compliment to us, we can benefit very much from having them with us. It is, indeed, the very essence, the very stuff, of Commonwealth relations that they should come here; and I should like to associate myself very much with him when he says that we are not only giving but also receiving. It remains for me only to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their extremely interesting contributions, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 15 [Effect of approved school order on fit person or local authority]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (2), after "that Act" to insert:
"or where a juvenile court, under section 84 (8) of the principal Act, has revoked an order committing a person to the care of a local authority and made an approved school order in respect of him"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moved an Amendment to Clause 7 designed mainly to ensure that where a court sent to an approved school a child brought before it under Section 84 (8) of the principal Act by a local authority in whose care he was under a fit person order, the court should have a discretion to allow the fit person order to continue in force so that the local authority might continue to befriend and assist the child in question. I said that I hoped to be able to produce, before Third Reading, an Amendment to meet this point.
The Amendment which I am now moving extends the provisions of Clause 15 (2) so that a local authority would have power to continue to visit, advise and befriend a child in an approved school, even though the order committing him to their care had been revoked under Section 84 (8) of the principal Act. I might mention that it does not affect the requirement in the new version of that section substituted by Clause 7 (2) that the court must revoke the fit person order before making an approved school order or any other order. However, it secures the object, as I understood it, that the noble Lord had in mind, that the local authority should nevertheless be able to continue to act as the child's substitute parent in a case where, despite the proceedings under Section 84 (8), the basis of such a relationship survived. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the considerable amount of attention and thought he has given to this particular point, because it was on this clause that he moved an Amendment on Report stage, to which I moved two Amendments, one of which he accepted; and this is the final act. He has indeed met the whole point about continuity, which is extremely important when a child has been under care, but there is one point which he has not covered, and I should be very glad to know whether, in his view, the amended clause will cover the point of financial assistance. The clause says that the child shall be "befriended" by the local authority; and the noble Earl will remember that I, at least, was not certain that they would be able to befriend him in certain circumstances to the extent of giving financial assistance. It is a point of importance to the local authorities that they should have that assurance: otherwise there will arise points of doubt and difficulty. I hope the noble Earl will be able to say that the clause, when amended and as then drafted, will cover the point about financial assistance.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I have the permission of the House, I should like to answer the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has raised. It is quite true that this Amendment is to Clause 15, but he will remember that when we discussed it on Report we were discussing Clause 7. We then came on to discuss Clause 15, and on the second of his Amendments, which I think is the point to which he is now addressing himself, I said we should like further time to consider the implications of his Amendment. As I shall probably be mentioning later on, this is a point on Clause 15 to which we do require to give further consideration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Assessors for recorder in appeals and committals from juvenile courts]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) Where in any case only one such member is available the recorder may sit with
546
that member, and where in any case no such member is available and it appears to the recorder that an adjournment would not be in the interests of justice, he may sit alone."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment honours an undertaking given by my noble friend Lord Lothian at Report stage. Its effect is that in a case to which Clause 19 applies the recorder may sit without any juvenile court justices as assessors only if it appears to him that
"an adjournment would not be in the interests of justice."
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested at Report stage that the criterion should be whether it would be contrary to the child's interests to delay the hearing. I can assure him that the Government entirely agree that the child's interests should be the first consideration—I should like to make that quite plain. But I do not believe that those interests should be the only considerations. As the noble Lord's colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said (and I quote from column 257 of Hansard)—at the Report stage:
"… the overriding considerations must be the welfare of the child or young person and the interests of justice …"
To that I would only add that the latter will generally include the former. Justice will generally include the interests of the child, but if there were any possible conflict it would be right that the interests of justice should prevail. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Earl for this Amendment which, as he said, goes a long way to meet the point I had in mind. The words of the Amendment, "in the interests of justice", are, of course, the same as those used in paragraph 17 of the Second Schedule; and they are, indeed, the words used in the practice of the juvenile courts. No-one could dissent from the noble Earl's proposition that if the interests of justice do not apparently include the interests of the child nevertheless the interests of justice must become paramount. The wording of my Amendment was precisely to ensure that, when

547
this Bill becomes an Act, the whole legal machine serves the best, the immediate and the long—term interests of the child.
This particular clause provides that in almost all circumstances a magistrate, or two magistrates, with experience of juvenile courts and of child cases shall sit with the recorder as assessors. My unease about these words does not arise from any academic assessment of the value of language but from actual knowledge and experience of what happens at the court session when a recorder is considering the case of a child. It would be wholly wrong to suggest that the recorder does not know everything there is to know about the law and the interests of justice, but in my experience some of them are absolute "clots" when it comes to children, and ought at all times to have the benefit of these assessors. They should sit without an assessor only if it would otherwise mean long delays in considering the child's case and is therefore not in the interests of the child. I can only hope that the kind of case I have mentioned will not arise, and that what the noble Earl has said about always considering the interests of the child will carry weight and that the interests of justice will always coincide with the interests of the child.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Evidence of children in committal proceedings for sexual offences]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Amendment which I am now moving is a drafting Amendment. It is designed to make it clear that any objections by the defence under the new Clause 27 procedure must be made at or before the time when the statement is tendered in evidence. I think the Amendment is self—explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) where at or before the time when such a statement is tendered in evidence the defence objects to the application of that subsection; or")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.34 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after Clause 54 to insert the following new clause.
Power of local authority to visit and assist persons formerly in their care
Where a person was at or after the time when he attained the age of seventeen in the care of a local authority under the Children Act 1948, the principal Act or the principal Scottish Act, but has ceased to be in their care, then, while he is under the age of twenty—one, the local authority, if so requested by him, may cause him to be visited, advised and befriended and, in exceptional circumstances, to be given financial assistance.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the new clause which I am now moving also stems from an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, during the Report stage. It would enable a local authority to help a person under 21 who was in their care up to the age of 17 or later by causing him to be visited, advised and befriended, and also, in exceptional circumstances, to be given financial assistance. Such help may be given only on request. In so far as the new clause would enable a local authority to advise and befriend a child formerly in their care, it covers the same ground as the new clause moved at Report by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I then reserved the Government's position on the need to extend the local authority's powers of financial assistance beyond the limits set by Section 20 of the Children Act, 1948, as amended by Clause 44 of this Bill.
We have since had an opportunity to discuss this point with representatives of the local authority associations and with the London County Council. They considered that a power to give financial assistance in cases not covered by those provisions I have mentioned would need to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the Government's new clause accordingly confers such a power with that limitation. I should add that the new clause extends to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54, insert the said new clause. —(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Earl has indicated, the terms of this new clause follow almost exactly the lines of the one that I moved on Report, except, I believe, for the insertion of the words "exceptional circumstances" where financial assistance is concerned. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give some indication of the kind of financial circumstances which would be

549
regarded as "exceptional", not by reference to a dictionary definition (I am sure he would not do that), but by a kind of example which would be helpful. Could the noble Earl also give an indication of why it is now proposed to put this new clause after Clause 54? I originally moved it to come after Clause 3. At the time I did not think it a very good place to put it, but I do not think it is any better after Clause 54, because if it is placed after Clause 54 it means that we have two contradictory and unrelated elements in the one clause. I should never dream of looking for it under Clause 54. This would mean going right through the Bill before discovering it. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would deal with those two points.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall be exceptionally brief in my reply to the noble Lord on both points, because I am not certain that I know the precise answer to either of them. Dealing first with his second point, we can clearly look as the Bill goes along into whether this is the best place for this new clause, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion that it might not be. Frankly I do not know why we chose that particular place to put it. On his first point, I am afraid that he has stumped me, because, as I said at Report stage, it was my view that the existing provisions of the 1948 Act would cover the various possibilities to which he alluded at Report stage. I can only conjecture that the local authorities' associations and the London County Council thought that there might be some other cases—although, as I mentioned earlier, they thought that these would be very exceptional. I am afraid that I cannot specify the exception, because it is our view that almost all the circumstances would be covered by the provisions of the existing Act.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 24, after ("8") insert ("27, 34").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supervision Orders: Requirements as to residence and treatment]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment, which again is of a drafting variety, would delete a qualifying phrase from paragraph 10 of the First Schedule. On looking through the Bill again, it seemed to us that the qualifying phrase was unnecessarily restrictive. Perhaps I could mention another reason for our wishing to delete the qualifying phrase. Even if it were not unnecessarily restrictive, it is, in fact, defective. The word "not" should not in any event appear in it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 5, leave out from first ("treatment") to ("or") in line 7.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can only apologise to the noble Earl because there was a defect in the Bill which I overlooked.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Last November I commended this Bill to your Lordships at Second Reading. Since then it has received both careful and expert scrutiny in your Lordships' House. As a result, what was good in November is now even better in February. Honesty compels me to say that the virtues of this Bill are in some measure a reflection of the virtues of the Government which produced it. Nevertheless, I should be both ungenerous and disingenuous were I not to acknowledge the constructive and positive contributions which noble Lords have made to our discussions—and in saying that, I have very much in mind the contributions made by noble Lords opposite. At the same time, I hope that I may claim that we have shown ourselves ready, and indeed willing, to consider the suggestions which they and other noble Lords have made.
In general, we believe that a Bill of this nature should not be the occasion for Party controversy. Believing that, we have tried to steer something of a middle course in our consideration of it. I must confess, however, that at times we have not found it altogether easy to pass with safety between Scylla and Charybdis, if I may refer under that allegorical guise to those two commanding and expert

551
figures (neither of whom, I am afraid, are there), the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby, both of whom contributed so much to our discussions.
LORD STONHAM: Which was Scylla?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, Scylla sounds feminine. May I briefly review the progress we have made? Much of our attention has rightly centred on Clause 1 as a major—indeed, I would claim, the major—clause in the Bill. Clause 1, as amended, makes it clear that the duty to provide the advice, guidance and assistance required by the clause rests primarily on the local authority, who may, however, avail themselves of the help of any voluntary organisation or other suitable agency who are at work in their area. As the right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishops of Norwich and Southwell, in particular, have pointed out, the clause opens up a new and promising field for cooperation between voluntary bodies and statutory agencies in the common interest of the children and the families whom both exist to serve.
We intend to take early administrative steps to ensure that Clause 1 is brought into operation, both in the letter and in the spirit intended by Parliament. The date of its coming into operation is, of course, under Clause 60, a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to decide. We are at present thinking of an early date: October 1 this year. Before then, we shall hold any further discussions with the local authorities that may be necessary. We trust that before October, they for their part will be putting any necessary preparatory work in hand. All in all, we are determined that the impetus behind this new drive to help socially handicapped children, which the Ingleby Report and this Bill have imparted, shall not be lost through avoidable delay, or through any lack of encouragement from the centre.
Your Lordships will not wish me to discuss all the changes we have made in the Bill since it was first introduced. Nevertheless, I may perhaps briefly touch on some of them. On Clause 2, we have been able to meet the general wish that the new description of children
552
who have to be dealt with under Section 62 of the principal Act should mention their need of protection as well as of care or control. For its part, Clause 14 is now embellished with a tiny and innocent Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and another, equally innocent, which we thought of for ourselves. On Clause 15, we have gone a long way to meet the genuine and not unreasonable fear of noble Lords opposite that its power, as originally drafted, might be to deprive some children in approved schools of quasi-parental support.
Your Lordships will be glad to learn that I do not intend to make another speech about the age of criminal responsibility. I will, therefore, confine myself to pointing out that Clause 16 in its present form represents, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, a compromise by which the Government have sought to find the point at which the largest number of people might feel able to agree. We are not perhaps so sanguine as to hope that the dust of controversy has settled completely on this clause. In any event, once the Bill becomes law, we shall all be watching very closely to see how the clause works in practice. For my part, I would suggest that the advantage of accepting only half the noble Baroness's loaf is that we can be reasonably certain that we have not bitten off more than we can chew.
On Clause 19, we have accepted the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there should be a restriction on the circumstances in which a recorder may sit without any assessor to deal with a case to which the clause applies. I know, of course, from what the noble Lord has just said, that he feels that we may not have gone far enough here, and on that we may differ. On Clause 25, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was able to point out certain practical difficulties in our original attempt to give legislative effect to the wish of my noble friend Lord Ingleby's Committee that the attendance of both parents should be required more frequently. Our second attempt, aimed at overcoming these obstacles, did not find complete favour with either the noble Baroness or my noble friend. Much of the difficulty here lies in the variety of situations with which this clause has to

553
deal. Nevertheless, as I undertook on Report, we are examining whether there is scope for further improvement here.
In turning to Part II—the Bateson part—of the Bill, I should like straight away to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for drawing our attention to a number of points—such as the safeguarding of a child's earnings, the need to take account of a child aged 16 still being subject to compulsory school attendance, and the need to leave opportunities open to musical prodigies—where the Bill could be improved. I think that, with his help, this Part of the Bill has in fact been materially improved. Again in Part III, we have been able to accept the substance of the noble Lord's proposal enabling local authorities to provide further assistance for children under 21 who were formerly in their care.
There are some other matters of greater or lesser importance where, as a result of our discussions, we think that improvements might be made, but where, because of the time factor, such improvements should we decide that they would be improvements—must necessarily be left To another place. Thus we are not yet certain whether subsection (2) of Clause 15 enables a local authority to give all the assistance that they need to give where a child formerly in their care is in an approved school. Again, as I have already mentioned, we shall be having a further look at Clause 25. We have also still to decide whether 13 is the right upper limit in Clause 27. At the same time, we are considering how paragraph 26 of Schedule 13 can best be amended to take care of another point which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has brought to our attention. Finally, I should remind your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have raised some questions on Part II—about the young actor or actress of 15 and about the child model—that do not admit of easy answers. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to resolve these questions, but we shall certainly try.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would claim that this Bill has grown into a healthy child whom we can confidently send out into the world, or at least to another place. We know from the Ingleby Report that in any proceedings concerning the welfare of a child
554
"Great value is to be derived from the presence of the child's father…"
The truth of that maxim has been brought Home to us throughout these proceedings by the value we have derived from the presence of my noble friend Lord Ingleby —incidentally, he kindly told me how much he regretted that, owing to another engagement, he could not stay until the end of our discussion this evening. I realise that, like many children, the Bill has not turned out in some respects quite as its father intended. In general, however, I think it has remained true to its lineage. I therefore hope that my noble friend, with his great belief in the importance of parental responsibility, will take due credit for its virtues and will not dissent from the action which we are taking this evening.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
5.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his kind words about the part that we have played in the various stages of this Bill. For our part, we should like to express most grateful thanks to the nable Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to his noble friend Lord Lothian, for the great care and consideration that they have given to everything that has been said, and for the quite remarkable number of occasions when, after discussion, they have been able to accept our point of view. Indeed, there was only one occasion during the course of the Bill when there was any serious disagreement, and then it was not a question of disagreement between Scylla and Charybdis, because Scylla and Charybdis were on one side against the Government; and if the Government had accepted their joint advice—that of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby—we should not have had a Division, and I think this Bill would have been a better one in a major sense. But that is now a matter of opinion, and certainly I am not going to discuss it, although I think the noble Earl is probably right in forecasting that it may be a matter for discussion in another place.
This Bill (and I think its father, Lord Ingleby, would agree with this) was not as good as he, or, indeed, we on these Benches, would have liked when it first came to your Lordships' House. I feel

555
sure, however, that it is a much better Bill now. The discussions on its various stages have been, I think, an example of your Lordships' House at its best: because here the form and content and the value of legislation are always first past the post, and irrelevant Party points come a long way down the course. This has been a particularly good and useful Bill for that reason.
The noble Earl, in addition to the Amendments which your Lordships have accepted this afternoon and on the earlier stages, was kind enough to mention other matters on which assurances have been given, which are the subject of discussion and which it is hoped will result in Government Amendments during Committee stage in another place. I hope he will forgive me if I point out that his brief list is not quite complete. The Government are still going to consider the point, which I think is important, of the power of local authorities to help the potential offender; to, as it were, reduce juvenile delinquency by social work. That comes in Clause 42. Then, in Clause 47, there is still a further point about the juvenile court having power to continue a fit person order. There is also the question of the retrospective contribution orders. I know that they must be the subject of further discussion with the A.M.C. and the London County Council; but it is a point of importance to them. I hope the noble Earl will bear those in mind. So that we have a full list of, I think, about eight potential Government Amendments in another place to which your Lordships can claim parentage. With those Amendments, I think this Bill will be a good Act of Parliament, and I am sure it will be of very great service indeed to the children of this country.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should just like to say how much I have appreciated the way in which my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Lothian have taken this Bill through your Lordships' House. I have been closely associated with the work of children's officers and child care officers for a number of years, and I know that this Bill is awaited with great anxiety, as well as with pleasure, by this service. I am sure they will be extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for the way in which he has conducted the Bill,
556
and for the Bill itself, of which I think the Government can be justly proud. I think it will be extremely successful.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TAX RELIEF ON CHARITABLE AND CHURCH GIFTS
5.59 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to consider making supplementary arrangements for the remission of income tax, surtax and estate duty, up to certain limits, on contributions to charity and church funds; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the general purport of my Motion is quite clear, and I trust that it will be agreeable to your Lordships if I assume that all in the Chamber are fully conversant with the method of contributing to charities by deeds of covenant. It is not my intention to suggest any limitation of the covenant system; rather do I seek to embellish it. However, your Lordships will require to know what specific proposals are in my mind.
As to covenants, I respectfully submit that, in addition to income tax, a measure of surtax as paid by the donor should be recoverable by the recipient, but that otherwise the system should continue. Further, I submit that every assessee might be permitted a tax—free allowance up to a limit of, say, £10 per annum, provided that that sum is paid to charity; and, further, that companies should be permitted an allowance up to, say, 1 per cent. of their profits free of tax if the amount is paid to charity. These three suggestions are set out in some detail in an article by Sir Peter Macdonald in The Times of October 2 last, and are known to Her Majesty's Government, particularly as they were the subject of a deputation at one time. My final suggestion is that the period of twelve months which must now elapse before a gift is free of estate duty should be reduced or graded.
The subject of charities has been debated in your Lordships' House on several occasions in recent times, and many of your Lordships will remember the debates and will be familiar with the Report presented by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and

557
Income, under the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, and the Report of the Committee on Charitable Trusts, presided over so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who I am glad to see has put his name down to speak in this debate, particularly as the terms of reference of that Committee excluded considerations of taxation. On the covenant suggestion, it will be recalled that remission of surtax was withdrawn, in respect of gifts to charity, in 1946. There were a variety of reasons for this withdrawal. It was suggested, for instance, that the provision was subject to abuse, and that in any case the share of sacrifice by the Revenue might be substantial. If there is substance in these objections they could be avoided by the introduction of a ceiling of some sort. May I repeat that it is not suggested that the covenant system should be dispensed with?
It has been estimated (and I quote The Times article) that the annual cost to the Revenue of the suggested surtax relaxation would amount to some £3 million per annum. Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that a curious situation arose when income tax was reduced from 8s. 6d. to 7s. 9d. in the pound. This drop cost charities, under the then existing covenants, an estimated sum of £500,000 per annum. This was a severe blow to many individual recipients, dependent, of course, upon the form of covenant which had been given to them. However, so long as the covenant system continues, it is hard to see how there would be a reduction in the overall value of subscriptions to charity which the Radcliffe Commission appeared to fear.
I should like to make the point that there are a large number of potential givers who are reluctant—indeed, it would be unwise for them—to take advantage of the covenant system. I refer to people whose income varies widely from year to year. They cannot commit themselves ahead, certainly not so far as seven years or more. It is in order to give some encouragement to such individuals that the proposal for a tax-free allowance of, say, £10 a year —small as it is—is put forward. One can be sure that it would be used by others. One objection voiced to this £10 tax-free allowance is that the plan would involve a great deal of administrative work. I doubt it, how-
558
ever, for it is not suggested that such contributions need be vouched; and we find some parallel in the system in Canada, for instance. Ten pounds is so small a figure that the allowance is not likely to be abused; and in any case an assessee has to sign his return warranting its truth. I submit that, since it would not require a voucher, this concession would not add greatly to the Revenue Department's work.
The position of companies is different from individuals. They differ as their tax returns differ. Companies' subscriptions which, in the terms that I have suggested, might be considerable, would be vouched, but the additional work would not be a great addition to the already considerable complexity of companies' profit returns. Whether it is proper to suggest that industry should subscribe to charity at all is another matter. Further, companies suffer the same disadvantage as those individuals, to whom I have referred, whose income varies from year to year so that it is not competent for them to commit themselves for long periods ahead. But, of course, conditions vary as between company and company, as they vary between charity and charity, and it is fair to remind your Lordships that the fact is—and I quote from this article:
"In recent years British industry has played an increasingly important rôle as the patron of charity."
My suggestion regarding estate duty on gifts is an entirely different matter. The position is, of course, that gifts cannot be taken fully into account by a charity until twelve months have elapsed, lest it be reduced by estate duty on the death of the giver—surely a reversal of the contention bis dat qui cito dat. To abolish this period altogether admittedly might be injudicious, though I would not subscribe to the sentiment which I have seen expressed that such a change would be undesirable because
"Abolition would be a great encouragement to deathbed gifts."
Oh dear!
That brings me to the philanthropy of the matter. It is not for me in this House to go too deeply into the fiscal aspects, and noble Lords will have read Chapter 1 of the Nathan Report which puts the subject in perspective. The Radcliffe Commission said—and I quote from page 54, paragraph 164:

559
"Some relief has been allowed to charities ever since there has been an income tax in this country, although the comprehensiveness of the present exemption has only been reached by stages."
It cannot be emphasised too strongly, I feel, that it is the enormous growth in the weight of taxation and the implications of the Welfare State which has made such comprehensiveness of exemptions essential, and, with respect, I am contending that the present exemptions are not comprehensive enough.
My interest in the matter began when I was Convenor of a special Committee of the Church of Scotland with the task of obtaining help for Church Extension from industry. The author of the article from which I have quoted took a prominent part as a member of that Committee and both of us, as members and as treasurers of Kirk Sessions, have continued to be impressed by the fact that contributions to charity are affected by the inadequacy of exemptions. The right reverend Prelate who is going to speak will, I expect, confirm our experience in the North.
My Lords, it is a serious matter because I feel that the very spirit of the people is affected. The individual's will and ability to give to charity—and to give till it hurts—should not be crippled. I am one of those who feel that the nation is living too much on the spiritual capital of the past. Too much is it said: "What do we get out of this?", rather than: "What can we put into it?" Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham said in the debate in 1949—and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan [Official Report. Vol. 216, col. 366], quoted him in 1959:
"Without voluntary service the State would lose its soul."
I maintain that charities such as those we have in mind are the sinews of such service.
I have not mentioned that the U.S.A. and Canada have much more liberal arrangements for tax reliefs on gifts—more liberal than are suggested here—but conditions differ, of course, and there is a stage at which opportunities for abuse can be created. But it is safe to say that, in so far as contributions to church finances are concerned, the level of giving in this country compares unfavourably with that in North America.
There are wells of charity in this country from which the potential outflow is
560
frozen—or partially so—by the restriction of our revenue system. At the same time we must recognise that there are numerous ways in which the State aids religious and charitable bodies; and I do not suggest for one moment that they do not. But I need not remind your Lordships of the enormous contribution made to the public weal by charity to-day, quite apart from the wide field covered by religious institutions: to education: to research, both medical and technical; and to the maintenance of our national heritage in art and architecture and our beloved countryside. All are supported and furthered by charitable institutions. My Lords, the contribution made by religious institutions to the moral fibre of the people is incalculable because it spreads itself willy-nilly throughout the community, the majority of which take little or no part of the burden.
May I say, in conclusion, that I look forward to this little debate with keen anticipation, and trust that the noble Lord who is to reply will hold out some hope of relaxation. As the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited is reported to have said only last night—though in a rather different context:
"To-day it might he easier to give tax reliefs than at almost any time since the war."
I have said enough at this late hour, and I end by quoting from Wordsworth:
"The primal duties shine aloft like stars.
The charities that sooth and heal and bless,
Lie scattered at the feet of men like flowers."
I beg to move for Papers.
6.15 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all agree that we are indebted to the noble Lord who has just sat down for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. It is a subject that touches a vast number of people, both donors and donees, in a vast number of activities. I do not know, my Lords, whether this is the kind of subject upon which one should make a declaration of interest to your Lordships. If it were so, I must say for myself that I am the most offending man alive because I am concerned with many charitable interests in many capacities, though, alas! (if "alas" is the right word) not thus far as a beneficiary.
As the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, the movement of volun-

561
tary service and of voluntary contributions to charities plays a very great part in the whole economic and social habits and customs of this country. It is, I think, deserving of encouragement. Indeed, in the debate some thirteen or fourteen years ago in your Lordships' House which was opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—whose illness we all regret—it was emphasised in all parts of your Lordships' House, for it is no Party matter, that charities of one kind or another—worthy charities—should receive some support and some significant approbation by the State. It was indeed following upon that debate that the Committee of which I was Chairman, and to which the noble Lord has referred, was brought into existence. I think, therefore, we may assume that there will be no differences of opinion among any of your Lordships but that voluntary service and charity should be encouraged; and voluntary service and charity go very much together. In fact, you might say, in a sense, that voluntary service is a charity in the best meaning of that term.
The State over the centuries has taken a very special and kindly interest in charity. The law has always looked upon it with special favour and has granted to charity facilities not granted to any other section of the community. Even in our present generation that has continued and it is a fact which none of us should overlook—nor did the noble Lord suggest that it was not so, or that it should be overlooked—that substantial contributions are made indirectly by the State to the resources of charity.
I will deal, if I may, with the three categories of tax set out in the noble Lord's Motion in the order in which he refers to them. There is, first, income tax. Every charity is exempt from income tax, and when I use the term "charity" I am using it not as a term for any philanthropic or benevolent enterprise. There are many such which are not charities in the sense in which I am using the term. I am using the term—I will not say in the strict definition laid down, as there is no precise definition—according to the well-recognised conception to which the courts of law have lent their imprimatur; charities in the broad sense of the term as we know them and as they are acknowledged by English law. They are all exempt from income tax and they
562
get that exemption in one of two ways. Either the donor of a continuing periodic contribution deducts the income tax at source, as he is authorised to do by Act of Parliament, as a periodic payment, and the charity then recovers through the Inland Revenue authorities; or the donor pays it gross, under a covenant, and he himself bears the tax. Whichever way it is done the charity suffers no income tax under the legislation as it stands at present. We cannot improve upon that situation.
As regards surtax, the position is far more complex. It was the position until, I think, 1946 that amounts covenanted for charities could be deducted for surtax purposes from the donor's surtaxable income in the same way as if the covenants were, or are now, in favour of private persons. In 1946 that concession was abolished, and I am bound to say that it has had a considerable effect in certain cases upon individual contributions made to charities. I do not say that it was an unfair withdrawal or that it operated unfairly in general, but so far as charities were concerned, undoubtedly they suffered, for the high surtax payer now has to pay not only the contribution which he covenants to pay but also surtax upon the amount as if it were still part of his disposable income, which having been covenanted away, of course it is not.
Moreover, I think on the whole it is fair to say that the sources of charitable contributions from private pockets are drying up. Indeed the amazing thing is how much there is still being given for charity. There were a short while ago, when I made some inquiries into the subject, no fewer than ten new charitable trusts being established every week—most of them not very large but ten new ones being set up every week. And I believe it is true—though I have not made any recent inquiries—that there is still a continuous number of new charitable trusts; but those are of course trusts for the once-for-all disposal of capital, and surtax relates solely to contributions made periodically over a period of time and contributions covenanted to be made over a period. The position is this. Is it fair as between one taxpayer and another—this is the dilemma—that one should receive in aid from the Exchequer what is in effect

563
a much larger contribution towards his charitable contribution than his neighbour with a smaller income? That seems to me a dilemma which it is extraordinarily difficult to resolve with justice as between one man and another and to one's own satisfaction. A man with a large surtaxable income, if he is allowed to debit a contribution for tax purposes against his chargeable income, gets a very large remission by way of deduction from the Exchequer. The man who makes precisely the same contribution but from a rather small income is in a very different position and receives very much less from the Exchequer. Perhaps "receives less from the Exchequer" is a loose term: he receives far less benefit from the remission than does the high tax payer. I make covenants myself; I know exactly how this works. I find it very difficult to reconcile a position in which a high tax payer is in effect suffering very much less in making his contribution than a low income tax payer. I think it is very difficult indeed.
As regards companies, the question of surtax of course does not arise. I think some authority at some time will have to consider the question of how far, if at all, companies are in law entitled to make charitable contributions. I think that is a very open question. As long as the amounts are small nobody is very much inclined to raise the question. But when we see in the lists published in the public Press these large amounts of contributions made by companies, some of them for periods of seven years, then I think one begins to wonder whether this is really in accordance with the duty and responsibility of company directors. I am not raising this question in any contentious way, nor indeed in order to discuss it today. But I think it is a matter which deserves to be looked into. I say no more about it than that. But it is important, because one must remember that there are really only two sources from which charitable contributions can be made, one from the pocket of the private person and the other from the treasury of a company. Those are the only sources from which charitable contributions can come, and somehow or other I think the position should be clarified.
I want to make a proposal which I ask the Government to consider.
564
That is that we should have regard to the machinery which has been adopted for charitable purposes on the other side of the Atlantic. Speaking quite broadly and in general terms the position is this. If a taxpayer can show to the fiscal authorities that he has expended fifteen per cent. of his income on recognised charitable purposes—and I mean "charitable purposes" in the strict sense —then he is allowed to deduct that fifteen per cent., or up to fifteen per cent., from his income for all tax purposes. The great advantage of that seems to me to be that everyone has the choice of how much he should contribute within the limit established, and it operates as regards all taxpayers in the same way: they are allowed to deduct it from their taxable income. On the whole I am inclined to the opinion that that would be perhaps the fairest and certainly the simplest method of dealing with a problem we are all anxious to solve.
I come now to the question of estate duty. As regards ordinary settlements and gifts made by a man within five years of his death, estate duty is payable on his death, but in the third, fourth and fifth years there is a diminishing liability in respect of that estate duty. As regards charities, a gift made more than twelve months prior to the death of the donor is free from estate duty on his death. That situation has an inconvenience to which the noble Lord has referred, which is that for a year the charity, if prudently administered, dare not use any part of that gift because it may become liable to death duties upon it. The death duties fall upon the charity, upon the donee, not upon the donor, and at the rate applicable to the donor's aggregated estate. So that if a millionaire whose estate is liable to estate duty at the rate of 80 per cent. makes a gift of £100,000 to a charity, that charity for a year is under the risk of having to pay 80 per cent. of it away in death duties should the donor die within that year.
It has been suggested that there should be no limit of time at all, and that anyone should be entitled, up to the last ultimate moment, to make a gift to charity free of duty. I cannot help thinking that it would be anomalous, now that we have within the last two or three years abolished the Mortmain Acts, that we should reinstate the position when deathbed legacies can be made to

565
charities and exempt from duty. I believe that that would not be a forward step, but would be a retrograde step—that twelve months is not too long a period for a man to form a sound judgment as to whether he wishes to give to a particular charity, and how much he wishes to give, and that he should not be under any of the pressures under which one is liable to be if known to be in a dire state of ill—health and about to die. So I would stick to the year which is the present law; but I should be inclined to consider the same procedure as with regard to settlements—for the five years' period is split, so that during the third, fourth and fifth years there is a reduction; and I should be inclined to say that as regards contributions to charity made a year before the death of the donor there should be a reduction of tax, say one-twelfth every month, or something of that kind.
That is a broad idea—a contribution to thought, shall I say? I will not put it higher than that. I feel that the position is not quite so bad as it is sometimes painted; but, on the other hand, that there is solid ground for looking into this matter with a view to modifying the position in favour of charities and giving them a fuller assurance that their incomings shall not be unduly depleted by surtax or death duties. I believe, too, that the State has a duty in matters of this kind towards both voluntary service and voluntary charities: a duty which they should look at with the greatest care, with a view to assisting somewhat along the lines that I have ventured to indicate to your Lordships.
6.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly to this Motion. I warmly welcome the Motion and am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this subject in your Lordships' House. In recent years I have had the privilege of paying two visits to Canada and the United States of America, and on each occasion have taken special interest in what has become known as the Stewardship Movement in those countries, and in particular the system whereby official encouragement is given by the State to individual persons and to industry to contribute to both Church and charity. Your Lordships have already been reminded of the system
566
as it works in Canada and in the United States—namely, that individuals or corporations are allowed to give to Church or charity up to 10 per cent. or even 15 per cent. of their respective gross income free of tax. This, incidentally, has operated successfully for thirty years in Canada, where the first £30 is regarded as a flat unvouched allowance; and I can testify to the fact that in those two countries great stimulus is given to giving by this system.
In 1959, the Churches Main Committee, of which I am Chairman, gave most careful consideration to whether or not it would be desirable to make representations to Her Majesty's Government regarding the possibility of introducing some such system into this country. We consulted the main Churches represented on the Committee and, as a result of consultation, I was encouraged to lead a small but highly representative delegation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November, 1960. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer was most sympathetic and expressed his desire to be helpful. It was therefore with special pleasure that I learned of the noble Lord's intention to move for Papers on this subject. As Chairman of the Churches Main Committee, I merely wish to say that I support this Motion, and that the Churches generally would be in favour of the proposals as outlined by the noble Lord, provided that the covenant system is allowed to remain.
I hope that your Lordships will allow me to make a brief reference to the proposals to which reference has already been made. First of all, there is the proposal that an individual person should be allowed an additional personal allowance of £10 for gifts to Church or charity, or both. This, I would submit, is a modest proposal. There are many people to-day who, from Christian or humanitarian motives, have discovered the privilege of giving to Church or charity a sum more closely approximating to the 10 or 15 per cent. on which remission of tax is allowed on the other side of the Atlantic. But even the remission of tax and surtax on this modest sum of £10 per annum would, I believe, encourage many who do not feel able to commit themselves to a 7 years covenant.
Secondly, may I make a brief reference to the subject of company contributions to Church and charity? The noble Lord,

567
Lord Nathan, has, quite rightly, raised an important question here—an issue to which much consideration has to be given. But the suggestion that there should be a remission of tax on company contributions to Church or charity of up to 1 per cent. of the company's profits would act as a great stimulus and encouragement to companies who want to give generously to Church or charity. I have met in recent years several leading industrialists who take the view that I know would be challenged by others, that modern industry is called to-day to accept the role occupied by mediaeval guilds, the role of patron of charity. This remission of tax, as suggested by the noble Lord, would give great encouragement to those in industry who are anxious to give generously to Church and charity.
I would make only a brief reference to the question of the 12-month gift period. I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. May I just put what I see to be the other side of the picture?: that in the event of a donor giving a generous gift to Church or charity and then dying within the 12-month period, it is more than conceivable that a particular charity—that is, one concerned with medical research or with the relief of suffering—might be immensely relieved to be able to use such a gift, if it is substantial, for immediate purposes, rather than having to wait 12 months in order to avoid the possible risk of losing up to 80 per cent. of the gift in estate duty in the event of the donor's death. Finally, there is just one other suggestion or proposal: that the remission of surtax on covenanted gifts to charity should be restored. It was withdrawn in 1946. All I would say here is that I can say officially, on behalf of all the Churches, that we should greatly welcome the restoration of this surtax remission.
I have spoken so far largely as representing the Churches of the United Kingdom, and in my capacity as Chairman of the Churches Main Committee. I would add a personal observation. I speak now purely as a person, and not as Chairman of that particular Committee. Although the Churches would agree to such suggestions as have been made by the noble Lord only if the covenant system were allowed to continue side by side (and I should hope that if
568
some other system were introduced the covenant system would be allowed to continue side by side) I feel bound to say, from my own knowledge of the system in Canada and America, that if I had to make a choice between the continuation of the covenant system and the introduction of the Canadian and American system I would support the introduction of the Canadian and American system.
My Lords, as I see it, there will in the years to come be a decreasing number of persons or industries who feel able to commit themselves to seven-year covenants. Even to-day only a limited number are able to make such covenants, and they come mostly from the larger income groups. It is vitally important for both church and charity to be able to look to a much wider clientele in the future, if their work is to continue. It is important that as much encouragement as possible should be given to the wide circle of those in the middle and lower income groups to give generously to church and charity. I know that the Radcliffe Commission took the opposite view, but I believe that, in view of the changing situation to-day, the Canadian and American system could result only in a wide increase in giving on the part of those whose incomes are such that they do not feel able to commit themselves to a seven-year covenant.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, pointed out in opening the memorable debate on charitable trusts in May, 1959, that one purpose of charitable trust law reform, which culminated in the Charities Act, was to stimulate giving to charity. The noble Lord reminded this House of a debate in 1949 when the late Lord Samuel
"called attention to the need for the encouragement of voluntary action to promote social progress".
It was in the course of that debate that Lord Pakenham said some memorable words. It is a strange coincidence that the noble Lord who introduced this Motion felt led to quote those words, the same words upon which I felt appropriate to end. May I be allowed to underline them, because they were very significant:
"without voluntary service the State would lose its soul".
My Lords, I would submit that voluntary giving of money is as vital an element of voluntary service as the voluntary

569
giving of time and talents. It is because I believe that the sort of suggestions outlined by the noble Lord in introducing this Motion would provide a great stimulus to the voluntary giving of money in the service of the whole community that I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will give the most serious consideration to the proposals outlined.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I intervene to thank the right reverend Prelate for what he was kind enough to say about me? Might I also make one small correction? He referred to the "late Lord Samuel". I am glad to tell the right reverend Prelate that Lord Samuel is still very much with us. I think that perhaps we might send a message of goodwill to him, as I read in the papers that he is not very well; but he is far from "late".
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I apologise for the slip.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The only person who is "late" in this connection is "Lord Pakenham", who made the speech referred to, and who has been succeeded by the present Lord Longford.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with the right reverend Prelate in what he has said on behalf of the Churches Main Committee, and I think that his suggestion on his own behalf is well worthy of the most careful consideration. I rise to point out that the State in this country ought to adopt a particularly liberal attitude to one class of charity, because in this country the maintenance of ancient church buildings is the responsibility of the denominations that use those buildings and comes into the sphere of charity, whereas in many European countries it is the responsibility of the State to preserve those buildings. In France, and in Italy, I think, the buildings which we admire and love so much are the property of the State.
Last summer I enjoyed a holiday in the North of England, and I saw four exquisite mediæval cathedrals and some seven or eight splendid parish churches. In every one of those glorious buildings there was an urgent appeal for very considerable sums towards restoration.
570
I see now that an appeal is to be launched on behalf of the glorious cathedral of Lincoln for no less a sum than £200,000. The Times commented:
"It will cost about £200,000 to turn Lincoln into a safe, dry, and well-heated cathedral again and to increase the cathedral maintenance staff to an adequate figure. An appeal is to be launched in May, but will it raise the money? Lincoln may be one of our most beautiful and our most important cathedrals: it is also one of the most isolated of the nation's great buildings. And there have been so many other appeals."
My Lords, let us hope sufficient sums will be raised. We in this country cannot contemplate the fate that has overtaken so many churches in France where the State is responsible for the fabric. In yesterday's Daily Telegraph there appeared a photograph and under it the description:
"A panel-beating workshop in the shell of the Church of St. Frambourg, at Senlis, near Paris, one of many buildings dating from the 12th and 13th centuries which the French Treasury has not enough funds to preserve."
I am quite sure that such a situation is not in any foreseeable time likely to occur in this country. Let us be very sure that the State recognise that this great responsibility which rests upon us all is at present the work of private charity, and let the State make it possible for private charity to do this most necessary work.
6.48 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I should like to make just a brief intervention in this debate. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing the Motion. I personally am also grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who said, so rightly, that voluntary service and charitable endeavour are deserving of encouragement. I should like to pay a tribute to the great services to charity in general given by Lord Nathan.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LUKE: The noble Lord delved into the position in regard to taxpayers, high and low, but I do not propose to follow him into that field. I should have thought that in this case the beneficiary is the most important part of the matter, and if you make concessions to the individual, whether a high taxpayer or a low taxpayer, you ease the burden of industry —that burden which has increased for industry because of high individual taxation.

571
The noble Lord began to question industry as a contributor at all. He decided not to go very far with that, and I shall not do so either. But it certainly seems to me that if industry were to drop out then causes deserving encouragement, as he put it, would be very seriously hit. I am all in favour of some remission of tax for contributors towards the Church and for charitable purposes, and without doubt this would make a great difference to donors and to recipients. But I presume that with most of these things the bone of contention will be that all of this remission will be at the expense of the State. It would appear to be logical to apply the law as it now stands in regard to covenants to single gifts.
I think we must remember that the difficulty facing charities of all kinds is that the costs of organising them, and of carrying on the projects, increase like everything else. Unlike most other activities, the income is voluntary, and the charity cannot raise its prices to cover the costs of whatever the services may be. Of course, it means that higher grants must be made for services, but it all has to come out of the same voluntary contributions. There seems, therefore, to be a real and urgent need for some action on the lines that have been proposed. The generosity of charitably-minded individuals is proverbial and could be encouraged if some concession were made. Industry, on whom so much of the burden falls, merits concessions in this sphere as large as, say, in allowances for capital investment. So I hope that as a result of this debate there may be some concession to assist all the worthy causes and services to the community which are carried out by so many agencies.
6.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and other noble Lords have said in this debate, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, when he spoke about the question of cathedrals and churches. I should like, very briefly, to make a plea for works of art which are left or presented to the State. An allusion has been made in the debate to the American system. It was not described exactly, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, had it in mind. As
572
your Lordships are no doubt aware, in other countries, particularly, I believe, the United States, if a work of art is presented to one of the national galleries the owner is allowed tax remission for the amount, or a percentage of the amount, that the work of art has cost him. Moreover, I understand that in certain cases he is allowed to keep that work of art in his private residence, while enjoying the tax relief for that particular year, and the work of art passes to the public gallery only on his death. As a result of this, the United States galleries have been enabled to build up magnificent collections, and we are very glad that they have been able to do so.
I think that our own system is rather too rigid and should be reconsidered. We have not always been rigid. Take the case of the country houses. It was eventually agreed by the Government of the day that the owner of an historic house should be able to get a grant from the State for keeping it in repair, because it was accepted generally by all Parties that it was a national heritage. The owner of a modern house is not able to get a grant. That, of course, is an anomaly, and I suppose it could be argued by my noble friend Lord Nathan, if I may say so with respect, that to one taxpayer vis-à-vis another it was probably not fair. But here was an example where I think the Treasury acted perfectly correctly, and the preservation of these country houses, which are our national heritage, has been ensured.
In the case of old masters I understand that the National Gallery has a list of those still in private hands; and it is expected, one supposes, that in many cases they will come to the State in lieu of death duties. But what I had in mind were the more recent paintings, paintings of perhaps the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which now fetch very high prices indeed but which it is still possible to buy. Old masters of first quality hardly ever come on the market. As a result of our system whereby these paintings are bought, the owners are in no way encouraged to leave them to galleries because they do not enjoy any tax remission on the gift.
At our auctions here in London we probably have some of the most important sales of works of art taking place anywhere in the world. That is the result

573
of a very intelligent and liberal policy on the part of the Treasury, whereby taxes are not paid at auction sales, as is the case in France, the United States and other countries. That enables our auction houses to compete very favourably with foreign markets. As a result, important sales, sometimes of American collections and of French collections, take place in this country. There are a number of very wealthy people in this country who are also art lovers, and tax remissions of this kind would enable them to compete with foreign buyers at auctions. They could buy a painting and present it to a gallery to get the tax remission. In some cases, if the owner wished it could go immediately to the gallery; in others it could stay in his own house until after his death.
The other day in The Times the Tate Gallery trustees reported a long list of gaps of very important paintings which were not in their collection. In some cases they felt that it would be impossible ever to acquire these paintings at the prices prevailing at present; and this in spite of the greatly increased grants which have been given the trustees by the Government. I feel that the system I have suggested would enable our galleries and museums to be enriched for the people of this country. In this way we should be able to compete with foreign museums and galleries, and really build up in this country a first-class collection of works of art which was worthy of the great interest which is being taken in them by our people.
6.59 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must apologise for getting up, but may I just say a word? I have been most interested in this debate and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Nathan for his contribution. I am also grateful to my noble friend who has just sat down, for bringing before the House the position of the art treasures or gifts which are assigned to art galleries and the like. I must say, however, having been in Governments for a long time and having had to consider some of these things, that there was some sound sense talked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, about what are the commitments of Governments in the matter, what are the costs to the nation.
574
There are a certain number of my noble friends who met this morning to talk about this Motion (though we did not have quite so large an attendance as we have had sometimes) who would be rather concerned if there were any really determined move to reduce this period of twelve months, which it has been said it would be desirable to reduce, or to wipe it out altogether, with regard to these gifts. They think, from one point of view, that it would perhaps be a fairly heavy cost to the national funds, to the Treasury. In other cases —not in the case of churches, of course, but in the case of a good many other charities which do not, in my view, come within the same respectable category as all those which have been rightly mentioned to-day—it is felt that there might at times be undue pressure upon persons nearing their end to make gifts of this kind. At any rate, a good deal of doubt has been expressed by some of my noble friends on that particular point, and I feel quite sure that the Treasury will pay considerable attention to that matter among the other matters they deal with.
I think it is a very reasonable thing, in view of the great and rising costs in the community at large, that where the Treasury can do so they should give such relief as is necessary to those who subscribe to the maintenance of such a great work as the work of preaching Jesus Christ and administering to the constituents of the Churches. But, of course, there is a very great difference in Churches. For example, I pay £58 a year tithe to the Church of England before I can even consider how much I can subscribe to my own Church, which must obtain in a village, with a membership of 77, something getting on for between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. We must be exceedingly careful if we are dealing with this matter as a State, using State funds, as to where the borderline of justice between one and the other begins and ends. I feel that all those who are subscribing to church work are doing a very good work, and if there is any general way of helping them in their contributions by way of relief from what otherwise would be taxation, that is a matter for great consideration by the State. I agree with that. But, as regards any alteration in the period of twelve months, I believe that a good many people, of all Parties,

575
in the House which controls expenditure would think very seriously before they would be willing to risk some of the dangers that might be attached to such a change.
7.4 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for introducing this Motion, because it is a matter that needs discussion. It is not a matter of which the Treasury are in ignorance, because my right honourable friend Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, received a deputation on this point; and I am perfectly aware that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has these things before him. But I think it is important that we should have had this debate to-day, because we have again heard the case which has to be considered by every Chancellor, and we have had the benefit of certain suggestions from noble Lords, and particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which I can promise will be looked at with the greatest care.
I am in something of a quandary as to how to deal with this debate, because, even if I were in a position to do so, or had sufficient knowledge to do so, I cannot anticipate the Budget. This is, of course, a matter for the Budget, and that makes my task rather difficult. On thinking it over, I have decided that the best thing to do is to give the case against many of the points that have been raised and against my noble friend's main contentions, not with the idea of saying that the case I shall put forward is stronger than the case put in support of the Motion but in order that both sides should be heard, so that, when my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides, in this Budget or the next, or whenever it may be, to make alterations or not to make alterations, the case for and against will be on record. The case for has been put, and I shall put the case against, although we are, of course, as individuals, to some extent on the same side in this matter.
Perhaps I had better say first of all what I conceive to be the case to answer. There are really four points. The first was that the pre-1946 state of affairs, under which surtax relief was given for covenanted payments to charities by individuals under the seven-year covenants,
576
should be restored. The second point was that there should be a flat-rate allowance of £10 for individual taxpayers, to run both for income tax and surtax, for contributions to churches and other charities. The third was that a tax deduction should be allowed in computing company profits for donations to church and other charities. It has been suggested in au article (I cannot remember if it was mentioned to-day) that that should be up to 1 per cent. of a company's income. I am not sure whether that point was mentioned to-day, but I have figures to show what that might possibly mean. The fourth point was that donations to charities within one year of the donor's death should escape estate duty, or should be graduated. I think that is the case to answer.
LORD FERRIER: If I may correct the noble Lord, he should have said "a company's profit".
LORD DERWENT: I am much obliged. I think I should say one word on the present position, because perhaps there may be a little doubt as regards that.
The general position is that a contributor to a charity is not at present entitled to any tax relief for his contribution, any more than for any other voluntary payment; but the covenant system enables contributors to charities to increase the value of their contributions at the expense of the Exchequer. That is the first thing, I think, to get into everyone's head. Your Lordships know it, but sometimes it is not realised outside. The next thing is this: that the Exchequer already contributes 7s. 9d. of every £1 given under covenant. The withdrawal of the surtax deduction which we were talking about has not discouraged covenants. On the contrary, the numbers have risen from about 300,000 in 1946, when this was done away with, to 1,100,000 in 1962; and the cost of the income tax relief to the Exchequer has risen from £2¼ million to £8 million.
At this point I would also mention that, apart from receipts under covenant, charities have, in the aggregate, a very substantial income (and this was referred to to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan) from investments which are exempt from tax, and the cost to the Exchequer of relief on this income must

577
not be overlooked. It is calculated that, including the £8 million in respect of covenants, the total cost—that is, including the investments—of charity exemption is about £50 million. My Lords, that is a contribution, let us remember, by the State.
Before I refer to the Radcliffe Commission I think I should briefly refer to this question of what happens in the U.S.A. and Canada. There are all kinds of differences between their tax system and ours —though of course we will note what has been said to-day. For example, they do not have, so far as I am aware, the covenant system that we have for charities, which of course brings in to charities a tremendous amount paid for by the State. The only other thing I will say about the U.S.A. and Canada at the moment is that we also have different systems about works of art. The noble Lord will be aware, for instance, that at a death it is not clone by income tax but by estate duty. If at death one has a picture of national importance, and it is declared of national importance (it need not be an old master, it can be a modern picture), then no duty is paid on it unless it is sold. If it is later sold to, say, the National Gallery, or something like that, then there is still no estate duty paid on it. So it is not that the State does nothing in this respect.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I appreciate that. I have alluded to that in my speech. That, of course, is a concession regarding estate duty, but I wish to widen this scheme to encourage those who can afford it to buy works of art of the present, not inherited; to buy works of art now and get income tax remission.
LORD DERWENT: I understand what the noble Lord meant. I stressed this because I did not think he made it quite clear that there are concessions at the present time. His point will be seriously looked at.
The Radcliffe Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income, in their Final Report in 1955, recommended against the introduction of allowances for charitable contributions on two grounds. First, they took the view that if tax allowance was introduced for subscribers, then the covenant system, under which charities now benefit, must
578
end. They doubted whether charities generally would gain by the change. The view has been put forward that the allowance and the covenant can run side by side. But it seems to me that people paying annuities to charities under covenant ought not to be given' a tax allowance for contributions as well, and that people claiming the tax allowance ought not to have their covenants recognised for tax purposes. I know that the two could run side by side, but it would mean that the State was virtually giving two bites at that apple. There would be complications in working a system of this nature.
Secondly, the Radcliffe Commission thought that the proposal must be ruled out because of the administrative burden for the Inland Revenue. An allowance for taxpayers would have to be dealt with by local tax districts throughout the country which would all have to be able to decide whether or not the bodies receiving the donations for which relief was claimed were charities.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, forgive me for this interruption, but that is now dealt with under the new Charitable Trusts Act.
LORD DERWENT: I shall come to that, and I shall say that it is not adequately dealt with. In contrast to the present arrangements they would have to be dealt with locally. They are now dealt with centrally by a specialist staff.
Further, if the allowance varied with the taxpayer's actual contributions, there would be considerable work in vouching his expenditure and seeing that the appropriate relief was given under Payas-you-Earn. The Charities Act, 1960, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier was referring, will not, in the Board of Inland Revenue's view, solve these difficulties. Even if it were possible to supply all local tax offices with a copy of the complete register of charities to be maintained under the Act, with the revisions made from time to time, it would be a great burden of work for them to deal with many millions of claims for relief for charitable donations. That is the difficulty. At the moment it is dealt with centrally. It is a question of keeping local offices informed. It would be extremely difficult. Moreover, not all charities are required to register under the Act. For example, a charity

579
with no endowment or income from property exceeding £15, and which holds no land, is exempt; and even if local tax offices could recognise which recipients were charitable, the difficulties of operating P.A.Y.E. and vouching expenditure would remain.
It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that an allowance of the actual contributions (subject to a maximum) would be of particular assistance where a person whose income is subject to fluctuations wants to adjust his contributions to charities as his income goes up or down—for example, a farmer. In that case it is suggested that the man would not take full advantage of the covenant system if one year he is doing well and another year badly. It is difficult to see that there is any weight in the argument that a person who feels he can make an exceptional donation in a year in which his income is higher than usual should be given tax relief for that donation, when a large part of the cost would effectively fall on the Exchequer. The proposed allowance would be costly to the Exchequer, and a good part of the relief would go to those who make charitable donations already, without there being any guarantee that they would increase their donations.
My Lords, I should like to say a word about surtax. The proposal is that there should be a repeal of the 1946 legislation. This legislation was introduced by the late Mr. Dalton, as he then was, but successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer have since taken the view that the law should stand. The basis on which it proceeded was that it was unreasonable that what purported to be annual contributions by a private citizen to charity should, in effect, be financed by the Exchequer at the full rates of income tax and surtax (when Lord Dalton was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the maximum rate was 19s. 6d. in the £), and that tax relief at the standard rate (then 9s. in the £) was fully adequate. We hold the view that this argument still stands with a top rate of 17s. 9d. and a standard rate of 7s. 9d. The cost of allowing contributors under deeds of covenant a surtax deduction for their contributions would be about £3 million a year, provided that there were no increase in the number of surtax payers making such payments or in the amounts they pay, but, in
580
fact, it is likely the number of surtax payers would increase if that came into force. A person paying surtax at the top rate would be able, in effect, to make a gift costing him only 2s. 3d. in the £, the rest being found by the Exchequer. If the total is 17s. 9d. he will be paying 2s. 3d. of his gift.
May I say one word about estate duty liability? The suggestion is that for a donor who dies within twelve months there should be a graduated scale or he should not pay at all—something of that kind. In fact few inter vivos gifts to charities are subject to estate duty under the twelve months' rule (which is generous when compared with the five-year period for ordinary inter vivos gifts, as the noble Earl said) where relief does not start to operate for two years. But it cannot be argued from this that it would cost little to do away with the twelve months' period. Abolition would be likely to encourage death-bed gifts to charities. At the moment it is not costing very much. But if the twelve months' rule was not in effect and we were swamped by death-bed gifts, this could cost many millions. The Exchequer would be paying for somebody's death-bed gift. And it would seem to be wrong. I have little doubt that, if this were allowed, there would be a tremendous pressure for all legacies not to be charged, if given within twelve months.
May I add one word about companies? The cost of the suggested allowance to companies of up to 1 per cent. of their profits for donations to charities would be about £l1 million a year in income tax and profits tax combined. There seems no real reason to give companies relief from tax for charitable contributions. The other argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, of the many companies which give to certain charities —for instance insurance companies which give to charities that benefit their policy holders; say to cancer research—concerns a quite different kind of charity.
Unless any noble Lord can remind me of any point I have missed, I think that I have dealt with all the main questions that have been raised. I repeat that what I have done is to give the case against the suggestions. It is not for me to say whether the arguments I have put forward are stronger than those put forward by other noble Lords. That is a matter for

581
my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am glad that this matter has been well ventilated, and the points raised by noble Lords will certainly be considered by my right honourable friend.
7.22 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it remains for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate very sincerely for their contributions, which, from their different angles, have so embellished the case which I put forward in small compass for what I regard as a complex subject. May I have your Lordships' permission to ask the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, a question on what he said about the regular increase in the number of charitable trusts which are being registered? Am I not right in saying that this is one way in which a well-to-do individual or family can save paying tax, by establishing a charitable trust and setting aside of their capital so much in perpetuity, so that the income from that trust is payable to charity and, as the noble Lord has said himself, is not liable to tax at that stage?
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, if I may be permitted to answer a question, of course, it is the case that when charitable foundations are created, their funds go out of the estate of the founder and to that extent are free of death duties, if he should live beyond the year. But I understand that a great many of these new trusts are quite small. They are trusts important to the people who make them, but in terms of money for the purposes of the Exchequer they are relatively small.
582
There are very great trusts. I myself am the chairman of an important trust, as the noble Lord knows. But there are a vast number not like that, which have been registered regularly.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I am most grateful to your Lordships' House for making it possible for that question to be answered. To my mind, it is an important factor in dealing with the number of trusts which are now being registered. As for the legal right of companies to subscribe to charities, this has much to do with the company's articles of association and memorandum. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the right reverend Prelate said, many companies are patrons of charities, often for educational purposes, particularly technical education, which they can support only by the fact that this education is allied to the industry which they represent.
The noble Lord, at the Dispatch Box was no less helpful than I expected him to be. It would be possible to argue some of the points he made, and I am grateful to him for pointing out clearly that he was only making a case from the other angle. The debate has shown that there is a widely spread interest in, and a considerable measure of support for, some of the views that I have expressed. The whole subject has been given a very thorough pre-Budget airing. It only remains for me to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past seven o'clock.