Lords Sitting of 18 February 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark

THE LATE SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, K.G.
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that I have received, through the United States Ambassador, Resolutions of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress expressing sympathy on the death of Sir Winston Churchill. I should like, if I may, to express your Lordships' warm appreciation of these Resolutions, the text of which I propose, with permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the text referred to:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.
January 25, 1965.

RESOLUTIONS ON THE DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL
Resolved, That the House of Representatives has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Sir Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, honorary citizen of the United States, beloved elder statesman of the world.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives tenders its deep sympathy to the members of the family of the late Sir Winston Churchill, and to his countrymen, and expresses the hope that the burden of their personal loss will be diminished by the knowledge that it is shared by his fellow citizens on this side of the Atlantic who were sustained by his eloquent words and courageous deeds when lesser men despaired and by all those throughout the world who are the beneficiaries of his dauntless defense of free men.
Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to communicate these expressions of sentiment to the family of the deceased and to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Resolved, That as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Sir Winston Churchill the House do now adjourn.
(Sealed)
RALPH R. ROBERTS, Clerk.

ACCIDENTS ON THE OXFORD NORTHERN BY-PASS
2.36 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many cases of serious injury and how many fatalities have occurred as a result of accidents on the Oxford Northern By-Pass during the last ten years; and when the dual carriageway on this By-Pass is scheduled for completion.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, during the ten-year period ending December 31, 1964, 126 serious and 24 fatal injuries were reported as a result of accidents on this stretch of road. This is below the. national average, but my right honourable friend considers that the road should be brought up to dual carriageway standards as quickly as possible. Work will begin as soon as the statutory processes and acquisition of land have been completed. It should be available to traffic in early 1969.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for replying, I wish I could thank him also for the nature of his reply. Is my noble friend aware that this Oxford By-Pass is regarded locally as yet another "lost cause", and is it not a pity that this senseless slaughter on this short five-mile stretch of road is now to be allowed to continue for at least another four or five years?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, all accidents are to be regretted, and of course

611
they are regretted, most particularly by those who are directly associated with the victims. But in planning road improvements—and there are a vast number of roads in this country which must be improved—there must be a programme. My right honourable friend has accepted the urgency of this case and we are going ahead as soon as ever we can in regard to the land acquisition, the letting of contracts and the rest. The Divisional Road Engineer is having discussions with the City Engineer and the County in order to see whether meantime some local improvements can be made.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while I accept all that my noble friend has said, and realise that in Oxford things are apt to move rather slowly, may I ask whether he does not recognise that the Northern By-Pass is an exception to this rule? Will he not urge his right honourable friend to give a much higher priority for the completion of this road?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is another case where everyone agrees that the road ought to be provided. But when it comes to the question of the acquisition of the land and property the persons there, while agreeing that the road is necessary, think it ought to be on somebody else's land and through somebody else's property.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, subject to correction, I believe that the land is already available on the actual existing road for the completion of this double by-pass.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, some landowners have of course been most cooperative, and I should like to say that we appreciate that. But there are one or two who are difficult, and because of that my right honourable friend, in conjunction with the Department, is considering whether or not work on this road can be carried out in sections, thereby avoiding delay in regard to the difficult acquisitions. But, of course, dealing with a contract of £1 million like this in sections means that the contractor cannot plan his work quite so effectively and efficiently, and, equally, it tends to increase the cost.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, in the meantime, the authorities could change the
612
white lines on this road at present dividing it into three lanes, and put down a solid line, for a half a mile on one side and then on the other, and so prevent cars travelling in both directions from trying to get the right of way in the centre lane? This, I understand, has been done on the A.l road with great success, so may we ask for this to be done? I should also like to say that I believe that there is sufficient room between the hedgerows on either side to make a dual carriageway, without the acquisition of any further land.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the question of offset double white lines is one of the subjects now under discussion with the City of Oxford and with the County. If a recommendation comes from the Divisional Road Engineer to my right honourable friend, it will be implemented.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not quite certain if I heard the first answer of the noble Lord correctly. I thought he said that the rate of accidents on the existing road was below the national average. What exactly does that mean in relation to a five-mile stretch?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if one has lost a friend in an accident, national averages really do not matter and I should not like to go into detail. This is a three-lane road and the visibility is good. The accident rate, as such, is not high, but because it is a three-lane road, when accidents do happen they are generally head-on collisions and the severity of those accidents is extreme. For instance, even from January 1 to February 15 this year there were two accidents in which, tragically, five people were killed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that answer. May I point out that the words "national average" were not my words, but his. I only wanted to know what they meant.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the figures are worked out on an average basis of vehicle miles—the number of vehicles, miles travelled and so on—and the accident rate over similar stretches of road. But, as I said, that is not much good to someone who has lost a near relative.

REMOVAL OF ANNE MOWBRAY REMAINS
2.42 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 what explanation has been given by the London Museum for taking away without authority the coffin of Anne Mowbray, Duchess of York, for removing the remains from the coffin, and for failing to notify the Home Office.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, after the police had consulted the coroner they removed the coffin from the place where it was found. It was then handed to a representative of the London Museum on condition that, if it proved to contain human remains, the coroner should be informed. The Museum complied with this condition and, on learning the age of the remains, the coroner disclaimed any jurisdiction. The London Museum's examination was carried out with the knowledge of the police, the coroner and the authorities at Westminster Abbey. The Museum has expressed its regret for its failure, through inadvertence, to notify the Home Office.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but it is not entirely satisfactory. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the London Museum did not know that it was an offence to remove a body, or part of a body, from a coffin without authority?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is a Common Law misdemeanour to remove a body from a place of burial without lawful authority. In the present case the police do not propose to take proceedings against any person, because they are satisfied that any breach of the law, by whomsoever it was committed, was committed without intent. It would appear that the London Museum required no authority for the examination they made of these remains. No person has any property in a body and, apart from the provisions of the Anatomy Act and the
614
provisions relating to removal from a place of burial, there is nothing in the law making it an offence to interfere with human remains.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, am I wrong in thinking that the noble Lord told us the other day that a Home Office licence should have been granted, and that it was not granted? Yet he now says no offence has been committed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I did not say that no offence had been committed. I said that the police did not propose to take action against whoever may have committed an offence. Last week, when the noble Lord asked this Question, I explained that under the Burial Act, 1857, in addition to a Bishop's power to authorise removal from consecrated ground by a faculty, the Secretary of State had power to authorise by his licence the removal of human remains, and also power to impose any conditions on the issue of a licence. Unfortunately, in this case the persons who actually removed the coffin from the place of burial or re-burial knew nothing about the necessity to obtain the Home Secretary's licence. That is where the offence lies, and only there.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if permission to go ahead has been obtained from both the coroner and the police, a reasonable person would assume it was not necessary to obtain any further permission, even though, technically, they may have been incorrect in that assumption?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is the view taken by my right honourable and learned friend. The London Museum did, in fact, have the sanction of the police, of the coroner and of the Abbey authorities, and the coffin was not opened until after they had received that sanction. Until it was opened, they did not know that the coffin contained any human remains at all.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to press this matter, but many people are rather upset at the fact that a body was removed from a coffin when neither the coffin nor the body belonged to the people who opened it. Am I right in thinking that all the people named by the noble Lord as having given their permission had no right to give it?
LORD STONHAM: The coroner, of course, might have had jurisdiction, but found that, in view of the age of the remains, he had no jurisdiction or interest. As for the Abbey authorities, the Dean and Chapter, who were consulted as soon as the inscription on the lid of the coffin was deciphered—and the Abbey was the original place of burial of the little Princess—they sanctioned the opening of the coffin for the purposes of investigation by the London Museum.

CARE OF EPILEPTIC PRISONERS
2.47 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: 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 what is the procedure in Her Majesty's prisons to ensure that prisoners suffering from epilepsy receive the correct medical attention, and whether any improvement in this respect has been made during the last eighteen months.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, all prisoners are seen by the medical officer on their reception into prison. Epileptic prisoners are treated with modern anticonvulsant drugs, and the prison regime is adjusted to suit their individual requirements. In general, they are encouraged to lead as normal a life as possible, but they are kept under regular review by the medical staff. New cases of epilepsy are investigated in conjunction with National Health Service hospitals. Work for epileptic prisoners is arranged to avoid liability to injury in the event of a fit, and they are accommodated in special cells which have no projections and are provided with rubber floors. During the past eighteen months consideration has been given to improving these special rooms and to providing more suitable furniture.
We have commenced, under the direction of a consultant psychiatrist, a research project involving the physical and psychiatric examination of a representative number of epileptic prisoners, for the purpose of research into the problems of epileptics in prisons and borstals, and into possible relationships between epilepsy and crime.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware, as to the significance of the second part of my Question, relating to eighteen months, that it was put down because a somewhat similar Question was asked in this House that period of time ago? Is he further aware that, owing to my connection with the British Epilepsy Association, I know that certain useful consultations took place between my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the British Epilepsy Association, although that Association have not actually been informed of the action taken? I am sure that the Answer given by the noble Lord will cause a good deal of satisfaction to them.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for what he has said, especially because, as he is well aware, this is a matter in which I myself have taken a particular interest for a long time. I am sorry that the British Epilepsy Association have not been informed of this, because they are of great help to my Department, particularly in finding employment for epileptic ex-prisoners, which can be extremely difficult.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am extremely interested in what the noble Lord has said and I am wondering whether he is in a position to tell us who is going to be in charge of this service and of the research into this matter. Secondly, what does he mean by "particular" and "special" types of furniture which is supplied in the cells?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, Dr. T. C. N. Gibbens, the consultant psychiatrist from the Maudsley Hospital is in charge of the research, in association with the senior medical officer at Brixton Prison. With regard to the special furniture, it is a bit of a "dog's breakfast" at present, because we have stuffed furniture which is not wholly suitable and new, specially designed furniture is coming in and will eventually be used in all cells for epileptics. Generally speaking, it is furniture which is so constructed that there are no projecting parts, so that if an epileptic falls there is much less danger of his hurting himself than there otherwise would be.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether these arrangements have been introduced in all prisons; and, if not, whether arrangements have been made to remove epileptic prisoners from the smaller prisons to the larger ones where facilities are available?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot say that in all the smaller prisons we have enough special accommodation for any known epileptics who may be brought into them. Sometimes it means that if the special cell, which is in all prisons of any size, is full, we have to improvise special cells by putting matting on the floor in place of rubber, and improvise the furniture. As soon as possible thereafter those prisoners are transferred, as my noble friend thought might be the case, to the larger prisons where we already have more adequate facilities.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I inform the noble Lord how much pleasure his reply and his supplementary replies have given to the many Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful. I would say that the prison medical staff and, indeed, the Director of the Prison Medical Service, have this matter very much in their minds.

BACKING OF WARRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I beg to move the Second Reading of the National Assistance Bill, which I would commend to the House. This is a Bill designed to help the least sheltered children in our society. I should have liked to call it "The Fatherless Children Bill," but I understand that, in the event of its finding its way on to the Statute Book, the lawyers would like to have it listed under
618
its present Title. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the National Assistance Board, where it thinks fit, and only where it thinks fit, to underwrite the affiliation or maintenance order of the unmarried mother, or the separated or divorced wife and her child, or children, as the case may be, at the time the order is made. This will ensure that the children will be given some degree of financial protection without delay.
While this Bill is framed to cover the needs of the separated and divorced wife it will, I hope, be of the greatest benefit to the unmarried mother. Despite the modern tendency to suggest that a girl who is not prepared to indulge in premarital intercourse is a "square", it seems that public opinion has not changed much in its moral attitude towards the unmarried mother. The girl is often rejected by her family; she shuns her neighbours and friends, and tries to hide herself in one of our big cities. This accounts, in large part, for the high illegitimacy rate in London; and if noble Lords care to read the OFFICIAL REPORT last week of the proceedings in another place, they will see that a long debate was devoted to the conditions of the unmarried mother in London and to the high rate of illegitimacy in this city. There is no equality of the sexes in the relationship in which the unmarried mother has shared: the scales are still weighted against the woman. And I would say here, in parenthesis, because I think it is topical, that those who urge that contraceptive advice should be given to a single girl are planning to trap her into consenting to pre-marital intercourse, with all the risks entailed for her alone. Do not think for one moment that I am opposed to birth control—not a bit. But I would say that, at this time in history, it is a delusion to believe that on medical or social grounds you are thus furthering the happiness of a single girl or supplying a necessary service to her.
The unmarried mother is undoubtedly subject to many stresses and strains during her pregnancy, and is in consequence more emotionally unstable than the married mother. This, of course, accounts for her reluctance to make an application to the courts for an affiliation order: she has a fear of publicity, although the action comes under domestic proceedings and should be taken in private.

619
Until 1961 most unmarried mothers were too poor to take proceedings; in 1953 only one in seven applied for affiliation orders. However, in 1961 Legal Aid became available for affiliation proceedings and changed the whole situation. Nevertheless—and I suppose this shows the punitive attitude of society to-day—the maximum sum payable is only £2 10s. per week, and this might well be reduced to £1. I made an inquiry last night and I find that the average amount given on an affiliation order is between 15s. and £1; for in some courts an unmarried father's debts—for example, a hire-purchase account; even one for a motor-cycle—is allowed to take precedence over his debt to the mother of his child.
May I remind your Lordships that before she gets an affiliation order it has to be well and truly proved that the man concerned is, in fact, the father of the child and is legally responsible for the debt. In many cases the father fails to pay anything, and the girl has to face taking repeated actions to recover arrears; that is, provided that she can trace the whereabouts of the father. It is her responsibility to do the tracing. When a summons is issued and a hearing is fixed it is often found that the father has disappeared from his last known address, and no further action can be taken until he is again traced by the mother. The police, quite understandably, find it difficult to use their limited resources of manpower to trace a man liable for comparatively small sums.
If, however, the father is finally traced, he is ordered to pay a weekly proportion of the arrears. If he defaults, then another summons follows; and this may eventually lead to a prison sentence; which wipes out the debt. Consequently, neither the mother nor the child receives any arrears. Theoretically, the Attachment of Earnings Act enables the unmarried mother to have the money deducted by the employer from the man's wages but the man has only to change his job to avoid payment.
During the period that payments under the order fall into arrears, the girl, wanting to shun publicity as much as possible, waits in the hope that things will be put right. During these weeks she is anxious to keep her child. She is often rejected by her family and, unable to find accommodation, she is
620
in a desperate plight. This is when the mother is often forced to consider adoption. Finally, she goes to the National Assistance for help, but I would emphasise that there is often a lapse of some weeks before she takes this step.
This little Bill will provide a means of securing for the unmarried mother regular payments immediately the affiliation order is obtained after the baby is born. A friend of mine, a clerk of courts, who has dealt with these cases for many years, has suggested to me the following amendment to this Bill, which he feels is very necessary to ensure that the N.A.B. come in "on the ground floor", I should add at the end of Clause 1 (1) two new paragraphs:

"(b) The court shall notify the Board on the institution of any proceedings to which the Act shall apply.

"(c) This Act shall apply to proceedings"—

I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I give a list of these Acts, but I should like to have them on the Record—
"under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act, 1960, the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1885 and 1925, and the Affiliation Proceedings Act, 1957, and to proceedings to recover arrears under any order or decree made under any of these Acts and to proceedings to vary or revive any such order or decree."
This clerk of courts is experienced in the administration of the law and realises that in drafting a Bill it is possible to leave out some important legalistic detail.
I am very glad to hear that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child called a conference last year, in conjunction with the Council for Children's Welfare, on the subject of fatherless families. This was attended by representatives of sixty organisations. They were in agreement that these children should be given some financial provision as early as possible. No doubt detailed plans to deal adequately with the situation will take time, but I am sure that as the years pass we shall have some comprehensive scheme. Meanwhile, I was pleased to learn that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child has informed the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance that this Bill has their support. The Council has abundant

621
evidence that, if her maintenance fails, an unmarried mother often gets into debt and has to give up work in order to be able to claim National Assistance. The position is that she can claim National Assistance if she is doing a part-time job, but if during the period I have described she manages to get a full-time job her claim for maintenance fails. Before she is entitled to it, she has to give up her full-time job. That is the law. The uncertainty causes emotional distress, which reflects on the child. The Council view the Bill as a very useful interim measure, pending a more radical reform in social security for unsupported mothers.
No doubt my noble friend who will answer for the Government will inform me that, under Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, there are appropriate powers which can be used. But, according to the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, to social workers and clerks of court, it is not the practice to use these powers, and never has been. This Bill seeks to ensure, by notification of the Board by the court that proceedings are pending, that these powers shall be used forthwith.
In no circumstances would I waste the time of Parliament if I were not sure that the hardship which I describe exists. Indeed, before this Bill was introduced—and I have introduced Private Members' Bills on many occasions—I sent a draft to the Lord Chancellor's Office. The Lord Chancellor's Office sent it to the Ministry of National Insurance and they sent it to the National Assistance Board. I have no complaint about the attention the Bill has received. I have had three high-powered meetings at the invitation of the Ministry, twice with the Minister and once with my noble friend who is going to reply for the Government, on two occasions with the Deputy Secretary attending. But at no time have I been told that the special powers which this Bill emphasises are being used.
Finally, I suggest not only that this little Bill will relieve the distress and anxiety of a number of young mothers and their children, but that from the Treasury's point of view it can also be looked upon as a profitable national investment. According to the statistics, a large percentage of illegitimate children go into care, where the charge on the
622
taxpayer is much higher than the National Assistance scales for the support of children. Furthermore, if we were far-seeing we should recognise that many of our delinquents come from fatherless homes marked by extreme poverty. Ultimately, the community endeavours to find an antidote for the harm inflicted in childhood and provides approved schools and borstals, at great cost to the community. I would ask your Lordships to support this Bill on the grounds that it is a humane little measure, which seeks to assist in the enforcement of the law and seeks to make provision without delay for the fatherless child in our society.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
3.8 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill, is aiming at objectives with which I am sure all noble Lords would readily agree. The woman living alone, often with dependent children, separated or divorced from her husband, needs all the help in her unhappy circumstances that the social services are able to afford her. It is these women that the noble Baroness is concerned to assist this afternoon. Having said that, I hope that the noble Baroness will not think the worst of me if I go on to say that I found it difficult, when I first read this Bill, to understand what it was the noble Baroness was seeking to do.
The National Assistance Board have very wide powers for dealing with matters of this nature. They have power to proceed against husbands who fail to maintain their wives and families. They have power, if there are arrears in payments, to proceed themselves to recover those arrears. It is the practice of the Board, where payments under a maintenance order are likely to be irregular, to issue to the wife a running order for National Assistance so that she receives a fixed regular amount every week, and they invite her to assign to the Board the payments that the Board will receive from her husband. This is done, I can assure the noble Baroness, in many cases. I was looking at the latest Report of the Board, and I see that in something like 439 cases the Board actually prosecuted delinquent husbands for failure to maintain their

623
payments under maintenance orders. In the same way, the Board have very wide powers to deal with illegitimate children: indeed, the powers of the Board to recover maintenance costs of illegitimate children are even wider than the powers of the mother herself. This Bill does not affect any of these matters.
But I think the noble Baroness is mainly concerned with the interval which she said takes place between the time when the mother applies for the maintenance order and the time when she eventually goes to the Assistance Board for support. I should have thought that the process which usually takes place is the reverse of that order of things. If a woman finds herself without support from her husband, the first thing that she does, and, indeed, the first thing that she must do, is to go to the National Assistance Board for assistance. Later, often at the instigation of the Board, she goes to the courts and applies for her maintenance order. I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that cases are common where a maintenance order is applied for and then an interval of perhaps three or four weeks takes place before the mother goes to the National Assistance Board. I should not have thought that this was the normal order of things.
Having said that, I should like to say something about the general circumstances of these unfortunate women. In my view, the present arrangements for the enforcement of matrimonial and affiliation orders of all kinds are not satisfactory. The burden of finding out the whereabouts of the man is placed almost entirely upon the woman. That is no small burden. I think your Lordships would be astonished to realise how easy it is for a man to disappear altogether in our modern world; and his whereabouts are brought to light only after a prolonged series of inquiries and investigation. A man may collect his money on a Friday afternoon, and instead of going home, he simply disappears. Weeks of patient search by the National Assistance Board are required to bring his whereabouts to light. Even then the investigations are not always successful. Yet the burden is placed at present on the woman, and it is a burden which she is just not able to undertake. It is for that reason that the National Assistance
624
Board, as soon as the woman comes on to National Assistance, undertake these inquiries for her.
This is not altogether a satisfactory arrangement. In my judgment, some responsibility rests upon the court which has made the order to see that it is properly carried out. Who should be responsible for that duty is a question which is not easy to answer without a little more knowledge of the administrative considerations involved. The duty might be placed upon the clerk of the court. He would, of course, require a proper staff to enable him to make investigations. It is a duty that might be discharged by the police; and I should think that the police are the right people to do it. It might be discharged by the new service of probation officers which is now being built up. All those bodies have access to machinery in different parts of the country which can undertake to make the inquiries. Or, indeed, it might be right that this duty should be discharged by the National Assistance Board.
I prefer this last alternative the least, because the National Assistance Board do not desire to build up a public image as a prosecuting department. They do, and will always have to do, a great deal of prosecuting; but they do not desire to do more than they can help. We are told that there are persons who hesitate to come to the National Assistance Board for assistance because they think that assistance is something that is reserved for work-shies, layabouts, corner boys and all the rest of them. If the National Assistance Board are to be turned into a general prosecuting society in these cases, then I am afraid that an unpleasant image will be presented even more forcibly to the public, and it will be even more difficult than it is now to get some people to go to the Board for the assistance they need and to which they are entitled. Nevertheless, it may be right that the National Assistance Board should do this work; and if that is the conclusion that is reached, then they have the means to do it.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to speak for the Government will convey my views to his right honourable and learned friend. I do not welcome the recourse, when one encounters a difficulty, of appointing a Committee to solve it, but I think this is a case where

625
an Inter-Departmental Committee would be useful, and I hope the noble Lord will put that suggestion to his right honourable friend. I should think that this is very much a subject upon which an inquiry by an Inter-Departmental Committee, or an Inter-Departmental Working Party (if I may borrow that phrase of modern bureaucracy) would be most valuable. They could then investigate which of these various services is the right service to ensure that the maintenance payments which the courts have ordered are made, and made punctually and properly, and, if they are not made, that the right steps are taken to follow up a failure to discharge the order. If the noble Baroness could join in that request, I think she would do much more to assist these unhappy women whose plight she has so much at heart than by passing this little Bill this afternoon.
3.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to say one or two words in support of this little Bill, which I think serves a good purpose. As an interim measure it will be quite a useful Bill. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, into the workings of the National Assistance Board, because he knows a great deal more about that subject than I do. I was interested to note his remarks, and I fully accept what he said.
I should like to turn to the question of the unmarried mothers and their children. Here again, I do not want to go into this matter in great detail because the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is going to speak, and he is far more involved with this Council than I am. I should like to turn my attention to one point made by the noble Baroness: that a large proportion of these children born out of wedlock are adopted because the mothers, owing to money difficulties or financial troubles, do not know what to do with them.
I think your Lordships will agree that there are a great number of extremely successful adoptions which take place. The other thing with which I hope your Lordships will agree is that it is far better for the child to be with its parent, provided that the parent can support the child properly. That, I think, is the tendency of the
626
feelings of the modern day—that children, no matter of what age they are, should stay with their families, in the homes they have, for as long as they can, rather than be moved to foster parents, institutions or to homes Therefore, because the Bill of the noble Baroness does something to encourage this, I give it all the support I can, and I trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading in this House to-day.
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I am happy to have the opportunity of supporting the noble Baroness's Bill because, from the inquiries I have made of the Church's welfare workers, and from my knowledge of this problem, I believe that, if this "Fatherless Children's Bill" were enacted, then mothers would be relieved of much unnecessary anxiety, and would be less likely to become dependent upon National Assistance.
I realise that the National Assistance Board is directed by civil servants who discharge their duties, as one would expect, with every desire to help those in need to the limit of their power. But possibly some members of the Board question whether this Bill is, in fact, necessary. I am glad to pay tribute to the good work of the National Assistance Board. At the same time, I consider this Bill will be welcomed at the local level, because in certain cases, it will empower all officials to act and not to leave it to local judgment, which must vary from place to place.
Clause 1 of the Bill would benefit a mother who, in the first year of a child's life, had been able to support it, but who later, because of changed circumstances, would otherwise have to fall back on National Assistance. If such mothers lost their jobs or were sick, they would have money coming in regularly, provided that a court order had been made. But in this Clause 1s the phrase "the Board thinks itself likely", sufficiently explicit? To those who drafted it, the words may be entirely satisfactory, but at field level I wonder whether they are quite clear. Unless regulations are made, I submit that the area officers administering the

627
Act would interpret this Clause 1n a variety of ways.
I turn now to subsection (3) of Clause 1, which is most important. In effect, this clause gives the mother, the other plaintiff, security. She has the certainty of payments, and she is relieved of the exhausting worry of chasing the payee. As things stand to-day, she has to collect the money weekly from the clerk to the magistrates' court. But when she goes to him she may find that her money has not arrived. A competent woman may manage for a week or two, almost certainly underfeeding herself, and so undermining her health. But, again, she feels let down; and she knows anxiety; again she experiences emotional disturbance; and this reacts on her child. At such a time the immature mother may run up debts, and these will add to her misery, and may lead to a breakdown. Of course, it can be urged that any mother can apply to the Board for assistance, but if she is working she may not be eligible; and in any event there are more questions to answer, time to be found to go to the office, and travelling costs to meet.
If this Bill were to be enacted, it could bring new hope to many unmarried mothers and separated mothers, assuring them of regular money coming to them week by week, and giving them the knowledge that they had financial help on which they could rely—and this at a time when some of them felt defenceless and rejected. And a child already partly deprived would have at least its physical well-being secured. I am happy to support this Bill.
3.27 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the noble Baroness for having introduced this Bill. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament in another place know from our own experience and our contact with our constituents when they came to our political "surgeries", and from the letters which they sent to us, how frequent are the difficulties of unmarried mothers. For months, and sometimes even for years, they are unable to trace the address of the father who has been ordered by the court to support them. Under more recent Acts of Parliament wages can be attached for this purpose, but if a man leaves the employment
628
where he was engaged when the order was made, the necessity for him to maintain his payments to the mother no longer exists.
I want to deal particularly with the very relevant points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. I want to pay a tribute to the officers of many of the local offices of the National Assistance Board. In my experience they have treated this difficult problem with the greatest possible sympathy. But what is their usual course of action? It is to say to the unmarried mother: "In these circumstances, of course, we will give you help, but the help which we give you will be dependent upon repayment of the amounts which we now give you if you are successful later in finding the father and in securing the payments from him." It would seem to me that if the National Assistance Board say that, the Board are the proper authority to take action to secure from the father return of the amounts which are due. It is the National Assistance Board which suffer if those amounts are not received. At present that action can be taken only through the mother.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? The Board have a separate right to recover, which they frequently exercise, quite separate and distinct from the mother's.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, but as I understand it, it must be exercised through the mother. I can only say, from my own experience, that that requirement has always been insisted upon. It is the usual practice for the matter to be dealt with through the mother, and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, himself used the phrase "through the mother".
What I am urging is that if the National Assistance Board make grants to these girls dependent upon those grants being repaid if the father is found and is made to pay what is due from him, the National Assistance Board should be the authority which should seek to obtain those sums from the father; and that this Bill, which seeks to underwrite the requirement of the girl to receive these amounts and requires the National Assistance Board to underwrite them, would be the most effective way to get the result which we are all seeking.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, rightly said that the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child, of which I am President, supports this Bill. So it does. It supports it not as the complete answer but as one stage in the direction of doing rather more than society of this country at present does for the fatherless child in general, and of course for the mother of that child at the same time. I think it is quite clear, particularly from the list of Statutes that the noble Lady says ought to be mentioned in her Bill, that it is not only the illegitimate child or the child of the unmarried mother who is concerned under this Bill; it is also the case where there is a separation order and money is to be paid under it, or where there has been a divorce and maintenance has been granted by the court in the process of that proceeding.
The woman has gone away from the court after the affiliation proceedings, or whatever proceedings they may be, with an order from the court that the man shall pay her a certain sum for herself and her children, and it seems to me that this Bill is concerned with the machinery of how that money is to be ensured to the woman and, very important, of course, to her children as well. If any suggestion is going to come from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that the provisions of this Bill are already contained in Sections 43 and 44 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, I of course will respect that professional advice that he has been given, and no doubt he will have had the opportunity of judging for himself, but I cannot see that the law does at the present moment make the provision that this Bill would allow.
The courts and the National Assistance Board are both really only organs of the same society. Society has decreed through the judge or the magistrates, as the case may be, that a certain sum is due to the mother, first of all because she is in need of it and so are her children; and, secondly, because the man has the duty and the ability to pay. It seems to me that there is a very great deal to be said for ensuring, so far as it is possible to do so, that this money is received by the mother for herself and her children even if, as in some cases it
630
has happened, not in all but in some, the man does not pay or does not pay regularly.
The right reverend Prelate opposite and the noble Lord behind him, Lord Brock-way, have said what occurs in some cases. I am not an expert on this subject, at any rate in its day-to-day working; but, as I understand it, what happens is this. The money is ordered to the woman and, in the first place, she collects it from the officer of the court to which it is payable. If she says that she has not had the money it is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Ilford said, that the first thing she should do, no doubt, is to go to the National Assistance Board. But they will say, not unreasonably, as they are about to issue public money to her, that she ought to make perfectly certain that the payment has not been held up. They will suggest she should go back to the magistrates' court and see whether perchance it has now come. So back and forth she goes. And this may go on for several weeks.
LORD ILFORD: No!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is what I am told occurs, but my noble friend Lord Ilford says not. It would not surprise me if it is so because, after all, as the law stands at the moment it is the woman upon whom is the initial duty of trying to enforce the payment of this money, and if money is given to her by the National Assistance Board too soon it may be that she will not do it, and the charge will fall upon the public.
I believe that this Bill would fill this gap. It would be possible, at any rate once payments of a sum of money under one of these orders had been found to be irregular, for the court to say that henceforth the payment should be made direct to the National Assistance Board, and there should be no question of the money's having to be sought by the woman from the officer of the court: it would come straightforwardly from the Board itself and the Board would be entitled to reclaim it. May I make this one qualification? As to the order of the court that the money shall be paid to the Board rather than to the original payee, and as to the power of the National Assistance Board under Clause 1 (3) of this Bill, there is in both cases a discretion whether or not these powers

631
should be used; it is not mandatory, it is discretionary. I believe that this measure could do a very great deal to get over the delay which now occurs.
I think there is another advantage to this Bill, although here I am treading on ground upon which I am a little unfamiliar and I may have got it wrong. I do not want to undermine the noble Baroness's Bill if I have got this argument wrong, but I think not. I think that under Clause 1 (3) the money would be payable to the woman concerned by the Board whether or not she had a job. I believe this is so. At the present moment, if you get payment from the National Assistance Board you can earn at the most, I think, only 30s. a week.
Imagine the woman who has been granted an order. She is going on her way with her children; she has been granted a certain sum per week by the court from the putative father of her child, her husband or ex-husband. She thinks she can get by on this, and very likely she can. She can take a job and with money coming in from the order she can exist and look after her children properly. But if the money stops under the order, of course the situation may be very different. But what can she do? She can go to the National Assistance Board and they will say, "Yes, we will pay, but only if you leave your job. You cannot have money from us and work as well ". Which is preferable? That that woman should be entitled to have assistance and continue to work, or that she should cease altogether to do work which will bring her in more than 30s. a week and fall a complete charge upon the National Assistance Board? I believe that if, after the disagreeable things she has gone through, she is at least allowed to stand on her own feet, to do a job, to look after her children and be independent in her own right, she is being a great deal better served by society, even than under the excellent care of the National Assistance Board, who, under their rules, can give her the scale and no more and must insist upon her leaving her job.
I believe, if I have this right—and I think I have—that this is a very sound argument in favour of this Bill; and I hope that, for all that my noble friend Lord Ilford says about the image of the
632
Board, if they realise they are being given powers under this Bill to deal with this situation in a way I hope I have accurately described, there will be no tarnishing of their image. On the contrary, they will be considered by society to be acting in a way most helpful to the people who get into these troubles and their image will be greatly enhanced. I therefore have the greatest pleasure in supporting the noble Baroness and her Bill, and I hope it will be given a Second Reading this afternoon.
3.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, set the right tone for this debate when she started off by saying that the purpose of her Bill was to help the least sheltered people; and what perhaps marked her speech most of all was solicitude for the child—solicitude to help the child get a decent start in life. The noble Baroness also had in mind the need to help to ensure that those responsible for maintaining children accept and discharge their responsibilities, and do not get away with it at the expense of the luckless child.
At the same time, we have to consider, despite the very eloquent plea of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, not only the intention of helping the child and the mother but the machinery proposed in the Bill to do it. As I understand it, the conception of the Bill is to permit the National Assistance Board, if it chooses, to pay a deserted wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child, the weekly allowance which a court has ordered shall be paid to the Board by the father. Whether he has, in fact, paid that amount or not, is irrelevant. The duty is virtually laid upon the Board to look for the father; and the Board, is required, as the noble Baroness herself put it, to underwrite the payments to be made under the court order. So there seems to be a double object: first of all to ensure regularity of payments, and secondly to allow the National Assistance Board to assume responsibility for making to such a mother higher payments than the Board itself could make in accordance with the existing scales of assistance. That is the way I read the Bill as it is at present drafted.
None of those who have spoken so far have mentioned the Report of the

633
National Assistance Board for the year ended December 31, 1963, which has some very significant figures. On page 36 of that Report it is shown that there were 102,000 separated wives, of whom 29,000 were over 60 years of age, receiving National Assistance; there were 30,000 mothers of illegitimate children, including 7,000 widows and divorced women, and 9,000 divorced women with legitimate children. These three classes together received, in all, some £31¼ million by way of National Assistance. The amount these women received from the fathers of the children concerned—and they were not all in the same category—was a little over £4 million: and the amount received by the Board, presumably as a result of court orders, was between £2 million and £2¼ million. It is a little difficult to interpret these figures, and it would be very valuable for your Lordships if the noble Lord who is to reply were to do so.
I think it is clear that in many of these cases assistance would have been required from the National Assistance Board in any case to supplement payments received under a court order. Proceedings can be brought jointly under the Bill, as I understand it, only if the Board thinks it likely that if they were not brought it would have to make a weekly allowance. A great deal of the discussion has centred on the point of how the Board comes to know of the case. I thought myself that the Amendment to her Bill which the noble Baroness suggested would have improved it very considerably, because this is one of the great difficulties. It would certainly be a very great improvement if the court were to be placed under an obligation to inform the National Assistance Board when any proceedings were expected to be brought, because it would enable the Board to have cognisance of the claim being made and the proceedings being taken.
But, of course, it would remain true that the Board would not know of very many cases. In some cases the Board may itself discover where a deserted wife or woman with an illegitimate child or children is in need. In most cases it must necessarily be the mother herself or someone acting on her behalf who takes the initiative by applying to the Board. If the woman is in whole time
634
work she will not apply to the Board because she is not eligible for National Assistance, so the Board would not normally know of that case; and such a case, so far as I can see, would not be touched by the Bill unless the woman were herself to make an application to the court and the noble Baroness's Amendment were made.
It may be that in the course of collecting her maternity allowances, or something of that kind, tthe mother of an illegitimate child will be directed to the Board by the National Insurance Office, and I do not know whether more steps in that direction could be taken. If the mother has no job at all, in many cases she will be drawing unemployment benefit, but she may be entitled to supplementary payment from the Board as well. If she has no job and no unemployment benefit she will no doubt have recourse to the Board in any case. I am not quite sure what happens if she has a part-time job. It has been mentioned that if she is earning more than 30s. a week she can get no assistance for herself, but perhaps the noble Lord can say what is the position in regard to assistance for dependants. I daresay if this Bill goes through, the Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child and other bodies will be able to help considerably in directing unmarried mothers towards the Board, and maybe the gap which seems to me to exist in the information the Board can have is not as wide as I think.
Where a case does come to the Board's attention, the Board say on page 35 of their Report:
"It is often possible at this stage to come to a satisfactory arrangement with him … "—that is, the father—
"… for the future maintenance of his dependants."
If this Bill were to go through, I should imagine it would certainly not make it any easier to reach that satisfactory agreement. But if no such arrangement can be made, then under Section 43 of the 1948 Act in the case of the deserted wife, and Section 44 in the case of the illegitimate child, the Board or local authority can take maintenance or affiliation proceedings against the husband or father.
It is plain to me, from the way in which the 1948 Act is drafted, that the reason

635
they are given this power is to protect the public purse. The responsibility for maintenance lies with the husband or father and is set out in Section 42 of the Act, and if the Board has to discharge that responsibility in his stead then it is entitled to recover those payments from him to the extent that the court considers that the father can pay. The noble Baroness gave us some rather astonishing information on that subject when she said that the courts in some cases will put hire-purchase obligations above the obligation to maintain. That is something undoubtedy the House will have to take into consideration.
But the Board has, I think, followed a much more enlightened and benevolent policy than the Act envisaged. Because the Board has seen that payments from the husband or father were often irregular, I believe it has been willing to bring proceedings in many cases. Indeed, the Report itself enumerates a number of cases in which applications were made under Section 44. It says 70 applications were made, and of course these are cumulative over the years. Certainly 70 seems a remarkably small figure in relation to the 30,000 mothers of illegitimate children. But, in addition, as my noble friend Lord Ilford said, the Board is able to have payments under a court order assigned to itself so that the mother can be assured of a regular weekly income.
I quite see that this assignment is more likely to occur in the case of a deserted wife, where the husband remains responsible for the maintenance of his wife and children, than in the case of affiliation procedure. In the case of desertion or separation, the payment under a court order may well fall short of the amount which the mother would be entitled to receive from the National Assistance Board. I notice that after next month a mother with three children between 5 and 11 will receive £7 17s., plus her rent and rates, from the National Assistance Board. But even in that case the Report says that it is the Board's policy—and I quote:
"to encourage a woman to take her own proceedings, as by so doing she may well obtain an order for an amount greater than she can be given by way of National Assistance; and even where the order made is for a smaller amount and has, therefore, to be supplemented by the Board it will remain a source of income to her if she later ceases
636
to need assistance, as a result for example of taking up work".
This obviously affects the deserted wife rather than the unmarried mother. It seems to me also that it implies that at present, where the Board does take proceedings, the court makes an order only for the actual cost of the assistance already given or to be given, and that seems to be supported by the fact that there appears, to me at any rate, to be no provision under Section 43 for the Board to pay the mother the difference between the payment which the court orders the father to pay to the Board, on the one hand, and the amount that the Board pays to the mother in accordance with its scales, plus, of course, rent and other discretionary allowances, where the amount under the court order is the greater.
The Report says that there are cases where a mother is not only unwilling but unable to take proceedings. The Bill allows the Board to join the mother as a co-plaintiff in proceedings against the father, in the hope that the court may make an order, against the father I presume, for more than the amount which the National Assistance Board would otherwise pay to the mother, and in the hope that the court, in its discretion, will order the whole of the payment to be made to the Board. I am wondering whether this would help. If the mother was unable or unwilling herself to take proceedings, would she be any more willing or able to do so if the Board was joined with her as plaintiff?
If the whole amount is to be paid to the Board then, according to subsection (3), the Board is empowered to pay the mother the whole amount, whether or not the father continues his payment, and whether or not the mother gets a job or receives financial help from elsewhere. It is not clear by what criteria the Board would decide whether or not to pay to the mother the whole amount, or indeed any of it. If the mother is no longer in need, the Board will no longer have any reason to be in touch with her. If she is no longer in need, in my view there could be no justification for the Board to pay her the full amount if it exceeded the Board's scales, plus rent and discretionary allowances actually required.
In this I think one must have regard to the statutory duty of the Board as laid

637
down in Section 4 of the National Assistance Act, which says that
"it shall be the duty of the Board in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Act to assist persons in Great Britain who are without resources to meet their requirements"—
I leave out the inessential words—
"or whose resources must be supplemented in order to meet their requirements."
I think one must have regard to this statutory duty of the Board. The proposal to empower the Board to pay sums that it has not received from the father, where these sums exceeded the National Assistance allowances payable under the regulations, would, I imagine, have to be covered in any case by a Financial Resolution. There is no reason why Parliament should not extend the duties of the Board if Parliament thinks fit, but I think it should be quite clear that in doing this it would be extending the functions of the Board well beyond its primary duty of meeting need.
Finally, I am not at all sure that the Bill does not go a good deal further than the noble Baroness intends, and further than would really be necessary for the purposes that she has in mind. As I read the Bill, it is not confined to cases of failure to carry out the obligation to maintain one's dependants, although I realise that that is the purpose of the noble Baroness. It seems to me to place no limit on the power of the Board to join with the plaintiff in any case where it may think itself likely to have to make payments to him or to her if proceedings were not brought. I am not at all certain that that would not cover actions for compensation for injuries incurred in a road accident, compensation for fraud in cases where a woman was deprived of her entire savings, and even for breach of contract.
Whilst, therefore, I have genuinely considerable sympathy with the purposes that the noble Lady has in mind, and with her objects, I am not at all certain that this Bill would really meet those objects in the best possible way, or indeed altogether. Therefore, before making up our minds definitely on this matter, we should like to hear what the noble Lord who is going to reply has to say. I would only say that we on this side greatly welcome
638
the fact that the noble Lady has brought this matter to the attention of the House; but it is obviously something that needs the examination of the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in answer to that point, may I just say this? The noble Lord said it might be applied to road accidents. That was precisely why I read out the various Acts to which it did apply.
3.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I hope that I am interpreting the feelings of the House aright when I say that I think we all feel a great deal of sympathy and respect for the cases that my noble friend Lady Summerskill has in mind, and for her, too. I listened to her speaking to-day and I felt glad, as I have before, that there are ladies about with real knowledge of these matters, and a sympathy in cases of this kind which perhaps no man could quite sufficiently or fully feel.
I echo heartily what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said. I am exceedingly glad that this Bill has been brought forward. As my noble friend indicated, I am going to say that the Government cannot support it, and I will try to give, as clearly as I can, the reasons for that. If I take a little longer than I should have done on other occasions I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, because I feel that there is so much sympathy in Members of the House in this matter, that your Lordships would not wish it dismissed by some mere plausible answer or something which (if I may revert to what my noble friend let fall at one moment) is too much of a lawyer's argument. I mean sincerely what I have just said. Now I must turn to the Bill itself.
Your Lordships will have noted that we have had some valuable and interesting speeches to-day, two of them from former Ministers of National Insurance, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and one from a former chairman of the National Assistance Board. While the last speech we heard was carefully balanced, it could not be said to give the Bill any warm support on technical grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, was even clearer in the matter. I listened carefully to what he

639
said, and to what Lord Drumalbyn said, and I found very little in either speech with which to disagree.
One must see what this Bill does. It is intended to give additional discretionary powers to the Board. It does not oblige the Board to use them, except in so far as public opinion may compel the use of discretionary powers. But in fact those discretionary powers are very wide indeed. They are wide on points which go beyond those referred to by Lord Drumalbyn; they are wide on points which go beyond the essential primary function of the Board. Section 4 of the 1948 Act makes it perfectly clear—and, indeed, so did the debates at the time—that the National Assistance Board was set up to meet cases of need. The intention was that it should meet the requirements of people to have enough to live on. It was not intended to fulfil other social purposes, however meritorious they may be.
The very next Section 1n the Act, Section 5, lays down the machinery in assessing need for this purpose. It is in pursuance of this provision that at intervals of time, every year or two recently, there have been changes in the scales of National Assistance to meet, or in an attempt to meet, increases in cost of living. That is the primary function of the Board. In Section 9 your Lordships will find an express statutory prohibition against paying National Assistance to people who are in full employment. It does not extend to part employment; that can be supplemented up to the scales. Your Lordships may remember that long ago in Speenhamland, a small village, they used the rates to supplement the pay of farm labourers. They felt that the farm labourer did not get enough; they were unwilling themselves to pay any more, so they used the rates for the purpose. I do not think that procedure would commend itself to anybody nowadays—at any rate, not in that form.
Your Lordships will notice that in the case my noble friend was putting, it was suggested that the National Assistance should be used to supplement the earnings of a girl in full employment. That is going far beyond what at present the Board has power to do in general. It is quite true, too, that the Bill is, as Lord Drumalbyn spotted, if I may
640
use that word, very widely drawn. It is so widely drawn that its language would, in fact, cover damages in a running-down case. All that need happen is that the Board thinks that someone is likely to need assistance in the future. If a man is driving to his work and is seriously injured in a collision between two cars, he would clearly be a person who might well come and ask for assistance from the Board when he was out of work and disabled. Under this Bill the Board would have power to go into those proceedings and recover the damages for him. I am not saying that that is a final sort of point, for it is not. One can always say, "Surely this can be made clear, and the intention of the mover carried out, when we get to a later stage"—that is to say, the Bill could be put right in Committee.
The noble Baroness was quite right when she said that the Bill has been fully discussed. I have been to two discussions, and it was time well spent. But the first I heard of the proposed Amendment was to-day, although we took up about four hours during the two meetings, and I am not in a position to give detailed consideration to something which has been brought forward so very much at the last moment. Therefore, I would assume that the Bill is intended to cover only the cases which my noble friend clearly had in mind. She referred almost entirely to the mothers of illegitimate children. A case which is very closely parallel, for these purposes, is the case of deserted wives. Another case is that of divorced women with legitimate children. All these cases are rather similar; they are often taken together.
I should like to give my conclusion based on some of the figures put forward by Lord Drumalbyn. I will repeat them only so far as is necessary to make the conclusion clear. By far the largest group is that of the wives who are separated from their husbands. Secondly, the mothers of illegitimate children are granted assistance to a total of about 7½ million a year. And that rather disposes of the argument that a large number of them do not get National Assistance at all. It really is the case that assistance is given, and is given on a large scale. Your Lordships will notice that the total of National Assistance in that one case, some 30,000 people out of

641
over 150,000, was actually larger than the amount recovered either voluntarily or by proceedings from the men concerned.
The National Assistance Board—and I say this with emphasis—considers these cases very much its business. I agree warmly with something which was said by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I too have had constituency experience of these matters stretching over some nineteen years, and I got to know my particular National Assistance office very well indeed. Not only did I find them willing to help people whom I advised to go and see them, but I had people come to me who had been to the Board and had received the most sympathetic help. This help was not on the principle of, "How can we save public money?", but, "How can we meet the need of the people who come to see us, within the limit which legislation and orders have obliged us to observe?" That sort of thing went on year after year, and I do not think I ever had a complaint about the Board.
Your Lordships must remember something else about the Board: it took over from a state of affairs which had been the subject of very strong complaint. The former Poor Law (I am not here to discuss its merits or demerits) had undoubtedly been extremely unpopular; people had come to regard it as an enemy. The National Assistance Board officers lived that down, and in my experience they have lived it down completely. Therefore, when it is a question of saying that they are hard on people, that they send them from pillar to post, although one cannot speak for every case I would say merely that within the limits of my own experience, and from all the inquiries I have made, it is very unlikely indeed to be the fault of the National Assistance Board officials. One can think of other reasons for something of the sort happening.
Having said that, may I come back to the particular form of this Bill? As I say, it is a Bill to give additional powers, and the first additional power is that the Board itself should join with the girl in question in proceedings to recover maintenance, and if need be in affiliation proceedings. It is perfectly true that in Sections 43 and 44 of the Act there is a power—under the general heading, be it noted, of "Recovery of Expenses": that is, recovery of expenses by the Board—
642
for the Board itself to take proceedings in its own name. That does not arise in the majority of cases, but it can be done and it is done. What is far more common is that the girl comes to the Board and the Board helps her—I do not mean by employing advocates or anything; I simply mean that they help and encourage her to go to the court and assert her own rights.
One has to remember that in cases of this kind there are quite a proportion of girls who do not want to take proceedings. There are cases where the putative father has been lost, and that is one thing, but sometimes there are cases where the girl does not want to take proceedings, either. This is very touchy human ground and one has to be very careful not to do things which look all right, which seem to add something, but which do not in fact do so.
I noticed, if I may say so with great respect to your Lordships, that of the speakers who were speaking without ministerial or Board experience everybody said that they felt the Bill would do something. But in all of the speeches, even, I think, that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, if he does not mind my saying so, there was a bit of uncertainty as to exactly what it did do. All the Bill does, so far as this part of it is concerned, is to allow the Board to join.
There are going to be difficulties about that in magistrates' courts. There is no arrangement for joint plaintiffs there and the Rules would have to be reshaped. I do not know what the Home Office would say, although I know what they have said. I do not think you can take matters any further than by helping the girl, as the Board does at present, to do it in her own name, and having the reserve power which is there. You help the girl, then, to go along and chase the man, to get the money from him—the recovery of expenses, as the general phrase goes. That is the first point.
I am coming to some administrative points and I think they are very important, but before I turn to those, there is one other thing I want to say. I indicated just now, in regard to full employment, the difficulty of getting the National Assistance Board to do what may be by itself a socially desirable thing

643
to do for one particular group of people, however meritorious, and for them to do it for exceptional cases. It is not the Board's normal function. If you are going to cover these exceptional cases, then I can suggest several others that ought to be covered, too. But I do not think this is the right approach. I think, if you are going to have a Board that has been constituted for a pretty clear purpose—it is rather like taxing people—you do not, on social grounds, want to use this machinery for exceptions. You ought either to rephrase the Board's remit, or you ought to do something entirely different.
On something entirely different, I must remind your Lordships, with respect, that my Party and the Government are heavily committed to an extensive review of the whole social security system. It hits you in the eye, my Lords, that once you start on National Insurance and National Assistance it is the women who have had the worst of it. I am sorry to have to say this, because one hoped that one had been more provident in 1948. But one cannot be absolutely right all the time, and, looking back, I think, to start with, that the widows have had a very great deal to put up with. There has been a lot of confusion in their rights and in the way they have been dealt with, and there are these other groups of women here who, clearly, have also to be dealt with. But I do not think that the right way of dealing with them is to give additional discretionary powers to the National Assistance Board in the very vague form that they are given here.
Now I turn to what I think the noble Lady called the "guarantee" or the "underwriting" side of the Bill; that is to say, subsection (3) of Clause 1. This involves the Board in giving amounts which may be far in excess of the standard scales. From that point of view, therefore, I think the subSection 1s of very doubtful wisdom, for the reasons I have just given. But I want to make it clear that, in fact, the Board does do a little of this occasionally, although not much. If it has to recover from a man, it does not follow that it will refuse to recover because the amount to be recovered is more than the national scales. It does recover it.
What happens is something of this kind. There is an order for a larger
644
amount than the scales, and the order is not met. The man may move—there may be some good reason for it—he may just be worse off, or he may be plainly defaulting. The Board give him a little rope as a rule—and it is always a question of how much rope should be given—but then it chases him. It either gets the girl to do this by going back to the court and taking steps to do it, or, if need be, as I understand it, it can use its powers under Section 43. But the money is recovered, and in a case of that sort the surplus—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—is accounted for. But, of course, there is apt to be a little delay, because if you are having irregular payments you may get a single payment that is over the scales, then a gap, then a payment, then two gaps, and you have to secure that the recovery from the man is applied by way of what is called in the Statute "recovery of expenses". I hope I have made myself clear.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question about that? I find what he has said very interesting, and I knew that something of this nature went on. Nevertheless, I imagine it is the case that if the National Assistance Board is paying money under this system, the woman is prevented from doing any work that brings her in more than 30s. plus whatever it is per child.
LORD MITCHISON: No, my Lords; she is not forbidden to do any work. That is not the form it takes. She can do part-time work. She will make something on that, and that will be made up to the national scale. But what the Board cannot do, having regard to Section 9 of the 1948 Act, is to pay National Assistance to somebody in full employment. I gave your Lordships the rather picturesque and old-fashioned instance of the Speenhamland rate to illustrate the reason for a provision of that sort. I am not concerned for the moment to go into detail, because I think this is one of the matters that will have to play a part in a general review.
If I may, I want to say something with which I am sure the House will agree. When we come to a general review—and all three Parties have asked for it in different forms at different times—I am sure that it is the human

645
and social considerations of this kind that we should wish to have in mind. I am sure, too, that the question of dependent children is very much in everybody's mind. I am not sure that this Bill has much to do with dependent children, when one begins to look at it; the children's allowances go on separately. But, of course, a hardship to the mother, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, in fact involves or may involve hardship to the child. Children are therefore concerned from that point of view.
I would say one thing about children, my Lords. Here, I hope, I am speaking for the Government, but I must tell your Lordships quite frankly that I do not know, although I do know that I am speaking for some members of it who have made contributions to various books on the matter. I think the whole business of children in this country needs looking at from this point of view. For a long time, wives' rights were too dependent on their husbands. We may or may not have got rid of that completely—we have at any rate done a good deal about it—but children's rights have been dependent on adults too much. That is the kind of thing one wants to get rid of. Not, of course, that they can do for themselves things which only an adult can do, but it should be recognised that they have a right as human beings which is additional to and independent of the rights of their parents—though, of course, within the limits I have indicated.
My Lords, I do not know whether I have covered all the points, but I have tried to. I ought to add this—I think it is important, and it is verging on administration. It was suggested that an Amendment should be made to the Bill to oblige courts to tell the National Assistance Board when there was a case for them. I do not know what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will say to that and I do not know what the Home Office will say to it, but I say this: in practice, as I understand it, there is the closest touch between magistrates' courts and the local offices of the National Assistance Board. Not only is this so in individual cases, but it takes on the form of general consultation. Somebody may get up and say that there are exceptions, and this much I
646
would say: that I am sure that, as a result of this debate and of the discussion which preceded it, the National Assistance Board will take care to keep that connection as tight as I believe it to be at present and, if possible, to tighten it. The contact is continuous, and, if I am right, it answers the difficulty about being sent from pillar to post. I know this is said, but I have grave doubts about it—and I have taken a lot of trouble to try to inform myself properly about it.
I turn from that to one or two other administrative matters. As an instance of what has been happening, there is consultation going on now between the Board and magistrates' clerks with a view to the Board's taking over all the orders where there is a regular supplement contributed by the Board—that is to say, cases where the existing order is not enough to meet the requirements of need within the limits set upon the Board and, consequently, the Board have, week after week, to supplement it. Now the Board are consulting with the magistrates' clerks with a view to the Board's taking these orders over in principle, either entirely or with occasional exceptions.
They are also considering the delay that there is said to be in taking over what I might call cases of intermittent compliance with an order: cases where a man pays for a bit and then breaks, then resumes and then breaks again, and so on. Your Lordships will recognise that an occasional break, by itself, is hardly enough to go on. The man may have moved; he may have changed his job; there may have been an illness or there may have been an accident. It is right to inquire; it is not quite enough to act without doing that. On the other hand, I think the case that is put is, "Are you quite sure that you do not wait rather too long?" We are looking into that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
LORD MITCHISON: I am very glad to have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on that point, if I may say so.
There is another point concerning publicity. A great deal is being done already, but I agree with what my noble friend (she will not mind my quoting her) was

647
heard to say on one occasion—'that is, "It is all very well putting things in post offices, but post offices do not often put them out, and the people do not know about it sufficiently in that way". My Lords, what they are trying to do is not only through post offices, not only by advertisements and not only by way of the dozen other things which they do. For instance, local National Insurance offices, employment exchanges and Crown post offices stick them on the public side of the counter, which is rather an improvement. To give a rough definition of a Crown post office, it is a place which does not also have a sweetshop.
My Lords, they are also going to try to get out a new leaflet dealing with arrangements for assisting separated wives and unmarried mothers, and to distribute this, using the voluntary agencies. Here, I should like to say that I am quite certain that the National Assistance Board does not feel, any more than I do, any hostility or suspicion, or anything of that nature, about these voluntary societies. They are very useful bodies. They have done very fine work, and I hope they will continue. It should not be expected that all of us, on every point, will agree with them, but they are clearly doing a great deal of good. Not only is there the National Council for the Unmarried Mother: there are a number of Church organisations from various denominations, and there are the probation officers, the courts and the child welfare clinics. I think they have all been pretty good and it will be seen that the Board is proposing to cover every possible avenue of publicity—and this publicity is very important.
I would end on one other matter which I think I have already covered in another way, but it is perhaps worth repeating. The Board does take a great deal of trouble about training its staff. It is not just an accident that these people are sympathetic and are trying to help. The officers of the Board get a very good schooling when they first join the Board, and they get refresher courses later. I have nearly finished, and I perhaps owe your Lordships an apology, but I think that people are interested in this subject and have felt very warmly about it.
648
There was one other point that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. He said, "This is a very difficult business"—and I agree with him. He said, "It wants looking at carefully, and there is a case for an Inter-Departmental Committee or Working Party, or some body of that sort". On the whole, my Lords, I do not think it is a matter for an Inter-Departmental Committee. For one thing, they are rather slow bodies; and I am not sure that in this case they are necessary. But the Nuffield Foundation has made a grant to Bedford College, of the University of London, for a research project by the Department of Sociology to study the social results of the exercise of the matrimonial jurisdiction by magistrates' courts in England and Wales—and I think the right reverend Prelate who spoke said something on these lines, too. An advisory Committee, of which the Chairman is Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, has been set up to facilitate the research; and I am very glad to tell your Lordships that not only is the Chairman of the Board a member of the Advisory Committee but so is my noble friend Lady Summerskill. I feel that that Committee ought to be able to do some extremely valuable work. It will have the full co-operation of the Board: and, I think, that, with this group of cases, that is the obvious immediate line to follow, although ultimately they will have to be dealt with as a part of the general review of the social service.
My Lords, I would not claim that one political Party felt more warmly than another about this, but I can assure your Lordships that in my own Party there is no subject which would spur their feelings more than this kind of case, and the need for proper provision for it. On behalf of the Government, I reject the Bill only on the grounds, first, that I do not think it will add anything to what is already there, except things which are really wrong to add in this form; and, secondly, that I think a Bill of that kind really diverts attention from the proper way of dealing with this kind of subject and may result in the subject itself getting, in the long run, not more consideration but less consideration. That applies to the Bill itself; it does not apply to the fact that the Bill has been proposed and

649
argued with clarity, courage and warmth by my noble friend Lady Summerskill and others in your Lordships' House. I should, after being nasty about the Bill, like to say to her once more that I am very glad indeed that she has brought it forward, and I am very glad that we have had this discussion. I hope it will have a real effect on the administrative arrangements and I hope it will encourage those who are doing work for it, whether in the form of this advisory council which I have just mentioned or in considering future legislation.
4.31 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I say just a final word? I am not going to make another speech. May I thank all those who have supported me: the noble Lord, Lord Amulree (though I see he has gone), my noble friend Lord Brockway, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his excellent exposition. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, Chairman of the National Assistance Board, that I know he understood the whole position and that he did not deny there was a problem. All he said was that he thought it might give a little more work to the National Assistance Board, and, to use the phrase of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, it might tarnish their image. But I really do not think for one moment that it would do this. This relates to only a minute fraction of the prosecutions the Board undertake every day, as both the noble Lord and I well know. I am trying to get in only a tiny fraction of cases involving a woman, a simple woman if you like. If such a woman and the child were living with her mother the mother would say immediately, "Go to the Assistance Board." And the Assistance Board would prosecute, would do all the things which are necessary and would back the woman. I ask only that this simple woman, or,
if you like, this perhaps lazy or stupid woman with this baby, who is perhaps dilly-dallying, should be helped by the Assistance Board's being informed by the court and by the Board's stepping in at this stage.
I have a feeling that the noble Lord who wound up for the Opposition—and I listened very carefully—was sympathetic to my cause, and I am sure that my noble friend in his heart was with me. I listened to him carefully and this is what he said in his opening remarks: "The Board is there to provide for those in need but it is not intended to fill this social purpose". Is there a necessitous case more urgent than that of a girl in this position, alone? I do ask my noble friend to realise that this, surely, was what the Board was established for in the first place.
There is only one other point, and again it emphasises my case. My noble friend has just said that the magistrates' courts are realising that the amounts of the orders are not big enough for a girl and her baby. Therefore, he says, the magistrate's clerk is getting in touch with the Board. He established and emphasised the liaison between the clerk of the court and the Board. Again, that is all I ask. I am sorry that I did not tell him before; but I was going to say that this clerk of the court said that it would be very helpful if the court informed the Board that a case was pending. Having listened to both sides, I now ask for your Lordships' consideration for nothing new; I am asking simply for the machinery already in being to be used to help the person who, in my opinion, is the most helpless woman in the whole community.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Bethell, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Boston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brentford, V.

Dudley, L.

Amulree, L.

Bristol, L. Bp.

Durham. L. Bp.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Brocket, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Attlee, E.

Brockway, L.

Falkland, V.

Auckland, L.

Burden, L.

Grantchester, L.

Audley, Bs.

Byers, L.

Hampton, L.

Balerno, L.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hawke, L.

Barrington, V.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Citrine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Killearn, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Thurlow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

St. Davids, V.

Williams, L.

Meston, L.

St. Just, L.

Williamson, L.

Morrison, L.

Segal, L.

Willis, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sherwood, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Nunburnholme, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stamp, L.

York, L. Abp.

Peddie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beauchamp, E.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ilford, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ingleby, V.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Soul bury, V.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stonham, L.

Faringdon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tenby, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Hobson, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRAYER BOOK (ALTERNATIVE AND OTHER SERVICES) MEASURE
4.47 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Pray Book (Alternative and other Services) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Primate said: My Lords, this Measure comes to Parliament from the Church Assembly, where it was passed by very large majorities—Bishops: Ayes, 30; Noes, none; Clergy: Ayes, 200; Noes, one; Laity: Ayes, 203; Noes, 11. I believe it to be a Measure which is long overdue, and of great importance if the Church of England is to carry out its tasks now and in the coming years.
It is not only the Church of England which is interested in this Measure and its outcome, for our Church is one of the world-wide family of Churches of the Anglican Communion, and in nearly all of the Anglican Churches overseas Prayer Book Revision has been accomplished, in some cases recently and in others some while ago. The Church of England, however, has not statutorily revised its Prayer Book for 200 years and without this Measure, it lacks the power to revise it.
The context of this Measure is, indeed, even wider than purely Anglican concern. Movements for the reform and renewal of public worship are widespread in Christendom. The Church of Rome is very far from being static in this matter, and in our own Church those who are working at liturgical reforms are co-operating with members of the Free Churches in the sharing of ideas and projects. I believe, my Lords, that, in passing this Measure, Parliament will be doing a service to Christendom.
Now, anyone familiar with the modern history of the Church of England, established by law and ruled by the Act of Uniformity, knows that the problem of revising the Prayer Book and the problem of law and order have been linked together. This Measure deals with both problems. First, it enables a limited—indeed, a very modest—degree of autonomy to the Convocations and the House of Laity to sanction new forms of worship by two-thirds majorities for limited experimental periods. I will speak presently about the limits of the powers which will be conferred. At the moment, I remind your Lordships that the Commission on Church and State, under the chairmanship of the late Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, in 1935, recommended a substantially larger degree of autonomy within the Establishment. The present proposals, a good deal more modest, are based upon the Report of the Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Moberly, which reported to the Church Assembly in 1952. I recall that on that Commission, from which the proposals are essentially derived, there were two Members

653
of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and they participated in the framing of the policy.
Secondly, the Measure makes clear the meaning of the term "lawful authority" in the Declaration made by a clergyman promising
"to use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority".
It is notorious that these last words are of uncertain meaning. This Measure makes it clear that "lawful authority" will be deemed to belong to the services of the Book of Common Prayer and to such services as are sanctioned or covered by the various clauses of the Measure. The moral gain from the removal of this ambiguity will be immense.
Let me now say a word or two about law and order in the Church. It is well known that considerable departures from the law take place in the parish churches and cathedrals. The departures from the law are of many different kinds. There are many small deviations from the text and the rubrics of the Prayer Book, probably familiar in most parish churches and, I believe, welcomed by the laity with little consciousness of illegality, though illegality there certainly is. Then in some parish churches (and I believe a diminishing number) there are deviations which most Churchmen would deplore as wildly eccentric and outside the doctrinal standards of our Church. There is also a considerable use of whole forms of service which are illegal and yet familiar and widely welcomed. For instance, in the Crypt Chapel here in the Palace of Westminster the christenings of the children of Members of Parliament commonly follow the Baptism Service of the 1928 Prayer Book, a service much used also in parish churches, as is the Marriage Service from the same Book.
I will give one more instance—one that is very recent and vivid in our minds. None of us, I think, was not moved greatly by the funeral service of Sir Winston Churchill. It was a State Funeral in a metropolitan Church, but the form of service differed not a little from what the Act of Uniformity prescribes. I think I have said enough to illustrate how various are the kinds of widespread deviations from the law of public worship.
And how can there come about reasonable order in public worship, and reality in the declaration by the clergyman that he will follow "lawful authority"? I believe that there are several things required. One need is that there should be greater flexibility and variety in what is deemed to be lawful and the ways in which it can be lawful. This Measure provides that. Another need is that this flexibility and variety should have clearly defined limits. The Measure provides that. Another need is that there be means for revising forms of worship. The Measure provides that. Another need is that in all changes there must be full consultation with the laity. The Measure provides that. Another need is that for serious matters of discipline, when good will has failed to solve them, there should be workable Church Courts. A Measure which your Lordships passed not long ago provides that.
But, my Lords, in a spiritual society order and unity are created not by law alone, but by something more spiritually compelling than laws and courts—namely, a spirit of good will and common loyalty. Here I am sure that, whatever else may be said about our Church of England, one thing at least is certain in its recent history and present tendency: that partisan spirit is far less, and that new and creative ways of co-operation are replacing what used to be partisan conflicts. This Measure can serve these ends. It can enable more flexibility; it can make law clear and unambiguous; and it can help to give good will its chance.
I say something now about the several clauses of the Measure. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 together concern the main procedure for reform and change in public worship. Clause 1 gives to the Convocations and the House of Laity power to sanction by two-thirds majorities a service alternative to one of the Prayer Book services for a period of seven years, which may be followed by one further period of seven years. Clause 2 refers to preliminary experiments in selected parishes for two years, and makes it clear that the total period in which alternative services may be provided for any particular Prayer Book service does not exceed sixteen years. Clause 3 lays down that changes made under either of the first two clauses in the services of a particular

655
parish church require the consent of the laity.
These three clauses together provide a pattern for experimental changes. The procedure will lawfully be applicable to any of the services in the Prayer Book. The Measure is likely to be used at first to sanction much which is already familiar and generally desired so as to lessen the gap between law and current practice. It is also likely to be used for entirely new experimental changes. If anyone fears lest there be a spate of reckless experiments, I should judge that the requirement of two-thirds majorities is far more likely to give a conservative tendency to what is done. If controversial matters arise, the requirements of two-thirds majorities ensure that they will be solved only by considerable consent and in conformity with the doctrine of our Church.
It may be asked what will happen when the period of lawful experiments under the Measure comes to an end. It will then be possible to judge as to what new forms of service have proved worthy of continuance and what forms of service need again to be modified, or perhaps abandoned. As the law stands at present, it would be necessary, when the periods for experiment were exhausted, to introduce any new services in a Schedule attached to a Measure. But perhaps by that time Church and State may together have discovered some new means of legislating for future needs.
I pass to the next group of clauses. Clause 4 refers to services on occasions for which the Prayer Book makes no provision and states what are the powers of the Convocations and the Bishop in relation to such services. For instance, in my own diocese I use services for consecrating a new church, for instituting an incumbent to go to a benefice, or for blessing a stained glass window, and for many particular occasions. Other Bishops do the same. Such services are not in the Prayer Book. The Measure defines their mode of authorisation and their relation to "lawful authority."
Clause 5 permits the minister
"to make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer".
I would explain that this clause concerning minor variations was not asked for by the clergy; it was asked for, insistently, by the laity in the Church Assembly. The intention of this clause may be made clear by a glance at earlier history. It was ruled by the Privy Council in the case of Martin v. Maconochie in 1886 thus:
"It is not open to a minister of the Church to draw a distinction in acts which are a departure from or violation of the rubric, between those which are important and those which appear to be trivial."
This rigidity of the law means that it is as culpable to alter the psalms or the lessons to meet some urgent circumstances, or to change some archaic phrase in a prayer to meet the needs of a particular congregation, or to introduce a collect in a central part of the service dealing with some sudden national crisis, as it is to alter the whole structure of a service. It is the laity who have made it clear that they do not desire this rigidity. Hence this clause.
Clause 6 allows the minister to use forms of service considered suitable by him for occasions for which the Prayer Book makes no provision. Here again, it was the laity who specially desired to have this Clause 1n order that the Measure might cover every aspect of legality. We can think of many circumstances for which this power of the minister can hardly be questioned: mission services, services for children, local commemorations, and memorial services such as we attend from time to time. Again the power is controlled against abuse. For, my Lords, Clause 7, which follows, requires that questions about the use of the last two clauses, if they arise, be referred to the Bishop for guidance and advice. But if any grave issues of discipline arise, nothing here prescribed will be in the way of taking the matter to the Ecclesiastical Courts. The Measure is so framed that it is impossible for the Bishop to constitute himself an arbiter of a judicial matter when recourse to the courts is proper.
Finally, there comes Clause 8 which, as I said earlier, relates all the provisions of the Measure to "lawful authority", leaving its scope and content without ambiguity. I have said something of the relation of the Measure to law and order, as this is inevitably of concern both to

657
Parliament and to the Church. But even far greater is the desire for enabling of reforms in public worship, so that the worship of God in our parish churches may be as worthy as we can make it, and intelligible to the people of our time, and likely to draw more of them to share in it.
If the Measure receives the Royal Assent, we can picture a period in which many changes and experiments already happening, and already welcomed, can go on happening with no slur of illegality and when new experiments are made and tested. I think it is unlikely that we shall see a proliferation of varieties, as I know enough of the conservatism of our ecclesiastical bodies—a conservatism which, personally, I regret—to think that the opposite danger of too little boldness is more likely. But this Measure will enable flexibility and order and good will.
I ask, my Lords, what might be the alternatives? When the Church brought a whole Revised Prayer Book to Parliament, the Measure was accepted in your Lordships' House but rejected in another place. There is no wish for a repetition of that procedure. Indeed, within our Church we have come to think that the right way of reform in worship is not by the construction all at once of a new Prayer Book, but the method of piecemeal change and experiment. What alternatives are there, then? I do not think that any noble Lord who might be hesitant about conceding to the Church the very modest powers bestowed in this Measure would really want to see Parliament itself wrestling with the task of revising forms of worship. If per impossibile we could picture Parliament so acting, your Lordships could be sure that we on this Bench would keep you up for many all-night sittings wrestling into the small hours with rubrics, collects, versions of psalms, and the like, and our friends in another place would keep that weary body similary engaged. No, my Lords, the passing of this Measure will be an act of mutual trust between Parliament and the Church, enabling the Church, in ways far too long delayed, to serve far better God and the people at a time when no one who tries to serve God and the people can go on standing still. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of
658
England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Prayer Book (Alternative and other Services) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, as the most reverend Primate has said, this is a Measure of great importance. It is, I think, the most important Ecclesiastical Measure that has come before Parliament since at least the 'twenties. I am sure the House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for the clear and full exposition that he has given of the contents of this Measure, and of the purposes it is intended to fulfil. We should not, of course, be in any way inhibited in what we say by the in terrorem arguments of the alternative of a series of all-night sittings should this Measure by rejected. But perhaps I should begin by saying two things. First, I am expressing and seeking to express only a personal view. I think it is probably right that, when a Measure of this magnitude and importance comes before this House, your Lordships should express personal views and, if they have some doubts, express those, too. I am sure the most reverend Primate would prefer that, rather than to have the matter dealt with perhaps rather speedily.
Secondly, I should like to say this in order to allay any apprehensions that may exist. In speaking from this Box, where speeches in relation to Ecclesiastical Measures have been made on previous occasions, I should like to make it clear that the mantle of the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who was held in such high esteem in all quarters of this House, has not descended upon me. The first occasion on which I heard any debate in Parliament was when, as a young man, I was sitting in the public gallery and heard the Prayer Book debate. That aroused much controversy, and feelings ran high. I hope that this Measure will not produce that controversy or those feelings. It should be appreciated that if this Measure is approved, Parliament will be divesting itself of a very large measure, if not really in substance, of real control with regard to the forms of service used in the Established Church.
The Act of Uniformity, passed in the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth, as its Title suggests, was directed to securing

659
the uniformity of services in churches by prescribing the forms in the Book of Common Prayer. One result, if this Measure is passed—and I think we must face this—is that that uniformity, prescribed by law, which may not be existent everywhere at the present time through the illegality to which the most reverend Primate referred, will, in fact, disappear.
My Lords, a great deal of time, some 300 years, have passed since that Act of Uniformity was enacted, and although there are many, I do not doubt, who would wish to see no change made, such is their affection and liking for the services to which they have been accustomed, I myself feel that the case for revision, subject to adequate safeguards of the forms of service prescribed so long ago, is overwhelming. It will be possible under the Measure—I recognise this—to have forms of service authorised as alternatives to all the forms of service in the Book of Common Prayer, and possible to use those alternative forms for not more than fourteen years after they have first been authorised; so it is not impossible that the Book of Common Prayer as we know it now may, in fact, go generally out of use for so long a period as fourteen years.
None the less, I think the case for giving the powers contained in the first three clauses of this Measure has been wholly made out. The case for revision, subject to adequate safeguards, is, I think, overwhelming; and I believe the safeguards so far as the provision of alternative forms of service are concerned are adequate. Before an alternative form of service can be used, it has to be approved by both Convocations in the same terms and with not less than a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, and also by the House of Laity.
Furthermore, I regard it as most important that neither the alternative form or forms, as the case may be, approved by both Convocations, nor the draft forms approved for preliminary trial, can be used in a church without the approval of the parochial church council or other appropriate body being first obtained. I regard that as most important, and for the reasons I have given I think that the first three clauses of this Bill are eminently desirable. I have no comment to make with regard
660
to Clause 4. I think the case for giving lawful authority to forms of service approved by the Convocations for use on occasions not provided for in the Prayer Book is also right.
But I must confess that I do feel some doubts about Clause 5. That gives a minister power in his discretion to make and to use variations which are not of "substantial importance", not only in the form of service prescribed by the Common Prayer Book but also in the forms of service authorised for use under this Measure by the Convocations. The most reverend Primate made some observations about the phrase "lawful authority". I do not want to embark on a discussion of the contents of that phrase. He went on to say that there have been considerable departures from the law and that there is certainly illegality. The most reverend Primate then says that this Measure gave flexibility and variety. He said that this flexibility and variety should have clearly defined limits and that this Measure provided for them; that at all steps consultation with the laity should take place, and that the Measure provided for that. But I must confess I cannot find any precise limits to the power of the minister under Clause 5, nor can I find that the exercise of that power can be taken only after full consultation with the laity, for that clause gives him power to make and to use variations which are not of "substantial importance" in any form of service.
Clause 7 requires such variations to be
"reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, or indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England."
My anxiety is about how this will work in practice. The power to give variation under Clause 5 is a permanent power. It does not cease to be exercisable at the end of fourteen years. The fact that there are breaches of the law now does not, to my mind, establish any case for the giving of power to any minister to make such variations as often as he wishes, without consultation with anyone. I say "without consultation with anyone" because he is not required to get anyone's consent before he varies a prescribed or authorised form of service. Although the consent of the parochial church council is required for the use of an alternative

661
form authorised by the Convocations, he does not require anyone's consent before he varies the service. The only words of limitation in Clause 5 are that variations must not be of "substantial importance."
I think that is a very vague phrase indeed. What exactly does it mean? You might have very extensive departures from the forms prescribed or authorised, and yet it could be said that they were not of "substantial importance". You might have some prayer the omission of which could not be regarded as indicative of any departure from the doctrine of the Church. I do not know whether that would be of "substantial importance". But if you have an extensive departure, is that to be regarded as "substantial"? Is the word "substantial" to be construed as equivalent to "extensive"? I do not think it is at all clear or precise. I wish to emphasise that the minister is, in the first place, the sole judge of whether the variation is of "substantial importance". If, after he has made a variation and uses it, a question arises as to its propriety, it can be referred to the Bishop for his pastoral guidance and advice, but there is no obligation imposed by the Measure on the minister to take that advice.
The power to institute proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, 1963, is preserved, but I do not know—and perhaps the most reverend Primate will tell us—whether failure to take such advice would be ground for proceedings under that Measure. I do not suppose, however, that there would be any reference to the Bishop or under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure except in the most serious cases. So the position, if I have understood it correctly, appears to be that though the use of forms of service alternative to those prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer is subject to adequate safeguards, the value of those safeguards is much diminished by a minister's power to vary the forms so long as he considers the variations not of "substantial importance". I do not think this is really very satisfactory.
And I note, in passing, that although Clause 8 defines what is to be meant in the future by the expression "by lawful authority", and it says that "The forms of Service which are authorised by this
662
Measure" or authority set out in Section 10 shall be forms "which are ordered by lawful authority within the meaning of" the 1865 Act, there is no provision for saying that the variation made by the minister under an exercise of his power under Clause 5 is by "lawful authority". I think that omission—perhaps it is merely a drafting matter, but it may be more than that—is not wholly satisfactory.
While I have felt it right to draw attention to these matters, I should not think it right to invite your Lordships to reject this Measure, or indeed to postpone its consideration. I have stressed these points because I hope that the most reverend Primate can give your Lordships the most definite assurance that he and the right reverend Prelates will keep very close watch on how this power given to ministers under Clause 5 is in fact operated, and give an assurance, too, that should he find too extensive use is being made of this power he will not hesitate to bring before your Lordships an amending Measure. I must confess that I should have been much happier if the consent of the Bishop and of the parochial church council, or perhaps of the parochial church council alone, was required before the minister could, of his own, vary the form of service prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer or authorised by the Convocations and the House of Laity after, no doubt, the most full consideration by those bodies.
We cannot amend this Measure; we have either to accept it or reject it, and, despite my doubts on this particular matter, for the reasons I have given, and because I think really the far more important part of this Measure is contained in the first three clauses, I am in favour of supporting it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, the House will understand, I hope, the absence of any speaker from the Government Front Bench to-day. We are under the impression that is the appropriate practice on an occasion of this kind. I am sure that noble Lords will not draw from this fact any particular theological conclusions, and I am sure they will not read into it any lack of religious interest, of profound respect for the Established Church, or of genuine interest in its continued welfare.
5.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, there are two or three questions that I should like to put to the most reverend Primate, and perhaps he will be good enough to answer them in the course of his reply to the debate. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, I do not propose to invite the House to reject this Motion. As the most reverend Primate has already observed, I was a member of the Moberly Commission, together with the right reverend Prelate who sits behind the most reverend Primate, and we did subscribe to the basic principles contained in this Measure by which I feel myself fully bound. But that does not mean I am entirely happy about it. As many of your Lordships know, I personally am more content with the services contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and I have no desire to see them departed from.
Nevertheless, I recognise the arguments which have been advanced throughout the whole of this century for widening the scope of our worship; and I think many noble Lords will recall that that was fully recognised in 1927 and 1928. And had it not been for the fact that the revisions which were then proposed to Parliament contained what were considered to be differences of doctrine, and departure from the existing doctrine of the Church of England, they would have been acceptable to those who then opposed the Measures.
I recognise that in approving the Measure now before us we are laying it once again in the hands of Convocations and the House of Laity to introduce authorised Services for our worship in our Church which may, in the opinion of some of us, depart from the true doctrine of the Church of England. Nevertheless, for my part I feel that the time has come when we have to accept that risk, relying upon the assurances contained in the Measure that nothing authorised will be contrary to the principles and doctrine of the Church of England, and upon the good will and the integrity (upon which I am, indeed, very happy to rely) of the Bench of Bishops to ensure that those provisions are carried out.
The first question I should like to put to the most reverend Primate is a very simple one, and I am sure he will have no difficulty in "hitting it for six" with the greatest of ease. It arises under
664
the provisions of Clause 2. I have no recollection of any suggestion to the Moberly Commission that there should be a preliminary trial of draft forms of services, and I think that is a new proposal which has crept into the series of proposals since we considered the matter some twelve to thirteen years ago.
What I am not clear about is the period for which these draft forms of service may legally remain in existence. Subsection (2) (i) of Clause 2 provides a period of
"two years from the date of the first use of that draft."
Then there is an understandable provision in subsection (2) (ii) to meet the occasion of the draft form of service being substituted for another one. But then in subsection (2) (iii) we have a further period of
"fourteen years from the date of the first approval under Section one of this Measure of a form of Service alternative to the form of Service to which the draft relates."
It seems to me that if under Clause 1 a form of service is approved, that form of service should hold the field, and that the draft form of service to which the form of service which has been passed under Clause 1 is an alternative should be withdrawn. I should be grateful if we could have some enlightenment as to what exactly is the meaning of the provisions contained in that clause.
The second point which I should like to ask the most reverend Primate relates to Clause 5 to which my noble friend has already drawn special attention. As the most reverend Primate indicated, this again is an introduction into the proposals which was not foreseen by the Moberly Commission and which we did not consider at that time. To me, it conveys a deep ground of apprehension, as there seems to be no limit to the variations which a minister may personally introduce of his own volition, save only the exceedingly vague proviso that they are not to be of substantial importance.
I wonder if I may give an instance? Fairly recently, I was attending Matins in a church in the Diocese of Gloucester. I think that that part of the service was being conducted by a curate and not by the incumbent himself. But when we came to the appropriate place in the service for prayers for the Royal Family,

665
they were completely ignored and there was substituted instead a prayer for the recovery of a certain American actor, whose illness was attracting great attention in the public Press at that time. I have no objection to praying for the recovery of the American actor, whom I do not know but who I believe did recover—I do not know if it was as a result of the prayers or not—but I feel rather strongly about the substitution of that particular prayer for a prayer for the Royal Family. I wonder whether or not the most reverend Primate would consider that that was an alteration of "substantial importance". There are many similar occasions one can easily visualise.
As I understand it, and as I see it, the real difficulty is that the variations which are in fact made by a minister—.I give ministers absolutely full credit for acting with the utmost integrity and sincerity—are not considered by them to be of "substantial importance". Your Lordships may recall the debate we had not long ago when I ventured to argue against the passing of the Vestments Measure, and I ventured to stress the grave importance which some of us attached to the wearing of vestments in the Church. But the most reverend Primate in his reply made it abundantly clear that he attached No 1mportance, no significance, no serious distinction at all, to that particular matter. I quote that as just an example of the difference which may well arise between two perfectly sincere and genuine people as to what in fact, in connection with our affairs in the Church of England, does or does not amount to a matter of "substantial importance".
The third point upon which I would seek assurance from the most reverend Primate is the question of law and order. Can he really give us an assurance—which I do not think we ever received in 1927 or 1928—that, in the event of these Measures coming into operation, the Bench of Bishops will really ensure that order is maintained throughout their dioceses among the ministers of the Church of England? I know that at the time the argument against the giving of any such assurance was the impracticability of its being carried out owing to the admittedly chaotic and anarchical state of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measures. But now that those have
666
been revised and brought up to date, and have been put into a form in which it is intended, certainly by the Assembly, that they should be available for use for the maintenance of law and order in the Church, may we have an assurance that in the event of need they will be used, and that discipline will be brought back into the Church of England?
5.35 p.m.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, it was my intention to make a speech of probably ten minutes or a quarter of an hour to your Lordships on this most important Measure, to which I take great objection. I do not propose to do so, however, because of an eloquent statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, which expressed many of my fears and concerns, particularly in regard to the lack of safeguards in Clauses 5, 6 and 7. Secondly, I have, unfortunately—I anticipated that this Measure would be debated much earlier—a most pressing engagement which I have to fulfil. But, in this connection, I want to warn the most reverend Primate that if there are to be many further introductions of Measures such as this I am quite prepared to give the Parliamentary time that is necessary to object to them.
I particularly want to ask one question. I am concerned about the variations which will be tolerated. I think we are entitled to know what variations will be tolerated. After all, this is a State Church. I speak as a Free Churchman, as a Unitarian. A variation has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. That is only a minor variation; but in certain connections there is one which people may think rather outside the scope of this Measure.
I am concerned about far more important doctrinal matters. What variations and what tolerations would be allowed so far as the Communion Service is concerned? This seems to me of paramount importance; and I think that we are entitled to an explanation from the Bench of Bishops as to what variations in the Communion Service are going to be tolerated. This is fundamental to the fact that the Church of England is a Protestant Church. Anything which I consider is going to accept the doctrine of trans-substantiation I shall oppose with all the power and strength at my command. It is one of those questions about

667
which I feel strongly. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, in a speech far more competent than I can make, particularly in his legal explanations, we are entitled to an assurance as laymen—for my part, as a Free Churchman—and as Members of your Lordships' House to some explanation of the variations it is proposed to tolerate in the Communion Service.
There are other weaknesses in Clauses 5, 6 and 7, which are all correlated. First of all, there has to be objection from the laity; then the matter goes to the Bishop. But how long is it before it gets to the final arbiters of the Church of England doctrine, the Convocation? It could be quite a long time. Therefore, as I say, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I cannot express my fears anything like as ably as he has done. This Measure is drafted very loosely indeed. We cannot amend it. On this cardinal principle, this Article of Faith, I think we are entitled to know what variations are to be allowed so far as the Communion Service is concerned.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for many minutes, but I should like to make a few comments on this tremendously important Measure. First of all, I think it is of some interest to note the difference in atmosphere and attitude now compared with those great debates which took place in 1927 and 1928. The most reverend Primate said that on that occasion the Measure which proposed a completely Revised Prayer Book, which was deposited then, was approved in your Lordships' House and rejected in another place. But I think it is of interest to note that on that occasion there were no fewer than 26 speeches from Members of this House, spreading over three days, and that in fact 88 noble Lords eventually opposed that Measure, my father being one of them. I do not propose to follow in my noble father's footsteps, although, coming originally from East Anglia, which is known as a Low Church area, it is perhaps not surprising that he and other noble Lords from that area, including no less a person than the
668
right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, and another right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Worcester, voted against the Measure.
There are one or two questions I should like to raise on this matter, perhaps rather more by way of support of what has already been said. First of all, I would seek some assurance from the most reverend Primate, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Hobson has, as to what kind of alternative forms of service might be in mind. Would they in fact be those forms which are already to be found in the Deposited Prayer Book of 1928? In that case, would they be considered as having already been approved by Convocation, or would such forms of service have to come up again for approval under the terms of this Measure?
The second point I should like to emphasise is that which was taken up by my noble friend Lord Brentford. I must say that I fail to see the logic or the correctness of allowing a draft form of service, which is experimental for two years only in the first place, to remain in being for perhaps sixteen years. I understand that that is the intention of Clause 2 (2) and 2 (3). I am not too sure whether those draft forms of service are to remain in force all through that period.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as this is a particular point of fact, perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord, just to clarify it. The two clauses together provide that there may be a preliminary trial for two years in a selected parish, and that that form of service which has been thus tried may subsequently be adopted for a period of seven years, and for a further period of seven years. In each case a specific decision will be made. In fact it will mean that the matter will be reviewed three times: originally; at the beginning of the first seven years, and at the beginning of the second seven years. But the total run must not exceed sixteen years.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, will the most reverend Primate permit me to put one further point? Under Clause 2 (2) (ii) (the sixteen-year provision) it does not appear that there is any reference back to the authorising authorities, and therefore the laity will never have an

669
opportunity of commenting upon the form of service authorised as it was authorised in draft and subsequently carried on into the sixteen-year period.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Perhaps I might answer the noble Viscount now. The laity will have opportunity of authorising the two-year trial. The laity will have opportunity of authorising, if they will, the first seven-year period. The laity will be consulted again, and it will require a two-thirds majority of them to authorise the seven-year period. At the exhaustion of the sixteen years, as the law now stands, any further steps about these or any other services will require a Measure, again with the concurrence of the laity.
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for explaining that approval would be needed on three occasions in this case. But I am still not altogether sure in my own mind whether it will be possible for there to be in force an alternative form of service and a draft which is alternative to that alternative.
THE LORD ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is possible for those two things to be in existence simultaneously. It would be possible for there to be a form of service generally authorised in all churches for a seven-year period, and at the same time for another form to be tried in selected parishes for a two-year investigation.
LORD HASTINGS: I am most grateful for that explanation. I am not sure (I am speaking entirely personally) that I should consider it altogether satisfactory that there might be two alternatives to the regular form to be found in the Book of Common Prayer: one an authorised alternative, and the other an authorised draft alternative.
The second point relates to Clause 8, which refers to the "lawful authority". In view of the considerable confusion among congregations which can be found nowadays when alternative forms of service are in use—often, as the most reverend Primate has agreed, illegally—it would be a great help if, when these alternative forms are authorised (and they will be placed in the parish church using them, and will have to be printed, since they will not be in the Prayer Book), one could have on the form of service,
670
at the bottom, a notice saying that it is a form of service ordered by "lawful authority". Many people would feel much easier in their minds if that could be done by administrative action.
We know that there are substantial variations. One practice which is quite prevalent in the part of the world in which I live, the North-East, is the Sung Eucharist. That is not according to the form of the Book of Common Prayer. I do not object to other people going to Sung Eucharist, but it is not a form that happens to appeal to me. But, there again, if that form is to be used, it is most important that it should be made quite clear that it is a form of service ordered by lawful authority.
Finally, I would reinforce the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne about Clause 5 and the so-called variations which could be entirely at the discretion of the minister. I believe that it would be most desirable if consultation with the parochial church council could be carried out, and perhaps some instruction to that effect might be given.
That is all I have to say, my Lords. I support this Measure. I am sure it is necessary, if only to avoid confusion which exists at this moment in some of our churches. I am quite sure that it will have the effect of bringing some form of service more up to date and more in tune with the modern mind, especially in regard to the young, and perhaps of bringing more people into our churches than are to be found there to-day.
5.48 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, the most reverend Primate will no doubt be replying in some detail to the points raised by your Lordships. I am anxious to say a word or two on the broad pastoral issue lying behind that liberty of action and of worship which the Church is seeking—that broad pastoral issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred in his closing sentence. I want to view this issue mainly from the point of view of the man in the pew, or even the man now in the street and very rarely in the pew. A very long time has passed since the Prayer Book as we now have it, and know it, and love it, was written, and a great change has come over the nation

671
in the intervening centuries. Its members have passed into a world of science, of automation, of technological development; and in so passing their thought forms have changed and their language has changed almost beyond recognition.
Only a few decades ago, speeches in this House or in another place could be bestrewn with classical allusions and quotations, and it could be assumed that they would be understood by the majority of the Members. So, also, in regard to allusions to Scripture. A fairly thorough knowledge could be taken for granted on the part of most educated men. But he would be a rash man who made such an assumption to-day. The background of our thought-forms, the vocabulary that we use, are largely different from those employed by our forbears half a century ago—not to say three or four centuries ago.
The bearing of this on the matter of the services used in church is, I think, immediate and urgent. I am not arguing that it is essential to use the language of the market-place in the liturgy of the Church. There may be an element of the awe-full, of the numinous, of mystery, rightly conveyed by language which is distinctly other than that of to-day's newspaper. Even the use of "Thou" and "Thee", instead of "You" may do something to convey this sense. But I am saying that to assume in our liturgical forms a background knowledge which the average man or woman in the pew does not possess is to shut our eyes to reality and to lay ourselves open to the charge of being out of touch with life as it is. I hope your Lordships will allow me to illustrate this very briefly.
Many of those who come to our churches for marriage have only a slight idea of the Church and of its ways; nor is their knowledge of the Bible extensive. I doubt, therefore, whether it helps to begin a prayer in that service with an invocation to the "God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob", or to allude, as it were in passing, to the way in which God sent His blessing "upon Abraham and Sarah to their great comfort", together with liberal allusions to Adam and Eve, of whom the pair at the chancel steps have but the haziest knowledge. To use such language is,
672
I think, to drive a wedge between religion and reality.
It is important that, at the most intimate and joyful moments of human life and experience, the services should echo the occasion. Let me illustrate again. Every year thousands of women, often accompanied by their husbands, come to thank God for the gift of a child. When I worked in a depressed down-town area in the 1930s, I used to think it was unfortunate, to say the least, that the little service I used with the mother, and sometimes with her husband, was not simpler and more joyful than the one I was supposed to use. Nor could I think it other than unfortunate that the Psalm set for that occasion included the words:
"I was sore troubled; I said in my heart 'AD men are liars'."
One could go on, if time allowed, to bring other instances more weighty than these to illustrate my thesis. One could refer to the Baptism Service or to that of Holy Communion. But I hope that I have made my point, that liturgy is a living thing. It must be warm and expressive of the development and movement of a people. It must never be allowed to petrify and harden like lava which was once hot and moving but is now dead and cold and hard. If that happens, then there is a rift between Church and people. If that happens, then the clergy have in their hands a blunted sword. If that happens, a man may find his access to God impeded.
For some four years, until in recent days pressure of work compelled me to resign from it, I was Chairman of the Liturgical Commission. In that Commission we wrestled with just such problems as those on which I have been touching to-day. During those years and in the years immediately preceding them, the Liturgical Commission produced draft services which sought to bear in mind the needs of a new age, which sought to incorporate the discoveries of recent liturgical scholarship, while at the same time they sought to be true to the verities of the Christian revelation which never change from age to age. These services are not perfect; no one would pretend that they are. Indeed, we cannot tell just now to what extent they will meet the needs of our people until we try them out in different parishes, experiment with them, improve upon

673
them, shorten them here or repatch them there. Hence, there is the need for a period of experimentation and for draft forms.
But I believe that, as the result of the work of some considerable period of years on the part of the Liturgical Commission, we now have in our hands a considerable body of material worthy of just such experimentation. It will call for wise handling in the years ahead. It will call for open-mindedness and willingness for change on the part both of clergy and of people. But just as, in other parts of the Anglican Communion, liturgical research and down-to-earth experimentation have issued in worship more lively and more relevant, so I believe there awaits us a hope of considerable renewal when we have the authority to put into use the services which are now on the liturgical assembly-line.
With these considerations in mind, and viewing the matter from the standpoint of the man in the pew and of the clergyman who ministers to him, I would express the hope that your Lordships will give a welcome to the Measure before us.
5.57 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful for this debate, for the criticisms which have been made, and for the freedom with which noble Lords have sincerely expressed their minds; and, also, for the great good will expressed by noble Lords even in moments when they were being critical. To the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, let me express my gratitude for his support for the main proposals of the Measure. I would say a word about his apprehensions concerning Clause 5. What I say may not satisfy his legal conscience, but I ask him to understand the great complexity of the matter.
Small variants that can be made by the minister are immense in number and occasion, and they are in my judgment inevitable if there is to be any common sense in the behaviour of clergymen; and I believe that that is a quality in clergymen which noble Lords would desire. For instance, an incumbent in a parish in County Durham on some special occasion may have a church full of people from the mining community who do not normally go to church. Perhaps
674
some of them have never been to church before. It is a statutory service and the incumbent is bound by law. The chief prayer of the day begins, "Prevent us, O Lord." The incumbent exercises his judgment by substituting, "Go before us, O Lord" for "Prevent us, O Lord." I could give, perhaps, a couple of dozen of like illustrations where common sense dictates minor illegalities.
The framers of the Measure were very perplexed indeed by this. My own inclination would have been not to have Clause 5 at all, and to attempt to appeal to what I believe lawyers sometimes call the de minimis principle. On the other hand, it was the laity in our bodies who ardently desired this clause, because they wanted both that the clergyman should be able to make small alterations according to the dictates of common sense and also that it should be clear that he was not breaking the law in so doing. Hence this clause. The noble and learned Viscount feels it to be imperfect law. I feel that the substance of the matter is an inevitable matter of common sense. But let me assure the noble and learned Viscount that if this Clause 5 were seen to be used for the importing into public worship of matters of a kind other, in quality or quantity, than what it is designed to cover, certainly it would be the business of the Church to look into the need for amending legislation.
Now may I come to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Brentford? His first question concerned the operation of Clauses 1 and 2 in relation to a test for two years in certain parishes, and the certain test period of seven years. I believe that I answered that question in the course of an interruption which I made.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the most reverend Primate will permit me, I think he said, in the course of that interruption, that the laity would have an opportunity of considering and passing the draft form of service, but Clause 2 (1) of the Measure states:
"For the purpose of giving a preliminary trial to a form of Service which is under consideration by the Convocations of Canterbury and York with a view to approval being given thereto under section one of this Measure, a draft of the said form of Service, approved by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, may, … be used … ",
and so on. It does not say anything about the House of Laity having any authority over the matter at that stage.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the House of Laity have been brought in at the initial stage, and at that stage the laity are consulted through the necessity of reference to a particular parish. That is clear. In one respect it is the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity who are brought into operation: in another respect it is the Convocations plus reference to the laity in the parish. But on neither occasion are the laity exempted from their rights under the Measure.
The second question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, was in respect of variations of no substantial importance, under Clause 5. He asked: is it or is it not a variation of substantial importance to substitute for the prayers for the Sovereign and the Royal Family a prayer for an American actor? My answer is that it will be the business of the Alternative Services Measure, in its operation, to make this clear within the form of service. The service in the Book of Common Prayer certainly would make that illegal. The rubrics in an alternative service ought to, and I hope will, make it clear which of the prayers in the last part of the service are obligatory, which are optional and how much space there is for additions to be introduced by the minister. I would say that a properly constructed service would itself, by its rubrics, answer the noble Viscount's point.
The third question—and a much bigger one—asked by the noble Viscount was: Will the Bishops guarantee that there is law and order? Here, I can say sincerely that, with law brought up to date so that norms of up-to-date law in public worship do exist, and with orders that are up to date and workable, it is the intention of the Bishops and the clergy, and of the laity working with them, that there shall be lawful authority observed and obeyed. But I would add that the bringing about of that involves the operation together both of law and of pastoral care and of good will.
Then, noble Lords asked, in effect: Please tell us what forms of service are going to be authorised under the Measure. I think it is proper to say that this debate is not about particular forms of service but about whether certain powers should be given to the ecclesiastical bodies, by two-thirds
676
majorities of Bishops and clergy and laity, to authorise forms of service. With such conditions, I think it is inconceivable that services will be authorised contrary to those of the doctrine of our Church. There is certainly No 1ntention of doing so. Then there was the particular question: What will be the status of services in the 1928 Book which are at present used with (if I may use such a phrase) the quasi-authority of that Book? To that question a perfectly plain answer will be given. Services under the 1928 Book will have no sanction whatsoever unless they are selected to be given explicit authority under this Measure. I hope that that is clear.
My Lords, I believe that I have answered the various questions asked in the course of the debate, and your Lordships will have heard from the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York how urgently and ardently this Measure is desired for the fulfilment of the Church's practical work in the country. Does the noble Lord wish to say something?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I did not wish to interrupt the most reverend Primate, but it was merely on the administration point, of making it quite clear that services will. be printed by lawful authority. I wondered whether the most reverend Primate would like to comment on that suggestion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not think there is the slightest intention ever to do otherwise, and I myself attach the utmost importance to using the opportunity of this Measure to make it quite plain what has authority and what has not.
My Lords, it is gratifying that no noble Lord appears anxious to ask the House to divide, and the fact that that is so is, I feel, an indication that, despite a great variety of conviction and conscience, and despite a number of critical points which have been made, the atmosphere of good will in matters of religion has increased enormously, both within our Church and far more widely. For that we are profoundly grateful; and by passing this Measure your Lordships' House will, I think, have given a service to those great ends.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SOIL STRIPPING AT CRAWLEY NEW TOWN
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Agricultural Land (Removal of Surface Soil) Act, 1953, is in force; and, if so, whether planning permissions to strip soil have been
678
granted for the stripping of turf in the neighbourhood of Crawley New Town over the last two years.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON: The Act is in force. According to the information my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has received from the local planning authorities concerned—namely, East and West Sussex and Surrey County Councils—no such planning permissions have been granted.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.