Lords Sitting of 13 July 1964

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The s LORD AIREDALE on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Earl of Galloway (Lord Stewart of Garlies)—presented his Writ as Earl of Galloway and took the Oath accordingly.

COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF NAZI PERSECUTION
2.35 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make regarding the £1 million to be provided by the German Government to compensate persons in the United Kingdom who have suffered at the hands of the Nazis; and, in particular, whether they will state how this fund will be administered and to whom claims should be addressed.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I cannot add to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Dundee on June 9, except to say that I hope that the registration notice will be ready very shortly. It will be given wide circulation and
2
claimants will then know how to proceed.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, on the assumption that the registration notice comes to light towards the end of this month, and supposing that aspects of it are open to criticism, and that some persons may wish it to be widened or varied, will there be any opportunity of discussing it in this House, or what would be the procedure for calling attention to any doubtful aspect of it?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I very much hope that this notice will come out before the Recess. And I hope that perhaps my noble friend will read it before he assumes that it will not be satisfactory. But if he has read it, and then finds that there are points he wishes to raise, I am sure that it will be possible to discuss it in this House.

THE CASE OF ALFRED WESTON
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that Alfred R. Weston, serving a sentence of eight years preventive detention after a mistaken plea of "guilty", was advised by the Court of Criminal Appeal to petition to the Home Secretary for a pardon, remission, or rehearing; that his subsequent petition

3
was rejected after a "careful review" which did not include investigation of the evidence of the one witness alleged to be able to establish Weston's innocence; that eminent counsel, who have considered the facts, are of opinion that no offence has been committed by any person; and if they will order an independent investigation into all the facts of the case.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has carefully examined this case on more than one occasion and has had inquiries made. He is aware that the witness in question has not been interviewed since Weston's appeal was heard, but he is satisfied that the truth of the statement which she made to the Court of Criminal Appeal has been fully investigated. He can find no grounds for recommending any interference with Weston's conviction or sentence, and he does not consider that any further inquiry into the case is warranted.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the witness to whom he has referred states that she received the money which was the subject of the charge, and gave a receipt for it, and that this witness has never been interviewed by the police, although at the man's appeal the Lord Chief Justice said that if what she said was true Weston should not have pleaded guilty or been convicted. Would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to include in a new investigation, an investigation into the truth or otherwise of this witness's evidence, which would establish the man's innocence?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, Miss Maltby was, in fact, interviewed by the police before Weston's appeal was heard. My right honourable friend subsequently considered the statement which she made to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the point is whether this woman's statement is true or not. If she has been interviewed by the police sergeant who prosecuted, that does not mean a proper inquiry. This man has been three years in prison. Surely justice demands that the facts should be properly investigated, so that we can know whether the man was properly convicted or not. The Lord Chief Justice said that this matter should be investigated.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two points. On the first, concerning the police report, a full report was prepared by Detective Sergeant Pritchard, who was connected with the proceedings against Weston. The National Council for Civil Liberties, among others, were particularly anxious that a report should be obtained, since it was thought that it would be favourable to Weston. I am quite aware that Miss Maltby said that she received the money from Mr. McKeever and that she gave the latter a receipt for it. My right honourable friend has examined this aspect of the matter, but it appears to him that the question whether Weston himself obtained any benefit, directly or otherwise, is irrelevant.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, how can it be irrelevant, when this man was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for something which, it now appears, in the view of eminent counsel and solicitors who have thoroughly examined the case, he did not do?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think that the last thing I can say on this matter is that my right honourable friend has studied the full transcript of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal and other appeal documents, including the statement made by Miss Maltby, who claims that Weston is innocent, a record of the proceedings at quarter sessions, and has obtained full reports from the police, as I have already said. He does not think that any further inquiry is necessary or would do any good.

BALANCING ITEM IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS WHITE PAPERS
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: 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 why the aggregated errors shown as the Balancing Item in U.K. Balance of Payments White Papers defy analysis and reconciliation: what steps are being taken to resolve them: and whether the errors relate more to the trade figures than to the Balance of Monetary Movements.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the balancing item represents the net total of both errors and omissions throughout the accounts, and we can only speculate about its nature. The past behaviour of the figures suggests that the balancing item includes a positive element attributable to the current account, which is probably fairly persistent and regular. Other components, particularly those which would properly belong to the balance of monetary movements, such as unidentified short-term flow of funds and trade credit, probably fluctuate widely and from positive to negative. Recent improvements in the accuracy and coverage of the balance-of-payments figures have significantly reduced the average size of the balancing item. Further improvements are in hand, notably an extensive inquiry by the Board of Trade into international trade credit.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for that detailed reply. As the Balance of Payments White Papers habitually include a jejune note saying that the item represents the net total of errors and omissions and other items, and no more than that, could my noble friend give consideration to expanding the note on the lines of his Answer just now, in order that people who read the White Paper may find the explanation as they study the figures?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will convey my noble friend's suggestion to my right honourable friend, and I am sure he will give it consideration.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord give any indication of whether the balancing item is going to be positive or negative this year? There was a very large positive balance of payments in the first quarter; could it be possible that it might go the other way later? Do the Government or the Treasury have any view as to how it is likely to work out?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, this would depend on developments in this country and also elsewhere, and it would be impossible to forecast this. I am afraid that my answer must be in the negative.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the whole balance-of-trade figures are made up of so many speculative elements that the surprising thing is not the balancing figure, but that the balancing figure is not very much bigger than it is?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the balance-of-trade figures are made up not only of speculative elements. There is some degree of estimation involved, but firm figures also are included.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the important answer the noble Lord made to the supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, may I ask—in view of to-morrow's debate on the Finance Bill which will open up the economic position and when this whole matter will be discussed—whether it will be possible for us either to have some statement on behalf of the noble Lord's right honourable friend made to-morrow in the debate or to be given one beforehand through the usual channels?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will also convey that request to my noble friend, who will be taking part in the debate. I am sure he will give consideration to trying to explain a little further this balancing item.

TRANSPORT OF INFLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES
2.43 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that those with expert knowledge and professional experience are deeply concerned by the inadequacy of the Regulations and Controls over the transport of inflammable substances, and, if so, what steps they are taking to reduce danger to the public to a minimum.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, my right honourable friend is aware of this concern, and the need to review the existing controls. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods, which is expected to come into operation within the next year. This comprises a detailed and comprehensive code, drawn up by an international group of experts, to ensure that international consignments of dangerous goods are packed and carried safely. My right honourable friend is considering what may be the appropriate means to apply similar provisions to domestic traffic.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his, on the whole, encouraging statement. Is it not a fact that seven years ago a committee was set up by the Minister to inquire into this extremely dangerous situation? Is it also a fact that the committee has met only twice since it was set up seven years ago?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I was unaware of that last matter. The position is this. Whatever steps we take should, to some extent, follow the lines of the international agreement, and there are certain points still under discussion. The international agreement does not bind internal traffic. That is obviously a sensible arrangement. It was hoped at one time that, by extending the existing laws on the carriage of explosives and so on, it would be possible to do what was wanted; but we now think it inappro-
8
priate to amend the existing legislation. We think that any new legislation should be based on the international agreement when the final details are settled.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point, and think it reasonable. But may I ask how long it is likely to take before there is a new code for internal traffic in this country?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think we have all the data to go on, and that we may expect the new international code to become effective within a few months. I cannot say exactly when it will be, because discussions are still going on; but probably within six months, and maybe a shorter period. Then it will be a question of framing domestic legislation to coincide with the provisions of the international agreement. That will entail legislation, and that will be a matter for the next Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the word "inflammable" should be replaced by the word "flammable" when it means flammable and not inflammable?
LORD DERWENT: No, my Lords, not when the word is used by a noble Lord opposite who is not a Minister at the moment.

POSTMEN'S DISPUTE
2.47 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement about the dispute in the Post Office.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to reply to the noble Earl at a suitable moment after half-past three.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS ACT 1954 (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

VESTURES OF MINISTERS MEASURE
2.49 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper: "That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Vestures of Ministers Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent." This Measure represents a further contribution to the process of revising the Canon Law of the Church of England, on which the Convocations and the Church Assembly have been engaged, with varying degrees of urgency, for almost the whole of the present century. In 1904 there was appointed a Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, and that reported two years later that the law of public worship was too narrow for the present generation, and that the machinery for discipline had broken down. The Commission went on to recommend that
"Letters of Business should be issued to the Convocations with instructions (a) to consider the preparation of a new rubric regulating the ornaments (that is to say the vesture) of the ministers of the Church at the time of their ministrations, with a view to their enactment by Parliament, and (b) to frame, with a view to their enactment by Parliament, such modifications in the existing law relating to the conduct of Divine Worship and the ornaments and fittings of Churches as may tend to secure the greater elasticity which a reasonable recognition of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England and of its present needs seems to demand."
I have quoted this recommendation because it indicates both the origin of the present Measure and the spirit in which it has been drafted. Its purpose is to secure that "greater elasticity" and "recognition of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England", which is even more necessary now than it was in 1906, without in any way departing from the general doctrinal position of the Church of England.
The process of revision of Canon Law has been long and difficult because the Convocations have sought all through to gain the greatest possible degree of support and agreement within the Church. It has been thought right to proceed not by a single comprehensive Measure, but by making each separate issue the sub-
10
ject of a separate Measure, so that the issue concerned can be fully and dispassionately considered. Thus, the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1906 have been dealt with in part in the Holy Table Measure, which has now received the Royal Assent; in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, which has likewise become law; in the Prayer Book (Alternative and other Services) Measure, which was passed by overwhelming majorities in all three Houses of the Church Assembly last week and will in due course be brought to Parliament; and also in the present Vestures of Ministers Measure.
Thus, every Canon in the process of revision, if I may remind your Lordships, has to go through three stages in both Houses of the two Convocations, of Canterbury and York; and, in addition, it goes through two, and sometimes three stages in the House of Laity. Then, if a Measure is required because the proposed alteration in a Canon would involve an alteration in Statute Law it has again to go through various stages in the Church Assembly, and no changes can come forward in a Measure without a two-thirds majority in all three Houses of the Church Assembly. This is sometimes criticised as being a very cumbrous procedure—as it undoubtedly is. Yet at the same time it ensures that every proposed change has been most carefully discussed over a period of years. If the Measures such as the Prayer Book (Alternative and other Services) Measure may seem to be a very conservative result for a very long period of discussion, that is in present circumstances wise and prudent, for it ensures that nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England has possibly been brought forward for the Royal Assent.
The existing law on the vestures of ministers is contained in Section 13 of the Act of 1558, which is quoted in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. These provisions are repeated in what is commonly known as the Ornaments Rubric, which precedes the Order for Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer. May I remind your Lordships of what it says:
"Such Ornaments of the Church of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by the Authority

11
of Parliament in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth."
It is to be noted that the Act of Uniformity of 1662 repeated the exact words of the Statute of 1558. Although it is probable that chasubles and tunicles and albs were not in general use in the Church of England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they were brought back into use in many churches in the nineteenth century, in the full belief that they were legal and even, in the opinion of at least some people, mandatory. In 1877, however, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that the Ornaments Rubric must be read along with Parker's Advertisements of 1566. The effect of this judgment is to make the only legal vesture of Ministers during their time of ministrations a cassock and a surplice, except that a cope should be used at the administration of Holy Communion in cathedrals and collegiate churches.
The judgment of the Privy Council was based on historical arguments which have been challenged by a number of modern historians. The late Dean of Winchester, Dr. Norman Sykes, for instance, in a speech to the Convocation of Canterbury in 1958, argued forcibly that the Canon, which is basically the same as the present Measure before your Lordships' House, does not seek to legalise practices which were abandoned at the Reformation. But whatever be the proper interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric in the Acts of Uniformity of 1558 and 1662, there is no doubt that the present practice of the vast majority of the clergy of the Church of England is at one point or another at variance with the Privy Council judgment. In particular, the wearing of a stole, which is not authorised by any interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, is the practice in the great majority of parish churches—probably in something like 90 per cent. of them. The alb and chasuble, commonly described as the "customary vestments", are in use in many churches which would assert their complete adherence to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, and it cannot be too strongly stated that a very large number—in fact I would say all—of those who wear stoles and the customary vestments do not believe themselves to be departing from the doctrine of the
12
Church of England and, indeed, believe that these vestments are part of the inheritance of the Church. It has been estimated that something like 25 per cent. of parish churches use the customary vestments at one time or another.
This variance between the practice of so many of the clergy and the existing interpretation of the law is obviously undesirable, and the clergy who desire to be law-abiding feel it a great strain upon their conscience when the interpretation of the law seems to make them law-breakers. It has been suggested that since no legal actions to enforce the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have been taken since 1881, there is no need to have a Measure now, because no-one to-day would proceed on the basis of that ruling. But simply to rely on this would be to evade an issue which is a matter of conscience. For until the existing law is changed, or redefined, clergy who wish to wear stoles or other vestments will continue to be held by some to be breaking the law. As I have said, such clergy do not wish to have this on their conscience.
The Measure now before your Lordships' House is designed to be unifying and not divisive. All it does is to make permissive the varieties of vesture which are in common use in the Church of England at the present time. In this connection the Preamble to the Measure is of vital importance, and I believe that it means precisely what it says: that the Church of England as a Church attaches no doctrinal significance to any particular garment worn by a minister during divine service. Individual members of the Church may feel in one direction or another that a doctrinal significance attaches, for instance, to the wearing of a black Geneva gown in order to preach a sermon, just as much as others may feel that some doctrinal significance attaches to the wearing of a chasuble. But the Church of England does not attach any significance to these varieties of vesture.
In Clause 1 of the Measure are set out the varieties of use which it is hoped will be permissive. But if the Measure becomes law no clergyman will be compelled to wear what he would in conscience object to wearing. For morning and evening prayer a cassock, surplice and stole are prescribed. I

13
have yet to meet a clergyman who would object to this. For occasional offices the Measure says that a cassock and surplice, with either a scarf or a stole, shall be worn; and here again there is no difficulty. At Holy Communion and at public baptism the Measure provides that a cassock with a surplice and scarf or stole, or a surplice with stole and cope, or an alb with stole and cope, or an alb with the customary vestments—that is, a chasuble for the celebrant and a tunicle for the assistant—may be permissive. It is impossible to conceive of any other permutation or combination of ecclesiastical garments which could be included in the Measure or which any clergyman would not be able to wear. But I would emphasise again, my Lords, that the Measure is so worded that the alternatives are permissive and not compulsive, and that no clergyman could possibly be placed in a position where he would be forced to wear vestments to which he objected.
But just as the Measure seeks to protect the consciences of the clergy, so it seeks to safeguard the rights of the laity. Clause 2 introduces what is, in effect, a new principle: that the parochial church council will have the right to be consulted before any change in the vesture in use in the parish church or chapel is made, and will have virtually a right of veto, subject to the direction of the Bishop, in the event of a disagreement between the minister and the parochial church council. To this provision we attach great importance because it makes impossible any sudden or unwelcome changes just at the whim of a particular incumbent.
My Lords, the Royal Commission of 1906 asked for the greater elasticity which a reasonable recognition of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England would seem to require. That is part of the purpose of this Measure. It is comprehensive and it ensures that varieties of use are possible without departing from the doctrine of the Church of England. It ensures, too, that in mutual charity and toleration those varieties can be held together. The comprehensiveness of the Church of England was one of its greatest contributions to the ethos of Anglicanism throughout the world. In those other parts of the Anglican Communion, the sister provin-
14
ces with the Church of England which are not by law established or subject to the control of any body other than their own legislative body of the Church, that comprehensiveness which they have learned from the Church of England has been retained. And within Anglicanism as a whole comprehensiveness may well be one of our greatest contributions to the whole forward movement of the cause of (Ecumenical good will and ultimately to the unity of Christendom.
In the long process of Canon Law revision, we in the Church Assembly and in Convocations, in long discussions, sometimes very heated, but conducted with increasing charity and understanding, have been learning much of what that toleration and mutual charity can mean. The Convocations and the Church Assembly have realised that it is both necessary and possible to have elasticity and comprehensiveness without endangering the general doctrinal position of the Church to which we are devoted. On this particular Measure the mind of the Convocations and the Church Assembly has been made clear. The Bishops support it unanimously; the House of Clergy passed it by 214 votes to 30; the House of Laity by 182 votes to 68.
We seek in this Measure to carry that mutual toleration and charity which have marked those discussions and the conclusions into the life of the Church, in order that there may be no hurt of conscience on either side on the part of those who, for reasons of conscience, do not see entirely eye to eye on this relatively minor question of what a clergyman should wear during the time of his ministrations. We ask that this Measure may be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent in the same spirit of toleration, comprehensiveness and charity which the Church needs if it is to carry on its task for the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Vestures of Ministers Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
3.7 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened to a calm and moderate speech

15
from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, and I would not comment in detail on what he has said because I do not think he has said very much more than has been included in the actual official circulation of documents with regard to the Report which was presented to the Church Assembly and the actual terms of the Measure itself. But I do want to say to your Lordships that what is involved in the passing of this Measure is really of much greater importance than that which the right reverend Prelate has attached to it or which is likely to arise in your Lordships' minds from the Preamble to the Measure itself.
This Preamble has been almost completely repeated, and I do not want to keep on repeating it, but really it says that there is nothing of particular importance or significance in regard to the doctrine of the Church of England in what is provided in this Measure. I find it exceedingly hard to accept that, and so do thousands upon thousands of the rest of the people of the country—those who have still not forgotten that we are by law at the moment a Protestant nation; that under the Act of Succession, 1689, we require our gracious Monarch, when she takes the Throne, to declare (in terms which I put in detail in my speech of May 10, 1961) that she is a faithful Protestant; and that that law itself provides that the Monarch must make such a Declaration before going upon the Throne and that the Monarch must not stay upon the Throne if he or she ceases to be able to repeat and live that Declaration on the Throne. That is the importance of this question which arises at once upon the Preamble to this Measure.
The opinion has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate that there is nothing really of a doctrinal character in this Measure. He quoted a reference from the Royal Commission of 1906, but I do not think the quotation was complete. I have not got the Royal Commission Report with me at the present time; but certainly the last issue of the English Churchman, that great family Protestant newspaper of the Church of England, which has been in existence for certainly over 125 years, replies to Sir John Guillum Scott on
16
this particular issue. I would refer the right reverend Prelate to that issue. One thing is quite certain, and that is that the Royal Commission of 1906 not only asked for steps to be taken to look into all these matters but drew special attention to such matters as Holy Communion and vestments and things of that kind. I hope, therefore, that may be borne in mind.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but this is a matter of fact, and it is important that the facts should not be obscured at the outset. Is it not correct that the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, while naming certain things as contrary to the doctrine of our Church and requiring them to be brought to an end, did not name the use of vestments among such things?
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I will look it up when I have finished. It is not easy, because of the state of my eyesight, for me to quote closely printed documents. I will look it up and see that somebody raises the matter again in the debate. I am referring to the quotation I saw in the English Churchman, a very loyal Church of England paper, loyal to the real history and tenets of the Church of England. I can say, as the President of the United Protestant Council in this country, that I find within our ranks great numbers of very loyal churchmen who still want to see Protestant succession to the Throne, and a Protestant exercise of the great truths which are to be found in the Prayer Book of the Church of England.
I should like to put one or two questions about this to those on the Bishops' Bench, or of course to anyone else who is interested in the matter. If this Measure is not doctrinal, why does it refer to only two matters? There are in fact three matters, but I do not bring in the one about consultation between the new incumbent and his parochial church council. The first is to establish what was the position in the reign of Edward VI, except that in regard to Holy Communion these things that are now in this Church Measure shall apply. That is an amendment, first of all, entirely in respect of the use of what are here called vestures. The right reverend Prelate the

17
Lord Bishop of London did on just one occasion note that it was vestments; the whole of this paper now is in regard to vestures.
Vestments are very important. What a lot of Protestants, clergymen and laymen, are concerned about is that there ought to be some Biblical authority for these changes. I have looked at my Bible and I have also checked my facts upon this point with a Cruden's Concordance, which I won in an elementary board school in 1898 and which has been my constant companion ever since. Only once in the whole of the Scriptures is there reference to vestments, and that is in the 10th chapter of the Second Book of Kings, where Jehu was searching out the worshippers of Baal in Israel. Before he went on to break down the altars and buildings and destroy the worshippers of Baal he said to the one in charge of the vestry, "Bring out the vestments of the worshippers of Baal". There is no other reference to vestments in the whole of the Scriptures. If the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester, a good friend of mine, is rather more amused about that than others, I would say I have also looked up the whole of the scriptural references with regard to vestures, and I can find nothing in those references which could be used as a Biblical basis for the institution of the use of vestments for a particular service mentioned here, although I agree with the right reverend Prelate it does not prevent ministers within the same Communion from not using the vestures. But it is a direct departure from the original Protestant Prayer Book.
There is another question I want to ask. What is the true title of our Church of England in this country? We call it the Church of England, but in my upbringing in the Church of England from my first 23 years of life I have always understood it to be the Protestant Church of England. I remember in my early youth in Bristol rather derisive instances between a few churches, but certainly the great majority of the churches were evangelical, and there was never once in the church I attended—although it was very musical and very nice to go to—the use of vestures or vestments. I look back to those days with sorrow, to think we are not getting quite the same sort of service on the principles of the
18
Prayer Book that we got then. I went to school in a district which was completely working class. The houses in Mitchell Street, Barton Hill, in which I was brought up in Bristol are now being pulled down as slums. Christ Church, Barton Hill, which I attended, had Ministers who would come out, with people like my own working-class, labouring grandfather, to preach the Gospel twice a day on Sunday, in the open air before our neighbours.
It is not surprising, considering what a state religion is in, to find the President of the Methodist Conference suggesting to the Conference the other day that the religious life of this country to-day is such that we should treat the home field here as if it were a mission field, just as though we were taking the Gospel abroad, so necessary is it to have the Gospel preached to millions of people who are apparently completely ignorant, either of the Bible itself or of the great truths which are to be found in the Church of England Prayer Book, such as the exhortation before the General Confession, the General Confession itself, the General Thanksgiving—the most magnificent language! I think of things like that which I have always loved in the Prayer Book. When I think that we have slipped away to such a situation in the religious life of the country—and we are mostly concerned now in Church Measures to talk about what we shall see worn in a particular service of the Church.
I come now to the question of what is the real basis of the claim made by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, that there is nothing really important doctrinally in this amendment. Is that accepted through all the area, say, of the section of the Church which is regarded as Anglo-Catholic? If I remember rightly, the booklets issued by the Church Union, which is one of the great Anglo-Catholic organisations, teach exactly the opposite: that they do attach values to their use. Is it not true that, speaking at an Anglo-Catholic Congress, the former Lord Halifax made a statement on these lines: that they place great values upon the vestments? He said that, all else apart, they valued them because they proved that the Holy Communion of the Church of England was merely the Mass in English. Your Lordships can look up that statement for yourselves. I have not the original of it, but it was passed on to me.

19
That brings me to the next point, whether there is some special reason why the Church of England at this time must, through its Assembly, pass a Measure of this kind. Is it essential that it should pass it? And why is it essential? Is it essential because the members of the Church of England priesthood in the Anglo-Catholic section wish to be free to go on without breaking the law? Is that the reason? Perhaps we shall get an answer on that presently. It is a fact that hardly ever is any disciplinary action taken at present, although I remember that in the early part of his ministry the Lord Bishop of Southwark did take disciplinary action somewhere in the South-West of London. But, of course, there are numbers of people in parishes who to-day either go a long way to church because they feel they cannot worship in their own parish church, since they do not agree with what is going on there—that may apply either way—or have dropped away altogether. I confess that I was glad to see in a recent report that the numbers of communicants last Easter showed an increase of about 160,000 compared with the previous year. I like to think that that is a good sign.
But when I come to look at what is behind this Measure, I cannot get away from the fact that these vestments that we are talking about—practically all of them, though there may be exceptions—are the vestments of the Mass. They are the vestments of the Mass; that is what they are used for. So I ought to ask the right reverend Prelate—or the most reverend Primate and Metropolitan, if he likes—to tell us in the course of the debate whether, if these are to be legalised for Holy Communion because of their former connection with, as well as their present use at, the Mass, it is intended to take disciplinary action to prevent services of the Mass from taking place in the Church of England; if the wearing of these garments has no doctrinal significance, to declaim that they are the vestments of the Mass. If they are used for the Mass, are you going to rule them out by discipline, or do you intend, in fact, to alter (I speak from memory on this) Article 31, that Mass is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit? Is this only a first step to further and drastic alterations in the offices and practices of the Church of England?
20
This is a vastly important Measure which is before your Lordships. It is one in which you have to make up your mind as to whether or not a particular case has been made out. I am bound to say that within this country and our freedom of religion there is nothing against a man's either administering or receiving Mass—nothing at all—if he does it in the right place. There is nothing to stop a man, if he wants to be a priest dealing with the Mass, to be in a Church which accepts it or lays it down as a fundamental in its rubric. But there are your Articles of Religion; there is your commitment to the Protestant Succession. There is that which is a rule in this way, so far as legalities are concerned, from the date of the Reformation in the Church in this country. So what comes next? I think that the House ought really to be informed about that.
Then I would say that there is no objection to any of the priests who want to do this joining the Church of Rome. If you are not going to be different from the Church of Rome then, of course, somebody may say, "What is the use of having the Protestant Church?" I should like to ask the Bishops—almost, if I could, to interrogate them individually—"Are you a Protestant?". I remember the debate on May 10, 1961. I had been to see the most reverend Primate who is now Lord Fisher of Lambeth, who gave us a most charming interview at Lambeth Palace before he made his visit to the Pope. He assured us—and I stated this to the House—that he was a Protestant; that he had always been a Protestant, and that he had defended Protestantism. But when, in the debate on May 10, 1961, it came down to an examination of what he really believed, I was not able to get satisfactory answers.
I did not get any satisfactory answer when I raised, as I have raised to-day, the question of the Protestant Succession, and the Oath or Declaration which Her Majesty must make. What are the relationship and the opinions of the Church in regard to that matter? I quoted the actual terms of the Declaration. Her Majesty the Queen herself made it, in her own gracious way, from the Throne. When I read out the words the most reverend Primate, said to me: "There are a hundred qualifications to that." Is that the attitude of the Church

21
as led by the Bishops to-day? I could not get from Lord Fisher of Lambeth any of the qualifications from that legal position of the Act of 1689. Could we have those qualifications to-day, and on what legal grounds they rest? The real position of the Protestant Succession and the question of the Monarch as the Head of the Church are so important that I think we ought to know.
In regard to anything I have received from parochial councils, from clergymen in the Church of England and from other Protestants in the country at large, I do not think I have ever been more moved than by a letter that I received only late to-day from a clergyman of the Church of England whom I have known for 35 years, both in Northampton and in his present rectory in Crow-borough. He was exceedingly kind to my late friend Lord Winster, and to Lord Winster's widow in the months that followed his death. He says in the last line of his letter:
"There is only one thing that matters: that Christ is our only High Priest."
When I read the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot see any Biblical grounds for the rituals of the kind with which we are dealing to-day. Nor can I understand those in the Church ministry who will accept, say, certain statements in the New Testament, but so often pour contempt on things which are stated in the Old Testament. I find, as I read my Bible, that all the way through there is a continuity of the purpose of God; there is a continuity in the statement of God's law. What a sight it is in the Moses Room in this House to see the picture, covering the whole wall, depicting Moses coming down from the mountain with the Tables of the Law! There is the Covenant repeated, stage by stage, of what shall take place through the Old Testament, proving the facts of what Jesus said for himself. He said,
"I come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it."
When you come to deal with solemn services like the sacrifice of the Mass—for that is what the Mass is, a sacrifice—you go against the teaching of ritualism, as I see it, in the first chapter of Isaiah. Read the first chapter of Isaiah and his condemnation of the ritualism! Hear his declaration about
22
the new moons, the Sabbath, and the special appointed days that "he cannot away with". "Incense is an abomination unto me", says Isaiah to his Church. Then even in that early part of it Isaiah, forecasting Gospel message, said:
"Come now, and let us reason together. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow: though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
If you want to attach the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or to bring in vestments to salve what is referred to as the conscience of priests who want to wear these things in the service of the Holy Communion, ought we not to read once more the chapters in the Epistle to the Hebrews, starting at Chapter IX and reading from verse 24 to the end of Chapter X? What is one taught there? That Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, but into the presence of God for us, and that he has made the sacrifice not to be offered often lest he would have continually suffered from the beginning of the world. Then, at the end of verse 10 of the tenth chapter of Hebrews, the reference is made to the sacrifice once for all. Yet it seems to me that what the Church is trying to do is to enhance the purpose of those priests of its Church in the Anglican Communion, as it was called by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, although it is truly the Church of England, according to this measure—the Anglican Communion, the Anglo-Catholic Communion.
There it is. It is always difficult to compare certain passages of Scripture, and the most reverend Primate and Metropolitan knows full well that those of us who are laymen but who try to understand our Scripture know well his scholarship—he is one of the great scholars among modern theologians in the whole world. But when I come to read my Hebrews IX and X, when I come to see the Covenants that were made right the way through as to what was going to happen in the coming of the Messiah, then I think that in the end scholarship will have to come second to faith. There is no chapter in the whole of the Scripture so wonderful as Hebrews XI on the healers by faith. "By faith" appears in almost every paragraph. I believe in the whole Bible. If I cannot believe in the whole Bible,

23
what part of it can I retain as being the only part or one of the parts to be believed?
I beg of the Church of England to take two things into consideration. There is the use of the service of Holy Communion in the sense in which the late Lord Halifax referred to it. The Mass in English is not justified by Hebrews IX and X. I should like to know what the most reverend Primate and Metropolitan thinks of that. And yet we find Bishops of the Church of England will go to services of High Mass and preach a sermon there. Is that one of the reasons for the passage of this Measure? These things have to be more settled in the mind of Parliament.
The Sunday Express of yesterday, at the end of their forecast of this debate, refer to a statement which they say was made by the most reverend Primate on his enthronement in Canterbury in June, 1961. It quoted him as saying that if he could not get from Parliament the freedom that the Church desired, then it would have to be got some other way, and that we, the people who take my view, were the people who drive them out of the position of being the State Church. Does that mean that he leads those whom we think, according to the original Prayer Book, are revolters against the factors laid down in the Church of England Prayer Book and that there is no limit at present set upon the further reforms which are made from their point of view? If the statement were made, such as the Sunday Express reported yesterday, then I think the most reverend Primate ought to explain to us how he proposes, in the circumstances, if he were to go to Disestablishment, to maintain the Protestant succession in this country.
When I talk about the Protestant succession, I remember how great our country has been since that day; what wonderful things it has done for itself and for people all over the world in its mission field and everywhere concerned. I should be glad not to be here to see the state of affairs when that passed away. I should like to be in Heaven, if I am accepted there; I should not like to be here to see it. The great days of this country and the Common-
24
wealth which it has built up have occurred because of the acceptance by the people of the principles of the Reformation. God grant that it may continue!

POSTMEN'S DISPUTE
3.40 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I might now reply to the Private Notice Question which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition asked me earlier this afternoon. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has just answered a similar Question in another place and, with permission, I will use his own words:
"In December last the Union of Post Office Workers claimed a substantial increase in pay for postmen. At the beginning of this year the Post Office offered a three-year agreement providing increases of 4 per cent. from January 1, 1964, and 3½ per cent. in each of the two subsequent years. The Union were not willing to accept the 4 per cent. in the first year, or to use the normal machinery for resolving disputes in the Civil Service—the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. They pressed instead for an independent inquiry into the pay of postmen. After discussion it was agreed to set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. A. L. Armitage, to rule on the proper interpretation of the particular paragraph of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1953–55, which was said by the Union to be the crux of the matter. It was also agreed that the committee's findings would be accepted, and that if it proved impossible to reach a settlement by negotiation in the light of the committee's recommendations the issue would be referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
"Broadly speaking the committee felt there should be more comparisons with people doing similar work in manufacturing industry and with people whose qualities compared with those of postmen. With a view to giving effect to the Report I suggested an immediate Pay Research survey. The team of experts who made the last survey of postmen's pay are now available and I believe

25
that a new survey could be completed in about two months. In putting this proposal to the Union last week I offered at the same time to increase the pay of postmen straight away by 4 per cent. as from January 1, 1964, and I also stated that any further resulting increase in pay which stemmed from negotiations on pay research would also be backdated to January 1, 1964.
"This offer is not the same as the offer the Post Office made earlier this year. It is however fully consistent with the report of the Armitage Committee.
"The Union's representatives rejected this proposal. They said that nothing less than an immediate increase, backdated to January 1, 1964, of 10½ per cent. to be followed by pay research would be acceptable to them. I cannot regard this as justifiable and I accordingly suggested to the Union that if, on further reflection, they were still unwilling to accept the Post Office offer they should take the case to arbitration as they had earlier promised to do.
"As the House knows there has already been widespread unofficial industrial action and the Union has decided to call a one-day strike on Thursday to be followed by other industrial action. Postal services have already been disrupted and the inland parcel service to and from London has been suspended. As from midnight to-night I am having to suspend the inland parcel service altogether and also the inland printed paper service. I shall of course do my best to minimise the inconvenience which this will inevitably cause to the public."
That, my Lords, is my right honourable friend's Answer.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving us the answer which has been made in another place. We are all I am sure, in all Parties, very concerned about this dispute in the Post Office. The postmen have always been a very hardworking and loyal body of people who have served the nation over and over again. There must be something in this situation which has greatly angered them,
26
for such a powerful and influential Civil Service union as the Union of Post Office Workers to be disobeyed by so many of their people in the last two days, causing such trouble. I hope that something immediate may be done or offered to try to bring this tension to an end. I cannot expect the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to tell me anything more of what the Government have in mind at the present time. But I am quite sure that the nation at large is so jolly well satisfied with the general service of postmen that they will want to see this dispute brought to an end as soon as possible, and a sense of justice left in the men's minds.

VESTURES OF MINISTERS MEASURE
3.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, we must all be indebted, I believe, to the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London, for the clarity with which he introduced this Measure, and I do not believe that any Member of the House could possibly listen to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, without being moved by its evident sincerity. I confess that in approaching this Measure I have to say that some of the practices it proposes to legalise, and, perhaps even more, other practices which commonly go with them and of which we may hear more in the subsequent Measures to be brought before Parliament, are to me impediments and not aids. Moreover, I am bound to admit that I cannot accept some of the modes of thought from which some of these practices, as it seems to me, spring.
I like to think that my outlook and attitude is the fruit of long years of thought and reading; and so in part it is. But I strongly suspect that tradition and temperament and upbringing have much more to do with it. On my mother's side I come of Huguenot ancestry, and on both sides of the family there is a long tradition of Non-conformity into which I was born and under which I have lived for almost exactly the first half of my life. I suspose that if I had to declare my hand I should say, like the noble Earl, that

27
I am a Protestant. I must have Protestantism in my blood and, indeed, if I were forced to choose between the position of those whom it is intended to aid by this Measure, and those who prefer to call themselves Protestants, I think I should find myself very much nearer the latter than the former; that is to say, if I were forced to choose between those two positions. But, my Lords, is it not the strength and glory of the Church of England that it does not force its members to any such absolute choices?
I have disclosed to your Lordships, as I thought I ought, my own thoughts and feelings about these practices. But during the 30-odd years that I have been an active member of the Church of England, as I have, I have learned that I have many fellow members who think and feel quite differently from the way in which I think and feel. I know some—and I know them to be better men and far better Christians than I am—to whom the things which to me are an impediment are real aids and helps and, indeed, in some cases, necessities. I know some clergy, whom I revere, who could not do their work so well but for these aids and practices, and whose work is undoubtedly impeded by the thought that they may be tainted by some impropriety or even illegality.
I could not hold as fast as I do to my own position unless I were willing to respect that of my friends and brethren whose position is so different from mine, and the wonderful thing is that the Church finds room for all of us. This amplitude is not, I believe, just an easy acquiescence. It is not just a shutting of the eyes to incompatibilities. I believe it to be something far more positive than that. We are all of us fallible mortals. We all of us have finite minds. None of us can comprehend the whole truth. In consequence, while I believe that we all have our eyes set on the same goal, each of us tends to see a different way of getting there. Each of us must hold to his own way and each of us must recognise that for others another way is the right one. We know in part and we prophesy in part, and therefore the greatest need of all is charity; and may I remind the noble Earl that there is the Second Epistle to the Corinthians as well as Hebrews in the New Testament.
28
My Lords, in submitting this Measure—and probably other Measures to come—the Church is, in my belief, putting charity in its rightful place: at the head of the list of Christian virtues. When one considers the majorities by which these Measures have been adopted, is it not plain that many who dislike them must have voted for them? This, surely, is a wonderful display of charity. In seeking the approval of Parliament to these Measures, the Church is not forcing any absolute choice upon us. Is it not the fact that she is just asking the State to set the seal of State approval upon a notable act of charity that has taken place within the Church? If one looks at this Measure in that light, my Lords, what answer dare we give but the answer, "Yes"? May I just make this observation in closing? When Christians show such evident signs of loving one another, surely they deserve some encouragement.
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Motion, but I do so in all sincerity and with the deepest and utmost regret. I listened most attentively to the right reverend Prelate and to the very persuasive way in which he moved this Motion; nevertheless, he did not shake the sincerity of my own conviction of the wrongness of this Measure. He appealed to us upon the grounds of the comprehensiveness of the Church, which it would encourage; but I do not believe that to be so at all. Upon the other hand, I feel that this Measure, if passed, would have a divisive influence in the Church, and would to a very great degree exacerbate feelings which have been dormant for a long time and which, one hoped, had gone to sleep for ever.
I believe that the underlying basis of this Measure is contrary to the reformed and Protestant character of our Church, and that its introduction is really due solely to the fact that, over the years, the Bishops have been unable to enforce the legal position upon the ministers in their dioceses. If, as I believe, this is true, it is really comparable to a situation such as this: that the Government of the day come down to Parliament and say, "We are all appalled at the outrage which is being committed by bank robbers. This situation has got so completely out of hand, and we, the Government, are so

29
completely unable to preserve the law, that we have arrived at a brilliant solution of this problem. We are about to propose to Parliament an Act which will legalise bank robberies up to a limit of, say, £10,000 per annum—the proceeds of which, of course, can be retained by the robbers tax free". The justification on the Government's part for such a proceeding would be that they do not make it mandatory upon us all to rob banks, but that the provision would be purely permissive. That, my Lords, is really analogous to the situation that we are asked to consider here to-day. What we are being asked to do is to give approval to the greatest act of appeasement which has taken place since Munich. In fact, so far as the influence upon our Church and our people is directly concerned, it may well be the greatest act of appeasement since before Munich.
Another point to which reference was made in that splendid speech by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition is that this is but one of a series of Measures. We are not being given the opportunity of considering; all these proposals together in one Measure, which would enable us to make a better judgment as to the direction in which our Church is being led. Each Measure, as it comes along, nibbles away a little bit more of the foundations of our Church and of our Faith, although each one, of itself, may well be considered as not being of sufficiently vital importance to warrant the Measure's being thrown out. Nevertheless, if we do regard this merely as one of a series of Measures, the others being the ones referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his opening speech—The Holy Table Measure, the Miscellaneous Provisions Measure, the Alternative Services Measure and so forth—if we take them as one and look at them collectively, there can be no possible shadow of doubt at all that they establish a trend which will direct the policy of our Church far more towards a sympathetic outlook with regard to reunion with Rome.
If the Church really contemplates this as a possible course of action, it can be only upon the terms of the supremacy of the Pope as Primate. That would involve directly the elimination of our own Sovereign as the Head of our own Church; and, whatsoever alleged safeguards might be introduced into the
30
arrangement, ultimately it could result only in the complete domination of our Church by Rome. My Lords, we in this country have fought this battle before, some 400 years ago, and I am quite certain that it would not be the wish of any one of us to have to see our country fight it again.
I might be asked why it is that I take my stand against this particular Measure. My answer would be: because I believe that, fundamentally, it is anti-scriptural, and also that it is contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England. I know and fully appreciate the content of the Preamble to the Measure, which was so well explained to us by the right reverend Prelate in his opening remarks, but that provides that the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture which may be worn, as set out in the Measure. But who is going to wear these vestures unless he himself attaches doctrinal significance to them? I myself exonerate our clergy entirely from any idea of their wearing vestures simply for the sake of dressing up, or, indeed, simply because they believe that they can attract more people into their churches if they wear vestures than by preaching the Word of God. It can be due only to the doctrinal significance which they import into this particular process of wearing vestures.
Another point which comes out in regard to this Preamble is the age-old question of, "Who is the Church of England?" which, it states, adopts this attitude of elimination of any feeling of doctrinal responsibility. The Assembly may well declare it to be so, but the Assembly cannot bind the minds and consciences of the ministers of the Church. And I believe there is a very strong amount of confirmation of the doctrinal importance which the people of this country attach to the wearing of these vestures. I would claim as confirmation of this no less an authority—and I am sorry that he is not present here to-day—than the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
According to the report which I have here, and which I believe to be correct, the right reverend Prelate, in delivering the Thirty-fifth Hale Memorial Sermon in 1960, used the following words:
"Strong opposition to this Canon"—

31
that is to the Canon which is substantially reproduced in the measure that we have before us—
"comes from those who hold that what they call Mass Vestments necessarily imply a 'Romish' doctrine of the Mass. Consequently they hold that this Canon involves a covert alteration of Church of England doctrine about the Sacrament of Holy Communion. In an attempt to alleviate any such fear, a clause has been inserted into the Canon which says that, 'The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted in this Canon, nor sanctions thereby any doctrines other than those contained in its formularies'."
The phraseology has been slightly altered during the passage of the years, but the content and intent of the quotation of the preamble are just the same to-day as they were then.
The Bishop went on:
"This olive branch has proved unsuccessful. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising. For although the statement in the Canon is perfectly true, it nevertheless remains the fact that vestments do imply a 'high' doctrine of the Sacrament. This is true not only of the chasuble, but also of the coloured stole. It is of course true that the wearing of the vestments by an individual priest does not of itself necessarily imply that the wearer holds a high doctrine of the Sacrament. He may wear them only because he is a visiting priest and wishes to conform with the tradition of the parish. But I think it is true to say that the Canon, by authorising the wearing of the Eucharistic vestments, does imply that the Church of England permits the holding of such a high doctrine of the Sacraments. It is precisely this that the opponents of the Canon deny. That is to say, they deny that the Church of England by its formularies does in fact permit the holding of any such doctrine."
My Lords, I have quoted these words in full because they put the view of the situation, which I myself hold, so very admirably and with so much more authority and clarity than I could put it before your Lordships.
But there is another confirmation, too, of the feeling of the doctrinal significance of these vestments. This comes from a very distinguished member of the Anglo-Catholics, Dr. H. S. Box. Writing in the Church of England Newspaper at the beginning of this year, he used the following words:
"On the other hand, I am quite sure that it is only fair at this quasi-final stage of a discussion to make it quite clear to Evangelicals (if it is not clear already) that the vast majority of us Anglo-Catholics value the vestments because we hold them to have a very
32
definite significance. Their purpose is to indicate what (rightly or wrongly) we believe to be true: that the Eucharist which is celebrated at Anglican altars today (Evangelical as well as Anglo-Catholic) is essentially the same service as the pre-Reformation Mass, and not some different kind of service invested or revived at the Reformation."
These quotations do, in my submission, absolutely establish that the effect of this Measure is to change the Reformed doctrine and Protestant position of our Church, and it is for that reason that I cannot agree with it.
Reference has been made once or twice to the voting in the Assembly. It may be that I have said—I hope with courtesy—some harsh things about some of our Episcopal Benches, but I would pay them a compliment. I would say that the House of Bishops in the Assembly is by far the most outstanding body of educated brains that we can find not only in the Church of England but in any professional body in this country. In fact they are selected for their education, erudition and ability, and any one of them, in the matter of debate, can run rings around any dozen members of the Assembly. Therefore when, as in this case, they "gang up together", if I may use the expression, the miracle is that there is any opposition in the Assembly at all.
So far as the House of Clergy is concerned, as your Lordships know that is not an elected body, and there must be a certain element of subordination between the clergy and their bishops.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to interrupt, I might say that there is a non-elected element in the House of Clergy; but a very large part of it is, of course, elected.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the correction; but I do not think it affects the substance of my argument. In so far as the House of Clergy is concerned—with the notable exception of the representatives who also sit in your Lordships' House—I would say that a great proportion of the representatives are retired and elderly people; because the majority of the active members of our Church cannot spare the time to devote three individual weeks throughout the year to attend the debates of the Assembly. And that is one of the very real problems

33
from which the Church suffers in connection with its representation in its own Parliament. Nevertheless, despite these facts, there was about one-quarter of the House of Laity, as there represented, who did, in fact, vote against this Measure. This, to my mind, was a very surprising attitude indeed to find taken up there.
There is one other point I should like to make. That is that there is a very grave anxiety indeed in the minds of a great many of us lest the passing of this Measure leads to an element of compulsion on the part of ordinands, contrary to their consciences, that before being ordained they should be required to adopt vestments such as are authorised by this Measure. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester gave a very firm assurance to the contrary when he made his final address to the Assembly on the passing of this Measure, but I wonder how the right reverend Prelate can afford to give such an assurance. I know he gave it in all good faith and in all sincerity, but it is only just over a decade since the then Lord Bishop of London was specifically declining to ordain men, who otherwise were acceptable to the ministry, because, on grounds of conscience, they declined to wear the vestures which he required. If it could happen then—
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I would make a small point of correction. I believe it is true that my predecessor in the See of London did not refuse to ordain the men in question. He ordained them in his own chapel, but did not wish to ordain them at St. Paul's, in order that there should be no evidence of disunity at that part of the ordination.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his intervention, but I am afraid I cannot accept it. I have the evidence of three specific cases, in one of which the priest, under protest and contrary to his true beliefs, accepted the direction that he was to wear vestures. In two other cases the prospective ministers did not accept, and they were not ordained. I mention this solely because of the anxiety we have that the introduction of this Measure may lead to similar situations in future. I hope sincerely that it will not do so.
34
A further point is that this Measure comes up at a time when consideration is being given to conversations between our Church and the Nonconformist Churches. Surely it must be a matter of frustration to those who are conducting the conversations that a Measure such as this should be put forward by our Church at the present time, because it can only be interpreted as a departure from the Protestant and Reformed stand of our Church towards a greater elasticity towards Rome.
In moving this Motion, the right reverend Prelate claimed that the Measure legalises what is the practice of the vast majority of our churches. I challenge that statement. I cannot find it in myself to believe that illegal practices are carried on in the vast majority of our churches. They are carried on, as we know full well, in certain churches; but when I think of the strength of evangelical opinion up and down the country, it passes my comprehension and stretches my imagination beyond the bounds to believe that these practices are carried on in the vast majority of our churches.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, we do not like to interrupt, but it is important that the actual facts should be as closely as possibly agreed upon between us. If I understood the right reverend Prelate correctly, he referred to the coloured stole as being worn in the majority of churches. We do not claim that eucharistic vestments, in the technical sense, are worn, but the stole is worn throughout the whole of the Army Chaplain's Department, if I may give this as an example of the kind of thing that was intended.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that he has only to come down to my own church and he will not see even a stole there.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, till I was a Bishop, I wore the black scarf of a communicant, too.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I hope that the right reverend Prelate will continue to do so. I should like to return to two small points. One is the vagueness of this Measure. I do not consider that the Preamble is drafted with any certainty of expression, and in the Measure there is

35
a reference to "customary vestments". In moving this Motion, the right reverend Prelate explained to us what customary vestments are. Would it not have been more advisable, if they are known to be what they are, to have inserted them in the Measure, rather than leave it to the ultimate discretion of a court to decide, in the event of there being any question or doubt as to what "customary vestments" are? The other point is that I understand that, owing to the method of drafting this Measure, it will bind the Bishops themselves, when they are officiating as ministers in churches. Therefore, it may well be that the right reverend Prelates will find themselves having to conform on occasion.
All in all, I feel convinced that this Measure will not achieve peace in our Church. It will not strengthen the Reformation Settlement. It will not enhance the Protestant position of the Church of England. I believe that it will be divisive and will add to the trend towards Rome. And I believe that it will be repugnant to a vast number, possibly a majority, of Church people in this country. Therefore I ask your Lordships to vote against the Measure.
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that my noble friend Lord Brentford has given a detailed and sincere interpretation of the opinions held by that section of the Anglican opinion for which he speaks and which I believe is sometimes represented by an organisation called the United Protestant Council. But he will not expect me to agree with very much of what he has said, if only because in our two families, while we agree on so many other things, this particular difference of opinion is now in its second generation.
I am going to try to give a lay opinion from my own angle, which is that of a churchwarden in his twenty-sixth year of service—not a churchwarden of any specialised Anglo-Catholic place of worship, because I do not belong to that opinion, but of a churchwarden of a village church on the Welsh border, where vestments have been used on occasions for many years and where we still say the Office of Holy Communion as we have always said it. We are in a
36
part of the world where Methodism is strong and our power of approach towards Methodists has certainly not weakened.
After listening to what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Tangley have said, I feel that there is no need to repeat their arguments. They are perfectly clear to your Lordships and I should like to associate myself entirely with them. But I think perhaps the time has come to say this. We are here not in the same position as the Church Assembly was when it was debating the Measure. We are here in the Houses of Parliament, and, as I see it (I may be wrong), we have certain duties which are not by any means the same as those of the Church Assembly when it was approving the Measure, or of the Legislative Committee who wrote the Report on the Measure, signed by the most reverend Primate.
The Church Assembly was constituted by Act of Parliament in about 1920. That Act laid down the constitution, and I think I am right in saying that it laid down the required majorities in the various Houses of the Church Assembly which were necessary before a Measure could be submitted to Parliament. The Church Assembly has passed this Measure by the majorities which were laid down by Parliament. When one believes; as I do, that the Church Assembly is the last body to go in for wild-cat decisions, or to advocate any change at all without careful thought, then those majorities are very significant indeed. Unless we in this House want to advocate minority government; unless we in this House—I am saying this advisedly—want to make ourselves a stamping ground for the exponents of those views which did not find favour in the Church Assembly, then I think we have to be most careful and decide whether there is any really sound principle—principle, not the practice of the Church—that would cause us to reject this Measure, to which the Church Assembly has given so much time and so much thought.
If we follow this line of thought, I think it brings us directly into collision with the Preamble to the Measure, in which it is laid down perfectly clearly,

37
and signed by the most reverend Primate,
"that the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture"'.
Either that is a true statement, or it is not; and whatever the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, or my noble friend Lord Brentford may say (and I respect their sincerity in everything they said), it is impossible to get round that statement. If this House takes the view—as I profoundly hope it will not—that this Measure ought to be rejected, it can reject it only on the ground that the House does not accept that proposition in the Measure. I think one must say that absolutely clearly before going further.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Viscount, but he will perhaps remember that I pointed out that the Church Union, in its booklets, pays great attention to the value of the vestments in the Sacrament, in the Holy Communion. I also quoted the late Lord Halifax to show that he believed it to be true that the Lord's Supper, or the Holy Communion in the Church of England was the Mass in English. I cannot understand how you can have such a Preamble as is given to us in this Measure and claim that in dealing with these particular garments you are not dealing with doctrinal matters.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I know that the noble Earl holds that view. What I am saying—and I will repeat it—is that if you do hold that view, you give the lie to the Preamble. That is the point which sticks strongly in my mind, and which I wish to make to your Lordships.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That does not make us wrong.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: We then come to the permissive nature of the Measure: whether we are legalising some practice which is new, or whether, as my noble friend Lord Tangley put it, we are regularising something which has been in use in certain parts of the Church of England for over a hundred years. This, I feel, brings one to the thought of what is the duty of Parliament in making laws or approving Measures. Surely, whether we are dealing with Church prac-
38
tice, motor offences, betting, or whatever it may be, it is an important part of the business of Parliament to see that legislation is not passed—or indeed left on the Statute Book—which causes ordinary, decent, quiet people, decent quiet Churchmen, to be committing offences. There again, I think this is something we should all feel strongly about, and it is part of the duty of Parliament not to allow it. For this reason, if for no other, I think this Measure is doing a service of value, not merely to the Church, but to the country as a whole.
One could add a lot more, but there are many other speakers to follow. I feel that the proposals in this Measure should be taken as they have been presented to us by the Church Assembly and by the right reverend Prelate. I do not share the views which have been expressed here, that the Preamble does not mean what it says, and that this regularising of something which has been done in many sections of the Church is going to open the door to a great many Measures which, it is said, will take us further to Rome. Nor do I accept the contention put forward by my noble friend Lord Brentford, that there is any comparison between condoning a criminal offence, like bank robbery, and a Church practice like the wearing of vestments. Therefore, I give my support to this measure.
4.26 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Measure, and I do so because I believe it is just one more step in undermining our Protestant faith. Consequently, I find myself entirely in agreement with what my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, have said. This Measure is brought forward to legalise High Church and Anglo Catholic practices which have been carried on for a considerable period and are now probably at their zenith. But the fact of the matter remains whether the right reverend Prelates like it or not, that these practices have been illegal since 1662. It seems rather late in the day to bring forward a Measure of this sort in order to legalise what is unlawful practice. The position is even worse, because 60 per cent. of the Anglican clergy use these vestments, and I am told their use and significance are taught in 60 per cent. of the Anglican theological colleges.

39
Frankly, I cannot reconcile my views as to why the Church has found it necessary to carry on practices which are illegal. But there are indications that other Measures will be forthcoming. I believe there is one coming with regard to legalising the use of the wafer. As I see it, these are practices which are being brought forward to bring the Church of England more into line with the Church of Rome. It is because of this that I strongly object to it.
There is a circular pamphlet available which says that these Measures have to be introduced piecemeal. I do not know whether that is so. I should find myself able to support the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, if a lot of these Measures which have been passed by the Church Assembly found themselves in one single Measure. Then we should know the real intention. At the moment we do not, and we must judge the Church of England, and the utterances of certain right reverend Prelates, by their actions. We find that the doctrine of Confession, which is a Roman practice, is taking place in the Church of England. There is the doctrine of transubstantiation, so far as the Communion service is concerned, which is also accepted. Therefore I cannot do anything else but oppose this Measure.
There is the difficulty that we cannot amend a Measure of this sort, which is rather unfortunate, because, whilst the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London praised Clause 2 and said that there had to be the consent of the parish council in dealing with these matters and that no clergyman save a Low Churchman could change the High practice without the approval of the church council, in that case the approval of the church council has been obtained by the incumbent; but if there is a change of the incumbent there can indeed be no reversal of those practices unless it is approved by the Bishop. So the fact of the matter is that the Bishop is in full control of what practices should be used in that particular church.
As I have said, I will be brief, but I feel very strongly indeed about this. I am a Nonconformist and I believe that, so long as we have a State Church, it is entirely wrong to approve of these Measures which, it can be proved beyond peradventure, are seeking merely to
40
bring us more in line with the Church of Rome. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who asked how on earth Church unity is to be effected (and approaches have been made to the Methodist Church) if, at the same time, you are supporting Measures of this sort which are seeking only to bring Roman practices into our Protestant country.
4.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, my principal reason for making a brief intervention in this debate is that, as a lay member of the Church, I was for some time vicar's warden of a parish church in the West country where there was a strong Methodist tradition. My feeling in the matter is very much in agreement with that expressed by the right reverend Prelate who opened the debate: that this is a relatively unimportant matter.
I propose to confine my remarks to what is in the Measure, and to some extent, therefore, will be making a new departure in the debate, because so much of what we have heard, so far as I can see, has no reference to the Measure at all. Like every Member of your Lordships' House, I was, as always when he speaks on this subject, deeply moved by what my noble Leader had to say. If I did not think that this was an issue on which a member of the Church had to stand up and be counted, then, since I disagree with my noble friend's view, I would much rather not have said anything at all. I respect the fact, which is so self-evident, that on this and parallel matters my noble friend feels deeply and passionately, with conviction, through study and knowledge. He makes it apparent that on such issues he is of the stuff which, a few hundred years ago, would have made a marty of him. For that we all respect him, but I know he will forgive me if I say why on this I cannot go by any means all the way with him, and why I support this Measure. I would, however, say that so far as my own personal preferences are concerned, I am, I believe, not a very good one, but what is called a Low Churchman. I do not like vestments. I hate incense almost as much as my noble Leader, and when I had the ability to influence these matters at all they were influenced in that direction, and certainly not without success.

41
That is one of the strong things about this Bill. It gives the parochial church council virtually a veto, and anyone who has had experience of some unhappy occasions, as I have, of knowing how strongly members of a parochial church council can express their views on all sorts of subjects, will know that this is a very real and important safeguard. To me, this is one of the greatest attractions in the Measure, because this is not a restrictive Measure. This, as I see it, is a Measure of freedom, and I most certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate that this has been put forward—and it has not been challenged during the debate—as a Measure of mutual charity and toleration, and to provide greater elasticity which the comprehensiveness of the Church of England requires and demands. I most certainly believe that that is the case.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, also gave us a speech which, from his deep convictions and knowledge, was at times very moving. But I thought his analogy that this Measure was giving licence to rob a bank up to an upper limit of £7,500, with the proviso that the powers were not mandatory but permissive, was not a very happy one. He seemed to think that that was a perfect analogy. I would point out two minor flaws. When you grant that kind of licence to do bank robbery you do not first have a meeting of the parish council to see whether a licence should be issued or not. Secondly—and this is a point the noble Viscount did not deal with—in this country, so far as bank robbers are concerned, if they are caught they are sent to prison. I shall be glad to give way if the noble Viscount wishes to interrupt me. Is the noble Viscount saying that we should prosecute or unfrock the 90 per cent.—as we were told—of the clergy in parish churches who wear a coloured stole, or is he suggesting that we should prosecute or unfrock the lesser, but very substantial, number of clergy in the Church of England who wear at different times other more elaborate vestments than a stole? Really, I feel that in this the opposition to this Measure, however keenly they feel, however strongly they feel, and however deeply they have gone into the matter, have not answered any of the points which were made by the right reverend
42
Prelate in moving the Motion. They have been avoided.
I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, or if not, my noble Leader, who said that scholarship must come second to faith. That is something with which I would not disagree. But is there anything in this Measure which alters anyone's faith? Is it seriously argued that, because in one church, by agreement with the parish church council, the clergy should be allowed to wear more elaborate vestments than another, that will affect anyone's faith? It may well mean that they will worship in another church if they are not able to persuade the church council that these vestments should not be worn. But it is asking too much to expect me to believe that this Measure need disturb the faith of any member of the Church of England, or any gradation of that faith.
My noble friend Lord Hobson, who told me that he would have to leave immediately after his speech, mentioned that he was a Methodist. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark will know, when I lived in Taunton not only was I on extremely friendly terms with members of the Methodist church, but, to his knowledge on many occasions, I took a prominent part in their services, which I know differ from those in my own Church. But, with the greatest respect, it would have been impossible for me to criticise to the Methodists any part of their service or even to discuss it with them.
This is one of the fundamental difficulties with which members of the Church of England, particularly if they happen to be Members of either House of Parliament, have to deal, in that, because it is the Established Church, everyone of any Church or of none has the legal right, I might even say the legal duty, whether they are believers or unbelievers, to discuss the business of the Church. I make no complaint whatever about that because it is the Established Church and that is the responsibility that has to be accepted. But I quite firmly feel that, whatever their legal rights and even legal duties may be in this matter, they perhaps have a moral duty not to discuss this matter, because it seems to me that it is an intimate matter for the Church itself.

43
My Lords, if we did not know before we do now, that in the Church of England there is an almost infinite gradation of opinion. There is room for all of them and I hope there will always continue to be room for all of them, and that we shall never knowingly do anything which would drive any member, I will not say from left to right, but of any gradation away from the Church. If I thought that this Measure would do that I would not support it, but we have not had a single word advanced to prove that it would, and I would submit that the Measure deserves the support of your Lordships.
4.42 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, your Lordships are invited this afternoon to take a further step—a modest step certainly, but a further step—in the process of bringing up to date the law under which the Church of England lives and has its being. I think that few people who have not made personal contact with the law of the Church can appreciate the complicated obscurity which at present characterises much of the law under which the Church lives. I have myself been engaged for nearly ten years as the Chairman of a Commission appointed by the Church Assembly which is endeavouring to consolidate another branch of the law which affects the Church. I can assure your Lordships that the Measure before us this afternoon illustrates very clearly how necessary and urgent that process of modernisation has become.
I am not going to invite your Lordships to consider the rather complicated legal aspects under which this Measure comes before you, but I should like to say just a few words about it because I think that the legal position is sometimes not fully understood. The matter begins with what is called the Ornaments Rubric, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out in his speech. The Ornaments Rubric provides that the ornaments of the Church and of the ministers shall be retained and shall be in use as they were in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, that is, the year of the first Prayer Book. I suppose that every one of the ornaments with which this Measure deals, with the possible exception of the stole, was an
44
ornament which was in common use in the churches of this country at the time of the first Prayer Book. If the matter rested there, I think that it would present very little difficulty. It would be quite clear that all these vestures with which we are dealing this afternoon were in use at the material date and that the Ornaments Rubric, which was given force of law by the Act of Uniformity, 1662, has made them lawful in the Church of England. But, unhappily, that is not the full story.
Between the years 1549 and 1662, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, a great many other things happened. There was the second Prayer Book; there were what were called the Advertisements of Archbishop Parker, to which the right reverend Prelate referred in his speech; and there were a number of other things done, with which I need not trouble your Lordships this afternoon. But the result of it all was that the legalisation of the ornaments originally in use in the Church at the time of the first Prayer Book became obscured, and eventually were further obscured, I regret to say, by a succession of judgments in the Privy Council. Surely that is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to go on. The law on a matter of this sort ought to be made plain for an ordinary clergyman or layman to understand. That is really all that this Measure is seeking to do.
One or two of your Lordships seem to assume that without this Measure these vestures would be unlawful. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, in his speech referred to these vestures as unlawful. I do not think that is the case. They are not necessarily unlawful. The opinion is very strongly held in influential quarters that these vestures are perfectly lawful by reason of the fact, as I say, that they were in common use in the Church at the time of the first Prayer Book and are legalised by the Ornaments Rubric. But if the matter remains in doubt, as indeed it does, then surely the right thing is that this Measure should be passed, to clear away any doubts, and that this important and, in some ways, vital question may be made less obscure.
I should like, if I may, to say something about two points which were

45
raised by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in his speech, to which I am sure all your Lordships listened with admiration for the sincerity and conviction with which it was delivered. The first point which I should like to put to the noble Earl is a very simple one. He asked, "Ought there not to be Biblical authority for the use of these vestments?". There are many things in our churches for which there is no Biblical authority. There is no Biblical authority for the organ; there is no Biblical authority for the choir, or for the use of a hymn book. There is no Biblical authority for any of these things; but they are not necessarily for that reason unlawful.
Now I come to another point which the noble Earl made—
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, if I may intervene, I would say on the noble Lord's point with regard to the organ that I could find ample justification in the Scriptures for using it. They may not have had a pipe organ as to-day, but they did have music.
LORD ILFORD: I did not say that there would be no Biblical authority for the use of music, but the noble Earl would not claim that he could find Biblical authority for the use of a pipe organ.
Towards the end of his speech, the noble Earl asked this question: why is this Measure essential? He suggested—and I regret that he did so—that it was desired by persons who were doing something which was unlawful, and that they hoped to be put on this right side of the law. I am sure that is not the reason why this measure is being brought forward. We are living to-day, in the nation and in the Church, in a new generation. It is a generation which demands a richer ritual in the Church. It looks to the vestments of the clergy, to the use of music, to the decoration of the church itself; all those are adjuncts to the worship of the Church. It is because the Church desires to have the benefit of these things that this measure has been brought forward. If this measure were to be rejected by your Lordships, it must, I think, inevitably arouse a further sense
46
of disappointment and of frustration among many earnest young clergymen, and laymen, too, who look upon these vestures as a means to appeal, not to appeal on doctrinal grounds, but to appeal to the love of richer ritual in a youthful generation to whom they seek to bring the message of the Church. It is for that reason that I hope your Lordships will adopt this Measure.
4.53 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I rise for a very few moments to support the Measure moved by the right reverend Prelate. In the first place, may I say how deeply moved I was by the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition and how much we respect his views, and those of my noble friend Lord Brentford? But, without being presumptuous, I have also a certain respect for my own views. It seems to me to be right that we should all worship as we like within the Christian community. I was brought up in a country church and I have been churchwarden of two other country churches where we did not wear vestments; but now I worship in a church in London where we do wear vestments for family Communion which, to my mind, is a very moving ceremony, as all the children come up to the altar and are blessed while the mothers and fathers take Communion. I have no objection whatever to the wearing of vestments, and if I had objection I should use the right of everybody who has objection to anything: I should merely go elsewhere, as I did from one church where too liberal use of incense was not to my liking. Any vicar who has the cause of his parishioners at heart will so far as possible do as they wish. If he did not, he would not have any parishioners.
Use of vestments has been going on in the Church of England for many years, although I understand in the strict sense it is illegal. It would appear to me nonsensical to throw out this Measure. Let us bring within the law what has been made generally lawful through usage, and avoid at all costs a clash at this time when we are calling for unity between the Church and State, which I believe would cause great dissension throughout the country. I hope your Lordships will support this Measure.
4.55 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise only to say a very few brief words in support of this Measure. We all honour, as many others have said before me, the manifest sincerity with which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition speaks on the question of religion, and like the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I found the passionate conviction which informed his words this afternoon deeply moving. But I hope that he and his friends will not press the matter to a Division on this occasion. For not only would a difference between Protestants on a matter of this kind be a sad business indeed, but the fears which have been expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, are really, I believe, quite groundless.
The very great majority of us here, I imagine, are just as keen to keep this country Protestant as noble Lords opposite can possibly be. But Protestantism is not such a delicate plant that it could possibly be threatened by limited proposals of this kind. For one thing, as we all know, this measure is not mandatory; it does not force anyone to do anything; it is purely permissive. Nor does it go further than definitely to legalise, if they are not already legal, things which are already the practice in half the churches of the Church of England.
The United Protestant Council, of which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, is a shining light, sent me a paper which takes credit for the fact that, for reasons of Christian charity, they have not sought to enforce the law against illegal vestments. What, however, they do seek to do, apparently, is to force at least 50 per cent. of the clergy of the Church of England to continue to break the law of the land simply because they do not see exactly eye to eye with the United Protestant League. I cannot help feeling that that is not very good morality, and that the League might profitably carry Christian charity just a little bit further and allow these clergy the liberty of conscience which the law allows themselves.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, if I understood him aright, believes that this Measure is due to the fact that the
48
Church can no longer control its members and therefore it is obliged to legalise their illegalities. With very real deference to him, I do not believe that is the reason. The real reason, I believe, goes much deeper than that. It is that the people of this country, or the great majority of them, no longer regard such things as wearing of stoles as having any fundamental significance at all. Such causes of disputation in the Church belong for most of us to a past that is long dead, and in my view happily dead. We believe a man can be just as good a servant of his Protestant faith and his country whether he wears a stole or not. It is not what he wears, but what he is that really matters to-day. We are to that extent more tolerant than we used to be.
No doubt if the wearing of this or that vestment gives offence to his parishioners, that would be a matter to which any minister must give most serious consideration. But the Measure, as we know, makes provision for that. Such a situation, which, after all, is not a very common one, is covered by subsection (1) of Clause 2, which requires a minister before changing the form of vesture in use to ascertain from the parochial church council whether it would be acceptable to his parishioners. Surely most of us would regard that as sufficient safeguard against abuse.
We live in a time and age when the whole basis of Christianity has been threatened as probably not for many centuries past. This, I submit with great deference, is a time to concern ourselves not with matters of this kind, but with the fundamentals of the Christian religion and the teaching of Christ. This is surely not a time for good Christians to quibble and squabble over matters so comparatively minor as this. For these reasons, while I am sure that no one in this House would in the least criticise the noble Earl and his friends for raising a matter which they regard as so important, I hope, if it is not disrespectful to him to say so, that he will not give way to the temptation to see the Pope of Rome behind every bush—certainly he is not behind this one—but will allow the passage into law of this most moderate Measure which has already received the support of all three Houses of the national Assembly of the Church of England, and now comes to this House for our approval.
5.2 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have only a few words to add to this long debate. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, put to me personally a direct question: he asked whether I am a Protestant. He will have an absolutely plain answer. I am a Protestant, precisely in the way in which the Prayer Book and the Anglican formularies use that term; and when I say that in the sense of our formularies I am a Protestant, I say it without any qualification whatever. I am always, for the purposes of Christian teaching, anxious to add also that with our Anglican formularies, I believe in what those formularies call the Holy Catholic Church, and I believe in that precisely in the sense in which our formularies do, again with no qualification at all.
Let me put the matter in terms of the personal experience of an Anglican clergyman, one who, though now an Archbishop, was for many years previously an ordinary clergyman. Throughout my time as a clergyman I have noticed a greatly growing feeling amongst clergy and laity that matters of clerical vesture are really small matters. My own personal practice is to adapt myself to the vesture used in various parishes. In some churches it is no more than a black scarf, and throughout my ministry I, like many clergymen, have varied the uses I have employed out of concern for the feelings and consciences of congregations and of lay people.
If I may say just a word more about my own practice, I served as a curate in a parish where the vestments were worn. I served in a second parish as a curate where the vestments were worn. I served as a vicar in a parish where the vestments were worn. I served for a good many years on the staff of a cathedral church where there was variety of usage: at some services the vestments were worn, and at others they were not. I want wholly and entirely to repudiate any allegation that in this practice which I have described I have been teaching or encouraging doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England; and I believe that what I can say of myself is true of thousands upon thousands of our clergy. I repudiate the suggestion as being either scandalous or silly—and perhaps the latter
50
adjective is the more charitable of the two.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, cited instances of clergy and one Bishop who said that they attached doctrinal significance to the vesture. I would say that for some of us the vesture has no doctrinal significance, but, when used, has a certain religious value which some people feel, though others do not. Let me explain what I mean. I would say that when I value them—and I do; and other clergy, also, value them—it is for two reasons. The first is that the vestments are a symbol of the continuity of the Christian Church all down the ages, going back to primitive times. For that reason there are Lutheran Churches which use these vestments and value them. Some of the Lutheran Churches, through their desire to emphasise continuity, retained more of the ornaments of the Middle Ages, including the vestments, but were not for that reason one whit less reformed in their position than other Protestant Churches there. I have seen Methodist ministers wearing stoles, without any surprise or alarm to them or to myself.
A second reason why I believe that vestments are valued is that there is something in colour and colourfulness. To some people changes of colour—for example, the sombre purple in the sombre seasons of Lent and Advent; white at great Festivals such as Christmas and Easter; or red on the days of martyrs—are not a matter of doctrine but something of half-conscious religious significance. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred to instances of clergy and a particular Bishop who said that the vesture had doctrinal significance. The point is that if they said that, this Measure is emphatically against them; and if they say that in future they will not be able to quote the law of the Church of England concerning vesture on their side. That seems to me to be a fact of great significance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, also referred to stoles; and he was anxious lest the passing of this Measure should lead to certain ordination candidates who were troubled in conscience about stoles being compelled by the Bishop to wear them at their ordination. I can only say that from my knowledge of the Bench of Bishops, which is

51
considerable, I think it is inconceivable that any of the Bishops would press an ordination candidate, contrary to his conscience, to wear a stole at his ordination. I believe it to be inconceivable. I can say no more than that. Because the purpose of this Measure is toleration, when it is passed I believe that Bishops and clergy and laity will be all the more anxious to put into practice the toleration which it enacts not only in the law but in the spirit as well; and that will be a tremendous gain for our Church.
The noble Earl opposite made a highly controversial speech, but I want to acknowledge some kindly things he said about some of us on the Bench of Bishops, and particularly his most kindly reference to our mutual friend, the Lord Bishop of Chester. With one passage in the noble Earl's speech I am utterly in agreement; that our great concern must be about the state of religion in the country. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had similar thoughts in his mind when he urged us to give our attention to the things which really matter.
To the noble Earl and to the House, I would say this. The ardent desire of the Church of England is not to spend its time on relatively unimportant matters of controversy, but to devote its energies to the spiritual task of the presentation of the Christian religion in this country with power and with human understanding. In order, however, to fulfil its rôle in that process the Church of England needs to set its own house in order in the matter of order and discipline, in the matter of the reform of its worship, and in the matter of bringing a host of obsolete laws up to date. That process is one process, inevitably complicated, and it is just, constitutionally necessary, and cannot be avoided. The Church Measures come to Parliament not all at once but in a series at different periods of time.
I want to repudiate and deny, from my heart and my conscience, that behind our Church legislation there is some kind of subtle plot to assimilate the Church of England into some other Church in Christendom. That is not the intention; that is not true. It is, again, either scandalous or silly. When there comes to Parliament the Measure concerning the revision of the Prayer Book, which was
52
passed in the Church Assembly last week by an overwhelming majority, it will be seen that it is an extraordinarily modest Measure enabling certain alternative services to those of the Prayer Book to be enacted with authority for limited terms of years, but so hedged about with conditions that even if the intentions were revolutionary and subversive nothing revolutionary and subversive would be likely to happen.
No, my Lords, the position, as I see it, is this. This Measure is in a way an extraordinarily small one. It deals with a matter on which there is far less controversy and far more toleration now than there used to be in the past. So far as the Church of England is concerned, it is not a matter of securing toleration; I believe that in over nine-tenths of our Church we really have it on this matter. Rather is it a matter of getting embodied in the law a state of toleration that already exists and is growing. That, in effect, is what the Church is saying to Parliament, and it would be rather heart-breaking if the answer of Parliament was, "No, we want you to go on with this controversy about yourselves and impede your attention in relation to matters of greater importance".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, before the most reverend Primate and Metropolitan finishes, may I say that I did not seem to get an answer to my question. I think he mistook me. I asked the question as to whether, as Lord Fisher had said to me, there were 100 qualifications to the declaration to be made by Her Majesty as the head of the Church. Lord Fisher said that he could not then tell us what the qualifications were. Could the Church now tell us?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, if we started with the definition of "Protestantism" understood by the National Union of Protestants, I dare say I should want to make a couple of hundred qualifications; but if we start with the definition of "Protestant" as embodied in the Book of Common Prayer and the whole of that Book of Common Prayer, I want to make no qualifications at all.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the most reverend Primate will not mind

53
my listening to what he said with great thought, and I shall read it very carefully, especially the appeal which he made to us. But I do not hold this view on spiritual controversy. I have never forgotten Galatians, chapter II, verse 11:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
That is very spiritual. That does not mean to say we should refuse to respect those with whom we disagree.
5.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, very few words are required from me after the very serious and responsible debate which we have had. I would add my own appreciation of what has been said already of the earnestness with which the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, put forward his own point of view. We appreciate the sincerity of his objections very much indeed, even if we do not share them altogether. I would go with him a long way in his interpretation of certain passages of the Epistles to the Hebrews;
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
we would not quarrel on those; but perhaps it is not the time of the evening when we should start exchanging scriptural quotations, for we could go on a long time. If it is any consolation to the noble Earl, I, too, am a Protestant in the sense that the most reverend Primate has described him.
The issues have been made clear. The speakers have, in a sense, answered some of the difficulties which have been expressed. We believe, from the side of the Church Assembly, that this is a Measure which will contribute to the work of the Church, to its ultimate unity, to its efficiency, in charity and in love, in expressing the tolerance, as the most reverend Primate has said, which already exists within the Church, and we hope that this will be endorsed by your Lordships on this occasion.
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 86; Not-contents, 15.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Monsell, V.

Alport, L.

Galloway, E.

Morrison, L.

Amulree, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L.

Attlee, E.

Grantchester, L.

Ormonde, M.

Bossom, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Boston, L.

Guest, L.

Rea, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Brocket, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burden, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hodson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Horsbrugh, B.

Sandford, L.

Carnock, L.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Ingleby, V.

Sandwich, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Inglewood, L.

Silkin, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Lambert, V.

Simonds, V.

Chichester, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Sinha, L.

Colyton, L.

Leicester, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Listowel, E.

Soulbury, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

London, L. Bp.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Coutanche, L.

Longford, E.

Spens, L.

Cowley, E.

Luke, L.

Stonham, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Swanborough, B.

Derwent, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tangley, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ferrers, E.

Meston, L.

Twining, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

Moynihan, L.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Hobson, L.

Shannon, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lawson, L.

Stamp, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOUSING BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

MALICIOUS DAMAGE BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I announced the Government's intention to introduce this Bill when, on June 4, I repeated a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had made in another place about the hooliganism at seaside resorts during the Whitsun holiday. Although the Bill itself has a very limited purpose, it has therefore to be seen in the context of that very wide and serious problem.
There are two things about the recent hooliganism about which I think everybody is agreed. The first is that it is quite intolerable that our seaside resorts, or any other places, should suffer invasions such as occurred at Clacton, Brighton and Margate, and that public holidays should be spoilt for the great majority by the antics of the comparative few. The second is that these outbreaks raise fundamental questions about the upbringing and social attitudes of some of our young people, and that the remedy to this behaviour cannot be found merely by prosecuting offences, by stiffening penalties or making other alterations of the law. There is no doubt that, in the long run, our energies must concentrate upon reaching a deeper understanding of the causes of delinquent behaviour, so that we are better able to remove them or to mitigate their effects. The present Bill, however, does not set out to do more than widen and strengthen the powers of the courts in one limited but important respect in which the Government have seen a need for immediate action.
As the law stands, an offender who commits malicious damage may be dealt with under one of two statutes: the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, or the
56
Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. The 1861 Act creates a number of offences and penalties, of which the most relevant for present purposes is Section 51, under which a person committing malicious damage to property which exceeds £5 in value is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for up to two years if the offence was committed by day, and up to five years if it was committed by night. Those are already very severe penalties, and this Bill does not seek to alter them.
The offence under Section 51 may be tried summarily with the consent of the accused, but specific provision for summary trial is made by Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, and it is that section which this Bill seeks to amend. As the section now stands, a magistrates' court may deal under it with any case of malicious damage in which the amount of the damage does not, in the opinion of the court, exceed £20. If the court convicts the offender, it has power, if the damage exceeded £5, to imprison him for up to three months and to fine him up to £20; and, if the damage was £5 or less, to imprison him for up to two months or fine him up to £5. The court has the additional power to order the offender to pay compensation to the aggrieved party, but, as it can deal only with cases in which the damage does not exceed £20, it follows that the compensation cannot exceed £20. This £20 limit, my Lords, is clearly now out-dated by the fall in the value of money since 1914, and it is equally clear that the power to order payment of compensation is a salutary one in its application to "Mods" and "Rockers", although, of course, it does not apply only to them.
I can think of no better way than hitting at their pockets, to make these hooligans see sense. The Bill proposes, therefore, first, to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts under Section 14 to cases where the damage does not exceed £100; secondly—a consequence which flows from that extension of jurisdiction—to increase to £100 the amount of compensation that may be ordered; and, thirdly, to increase from £20 to £100 the maximum fine which can be imposed. These changes, the need for which has been represented to my right honourable friend by a number of the resorts which have suffered, or fear, disturbance by

57
hooligans, will, I believe, add a very useful weapon to the armoury of the courts in dealing with any further outbreaks, and it is the Government's intention that the Bill, if approved, shall come into effect as soon as it receives the Royal Assent, so that its powers may be available before the August Bank Holiday.
Finally, my Lords, a word about the new proposed compensation limit of £100. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough (who is not in his place at the moment), suggested, when I announced on June 4 the intention to introduce the Bill, that even that limit was too low, and that a gang of youths collectively may do damage much exceeding £100. That, of course, is perfectly true; and the noble Earl thought—and I quote him [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 258 (No. 78) col. 602]:
"it should be possible for them all to be mulcted and made responsible for providing the total cost of the damage caused".
On that, I should like to make two points. First, we are concerned here with cases to be dealt with summarily, and some limit must be imposed on the gravity of the cases which can be dealt with in that way, rather than by a jury. I think that the £100 limit is about right, and that it will, in practice, catch the great majority of hooligan offenders—that is to say, the youths who smash shop windows and deckchairs, and do damage of that kind.
Secondly, I cannot at the moment see how it would be practicable, if that was what the noble Earl was suggesting, to impose on a group of youths collectively an obligation to pay compensation. For the compensation to be enforceable—and it is enforceable in the same way as a fine—it would have to be clear what the precise obligation of each youth was. The noble Earl would not, I imagine, suggest that that obligation should be fixed arbitrarily, without regard to the precise part played by the individual: it would have to be related to evidence of malicious damage committed by him which had led to a conviction. But if there were such evidence, and the damage for which he was responsible was less than £100, he would, in any event, be within the terms of this Bill.
Finally, I should like to mention a further point, not directly connected
58
with the purposes of the Bill as it stands, which has arisen on Section 14(1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, and on which the Government have it in mind to bring forward an Amendment in Committee. If noble Lords will look at the subsection (it is reproduced, with the Amendments proposed by the Bill, in the Schedule on the back page of the Bill) they will see that there are alternative sets of penalties, according to whether or not the damage exceeded £5; and then the subsection goes on to say that "in either case" the offender is liable to pay "such further amount" of compensation as the court thinks reasonable. Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have learnt that the word "further" has led some courts to feel uncertain about their precise powers under the subsection. On one view, the word "further" simply makes it clear that, if a fine has been imposed, there may be a payment of compensation in addition; it does not in any way prevent the court from ordering payment of compensation in addition to imprisonment. This interpretation is supported by as good an authority as Stone's Justices' Manual.
On another view, however, the effect of the reference to a "further" amount is that the provision for payment of compensation bites only if an "amount" in the form of a fine has already been paid, so that compensation cannot accompany imprisonment. My advice is that the point cannot be regarded as free from doubt, and clearly it ought to be clarified. Equally clearly, I think, the courts ought, in appropriate cases, to be able to make an offender pay compensation, as well as imprisoning him, although they must of course take into account that the effect of imprisonment may be to reduce the offender's capacity to pay. The Government therefore propose to bring forward an Amendment in Committee—I am giving notice of it now, and I think it need be no more than the deletion of the word "further"—to make the position clear. With the exception of that small Amendment, I believe that the Bill, which has been generally welcomed, is right as it stands. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
5.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, having regard to the very clear explanation of the terms of the Bill by the noble Lord, I do not think it necessary for me on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House to say very much. I think this Bill can be justified simply on the grounds of inflation since 1914. It so happens that the value of money has decreased by 500 per cent. since 1914. I think that is roughly the figure. Therefore, what was £20 in 1914 would to-day be £100. The noble Lord was not content with that and seemed to feel that this Bill had to be justified on the score of hooliganism. I would hate to think that this was being introduced as a more or less panic measure. I agree that we must deal with hooliganism if it arises, and that we must be more prepared to deal with it. I assume that it is believed that if the penalties are increased this may act as a deterrent. Well, we shall see; but I myself would rather have justified it on the score of the change in the value of money than on particular incidents that have happened in the last few months and which one hopes are quite exceptional.
The noble Lord referred to the question of the causes of delinquency, the causes why hooliganism arises. I hope that we shall have a very useful discussion on Wednesday on this. It is material to our discussion then. One of our difficulties, as will be emphasised on Wednesday, is that the information we have is so (shall I put it?) unreliable; that the figures do not really give us the information we need. They can lead to the superficial conclusion that there is an increase of crime; on the other hand, it would not be difficult to establish that really there was no increase of crime, except among certain sections of the community. I hope that we shall have a good deal to say on this question of getting more reliable information when the time comes on Wednesday.
My Lords, there is one other thing which if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth were here I am sure he also would want to say. I feel as he does about it. It is no use laying down penalties in an Act of Parliament unless they are enforced. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, feels particularly about traffic offences. He feels that although the penalties for traffic
60
offences have been greatly increased the magistrates have been very slow to take advantage of these increased penalties. I think if we are going to increase penalties we should ensure that the magistrates realise that they must take a different view of the offences from that taken in the past; although that is really begging the question of deterrents, which I hope we shall discuss on Wednesday.
The noble Lord opposite rather assumed that increasing the fine will have the effect of reducing the amount of malicious damage. I am not sure. I am not disputing it, but I should not like to be certain on the subject. But the one thing that is certain is that if we are going to "put our money", so to speak, on deterrents by increasing the penalties, we ought to be certain that they will in fact be imposed if the occasion arises. I therefore hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend will ensure that that is made abundantly clear to the magistrates when this Bill is passed.
5.44 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to say only a word or two about this Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the power of magistrates to award compensation was a salutary power. I am sure it is, not only because the owners of private property which is damaged certainly deserve to be compensated; but also because I think that making a young hooligan pay compensation makes him look foolish in the eyes of his companions—more foolish than in the case of a mere fine. I would say that the sooner young hooligans are made to look foolish in the eyes of their companions, the sooner will they grow out of hooliganism.
I understand that some benches of magistrates use their power to award compensation more than others do. I do not know why there is not complete uniformity in this matter; but it occurs to me that some benches of magistrates may possibly take the view that if, for instance, a small shopkeeper has his window broken that is obviously a case for compensation if the hooligan can afford it; but, on the other hand, if it is Harrods and they are insured, there is not much point in awarding compensation. I should have thought that there was. I

61
should have thought that a hooligan would look sillier still in the eyes of his companions if he were made to compensate Harrods. I wonder therefore whether the occasion might not be taken when this Bill comes into law for the Home Secretary to circularise benches of magistrates encouraging them to award compensation in almost all cases, and encouraging them to achieve uniformity in this matter. For I should have thought that this was a matter on which benches of magistrates could achieve uniformity.
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in rising to support this Bill I should also like to draw attention to the great stride this Bill makes, inasmuch as the wrongdoer is going to have to pay for the damage he does. I think that is a very important point in the evolution of the law as regards crime. I have had a certain amount of experience of boys' clubs. I have for several years been on the executive of the Kent County branch of the National Association of Boys' Clubs. I am, in fact, the Treasurer of that organisation as regards the county of Kent. While I welcome this Bill most heartily, how much more satisfactory would it be if we could eradicate the causes of this hooliganism out of our society. This Bill is a deterrent; but whether it is going to prove to be a sufficient deterrent, only time can tell. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just spoken about making these young people feel foolish. I personally think, though I agree it is unfashionable, that if you were to give them a mild caning it would make them feel even more foolish. I am going by my personal experience; and I can assure your Lordships that it was a great deterrent to me. I am sure that quite a few of your Lordships have had this deterrent; but I agree it is unfashionable and I apologise to the Benches opposite.
The other point I should like to make is that the "tin gods" of these young people are their motor-cycles; and if we take away their licences, or even their motor-cycles, for three months or for a certain period, that would be a great deterrent. We have a duty to the public here, and if this Bill does not prove a sufficient deterrent we must have a greater deterrent. Finally, I should like to say a word about the parents.
62
There has been a great deal of criticism of the parents. It has been said that they are to blame. I think it is unfair to blame parents, because a great many of these young people have far more cash than their parents. It was easy for parents to control young people before the war, because they could always control the purse strings, but it is quite impossible for parents to do so to-day.
We have to do all we can to eradicate the causes of this hooliganism and one of the things I should like the Government to do is to provide more money for bona fide clubs, particularly boys clubs, to help young people. We are asking a tremendous amount of young people to-day. They go straight from school to a job, where they earn these enormous wages, and they have tremendous temptations put before them, with the television and films glamourising crime and every form of bestiality. If the Government and local authorities would spend more money on the promotion of clubs, I think that this would go a long way to eradicating the problem. I heartily support the Bill.
5.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have given a general welcome to this Bill. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we have heard from various sources that our present powers are inadequate to deal, not only with "Mods" and "Rockers", but with the others, as well. A Bill of this sort would have had to be brought in at some time and it is being brought forward now because this is an immediate problem.
I have noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It is not the Home Secretary's job to circularise magistrates and tell them what penalties they should impose. We cannot expect uniformity in sentences until we get uniformity in crimes. Every single person who comes before a court differs in the degree of his offence and in the circumstances of it, and it must really be left to the magistrates. I think that uniformity would be a very unfortunate thing. I am afraid that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard were outside the terms of the Bill. They would be more appropriate next Wednesday, and perhaps we shall

63
hear from my noble friend then. Again, I would thank noble Lords for welcoming the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL
5.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this Bill deals with the obnoxious but limited nuisance arising from the operation of "clip-joints" or, as they are sometimes known, "near-beer" establishments. There are at present about 40 of these places in London, and the number has been increasing in recent years. It is not surprising, when one studies their method of operation, and the fantastic profits which must be made, that they have been on the increase. Your Lordships may recall that this question was last discussed during the passage of the London Government Act in May and July last year. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe undertook at that time to give further thought to the problem of controlling "clip-joints" and this Bill is the outcome. We believe that it is clearly better to legislate about this matter now, rather than allow the nuisance to grow to even more alarming proportions.
There are three fundamental reasons why legislation is necessary. The first is that these "clip-joints" operate on a basis of barefaced fraud, and yet that fraud does not, by itself, fall to be proceeded against under our criminal law. The second reason is that there is clear evidence of the harm done to the tourist trade. Admittedly it is only a small section of the tourist trade, but the harm is nevertheless there. One remembers, for example, the case—by no means an uncommon one—in which three foreign visitors were fleeced of £27 after spending little more than a quarter of an hour in one of these places and having consumed nothing but a few nonalcoholic fruit juices.
The third reason, and one to which I personally attach a great deal of importance, is that a disproportionate amount of police time and man-power is
64
taken up in dealing with these establishments and the complaints to which their method of operation gives rise.
I will not take up the time of the House with a detailed description of how these "clip-joints" operate. There has been a great deal of publicity in the Press in recent weeks, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, knows. No doubt he and other noble Lords will have made themselves conversant with how these places operate. The nuisance may be said to exhibit itself in two ways, and the Bill is designed to deal with each of them. The first nuisance is touting or soliciting in the doorway by girls who promise, or imply, various pleasures, which neither they nor the establishment have any intention of providing. This is the bait which lures the visitor in. The second nuisance is the fantastic overcharging for soft drinks. The speed of consumption of these drinks is entirely out of the control of the visitor, the hostess being remunerated on the number which she can force the consumer to take. There may also be charges for admission, for the table and for the so-called conversation which the hostess provides.
Clause 1 of the Bill, particularly subsections (1), (2) and (4) are designed to prevent the nuisances which I have just described. I should draw your Lordships' attention specifically to the wording of the latter part of subsection (3) of Clause 1 which reads:
"…a licensing authority may impose such a condition in any case where it appears to them desirable in order to ensure that persons frequenting the refreshment house are not misled as to the nature or cost of the entertainment provided".
The intention behind this provision is to ensure that the stringent conditions mentioned in the rest of Clause 1 are applied only to those premises where the nuisance is taking place. There is no intention whatsoever of disturbing in any way the well-conducted café, restaurant or corner house which remains open after 10 p.m.
There are two other provisions in the Bill to which I should refer. The first is the requirement in Clause 2 for the holder of a licence to notify any changes in his address. At present the holder's address has to be notified when the licence is applied for; but should the address change during the currency of

65
the licence, the licensing authority and the police would not be aware of the change. This provision applies to all refreshment houses, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is a reasonable provision to ensure that there is a check on the whereabouts of licensees. The second provision is the increase in penalties, contained in Cause 3, which for the first time introduces imprisonment as an alternative or as an addition to a fine. These penalties are identical with those which the House considered appropriate to deal with unlicensed music and dancing premises under Schedule 12 to the London Government Act, 1963.
There is one general point which may be made about the Bill. It is a Bill within the framework of the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, the only extant provisions of which require a place which is not licensed to sell intoxicating liquor, but which is nevertheless kept open for public refreshment, resort and entertainment any time between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., to take out an Excise licence, issued by the county or county borough council. On April 1, 1965, in the Greater London area the licensing authorities will be the new London borough councils. The licensing authority has at present no power to attach any conditions to the licence. The Bill enables the authority, in the few special cases I have referred to, to attach conditions regarding touting and overcharging. It is my honest belief that the Bill will in this way curb and prevent the nuisances created and the harm done by the "clip-joint". At present this nuisance is confined to London but, should it spread to the provinces, the local authorities there will have powers under this Bill to deal with it.
It may be argued that the Bill does not go far enough in dealing with other nuisances which may stem from the operation of cafés at night. This may or may not be so, but in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it goes as far as we can reasonably go within the concepts laid down in the 1860 Act. There may well be planning and other considerations which might be taken into account in this problem of other nuisances in all-night cafés, but the House will no doubt agree that this is not a
66
matter for Excise licence legislation of this nature.
The House is indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Shepherd (I am sorry that neither noble Lord is in his place when I say this), for the support which they expressed during the passage of the London Government Bill last year for measures to deal with this type of nuisance; and I am confident that the same measure of support will now be forthcoming from the House as a whole. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
6.2 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we have been diverted during the last few weeks by a description of the Home Secretary's adventures in Soho. It appears that it was following one of these excursions that he decided to introduce this Bill, although, according to his speech on Second Reading, his own investigations were not very fruitful, because he decided, if I remember rightly, that he had gone there too early. He quoted a case of three foreigners who were grossly overcharged in a so-called refreshment house. I have always held the opinion—and I hope for the support of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack in this—that hard cases make bad laws. I can understand an elderly foreigner expressing annoyance to the police because, after paying for drink, he has been denied full knowledge of a young woman. Things are probably arranged differently in his country. Those of us who have travelled will know that in certain foreign countries very often in the corner of cafés are certain women and it is accepted that they are for hire at some time.
That may be so in other countries. But I do not believe that a tired businessman from, let me say, Todwhistle is hoodwinked. He does not come down to London to risk contracting venereal disease. But he wants to see life for an hour or so as it is portrayed on his television. He wants to be wanted and to have an exotic young woman assure him that his mirror lies. He does not go to the police, but on his next visit, we are told, goes back for more. Indeed, I read the Home Secretary's speech very carefully, and

67
he said he was surprised to find how many of these men went back for more. They pay for the atmosphere. Just as they pay a large sum of money to go, let us say, to the Savoy Grill after a show, whereas they might go to Lyons', so here they pay for the atmosphere. Your businessman from Todwhistle pays for the atmosphere, and the Home Secretary is surprised that he goes back for more. It is remarkable that this Government introduced legislation to prevent a prostitute from plying for hire on the streets, and now they are protesting that these girls are responsible for a fraudulent prospectus. Should we legislate to protect a man who complains that a prostitute has refused to have sexual relations with him, whatever the prepayment has been?
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, very carefully, and he talked about the fraud that was perpetrated, or words to that effect, on these men. I would again remind the House that we are not dealing with children, but with mature men. We are told that the man's resistance is undermined by the tout outside. So Clause 1(2) makes it unlawful to obtain custom
"by means of personal solicitation outside",
which means touting. I think the noble Lord on the Committee stage will have to define "solicitation". If somebody leans out of the window and encourages someone to come in, is that touting? If somebody is standing in the doorway, is that touting? If somebody is standing along the pavement somewhere near one of these places, is that touting? We shall want answers to all these questions. How the noble Lord can say this will help the police, I do not know. I will prove in a moment that, far from helping the police, they will have more and more work in order to administer the law. If there is an obvious tout somewhere along the pavement (this is another question which we shall want answered) and the policeman goes up to him and says: "You are not supposed to do this", can he demand to know from the tout who his employer is? This I believe is of the utmost importance.
Now that the Home Secretary has embarked on this life of dissipation, why does he not go in broad daylight one
68
morning to Soho to see the male touts outside the strip-tease establishments inviting young men to see young girls strip? Are these touts to be included? When is the Home Secretary going to legislate against this touting and these displays? Is he taking no action because there are no complaints from the customers of these establishments? These men have not complained because the girls are prepared to take off their clothes but because in the "clip joints" they refuse to do so. Therefore, the Government are taking action in response to the complaints. That is the very crux of this Bill.
Again, the noble Lord talks about "cleaning up these joints". Are girls under eighteen to be permitted to work in these places and to be denied protection? We should like an answer to that. If the noble Lord decides that some protection should be afforded to people who use these places, then let us say that the young girl under eighteen is not permitted to go in. I might remind the noble Lord of a notorious case last year in which the whole world was interested. A young girl under eighteen was found in one of these clubs, and we followed the course of her career after the individual who had been looking for somebody with her qualifications had taken her away.
It seems to me that in this Bill the Home Secretary is straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant. He has been playing around on the fringe of a vice ring for a long time, and now it is time that he took the plunge. I hold the view also—and having been in the Ministry of Food for four years I learned this very well—that if an Act is not enforceable, it brings the law into disrepute. This Bill deals with refreshment houses supplying refreshment between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. and not licensed for the sale of alcohol. May I say here to the noble Lord that I am informed that some of the places he has been talking about are open in the afternoon. Therefore, should not the times in the Bill be amended?
As the noble Lord has said, the refreshment house includes Lyons' and coffee stalls. It will be quite absurd to suggest that the Lyons' establishments and all the coffee stalls are going to be conducted improperly. So the Government, in framing this Bill, have quite rightly had to say: "We cannot take

69
action against them all." But apparently the power of the local authority to insist that charges shall be displayed will be restricted, by the words in Clause 1(3), to
"any case where it appears to them desirable in order to ensure that persons frequenting the refreshment house are not misled…"
What will make it desirable to take action?—one complaint, two complaints or, if there are no complaints, is a policeman to sit through the night in these places to ensure that a fool and his money are not easily parted?
I am very sorry for the police. I feel that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, many of them are going to spend valuable time enforcing it which should be used elsewhere. After this has been passed, it seems possible that if an undesirable establishment is conducted circumspectly it can have a long run before being warned. I would remind noble Lords that the tariff is not to be put up until it is considered desirable. So if there are no complaints, and the policeman sees nothing when he goes in, then it is going to have a very long run. When it is decided to take action, the proprietor is told to put the tariff outside the premises, suitably decorated no doubt. It is surely not imagination that one of these men will put up a cardboard notice with a beautiful female holding the tariff. This will invest the place with an aura of naughtiness—a sign to indicate that there are certain amenities to be offered inside.
The noble Lord will say, "But it will say outside that only lemonade will be sold there at 2s. or half-a-crown." I have never been to one of these places, but I know my Soho. These places can be in a room at the end of the passage, and not in a big establishment in Regent Street. Therefore, if there is a notice up in one of these rather suspicious looking places, saying that at the end of this passage you can get lemonade for half-a-crown, am I wrong in my simple mind in thinking that people who see this notice will say, "This is very curious. Surely there is something else at the end of the passage"? I say that the noble Lord, by telling these people to put up the tariff, is indeed telling them to put up a sign which will attract all kinds of people. If I may use the inelegant
70
word "suckers", the "suckers" will be handled expertly. Of course, people who are very simple and go down the passage and only ask for lemonade will soon be shown the door—politely, but nevertheless they will be thrown out. But the others, the "suckers", will be handled expertly. The ladies inside will extract lavish tips and make lasting and profitable contacts.
Then what happens? What happens if a customer asks for a tomato juice, and it is not on the tariff? This, apparently, will be an offence and there may be a conviction. Is the proprietor to be struck off for that? If the noble Lord examines what I have said, he will find that it is far from being irresponsible. These things can happen if legislation of this kind, without very careful amendment, is put on the Statute Book. We would all wholeheartedly approve this Bill if it did anything to clean up the life of the Metropolis. But does it? Or does it simply encourage the sharp-witted rascal to outwit the authorities, at a colossal cost in policemen's time? That is what I suspect. The Home Secretary has been guilty of repeated blunders, but I do not think he is going to redeem himself by introducing a Bill to protect lascivious morons.
6.15 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, when we discussed the Young Persons Employment Bill on Thursday, I said that I could not give it a warm welcome but would give it a mild and rather cool, "Hello!". I feel rather the same way about this Bill. I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said, although I cannot follow her into the realms where she said that people come to London to find life as they see it on television—I think she must have been watching the wrong television programme. But I agree with her that it is, in fact, a tiny and minor Bill: it may do a little good, but it will not, I think, substantially alter the situation in London.
An appropriate sub-title for this Bill might well be, "Henry's Night Out", because it seems to emerge from Henry's escapades in the Metropolis. It seems that, after his labours on the Police Bill—a magnificent Bill—in need of some spiritual succour and refreshment, he went out and has now come forward with this particular Bill and one or two

71
others. All of which lead me to the reflection that, "After the Lord's Mayor Show comes the dustcart." To me this is taking a flyswat to deal with a nest of rattlesnakes. It really is a tiny little Bill.
I also have been out "on the town" once or twice and frankly I am rather shocked at the defeatism in this Bill, at the attitude that we can do so little to handle this problem. We are, in effect, saying that here are crooks, criminals, pimps, ponces and prostitutes, operating in London in night clubs, robbing people under false pretences; and all we can do is to ask them to put up a little bit of card, and put one or two other restrictions upon them. But we can do very little else, and they can carry on any business.
To get some measure of what this problem is like, I should like to describe for the benefit of your Lordships a visit to a night club called the "Discothéque".
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are not talking about clubs.
LORD WILLS: Night clubs.
LORD DERWENT: We are not talking about clubs of any kind.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Refreshment houses.
LORD WILLIS: This particular refreshment house, if I may call it that, is described as the "Discotheque". May I describe a visit to the "Discothéque"? First of all, outside on the pavement there are a number of hefty, well-built young men, who jostle you and tell you that you cannot get in there; that you should not go in there, and various other things. There are also other people trying to invite you inside. Eventually, after a suitable bribe you enter, and you descend into what I can only describe as something like Dante's Inferno. There is a broken juke box which plays off-key, with a couple of "toughs" standing on each side of it, who give it kicks from time to time so that it keeps playing. Then you get down into this particular cellar, and in the dim light you can discern one or two couples sitting around doing nothing but a little harmless "necking". After a while your eyes become accustomed to the gloom, and you see further up the
72
end of the room another cellar-like place that leads off the first. This is where the really serious note of what I am going to say begins, because I have never seen anything like this.
Further up the room there were boys and girls lying on the floor in a state of absolute—well, the only thing I can think of is that they were doped. It was not exhaustion, in what your Lordships would regard as the normal sense of the word. It was simply as if they had been doped, so that if you bent and lifted a hand it would drop. Here, spread out on the dirty floor among cigarette ends, were twenty or thirty couples lying like that in this particular club, and all the time this strange, fantastic juke box playing. I am aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, that this is a club. But is it not rather scandalous that we can have a measure which goes a tiny way to deal with these so-called refreshment houses, yet the kind of place that I have just described can still continue in operation? And, of course, there are many more like it, run by these criminals.
To return to the refreshment houses, we are saying that "clip-joints" of this nature exist in London in increasing numbers—the earlier estimate was that there were 30 or 40. We are saying that they are run solely for the purpose of fleecing customers; that soft drinks are passed off as alcohol and are charged at fantastic prices; that customers are being lured into these places by false promises; and that many of these places are a cloak for prostitution, are near-brothels, and so on. Yet, if these charges are put on one side of the balance sheet and the measures proposed to stop them on the other, this Bill really looks very feeble. It is, as I said earlier, a case of extraordinary defeatism. Is not this carrying the defence of private enterprise just a little too far? Could we not, instead of this tiny little Bill, have a savage and all-out attack on these places so that we can really close them down?
My Lords, when you demand that they show their price list, have you any conception of what these villains who run these places can do in order to get round this sort of thing? Have noble Lords never heard of the idea of keeping false books, or of the idea

73
of giving phoney bills? And who will bother to read these cards showing the prices of the various refreshments outside the places? Very few people. In fact, I think that that particular requirement will hardly stop the operation of these clubs at all. As far as enticement of customers is concerned, I think that what is proposed is a welcome move; but here again I believe that these villains, as I have called them, will find other ways round this particular provision. Vice, of course, is never at a loss to advertise itself.
The measures proposed in this Bill will make it slightly more difficult for these places to operate, but only slightly. I want to know whether it really is impossible for us to go further. My noble friend Lady Summerskill and my honourable friend in the other place, Miss Alice Bacon, raised the question: why protect stupid men? Not all the men are stupid, I must tell them. It is only later that they find they have been stupid. In any case, there is ample precedent in our laws for defending people against their own stupidity. Simple things like the 30 m.p.h. speed limit and pedestrian crossings are indications of how we protect people from their own stupidity. I think that any measure which protects people against this sort of thing is worth while, and that is why I give this Bill, as I say, a qualified welcome.
What is needed, as I said earlier, is not this kind of messing about with the problem on such a small scale, but an all-out attack, not only on these refreshment houses but on these clubs; and none of the reputable clubs and refreshment houses would object. We need more powers for the police; more powers of entry, even into clubs. We need a "black register" of club owners. We need a situation in which, when a club or refreshment house is found guilty of a breach of this kind, not only is the owner dealt with, but the use of the premises as a club or refreshment house is prohibited for a long period. One of the problems is that you close the "Black Peacock" one night and it opens as the "White Peacock" a week later. This sort of thing has to be stopped, and I think that we need strong measures in order to do that. That is all I want to say. I was hoping when I heard that some measure was going to be intro-
74
duced to deal with this problem that we should have something with "teeth", but I am afraid that this is a rather gummy and feeble Bill. However, I welcome it in those terms.
6.25 p.m.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the description of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, of a certain club called La Discothéque. His was not, of course, a visit to a "near-beer joint", and perhaps I might assist the House by describing a visit to one of those places. A "near-beer joint", a believe, is called such because they serve their customers near-beer. If you put more than a certain amount of alcohol in a drink you must have a licence. I believe the percentage is something like 2 per cent. So if you put just under 2 per cent. in the beer or refreshment you do not need to have a licence.
Men walking past certain shop doorways in Soho will be asked by young ladies whether they would like to enter a club and meet and talk to a pretty girl. I echo what the noble Baroness said, that of course these places operate from late afternoon to before 10 p.m., when this Bill has no effect whatsoever. When you go upstairs you are asked what you would like to drink, and you buy a glass of beer. This, I think, is where the Home Secretary is wrong, because you are not yourself charged an exorbitant price for a soft drink—if you call near-beer a soft drink, and in accordance with the Bill it is. You are charged 1s. 6d., and the young lady who comes up and talks to you will ask you if you would like to buy her a cocktail. The cocktail, in fact, consists of cherry water with a stick and a cherry in it. It contains no alcohol whatsoever, and the charge is 10s. How much you finally spend depends on how she enjoys the conversation with you, on how fast she "knocks back" those little cocktails and how much or how many she thinks she can get out of you. But I do not think that anybody is defrauding, because if you go into one of our major hotels you will be charged something like 12s. 6d. for a glass of champagne. Whereas the person you take into the hotel might like champagne and does not like a cherry cocktail consisting of no alcohol whatsoever, the young lady in the "near-beer joint" might not like champagne but enjoys

75
drinking cherry water. And there is no obligation to go on buying after you have paid for the first and found out how much it costs.
The only question I should like to ask my noble friend is why the Bill applies only from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.—because, as I said, these places are open during most of the day. I think that the answer I will be given is that it is hinged on the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Act, 1860, in which, of course, the hours are from 10 o'clock at night until 5 o'clock in the morning, and there might be some drafting difficulties if the hours were changed. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, we are only nibbling at this problem. We ought to go into it wholeheartedly. This Bill is intended to defeat "clip joints". On the Second Reading of the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill of 1860 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day pointed out [Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 157, col. 1302]:
"I can assure the House that the Bill has been framed in the spirit that I have described. Now, Sir, this is a Bill of very great practical importance, and one into which no considerations of Party spirit or purely political motives ought to enter. It is a measure of importance as a fiscal measure, and takes its rise immediately from a fiscal proposal…".
That is the point. Why hinge this Bill on an earlier Bill which was intended purely as a measure to raise revenue for the Government?
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I find it, as was the case with one or two earlier speakers, impossible not to welcome this Bill. I am ready to fall in with the phrase of my noble friend Lord Willis and give it a qualified welcome, and I hope that I am not departing from the views of the noble Baroness if I use that language. So far as I could make out, the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, while he did not think there was any fraud, gave it a qualified welcome for reasons not altogether clear to me. But like the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, I have done a little research on the spot and visited a number of these places; and I myself have come away with an impression that I do not think has been fully voiced in either House of Parliament, and yet I think it is really the view of the police most concerned.
76
There is something very mysterious about these places. They are still a minor evil. My information is that there are only 17 of them. I think the Home Secretary talked of 40 such places, but I believe that there are only 17 "clip-joints", though the number may be increasing. But even though it is as yet a small evil, that does not mean we ought not to stop it. What is mysterious about them (and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, will correct me if he found things different) is that the custom is very thin. I found only one of these places in which there were as many as three gentlemen; and, as the noble Baroness says, the places tend to be rather small. The police officers most concerned say they can visit them at all hours of the night, and sometimes find no one; so there is a peculiar element yet to be explored. If it were quite as simple as I have said; if there is hardly anybody there, and nothing fraudulent, it is impossible to see how these places can keep going. Yet one can find half a dozen young women waiting about; and somebody has to provide them with a living. One must, on the face of it, conclude—and I think this is the Home Secretary's conclusion—that there is fraud on a very large scale in relation to the business. Otherwise it is literally impossible to see how they keep open. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, implied, and it is rather my own feeling, that it would be very difficult to make them pay on that basis. I was told that a glass of near-beer cost 2s. 6d. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, being more enterprising in business matters, got it for 1s. 6d.
EARL COWLEY: I was only eighteen at the time. That was twenty years ago.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Did the noble Earl say that this was last week?
EARL COWLEY: That is a very nice compliment. No, I was not eighteen last week; it was about twenty years ago.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: That again is interesting. Perhaps when we come to the Committee stage we can compare "clip-joints" as they were in the noble Earl's time and as they seem to have become. When I was eighteen, which was many more years ago than in the case of the noble Earl, I had never heard of these places.

77
The other explanation which, of course, leaps to mind is that there is some kind of organised immorality going on. The noble Baroness talked about contacts. The police assure me that there is not some inner room or upper room; otherwise, they would discover it. Immorality does not take place there. The whole business is so peculiar that one is bound to think there is some other source of income, beyond what we see, which assists the place to finance these young women. However, I agree with what I think is the thought of my colleagues on this side, that it is a minor, little evil compared with the very gross evils to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has referred; and it is rather extraordinary that the Government should be coming forward to cope with these unpleasant little places in this relatively small way when there are much more ghastly haunts to be explored. I side with everything that has been said about the need for a much more savage and all-out attack on the really horrible night clubs of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Willis.
As regards this Bill, there are several points of difficulty which will need investigation in Committee. There is the question of what is "the vicinity", when we talk about touting in the vicinity. And, of course, the police are uncertain, or some of them are, whether they will have difficulties in apprehending touts who refuse to disclose their identity. There is also the very pertinent point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, as to whether we can tolerate the idea of girls under eighteen being employed in these places. My general feeling is similar to that expressed on this side. These are nasty little businesses; there is certainly some fraud, possibly more immorality than we know of; and they ought to be stamped on heavily. I hope that very soon something much more serious will be done about the whole night club racket in Soho.
6.35 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I never suggested for one moment that this was a major measure. In spite of what the noble Baroness says—and I notice that throughout her speech she posed as an expert on these establishments, and then said she had never been to one—this is a minor measure. The business carried on in "clip-joints" is fraudulent, and the police are anxious that we should
78
take action because of the additional work they are being caused. I might also say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as I shall explain in a moment, is getting a little muddled. I gave him a word of warning about clubs, but he insisted on talking about them.
LORD WILLIS: I was trying to draw attention to this simple problem: the Government are dealing with nasty little businesses, as the noble Earl has just said, while I believe that attention should be focused on this much greater evil.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Surely it is understood that on the Second Reading of a Bill noble Lords can raise the question of important omissions; therefore the noble Lord was quite in order.
LORD DERWENT: Of course it was not dealing with an omission in that sense, when we are talking about refreshment houses, for the noble Lord to deal with clubs, as I am sure he fully realises. His argument, if I understood it, is that if you have a major evil and a small one, you must not deal with the small one. I cannot accept that, and we are dealing with a small one here.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, on this small point may I say that these "near-beer joints" in fact purport to be clubs, and when you go to them they give you a tiny membership card for which they charge 5s. In fact, La Discotheque is not a club. It is also a refreshment house and does not sell alcoholic refreshment.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Earl is not quite accurate, though he may have been twenty years ago. The reason this comes under the Refreshment Houses Act is that it has not been found possible so far to define one of these "joints," or whatever you like to call them, except as a refreshment house. Parliamentary draftsmen and various lawyers have tried to find another definition, and they have so far failed to find one that will bite. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, realises, we are dealing here with places that do not sell alcohol—that come under quite different legislation—and it is for that reason we have brought the matter within the terms of the 1860 Act. The 1860 Act lays down opening hours of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. It is within that frame-work that this Bill has been drafted.

79
I have obtained a report from the police about afternoon opening—which is a point mentioned by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—which discloses that there are forty "clip-joints" of this kind at present in London. About ten open before 4 p.m. and have been doing some trade, though not very much, in the afternoon and early evening. There have been no complaints either from customers or management in respect of this afternoon trade. The great bulk of the business goes on being done not merely after 10 but later than that; namely, after the public houses and other places of entertainment have closed, when those who feel that the night is still young look about for some means of rounding off the evening's entertainment. It is just because business is at its best (I do not know what time the noble Earl, Lord Longford, went to inspect these places) from eleven o'clock or so until the early hours of the morning, that the "clip-joints" are open so late; and it is only because they are open so late that they require a refreshment house licence. I hope I have made that position clear.
The attachment in the minority of bad cases of stringent conditions to refreshment house licences has as its purpose, and will, we hope, have as its effect, that it will cease to be worth the establishment's while, because of the conditions attached to the licence, to carry on after ten o'clock. At this stage it seems hardly likely that they will remain open for business solely for what trade can be picked up in the afternoon, and so we think that they will close down altogether.
If this expectation is not fulfilled, the Bill will not have failed altogether in its purpose, since it will presumably have stopped the late-night trade and the scandals arising there from. That is when they usually occur. If places of this kind open only in the afternoon I do not see how they will pay. But if these places do remain open, then of course we shall be faced with a new problem; but I think that is unlikely to arise. So long as these places are licensed refreshment houses, and carry on their business late at night on the strength of refreshment house licences, it seems to me only sensible to deal with
80
them by way of an adaptation of refreshment house legislation. One of the essential points in this, I agree, comparatively small Bill is that we should not penalise any place that is properly run, and we think that this Bill will have the effect of differentiating between the two.
The noble Baroness raised the question of strip-tease. Again she has not been doing her "homework". That is quite a different matter. Strip-tease clubs and entertainments are a matter for the various Statutes dealing with music and dancing licences, and they have nothing to do with refreshment houses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must really interrupt. The noble Lord should know by now that on the Second Reading of a Bill one can range widely. In what both I and my noble friend have said regarding these places we have been completely in order. I am most surprised that the noble Lord should adopt this rather high and mighty manner and tell the House that anything outside this Bill ought not to be mentioned
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, one gets tired of being lectured by the noble Baroness. What I said was that she had not done her "homework". I was not complaining of her ranging widely, because it would be useless to do so. I was merely saying that she had not done her "homework" and that strip-tease is covered by music and dancing licences. That is all I said. I did not say she should not have talked about it; but she should not talk about it in connection with refreshment houses. Girls under 18, as I should have thought she might also have known, may not be employed in a refreshment house "in the reception of or attendance on persons resorting thereto", or as waitresses. Refreshment houses are not clubs. So they are all right.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord simply to ascertain this fact? Is it the case that no one under 18 may be employed in these establishments at all?
LORD DERWENT: Yes. My noble friend Lord Cowley said that the 1860 Act was a fiscal measure. It was originally, if one goes back further than

81
20 years; but latterly it has been used to deal with places that are licensed under the 1860 Act only. It is not a fiscal matter now. The Act is used now for the issuing of licences.
Then there was a question, raised, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Longford—and I know that it was raised by the noble Baroness—about touting in doorways. I am advised that the wording in Clause 1(2),
"personal solicitation outside and in the vicinity of a refreshment house,"
covers touting from a doorway. It is not necessary that the tout should be outside the premises. Almost exactly the same point arose in the case of Smith v. Hughes, in relation to Section 1 of the Street Offences Act, 1959. In that case my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said this;—he was referring to that particular Act, but I am told that the position is the same under this Bill:
"The words of Section 1(1) of the Act of 1959 are in this form"—
and then he quoted the section as follows:
"It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution."
He went on:
"Observe that it does not say there specifically that the person who is doing the soliciting must be in the street. Equally, it does not say that it is enough if the person who receives the solicitation or to whom it is addressed is in the street. For my part I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes".
He went on to say:
"Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or is standing in a doorway or on a balcony or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open, or half open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street. For my part, I am content to base my decision on that ground and that ground alone."
That is the position under the Street Offences Act, and I am advised by my legal advisers that the same thing will apply under this Bill if it becomes an Act: in other words, soliciting in that sense is covered whether it is from the doorway or just outside it. I hope that that meets the case.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure it will be an important part of our discussion on the Committee stage, but in view of the disquiet felt among some members of the police this is something we shall have to go into later.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I have just had a note to say that what I said might have been misunderstood in connection with a previous point made by the noble Earl, when he was talking about young persons. I was talking about employment between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. This would apply as, for example, in hotels, where the page boy, if he is under a certain age, may not work between those hours. When I said that young people under 18 could not be employed, I meant that they cannot be employed between those hours.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. He said dogmatically that girls under 18 were not employed in these places. They can be employed until 10 o'clock at night. They can be employed under 18, and nothing is being done about it.
LORD DERWENT: Up to 10 o'clock they can be employed in refreshment houses.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord has not done his "homework", obviously.
LORD DERWENT: I am told that what I said might have been misunderstood. Unlike the noble Baroness, in my own mind I was quite clear.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord had to be corrected.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I have answered all the points that have been raised at this stage. I only again regret that the noble Baroness does not object to fraud when it is on a minor scale.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I should like again to bring up this matter of the fiscal element of the 1860 Act. I realise, of course, that that Act has been amended many times since then; but the 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. element in it came in in 1860; and the reason why it was only from 10 o'clock to 5 o'clock the following

83
morning is because the Government did not want to tax the refreshment houses that were open before that time. That is why I am saying that the 10 to 5 element does not apply to this present Bill. Would my noble friend consider this possible Amendment at the next stage?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am afraid I have not quite got the point. It is quite correct that the 1860 Act was originally brought in for fiscal reasons, but the 10 o'clock to 5 o'clock provisions have since then been used for licensing purposes and not for fiscal purposes. That is all I meant. If the noble Earl would like to put down an Amendment on a further point, I should be willing to look at it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
6.50 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Licensing of riding establishments
1.—
(4) In determining whether to grant a licence for the keeping of a riding establishment by any person at any premises, a local authority shall in particular (but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds) have regard to the need for securing—

(a) that there will be available at all times, for horses, accommodation suitable as respects construction, size, number of occupants, lighting, ventilation, drainage, and cleanliness;

(b) that in the case of horses maintained at grass, there will be maintained for them at all times during which they are so maintained adequate pasture and shelter;

(c) that horses will be adequately supplied with suitable food, drink and (except, in the case of horses maintained at grass, so long as they are so maintained) bedding material, and will be adequately exercised and rested and (so far as necessary) visited at suitable intervals;

(d) that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread among horses of infectious or contagious diseases;

(e) that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of horses in case of fire;

84

(f) that adequate accommodation will be provided for forage, bedding, stable equipment and saddlery;

and shall specify such conditions in the licence, if granted by them, as appear to the local authority necessary or expedient in the particular case for securing all the objects specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection.
LORD DERWENTmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out "other" and insert "any". The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together? The first of these Amendments is simply a drafting Amendment to link with the second, which is the re-drafted version of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in Committee and withdrawn on the understanding that a Government Amendment would be put forward at the Report stage. The effect of the Amendment is to require a local authority, in considering an application for the grant of a licence, to have regard to the suitability and qualifications of the applicant. It is clearly undesirable that any person whose knowledge of and experience with horses is limited should be in control of a riding establishment as both horses and riders may suffer. That was Lord Silkin's point. It is appropriate therefore that an applicant's suitability and qualifications should be taken into account by the licensing authority.
It could be argued that as Clause 1(4) of the Bill, as at present worded, gives local authorities complete discretion to withhold a licence on any grounds, they could already refuse to grant a licence to any person who is in any way unsuitable to keep a riding establishment, whether on account of lack of knowledge and experience or for other reasons. But a specific reference in Clause 1 to suitability and qualifications will make it clear to licensing authorities that these factors should be taken into due account in considering every application for a licence, and this is the effect of the proposed Amendment.
The Amendment is so worded as to indicate that an applicant may be regarded as suitably qualified if his knowledge has been gained entirely by way of experience in the management of horses. On the other hand, the words "or otherwise" enable a licence to be granted to a person whose experience has been gained in some other way, for

85
example, in a course leading to a qualification in the care and management of horses. Competence with horses can also be regarded as one element of "suitability". The inclusion of "suitability" in the proposed Amendment, however, will enable a local authority to have regard not only to knowledge of horsemanship but also to the applicant's character and other attributes or failings which ought properly be taken into account. I hope that, in view of that explanation, my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept this Government Amendment, and I hope that it meets the points which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised on Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("other") and insert ("any").—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment. I would point out in regard to the word "qualified" that what one local authority might consider qualified another local authority might not. But, on the face of it, although this Amendment does not necessarily do a great deal of good, it certainly does not do any damage to the Bill. Therefore, I am quite prepared to support it.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Silkin has an engagement which takes him away from this House to-day, but he asked me to express his thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper. He would like especially to express his thanks for the courtesy with which the noble Lord has dealt with this matter in consulting him at all stages. We welcome enormously the fact that this should take place behind the Speaker's chair, as it were. It oils the wheels of this place, and I think is a very good thing. Certainly on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 my noble friend particularly wishes to express his thanks for the acceptance of the ideas which he propounded during Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("regard") insert ("to whether that person appears to them to be
86
suitable and qualified, either by experience in the management of horses or otherwise, to be the holder of such a licence and").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENTmoved, in subsection (4), after paragraph (e) to insert:
"() that horses will be maintained in a good state of health and that in the case of a horse kept for the purpose of its being let out on hire for riding or a horse kept for the purpose of its being used in providing instruction in riding, the horse will be suitable for the purpose for which in that case it is kept;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. As my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard pointed out when Lord Silkin's Amendment was discussed in Committee, an applicant for a licence may decide not to purchase any horses until he has first obtained his licence. It would be unreasonable to insist that inspection of the horses to be hired out should precede the grant of a licence since, if this were so, persons whose applications are rejected, for example, on account of unsuitability of the premises or lack of experience, would be required to incur expenditure on the acquisition of horses unnecessarily. Where horses are already in the stables at the time of the inspection, a local authority already has power to withhold the grant of the licence if the horses are unfit or unsuitable under the general discretion given to them under clause 1(4) to withhold a licence on grounds other than those specified in paragraphs (a) to (f). As pointed out in Committee in the discussion of Lord Silkin's Amendment, it would, therefore, be possible to rely on this general discretion rather than to include an additional provision in the Bill on the lines proposed by Lord Silkin.
On the other hand, however, the insertion of such a provision will serve to remind local authorities—and the veterinary surgeons carrying out the inspections on their behalf—that the health and suitability of horses in an establishment at the time of the inspection are factors which should be taken into account in considering the grant of a licence. There is another way in which the insertion of the additional paragraph proposed in the Amendment will prove

87
advantageous. Clause 1(4) enables a local authority to specify such conditions in a licence as seem necessary
"for securing all the objects specified in paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection".
If the Amendment is accepted, therefore, conditions may be included in any licence relating to the health and suitability of the horses kept for hiring out and applying to all horses acquired for this purpose during the twelve months' period of validity of the licence. In the absence of the proposed new paragraph, it would be necessary to rely entirely on the provisions of Clause 3(1) which, while making it an offence to fail to provide treatment for such horses, does not refer in any way to the suitability of the horses. In the circumstances, and notwithstanding the doubts expressed at the Committee stage, it would seem preferable, on balance, to amend the Bill in the manner proposed. I hope my noble friend will agree.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Derwent.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I shall not oppose this Amendment, but I should like to point out, in regard to the word "suitable", that a horse might be suitable for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but might not be suitable for me. It is going to be rather difficult for the local authority to judge what is a suitable horse. The suitability of a horse depends to a great degree on the man who hires it. It would be hard to enforce, but that is a matter for the Home Office and not, I am glad to say, for me.
I have been doing some research in the Library and came across a book called Oliphant's Law of Horses; I understand I am about the only person who has ever looked at it in fifty years. It has certain safeguards in the book. I shall not trouble your Lordships by quoting from it at length, but it says that if a horse or carriage be let out for hire for the purpose of performing a particular journey, the party letting warrants that the horse or carriage is fit and proper and competent for such journey. It says that on page 250, and on page 252 it also points out—and this is an interesting point, because it really covers the ground—that if a horse has been selected out of the hirer's stables it makes no difference which horse is hired, as it is supposed that all
88
the horses for hire in his stables are fit for work. Therefore, my Lords, while I do not oppose this Amendment, I think it is probably unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("(f)") and insert ("(g)").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
7.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships may think that hairdressing is the dressing of hair and a barber is someone who cuts the hair. If this Bill becomes law the Brothers Fowler can get their notebooks out, because according to Clause 16 hairdressing means the following:
"shaving, cutting, shampooing, tinting, dyeing, bleaching, waving, curling, straightening, setting, or dressing of the hair, upon the scalp or face, with or without the aid of any apparatus or appliance, preparation or substance; the hand or vibro massage of the scalp or face; and 'form of hairdressing' shall be construed accordingly to include any such operations".
"When I use a word" said Humpty Dumpty to Alice, "it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less".
Since the first introduction of hairdressing coupled with surgery, we have progressed, and to-day there are a number of very dangerous chemicals and reagents in use. I am going to quote from a little handbook which is issued by the Hairdressers' Registration Council, which describes, among other things, the effect of para-phenylene diamine. It says:
"This chemical causes a rash to erupt on the skin of a person who is allergic or susceptible to this kind of chemical, i.e., a permanent hair dye containing either para-phenylene diamine or para-phenylene toluene or any of the 'para' equivalents. The effects can be most serious. The head, in serious cases, will appear to grow larger, the eyes may become almost invisible, as well as the ears, the irritation is maddening, and the scalp and face may become moist with a serous fluid. A person developing such symptoms is in great danger."

89
Again, the handbook says of ammonium thioglycolate:
"This is the active ingredient of most cold permanent waving solutions. It is a chemical which softens the hair, thus enabling a new shape (the curl) to form before it is hardened back to its previous tensile strength by a solution yielding oxygen that is called the neutraliser.
"This chemical that: softens the hard"—
part—
"of the hair, will also soften the skin or scalp. This makes the cold wave solution a dangerous chemical, for which special knowledge is required when it is used on clients. It can produce inflammation and activate susceptible conditions. When an unskilled person employs the lotion carelessly in an excess of zeal to produce a tight curl, the skin in the area, after softening, may be torn away, or abraded, and is very open to infection."
I mention these two cases merely to indicate how important it is that hairdressing should be carried out by skilled persons. It is not so very long ago, in fact only on May 30 this year, that a hairdressing assistant called a young boy to go and fetch some soda. The boy went down, the soda was mixed and a lady lost all her hair and suffered serious burning of the scalp, because instead of getting ordinary soda the boy had got caustic soda. In fact, neither caustic nor ordinary soda should have been used on the head at all. Some might say that this Bill is not necessary, because a person has his own legal rights to fall back on, but that is after the event. This Bill is intended to prevent the happening before it happens, as the legal rights only provide redress afterwards.
In its present form the Bill is a little untidy and it will be necessary to look, for instance, at the provision in the first Schedule relating to the constitution of the Council. In this Bill's original form registration was mandatory, and now failure to secure registration is no longer a bar. There are no longer any appeals to the Privy Council and all penal provisions in the Bill have been struck out, leaving a purely voluntary organisation which will carry on the sterling pioneering work which has been done by the Hairdressers' Registration Council to promote proper standards of competency.
Having regard to the lateness of the hour, I do not propose, unless noble Lords wish it, to go through the Bill clause by clause and to give explana-
90
tions of all of them. I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, and perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Willis, had been here, even a polite "Hello!". If there are any questions that I can answer on any clauses in the Bill, I shall be glad to do so.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Cowley.)
7.8 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Earl has made the best possible presentation of this Bill to the House, but despite anything he has said I doubt very much whether the Bill should ever have troubled the House at all. When the Bill had its Second Reading in another place, it was a Bill which was intended to give effect to the aspirations of the Hairdressers' Registration Council, to turn hairdressing into a profession, with its registered members, a highly skilled body of people, admitted to the register only after a suitable training in the skills required, and closed to new entrants who had not reached a standard required by the Hairdressing Council. The noble Earl has told us that the Bill has emerged from the other place with all the mandatory clauses and attempts to ensure compulsion having been struck out.
Clause 3 in the original Bill contained these words:
"On and after the appointed day no person shall practise hairdressing unless he is registered by the Hairdressing Council as entitled to practise hairdressing."
In Committee stage on this Bill in another place that clause was struck out. Clearly, Parliament was not going to be committed to a situation in which anyone wielding a pair of scissors or a pair of clippers for gain, without having undergone a lengthy period of training and passed an examination, would have his exercise declared illegal. This was especially the case because it had refused a similar sort of "closed shop" to chiropodists, dietitians and others covered by the 1960 Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act. It was quite clear that Parliament was not likely to give to the hairdressers a mandatory power, a power to enforce compulsory registration before practising, which it had refused to those people whom I have just mentioned.
However, we have to ask ourselves: what are we left with in the Bill which

91
is now before us? It sets up a Hair-dressing Council, whose functions are to establish a register of hairdressers, decide the qualifications for registration, approve the course of training and the qualifications of instructors, supervise examinations, set up committees for investigations and discipline, and, where necessary, remove names from the register. The question that I am bound to ask here is: why is it necessary to have an Act of Parliament at all for those purposes? As I understand it, the Hair-dressers' Registration Council already holds examinations, enters those who have qualified on to a register, and presumably can take names off such a register if it wishes. A person who appears on that register can make it known that he is regarded as a suitable person to carry on the trade of hair-dressing. He does that by means of a certificate granted by the Council and displayed in his establishment.
Throughout the passage of this Bill in another place, reference was made to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, 1960. That Act, although Parliament refused to include a section barring unregistered persons from practising chiropody, et cetera, nevertheless made sense, for, after provisions setting up a council for professions supplementary to medicine, whose functions were similar to those of the council proposed by this Bill, it incorporated a section giving a registered person a legal right to the use of the title "State registered chiropodist", or whatever it might be. It also made provision for the penalties which would be incurred by persons using such a title illegally. This Bill makes no provision at all for the use of a title by people whose names appear on this register, nor for penalties against those who wrongfully claim to be registered persons under this particular Bill.
Mr. Woodhouse, the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department, said of this Bill on Third Reading in another place, at column 843 on June 26 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 697 (No. 130)]:
"The fact of having one's name inscribed on the register will be an indication of standing, but not a legal requirement of the practice of hairdressing ".
This, of course, was after Clause 3 had been struck out. He went on:
92
"We are left, therefore, with a purely voluntary organisation which will carry on the pioneering work which has been done by the Hairdressers' Registration Council to promote proper standards of competency. The functions of the new organisation, however, will be more precise than those of the present Council and will be legislatively defined, but the Council will not be able to claim a monopoly for its registered members. This might well be the best approach, but at the same time the House might well question whether it requires legislative backing."
My Lords, that is the question that I am asking here to-day: is it necessary that the Mother of Parliaments should be bothered with such a trifling Bill, which really does nothing at all?
I must emphasise that nothing I am saying here must be taken by anybody as being in any way in derogation of the profession, or trade, as I should prefer to call it, of hairdressing. Properly conducted and carried on, it is a highly skilled trade using electrical instruments and chemicals which, in unskilled hands, may be dangerous to life, and certainly to appearance, which some ladies seem to regard as being even more important than life itself. I agree entirely with what the noble Earl said about the use of chemicals. Chemicals used for this purpose can be dangerous. They can produce diseases. Stupid actions by people engaged in this trade can, of course, lead to the sort of thing he talked about—the use of caustic soda where clearly no soda at all should have been used, let alone caustic soda. My Lords, there is nothing at all in this Bill to prevent unskilled persons from using the chemicals described by the noble Earl. Any person can set up a hairdressing establishment, even after this Bill is passed, and can do these things.
There is, however, just this little trifle. If my wife goes to a hairdressing establishment for this purpose, she might, if I have told her something about this Bill, go in and say, "Are you a person registered under the Act which was passed by Parliament in the year 1964?"—that is, of course, provided this Bill goes through. But that is just about all this Bill would, in fact, do. As it is to-day, she could go to a hairdresser and say, "Are you registered by the Hair-dressers' Registration Council?" She could ask that, and she would be reasonably satisfied, if the answer were, "Yes", that that hairdresser had been

93
admitted to the register of that body only after a suitable examination and after a suitable period of training. I believe that hairdressing needs the skill and care of some of the professions that are supplementary to medicine, and if Parliament is to legislate for it it ought to be done by a very different Bill from the one we have before us to-day. The model that should have been adopted for this Bill is the Act of 1960, which I have mentioned. This Bill should never have started its life with Clause 3, with its compulsory powers, in it at all, for when that clause was deleted it left the Bill in its present futile condition.
I suppose that what we are faced with now is this. If we seek to amend the Bill substantially we shall be told that, if we do, the Bill will be lost; that the existing Hairdressers' Council would prefer a crust at this stage rather than no bread at all; and that we should let it go through in the hope that Parliament will at some later stage pass a worthwhile measure. The only reply I would make to that is that if this trifling Bill goes through now it may well delay the eventual passing of the sort of Bill I should like to see and I am sure most hairdressers in the country would like to see. However, if the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, assures me that the hair-dressers want this Bill, I will not vote against it on Second Reading. I would not vote against this Bill on Second Reading if I thought for one moment that some member of the existing Council would go to bed happier on the night this Bill received the Royal Assent, if it does receive the Royal Assent. I noticed that the noble Earl referred to the Amendments which will have to be made. He gave us some ideas of the Amendments that will be moved, and they will be so clearly of a drafting nature that there is not likely to be any difficulty when they go back to the other place. This is what I imagine he has in mind. But, if I welcome this Bill at all, it is a very doubtful welcome; and your Lordships will have gathered from me, I think, that the hairdressers of this country would be much better off without it and would be much better advised at this time to be agitating for a worthwhile Bill. Quite clearly I am not a great supporter of the Bill.
7.21 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not dissent from the views which have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Champion. I have no intention of opposing the Bill; I think this could have been a most useful one. Apart from the safety measures, women spend a lot of money on their hair nowadays. A good many women go once a week to the hair-dresser, and I think that women's hair, though it may have some rather odd styles—as indeed does some of the men's—has never perhaps looked so cared for as it does to-day.
I do not know whether this thought has struck any of your Lordships, or possibly your wives, but I do know that when I have been to my hairdresser I have asked him: "Is it really true that anybody can set up in business as a hairdresser?". I have thought of this when I have read some of the scarifying tales which make the headlines from time to time. My hairdresser has said: "Yes, it is perfectly possible." And I have thought that this state of affairs is crazy. It is quite ridiculous. It is no use taking the case to court for loss of hair; for you cannot get your hair back.
When I heard that the Hairdressers (Registration) Bill was coming up I thought that this was splendid. I con-fess my ignorance; I did not know much about it at the time. But I feel a little better now about my ignorance, for when I got home this week-end and began to look in Hansard of another place for Friday, February 28, the date when the Bill was before another place, thinking that I should find a lot of arguments presented (and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows what I am going to say now), I read merely that the Hair-dressers (Registration) Bill was read a second time. And that was all the help I got. So I put that away. Then I referred to Hansard of another place, Friday, June 26, and found that the Bill was considered as amended, and read the third time. So, my ignorance was not helped any more than it had been before. My scepticism, however, was increased, when I looked at column 842, and saw that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for

95
the Home Department had said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons) Vol. 697 (No. 130) col. 842]:
"…the Amendments made to the Bill in Committee have been so extensive as to alter its whole nature."
I did not think I was going to get very far on that.
Government support for this Bill in another place has been lukewarm, and I hope that I shall not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for whom I have a great regard, if I ask whether his reception is equally lukewarm. In another place, at column 843, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said:
"For all these reasons it is not possible for me to give an absolutely unqualified blessing to the Bill as it stands before the House to-day,"
I think my noble friend Lord Champion said that if this Bill were passed his wife would be able to go to her hair-dresser and say: "Are you registered with the Hairdressers' Registration Council?"
LORD CHAMPION: She can do it now.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: As my noble friend says, she can do it now. I have been interested in consumers for a long time, and consumers are customers, and I do not think you will get many women going to an establishment and asking the owner whether he is registered. The type of man who is not registered would in any case give her a "dusty" reception if she were to do so—of that I am sure. I have been told—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply can tell me whether this is true—that it is only within the last five years that the more dangerous reagents have come into the hands of the hair-dressers. I think it is undoubtedly true that with each year more and more of these reagents are being introduced. I should like to know that.
The other point on which I should like to have information is this. I have been told that hairdressing is registered by statutory control in many other countries, such as America, Canada and most of Western Europe. I do not know whether this is true. I should be glad to know, because I think it is a most valid point. I am sorry to give the noble
96
Earl, Lord Cowley, such poor assistance—he probably would not call it assistance at all, except that I do not intend to oppose the Bill. But what concerns me is this. Does this House really feel that a Bill of this nature is going to guard the interests of the customers?—because I am really interested in the customers; and I do not know that you are going to get anywhere unless you set compulsory standards and people have to adhere to them. I should have thought that people who work in hairdressing establishments should be assumed by all the customers that go to them to have sufficient qualifications to carry out their trade safely. I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, says about this. I share the views of my noble friend Lord Champion. I do not think this Bill is going to get us any further forward; but I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading.
7.27 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say that I am not going to answer the noble Baroness's questions and remarks, but will leave that to my noble friend Lord Cowley. As I have already said, this Bill has had a rather curious history in its passage through another place. Although there was no debate on the Second Reading, it ran into considerable opposition in its Committee stage, and to secure its passage the promoters agreed to drop every element of compulsion from the Bill. As a result, a very large number of Amendments were made. Whether the Bill in fact does anything that could not be done without legislation is, I think, doubtful; but for reasons that are perfectly understandable the sponsors of the Bill attach importance to the recognition that it affords.
If your Lordships grant this Bill a Second Reading a good deal of work will remain to be done to improve its consistency and to correct anomalies of drafting. This is a consequence of the change of purpose of the Bill and the hasty and extensive deletions necessitated by it. Apart from some tidying-up in the main body of the Bill it will be necessary, in particular, to look closely at the provisions of Schedule 1, which relate to the constitution of the Hair-dressing Council. I have no doubt that

97
your Lordships will wish to give attention at a later stage to these not unimportant points of detail so as to ensure that the principles of the Bill are correctly and clearly expressed. If my noble friend wishes for some assistance in drafting the appropriate Amendments, they will be done by Parliamentary draftsmen.
7.28 p.m.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their helpfulness and for what they have said in this debate, and also my noble friend Lord Derwent for the suggestion that he will assist in drafting the Amendments that will be needed. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I would point out that this is a greatly reduced Bill. All the "sting" has been taken out of it; but it is supported, even in this reduced form, by the majority of the hairdressers' organisations, including the Hairdressers' Registration Council. It will give their work some measure of recognition if this Bill is passed; and it will mean that a hairdresser will be able to say he is registered under the Hairdressers (Registration) Act, 1964.
The noble Baroness wanted to know about reagents and dangerous chemicals. They have been used for some years—longer than five, and probably fifteen. In answer to the second question, about registration in other countries, registration of hairdressers is compulsory in all the European countries, and in some States of the U.S.A. But I understand that in the case of the United States they do not register on skill. Every hairdresser or operator has to be registered by the State in which he works, in order to ensure that he has no criminal record and that he is not suffering from any disease that he may pass on to his clients. He has to put in front or above his mirror a registration notice with his photograph, so that his clients know that the man who is cutting their hair is the same man as in the photograph. But in this case it has nothing to do with skill.
I have recently heard, in reference to the constitution of the Council that is to be set up, that the Royal College of Physicians have agreed to appoint some-one to serve on the Council. It will be
98
an added advantage to the Council to have someone skilled in medicine, when there are so many chemicals used in hairdressing and when there are so many diseases which can be passed on by contact with the head and which should be recognised by those who practise hairdressing.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House