Lords Sitting of 7 March 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF LISTOWEL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich

THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S BEREAVEMENT
2.36 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, before we begin our Business this afternoon, I am sure it would be the wish of all your Lordships that we should express our sorrow at the news of the sudden death of Lady Gardiner. All of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, would, I know, wish to send to the Lord Chancellor and his family our deep and sincere sympathy at this sad time.
LORD REA: My Lords, from this quarter of the House, I, too, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, should like to add our most sincere sympathy for the Lord Chancellor in his grievous personal sorrow. As your Lordships know, the noble and learned Lord has not been a Member of your Lordships' House for very long, but in that time he has earned both our admiration and our affection. This tragedy in his domestic life touches us all. If I may just touch on a personal note, I have known him and had the privilege and pleasure of his friendship for nearly fifty years, since we were very young men together, first in the Army and then at Oxford. But, irrespective of time, of Party politics and even of his exalted position, we all share his grief, and we hope that such widespread and genuine sympathy may in some small way give him a little help.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, if anything could bring any measure of consolation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this time, I am sure it would be the messages which have been conveyed, on behalf of the House, by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord
896
Rea, in such moving terms. The Lord Chancellor, as we all know, is the most modest of men, in spite of his wonderful gifts. He would be the last to recognise what an ascendancy he has, as Lord Rea said, gained in a short time over the minds and hearts of all your Lordships, just as Lady Gardiner would have laughed at the idea that she should be held in the affection in which she is in fact held by so many Members of the House who have quite recently come to know her well.
I will, of course, make sure that the message is carried to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor con amore.

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR ROAD SCHEMES
2.38 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that in calling for the deferment of public expenditure on capital projects, the Minister of Transport asked local authorities to defer expenditure on advance acquisition of land.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the advance acquisition of land for road schemes in the forward road programme was specifically exempted from deferment. Local authorities were asked to defer as far as possible expenditure on other advance acquisition of land.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he recalls that on February 16, in the debate on Roads, I quoted Mr. Durie, of the Automobile Association, who regretted the fact that the Government had placed a curb on the advance acquisition of land, and that the noble Lord, in replying to the debate, said that this statement was untrue? I gather that, in fact, the statement was correct; and, in fairness to Mr. Durie, I think it would be helpful if that could be made clear.
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords. The statement was incorrect. The noble

897
Lord made a reference to postponed schemes under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "six months" proposal. I then replied that, as regards those schemes, the acquisition of land and the necessary statutory procedures that follow would not be held up. I will, if I may, read the specific paragraph in the circular that was sent out by the Ministry of Transport on August 19, 1965, and which was in fact paragraph 9 of that circular. The heading was, "Land in advance", and it read:
" Authorities are asked to defer as far as possible expenditure on advance acquisition of land, except where this is clearly required for programmed classified road schemes and is thus eligible for grant under Circular Roads Number 21 /62."
What was stopped was what is referred to in local government circles as opportunity purchases of land. That is the purchase of land for road schemes that are not even in the pipe-line, which sometimes becomes available to local authorities and which they purchase in anticipation of likely use. But, on actual road programmes, the deferment meant no cessation of the programmed development and general procedures of acquisition.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is aware that, in a statement to the Press by the Ministry of Transport on August 19 of last year, it was stated:
"Authorities are also asked to defer where possible expenditure on advance acquisition of land"?
I was referring to the acquisition of land in anticipation. Would the noble Lord agree that Mr. Durie was also referring to that, and that that may hold up the road programmes for quite some time?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if a scheme is not even in the pipe-line it cannot be held up. If land becomes available on the market, and if local government think it will be likely to be required, they will sometimes acquire it. In the circumstances of last July the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that sanction would not be given for advance purchases of land for schemes not yet approved.

LEASEHOLD LAW REFORM AND CHARITIES
2.43 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended that the alterations of the law affecting leasehold property envisaged in the Command Paper Leasehold Reform in England and Wales [Cmnd. 2916] will apply to properties owned by charities for charitable purposes.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, the proposals in the White Paper will apply in general to property of charities held for charitable purposes. But it is proposed to exclude land held inalienably by the National Trust and property owned by housing associations, some of which are charities. Special provisions will also apply to certain public authorities mentioned in paragraph 16(b) of the White Paper: some of these are charities.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his rather discouraging reply, may I ask him whether he will invite his right honourable friend to consider this matter again, in view of the number of bodies administering funds in which the public are interested and for whom special treatment is recommended in the White Paper? There really are a very large number of these: universities, Government Departments, New Town Authorities, statutory undertakers, Crown Estates and so forth.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this matter has been fully considered, and your Lordships will remember that this White Paper has been approved in another place as a basis for legislation. Universities are one of the bodies specifically mentioned in paragraph 16(b).

THE 70 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the evidence for a three-fold accident rate at speeds over 70 m.p.h. mentioned in the recent Government advertisement was based on the United States Department of Commerce Survey; and, if so, whether they would also publish the finding that the accident rate for vehicles travelling at under 25 m.p.h. was more than a hundred times greater than the average.]
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, My Lords. Estimates from this study of the risk of accidents at high speeds were published because they were relevant to the imposition of the experimental 70 m.p.h. speed limit. Estimates of accident risks at below average speeds were not relevant to this decision.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask him whether he would not agree that on a pure efficiency basis it would have been far better to carry out experiments with minimum rather than maximum speed limits?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there is an expression—I am not quite sure of it—to the effect that figures can lie; but liars cannot figure; or it may well be the other way round. One has to appreciate that while it is true that at low speeds the accident rate is higher, many of those accidents result only in damage to vehicles. In the survey carried out in the United States, for the lower speeds the casualty figure averaged 0·2 persons per accident. For higher speeds the figure was 1·5. For myself, I would rather be hit by a car going at 25 m.p.h. than by one going at 85 m.p.h.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why the Government do not follow the example of the United States and fix speeds, especially on the great highways and trunk roads, at which drivers must go in the different lanes.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, that is what we have been doing since December.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
LORD LINDGREN: We have, in fact, fixed a speed limit. As a result of experiments, it is possible that we may come to exclude certain traffic from certain lanes. There may also be a minimum speed for travel on the motorways; because there is no doubt that the tendency to bunch does sometimes cause a hazard.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the whole conception of a blanket 70 m.p.h. speed limit, without controls, is not a scientific experiment but a political move designed to show that some action is being taken and to try out the public reaction?
LORD LINDGREN: No, my Lords, To save life is not a political move; it is a humanitarian one. Although the figures received by the Ministry have not yet been published, the American survey shows a speed limit can decrease the number of deaths on both classified roads and motorways. To have saved a life is well worth while.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: May I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that the basis of the experiment is unsound because he has no control with which to compare it, except last year's figures, and that since then a number of things have changed? Would it not have been better to keep some roads decontrolled, so that a direct comparison could have been made under the conditions then pertaining?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the Minister does not yet have control of the motorist on the roads. There are, in fact, great variations in the standards of competence of persons in charge of motor cars which can be lethal weapons in the wrong hands. I think that to put an overall blanket on is necessary and those who are competent to drive at much higher speeds without risk ought to be prepared to make that sacrifice, because there are others on the roads not so competent as themselves.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, do I understand from what the Minister

901
has said that the speed limit will now be permanent and not experimental?
LORD LINDGREN: I cannot speak for my right honourable friend, but I am certain, from the knowledge I have of the results, that a further experimental period is quite likely. I would not say more than that.

HUDSON MEMORIAL WATER BASINS
2.50 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 when the basins of the Hudson Memorial in Hyde Park will again be filled with water.]
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, these basins, which are drained each winter to prevent damage by frost, have now been refilled.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to have heard that. I should like to ask two supplementary questions. The first is whether the fact of my putting down a Question was the reason for the basins being refilled. Secondly, would it not be possible to protect them by means of some device so that the water in them would not break the basin were there to be a frost in winter?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, so far as I know, the cause of their being refilled was the improvement in the weather. As regards the other question, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will remember that in January, 1964, he was given information as to what had been done as a result of recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Forestry and Bird Sanctuaries, and these recommendations related, among other things, to repairs.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these basins have any marks on them showing what capacity of water they will hold—in view of the great interest now taken in marking the capacity of milk bottles?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, not without notice.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
2.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 there will be two Statements. The first will be made by my noble friend Lord Mitchison on the protection of house purchasers. The second will be made by my noble friend Lord Bowles on the Ministry of Social Security.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1966
2.53 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1966, a draft of which was laid before the House on February 24, be approved. This is the seventh set of amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations of 1962. You may feel, as I do, that it is time they were consolidated, and we hope to achieve this before the autumn. Meanwhile may I briefly explain the draft Regulations now before you? They fall into two parts. Part I is consequential on the Pensions (Increase) Act 1965, and provides for increases in the pensions of police widows, and increases in the allowances payable to children of deceased police officers. The pensions of retired police officers themselves are increased directly under the Act of 1965. This method follows the usual procedure for applying pensions increases in the police service.
There are two classes of police widow's pension. One is related to the late husband's pay and length of service, and the other is a flat-rate amount depending upon his rank. The draft Regulations now before the House provide that, in the former case, the awards shall be treated as though they had been specified in the Schedule to the Pensions (Increase) Act, and, in the latter case, by substituting new increased rates. The cases related to pay

903
and service are covered by Regulation 4, and the flat-rate cases by Regulations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The flat-rate amounts now proposed will give an increase of 16 per cent. on the present rates, which is the highest increase for which the Act provides. Draft Regulation 2 (which relates to the additional increase in a pension at age 70 provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1962, and the increase payable on it under the 1965 Act) and Draft Regulation 3 (which relates to the duration of an increase in a child's allowance) are consequential upon the main provisions. I am sure your Lordships will agree that these are all desirable amendments.
Part II of the Regulations contains, in Regulation 10, a technical amendment as respects the construction of the 1962 Regulations where part of a police area is transferred to another police area, in consequence of local government reorganisation. Draft Regulation 12 provides that Part I (that is, the Part which relates to pensions increase) shall have effect from January 1 last, the date from which the Pensions (Increase) Act 1965 took effect; and that Regulation 10 in Part II shall take effect as from April 1, 1966, the date on which the proposed Regulations which are now before you will themselves come into operation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1966, be laid before the House on February 24, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
2.57 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for explaining these Regulations so shortly and so clearly. From this side of the House we welcome them, as we always welcome anything which is for the benefit of the police or their dependants.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary to use language in these Regulations which, in some cases, is almost incomprehensible. The noble Lord mentioned paragraph 3, but does he think that it means anything? May I read the paragraph, which is quite short? I should like your Lordships to note whether you can make anything of it.
3. In Regulation 84B(b) of the principal Regulations (which, as set out in Regulation 2
904
of the Regulations of 1963, relates to the duration of an increase in a child's allowance) for the words "the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1959 and of 1962" there shall be substituted the words "the Pensions (increase) Acts of 1959, of 1962 and of 1965".
I take it that it means something, but I have looked at it and, to me, it does not seem to mean very much.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Explanatory Note at the end of the Regulations is designed to help solicitors, who presumably would read the Regulations and understand them—if not, who will?—or the general public, who I should think would be more bemused by the Explanatory Note than by the Regulations?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for the welcome which he has given to these Regulations. As he says, they will make a substantial improvement in the awards, pensions and child allowances. The noble Lord asked whether it is necessary to use language which, to him, and, in his view, to the general public, is almost incomprehensible. For some two years the noble Lord was in the seat which I now occupy, and therefore he must be aware of the problems with respect to these Regulations. As I mentioned at the outset, this is the seventh set of Regulations since 1962, which in part accounts for (as he put it) the somewhat incomprehensible nature of the language used; because in each case we are referring to a previous Act, and often to previous Regulations which this set of Regulations amends. It should become quite clear if only you are armed with the previous Regulations and have the time and skill required to study them. I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, and what was said by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl. I can only plead that there are, in the police and on the Police Council, people who are extremely skilled in interpreting these things, apart from lawyers, because they have grown up with them and are a party to them. We shall, of course send detailed circulars to police authorities, and any police widow who wishes to know what her entitlement is can speedily be told. Nevertheless, we are examining this and it is my hope that we shall achieve something better

905
next time, particularly in the consolidation measure.
The noble Lord asked what Regulation 3 meant. I confess that it would take about six hours for anyone to find out precisely what it means, but I have naturally taken the precaution of finding out. It means simply that the increases are payable so long as the children's allowances are payable. It might be thought that this could be said as simply as I have said it. I am sorry that it is not. With regard to what the noble Duke said about the Explanatory Memorandum, I agree, that it makes unusually heavy weather of the subject. I can only say that the point has been taken very much to heart, and I can guarantee that whoever has the privilege of submitting the next regulations will not incur the displeasure of your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment agreed to.
AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Schedule:
>Provisions Applicable to Loans Mentioned in Section 7(2)
1. An agreement between the Commissioners and the authority shall be sufficient to effect the loan and shall, notwithstanding anything
906
in any enactment, be included among the means by which the authority may raise money; and—
2.—(1) Where the loan is effected by agreement, the agreement shall not be chargeable with stamp duty, but—
(b) the Commissioners may recover from any other party to the agreement the amount for which they are required tinder this paragraph to account to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in respect of the loan
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, in paragraph 2(1)(b), to leave out "may" and insert "shall". The noble Earl said: On the Second Reading of this Bill, I expressed one or two doubts and reservations about the effect the Bill would have on trustee savings banks. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, when he replied, told me that he could reassure me on 90 per cent. of my doubts and worries, and this he was good enough to do. There was one doubt that I felt he did not fully meet, and it is for this reason that I have put down this Amendment.
As it appears at the moment, a trustee savings bank can give mortgages to local authorities and also invest the money by purchasing dated Government securities and dated corporation securities. Where a mortgage is obtained, the local authority, who is the borrower, pays the stamp duty. It is suggested in the Bill that loans by the Post Office Savings Bank shall be of a nature exactly similar to those of the trustee savings banks. This was one point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Snow. He said that they would have the same "fistful" that the trustee savings banks were allowed to have. Where this is so, there is no complaint, but in the method of borrowing this money there is the possibility of doubt.
At the moment, where a local authority lends money, it pays stamp duty, but in this Bill it is suggested that, instead of a mortgage, there should be an agreement, and where there is an agreement, no stamp duty will be payable. Instead, the National Debt Commissioners, who will be running Post Office Savings Bank affairs, will pay over to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the aggregate of the sums which would have been payable in stamp duty. In effect, we have the same state of affairs. Money is lent, but instead of the local authorities

907
paying stamp duty on individual transactions, the equivalent amount will be paid by the Post Office Savings Bank.
But paragraph 2 of the Schedule then says that the National Debt Commissioners "may" recover from the other party—in other words, the local authority—the amount that was paid over by them to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I wonder if the noble Lord would be good enough to tell me why the word "may" is put in the Bill and not the word "shall". Presumably, if the Commissioners may recover the money, they also may not—and if they do not recover the money, the Post Office Savings Bank will be standing in a substantial advantage over the trustee savings banks, for the reason that, clearly, local authorities will prefer to lend their money to a body when they do not have to pay stamp duty, or its equivalent, rather than lend to a body where they will be responsible for the stamp duty.
The noble Lord, Lord Snow, described this as a purely technical matter and I have no doubt that that is the intention. But I cannot help thinking that the Parliamentary draftsmen, who are not stupid people, would not put in the word "may", if "shall" had been the more appropriate word to use. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who I understand is going to answer, that there is no intention that the Post Office Savings Bank will stand at an advantage over the trustee savings banks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD CHAMPION: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Snow, it falls to me to answer the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. May I begin by thanking him for the clear way in which he put the Amendment and the doubts which exist in the minds of those banks who think that from now on the Post Office Savings Bank will to some extent be in competition with them. This is an important matter. Clearly, if it were the case that relief was being given from stamp duty under the word "may", this might cause competition with the trustee savings banks to be severe—it almost might prohibit them from getting satisfactory business. So I can well
908
appreciate the point the noble Earl has made.
I must admit that I was not happy about the word "may" when I began to look at this. Although one has so often heard discussions in Parliament about uses of the words "may" and "shall", it seemed to me, when I looked at it first, particularly, that the word "shall" should have been used in paragraph 2(1)(b) of this Schedule, because, as I understand it—and I have looked up the dictionary—the word "may" does imply the possibility with contingency; but the word "shall", which the noble Earl would like to use, declares what is to take place. In some ways, I should have thought it much more satisfactory if the word "shall" had gone into the Bill. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, and the ways of Parliamentary draftsmen, I have discovered, are rather different from the ordinary mind, which mine happens to be.
But my job here to-day is to assure the noble Earl that paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Schedule creates an obligation upon the other party to the agreement—that is to say, the agreement with the Commissioners—namely, the local authority, to pay the Commissioners the amount which would have been chargeable by way of stamp duty if the loan had been secured by a formal mortgage deed instead of an agreement under the Bill. At this point, I can specifically give the noble Earl the asurance which I am sure he wants, that the word "may" is not included here in order to give the Commissioners power to do something which they ought not to do in competition with the Trustee Savings Bank. I can give him a categorical assurance that this will not take place.
The second point that I have to make—and I do not regard this as such a powerful argument—is that paragraph 2 follows a precedent set by Section 3 of the Public Works (Loans) Act 1965, under which the Public Works Commissioners are recovering stamp duty from local authorities. This is working quite satisfactorily. There is no doubt at all that it follows absolutely the appropriate section of that 1965 Act.
The next point I have to make is that the Amendment is unnecessary, because the National Debt Commissioners already have ample powers under the Bill to

909
recover duty, and their clear intention is to use those powers. Then, I must make the point that the Amendment, in any case, is technically unacceptable, in view of the words "from any other party" in line 34. But I do not want to rest on technicalities here. What I want to do is to assure the noble Earl that this follows precedent; that it is not being put in to imply possibility with contingency (the words that I used just now), but is put in in the normal way of drafting. And I can tell the noble Earl that the Commissioners—and I am sure he knows or has some idea who the Commissioners are; they are a very reputable body—are in agreement with the assurance that I have given him. I hope, in view of what I have said, and the fact that we both, I am sure, want this Bill to go on the Statute Book, that the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for explaining the position so clearly. Indeed, if I may say so, he has jumped into the position of the noble Lord, Lord Snow, with remarkable alacrity. It was Lord Snow's clarification of all the previous points that I raised that resulted in only one Amendment being on the Marshalled List. The noble Lord has given me the assurance which was the object of my putting down this Amendment. However, I am bound to say that it leaves me still a trifle confused, because he has not really said why the word "may" is so essential, other than the fact that it follows precedent. I should have thought that, if it is the clear intention of the National Debt Commissioners to get this money hack from the local authorities, there should be an obligation to put it in the Bill; in other words, it should state that they "shall" collect the money from the local authorities. I am not really clear—and perhaps the noble Lord would care to have another shot at it—why the word "may" should be used, because, as he says, it almost puts a caveat into the Bill that on some occasions this shall not be done. I do not know whether the noble Lord could give me any further explanation on that.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Earl has asked me if I could give any further explanation of it. The answer to that
910
is that I would if I could, but I cannot. I have gone just about as far as I can in reply to the noble Earl. But I think the assurance he is seeking is really the one that matters in this connection, and I hope that Parliamentary draftsmen in the future, when they are faced with putting in "may" or "shall", will read what the noble Earl has said, and what I myself have said, in this connection.
EARL FERRERS: I could not ask for a more lucid explanation. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will rest content on the assurance that he has given me, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the House to be again in Committee (on Recommitment).
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Medical termination of pregnancy]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Your Lord ships will remember that at the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on Monday last, fewer than 30 noble Lords attended in the Division on Amendment No. 11, and the Question was accordingly declared not decided and the House was resumed. The debate on the undecided Question has therefore been adjourned until to-day. The Committee now proceeds with the Amendment on which no decision was taken owing to the absence of a quorum on Monday. The Question before the Committee, therefore, is that Amendment No. 11, as an Amendment to No. 8, be agreed to.

911
Amendment No. 11, in the name of Lord Strange, was to add to Lord Silkin's Amendment:
"( ) Where a registered medical practitioner refuses to carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy, he shall immediately notify a female welfare officer, appointed by the local authority, of such refusal, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the welfare officer so far as practicable to secure the physical and mental health and well-being of the pregnant woman and of the child if born."
LORD STRANGE: I now return to this Amendment, but as I have been battering away at it for so long, I shall not have to make a very long speech. As I have told your Lordships, the whole idea of this Amendment is to establish a principle which I think should be established in the Bill. I will try to explain the principle as simply as I can for those who did not hear my earlier rather long, and boring, speech on this subject.
I put it in this way. When this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, there will be a great deal of publicity. The ordinary woman who reads the headlines in the Press and does not quite remember what it is all about, will believe that she can treat her doctor as she now treats her dentist. She will think that, just as she can go for an extraction at any time she likes, so she will be able to go and get an abortion. This is not the case. I would point out that this Bill, when it becomes law, will have been threshed out by the best legal brains in the country, the best medical brains in the country, and the best ecclesiastical brains in the country, and that it will be treated very seriously by all doctors. They will, I am sure, see that those who are entitled to it do have an abortion under this Bill, but will reject those who are not so entitled.
The figures with regard to abortion are difficult to ascertain with any certainty. We have the figures of those treated in hospitals, but we can never know the number of successful illegal abortions or the number of successful "Do-it-yourself" abortions which have taken place. The figure which was given earlier, of 100,000 abortions a year, I believe to be just about right. If this Bill is passed the doctors will be able to tell about 20,000 women, "I can do some-
912
thing about it ", and 80,000 women will be rejected. They will go out of the doctor's house, and I presume they will seek out the nearest illegal abortionist. I need hardly tell your Lordships that the illegal abortion business is an abomination in this country. It may well be that in the higher class there are skilled men who work their trade with proper hygienic protection, but lower down the scale there are unskilled people, amateurs and charlatans, who work under dangerous conditions, without skill and with clumsiness. As a result, a great number of these unfortunate women are leaving these abortioners' dens and going to hospital, where they are very ill, and often, indeed, dying.
The principle I want to establish is that these 80,000 women who are refused an abortion by their doctors will have to be offered an alternative. They cannot be allowed to look after themselves and get what they can. The only alternative I can see to-day which could be offered to them would be to try to steer them towards adoption. It may be that the way I have suggested is clumsy. I know that many noble Lords object to the idea of introducing a female welfare officer, but I have not thought of any other means, and some better way may be found. I think it is essential that they should have an alternative, and that they should not be sent out in despair, with suicide and abortion in their minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said something very encouraging to me when I was speaking on this subject before. He said that he had in his mind recognising this principle in later stages of the Bill. After I have sat down, if the noble Lord can give me a guarantee that he will recognise this principle, and say that there is a chance of a clause being put in the Bill which will give justice to these rejected women, then I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment. But before I sit down with withdrawal in my heart, I feel I cannot shut the gate, in case other noble Lords wish to contribute something on the principle I have been trying to describe. I feel that their contributions might be of value to us, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when, as I hope he will, he frames the new clause to go into his new Bill. Therefore, I sit down awaiting your Lordships' wisdom.
3.24 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I spoke fully on this Amendment before, but I should like to support the noble Lord. I would remind the Committee that the problem we are dealing with is that, so far as we can estimate, 90,000 abortions are procured every year in this country, 20,000 legally, and 70,000 illegallly. If this measure reaches the Statute Book, inevitably there will be thousands of these women, similar to those who have had illegal abortions, who will believe themselves qualified to have a legal abortion. In the first place, they will appeal to their doctors. They may well send them to the hospital to a surgeon with gynaecological experience, who may discuss the matter with a psychiatrist. But, finally, it may be that their request is rejected. What the noble Lord is asking is that some kind of welfare machinery shall be set-up for those women, who will be the end products, let us say, of this legislation, who are in desperation appealing for an abortion and are rejected, in order that they will be looked after immediately. I think this is both humane and practical, and that it is closely related to the objects of this Bill, because what we are anxious to do is to eliminate the back-street abortionist. The women about whom the noble Lord is talking now are precisely those who find themselves rejected by the hospital, and who will seek some other means to have an abortion procured. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will be sympathetic to the noble Lord's Amendment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: With regard to the Amendment put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Strange, and by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, of course none of us is against a welfare service for these rejected women. Nobody in this House would get up and say that. What some of us object to is the compulsory notification. When a woman goes to a doctor and asks for an abortion and is rejected, this proposed compulsory legislation will prevent her from going to somebody else who, in all good faith, may have a different opinion. That is why some of us are against this Amendment.
Practically everything to be said on this Bill has been said, but I should like to stress one or two points. As I said last time, our attitude to abortion is re-
914
flected in our attitude to unmarried mothers and illegitimate children, which is far from forgiving and helpful. Last time I was chided by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for holding up Sweden as a model of tolerance and humanity in the treatment of their unmarried mothers, because the right reverend Prelate said that they had the highest suicide rate in the world. Old statistics never die or fade away, even when they are inaccurate in the first place, as these were. Switzerland, Japan, and the white male population in America have as high a rate of suicides. Perhaps it is the long hard winter which affects people in Sweden and a meterologist, not a psychiatrist, is needed to explain these figures. Even if they are high, the Swedes still show a greater humanity, though I believe they are just as strict as we are in their attitude to abortion.
I have dealt with the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Strange. Of course, I think something should be done about the welfare services for a woman whose request for an abortion is utterly rejected. Speaking to a distinguished physician the other day I found he was against a liberalisation of the law, because he thought it would be too permissive to the rich, irresponsible woman who regarded children as a nuisance. But are we really legislating for these women? They will always circumvent and take advantage of any law by means of their money.
Any change in the law in regard to abortion, which we hope will come about, should come within the category of a contraceptive method only to be used in the last resort, very early in pregnancy and under strict medical conditions as set out in this Bill. It seems to me that only those who believe that contraception must be left to chance or chastity have a logical case against any easing of the law to-day. Throughout the whole of this debate the male attitude has been atavistic, theological, didactic, irrational, on a subject which concerns women alone. One would think most noble Lords here believe that men and women indulged in sex only with the idea of a child, whereas I believe there are far more accidental births even in wedlock than accidental deaths in the world.
LORD SOPER: I was unfortunately prevented from being in your Lordships' House when this matter was considered

915
on the last occasion. I want to say how much I sympathise with the intention of this Amendment, and how completely I am in agreement with the reasons for that sympathy as expressed by my noble friend Lady Summerskill. It seems to me to be obvious that if one offers to a woman in these conditions the possibility of a relief of her troubles and termination of her pregnancy, and then this offer turns out to be not viable, one may well create a sense of even greater tension and desperation than that which previously confronted her. For this reason I am sure the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, to provide some aftermath to this particular experience of refusal and some, even conditioned, hope that something still may be done to alleviate the concern and trouble of the woman in question is absolutely right.
However, may I support him in what seems to be his conditional preparedness to withdraw this Amendment if my noble friend Lord Silk in will himself so frame an Amendment and include it in any future document that comes before us, so as to meet the demand without specifying in too great particularity the way in which that demand ought to be fulfilled. For instance, I have a good deal of suspicion that the compulsory notification of a female welfare officer might not answer the problem as it is now set forth. There are other agencies, not least of all the Church. Despite the strictures which have been put on its theological position, very often its humanitarian conditions are far better. For that reason I would confidently support the proposal that lies behind this Amendment and suggest that my noble friend Lord Silkin may well be able to tell us that in any future framing of a clause the intention of this Amendment will be met and a wider option even than that envisaged in this Amendment will be offered to those 80 or 90 per cent. of women who, in desperation, after refusal of what they think to be a right, will desperately need further counselling and further help. I believe they should get it, I believe such a clause is proper to this Bill; and I hope that my noble friend Lord Silk in will find it possible so to frame an Amendment.
LORD RAGLAN: I voted against this Amendment last time because I did not
916
think it right that a woman, having been refused an abortion under this Bill, should be sent to a welfare officer whose job, besides being to try to comfort her, would also be, perhaps, to take her to another doctor to have the first doctor's opinion confirmed. To put a woman in the position of shopping around for an abortion, as it were, is, I feel, as degrading to her as the avuncular decision (if the noble Lord will forgive me) to send her to the welfare officer in the first place. Though I feel that the Amendment is wrong, I think the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is right. This Bill will not do enough to lessen the distress it was originally intended to lessen, even though by discussing abortion so freely in your Lordships' House it may make doctors less uneasy about performing it.
When this Amendment was put to the vote last time it was ruled that your Lordships should call the issue not decided, and by the number of noble Lords who stayed in their seats, that ruling seems to be an accurate reflection of your Lordships' opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Strange, vividly brought home, as perhaps no other speaker has done, some idea of the misery and desperation of a woman who finds herself pregnant when she does not want to be. I, for one, do not feel it is possible to legislate to meet the wretched situation that your Lordships are trying to meet while abortion remains a criminal offence. I believe that trying to amend or widen the scope of the present law is starting at the wrong end of the problem, and my conviction increases the more we discuss it.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has repeatedly pointed out that abortion is a dangerous operation, and girls should certainly be educated to realise that it is. But its dangers under the hands of a highly qualified surgeon are as nothing when compared with the risks a woman runs when she goes for an abortion to someone who is unqualified to procure it. What ought to be done, surely, is to ensure that when a woman wants an abortion she should have it done by a skilled surgeon, and not resort to the back streets.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that only the woman has the right to decide whether she will have a baby; and I am glad

917
that the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, agrees that this is an arguable proposition, because the vast majority of 'women I have talked to about this think so too. For a woman, sent away by a doctor, it must be small comfort to be told, even by a woman welfare officer, that she must have the baby because "doctor said you must" or, worse still, because "doctor says it will do you good". I do not know what criteria doctors will have or will find for refusing abortions. But I believe that neither this Bill, nor the noble Lord, with all his perception and deep compassion, has found a happy solution to something which touches so many women so deeply that it is sometimes hard to comprehend it.
LORD STONHAM: I want to make a few remarks on the actual Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strange, because that is in fact what we are now considering. I shall say nothing whatever about the principle which he has recommended to your Lordships should be adopted, because I am firmly convinced that every Member of your Lordships' House would agree that, under the conditions which he has envisaged, every woman is entitled to receive the maximum care, assistance and comfort. I do not think there can possibly be any quarrel about that, but with regard to the particular Amendment, and in view of the appeal which has been made to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to the kind of response he should make to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, I am bound to point out that it is at least questionable whether or not it is desirable to make a statutory provision for a matter of this kind.
I also wish to speak on the somewhat narrow point, but nevertheless it is one that is quite relevant to the facts of the Amendment—namely, that we are considering what will happen when a registered medical practitioner refuses to carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy. The noble Lord himself referred to four occasions out of five (because he said 80,000 out of 100.000 women would be refused abortions under this Bill), but I beg leave to say that, so far as I am aware, no foundation for those figures exists. There are estimates, without any basis on which to justify them; but even on his assumption that four out
918
of five would be refused, it is fair to say that those refusals would be very proper medical refusals according to the provisions of this Bill. One could ask, therefore, if the noble Lord would regard that as a refusal. Again, he does not provide for any sanction in the event of non-compliance with the proposals.
These points are, of course, nothing to do with the principle which he has at heart, which I believe we all have at heart, but it is right for me to sound this warning because, although I am quite sure that my noble friend will wish to give the kind of assurance that the noble Lord has asked for on the matter of principle, I am bound to say that it is going to be very difficult to implement this in a Statute. Therefore, I would hope that any assurance that is given would be given in the broadest possible terms, and that the noble Lord would understand the difficulty and accept it as such.
3.41 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: As my noble friend has just said, everyone who has spoken, and I believe everyone who has listened to the discussion, will have the very greatest sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Strange, wishes to achieve. My difficulty is that he does not achieve it by his proposed subsection. Even if we accepted the Amendment, it just would not work. As my noble friend said, there is no obligation on the woman herself to take any notice of the welfare officer, or even to go near her. The patient herself will be informed—she must be informed—by the doctor, but she need take no notice whatever. There is no sanction against a doctor who does not inform the welfare officer, and I am not at all sure that at the present time the number of welfare officers available could meet the need. Therefore, whatever one may feel about the desirability of something of this kind, I do not think any of us could support this particular Amendment. It just cannot stand.
The noble Lord asked whether I was prepared to give any guarantee that in the Bill which I hope to introduce in the next Parliament I would provide in the proper form for what he wants. I am sorry I cannot give him that guarantee. I should like to make some kind of provision and I hope it will be possible. I am prepared to go as far

919
as this: that I will certainly discuss it with the powers that be, with the Ministry of Health and the Home Office, and see whether something of this kind can be provided in a Bill. I am pretty sure I could promise him that instructions would be given by the Ministry of Health, if a Bill of this kind were passed, under which they would recommend very strongly that in every case the noble Lord has in mind there should be available a welfare officer to assist the unfortunate woman. Whether that goes as far as the noble Lord would wish I do not know, but I think it is something which I could persuade the Minister of Health to agree to. But I should not like to give the noble Lord a firm guarantee that I would find in a new Bill a form of words which would exactly meet what he wishes. In fact I am not sure what he does wish at the present stage. I hope, therefore, that on the very narrow ground that this Amendment is unsuitable he will be content to withdraw it, with such assurance as I have been able to give him, and certainly an assurance of my good will in the matter and my desire to meet his wishes so far as possible in a measure of this kind.
LORD AMULREE: May I say one word which may have some bearing on what the noble Lord, Lord Strange, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have just said? I think it is a fact that most of the big gynecological departments in the country now have a medical social worker attached to them, and that is a practice which we trust will spread to the not-so-big ones and finally to the small ones. They would certainly be people to whom doctors could refer those women who they thought, for one reason or another, possibly were not fit persons for abortion. That would really solve the problem the noble Lord, Lord Strange, is talking about, without putting into a Bill rather complicated wording which would be very difficult and not very proper, I think, to enforce.
LORD STRANGE: I thank your Lordships very much for being so kind to me and listening and giving such encouragement that the principle I was fighting
920
for has been recognised. Even the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in his brilliant speeech, may not quite recognise all the parts, but he does know, after some generations, the reasons why. I would thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I know this Bill is brought in with humanity. I am certain he will do what he can to preserve the principle I have striven for. I have pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whether there is possibly a misprint in paragraph (c), which does not appear to make sense as it stands? It says:
the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) of this section must be certified in writing by the practitioner who carried out the treatment before the treatment is begun".
I have struggled to attach a meaning to those words and I am not sure I have succeeded, but I think the whole thing could probably be put right if instead of the word "carried" there were the word "carries", which is the expression found in the following paragraph (d). I think if it said "the practitioner who carries out the treatment ", it would probably be all right, but it seems to me wrong as it stands.
LORD SILKIN: I am not going to chop words with the noble Lord. I think it makes sense, but you have to read it several times. I think it ought to be quite clear and unambiguous, and what I promise the noble Lord is that when I come to redraft the Bill I will have another look at paragraph (c) and make it clear beyond a peradventure.
Amendment (No. 8), as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: For the purpose of the Statements, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PROTECTION OF HOUSE PURCHASERS
3.49 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in another place about the protection of house purchasers. The Statement is as follows:
"I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement about the protection of house purchasers.
" In the White Paper The Housing Programme 1965 to 1970 the Government stated their determination to ensure that houses for owner-occupation are properly built and that purchasers are protected against shoddy work. These aims could be achieved by statutory means—by setting up an agency to inspect houses whilst they are being built and to provide a form of guarantee against defects not revealed by inspection. The Government do not wish to rule out a statutory scheme but they would much prefer a non-statutory scheme, provided that such a scheme can be made fully effective.
"As a result of discussions in which the Government have taken part the scheme run by the National House-Builders Registration Council has recently been improved. Purchasers of houses built in accordance with the scheme, which is based on a detailed specification and several inspections during construction, now receive a guarantee against minor defects for a period of two years, and a further guarantee (backed by insurance) against major structural defects for a period of ten years. The scheme also provides a free and simple conciliation service to deal with disputes, and a right to arbitration where conciliation fails.
"I regard development of this voluntary scheme into a mandatory scheme as the most satisfactory means of protecting purchasers against the evils of jerry-building. It already applies to 40 per cent. of the private enterprise houses being built and I should like to see registration made a condition for receiving an advance from a building society.
922
"I am glad to announce that the Building Societies Association are to-day recommending their members to make participation by the builder a condition for making an advance on a new house. For my part, I am inviting local authorities to restrict loans on new houses in the same way.
"I hope that these measures will result in the National House-Builders Registration Council scheme becoming well-nigh universal. I accept that this cannot take place over-night. But we cannot wait much longer to give proper protection to all house purchasers. I shall keep a close watch on the situation, and if progress is not quick enough I shall not hesitate to bring forward legislation."
3.53 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I regret, at this moment of time, that I think that the Government are, for once, thinking along the right lines. I am sure they are right not to embark on legislation at this stage. Apart from anything else I think that legislation would be extremely difficult, though not of course impossible, to draft, and enforcement might also be difficult. if this voluntary scheme becomes virtually universal, particularly among the building societies who advance money, then this will have proved to be the right way of trying it.
I would criticise the Statement in only one respect. It contains the sentence
"I regard development of this voluntary scheme into a mandatory scheme as the most satisfactory means of protecting purchasers against the evils of jerry-building."
I think that the word "mandatory" might possibly be misunderstood, because at first reading it rather gives the idea that it refers to legislation. Quite clearly it does not. No scheme would be mandatory in that sense unless one wanted to borrow money. I think it might be a little misleading. Otherwise, as I say, I regret to have to say that I think the idea is right.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, will the Minister be prepared to publish a White Paper on this matter, or some kind of document which can he widely circulated and made known to prospective purchasers of property? I think it would be most useful if that could be done.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, first, may I thank the Opposition for agreeing with the Government on this matter? May I also suggest that there is no need to feel reluctant about it? It is, I think a matter in which we have a common object and, at the moment at any rate, a common method. On the second point, I note what the noble Lord said about the word "mandatory". Perhaps the fact of his having made his remark will help.
On the point raised by my noble friend, I can only say that under all Governments this particular Ministry has always been very good indeed at sending out explanatory circulars, and though I obviously cannot commit them here and now, I have little doubt that they will take all the most useful and sensible steps to publicise this matter. There is going to be a Press Conference with the Building Societies Association and the Registration Council following on this Statement to-day. That might be a good beginning, at any rate, and of course my right honourable friend will note what my noble friend has said with all my noble friend's experience of these matters.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask him a question. Bad building really falls into two categories. First of all, there is the obvious defect that becomes visible within a few months of entry into the house—bad plastering and suchlike. But the more insidious and pernicious forms of bad building do not really become apparent until after ten years or so, and that is usually the result of had design. The particular scheme that the Government have in mind, I presume, cannot last for that length of time; the purchaser can receive no protection for the long-term evils of bad design, and it has to be a case of caveat emptor. We have got to try to educate these poor people who are plunging into house purchase, and show them what a house really should look like in order to be a lasting proposition, because so many of these speculative builders titillate their houses with all sorts of ornamental things to attract purchasers and in ten years' time they are going to have a great deal of trouble from them.
LORD M1TCHISON: My Lords, ten years is quite a good period to begin
924
with, and by the time we are through those ten years, we may have some experience to guide us as regards the future. I would venture to say only two things. One is to quote M. Anatole France, who said that truth had one disadvantage in dealing with errors: there was only one truth, but there were so many varieties of error. The other is that what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said seems to me to concern matters which would often involve the architect as well as the builder. This is a scheme against bad building—" jerry building" is the phrase used—rather than against bad designing. We all hope to avoid the sad case (to which I refer with all respect to the fine profession of the architect) of the architect who left out the staircase.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when the noble Lord speaks of the architect ". I hope he will remember that some of the worst houses have had no architect at all.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I had not forgotten.

THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
4.0 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House an outline of the Government's proposals for a scheme to replace National Assistance.
"A Ministry of Social Security will be established bringing together the existing Departments of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the National Assistance Board. This will get rid of the sharp distinction between benefits related to contributions and non-contributory benefits.
"A new scheme of non-contributory benefits will replace National Assistance. Provision will be made for rent and additional payments to meet special individual needs; but the aim will

925
be to make this part of the scheme more readily understandable than the present discretionary additions. A form of guaranteed income will be provided for the old and others with long-term need such as the chronic sick.
"Rules for the treatment of resources will be simplified and rationalised. There will be a small disregard ' of all income except National Insurance pensions and benefits, family allowances and maintenance payments. The amount of savings of any kind to be totally disregarded will be increased, so that modest savings will be ignored—no matter how they are invested. A new system will be adopted for capital above this level which will get rid of the rigid limit of £600 which at present by itself disqualifies the holder entirely from benefit.
"The procedure for claiming the new benefit will be made more flexible for retired people. They will have a choice of making a written declaration of their circumstances or of being visited at home. The assessment based on the written declaration will need to be confirmed by an interview, but if desired this could take place at the local office.
"There will be less routine visiting; but visiting officers will have more time to ensure that any welfare needs are identified and brought to the notice of the appropriate service.
"When an elderly person receiving the new benefit also has a National Insurance pension the two will be paid together on a single order book. Those who are not receiving retirement pension will receive payment on an order book of similar appearance to the retirement pension order book.
" The new Ministry will send details of the new benefit to everyone claiming a National Insurance retirement pension. Personal contact will be made with anyone who, on retirement, does not claim the new benefit, unless he indicates that he does not want it, and the same will be done on widowhood. As the scheme develops we shall arrange to contact pensioners after they have been retired for some years.
"Financial help is not the only kind of help that old people fail to seek. A wide range of services to meet health
926
and welfare needs is provided by local authorities, but too often they are not known by old people or the effort to make the necessary contact is beyond them. The arrangements I have described will help to overcome these difficulties.
" To preserve responsiveness to human needs there will be within the Ministry of Social Security a Commission of persons chosen for their interest in, and knowledge of, social problems, in whom will be vested the responsibility, under broad regulations made by the Minister, for guiding the new scheme and for individual awards.
" These changes will preserve what is good in the present scheme while getting rid of those features which create dislike or misconception. Everybody recognises the humanity and efficiency with which the National Assistance scheme is administered, and the Government are confident that these qualities will be carried over into the new organisation. But the new Commission and the staff concerned will be enabled to do an even better job. The Government believe that the changes will ensure that the elderly will have no hesitation in claiming a benefit, given with dignity, to which they are entitled and which the nation wishes them to have."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Statement. I would express my own gratification that the Government have come so far round to the way of thinking of this side of the House. I congratulate them on having come to realise that any scheme to effect an improvement and to take the place of National Assistance should be related to needs, and not simply be a scheme for a means test coupled with a deficiency payment, as was their previous idea.
There is a great deal in this Statement which we welcome very much indeed. As the noble Lord has said, we welcome in particular the effort which the Government have made to get rid of those features which create dislike or misconception. In particular, I welcome the procedure for making the scheme more flexible; I welcome, too, the procedure for more visiting. But I should like to ask whether the Government really intend

927
this extended visiting, as the Statement implies, to be carried out within the framework of the present number of National Assistance offices. If the Minister is going to keep on with the present system of visiting those who are already in receipt of National Assistance, or whatever it may be called, he is not going to economise very much there and will not have many visiting officers left over to do the further visiting in order to root out need—which is what seems to be envisaged in the Statement. I also welcome the Statement that both the National Insurance pension and the additional grant will be paid in a single order book. I welcome the conception of paying a personal visit, if desired, to those who retire at the time of retirement, although again this may tend to necessitate an increase in the staff of the new organisation.
This is, in essence—let us recognise it—a revamping of National Assistance. The Board is being abolished and a Commission is being substituted. I should like to put a few questions to the noble Lord arising out of what he has said. Will the new basic rates under this scheme be higher in relation to National Assistance than they are now? Secondly, will the disregards for all savings at least be brought up to the level of the disregards for war savings? Thirdly, will the announcement which the noble Lord has made require legislation or not?
LORD BOWLES: The answer to the last question is, Yes, it will require legislation. I must say that if the noble Lord really thinks that this Government are following the Tories in any respect whatever, he will believe anything. He mentioned the question of visiting. The scheme will in fact involve less frequent visits. One of the drawbacks and a practice which people have disliked in the present system is that the National Assistance officers called too often, in the view of some of the people who were being visited. The result of this scheme will be that the visits will be fewer. The noble Lord spoke about possible staff increases. If we are to administer more of these non-contributory benefits, staff will be increased and we shall be glad
928
that this is so. We want these people, when we have in mind the Minister's statement in another place, on February 23, that some 700,000 people who were entitled to National Assistance were not getting it at all. Some did not want it, some did not know about it, some were too old to press for it, and so on. Therefore, if we can get these extra people we shall be glad to have them, and we shall need more staff. The noble Lord talks about the new basic rates and the new disregards. I am sorry I cannot tell him what the figures are until the White Paper and the Bill are published in the next Parliament.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am very glad that the proposals outlined by the noble Lord in the Statement will still mean that visiting will remain the foundation of the administration of these benefits. I myself have no doubt that visiting is essential to the success of schemes of this nature.
I should like also to say that I am very glad that a body corresponding broadly to the existing National Assistance Board is to be kept in being in an advisory capacity.
In conclusion, I hope I shall not be out of order if I say that I am most grateful to the Minister for the handsome tribute he paid to the work of the staff of the National Assistance Board.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I will start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, on his work in the National Assistance Board during the years when he was its respected Chairman. On the matter of visiting, it is a fact that some people do not like their houses to be visited, which is why we have put in an alternative method of approach. Those who ar concerned will be able to fill in a form or give the information in writing to the new Ministry. It might have to be followed up by an interview at the office, if the applicant or claimant so desires. As regards the welcome which he gave to the new Board, I am glad to say that I understand that Lord Runcorn, the present Chairman, and other members of the Board are genuinely in favour of the new Commission which it is proposed to set up.

ABORTION BILL
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Conditions to he satisfied]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: I ask the Committee to leave out Clause 2. The original Clause 2 contained two subsections, both of which are now incorporated in Clause 1. Therefore, Clause 2 is no longer necessary.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 [Notification]:
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move this Amendment, which is really a recast of the original provision about notification of abortions. I think everyone agrees that notification in some form or other is desirable, and the new provision contained in Amendment No. 12 provides that the Minister of Health may make regulations setting out in exactly what form this notification should take place, within what time and so on. Originally, it was contemplated that within seven days of every abortion a notification should be given. I think that on consideration that was found to be impracticable, particularly since operations will now be carried out in hospitals. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) The Minister of Health may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision —

(a) for requiring any registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy to give notice of the termination, and such other information relating to the termination as may he prescribed by the regulations, to the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health within such period as may he so prescribed; and

(b) with respect to the disposal of certificates given for the purposes of section 1 of this Act.").—(Lord Silkin.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out (" contained in such notification ") and insert (" furnished in
930
pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) of this section ").—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after C' of ") insert (" regulations under ").—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for any reference to the Minister or Ministry of Health there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Savings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: Clause 4 of the Bill relates to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, and provides that this Bill should not affect it. I do not think it is necessary to say that, because this Bill cannot affect the Infant Life (Preservation) Act unless that Act is specifically repealed or amended. Therefore, this is an unnecessary clause and I propose that it be omitted.
Clause 4 disagreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation
5. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say—
"Defective" means in England and Wales a person suffering from severe abnormality within the meaning of section 4 subsection (2) of the Mental Health Act 1959 or in Scotland a person suffering from mental deficiency of the degree specified in section 96 subsection (7) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960;
4.16 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in the interpretation of "Defective" to leave out all words after the first "from" and insert:
"subnormality within the meaning of section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or in Scotland a person suffering from mental deficiency within

931
the meaning of section 6 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960; ".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to widen the definition of a mental defective. As your Lordships will remember, in the Bill as drafted and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the reference to a mental defective is confined to "severe subnormality ", which means:
" a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of such a nature or degree that the patient is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself against serious exploitation, or will be so incapable when of an age to do so."
It is my submission that it should be lawful to terminate the pregnancy of a defective who does not fall within the definition of "severe subnormality ".
The situation has undergone a change as a result of the Report stage, and here I would refer especially to the speeches of the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretatary upon this matter. As he pointed out, your Lordships had then decided to retain paragraph (c), which would allow legal abortion where the woman was physically or mentally inadequate to be the mother of the child. The noble Lord said that in those cases it was unnecessary to have this special provision with regard to mental defectives because, clearly, they would come under paragraph (c). Since then your Lordships have deleted paragraph (c) from the Bill, and it is therefore essential, in my submission, that we should make special provision for cases where the mother is a mental defective; and I think it would be proper to take into account also cases where the father is a mental defective.
Quite unwittingly, I am sure, the Parliamentary Secretary misrepresented what I said on a previous occasion. He thought I had said that the great majority of people who were mental defectives were so by heredity. What I in fact said was that a very large proportion of the children of mental defectives are themselves mentally defective. I am going to produce some figures to establish that that is in fact the case. I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should have said he was advised by the Ministry of Health to oppose an Amendment of this kind, on the ground that mental defectives frequently have perfectly normal children.
It is true that on occasions they do, but the number of children who are either retarded or mentally defective is so high a proportion—so much higher than the proportion of mental defectives born to other sections of the community—that I urge upon your Lordships that we should make special provision to authorise abortion in suitable cases, in order to prevent the risk of another mentally defective child being born.
I want to give some figures relating to this matter. I understand that, although they were presented in evidence to the Brock Committee on Sterilisation, they are still, broadly speaking, regarded by the medical profession as a fair indication. First, however, may I quote from the Report of the Board of Control for the year 1928:
"It can hardly be denied that the 200,000 defectives who must remain in the community are wholly unfitted for parentage. Though it does not necessarily follow that the children of defective parents will themselves be defective, they are liable to be exposed to the miseries and hardship of being brought up by a mother or father incapable of self-control who will almost certainly neglect them and may, by reason of mental instability and ungovernable temper, aggravate by cruelty the results of ignorance and neglect."
I go on to give one example. I am admittedly choosing a striking case, but I think one is justified in so doing in order to establish the desirability of legalising abortion in cases of this kind. This is the case of a family where there was a strong taint of mental deficiency, insanity and epilepsy. The mother had seventeen children. The first two, who were illegitimate, died of convulsions in infancy. The third, a daughter, was mentally deficient and is now in an institution. The fourth, a son, was certified as an imbecile and died at the age of 11. The fifth, a son, was certified as a mental defective and is now in an institution. The sixth was a daughter, an imbecile. The seventh was a daughter who died at the age of eleven months. The eighth was a son certified as an imbecile. It is only at the ninth child that we find the child living and in service. The tenth child died in infancy. The eleventh is of low mentality. The twelfth is of average intelligence. The thirteenth is now in an institution. The fourteenth is in an institution. The fifteenth was recently admitted to an institution. The sixteenth

933
and seventeenth children are so small that it is not yet known whether or not they are normal.
The Brock Committee made as careful an analysis as they could of a large number of cases in order to try to establish what percentage or proportion of the children would be likely to be defective. Of defective mothers, they studied 3,247; of defective fathers, 48; making a total of 3,733 defective parents. The number of children was 8,841. Of the living children, between the ages of 7 and 13, 40·4 per cent. were mentally subnormal. That includes those retarded, which is not as striking a condition. Of those over 13, the proportion was 45·4 per cent. Those percentages, be it remembered, were taken from amongst the survivors; 22·5 per cent. were already dead.
I have already referred to the definition of "defective" which is now in the Bill. It is quite clear, it seems to me, that if the Bill is restricted to severe subnormality, which says that the patient is incapable of living an independent life, that must rule out the great majority of married mental defectives; and, clearly, it is desirable that we should include within the compass of this Bill the mental defectives who are married. It seems to me that the best way of dealing with this is as I have drafted the Amendment, but I have not the slightest doubt that, if your Lordships were disposed to accept this principle, as I hope you will, we should be advised that it was necessary for the definition to be redrafted by Parliamentary counsel. I am proposing that, in England and Wales, "defective" should mean
"a person suffering from subnormality within the meaning of section 4 of the Mental Health Act…".
I do not follow the objection that was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary that some of those people might be undergoing treatment and might be capable of being cured. Be it remembered that in this matter doctors are empowered to terminate a pregnancy only if they think it proper to do so, and it might well be that they would not think it proper in the case of a mental defective, or some one suffering from some kind of insanity, who was likely to be cured and the condition was not likely to be transmitted. In the case of the Scottish Act,
934
it seems to me that the definition is even better, because it says:
" In this Act mental disorder' means mental illness or mental deficiency however caused or manifested."
I hope that, on consideration of this matter, and having regard to your Lordships' decision to leave out paragraph (c), which dealt with the inadequacy of a mother, your Lordships will see fit to adopt my Amendment in order that the beneficial scope of this Bill may be wider than it otherwise would be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out from (" from ") to end of line 35 and insert the said new words. —(Lord Molson.)
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has quite fairly referred to remarks which I made at an earlier stage of the Bill when I said that, if we retained the then paragraph (c) to the then Clause 1, which made it a legal ground for the termination of pregnancy if a mother was considered inadequate, then obviously there was no need for the inclusion of a specific provision for a defective, because it would seem obvious that a defective would be considered inadequate. The noble Lord is quite right now to draw attention to the fact that that paragraph has been deleted from the Bill, and that it is therefore necessary to have in the word "defective". which indeed we have. The only difference which the noble Lord would make is that he would seek to enlarge the definition of "defective" to cover not only severe subnormality as it is now defined in the Bill, but also those who are merely subnormal and those whose subnormality is susceptible to treatment; those who, in other words, can be made more or less normal people. That is the whole issue between us.
In support of his case the noble Lord expressed surprise that I had quoted the Ministry of Health in saying that defectives do have perfectly normal children. I will go even further than that, and say in the majority of cases the children born to defectives are perfectly normal. The noble Lord said that a very large proportion of the children of mental defectives are themselves mentally defective, and he quoted the figures of the 1934 Committee on Sterilisation. With respect, I thought he quoted them

935
less justly than I should have expected him to do. He quoted a total of 40·4 per cent. of children between the ages of 7 and 13 whom he described as mentally deficient—
LORD MOLSON: No, I did not say that. I said "mentally subnormal" and I said that that figure included the retarded as well as the mentally deficient.
LORD STONHAM: I will withdraw the word "deficient". I took a note of it; I did not mean to misrepresent the noble Lord. I will accept the expression he used. But what the noble Lord did not give were the actual figures for the proportion of retarded children—and these are important. The 1934 Departmental Committee on Sterilisation on these defective parents produced figures showing that 16·9 per cent., one in six, of the children were defective—not 40·4 per cent.: the remainder, 23·5 per cent., were retarded.
I will not go into a great argument about this point. Many retarded children are not deficient; they are what we call educationally subnormal; and for these we have special schools. I consider that this makes a big difference because when we talk about the "educationally subnormal" or, as the noble Lord said, the "retarded", we mean people with an I.Q. of between 70 and 85. Until eighteen months ago I was chairman of a national organisation which deals mainly with mentally handicapped children with, usually, an I.Q. of less than 50. At Slough there is an industrial training centre to which boys and girls aged between 16 and 20 are sent by the local authorities, to be trained in industry. We did not then take anyone with an I.Q. above 35. You cannot call those children retarded or educationally subnormal: they are severely subnormal.
Those children—and anyone can go and see them—have first of all to be taught ordinary social graces. They can be, and will be, taught a trade to enable them to learn their own living. They are taught to do things like catching buses and using the telephone. Some of them go out to jobs such as paint-spraying, and the like, in ordinary industry. I have seen them; I have talked to them; I have been photographed with them; and no one on earth could say that they were not
936
happy or that they were not trained to be useful. The point with those children is not so much that they are not fitted for normal education but that successive Governments have completely failed to provide the education from which they can benefit. I am talking now not merely about the educationally retarded but about the severely subnormal people with an I.Q. of under 35. These are those who are covered by the definition in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson wants to go further than that. He wants to make it legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if it is thought that the child, if born, may be educationally subnormal. We are not considering only children born of severely subnormal parents but those who would be covered by the noble Lord's Amendment, the children born of subnormal parents. It is, of course beyond dispute that if two severely subnormal people have a child then the proportion of defective children may be somewhat higher; but even then it will certainly be below 50 per cent. The noble Lord cited a case from (I think) the 1928 Board of Control, when he quoted their opinion on 200,000 defectives, and he mentioned the case of the mother with 20 children; but I believe he said that she was suffering not merely from mental deficiency but also from insanity and epilepsy.
LORD MOLSON: I said there were those taints in the family. That was all that was said in the evidence given.
LORD STONHAM: There were those three conditions I mentioned. I noted what the noble Lord said. I think he will agree that that was an extreme case.
This is the whole crux of the matter. The noble Lord said, fairly, that the doctor is not obliged to carry out an abortion. We already have in the Bill a provision for pregnancy to be terminated if one or both of the parents is severely subnormal. In the case of union between two subnormal people it is known that five out of six of the offspring are going to be healthy and that the one in six can almost certainly be treated so as to have a happy life; and almost certainly the parents will love and cherish it. The question is whether we should be right to alter this definition and so write into the Bill a much wider provision. If you feel, as I know some do, that the mother

937
has the right to have the pregnancy terminated by request, this would be moving towards it. But if we want to deal merely with the problem of defectives—meaning those who do not have a reasonable prospect of enjoyment of life (or whatever the words are that we are using in the Bill)—then it would seem that if this Amendment were accepted we should be putting this too wide. I feel that this new examination which I made of the same figures as those which the noble Lord has quoted (he may not himself have noticed the difference) leads to the view that your Lordships may like to look at the matter again or the noble Lord may feel that he does not wish to press his Amendment.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I feel very sympathetic towards the Amendment. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the statement which my noble friend Lord Stonham has just made. I should not press the Amendment on the likelihood that a child of defective parents would be born mentally defective, because on the figures, one could not justify the termination of a pregnancy on that ground. If I were to attempt to justify this Amendment at all it would be on the ground which I originally put forward, namely, that the parents, or one parent, was so unsatisfactory as to be incapable of bringing up a child in the normal way. Although the figures may show that these children, or the majority of them, are born normal, there are no figures to show how eventually they turn out. I would accept the fact that children of mentally defective parents, whatever their intelligence—and that is what is tested—do turn out much worse and have a worse chance in life than other children. Therefore, I should look at it from that point of view.
There is a definition of a psychopathic disorder in the section of the Mental Health Act to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred. It relates to a person who has a persistent disorder or disability of mind, whether or not including subnormality of intelligence, which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct. I find it difficult to accept that a person of that kind would make a satisfactory parent. In the debate on paragraph (c) we had two discussions on the question of what makes a satisfactory parent and the kind of upbringing which a child is likely to
938
have. On the first occasion the Committee approved the paragraph and on the second they rejected it. I have still to make up my mind about what this Committee really wants. Noble Lords rejected it by the same number of votes as they had originally approved it. Had that been carried, it would have covered all types of mental deficiency. 'There would have been no need for a definition. It would have been possible for a registered medical practitioner to arrange an abortion on the grounds that a parent was unfit or inadequate to be a mother. I suggest that this inadequacy would certainly include even the lowest grade of mental deficiency—that is, the psychopath, the person suffering from a psychopathic disorder.
The question is what we should do with this Amendment. This is not necessarily the Bill which I am going to present at a later date. I should like to accept the Amendment if the Committee would agree with the proviso that I look at the matter again in the light of what my noble friend has said and, possibly, arrange some compromise. I am satisfied that there ought to be the possibility of an abortion in the case of a severe subnormality. There is the subnormality which is the next highest grade to severe subnormality and finally there is the pyschopathic disorder which is the highest grade of all. It may be that the answer is to allow abortion in the case of severe subnormality, and subnormality, and perhaps leave out the psychopath who may be susceptible to treatment. I take it that all these people are under some kind of control, that they are not free agents, and that the problem is not a very large one. If the Committee would allow me (I am almost thinking aloud about this, because I find myself in a dilemma between the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who moved the Amendment, and my noble friend who has so strongly resisted it) I should like to accept the Amendment on the understanding that I think again about how far it would be wise to go in a later Bill.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to support the Amendment, with which I have great sympathy. There was recently a very tragic case—I am sure that noble Lords will have noted it—of a woman with three subnormal children who asked her doctor whether she could

939
have an abortion when she became pregnant again. The doctor sent her to a military psychiatrist who, I believe, rejected her request. When finally she was allowed to have an abortion she died, because it had been left too late. I think we can dispute the figures about whether extreme subnormality or whether just retardation comes into this question. All assumptions that the life of the mentally handicapped or subnormal child is a happy one are, to me, completely presumptive, and so I should like to support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I shall not keep your Lordships for more than a minute, as I have spoken a great deal too much on this matter and I think that my views, or some of them, are known. I strongly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the time to discuss this again fully will be when he introduces another Bill. If I may say so, the noble Lord has listened with enormous patience to a great many things said in these debates, some sensible and some not sensible. I should certainly not oppose this Amendment now, as I might oppose it if it were moved later. I think that is all I can usefully say.
LORD RAGLAN: I think we ought to go carefully about this Amendment. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I think here we are on rather dangerous ground. I know of a case when a girl had a baby by either her father or her brother, both of whom were subnormal, though not certifiable. The baby was taken into a Dr. Barnardo's Home and, as is the custom, was kept for a year. The child was found to be perfectly normal and was adopted. I do not believe that we know enough about genetics or what such children, when born, will be like, to adopt an Amendment such as this.
LORD MOLSON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has said. I am perfectly willing for the matter to be looked at again during the drafting of a Bill for the new Parliament. I could not possibly withdraw this Amendment, now that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has agreed to accept it, but both in letter and in spirit I agree that there should be discussion with a view
940
to considering the difficulties raised by the Parliamentary Secretary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move this Amendment, which merely corrects a typist's error.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out (" abnormality ") and insert (" subnormality ").—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move the last Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert—
(" Hospital Board ' means a Board constituted under the National Health Service Acts as a Hospital Board or as the Board of Governors of a teaching hospital:
'the National Health Service Acts ' means the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1964 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1961; and ").—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 2), the Report received.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to say a few words on this auspicious occasion—it is rather an auspicious occasion, because I have got this Bill through. It is a Bill which has undoubtedly aroused a tremendous amount of interest, not only in your Lordships' House, but also in the country as a whole. So far as this House is concerned, I believe that we have had a greater attendance in the course of the proceedings on this Bill than on almost any other Bill I can remember. The only competitor was the Bill on capital punishment—not the last one, but the one of some years ago. This Bill has aroused not only a great deal of interest, but a good deal of controversy.
We were in a difficulty in discussing this Bill, because there had been no previous discussion on the subject—at

941
any rate not within living memory. There was no White Paper or any document of that kind, on which we could focus discussion. The first discussion was on the Second Reading of a Bill prepared by me in a very amateurish way, which received, I think, rather cruel treatment from a number of noble Lords and also from a number of right reverend Prelates. I promised that I would reconsider what had been said and, in the light of the criticisms of the Bill, introduce Amendments, or a new Bill, at a later stage. Eventually, I decided to introduce a number of Amendments to the Bill and these have been discussed.
We have had a very long discussion. The Committee stage has lasted something like twenty hours altogether. Every possible aspect of the Bill has been fully covered. I was at a discussion the other day with a number of gynæcologists, who raised a very large number of questions on this Bill. I was glad to be able to tell them that every one of the questions they raised had been dealt with in the course of discussion, either in Committee or on Report, which is a very great tribute to this House. In indicates that, even on unfamiliar matters of this kind, a Bill receives the fullest possible consideration.
The Bill, on the whole, has come out unscathed. There is paragraph (c) of Clause 1, which, on a first Division, was carried, but rejected on a later Division. We also rejected the provision for the termination of pregnancy on the ground of rape. But, subject to these, I think that the Bill has come out unscathed. We are providing for two medical practitioners instead of one, which I think is right, and we are providing that termination should take place in a hospital or another approved institution, which again I think is an improvement. Apart from these points, differences have turned largely on a matter of language.
I think that the improvement is due to all those who have taken part in the discussions on the Bill, and I should like to pay my tribute to all of them—first of all, to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I am sorry that he is not here to see the end, but he apologised to me that he would not be able to be present this afternoon. Although he has been a very difficult and formidable opponent, I feel that he has helped to improve the Bill. It was right that he
942
should put forward every point of criticism he could and enable us to discuss them and come to conclusions on them.
I would also pay tribute to all other speakers, from all Parties, who have helped to mould this Bill into what I believe is a workable measure. If I single out individuals, I hope that they will not feel embarrassed or feel that I am being invidious, but I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for his efforts. He has been a great friend and has taken a very great interest in this Bill. Also, on my side of the House, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who, generally speaking, has been a tower of strength, and also my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I wish that more women had taken part in the discussion of this Bill.
My Lords, we have come to the end of the road, hut, unfortunately, we have also come to the end of this Parliament, and this Bill cannot go any further. There are some who think that time has been wasted on this measure. I assure them that it has not. I hope that many of the things we have been groping for in the passage of this Bill we shall now accept as being fully threshed out, and that the next time a measure of this kind is introduced, apart from those who have steadfastly opposed it—and I see one or two here—the remainder of us, who on the whole accept the principle of the Bill, will be able to approve a second measure without the need for a long and elaborate Committee stage.
I am hopeful, if my noble friend's usual channels will allow me, of introducing a Bill early in the new Parliament, and that it will get the same measure of support from all Parties that this one has had. I will introduce it whichever Government happens to be elected. Finally, I should like once more to thank all those who have taken part in the discussions on the Bill. It is, indeed, a great satisfaction to me to be able to move the Third Reading, and in due course to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3b.—(Lord Silkin.)
5.1 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for having successfully piloted through a Bill which deals with a subject

943
which only a few years ago could only be mentioned in a whisper. None the less, we have debated this matter in your Lordships' House, and I believe that we have thereby made history. I must confess that during the Second Reading debate I felt it a little unreal, because I felt that the fate of women was for the most part being determined by men. I thought it was as though the hazards of the pit were being discussed in the absence of miners. But I have changed my attitude entirely, despite an article which appeared in the Guardian last week, saying:
" There is a strong case for banning all public discussion of abortion save by people of the female sex and preferably of childbearing age, says a writer in the Lancet to-day.
" Dr. Richard Fox, a psychiatrist, says that one reason for the ' inadequacy' of the debate might be that it had been conducted almost exclusively by men. If women had framed the current moral code, would it have been quite the same? Too much of our morality had been handed down by elderly clerics, and comprehensive family planning—the obvious answer—had been ' consistently blocked ', although there was some hope that attitudes were changing."
I could have echoed that on the Second Reading debate of this Bill, but I have to confess that I have changed my mind entirely.
I have found that, with the exception of paragraph (c)—and I will not go into the details of how the mind of the House was changed—your Lordships have shown a sympathy, understanding and a support for this Bill which indicates that most of you recognise what a woman has to endure if she is carrying an unwanted baby. After all, she could not have been pregnant without the help of some man. Indeed, I believe that these human problems are understood by the two sexes equally. I think that in the course of this Bill it has been proved that this House has men in it who have sympathy which is equal to that of any woman who has spoken in the debate.
5.4 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I feel it would be right that from these Benches there should be a word of warm appreciation of Lord Silkin's initiative and perseverance in bringing forward and in pressing on with this Bill, which is inspired by obvious humanity, and whose object is to relieve some of the most acute instances of human distress.
944
Your Lordships have spent many hours on this Bill. The subject is, naturally enough, one which has been of particular concern for those who sit on these Benches, and I know that His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury would have been present this afternoon had it not been for a previous engagement in Coventry.
Sometimes the views put forward on a particular point have differed, but we have been anxious that there should be a Bill on this grave matter, and I believe that, with the Bill as it now stands, there are few who would not welcome Clause 1(a), which bases justification for abortion on the welfare of the mother expressed in very wide terms. As your' Lordships know, there have been reservations expressed on paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 1, and on these it would not be fitting at this juncture to say more. But one thing I should wish to say is how warmly I welcome the news that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the next Parliament, will introduce a further Bill on this grave and important subject.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like in a few words to pay tribute to the courage, the wisdom and the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It was a courageous thing to introduce this Bill; it was a wise thing to do. The noble Lord showed a greater understanding and knowledge of public opinion than most people in the country possessed. No one at that time would have expected this Bill in its general outline to obtain the wide support that it has. I think, therefore, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It may be that now that he no longer sits on one of the Front Benches, and is perhaps no longer quite so concerned with the controversies of politics, he has rendered a greater service to your Lordships' House than he ever rendered when he was in a more prominent and conspicuous position. Finally, I should like to say with how much pleasure I heard the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, when he said that he hoped a Bill on these lines would be introduced in the next Parliament, and that the Church for which he speaks would welcome it.
5.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would join with other noble Lords in thanking

945
my noble friend Lord Silkin for his courage in introducing this Bill, and still more for his persistence, which, quite apart from his Parliamentary skill, has ensured that it is, as I am sure, going to get a Third Reading. I heard it suggested at one time that it was useless to carry on to this stage, because the Bill had no chance of getting on to the Statute Book. I thoroughly disagree with that, because in the outcome we have a Bill on which I think there is a large measure of agreement, not only in this House, but in the country. Of course, it will not satisfy the two extremes. It will not satisfy those who firmly believe that any pregnancy ought to be terminated at the request of the pregnant woman, and it will not satisfy those who, on conscientious grounds, think that there should be no arbitrary termination of pregnancies. I believe, however, that it will meet the views of the great majority. Although the rôle of the Government in this matter has perforce had to be a neutral one, nevertheless I am glad that we have had the opportunity of assisting with drafting, so ensuring that the wishes of the House were not aborted by any defective Amendments.
To-day a lot of figures have been quoted, but, whatever the true figures are —and I do not know them—it is the case that a great many abortions can be bought at a high price. Wealthy women can pay a lot of money for safety. Poor women, who pay a small amount of
946
money, may pay a very high price in ill-health and agony, and may pay even with their lives. I hope my noble friend Lord Silkin will bring in another Bill in the new Parliament, perhaps considering some of the matters on which further thought is necessary. I then hope that it will have the same kind of favourable treatment that it has had from your Lordships, and we can then pass it on to another place as yet another radical measure in which your Lordships' House has taken the lead.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords for the very kind things that they have said about me? I am not used to this generosity, and I do not know quite how to reply. I certainly did not get it on previous occasions when I tried my hand at legislation. I remember one piece of legislation for which I was responsible when I was known merely as the only person who understood the Bill. It would be ironic if, after New Towns, National Parks and so on, I were to be remembered as the person who carried through the Abortion Bill. I hope, anyway, that I shall not be remembered only in that way. This Bill possibly will be a greater service to the community than the other measures for which I have been responsible, and at any rate I look forward to its being so in the near future.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past five o'clock.