Lords Sitting of 10 May 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter
The Lord Layton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
2.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: 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 authorities concerned are proceeding with plans for an underground access to the West London Air Terminal from Gloucester Road Tube station.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, not at present. The possibility of more radical improvements to transport facilities between Heathrow Airport and Central London is being studied in the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is asking them to look also at the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful reply. But would not the Government agree that, with the high traffic density at peak hours in the Cromwell Road, the Underground is the only reliable way of making a quick passage to the air terminal, besides being the most economical? If that is so, would the noble Lord endeavour to expedite the improvement of the conditions as they are to-day?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I imagine it is the recognition of the facts which the noble Lord has given to the
550
House that has caused the Minister of Transport to ask the Co-ordinating Council to look at the matter. I think all of us who use that route must realise the difficulties the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why, since Underground trains pass right under the main building at the West London Air Terminal, consideration was not given to providing platforms there and having certain Underground trains stop there?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there are all sorts of considerations which come in here—financial reasons, quite clearly. All these will have to be looked at by the Council concerned, and eventually, perhaps, by the Minister.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this question was under very careful consideration when I was a junior Minister ten years ago and had to reply to a debate on this very subject?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am also aware of the fact that the Government of the day, because of financial reasons, which I imagine still exist, did not go on with this proposal.

IRISH SALMON DISEASE
2.42 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 a satisfactory diagnosis has yet been made of the disease now affecting large numbers of salmon entering certain rivers in the South of Ireland; whether this disease is in any way infectious, and if so, whether any steps are being taken to prevent it from spreading into rivers in Great Britain.]
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the disease is bacterial in character and is therefore likely to be infectious, but the specific bacteria responsible has not yet been identified. The authorities of the Republic of Ireland have arranged for all affected fish to be destroyed, and have introduced a systematic inspection of the

551
premises of all licensed dealers exporting fish. Exports by persons other than licensed dealers are not permitted.
The importation of live salmon and trout into Great Britain is prohibited by the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, and no licences are being issued for the importation of live freshwater fish of other species, or of eggs of any species. These measures should effectively prevent the transmission of the disease to this country through imports of fish or their eggs. The possibility of its transmission by natural means cannot, however, be ruled out, and river authorities have therefore been informed of the symptoms so that any appearance of it in this country will be immediately reported.
My right honourable friend is watching the situation closely and keeping in touch with the Irish authorities.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the salmon get this disease when they are still in the sea, or only after they have entered fresh water?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the scientists who have been looking into this question cannot be absolutely sure, but their examination of fish at the estuaries tend to make them think—and I must be careful here—that it is a disease which they contract in fresh water and not in sea water.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, since an outbreak of this disease is absolutely devastating where it occurs, and ruins a river, will the Minister consider applying to the subject the same strict rules as are applied in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases, in order to avoid the possibility of English, Welsh or Scottish rivers being contaminated?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, so far as is humanly possible, this is being done. The Irish Republic, of course, are very worried about this problem because their trade to this country is nearly £1 million a year. In order to prevent diseased fish from being exported from there to here, they have increased their inspectorate by some 35 additional inspectors. But, as in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, we cannot be sure that we can stop it from
552
coming in on birds' feet or in some such way; but that is by natural means.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Yes; but we ban the entry of animals, do we not, when there is a threat?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, of course the fish imported are dead fish which have been carefully inspected. Those concerned feel reasonably sure that this should provide an adequate control.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government this. Is it not a fact that there is overwhelming evidence that this disease is known as columnaris, and that is has been known as such in the Republic of Ireland since the autumn of 1964? Further—and I fear this is not a question —there is overwhelming evidence that it is spread in the estuaries and rivers and not in fresh water. Should Her Majesty's Government wish for evidence of this kind, I shall be quite happy to supply them with it.
LORD CHAMPION: I am not sure that that was a question, but certainly it contained a lot of information which we shall consider. The question as to whether it is columnaris is, of course, one which is being investigated. The scientists are not quite sure that it is, but it appears to be closely related.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that question, would the Government take steps to ensure that progress reports on the investigation of the disease are made public, through the technical angling papers and the fish industry's papers in this country?
LORD CHAMPION: Well, my Lords, I will of course bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend. That is all I can do at the moment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government like the evidence, which I have at my disposal, that this disease is spread in estuaries?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are concerned about any information that can be given in this matter and of course we shall be happy to receive it.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any

553
truth in the statement I saw in the Press the other day, that salmon now entering at any rate the Blackwater River are less diseased than they were a month or two ago?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. I should not like to apply it to a particular river, but the disease does seem to have a peak and then a trough. I think that in the river mentioned by the noble Lord we have now reached a trough.

RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC: GRIMSBY-PETER BOROUGH
2.47 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 from May 2 British Railways are diverting freight traffic away from the Grimsby—Peterborough line; and, if so, why.]
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, decisions to reorganise freight traffic are matters for the Railways Board. If the noble Lord cares to address his inquiries to them, I am sure they will be able to explain changes in freight facilities and the reasons behind them.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this failure to give more information will feed the rumours which are circulating in the district, that this movement of freight traffic away from this railway line is designed only to increase the loss in order to strengthen the case for closing it by British Railways?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, on the first point of the noble Lord, there has under Statute to be advance notice, and this was given in the appropriate newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph on April 1, 1966. The second point is one to which I cannot really give a reply, but I would hope that no Railways Board would act in such a manner suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it a fact that the Minister of Transport has so far refused leave to close this railway?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that is a separate point. But up to now of course if a closure affects passenger transport the Minister has power to intervene; but the Minister has no such power in relation to freight, as I suggested in my original reply.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that his last answer is going to deepen the suspicion locally that the one act which the railway can take to increase the loss on this line seems to be about to be taken.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I cannot answer for the suspicion locally, and I hope that no Board would act in the way suggested by the noble Lord.

RACE RELATIONS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the activities of the Race Relations Board.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Race Relations Board, which came into being on February 17, have been giving close attention to the duty imposed on them by the Race Relations Act 1965 to set up local conciliation committees for the consideration and investigation of complaints of racial discrimination in contravention of the Act. They have provisionally decided that some 14 or 15 of these committees should be established to cover the whole of Great Britain, and they are now considering the appointment of suitable persons to serve on them. They hope to appoint the first committee, which will be for the Greater London Area, in the course of the next few weeks.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I express appreciation of what is being done in the establishment of conciliation committees, is it not now becoming clear from experience that the powers of the Race Relations Board should be extended to employment, promotion, housing and credit? May I ask

555
the Minister whether he would consider doing three things? First, to follow the example of the Federal Government of America in insisting that in all Government contracts there should be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour; secondly, to encourage local authorities to do the same; and, thirdly, to follow the American example of a joint declaration by employers and trade unions against discrimination in industry?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I do not think that it can be argued that at this very early stage there is any real evidence that there is need for further legislation. Up to a few days ago there had been just four complaints for consideration by the Race Relations Board. Since then there have been six more from C.A.R.D., five of which are outside the terms of reference and one of which is doubtful. My right honourable friend is certainly watching the matter very closely, and he has not ruled out the possibility that some amendments to the Act may prove necessary. But he wishes first of all to see how the Act works and to get experience of it.
With regard to the three points that my noble friend put to me afterwards, on the first two, regarding colour discrimination in the award of contracts by central or local government, I should have thought, on first hearing, that the question of such discrimination is quite inconceivable. But we will consider the matter and also his suggestion for a joint declaration, which might have some value, but which, again, I should have thought was unnecessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he will give particular attention to the school leavers? Coloured children are now passing out of school, and there is evidence both from the Manchester youth officers and from North Kensington that they are finding it very difficult to get opportunities of employment commensurate with their competence both in English and in education. I wonder whether he would look at this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will most certainly look at it, but, again as
556
my noble friend must be aware, it does not appear to arise directly out of a question related to the Race Relations Board, nor indeed to their responsibilities. It is a matter of considerable importance which my Department and particularly my honourable friend, Mr. Maurice Foley, are looking at very keenly, and I will let him know the noble Lord's views.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of the first supplementary question by the noble Lord, can the Government say whether they think the United States have been more successful than this country in dealing with the problem?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord would not expect me to express an opinion on that question.

THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:—
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the situation with regard to the proposed shipping strike?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient to the noble Lord and to the House if my noble friend Lord Champion gives the answer to that Question at about 3.30.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I have permission to raise one question before we start on to-day's Business? To-day a Government Bill is down for Second Reading and we are then to have the Second Reading debate on two further Bills, on one of which there are ten or eleven speakers, and on the other—which is an important Bill on which feelings run strongly—no fewer than twelve speakers. I raise this with the Leader of the House, to whom I have not, I regret to say, given notice, but it seems to me that neither here nor in another place would it be in accord with the general wishes of Members that two such Bills should be taken on the same day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The second of the two Bills, on which there are twelve speakers, is bound, whatever noble Lords' views may be, to provoke an acute debate. It will mean that the Division is taken very late indeed and will, I submit, not be representative of the feelings of the House because other noble Lords beyond those who are down to speak have many engagements, public and private. I submit that it is trying the House too far to ask that both these Bills should be taken to-day. May I suggest that some other course might have been followed—a Monday Sitting, or one of the Bills might have been considered on a day when Business was lighter. It is not for me to say when such occasion would arise, but I do say to the Government—and I trust that I voice the views of many noble Lords in this House: please reconsider to-day's Business and do not take the second Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, he has not given me even five minutes', or indeed five seconds', notice of this matter before raising it. He and I are old friends, and he will not mind my reproaching him for not giving me any notice, but I cannot see why he could not have brought the matter up earlier.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I must, of course, apologise to the noble Earl, as I do gladly, but, like other noble Lords, I have a good many things to think of, and this occurred to me only when I saw the list of speakers and realised that the House would be placed in an intolerable situation. Therefore, while I apologise to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for not giving him notice, I make no apology for raising this subject.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said about myself, but I have been in touch with the Chief Whip and I thoroughly endorse the action he has taken, and indeed I take full responsibility. I should make it plain that this Business has been on the Order Paper for about ten days. There has been plenty of opportunity for
558
anyone who did not like the procedure to raise it, and I cannot help feeling that something which was arranged through the usual channels was implicitly endorsed by the House in advance, as nobody raised it. As always, we are in the hands of the House and there is no question of the position being different from that, but I should have thought that we had taken all the proper steps. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is a criticism which should be pressed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should say that this procedure was agreed through the usual channels, as all the Business in this House is. I think it would also be true to say, and certainly it was my understanding, that the debates on these two Bills were expected to be rather short, because we have been through them both before. But it so happens that we are to-day faced with a very long list of speakers on both Bills, and I must say that this comes as something of a surprise to me. I had no idea that the House would want to go through these two Bills again in such detail, and, that being so, I think that the situation has rather altered. It. seems to me that the House is asked to take these two Bills through when there are a large number of speakers and I wonder whether, during the passage of the first and second Bills—that is, the Guyana Independence Bill and the Abortion Bill—there might be discussions among Members of the House about whether or not we could take some other action.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, of course one could not possibly refuse discussions, and therefore, no doubt, they will take place. But I ought to explain that these are not Government Bills. I do not think anybody is under that impression—certainly the Leader of the Opposition is not. These are Bills which have been put down by agreement with their proposers and, obviously, we should have to discuss the matter with them. At any rate, I cede the point that a much larger number of speakers have put their names down than was expected by anybody, and no doubt discussions will take place. But I must emphasise, once again, that as the noble Lord agrees, every possible step was taken in advance by the Chief Whip and others to make sure that the convenience of the House was suited;

559
and I should not like anyone to suppose that for any reason whatever—and there are many cross-currents here—there was a desire to push these Bills through at some awkward time.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as regards the discussions, may I take up what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, and urge that there should not be a Monday sitting for the third Bill. One of the reasons for the long list of speakers to-day is that the Second Reading of the earlier Bill took place on a Monday, and I think the Committee stage was on a Friday morning.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, all these points will be borne in mind.

ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate (with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949) the Sea Fisheries Regulation Acts 1888 to 1930 and certain other enactments relating to the sea fisheries of England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a, and to be printed.

GUYANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Guyana Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the attainment by British Guiana of fully responsible status as an independent nation. It marks yet another step along the road on which we have been moving with increasing firmness, confidence and speed since the Second World War—a road along which we have led some 750 million people to independent nationhood. I am sure that everyone in the House will welcome, genuinely and sincerely, this new nation of Guyana, as the country will be called from May 26. At the Independence Conference, the British Guiana delegation expressed the wish that on achieving independence Guyana should be accepted as a member country of the Commonwealth. On behalf of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State willingly undertook to support a formal request for membership, and it is in the belief that Guyana will be accepted into the Commonwealth family that this Bill has been drafted.
It is noteworthy that Guyana will be the first Commonwealth country on the continent of South America. The first British connection with this area dates as far back as the late 16th and early 17th centuries, although it was not until the end of the 18th century that we became directly involved in the affairs of what is now British Guiana; and a Colony of that name was formed only in 1831. There will be many in this House who will have a much more direct and intimate knowledge of the country and its peoples than I have, but I know enough

561
to be able to speak with conviction of the real friendliness of the Guianese people, and the genuine interest and regard which they have for this country and for the British people. Indeed, in many interesting ways it seems to me that some of them have held more tenaciously than we have done to British customs and attitudes, which they have come to know over the last 130 years.
It has been said that to some extent the Colony of British Guiana has suffered from too great a dependence upon one industry, and certainly this factor of a one-crop economy can hit with severity the territories which are in this position. Some efforts have been made to secure diversification, and more must be done. Over the past 100 years the population of the Colony has increased from an estimated 150,000 people to around 640,000 to-day. This can be taken as a mark of the considerable development which has taken place in the economy under British colonial rule, but when one reflects that this also means that a country the size of England and Wales has a population only the size of Manchester, one can see what an enormous potential there is for the future.
I recently had the privilege of meeting Mr. Thomas, the Minister of Economic Development, and it was stimulating, and indeed exciting, to listen to his hopes and plans for the economic development of his country. Especially did he emphasise the opportunities which could be made available in the thinly populated interior, for peoples from Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean area whose population densities are so strikingly higher. There are considerable resources in the area, modern knowledge and techniques have done much to reduce the diseases, such as malaria, which have afflicted these tropical countries, but what is now needed is more capital. Provided that development capital is forthcoming, there is no doubt that an expanding economic future can be assured for this country. I should add that the total aid from the United Kingdom for the year, if Parliament approves, will be about £3 million.
Guyana will move into independence under the leadership of Mr. Forbes Burnham, and there is no doubt that Mr. Burnham and his Coalition Government have made a great impression, both at home and overseas, by the way they have
562
tackled the financial and economic problems with which they have had to deal. Mr. Burnham, like Dr. Jagan, of the People's Progressive Party, is well known to many people in this country. I am sure that we all accept his ability and integrity, and will wish him well in the tasks that lie ahead.
I do not intend on this occasion to dwell upon the less happy aspects of recent years, but we are all aware of the most unfortunate difficulties and disturbances, many of them racial in character, which have marked the last few years of progress to national independence. It is a fact, on which both we and others in the world may well reflect, that in British Guiana, and in so many other territories of the world for which we have had or still have responsibility, a formidable obstacle to the achievement of independence has been not the clash of interest between the territory concerned and the United Kingdom, but the frictions and the antagonisms—although not, I trust, irreconcilable hostilities—between one section or group of peoples within the same territory. We must all regret there has not, as yet, been complete reconciliation in British Guiana between the different racial groups, but violence now is almost completely behind us, and we must hope that it is a phase that is finished for ever.
Clause 1 of this Bill, my Lords, provides for fully responsible status for Guyana from May 26, and it is in accordance with the agreement reached at the Constitutional Conference. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with nationality matters, and follow the normal pattern. By Clause 2, subsection (1), Guyana is added to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1, subsection (3), of the British Nationality Act 1948. This will secure that any person who, under a law in force in Guyana, becomes a citizen of Guyana will also, by virtue of that citizenship, possess the status of a British subject or Commonwealth citizen in our own country and under our law in the United Kingdom.
Clause 4 validates certain defective certificates of naturalisation with effect from their dates of issue. This makes valid a number of certificates issued between 1958 and 1963 which we now find were previously technically invalid. Clause 5, together with Schedule 2, deals

563
with the modifications of various United Kingdom enactments consequent upon the grant of independence. They are on the usual lines, except that, at the suggestion of the British Guiana Ministers, certain sections of the Army Act 1955, and the corresponding sections of the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, will continue to apply as if Guyana were a Colony, in order to facilitate the implementation by the Guyana Government of certain undertakings given by them relating to the retention of British troops for a limited period after independence.
Clause 6 provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council made before May 26, 1966, provide a Constitution for Guyana to come into effect at that date. It has been agreed that the Independence Constitution should contain provision to enable Guyana to become a Republic, should it so desire, on the passing of a resolution by its National Assembly not earlier than April 1, 1969. But Guyana will enter independence as a Monarchy, and I confirm that Her Majesty has graciously agreed to become the Queen of Guyana on May 26. Clause 7 enables the Order in Council containing the Independence Constitution to provide for the jurisdiction of Her Majesty in Council to hear appeals from Guyana to pass to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should Guyana become a Republic. Clause 8 contains interpretative provisions, and Clause 9 contains the Short Title.
It only remains for me to say again that we welcome this development in the affairs of a people with whom we have had such close associations. We are happy to think that Guyana is of her own wish applying for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. We shall be ready and proud to support, in any way in which we are asked, her application to take a place in the United Nations. We look forward to a future for Guyana of economic development and political harmony. My Lords, I am pleased to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Beswick.)
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL. OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must all be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his
564
remarks on the development of British Guiana towards independence within the Commonwealth. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, which was, of course, foreseen and prepared some time ago by my right honourable friends in another place.
Unlike some of your Lordships, I have never myself visited this most interesting country, although I spent some days in the neighbouring island of Trinidad, which has also achieved independent status within the Commonwealth. But I have read a great deal about the new Guyana in the Press, and, of course, about the regrettable political disturbances there in the past—very serious disturbances indeed. But, fortunately, under the wise Government of the present Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes Burnham, these disturbances, and what one might almost describe as the James Bond atmosphere in the territory, are all, I think, things of the past. I trust that the country will now live in peace and prosperity for many years to come, that her economic development—which, as the noble Lord has said, stems from bauxite, diamonds and gold as well as sugar, rice and bananas—will proceed apace, and that the 1965 record output of rice will be surpassed in coming years.
Much has been said about these racial conflicts which the noble Lord has mentioned and which have led to terrorism and people being detained under preventive detention powers. As I understand it, however, only 13 out of the original 44 now remain in custody, and it is clear that these 13 are not held for political reasons but for their acts of violence. I think it must be remembered that virtually all the other Commonwealth countries that have achieved independence in recent years have unfortunately had to retain such powers in order to maintain internal law and order. As your Lordships know, an independent tribunal of inquiry, comprising three non-political and, I know, just and sincere men, has been set up, and I hope that more of the prisoners will make use of this impartial body. In any event, I do not think that by delaying independence we shall assist in getting these men released. I am rather inclined to the view that they will achieve their freedom more rapidly when independence has been granted on May 26.

565
In regard to the stationing of British troops, which the noble Lord mentioned, am I not right in thinking that they will remain there until at least October of this year, by which time the Guyana defence forces should be fully trained and able to take over responsibility for internal security? I am glad to see that we have agreed to the secondment of men from Britain during the next few months, perhaps even years, to assist in the training of forces there.
Racial tensions have certainly been reduced, and last year the political and economic climate continued to improve under the Coalition Government of Mr. Forbes Burnham and his People's National Party and Mr. D'Aguiar's United Force Party. We regret, of course, that Dr. Jagan's Progressive People's Party declined to accept the invitation to attend the Conference last November, and we also regret that the present Government there, in the interests of law and order, still has to make use of the emergency powers of detention. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, implied—at all events, I am sure he will agree with me on this—we hate these powers of detention; but it must he agreed that they rest not with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom but with the Government of Guyana itself which already has the responsibility for ensuring public safety and order.
Moreover, I do not think it can be seriously contended that the records of these men are other than those of involvement in violence and terrorism. Some, I believe, were trained abroad: some in China, others in Cuba. It would in my view be mad to release all these men unconditionally before independence is granted. Despite the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, the Amendment to the Bill tabled in another place, that the Act should come into operation only on condition that no persons continued to be detained, was emphatically negatived; and I hope that no similar Amendment will be put before your Lordships.
I do not think I have any observations to make on any specific clauses of the Bill. There was a very full discussion on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage in another place. The Bill follows the general pattern of previous
566
Bills granting independence to other territories. I think we must all be glad to learn that Her Majesty has agreed to become Queen of Guyana on Independence Day. I should like to join with your Lordships in congratulating Guyana on the great constitutional advance which will take place later this month and also on that country becoming, as the noble Lord said, the first Commonwealth country on the Continent of South America. I am sure your Lordships would like to congratulate, too, those who played so important a part in achieving this independence, not only the wise Mr. Burnham and Mr. D'Aguiar—I am told that they are both doing splendid jobs—but also successive British Governors, Sir Ralph Grey and Sir Richard Luyten. We all know that Sir Ralph bore the heat and burden of the troubles with amazing courage and endurance, and that Sir Richard has been equally dedicated in discharging his duties. I am sure that we also greatly welcome Sir Lionel Luckhoo as the first High Commissioner-designate for Guyana in Britain. He was, as your Lordships know, recently knighted by Her Majesty on her last visit to Georgetown. Mr. Burnham, I believe, has achieved considerable success in breaking down the strong racial differences. It is no longer correct to regard one Party as representing one race.
I think now, in conclusion, that we should concentrate our efforts on assisting Guyana in her economic development. Geographically, she is the size of Great Britain, yet there are only 60 miles of road in the country. The country certainly has an important economic future. Despite the internal troubles, she has managed to maintain—a remarkable thing to maintain—a favourable balance of payments by keeping her imports well under control. Her mineral wealth is not at present being fully exploited. Although her people have achieved considerable success with the 40 per cent. exports of sugar, it is hoped that with the aid of outside investment they will derive considerable further revenue from their mineral resources. I am glad to learn that a sum, perhaps amounting to some £3 million, will in the present financial year be provided in the form of technical assistance and development loans.

567
My Lords, who knows what limits may be set on their development? It is interesting that French Guiana, now a Department of France, and which lies beyond the Netherlands Guiana and is known as Surinam, may soon become a great international space station so that spacecraft may be placed in equatorial orbit, making it possible, with the same rockets, to put up larger payloads than even those from Cape Kennedy. Who knows what the future has in store for these three territories, the three Guianas? I am sure it is the wish of us all that the Guiana with which we have had such close links will remain for many years to come a happy member of the Commonwealth family and also of the Caribbean Free Trade Area in the creation of which Mr. Forbes Burnham played such an important part. On this side of the House we warmly welcome Guiana's independence.
3.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sorry to strike a somewhat discordant note in these harmonious proceedings; but I am not so optimistic about the future of Guyana as either of the previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with his usual realism, gave some of the factors of this country's situation—he mentioned, for example, that it is the size of England and Wales. It is, in fact, the size of England, Wales and Scotland, with a population of 100,000 less than that of the City of Liverpool. In view of the objection and the backpedalling that both the Government and the Opposition have displayed to regionalism in this country—they will not give any sort of self-government to Scotland or Wales or parts of England—it is odd that they are now prepared to hand over to such a country full government, with United Nations membership—and will, moreover, give them £3 million. As a Welshman I only wish that some charity started at home.
As we have heard, the economy of this country is narrowly based on sugar, rice, bauxite and timber. In fact, the population, small as it is, is not scattered over the country, but is concentrated in the capital, Georgetown, and in the narrow coastal belt. The remainder of the country is left to nature and to a few wandering aborigines, of whom we have heard not
568
a word to-day, from either speaker. When a country is given independence, we in this House are usually told a great deal about those who were the original inhabitants; but to-day not a word has been mentioned about them; whether they agree with independence; whether there are any of them left; or in what sort of conditions they will live. We do not know. All the people we are speaking about are either immigrants or the sons or grandsons of immigrants. It is an immigrant community. And no word has been said about the original inhabitants.
I have had a good deal to do with the economic problems of Guiana, and I know the difficulties. That is why I have now done what I have never done before. I have been talking on Independence Bills, either in this House or in another place, ever since the first one in 1947 when I carried the Ceylon Bill through the House of Commons, but I have never previously made a speech like this. I think that the House ought to know the great problems that this country will have to face in the future, with such a small population: such an enormous amount of harness on such a tiny horse. The instability of the country, the fact that it has these two main immigrant communities, either from Africa or from the East Indies, affects the whole of the situation, politically, militarily, socially and economically. We have seen the result of this to-day. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that we as a Parliament have been asked to grant independence and to leave our troops in the country. Why is that? Why are we to leave our troops in the country?
I should like to have from the Government an answer to a question which, so far as I know, has never been put, either here or in another place. To whom are these troops to be responsible? If an officer gives an order to shoot, to what authority will he look, either for his superior order or to protect him in the case of action, civil or criminal? In my young days, when in the Colonies, we used to have a lot of training in operations in aid of the civil Power, in what we used to call "mob fighting". One of the things we were always told was: "Don't give an order to fire, if you can help it; and, if you do, hand in your resignation straight away, for no Government will back you up at home." This is a very serious problem. If British troops are

569
operating in Guyana and it is an independent country, what will be the position of the officer or other rank who takes action? Who will be responsible? Are we in this House, and Members of the other place, Parliament as a whole, to be responsible for British troops?
Another example of this instability is that we know that under the new Constitution which is coming into operation there will be detention without trial. It is an odd thing that a democratic society should put these people off into the brave new world and give them the right to detain people without trial. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, knows that at this moment there are thirteen people in detention who have not been tried. He said—on what authority I do not know—that they are all very bad fellows and ought to be detained. How does the noble Earl know that they are bad fellows, or what offences they have committed? Has he gone through their papers? They have never come to trial. No court has decided what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has decided. We have now the position that a noble Lord on the Opposition Benches can condemn thirteen men unheard. I think that is a very odd situation for this House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord to go unite so far as that. I have not condemned any one. The information we have, I am told—no doubt the Minister replying for the Government will say something on this—is that it is quite clear that these men are not there for political reasons, but entirely due to the acts of violence which they committed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl says that it is due to the acts of violence which they committed. How do we know? What evidence have we got, or has the noble Earl got, that they committed any acts of violence at all? What evidence have we got, or has he got, that these men are there not because of political reasons but as criminals?
This state of affairs seems to me highly unsatisfactory. The noble Earl may be right. I do not know whether he is right; nor does he know. That is the whole point. I guarantee that the noble Earl does not know. He has made statements in this House—and presumably the Government will support him—for which
570
neither he nor they have any authority. The fact is that at this present moment, with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government, thirteen people who have never been tried are detained. We say enough about Rhodesia and South Africa, when the authorities there detain people without trial, but what about this country? Why are we at this moment giving all this power and authority when these people are doing the very thing which we rightly condemn when it is done in Rhodesia and South Africa?
My Lords, I do not like making this speech. I would rather make the sort of speech which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made, quite frankly—the sort of speech I usually make. But your Lordships know me well enough to know that I always say what I mean, and I feel that it is time we looked at the realities of the situation, instead of passing these pious platitudes on this sort of occasion.
For instance, there are in Guiana 640,000 people, who are poor people: as we have already heard, they will have to provide Embassies all over the world. They will have to provide High Commission offices in London and elsewhere. Their Ambassadors and High Commissioners will float around in Cadillacs and Mercedes cars. Her Majesty's Government will introduce them to the United Nations, and they will need an expensive establishment in New York, as well as an establishment at Washington. Again, they will have to have cars there. Where is the money coming from? Of course, £3 million of it is coming from Her Majesty's Government, but what about the people? It is the people with whom I am concerned. Time after time we have produced these Constitutions and ushered countries off into the brave new world, and we have seen money go into the pockets of the leaders, of the politicians, and the people have been no better off. In fact, to my certain knowledge, and to the knowledge of your Lordships, the gap between poor and rich countries is getting wider the whole time; partly due to the fact that the richer countries are exploiting the poorer countries in so far as they will not pay the proper market price for their raw materials.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord?

571
Have not we given to this country proportional representation, which is the policy of his Party?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, my Lords; a Conservative Government gave them proportional representation, because they said —Mr. Sandys himself said it—that the ordinary British system which they had previously had led to chaos. If that was the Conservative Government's view of the situation, I am surprised that they did not suggest putting proportional representation into operation in this country.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. You have two important measures to consider, or one, at any rate, if we can manage to persuade the Leader of the House to give way on that score. But this is an important question. I feel that we are embarking on a voyage into the unknown. We are pushing these people, or are agreeing to their going sailing off, in their very frail barque, into the unknown; and I think that before we give a Second Reading to the Bill, or at all events before we pass the Bill as a whole, we should realise what are their chances and what are the circumstances of a country which we are now proposing to make a fully paid-up member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
3.36 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate but I have been to British Guiana. I am sorry that Lord Campbell of Eskan is not present to-day. He is a great expert on British Guiana. I had the privilege to he present at the inauguration of the Caribbean Federation by Princess Margaret and I visited British Guiana. The current Constitution was then being operated. There had been troubles, and Sir Patrick Renison, the Governor, had appointed his nominees under the Legislative Chamber at that time.
We know that British Guiana has sugar and bauxite and rice in the Macciviony area, and there is green heart timber which is worked by our Colonial Development Board in the jungle. The difficulty in Guiana which we have to recognise is that around Georgetown there are the blacks, and in the Macciviony area, where the population is vastly increasing, there are the Indians who, in the main, support Dr. Jagan. I wish to
572
say frankly to this House that it will take a long time to get a viable economy in British Guiana, but that is no reason why we should not give them the independence which they have sought for so many years.
In the context of racial strife as I have seen it, I am pleased that Guyana has decided to remain a member of the British Commonwealth. The greatest problem I see—and I support the Bill—is this. While there is no tension now, will that situation continue under independence? The Indian population is increasing fast, and the population ratio of the two races is about 51:49. That is the difficulty we have to face. Years ago there was a split between Dr. Jagan and Forbes Burnham which I remember very well. Forbes Burnham continued in Opposition for many years till we had the last trouble, and then Duncan Sandys brought in a Constitution which they have been operating up to now. I believe that Constitution was greatly responsible for reducing the tension since the last uprising. I disagree with the previous speaker. I think the Government are right to help the new independent State with its Coalition Government, whatever may happen in the future, and to give them a period to consolidate their Government.
Again, in the context of the racial tensions that I have seen, I think the Government have done right in the Act of Independence to say, "While you have independence we will see that the lawful Government is upheld, and help in all ways to reduce the potential trouble that can take place between the Indians and the blacks". It is my honest desire today, knowing the country as I do, that our every endeavour within the Commonwealth should be to help to break down this terrible tension that has occurred between the Indians and the blacks in British Guiana, and to get a geophysical survey of the whole country, with its diamonds and gold by the Kausher Falls up the River Potaro, its bauxite, its sugar and bananas. Small as the population may be, I believe that there can be a future for them if we can get them living together harmoniously.
3.41 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, and my noble friend Lord Blyton for the welcome they have given

573
to this Bill. I am sorry I cannot equally thank my noble friend (if I may still call him my noble friend) Lord Ogmore. Knowing his great interest in the Colonies, I expected him to take part in this debate, but I was not expecting him to take the sort of line he did. I must tell him that all three Parties in British Guiana want independence. Who are we to say that they should not have independence? Since when has the great Liberal Party been against the granting of independence to these colonial territories? Is the noble Lord prepared to stomp the country and say that he is no longer in favour of independence for these people? One reason that he seemed to have against their being given independence was the fact that the majority of the people in British Guiana are immigrants. So are the majority of people in Wales immigrants. I do not think he can seriously hold that against them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friend (if I may call him that) has rather misconstrued what I said, no doubt owing to my lack of putting it clearly. What I meant was that I do not see how one can really call it independence when the Government has to be supported by British troops, and has to have a provision in the Constitution which enables them to detain people in custody without trial. If those two points are present I do not think you can call it real independence, quite apart from the fact of viability.
LORD BESWICK: I propose to come to the point about the British troops in a moment. As I understood the case which the noble Lord was making to the House, it was that British Guiana was unfitted to be independent by virtue of its size. It is a small country. The noble Lord rather derided it on that account and the fact that the majority of the people there are not indigenous people, or, at any rate, their connection with the country did not go back over infinity.
The 28,000 Amerindians are a separate people. They can, I suppose, claim that it is their country, in the same way that the Indians in the United States can claim that the United States is their country. Special provision will be made in the new Constitution for this separate group, and I understand that their welfare will be
574
I protected in the new Constitution. I do not think that because they have these emergency powers, on that account alone we should deny them independence. There are many countries in the world today, unhappily, which have emergency powers. If all the countries in which there are now people held without due process of trial were to be denied independence, the membership of the United Nations would be considerably smaller than it is at the present time.
In this particular case we did have a most unhappy period. There were racial tensions, to which the noble Lord referred; there were something like 200 people whose lives were lost, and about 1,000 houses which were destroyed. During that period it was, I think, difficult to bring anyone to trial; it was difficult to get witnesses to come forward. There was a good deal of terrorism. There was a period when the ordinary processes of law could not be maintained. But I think the record shows that the action which was taken under the Emergency Regulations has yielded results. The terrorism has been overcome; the violence, as I said earlier, is now behind us. Although at one time there were 41 people held under the Emergency Regulations, the number is now 13, and I hope that by May 26 it may be even less. The Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes Burnham, has said publically that it is not his intention after independence to use these Emergency Powers. He does intend to introduce fresh and more liberal legislation, and I think the undertakings he has given in this regard ought to commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
The noble Lord raised a particular point, which I think is most interesting, about the presence of British troops in Guiana. It is significant that this same point has not been raised in earlier discussions in another place. But I think I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point. The troops are there at the request of the British Guiana Government, and they are there for a limited period. It is intended that, with the exception of a few officers, they will be withdrawn in October of this year. They are there for the purpose of assisting in the training of local defence forces. I f they were required for any other purpose than this training then the order would come not from the British Guiana or the Guyanese Government, as the noble Lord

575
suggests, but through the High Commissioner, who would not issue an order without the express consent of Her Majesty's Government here. I should have thought that the position was perfectly well covered so far as this is concerned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the position of the High Commissioner is really an ambassadorial one. He is the representative of the British Government in a diplomatic sense. Is it right to give him the authority and the serious responsibility of ordering troops out at the request of Mr. Forbes Burnham?
LORD BESWICK: I thought I had made the position clear. It is not intended that he will order British troops out. I am saying that the agreement is that these troops will be there for the purpose of assisting in the training of local defence forces. If the question arises—we hope that it will not, and we have no reason to think it will—that the use of these troops is required for any other purpose, then consent would have to be given by Her Majesty's Government in this country. That consent would be given not through the Government of Guyana, but through the High Commissioner. So the British troops, I should have thought, would know perfectly well what their position was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would a request for the use of the troops have to be made by the Government of Guyana? I do not think that is quite clear.
LORD BESWICK: We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. I have no reason to believe that this request will be made, but if the matter did arise there would be a request, presumably from the Guyana Government; but that request would have to come to Her Majesty's Government here, and any orders for the operational use of British troops would have to be channelled through the High Commissioner in Georgetown. As I have said, I think this will cover the doubts which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
I would just add, in conclusion, how much I agree with the words of con-
576
gratulation used by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I think we are indebted to all those who have come together to make this development possible, both British and Guianese. With his words of congratulation and appreciation, I think we might well spare a moment to consider all those in the Colonial Service who have given their lives in previous years and in the previous century, and who have helped to establish this nation and make possible the conditions in which I move the Second Reading of this Bill to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I now answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked at the beginning of Business. If I may, I will use the same words as my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour:
"I have seen representatives of the Shipping Federation this afternoon and I shall be seeing the Executive of the National Union of Seamen to-morrow. In this situation I would prefer to say nothing more."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Minister's Answer. In view of the delicacy of the situation and the importance of the issue to the nation, I, for my part, should not like to say anything which might in any way prove to be untimely or harmful. All I would ask the noble Lord is whether he would be so good as to keep the House informed of any developments, favourable or unfavourable?—and, of course, we all hope they will be favourable.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding approach to my somewhat limited Answer. We will certainly endeavour to keep the House informed of anything which we think it would be of advantage to the House to know.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The terms of the Bill are identical with the terms of the previous Bill which was passed by this House at the end of the last Session of Parliament, on March 7. In these circumstances, I do not propose to go through the Bill in the usual way and deal with all the clauses. As your Lordships will remember, there was a very full discussion on the Bill which lasted over seven full days, and I think every aspect of it was threshed out, some might say almost ad nauseam. At any rate, there can be no excuse to-day for anyone who took any interest in the Bill not knowing what the terms of it are.
During the seven days it was under discussion, it had rather a chequered career, and the Bill which was finally passed by your Lordships was very different from the amateurish one—I freely admit that—which I originally introduced. Since introducing the original Bill, I have had the advantage of hearing the views of noble Lords in this House, and I have had the benefit of the services of Parliamentary draftsmen, which I had not at the outset, who put forward in proper form the revised ideas as they came through this House. As I have said, this Bill is exactly, word for word, with all faults, in the terms of the Bill which passed your Lordships' House on March 7. As your Lordships will know, although it passed through this House, it did not go to another place. It therefore fell with the end of Parliament, and it became necessary to introduce this Bill afresh, and that is what I am now doing.
At this stage I do not propose to deal with the details of the Bill, or even the merits of it, though I would say this. The issue before your Lordships is not whether abortion should or should not be permissible. It is already being carried out on a large scale, legitimately, as most would say, although there is an element of doubt. Since the Bourne Judgment, some twenty years ago, it has been regarded as permissible to carry out abortion where the life of the mother is involved, or where there is danger to her
578
health, physical or mental. A large number of abortions are to-day being carried out, quite safely and properly carried out, in pursuance of that judgment. But there are also a very large number of illegal abortions. I am not sure whether or not they are more numerous than the legal abortions. I myself estimated that there were something like 100,000 illegal abortions carried out every year. Sonic may say that that figure is too high. I saw recently an article by Professor Goodhart, who thinks that that is a gross exaggeration. On the other hand, a gentleman has recently written a book in which he thinks I am understating the number, and his view is that it is more like 200,000.
Whatever the facts may be—and there is some evidence for the figure of 100,000 that I have put forward, although I do not propose to pursue it—a very large number of illegal abortions are being carried out to-day. It is comprised partly of pregnant women who have the means and are able to go to Harley Street, or to a corresponding place in other provincial cities, and get an abortion in what I might call quasi-legal form. They go through all the motions, they get their abortion, and all is well. Those who cannot afford that are still able, if they know their way around, to go to the back streets and get an abortion, from a totally unqualified person, for a very much smaller sum. But in the aggregate this defiance of the law goes on to a considerable extent, and it is, in my view, most undesirable and dangerous to the life and health of the pregnant mother that this should take place.
There is only one other thing I should like to say about the Bill itself. From the enormous correspondence which I have had since I first began to take an interest in this matter—running into several thousand letters—it would seem that the vast majority of women who are concerned with this are not, as I might have expected originally, single women, but married women, of an age approaching forty or more, with a number of children, who have become pregnant again, very often unexpectedly, and who for one reason or another find themselves unable to cope with an additional child at that age. Some of them are women whose families have grown up and have children of their own. There is a feeling almost of

579
humiliation in such a woman who has to give birth to a child, when she has grandchildren who will be older than the child she is bearing. Those are some of the facts we have to face, and these are the prospective clients for abortion. As I say, if they can afford it, or they know their way around, they can get an abortion through a doctor. If they do not, they go to the back streets. But, in my view, there are something like 100,000 women a year actually getting an abortion.
I have said that this Bill is word for word the Bill which passed its final stages on the 7th March. But I do not want to mislead the House: there are one or two Amendments I shall certainly wish to put forward for the consideration of the House at the later stages. The first is one which has aroused a good deal of controversy. It was first passed by the Committee and at a later stage was rejected by the Committee. Looking through the personnel who voted, I find there was a big change in those who voted in the two Divisions. But, be that as it may, I feel that the House ought to have, with this Bill, another opportunity of expressing its views on the difficult question of what I call the inadequacy of the mother. It may be that I did not formulate this provision as happily as I might have done. I have given much more thought to it now. It is a difficult conception to put into an Act of Parliament, but what I am groping for, and I hope I shall eventually reach something which will be acceptable, is the case of the prospective mother who really is unable to cope with having a child, or another child, whether she has too many already or whether, for physical or other reasons, she cannot cope, but about whom it cannot be said that her life would be endangered or that there would be serious injury to her health. That is the kind of person I want to cater for, and I should like to inform the House that in the course of the Committee stage I will put down an Amendment in an effort to give the House an opportunity of considering it once more.
There is one other, less important, point. The House may remember that in the final stages of the Bill I accepted an Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, widening the definition of a defective. Originally the defec-
580
tive was the abnormal defective; a very high-grade defective. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, was anxious to widen the definition so as to cover particular distinctions in the Mental Health Act, I accepted that, but I warned him that I might have to think about it again. It might be that on consideration I should find that to try to cover all defectives was going a bit far. I have not yet concluded my inquiries into this question, but it may be that I shall put down an Amendment on that point in order to narrow the definition of a mental defective. May I say, in passing, that we have all heard with deep regret of the serious illness of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who will not be here to vote, although he did look in for a moment. He is on his way to convalescence and I am sure we all wish him well. I miss him as a good friend to this Bill.
I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, preferably without a Division. We may all have our ideas as to what we want to do eventually, but I am sure the vast majority of your Lordships will once more accept the principle of taking some step to deal with the law on abortion: first, with the object of clarifying the law; secondly, with the object of a reasonable extension of the cases where abortion is possible; and thirdly, and in my view by far the most important, in the name of compassion for the large number of women who are going through a most harassing and agonising time and for whom I hope this Bill will give a measure of relief. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Silkin)
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill on this occasion, said he thought every issue had been threshed out. I would say to him that if ever there was one issue on this Bill which had been thoroughly threshed out it was the question of whether special provision should be made for the mother whom we define as "inadequate". I will not deal with the argument now. If the noble Lord is going to table an Amendment to make us consider the issue again I will deal with it on that occasion, but I am sure your Lordships are aware that if a mother was inadequate in the

581
sense described by the noble Lord, if a mother really could not cope with another child, then another child would be likely seriously to affect her mental or physical health; and such a case would be covered under paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (1).
I do not intend to deal with that kind of point today. It is, I think, the fact, that even if we pass this Bill it will not follow that illegal operations cease to take place —the "back-street abortions" to which the noble Lord referred. The precise number of these abortions in the course of a year is anybody's guess. I do not think there are any grounds for assessing the number at the figure given by the noble Lord, or indeed at any higher or any lower figure. I am sure we should all like to see those abortions, with all the risks entailed, put to an end, but I think we shall be deluding ourselves if we believe we shall do that by passing this measure.
I am in favour of a Bill on this subject and in favour of giving this Bill a Second Reading, but I am very disappointed by this second—or I am not sure whether it should not be called the third or fourth—edition of the noble Lord's measure. I hoped the noble Lord would have amended it in some respects to meet the points made in the debate, or that at least in the course of his speech he would have said that he was proposing to do so during the Committee stage of this Bill.
When the noble Lord moved the Second Reading of this Bill on a previous occasion he put in the forefront of his argument (it was not, of course, his only argument) the need to make the law clear and certain. That is a desirable objective and one which I support. At the present time what is taken to be the law permitting abortions depends on directions given by judges to juries in criminal cases. I doubt whether the full extent of what is now permitted is sufficiently realised, but there are some, I believe, who feel considerable doubt about how far the law permits them to go. I think there is a strong case for putting in a Statute what the law is and what we think the law should be, giving clear guidance as to the circumstances in which abortion is lawful and as to the conditions which have to be complied with.
I think it followed from the noble Lord's argument that Statute Law should
582
replace the Case Law. In my opinion it certainly should, but this Bill does not provide for that. If this Bill is passed in its present form, Case Law will still also apply and there will be two different codes for lawful abortion. Under the Bill, except in cases of emergency, two doctors have to certify that the prescribed conditions exist. The treatment must be given in a hospital and by a doctor holding the appointment of registrar or a higher appointment, and the Chief Medical 011lcer of the Ministry of Health has to be notified. Under Case Law all that is required is that two doctors should agree that the continuance of the pregnancy involvesseriousrisk to the life or grave injury to the health of the pregnant woman. They can then lawfully perform the operation. There is no requirement that one of them must have held an appointment of registrar at least. There is no requirement that the operation must be performed in a hospital under the National Health Service. There is no requirement that the Chief Medical Officer must be informed.
If, despite the passage of this Bill, the Case Law is to remain in force, I wonder whether we are not wasting our time in considering this Bill and in considering under what conditions and in what circumstances the operation may lawfully be performed. You will have the curious position that although under the Bill a pregnancy may be determined on account of the likely condition of the child, or because the woman is defective or the prospective mother a girl under 16, it will not be lawful for two doctors to perform the operation on those grounds under Case Law, and if they do they run the risk of prosecution. I raised this point in our debates last Session and I was then under the impression that the noble Lord recognised and appreciated its importance. I thought then that he was prepared to meet it and to amend the Bill to make it clear that this Bill when enacted would replace the Case Law. I was very disappointed when he did not indicate that this was one of the Amendments he proposed to make during the course of the Committee stage.
As I have said, this Bill does not provide for it, and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will say why it does not and will give an assurance that he will table an Amendment to

583
provide for this. It may not be easy to draft, but he has, as he said, the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, and I feel sure that a satisfactory Amendment can be devised. But if this Bill is not amended in this way I feel I shall have to vote against it on the Third Reading, for I believe that this Bill loses all point, or nearly all point, if the Case Law is allowed to remain in force, and this I regard as a major defect in the Bill.
There are two other defects to which I should like to draw attention. I have spoken of them before, and I propose not to say very much about them this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred already to the width of the definiton of a "defective", and the Bill makes special provision for the termination of the pregnancy of a defective woman. No question of her health is involved, no question whether there is any substantial risk that the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to deprive it of any prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. All that has to be established is that the woman is defective within the meaning of Section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1959. As the noble Lord knows, it is an extremely wide definition. In my view, in this respect the Bill goes far too wide. I hope that on further reflection the noble Lord, will appreciate that. I am very doubtful indeed as to the wisdom of making any special provision for a defective woman. If there is a risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman it would be far better to leave out this special provision and just to rely on Clause 1(1)(b).
I should like to know what justification there can be for the destruction of a potential human life when there is no risk of injury to the health of the pregnant woman and when there is no substantial risk that the child will be so abnormal that it will not have a prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. It is certainly not the case, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, correctly in the last debates, that defective mothers always produce defective children. I should like to know, too, what steps will be taken to provide for the defective woman's application for abortion. At the lowest end of the scale the defective woman may be nearly, if not quite, in-
584
sane. If so, will she be in a fit state to make the application? In such a case should not the Bill provide that some responsible persons should have power to make the application on her behalf? I should like to know what the noble Lord has to say about that. In the case of a girl under 16 the Bill does provide for the consent of her parents or guardian.
Now I come to what I think is the third defect in this Bill. It is the making of a special provision in relation to the termination of pregnancies of girls under 16. I know that what I say about this may well be misrepresented. I have spoken of it before, and the last time I did so the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—I am sorry not to see her in her place to-day—delivered a violent attack upon me, having prepared her speech in the Library in anticipation of what she thought I was going to say. Despite the fact that I did not say what she thought I was going to say, she nonetheless delivered the speech. I really cannot complain about that, but I felt it was a little hard. I would say myself that the right test, the right approach, in all these cases of young girls is to consider what is best for her, for her health, mental or physical. In some cases it may be better for her to have the baby and to have it adopted forthwith, rather than to undergo this operation. But if the strain of bearing the child is likely to involve risk to her life or serious injury to her health then the Bill already makes provision for termination.
What I think is wrong about this Bill is that it gives the girl under 16 a vested right to termination, and to termination even if she is found to be pregnant immediately before her 16th birthday and the child will be born many months later, and without any regard to considerations of health. I think this is wrong, and in every case the health of the pregnant woman or girl and the probable condition of the child are the right criteria. No doubt we shall discuss these matters more in Committee, but they are in my view of such importance that I felt it right to draw attention to them again now. I hope these points will be met, but if they are not I am afraid the noble Lord will not be able to rely upon my supporting him on the Third Reading of this measure.
4.18 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, much has been said both for and against the proposal to liberalise the law in regard to the performance of abortion. I have my own views, but I do not propose to present them to your Lordships, because they are no less nor more important than those of any other man possessed of average intelligence and of knowledge of the ways of the world. As a surgeon, however, I feel I have a definite duty and responsibility to comment on certain practical implementations of this Bill, should it become law, as seems likely.
When the Bill, in its earlier forms, was presented to your Lordships in the last Session, I was very uneasy about certain omissions. There was, in fact, very little in the earlier stages to ensure that any woman who had an operation to secure an abortion would not be exposed to unnecessary risks. The omissions were especially serious because one of the objects of this Bill is to protect woman from the dangers of the unskilled and illegal abortionist; it is also devised to prevent abuse. The earlier clauses of the Bill were certainly not strong enough to give women the degree of protection which the law desires and which they must have. I was therefore both pleased and relieved to find that in the later amended form, and in the form we are considering this afternoon, two further provisions have been included.
One of these is in Clause 1(2)(a), which states that the operation must be done by a gynecological surgeon holding an appointment as registrar or in a superior capacity in a National Health Service hospital. The other is in Clause 1(2)(b), which states that the operation must be done in a National Health Service hospital or in a place approved for the time being by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State. And I presume that such an approved place will be a registered and approved nursing home or private hospital equipped with proper surgical, medical and nursing facilities.
As a surgeon, I know that the operation necessary to terminate pregnancy requires skill and experience, especially in the case of a first pregnancy. The procedure used for self-inflicted abortion or by the illegal abortionist, the so-called illegal operation, usually fails to produce a complete abortion. It commonly initiates
586
a process that has to be completed by a trained gynecological surgeon. It is for this reason that a woman who has had an illegal operation is so often admitted to hospital critically ill. To terminate a pregnancy as a definitive procedure requires a more complex operation attended with definite dangers, a fact that does not seem to be generally known and taken into account. It is for this reason that a properly accredited gynecological surgeon should alone be permitted to perform it.
These two extra provisions should inflict no hardship, need offend no one, and they do away with any loophole for activities or for abuse that I am sure we all desire should be prevented. I am therefore pleased and reassured that these two important safeguards have been included in the Bill, and I congratulate those who have had the wisdom and foresight to include them.
4.23 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am happy to be the first to express your Lordships' pleasure at the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brock. During the eight years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, some of the most distinguished speeches that I have been privileged to hear have come from eminent members of the medical profession; and we are all delighted that the ranks of that profession in the House are now to be strengthened by the addition of the noble Lord, Lord Brock. We hope that there will be future occasions upon which he will place at our disposal his expert knowledge, in such delightfully simple language as he has used to-day.
When I put down my name to speak in this debate I was under the impression that the Bill which was to be introduced was to be in the form of the original Bill that my noble friend Lord Silkin introduced into the previous Session of Parliament. I am, therefore, in the happy position of being able to throw away the speech that I had felt it would be my reluctant duty to make, and instead to come a great deal nearer to the proposals that my noble friend Lord Silkin has made.
The merit of the present Bill is that, unlike its predecessor, it is a genuine Abortion Bill; and it does not attempt, as its predecessor did, in its original

587
form, to insinuate eugenics under the cover of a measure of reform of the law of abortion. I am certain that it is extremely important that we do not do this. It is important because, in the present state of our knowledge, we cannot do it successfully. As a community we are not agreed on the kind of qualities that we wish to reproduce in the population; and, even if we were agreed on that, we do not have, in the present state of genetic science, the knowledge of which parents are likely to produce offspring that possess those qualities. All we do know is that, in the case of certain limited grave mental or physical defect, there is a high probability that a child born to certain parents will be severely abnormal; and the Bill does take care of that particular case.
So I greatly hope that, in the Amendment which my noble friend has threatened to introduce on the Committee stage, he will not again lay himself open to the objection that he is introducing pseudo-eugenics under the form of a reform of the abortion law. I also hope that, if he is going to take the line that it is undesirable that children should be born into a bad material environment, he will give a great deal of thought to the possible alternative that we should improve the material environment, rather than prevent the birth of the child.
I am glad to see that another of my objections to the previous Bill is met by the provision that the woman concerned must make an application in writing. I know that it may be said that this provision is unnecessary, because no surgical operation can be performed without the consent of the patient. But I would remind your Lordships that consents from people who are in a distressed, emotional state, or who may be of low intelligence, can sometimes be obtained only too easily. I should like to remind your Lordships that if a perfectly normal housewife, in good health, is so foolish as to sign a contract for hire-purchase over the doorstep, she is allowed by law three clear days to revoke her consent. I imagine that consent to an operation for the termination of pregnancy is a good deal more important a matter than, say, signing a contract to purchase a television set or a washing machine.
588
I also find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on two remaining points. The first is the automatic provision that a girl under 16 shall have the right to the termination of pregnancy. Girls on the verge of the age of 16, as many of us know, are now sometimes quite surprisingly mature; and I think many of us could quote cases in which they have borne children, and have done so quite successfully and happily for all concerned.
Then I hope that my noble friend will consent to modify the definition of "defective", so that it does not cover the subnormals, but covers only the severely subnormals, in terms of the Mental Health Act. Unless that is done, I shall feel it my duty to bring forward a good deal of evidence of the extraordinary range of intelligence and quality of people who are at present registered as subnormals. The severely subnormals, however, are in a quite different category. I greatly hope that my noble friend will consent to make that Amendment. With those qualifications, I find myself in the happy position of being able to give my noble friend much more wholehearted support than I did on the previous occasion, and I do this with great pleasure.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Baroness in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on a distinguished maiden speech. I would pay him the highest compliment that I can pay to a maiden speech: I would say that it was a useful speech. We in this House are here to be of use to our country, and we do not value oratorical flights so much as useful contributions, those made from experience, to our debates. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, will often be heard again in your Lordships' discussions.
When the previous Bill received a Second Reading in the last Parliament I moved a Motion of rejection. That Motion was overwhelmingly defeated. That defeat I must accept. It is not my intention to divide against the Bill this afternoon. To do so would, I think, show disrespect for your Lordships' judgment. I can rely on the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has behaved perfectly fairly by his

589
opponents, and I can rely on his supporters, not to claim that the Bill passed the House of Lords without a Division. That would be mis-stating the position. My objections to the Bill in principle remain as they always were.
As regards the speeches of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, I find myself in general agreement with all they have said this afternoon. I hope that in Committee and on Report they will be able to make their views prevail, and I can promise them my support. I must, however, make my position clear in this matter. I object to abortion in principle, and I object to the legalisation of abortion, even though I know that a great deal of abortion is, and always has been, practised. To give the force of law to a course of action which I consider unethical is, to me, a very terrible thing. I must make my position, and the position of my friends, clear on that, although your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to talk theology. I think it might be more profitable to say a word on the scientific angle.
As I understand the teachings of biologists, they have discovered that all our individual qualities spring from the interaction of two sets of chromosomes which meet at our conception. That interaction sets the pattern of our individuality. What follows may be summed up in the two words, "development" and "growth"—growth which continues till we have reached our full adult stature, development which continues at least until puberty. I can find no point between conception and adult status at which we can properly say that human life begins or that what preceded it was not human. Aristotle, whose thinking greatly influenced the general view of the matter among civilised Europeans, considered that such a point could be found at the quickening, but I understand that very few medical men and embryologists would agree with that view to-day. The quickening has not the importance which Aristotle ascribed to it. It was not in fact the first movements of the foetus; it is only the first discernible movements.
The noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, had another and very interesting view. He held on philosophical grounds, into which I will not enter (I am sorry
590
he is not here), that a point could be found with the coming of self-consciousness. That is a very interesting view, and one which deserves exploration, but I should imagine that it would be exceedingly difficult for practical purposes to find the point at which self-consciousness arises. That being my conviction —and I have studied the matter as best I can—I cannot resist the conclusion that abortion does mean the taking of human life: a thing which may be done in some circumstances, but only with every conceivable safeguard, and very reluctantly. Therefore, I would claim that my resistance to the principle of this Bill is compatible with the reverence that I hope I have, and which we all ought to have, for human life as such.
I am well aware that the reverence for human life animates all your Lordships, and not least those who have supported this Bill. I can only say that we see things differently, that we approach the question from different angles. To some who are complete pacifists, reverence for human life forbids participation in any war; to others the atomic bomb is the last horror; and to others reverence for human life forbids capital punishment. All these points of view I respect. I ask only that respect should be paid to the point of view of those who think with me and who consider that reverence for human life should forbid abortion. Having said that, I must submit to your Lordships' judgment and hope that the Bill may receive the Amendments which have been adumbrated by the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Baroness.
4.35 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, on the last occasion we discussed this Bill, I gave voice to some thoughts (I was speaking to an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strange), and I want to clarify two points which I then made. First, I said that I did not think we could legislate to meet the situation while abortion remains a crime. Perhaps I can best explain myself if I point out to your Lordships that this Bill states that
"a person shall not be guilty of an offence or crime of abortion if"—
and so on. This, to my mind, is like saying, "Stealing is a crime, but in certain circumstances we shall allow it, and even encourage it."

591
It seems to me that, according to this Bill, the answer to the question, "When is a crime not a crime?" is, "When it is not against the law." I get a very strange sensation when I examine this proposition. I think that it comes from standing on my head trying to make the thing look the right way up. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will kindly explain to me later what logic he sees in it, and why it should not be changed. I suggest to your Lordships that the way to go about things is to enact that abortion is a crime if certain safeguards similar to those in the Bill are not complied with. This will mean rewriting the Bill, but if that is done our law on abortion will be written from what, I submit, is the correct standpoint.
Secondly, the Bill, as it stands, saddles the doctor with a responsibility which I think it is not at all proper he should have. He is to be made arbiter as to which foetus should be removed and which foetus should survive to be born a child. For a sensitive, sympathetic doctor, who has taken great trouble to inform himself as well as he can about a woman and her circumstances, this could be a miserable decision to take, even if in his mind the mother comes first. One doctor could refuse an abortion where another would grant it. What then of the woman and the intolerable, and very likely pitiful, position she may be put into? The only person who can properly decide whether a woman should have an abortion is the woman herself. The doctor's job is then his proper one of advising, perhaps advising against it, and persuading against it, if he thinks right, and the woman is given her rightful responsibility which at present is usurped by out-of-date custom and tradition, and by social stigmas of one sort and another. I am very worried indeed about this responsibility which is to be given to the doctor under this Bill, but I will support the Second Reading of the Bill, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will take account of my criticisms.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I should like in his absence to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech, and for having renounced not only controversial matter, which is his traditional duty, but even the expres-
592
sion of his opinions on a matter where he may be something of an expert. I think he almost achieved his aim—and very difficult it is.
During the last Parliament I was associated, mostly with others, in moving several Amendments to this Bill. In regard to a minor one, of which I was the sole mover, it behoves me to-day to thank the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, for having embodied, so far as I can detect, the substance of my Amendment in the revised version. It had regard to allowing the under-16 girl the right to retain her baby if she wished; and as it was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who asked me not to press my Amendment, as it would be considered, I to-day offer to him, particularly, my thanks. To-day I move no Amendment and I seek no Division, but I hope to move your Lordships in a short speech focused upon paragraph (b) of Clause 1. I think I shall take about four minutes.
On an earlier occasion we debated the degree of unacceptable risk. I listened to an impromptu dialogue between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I thought they seemed to be quite near to agreement on the basis of "odds-on". But the medical profession, from the documents I have seen by doctors in positions of authority, are most unlikely to make an inference of "odds-on" from the word "substantial"—the substantial risk of a severely deformed child. The healthiest of parents run a risk which they tell me is 40 to 1 against. We all run it when we produce a child, however healthy we are, and we accept it; and if the odds in certain cases drop to 20 to 1 against, most of us, I think, accept that, too. But I am reasonably certain that when the odds shorten to 10 to 1 against, some consultants regard the risk as substantial. That is my inference from the papers I have read, one of which I brought to your Lordships' notice during one of the earlier debates. When the risk, as in rubella, is 5 to 1 against, I think many doctors regard it as a very substantial risk; but it is a long way from odds-on to 5 to 1 against.
From what I have heard through listening to your Lordships, I think that most of you are agreed that the monster, if I may call it that, shall not live. My concern to-day arises not from the sentence

593
of death which we are passing, or are proposing to pass, on one afflicted baby, incapable and with no chance at all of enjoying life, but from the fate of the nine healthy babes whom this law will deprive of life which all nine of them would be capable of enjoying. It seems to me that monsters, if that is the right name, look like becoming the hard cases which make bad law. Not all the afflicted will be monsters. Only a small minority of those exterminated will even be afflicted at all. There is no regular ratio of gravity between the affliction and the risk.
This clause authorises the therapeutic or mercy killing of one babe totally incapable of enjoying life. It does so, not in the interest of the mother or society or the State, but in its own interest. Death is prescribed in its own interest. I do not know that there is any other legislation which could be compared with that. But this is not the provision which I am to-day calling in question. The clause as it stands authorises the sacrifice of nine—it may be more, it may be less—good lives, in order that one bad life may not be born. If all ten were allowed, say as a public liability, to go to term from the date of diagnosing grave risk, the correct labelling of all ten would be highly probable instead of being as inaccurate as one chance in ten. Nine healthy infants could be offered to adoption societies, subject to the parental option if they wished to take it. The tenth, if not a monster, could be offered to some other benevolent society. The monster, if such it was, could he certified as such with almost absolute certainty before being consigned to the chloroform tent. If your Lordships are as perturbed as I am about sacrificing so many unquestionably healthy babes in order that one gravely deformed may not be born, I hope you will say: "It shall not be. We must think again."
4.47 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it falls to me from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech, which was precise, clear, audible and brief. We hope we shall see and hear more of him again.
I rise to support this Bill, which is terribly important and urgent compared with the Bill which is to follow. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will carry his Second Reading, and will carry
594
the Amendments which he foreshadows to replace what I regretted was removed in Committee last Session. I am not satisfied, for instance, that the Bill as drafted covers the type of case which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has particularly in mind, and I look forward to seeing an Amendment in that regard. With due respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I disagree with him that the point has in fact been thoroughly thrashed out.
There is only one opinion which I propose to put forward to your Lordships and which has not to my knowledge been mentioned in any of the debates so far—and I sat through most of them last Session. I am one of those who believe that, under God, a baby is the mother's and, to an important extent in holy matrimony, the father's until it is actually born. My four children were born abroad. There were three British doctors concerned in attending to my wife at various times, and it was agreed in each case between the doctors, my wife and myself that if the baby was manifestly imperfect, it would not survive the birth. The doctors—they are all dead long since—appeared to regard this arrangement as natural and usual, and I therefore do not imagine that it was or is uncommon. Indeed, I mention the point only to sketch in, as it were, the background of why I support this Bill and the other measures which it envisages. It follows that I believe that properly regulated abortion must have a great measure of support and, in my view, legal sanction, such as that provided by this Bill. Moreover, my Lords, as one who has never tired of warning against the population explosion, I believe it is necessary for us all to bear in mind that this step is one of the lines of escape which are open to us-escape from a destruction which may come our way sooner than we like.
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I ask your indulgence for, I hope, not more than three minutes to say only three things. The first is to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on what seemed to me an admirable maiden speech. If, on the twentieth occasion of my talking to this House, I could say as shortly, as clearly and as usefully what the noble

595
Lord has said on his first, I should be very happy, and your Lordships would probably be a good deal happier.
The second thing I want to say is that I feel I ought not to allow this occasion to pass without stating, as shortly as I can, my position on the general principle of this Bill. I am in a minority, in that if I had been present on the occasion of the Second Reading of the previous Bill, when there was a Division, I should at that time have felt that I had to vote against the Second Reading. If there were a Division to-day I should feel the same, although I have no intention of calling one. I can give my reasons most shortly by saying that they are substantially the same as those given by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. That is to say, I do not take the view I do because I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, because I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church; and I do not take it because I think that abortion is against nature. In one sense of the word, all operations, including a Cæarean operation, are against nature.
I do not know what is the technical term for abortion. To call it a Herodian operation would perhaps be unfair, but to my mind it does express the difference between the two, in that the intention of one is to give life whereas the intention of the other—with the best intentions, in many cases—is to take innocent human life. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said, is a thing that has to be done sometimes. I think that the more seldom it is done the better; particularly the more seldom it is done legally. And the fact that it is always easier for people who have a great deal of money to get away (if I may put it in that way) with breaking a law (this applies, I think, to robbery with violence, to the law against Sutteeism in India at one time, and so on) is not, to my mind, a valid argument for abolishing that law if one believes that it should exist.
I believe that there should be a law against taking innocent life. It has been modified, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, to a great extent by Case Law. There are now circumstances, which are not nearly well enough known by the public, in which a woman can get an operation perfectly legally performed if only she knows of
596
the fact, and if only the doctors with whom she is in touch tell her so. That is not, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said, or as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, going to do away with back-street abortion; but the more widely the present law can be known the better.
In the meantime, I should like to associate myself very closely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said, when she mentioned that she was very glad to see that in its present form—and I emphasise the words, "in its present form"—this Bill does not attempt to do too much in the way of introducing eugenics under the cover of either clarifying or liberalising the law. I think that the ideas both of clarifying and of liberalising it are excellent. My objection, so far as the clarifying is concerned, is that (as I believe it will be found later) the Bill does not clarify it and so far as liberalising is concerned, I do not believe it is a liberal action, except in very rare emergencies, to take innocent human life. I will not go into the question of whether a foetus is innocent, because I think that is obvious; whether it is life, because I think that is also obvious; or whether it is human, because I have already asked. "If it is not human, what is it?" But I hope that, in the course of the debates on this Bill, some answer to that question will be forthcoming which will satisfy me more than any of the answers that have been given previously. My Lords, that is all I have to say.
4.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two. It is quite clear, I think, that it is the intention of the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, but I very much doubt the wisdom of that decision, because the situation has materially altered since the debates in the last Parliament. The situation has been altered, as I see it. by the publication of a Report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists. It is extraordinary to me that no mention of this Report has been made by any noble Lord who has addressed the House this afternoon. I hope very much that, before we come to the next stage, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in particular—and, indeed, all of

597
your Lordships who propose to vote on the Committee stage—will give this Report very careful consideration. Perhaps I may give your Lordships the briefest possible outline of its contents.
First, the Report asks for clarification of the law, which it says is desirable but not urgent. Next, it considers that the normal calculations of the extent of criminal abortion are almost certainly grossly exaggerated. One of the arguments advanced in support of that statement is that the number of deaths which are known to follow unsuccessful abortion is so small that, if there is this vast number of criminal abortions of which we have heard, then the only possible conclusion is that the risk incurred in a criminal abortion is infinitely less than the risk incurred in an abortion under the best possible conditions in a hospital.
Thirdly, the Council are very anxious that:
"The indications for legal abortion should not be defined too exactly lest they impose restrictions which do not apply at present, and lest they militate against the flexibility which is necessary to ensure that practice keeps abreast of the ever-advancing medical knowledge and rapidly changing opinion. For example, it would be unwise to mention maternal age specifically as one of the indications"—
particularly reference to the age of 16 years. Again, they are insistent that the decision whether or not to perform an abortion should be made only by two doctors of consultant status, one of whom should be the consultant gynæcologist at the hospital where the abortion is to be performed and by whom it is to be performed. They expressly say that the qualifications of a hospital registrar are not necessarily adequate for the making of a decision of this importance. Finally, they stress the importance of this decision, and what disastrous consequences it can, and very often does, have upon the woman, both physically and mentally.
For these reasons, I hope this Report will be given every possible consideration, and that great sympathy will be given to the Council's final demand that we should not rush into legislation in this country before we have made far greater inquiries into the social effects in other countries of the widening and extending of their abortion laws. They particularly ask that a departmental committee, or a committee of some such kind, should be
598
set up to collect the necessary information, so that Parliament may be adequately informed before rushing into what is, on any showing, legislation of immense social importance.
5.2 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would join with all those noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech. I am sure it was a special pleasure to all of us that he, a particularly distinguished surgeon, should have chosen this Bill as a subject for his maiden speech, and I personally was most grateful for the welcome he gave to the fact that we have inserted in the Bill a provision that operations for abortions must take place in recognised hospitals or their equivalent, and must be performed by fully qualified surgeons.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for his reference to the Report from which he quoted. But, in my reading of it, the report certainly did not deny the need for legislation: it counselled careful consideration and emphasised that legislation should not be rushed. Since this House has already been through this Bill and has spent seven days on it in the previous Parliament, and since we are now going through all the stages again, I think that, so far as we are concerned, we are likely to discharge our full responsibilities. I, for one, would give to my noble friend Lord Silkin my thanks, and indeed congratulations, on the fact that he has wasted no time in bringing this Bill forward for consideration at the earliest possible stage in a new Parliament.
I think it would be fair to say that there is in this House overwhelming support, and in the country majority support, for the reform of the present laws on abortion. Indeed, listening to this debate, and having heard virtually every word of the debate and the Committee stage in the last Parliament, I would say that support in this House seems more universal, and the opposition certainly less militant, than it was when we last discussed this subject. I think also that the supporters of reform (who include, apparently, most noble Lords) can he divided between those who believe that it should be possible for a pregnancy to be legally terminated, at the request of

599
the mother, and those who express genuine concern lest we should make it too easy to deprive an unborn child of life and who wish to impose conditions.
Within the whole field, such a wide range of views is sincerely held that the Government feel that their attitude must be one of neutrality, so that all Members of this House may feel completely free to express their personal views. While remaining neutral as to the principles, we are ready to give whatever help we can by way of drafting assistance and by comment and advice on the practical implications of the proposals. On this, as briefly as possible, I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention to some aspects of the Bill which still call for careful consideration, and I shall include one or two comments on points that have been raised during the debate.
The first of these is a point made by the noble and learned Viscount about the extremely important question of making the law clear and certain, and making it clear whether or not this Bill, or Statute, as it will be when it is enacted, replaces the Case Law. I should like to express my own personal gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount, in that when he raised this important issue in the last Parliament he forbore from pressing it, because he knew that it was a very complex issue which would take a long time to work out. But we agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the Bill should be so drafted as to make it certain that in future abortion would be lawful only if the provisions of the Bill were complied with. I can assure your Lordships that this matter has been very carefully considered, and I would say at once that we accept the principle that this Bill, if enacted, will take the place of Case Law. There is, in fact, I am advised, a case for arguing that the present Bill achieves this; but I will not argue it now. But I will, on behalf of the Government, give the assurance that if it should prove necessary to introduce an Amendment to put the issue beyond all doubt, we shall be very pleased to assist the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in its drafting.
The next point is one to which my noble friend Lord Silkin himself referred in his speech, and which was also re-
600
ferred to by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington; that is, the question of mental defectives. This is a matter that we have previously discussed at some length. I am glad to know that my noble friend is having second thoughts on it; because the present position is very unsatisfactory. Clause 1 of the Bill allows the abortion where "the pregnant woman is a defective" and in Clause 3 "defective" is defined as meaning, in England and Wales:
"a person suffering from subnormality within the meaning of section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1959".
and in Scotland, as
"a person suffering from mental deficiency within the meaning of section 6 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960."
In the 1959 Act "subnormality" means:
"a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (not amounting to severe subnormality) which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of a nature or degree which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment or other special care or training of the patient."
It was to such a person that the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, was referring when he said that this Bill, as it stands, would permit an abortion even if it was thought that the child, if born, would be susceptible to medical treatment. Section 6 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 reads:
"In this Act 'mental disorder' means mental illness or mental deficiency however caused or manifested."
This definition is inadequate because, in relation to England and Wales, it should be made clear in the Bill as it stands that it includes "severe subnormality"; and because, in relation to Scotland, the definition goes round in circles and never gets there. Therefore, on technical grounds alone, the present position is unacceptable. But, my Lords, in any case, I agree with those who have suggested that this attempt to define the term "defective" goes too wide. In Scotland it seems to include any form of mental deficiency, however caused or manifested. In England and Wales it would include persons who are susceptible to treatment.
It is fair to ask, therefore, what the Bill as it stands is intended to achieve.

601
Even more pertinent, what is the justification for regarding the defectiveness of the mother as a ground for abortion? Do we want to cover merely the case where there is a real risk that a child will be defective? If so, that is already covered by Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill. Or is it in mind that a defective might be unable to cope with children and might prove an inadequate mother? I am aware that there are those who think that abortion should be permitted for this reason. But when the Bill was considered last time there were many who disagreed, and I think my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger summed up the matter in a way of which only she is capable. She could not accept an attempt to insert eugenics in the guise of abortion. I therefore think that we cannot in this way admit the principle of permissive abortion by subterfuge.
My Lords, I have thought a lot about this matter during recent weeks, because for so many years I have been interested in the problems of mentally handicapped children and their parents, and I have come to the firm conclusion, with my advisers, that there is no practical definition for "defective between the definition of subnormality at present in the Bill, which I suggest is demonstrably much too wide, and the definition of severe subnormality which was in the earlier versions of the Bill, and which we would recommend, when we come to the Committee stage, as the right criterion to adopt.
One other point I wish to raise briefly is the point to which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger referred, namely, the written application or the consent provision. The Bill as at present drafted provides that before treatment for the termination of a pregnancy there must have been an application in writing by the pregnant woman or, for a girl under 16, by her and one of her parents or guardians, for the termination of the pregnancy. This provision was, almost by accident I suppose, inserted in the Bill virtually without discussion, and I submit that it is unnecessary. I know my noble friend anticipated I should say that. I also submit that its inclusion in the Bill will lead to difficulties which we should avoid.
602
I wish to make perfectly clear that I am in complete agreement with the view that in no circumstances should abortion be carried out against the will of the patient—that would be quite unthinkable. Think, for a moment, of what would be the position were there no written application provision in the Bill. It is the standard practice in National Health Service hospitals—and all therapeutic operations under the Bill would be carried out in such hospitals or their equivalent—that the written consent of the patient, or in the case of a girl under 16 of the parent or guardian, is obtained for any operation, unless for exceptional reasons (for example the need to save life or some such emergency) written consent cannot be obtained. There are also certain positive difficulties about having a statutory provision of this kind in the Bill. Surely it is undesirable to require a woman to make a formal application for an abortion before the doctor has reached an opinion on the matter, because to do so might cause needless disappointment if the application had to be refused, and might make it more difficult for the doctor to persuade her that the pregnancy should not be terminated, if that were the conclusion to which he finally came.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:My Lords, surely my noble friend is not suggesting that the only applications ever to be made will be applications which will be successful? We are always making applications for this, that and the other thing, knowing that they will be unsuccessful.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was in fact discussing the statutory requirement now in the Bill for a written application before anything could be done, and I was considering the effect of that so far as the doctor and the patient are concerned. I submit to my noble friend that there is a further objection to this provision, namely, that it can, and in some cases would, result in the premature disclosure to a woman that she needs an abortion because she is suffering from another serious complaint which cannot be treated until there is a written application for an operation for abortion. I appreciate that these are matters which we can go into in Committee, but I thought it right to warn your Lordships, and that it would perhaps be helpful to

603
my noble friend to say now, that there seem to us to be great difficulties in attaching to the Bill a condition which is in no sense a safeguard against the abuse of Clause 1(1)(a). This is seen if we consider what happens if a doctor fails, perhaps for very good reasons, to comply with the precise provisions of the Bill relating to an application for consent. Under the Bill as it stands, such a doctor, however responsible, would be liable to prosecution for the offence of abortion and the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I am quite sure that none of us wants to allow that to be a possibility. Somewhat similar arguments apply to the condition in paragraph (c) of Clause 1(2) in respect of certificates.
My Lords, I have said that the Government have adopted a neutral attitude on this Bill. We have given, and will continue to give, all the assistance with regard to drafting that is required. But as the Government are neutral, and we are free to express our own views now, I am free to express my own personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Silkin and my congratulations to him that he has gone thus far, and to promise at least my personal support for the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is very satisfactory to me that the House seems to be minded to give this Bill a Second Reading without a Division. From the speeches which have been made, I am under no illusion that the same will apply to the Committee stage. It is quite obvious that a great many Amendments will be put down. Indeed, I forecast some of them myself. A number of noble Lords have gone even further than forecasting Amendments: they have made speeches justifying the Amendments which they are going to put down. I am very tempted to endeavour to reply to those prospective Amendments, but I am not going to do so. I shall resist the temptation and listen to the speeches made after I have seen the actual terms of the Amendments.
One point was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on which I should like to comment. I was a little surprised to hear that there is any difficulty about the position of Case Law
604
once an Act of Parliament is passed. I should have thought that Case Law settled before the Act of Parliament would be superseded by the terms of the Act. That may be pure ignorance on my part. If the noble and learned Viscount, who speaks with far greater authority than I on this matter, says there is a real danger that we may be faced with a conflict between Case Law, under which a doctor can carry out an abortion if he is satisfied as to the danger to the life and health of the patient, and the terms of the Bill it will have to be dealt with. But, subject to that, I think we had better wait for the Amendments as they come, and deal with them then.
I should like to say one word to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who spoke unexpectedly, but whose speech, nevertheless, was welcome. I think he was the speaker who least welcomed this Bill.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Oh!
LORD SILKIN: I think that is so. I do not complain of his views. I recognise that there is a genuine, sincere conflict of views about the desirability of a Bill of this kind; and I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate does not propose to divide the House. I was aware of the views of the gynæcologists and the obstetricians; I have considered them. I have even met a number of them. I was with a number of them in Winchester on Saturday, and we spent the day discussing this Bill. I give them full credit for the honesty and sincerity of their views. But I was not impressed at all with the six reasons they gave, and which they elaborated at my meeting with them, against a Bill at the present time. When they say that we are being rushed into legislation—well, really! There was an inter-departmental committee set up in 1937, which reported in 1939. Since then the British Medical Association have been considering the matter, and the Churches, and we have had their Report. This matter has received an immense amount of consideration in the 27 years since the Report of the inter-departmental committee. To say that maybe we are being rushed into legislation, whatever may be said about the nature of the legislation, is really quite untenable.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, the point that I had in mind was that there are certain countries which since the war have extended the range of abortion. So far as I know, there is little information in this country about what the social effects of that legislation have been. It is the result of an inquiry into that kind of thing, and information as to the extent to which this has been effective in diminishing the number of criminal abortions and so on, that I should like to have before we legislate in this country.
LORD SILKIN: Every speaker has stressed the extreme difficulty, if not the impossibility, of getting really accurate and reliable information of the nature of which the right reverend Prelate is seeking. Though we do our best, and we have all given some kind of estimate or evaluation, I do not think that if we delayed the introduction of the Bill for another 25 years we should be any wiser on the particular aspects to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. I hope that the House, as a whole, will accept this not only as a timely measure, but as one which is really urgent if we are to have in mind the welfare of a large section of the community.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. Let me start off by saying that I am sorry we have started late. It was not my wish that this Bill should come last on to-day's Business, but we are starting a little earlier than I thought we might. I am sorry, too, because I am reintroducing a Bill which has already had the approval of your Lordships' House by a large majority. We have discussed these matters fully. On the other hand, I must make it absolutely clear that I in no way take your Lordships' fresh approval for granted. Anyone who took the House of Lords for granted would be a foolish man indeed.
606
I may well be wrong in thinking that the ground has been fully covered. I know that noble and distinguished Lords will speak to your Lordships in opposition to the Bill. It will be interesting to hear what new things they have to tell us. Once again we have the much respected noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and once again we are confronted by two former Lord Chancellors. I am comforted, however, in the thought that six other noble and learned Lords, including the present Lord Chancellor, have either voted in favour of the Bill at one stage or another, or have signified their approval of it in letters to the newspapers. Furthermore, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, has authorised me to say that, though he is far from certain what the age of consent should be, he broadly approves of homosexual law reform so long as there is no question of corruption. Perhaps, while I am speaking of noble and learned Lords, I may say that I am personally glad that we are once again being addressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the many and varied things which come before your Lordships' House. He has, of course, written his name into this Bill by the Amendment he moved into it; and he is a man of high achievement and distinction.
But since we are again to be opposed, I imagine, in principle, perhaps I may say shortly why I think reform is necessary, and why I think this Bill is right. Of course, it is a Bill based on the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee. It is estimated that there are between 500,000 and one million homosexuals in this country—a substantial minority. To some, they are sad men; to some, they are ridiculous; to many, they are morally evil; and to the law, they are criminal. The arguments for law reform are that these men do not choose to be homosexual; that no man would deliberately and obstinately forgo the choice of loving women—that no man, let along 500,000 or one million, would be so stupid. The argument is that nature makes her mistakes with human beings, as with animals: she makes some of us physically deformed; she makes some of us mentally deformed; and others she makes emotionally deformed.

607
I agree most wholeheartedly that we have to guard against nature's deviation. We have to respect the welfare of the majority of society. Though we do not believe—and, please God!, we never shall—in the Nazi theory and practice of human stud farms based upon perfect human specimens, we have to see to it that our race, the British race, is not vitiated and degenerated. In particular, we have to see to it that our youth is not twisted and depraved. And the ultimate instrument for this purpose is, of course, the law.
The Wolfenden Committee were concerned, and rightly concerned, with these things. They recommended that penalties for offences against minors, against boys, should be made more severe: and this recommendation is incorporated in the Bill. But they also felt that there comes a time in a man's life when he must be allowed to decide for himself and to act according to what to him are his natural inclinations. This is what this Bill is about. We are saying that a grown-up man should not be a criminal because he is what he is, and because he may find someone else of like tastes and indulge in them privately. We are saying that such a man is evil, if you wish, but that he should not be sent to prison. We are against the persecution of a minority, just as we are against the persecution of Jews or Negroes—people who are born what they are, not of their own choosing.
This is a case of reform. It is strengthened by a desire to remove, or at least to lessen, the blackmail to which so many homosexuals, because of the present law, are subjected. It is strengthened—and to some of us this is the most important argument of all—by the knowledge that homosexuals or cryptohomosexuals can, and do, endanger the safety of this country. The case for reform is simple but formidable, and it has already had your Lordships' approval.
May I trace the history of this Bill since it left your Lordships' House? I fear I must do this. It has had a chequered career, and the present position is complex. Your Lordships will recall that, at the end of the last Session but one, the Bill, not having been enacted, disappeared off the face of the earth. It was as though it had never existed. But
608
in the last Session Mr. Humphry Berkeley, who was lucky in the ballot, picked it up and introduced it in another place. It was, incidentally, your Lordships' Bill, with not a single word altered. He had a considerable success. The voting on Second Reading was 164 in favour and 107 against. My Lords, I was not surprised. Two opinion polls had already shown that 63 per cent.—the figure tallied in both the polls—of those asked were in favour of reform. And though I heartily dislike opinion polls, they have a way of being right.
All seemed set for the further progress of the Bill when the General Election intervened and Parliament was dissolved. Once again the Bill went into limbo. It was then necessary to start all over again from, if you like, square one, but what I call square nought. It was not my wish to introduce it in this House. Personally, I should have preferred that the proposed legislation started in another place. But it appeared at the beginning of the new Parliament that there was to be no ballot until November, and therefore I thought it best to attempt to get the Bill through your Lordships' House first, so that we might have a prepared instrument, approved by your Lordships, against the day when someone in another place would be willing to take it up by one means or another.
Since First Reading, however, there has been a change of Government plan. There will, after all, be a ballot in this Session, and accordingly it is now quite possible that a Bill on these lines will be introduced in another place in the near future. If this happens, I promise your Lordships that I will gladly and gratefully abdicate until such time, of course, as a Bill comes up to us from the Lower House in the ordinary way. But since there can be no certainty that any of the winning M.P.s will be prepared to take the Bill on, it seems to me wise not to chance it, but to proceed in this House. For I am determined, in so far as it lies in my feeble powers, that in one way or another this reform shall come about.
At this point, may I take up the question raised earlier on about the popularity or unpopularity of this Bill, or this reform, in terms of votes. I should like to say that, so far as I can detect, it carries with it no great electoral risks. It is true that Mr. Humphry Berkeley, that brave man

609
who introduced the Bill in another place, lost his seat at the General Election. But it is also true that Mr. William Shepherd, perhaps the strongest opponent of the Bill, also lost his seat, to a Liberal. But the percentage against them was not very different. Further, it is a statistical fact that, of those who voted in favour of the Bill in another place, 7 lost their seats, whereas of those who voted against, 20 lost their seats. I do not believe that this is, or was, or ever will be, a political issue. I do not believe that anyone anywhere need funk it any more.
So much for the procedural or, if you like, the constitutional question. How do we stand in terms of fact? We have this extraordinary state of affairs that there are to-day men in prison whom Parliament has decided, in the Upper House in detail and another place in principle, are not criminals—men who, in the terms of this Bill, which is not yet law, have committed no crime. It is difficult to estimate how many of them there are: it has been suggested to me that there may be as many as 100 souls. Are we going to allow those fellows to remain there indefinitely? Is it right? Can we face such men? Can we say to them: "Look, you are here because the Government are busy with other things at the moment and have not the time to let the law be changed, even though both Houses of Parliament have said on principle that it should be changed"? I can only say that for myself I should be rather shamefaced if I had to talk to them, and somehow I do not think they would be very impressed with the argument that there was not time for them at the moment, but that sooner or later their turn would come. We should remember that on Second Reading in another place thirteen Members of the Cabinet voted in favour of the Berkeley Bill—your Lordships' Bill; none against; and that the Home Secretary spoke most movingly in favour of reform. It was a splendid operation: the patient died.
I apologised at the beginning of my speech for wearying your Lordships, and I fear that I may have done that. I have spoken too much on this subject for too long. I apologise again, but not over much. This Bill has had the approval of a majority of your Lordships' House. In this House it has been supported by a right reverend Prelate, noble and
610
learned Lords, doctors, sociologists, schoolmasters, dons, elder statesmen, by young men and noble Ladies. It was not approved by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein; but I am glad to be able to say, with permission, of course, that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma "approves most strongly of homosexual law reform." I deeply hope that, if the House is divided tonight—which I hope it will not be; though I know there are many noble Lords who feel strongly on these things—your Lordships will feel able to endorse your previous decision. The happiness of many men depends upon it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Arran.)
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, may I take up the spirit of my noble friend Lord Arran's approach, and say that we have discussed this subject so often, and at such length, that I hope no one will hold it against me if I confine my remarks to the headlines of our position, and do not go into great detail. There is only one point which I would take up in my noble friend's speech, and that is his reference to those who are (and, of course, I accept it from him) in favour of homosexual law reform. But that may mean very different things. It may mean that they want the Labouchère Amendment, which went into the Act of 1855, but not with regard to gross indecency, whereas they would still be opposed to the legalising of the full offence of sodomy. That is a point which I think one can fairly bear in mind.
But I thought (and I am glad to see the most reverend Primate here) that we could find a common starting point. I have in mind that in our first debate, which my noble friend originated on May 12, 1965, the most reverend Primate said this—and I have read his words many times:
"I believe that homosexual acts are always wrong in the sense that they use in a wrong way human organs for which the right use is intercourse between men and women within marriage."
And he went on:
"There is a region where moral responsibility must certainly enter into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266, col. 80: 12/5/1965.]

611
That was what I hoped might be a common starting point to our discussions—and the most reverend Primate has been good enough to nod. He said that that applied both to the commission and to abstinence. I will add to that my own experience as Home Secretary, if the House will bear with it once more, that out of 96 cases in prison for homosexual offences that were reported to me, only 15 were cases of genuine inverts, and the others included those who committed the act from motives of sensationalism or for money, or for reasons of that kind.
I accept that the vast majority of those supporting the Bill desire to keep the moral condemnation which I have just quoted. I think it is fair to say that few would agree with a powerful article in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago which, while predicating that the change in the law was probably right, asserted that those supporting the Bill really wanted a relaxation of moral standards, and should say so. I do not impute that, as I think my noble friend would not expect me to do. But that still leaves one important question which must be considered: the effect on the moral view of making the change from the acts being prohibited by the sanction of the criminal law to lifting that prohibition and making them legal.
I would again remind your Lordships that the lifting of the prohibition applies to the whole act of sodomy, and not only to the gross indecency covered by Mr. Labouchère's Amendment. I believe we are bound to consider the dangers of proselytising in this field, but it is my view that if we are lifting a statutory bar which has existed for over 400 years in regard to the full offence, we cannot do so without lightening the moral opprobrium with which the act is regarded. And it is the fact that there has been for over 400 years this prohibition which distinguishes the effect that the present proposals would have in this country, where that has been the law, from conditions in other countries which my noble friend could quote, and with which we are both very familiar, and also from the position of Lesbianism, which was raised in the course of our debates. That is my first point, and I ask your Lordships to consider it again. Can we lift that prohibition and criminal sanction and still keep the
612
moral condemnation of the act of sodomy, which I accept is in the minds of most of your Lordships, however you vote on this Bill?
I will only say one word about blackmail, because that aspect has been discussed so often. I would remind my noble friend, and I know he has considered it, that in paragraph 111 of their Report Sir John Wolfenden and his colleagues said that the amount of blackmail was considerably exaggerated. I know that I shall be stamped on as a "square" for making this point, but I venture to make it again: that one method of avoiding blackmail is not to commit homosexual acts.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I might, with respect to 'the noble and learned Earl, mention the question of blackmail for one moment. It has been said in your Lordships' House that the late Lord Jowitt said that when he was Attorney General 95 per cent. of the blackmail cases with which he had to deal were between men who had committed homosexual offences.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, I have heard my noble friend refer to that, but I have a great suspicion of comparative statistics. Ninety-five per cent. of what? My recollection—and the noble Earl will no doubt check it—is that something like eight cases a year were homosexual cases. I always hesitate to speak from memory but, if my noble friend will forgive me for introducing a slight touch of levity into so serious a matter, the classic example of the danger of comparative statistics occurred in World War I, when, as my noble friend may remember, somebody said that such had been the casualties in the Somme that 50 per cent. of the teetotallers in the famous Highland Regiment had been killed. The man said, "I know it is true; the survivor told me". There is always a danger in comparative statistics, which I think is worth remembering.
I come to the next point which is the question of discipline in the Services. A number are not covered by the provisions of the Army Act, the Air Force Act or The Naval Discipline Act, which are referred to in the Bill. I would, very respectfully, warn your Lordships that the words in the Army Act are "indecent and unnatural conduct". How long will

613
this he considered "indecent and unnatural conduct" if your Lordships have changed the law and legalised sodomy, as is proposed? But, as I say, there are disciplined services to which those acts do not apply. Your Lordships will probably have seen (because there is a document in the Printed Paper Office) the views of the seafarers' and shipowners' organisations on this Bill. I do not think this point has been made, so perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a short quotation from this document. It states:
"The Merchant Navy will face considerable problems if homosexual conduct between consenting adults on hoard ship is no longer an offence. Seafarers on board ship live in closed communities, which are almost exclusively male, for considerable periods of time, and these conditions tend to favour the development of homosexual conduct among some crew members. Such conduct can cause dissension among members of a crew, and has on occasions led to serious violence. Dissension among members of a crew, by its effects upon discipline and morale, can prejudice the safety of a ship. If the present legal sanctions against homosexual conduct are relaxed"—
and that covers the position that the captain of a ship can discharge for such conduct—
"the conditions of shipboard life will deteriorate with consequential adverse effects upon safety and upon the attractiveness of the Merchant Navy as art occupation. Moreover, there might well develop a reluctance on the part of parents to allow their sons to enter the Merchant Navy as a career."
I wanted to quote this, because they are not my words but words stated by a responsible body. I put the point to your Lordships again. Imagine a disciplined service, imagine the police, the fire service or the Merchant Navy. If it is known that officers are sleeping together and committing sodomy, what possible respect can they have from other ranks who look to them for guidance?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Earl will forgive me, may I ask one question? Is there anything in this Bill which prevents, or would prevent, a captain of a ship from discharging members of the crew on any grounds he likes?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I did not want to go into it in detail. That is the starting point of this paper. I think it would be clearer if I read it:
"The present legal position appears to be that buggery, which is a Common Law felony, is an offence if it is committed on board
614
a British ship. The position of other homosexual acts, which if committed in England and Wales would be misdemeanours by virtue of Section 13 … is less clear. It may be that such acts if committed on a British ship would also be offences. The master of a British ship has a Common Law power to arrest and confine in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time any seaman or other person on his ship if he has reasonable cause for believing, and does in fact believe, that the arrest and confinement are necessary for the preservation of order and discipline. … The master also has the ordinary Common Law right to dismiss a seaman from his ship but"
he must obtain the consular sanction.
"These powers may at present be exercised by the master in respect of a seaman who commits a homosexual offence. But if both the Common and Statute Law is changed in respect of homosexual conduct between consenting adults, the master's Common Law powers will no longer be available in respect of such conduct on hoard ship."
I think that answers my noble friend's point.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl has reached that point, may I intervene to say that the Government are advised on this matter and I will reply to it later. The noble Earl will be aware that this Bill does not apply to Scotland—he has quoted the regulations applying to British ships—and, in any event, a Master could still, under the law of Scotland, do all the things that the noble Earl has just read out. But I shall be dealing with this point in detail later.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I do not think the noble Lord would go so far as to want all ships to sail from the Clyde. Certainly as a Liverpool ex-Member of Parliament I should not want that.
LORD STONHAM: That would be quite unnecessary. It would be somewhat absurd if they were English ships citing this law, as they are perfectly entitled to do as Scotland is part of Britain, and never went near the Clyde. But we will look at this and will be able to bring a solution forward later.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I am glad the noble Lord will look at this. But that is the reason on which the Seafarers' and Shipowners' Organisations have put forward these views. It is most important and reinforces the point that I have made with regard to services other than the Armed Forces of the Crown.

615
I wanted to say to my noble friend that one of the real difficulties that I have had—I have never disguised my views on this matter—is that I have a very great respect (I hope he will take it from me) for the compassion which animates so many of his views and actions. I hope he will believe it of me that it is not an easy matter to oppose something that has the strength of compassion behind it. But we in Parliament are responsible for the law and order of a country, and there are certain things which it is only possible to deal with on the basis of the sanction of the criminal law. This is not confined to repressive matters. It was the action taken by one of the greatest humanitarians in the history of this country, Lord Shaftesbury, when he introduced the Factory Acts. It was, I am almost sure, taken by Mr. Disraeli in his social legislation. Therefore, social advances have sometimes depended on applying the criminal law. The same thing applies to social decline.
We are, I say again, and it is becoming more evident to more people every day, rolling more quickly down the slope of the permissive society. Unless we stop that, the position may indeed be serious; and I say that one should draw the line, one should use the criminal sanction to deal with—I use the words I quoted—an "undecent and unnatural" offence, to deal with something which is disgusting, to deal with something which has immense power of corruption over the young and that does not cease to have that power when they come to 21.
These are the reasons why I feel strongly. I hope my noble friend will agree that I have tried to put my views with moderation; but I am bound to express the views that I hold so strongly. I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill, and for that purpose I shall ask the House to divide at the appropriate time.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I share the admiration that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, has expressed for Lord Arran's initiative in this matter, and I greatly respect the tenacity and resolution of the noble Earl in fighting for this Bill, for the reasons he has given. I should be grateful if the
616
Government would consider amendine legislation so that your Lordships' House need not, in future, return to debating a Bill in regard to which the great majority of your Lordships have already, I suspect, made up your minds.
Since the last debate in your Lordships' House I have considered whether there are new matters that have arisen in relation to this Bill that should receive special attention here to-day. I suppose it can be said that the murder trial that ended last week has some bearing on it, for it has disclosed again the dangers of blackmail where an alleged homosexual was concerned. I read last evening the Hansard report of the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill in another place, and I noted what was said by Mr. Humphry Berkeley, the mover of the Bill. He said:
"All of us who are Christians, and probably many who are not, regard homosexual acts as morally wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: Vol. 724, col. 786; 11/2/66.]
Much has been said already about the general principles underlying this Bill by the two previous speakers, as by many of your Lordships on previous occasions; and if I do not repeat what has been said to-day, it is not that I wish to do anything other than support what I have said on the previous occasion. The supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. That is my clear impression. The supporters of this Bill desire to keep moral condemnation for homosexual acts. Frequently though this statement has been made, it needs to be said again and again. I hold this conviction strongly, and I am certain that Christians who think in these terms must be alive to the problems of homosexuals, and do their part to see to see they are reasonably and justly treated. I continue to support the Wolfenden proposals.
My attention has been drawn to one or two points that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, has already mentioned—to the position of seafarers under this Bill. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, speaks with great authority on this subject, but I have been asked to raise this matter and I do so with the noble Viscount's goodwill. In paragraph 144 of the Wolfenden Report, which deals with offences in disciplinary services, the Committee observed that

617
within services subject to a disciplinary r…gime it might be necessary, for the sake of good management and the preservation of discipline, to regard homosexual behaviour as an offence, even by consenting adults in private.
Mr. Adair made certain reservations to the Report, and in one of them, in paragraph 11, he asked about the wisdom of increasing the number of differentiating offences, for differentiations were bound to provoke in service members a sense of injustice. But Mr. Adair went on to conclude that if there was a prescribed age when certain homosexual acts were no longer penalised, then the feelings of grave injustice, as between those under and those over the prescribed age in a service, would seriously affect the morale of members of the services and this could lead to corruption. These two paragraphs refer to offences in the disciplined services, but in Clause 1(5) reference is made only to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force.
I understand that in the Merchant Navy the opinion has been strongly expressed that seafarers should be excluded from Clause 1(1), as members of the Armed Forces are excluded. I have been given three reasons why this exclusion is desirable. First, publicity. If seafarers with homosexual tendencies indulged in them at sea, even though they were adults and the offences were supposedly in private, their activities would become known on board and the results can be imagined. Secondly, example. The average crew of a ship contains a high proportion of young men, and they live together in a closed community. The knowledge that unnatural acts were committed on board and that they were no longer an illegal offence when done in private between consenting adults would have damaging effects on the characters of these young men. Thirdly, opportunities. Seafarers are away from their home bases for considerable stretches of time. Homosexuals, it is argued, in these circumstances would have greater opportunities of corrupting young people. I cannot claim to know the Merchant Navy, but these representations have been made to me by some who know it well.
I am told that these points have been sympathetically considered by the Board of Trade and that the Board has agreed to have discussions with the Home
618
Office. If Clause 1(5) can be redrafted, if this point can be considered on the Committee stage, I shall be grateful. I realise that some may argue that if seafarers in the Merchant Navy are to be excluded from Clause 1(1), other categories, such as the police or firemen, should be considered. But I submit that the case for the exclusion of seafarers is a case on its own: the circumstances of their working days set them apart, for the reasons that I have indicated. I thought it would be worth while just to refer to the position of seamen in the Merchant Navy. I have. For the rest, I have pleasure in supporting Lord Arran's Bill.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments I advanced in the earlier discussions on this Bill. They have been put most powerfully and persuasively by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his kind observations. I am afraid that they leave my attitude to this Bill completely unaltered. I think this is a throughly bad Bill.
I realise that my noble friend's approach arises largely from compassion. He believes that the homosexual is born, and his argument is that after a certain age the homosexual should be allowed to decide for himself what he does in private. But the noble Earl does not carry that argument to its logical conclusion: that those who have the misfortune to be born with incestuous tendencies should be allowed to do the same, or indeed to other forms of vice. But it is not the case that all homosexuals are born. The very figures which my noble and learned friend gave show that many people develop homosexual tendencies through being approached and corrupted; and the speech of the right reverend Prelate recognised the special needs in relation to a Service where men are living for some time in a closed society. If I understood him aright, he does not for one moment suggest that all homosexuals are born that way.
There is one question that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I should be grateful if he would give me an answer. I hope he will forgive me for putting the question after he has

619
already replied to a question which I put in an earlier debate. He referred, rather to my astonishment, to the suggestion that the master of an English ship sailing, say, from Southampton with an English crew could, if this Bill is passed into law, apparently rely on Scottish law for dealing with homosexual conduct on board ship. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of hearing that, to me, astonishing argument. But the question I want to put to him is a more simple one than that, and it is this. If a number of people engage in promoting acts of homosexuality between consenting adults, will that be a criminal offence? Will that he a conspiracy to effect a public mischief, or will it not? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer that question.
I do not at this stage intend to say very much about this Bill. I was glad to hear it said, with all the authority of the right reverend Prelate, that the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. But I would say to him that if the supporters of this Bill get the Bill passed, they really do not know what they do; because, in my belief, if this Bill is enacted there will inevitably be a relaxation of moral standards. That is absolutely inevitable. They may not welcome it; they may not think it is right. But it will flow from their support for this measure that we shall have that relaxation. The right reverend Prelate referred to a recent trial. I must say—and I say this in conclusion—that I had hoped my noble friend Lord Arran, even though he has the support of the most reverend Primates and the right reverend Prelates for this measure, would have thought twice, after recent events, before reintroducing this measure to legalise one form of vice.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I do not intend to go again through the general principles behind this Bill. They have been argued at great length during Second Reading, the Committee stage, and indeed the Third Reading of the Bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament. If T may, I will try to meet some of the points which have been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir.
620
He began, I think, by saying what a tremendously evil effect it will have on moral standards if this Bill passed; that the removal of a statutory bar on homosexual conduct must inevitably lead to a decline in moral standards, and that it was this statutory bar, the sanction of the law, which in fact preserves our moral standards in this respect and deters people from becoming homosexuals. I tried to meet that argument in the speech which I made on the Third Reading, my maiden speech, when I asked whether it was not possible that the effect of the Labouchère Amendment, which was passed without any debate in Parliament, and which led to trials—of which the most notable, the most remarkable, the most highly publicised and which still lives in people's memories to-day was the trial of Oscar Wilde—was that the publicity given to that trial led to a tension in society about the problem of homosexuality. It led to much of the excitement, the foetid talk about the subject, and in fact, so far from the law's preventing people from indulging in this vice, it may well have had the effect of promoting excitement and of inducing people to break the law lust "for the hell of it". That is the first point I should like to point to in the speech of the noble and learned Earl.
I should like to come now to his next point about the particular crime of sodomy. I take it from the noble and learned Earl's speech that he was particularly concerned with this aspect of homosexual conduct, because he used that term not as a blanket phrase for any kind of homosexual conduct but as an actual description, a legal term. If that is so, I think this question which exercises him so much, the fact that under this Bill sodomy would be legalised, could he met by arguments which were raised in the Committee stage of the Bill; that is to say, that if Parliament legalises homosexual conduct between consenting adults it is impractical to try to exclude sodomy from that permissive law. In other words, in order to prove sodomy, the police would then have to be enabled to make a medical examination of anyone who, in their view, was likely to have been engaged in homosexual conduct with another person. This, it seems to me, would lead to an absurd

621
and impossible position in the administration of the law.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, because he is developing an interesting point? Until the Labouchère Amendment in 1885, sodomy was a statutory offence, so for nearly 350 years these difficulties of which he has spoken were faced and dealt with by the police in proving an offence.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I wonder if the noble and learned Earl would feel it reasonable to say that the conditions in which cases are judged to-day differ from the pre-Victorian era. I think that if, in fact, sodomy were excluded from this Bill—in other words, if sodomy remained a crime—I would still maintain either that it would be very difficult indeed to get any proof that it had been committed; or, if proof were sought that sodomy had been committed, this would make complete nonsense of the provisions of the Bill to allow homosexual conduct between consenting adults. I do not see how one can get round that procedural difficulty, which must afflict the police if they have to face this problem.
Then there has been a reference, I think both in Lord Kilmuir's speech and in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to the fact that this Bill will encourage male prostitution. Here again, it seems to me that we must face the practical consequences of this Bill. If I may go back to the previous debates, it was, of course, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who in the Committee stage, and indeed on the Third Reading of the Bill, chided those who were in favour of it for not sticking to the Bill. He criticised those in favour of the Bill for making speeches which were in terms of general principle. He paid tribute to their compassion, but he said that they did not address themselves to the clauses of the Bill. May I try to address myself to the clauses in the Bill which do not mention the exchange of money, prostitution, as being a crime?
An Amendment was, of course, moved to the effect that it should be a crime, but the reason why it is impossible, in my view, to introduce into the Bill clauses which would penalise male prostitution is, again, simply because of the difficulties of proof. It may well be said that, where it can be shown that money changes
622
hands in consideration of which a homosexual act takes place, this is good enough proof. But how do we expect that the police would be able to enforce such a clause if it were added to the Bill? I think, again, that they would find themselves in conditions of great difficulty. Moreover, another principle is involved here; and that is whether one believes there should be no difference in the laws between men and women. To introduce yet another discrimination against men for sexual offices would, I think, produce just the kind of injustices and confusions in the law which this Bill is tring to remove.
Finally, if I may move to the point of the social decline which is forecast for our society if this Bill becomes law, I would say that in my view this is a very difficult thing to prognosticate. I realise, of course, that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, speaks from the bottom of his heart when he says he genuinely believes that, when this Bill becomes law, this country will start—or, perhaps he may feel, will continue—to roll even faster down the slipperly slope of disintegration and moral ruin. But, if I may speak here as a social historian, these things are very difficult to predicate. I do not myself believe that there is any justification for holding this view, because there are too many causes in history ever to be analysed to show that a decline of this kind occurs. We all know the famous misstatement in history that the decline of the Roman Empire was due to its sexual laxity. I can assure your Lordships that the decline of the Roman Empire, in the view of historians, was due to very many more causes than that; indeed, there is no evidence that this was one of the main causes of the decline.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is it not true that the reason why the Athenian Empire fell was because the Athenians were beaten in battle by the Spartans, who were ten times as wildly homosexual as the Athenians themselves?
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's elucidation of history, and I am glad to accept it. But if I may return to the point, there are many changes of a cultural nature which I believe are taking place in society to-day.

623
Great changes have taken place since the war—and I hope that the noble and learned Earl will not in any way feel that this is a criticism of his outlook on life—which make our society to-day markedly different from that in which he grew up as a boy. These changes have come about through the impersonal forces of history. They have come about by the greatly increased standards of living in our society. This has meant that whole sections of the population which in Victorian times were really outside society, because they were so poor, although they were objects of consideration by the governing classes, are now within society; and, apart from certain pockets of poverty, the whole of our inhabitants in this country are genuinely part of society. This has led to a great variety of moral standards. And in saying this I am not referring to moral standards in terms of sexual standards. I mean a great variety of values which different sections of the population accept.
It is no longer true to-day, I think, that the values professed by the upper classes and the learned classes, for instance, are necessarily accepted by the rest of society. We have moved into a much more pluralist society, and I have a feeling that when the noble and learned Earl asks whether we are not moving down a slippery slope of social decline, he does not fully envisage what has taken place—namely, that many different sections of the community assert their right to live in the way that they see fit, and not to take instruction from those who in days past would have been called their betters.
These differences in moral standards are bound to increase as time goes on, as our society becomes pluralist. This, I think, is what this Bill is trying to give effect to. It is trying to make it possible for those who, physiologically and psychologically, do not fit into the normal pattern of sexual behaviour to live, without persecution, without prosecution, without blackmail, in the way they choose. Blackmail is one of those things which have been mentioned frequently in the debate. I should be the last to argue that if this Bill is passed blackmail for homosexual offences will become a thing of the past. Of course it will continue; but it will be reduced, and that reduction is part of the compassion which the noble
624
Earl, Lord Arran, has introduced into our conception of the law. That is why I very much hope that this Bill will be passed by your Lordships' House as it was in the last Parliament.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if the law had been precisely the reverse of what it is to-day, I should myself be very averse to any desire to change it. If the proposals made in this Bill formed an insignificant part of a general Statute dealing with all sorts of other moral questions, then I do not know that I should oppose it so strenuously. But as it is to-day a Bill devoted to this particular subject, it is bound to have a harmful effect and it is bound to give the whole British public a feeling that conduct which before was very reprehensible has ceased to be reprehensible and is now under public countenance. It is not the smallest use the people who support this Bill saying that they wish to preserve existing moral standards, if at the same time by supporting this Bill they do something which is going to have the very effect which they profess to deplore. That point has been made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, very much better than I can make it, and in accordance with your Lordships' practice I leave it, having just said that.
There are only two other points on which I should like to touch, which have already been made in this debate. I think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in introducing this Bill laid some stress on the way people were made and the nature they were born with. I think that is correct. I do not want to mistranslate him. We are all born with a nature which we have to correct. I do not know whether I was born a liar, but I am perfectly certain that I became one at a very early age. Your Lordships know me very well, and I hone you do not think that I have continued the practice. We all have to learn to discipline and control our natures, and I do not think that it is a very strong argument for a Bill to assume that people are born in a way which cannot be altered. I have in mind one man, for whom I have an enormous respect, who became a very great man and a very great poet, who, if his biography is true, was subject to these desires at a comparatively early age

625
and mastered them with great difficulty and produced, as a result, great poetry. I do not think, therefore, that this business of controlling the nature you were born with is insuperable.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, turned to the Roman Empire. My Lords, there are two theories about the Roman Empire. One very learned man, Mr. Bussell—I do not know whether or not he is a professor—said that the Roman Empire fell because there was one class which paid all the taxes, one which collected all the taxes and one which spent all the taxes, and that that was the end of the Roman Empire. I do not think that most of us who have read about the Roman Empire would altogether agree with that. The Roman Empire seems to me to have fallen because Roman families ceased to produce children. At the end of the Republic it was a problem, and it went on in the Empire. The only people who had children were slaves: so much so that later on one man of no particular parts, who happened to be the only man that they could find of the Julian family, was made Emperor simply because he was a Julian. That fact shows that the Roman Empire fell because it ceased to produce Romans. I think it ceased to produce Romans, as anyone who has read Horace or Juvenal will know, because it ceased to he interested in the production of Romans. For that reason, I still feel that this is a Bill which ought not to pass.
At the next stage I shall produce the very same Amendment as I produced on a former occasion, or a very similar one—that is, if this Bill goes to the Committee stage—and I hope very much that your Lordships will support me in that Amendment because I not only have the reasons which I gave then but I also have other reasons which have affected me very greatly.
6.33 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, taking part once again in a debate on a Bill which sets out to reform the law for adult homosexuals, I am conscious that to repeat oneself is to subtract from the strength of any arguments. During the course of the debates we held on the same subject six months ago I several times wished to ask the question, "Is there a psycho-analyst in the House?" He might have been able to evaluate
626
some of our arguments. There were some striking features about those debates, not least the views that the right reverend Prelates expressed and the severe approach of some noble and learned lawyers to what for them must have been a familiar problem. I noticed that they expected a restraint from homosexuals that they could not possibly get from heterosexuals. I can more readily understand the anxieties and fears of those noble Lords who are active in youth organisations, but there is nothing in the Bill which weakens the law with regard to the corruption of young people.
I have always been of the opinion that magistrates and lawyers could benefit from a short course of psychology, but when it comes to the question of the homosexual and the law I think a compulsory course in physiology would be beneficial to them. A knowledge of the nervous and vascular system in human anatomy would considerably enlighten them, and would demonstrate to them how easily diffused sexual pleasure can become. This would perhaps make them less certain of the boundary between what they call "natural" and what they call "unnatural" behaviour. It might even dilute some of their feelings of disgust. The law, it seems, accepts practically all sexual behaviour between members of the opposite sex as "natural" and the merest sexual expression between males as "unnatural". This irrational view is carried over after a man is convicted. What do we do, my Lords? We send him to a male prison. It might perhaps be more beneficial to send him to a women's jail.
As for the argument that the law as it stands is a good law because it is an old law, this is a sad reflection on our times and the need we have for progress. I myself do not share the prevalent and pessimistic views about young people to-day which were expressed in the last debate. I believe that a more frank approach to sex will guard them against corruption from older homosexuals. I do not think their moral fibre is so feeble. But all this exaggerated talk of moral weakness seems, ironically enough, to thrive in peace time. During the last two world wars, and particularly during the First World War, we sent them to fight like lambs to the slaughter, but we spoke of them as lions. Of course, we know

627
that everything is not right with the morals of our society—not for the young or for the old—but would anyone really get up and seriously suggest that the world was a better place fifty years ago? I cannot believe this.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lady's pardon, but I do.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I respect the noble Lord's views. Of course, wherever the sexes are segregated—in defence organisations, schools, prisons, et cetera—there are always dangers that the powerful sex instinct will find some means of expression. Perhaps a good drive for coeducational schools and universities would make the position better. We should try to deal with the problems of homosexuality in every way we can. The Armed Forces, in any case, have their special laws and safeguards. I am of the strong belief that it is not the function of the law to legislate for the private behaviour of the adult citizen, be he heterosexual or homosexual, and that we should not build our laws upon the capricious feelings of disgust.
This seems to me a good Bill, even though the lawyers may wish to trim it a little. I believe that if this Bill goes through this House and is passed in another place, far from having a corrupting influence on our society it will create a much healthier attitude to sex in general and will alleviate much persecution and suffering. I believe that the dangers of facing the facts about human nature are less than the dangers of denying their existence.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I express my respect and admiration for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for persevering once again with a Bill to reform the law on homosexuality? It takes courage; and if he had tried to introduce this Bill in another age, he would perhaps have been burnt at the stake. Those of us who support him know that to disturb the deep and primitive emotions attached to any manifestations of sex is like treading on a minefield. Some of us have been pelted with the filth of anonymous postcards and letters. But may I add, finally, that moral indignation is not a weapon exclusive to those who oppose reform? It is a two-edged weapon. I hope that this Bill will go through this House and
628
be passed in another place, and that the law concerning adult homosexuals will be changed. If this comes about, it will long be to the credit of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and to the credit of this noble House, which is well on the way to becoming the best social reforming Chamber in the land.
6.40 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, since listening to the debate that took place during the last Parliament I, too, have had many letters such as were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. What struck me about those letters is that there is another side to homosexuality which has received very little support so far in this House. We have heard a great deal about the persecution of the homosexual, but we have heard very little about the homosexual's persecution of those who do not fall in with his plans and his wishes. I know of two men who lost their jobs, who were hounded out, by a man who had approached them for a year or more and who, having failed, had no mercy on them whatsoever.
I have read The Sociology of Homosexuality from cover to cover, because I was told in the last debate that nobody could read that book without tears in their eyes. There were accounts of interviews with 150 different men who are homosexuals. I could find no evidence whatsoever, in the case of any one of those men, of the slightest contrition, or even the slightest shame or guilt. I found that there are certain types of homosexuals whose delight it is to seduce young heterosexuals and lead them down the garden path which, as we have been told, leads to nothing but frustration, sorrow and degeneration. The report itself, in, I think, paragraph 58, tells us that the committee consider that it is inevitable that there should be some increase in homosexuality if this Bill is passed.
The other day I read a book called The Cult of Softness. I do not know if any noble Lord has read it, but it is well worth reading, in connection with this Bill and with other Bills of the same kind. In it we trace the way in which the moral standards of this country have fallen in recent years because of the so-called "Christian charity" which it

629
extends to all kinds of apathetic approach to aberration, misdemeanours and sins. I read the other day also a quotation from Abraham Lincoln, who was certainly not an anti-humanitarian. In that quotation he said
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
Yet, my Lords, the whole tendency in this country has been to do that very thing.
Sympathy is a wonderful thing; it is a necessary quality in the making of any man worth his salt. But we can carry sympathy too far when we carry it to the extent that it is detrimental to the life and living of the victim. We have seen quite lately the concern in the minds of many people at the treatment of the train robbers. There has not been much sympathy expressed for the man whose whole life was ruined by the actions of those very men who listen to their television and enjoy the pictures and the social activities in the prisons in which they are confined. If this Bill is passed, I am convinced that there will be an increase in homosexual practices; that a concerted effort will be made to pervert the young—over 21, perhaps, so as to be able to escape the guilt of their sins; but there will be an increase.
I should like to make one quotation from the New Testament which was left out of the other quotations about the woman taken in adultery, and so on. The quotation is:—
"Woe unto to that man through whom the offence cometh! It were better for that man that a millstone were hanged around his neck and he were cast into the midst of the sea."
We have heard a great deal about the Christian charity of the gentle Jesus, meek and mild. I have read the New Testament from end to end as often as most people; but I have never yet found a case where Our Lord condoned sin—forgiveness, yes. But the woman who was taken in adultery was not told merely that she was not to be condemned: she was told, "Go and sin no more". That was the whole basis of the early Christianity, in all that I have read. There was not condonation for sin and error; particularly if it was going to affect other people. But there was sympathy always; and comfort for those who came with a humble and a contrite heart.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to the noble Earl and to your Lordships for arriving so late in this debate. Unfortunately, I was misinformed about the expected starting time. I have not hitherto taken part in the discussions in this House on this subject, but I venture to do so to-day mainly in order to reinforce the pleas already made by the right reverend Prelate in respect to the impact of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, on the men of the Merchant Navy. But since this is a Second Reading debate I feel I ought first to declare my position in the matter generally.
I have not had the great experience which many of your Lordships have had in the administration of the law as it stands to-clay; or, indeed, of the social problems that arise from homosexual practices. But I have read very carefully the discussions that have taken place, both in this House and in another place, and have, I hope, studied them objectively. The conclusions I reach is that I am against this Bill. I think it is common ground that the practices with which we are dealing are deplorable and should be discouraged, especially in the young; and T feel that any legislation must be looked at from the point of view: Does it or does it not discourage these practices?
A great number of the arguments adduced in support of this Bill undoubtedly have force; but in this, as in other matters, the decision must be on the balance of argument, and I suggest that it is not right to legislate to protect the activities of the minority if the result is to subject others to undue hazard. This, it seems to me, is the difficulty that faces us. It is right that we should have every sympathy for those unfortunate people who cannot resist the temptation to undertake unnatural practices. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, suggested that perhaps on strictly medical grounds these practices were not unnatural. I think that is a view not very widely held. Indeed, the framers of the Bill have clearly been at pains to protect young people. They have not only left the offence as it stands at present of having homosexual relations with a young person, but they have increased the penalty. We must have every sympathy with these unfortunate people whose case has been

631
very eloquently pleaded, but that does not mean giving them approbation. In that respect I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan has said.
There is the view that this is a private affair and a matter of conscience, and not a suitable subject for the law. But, here again, surely, we must consider whether the private activities of people have their impact on others, and I should have thought that one of the sad things about these practices is that they do excite young men at an impressionable age in adolescence. They are undoubtedly encouraged to experiment in these practices. That may well lead to their ultimate downfall, if I carry your Lordships with me in thinking that it is a downfall.
Then there are arguments used of a more practical nature: that the law as it stands at present is practically unenforceable, or is enforced only in a whimsical way because it is so difficult to detect the offence. But, my Lords, surely that applies to other offences dealt with in the Statute Book. I should have thought that it applies very largely to a range of motoring offences. Is it more difficult to enforce a law which prohibits homosexual relations between adult males than a law which prohibits homosexual relations between an adult male and a young person? A great deal has been made of the fact that the existing law has been christened "The Blackmailers Charter". But does not any undetected lawbreaking give an opportunity to the blackmailer? It seems to me that if blackmailers have taken greater advantage of opportunities provided by cases of this kind, it is because, in addition to being a breach of the law, this practice is something which most people regard as disreputable and disgusting: and the hold which the blackmailer has is not just that a man is liable to prosecution but that he will be shown up before his friends and family, and perhaps in his business, and so on. So I very much doubt whether blackmailers will be greatly deterred by this Bill.
Now I come to what I feel is the great argument against this Bill. It seems to me quite extraordinary that a law should be passed which says that it is all right to do this if you are 21 but it is not all right to do it before you are 21. It is suggested that that will not encourage young people
632
to experiment in this direction. It is not just the young people of the present generation, but all young people who, I should have thought, if I may put it this way, would almost regard it as a challenge: "If this is something I can do when I am grown up, why cannot I do it now?". I am sure that it will greatly hinder the efforts of schoolmasters and others to keep this practice from spreading among the young.
May I say a few words about the men in the Merchant Navy? In a ship at sea we have a close community of males in a situation where no doubt there are special temptations. The aim of the promoters of this Bill is to legalise homosexual relations between consenting adult males in private. It seems to me that on hoard ship both those last two conditions have a different meaning. The act may be performed in private in the technical sense that it is behind a closed door, but in a small community it could hardly ever escape being known, and this immediately gives rise to tensions in the ship. You have people who regard the practices as horrible and who may proceed to assault those who indulge in them and if there are, unhappily, more than two or three who indulge in them, it may give rise to problems of jealousy and the like which can occur. I understand that there have been cases where assaults and knifings have taken place as a result of homosexual practices on board ship.
My Lords, the master of a ship has a difficult task. He can maintain discipline through the Merchant Shipping Act, but that does not provide any specific provisions in this regard, and it seems to me quite clear that if the law is made that this practice between consenting males in private is legal, his power to put a stop to that sort of thing will be greatly decreased. We should not forget that there are among ships' crews a substantial number of young people who will undoubtedly know what is going on and who may be encouraged thereby to do the same.
Then again, consent is not quite the same thing when you are living in very close communities and it is difficult for someone to get away from someone else. If there are pressures brought to bear in the ordinary world, and if a young man is sufficiently strong-minded, he can walk

633
out and go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, sometimes that has very damaging effects, but at least if he is sufficiently strong-minded, he can get away. It is more difficult in a ship where a man may be living close by people who may be trying to persuade him to indulge in these practices. So it seems to me that if your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading—I very much hope that you will not—there is a strong case for an Amendment which will put the men in the Merchant Navy in the same position as men in the Armed Forces, and exclude them from the operation of the provisions of Clause 1.
6.58 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel that I cannot congratulate my noble friend on presenting this Bill, but I admire his pertinacity. I took no part in the debates last year, other than to vote in the Division on the Third Reading. I did not speak because I knew that then it could not become law, and I hoped against hope that, having fallen, it would originate in another place and perhaps never reach your Lordships' House. Even as it was, my Lords, the debates in your Lordships' House took a curious pattern. I say that because we had that Monday Sitting, called at short notice, for the Second Reading, with a Division; and I think I am right in saying that the Committee stage was on a Friday morning at one time. Be that as it may, here we have the Bill again, and I feel compelled, with your Lordships' permission, to make a contribution to the debate.
My views coincide with those expressed by Mr. Adair in the reservations he published to the Wolfenden Committee's Report. They extend to nearly six pages relating to homosexuality. I will not endeavour either to repeat them or make a précis of them. I would say that his views are views with which I agree. I should like to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, in the debate last year. I cannot see how a sin—and this act we are discussing is a hideous sin; I nearly said bestial, but beasts do not do it—is any more excusable morally because it is committed in private. I am unable to agree that the law should rule that a gross offence of this sort is no crime. Heterosexual behaviour is, to my mind, in quite another category. It is not that the law does not need re-
634
form. I think we are all agreed that the law does need reform as it bears on the homosexual. The homosexual is either mentally deranged, in which case he deserves our compassionate consideration (and this class of homosexual is, in my belief, a minority), or he is a sinner in a sin which is bred from self-pity out of sadism, or from lack of self-control out of lust. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun said, I cannot believe that a great many of these emotions cannot be controlled by men of character. Some measure of reform may be necessary, but not in this way. That is my objection to the Bill.
This Bill offers a charter to the male prostitute. I do not think there is any question about that. Its effects would tend to corrupt society. This point has been made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, and I entirely agree with what he said; and it is also a point which Mr. Adair makes strongly in his reservations. There is no doubt, in my mind, that it would corrupt society; and nobody has spoken more strongly than the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in this debate in this connection. Further, in my view, it does next to nothing to frustrate the blackmailer. This point has been touched upon by several speakers. It seems to me that it does nothing to alleviate the situation. Why do I say this? The reason is that, law or no law, the people as a whole detest and despise homosexual behaviour. Therefore, crime or no crime, the blackmailer can continue to rely upon this Bill, if it becomes an Act, as a basis for his misfeasance.
I think it is safe to say that this particular form of misdemeanour seldom crosses the path of the average man. Ordinary, decent people are not involved in this sort of thing. I have an old friend who served for more than thirty years in one of our largest industrial undertakings. For many years he was in the personnel department, managing upwards of 10,000 persons. He tells me that only once in the years when he was in the personnel department, and, indeed, in the years he was in the company, did he ever come across trouble over a homosexual in the employment of the undertaking. I believe that the incidence of homosexuality in our society has hitherto been greatly exaggerated.

635
There is one other point, which I almost hesitate to make, but it is based on conversations I have had with people in all walks of life. It is this. I believe that in continuing to worry about this particular Bill we are bringing your Lordships' House into contempt.
LORD ANNAN: Shame!
LORD FERRIER: If that is the case, as I believe it to be, then the right thing is to refuse the Bill a Second Reading, and let us have an end of it.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. It is the first speech he has made on this subject, and I should like to say what a powerful speech it was. I wish to speak for a few moments, because it is essential that we should have the Division as soon as we can. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, who introduced the Bill, said that there were between 500,000 and one million men in the country who are homosexuals. We do not really know that: it may be so, or it may not be so. Then the noble Earl said that these men do not choose homosexuality. We have had speeches from noble Lords in this House who are members of the medical profession, and who have said that this is not the case, and that those who are homosexuals are rather like the different colours of the rainbow: some may be that kind, and some may be the other kind; and then there are the centre different colours of homosexuals.
I am sure, from the debates we have had, that members of the medical profession, and many other people in the country, think that if this Bill is passed it will definitely encourage homosexuality. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—who, if I may say so, made a remarkable speech, both from the Christian point of view and from the point of view of his experience as Chief Scout for so many years—holds this view very strongly. I feel it is absolutely certain that the teenage boys who are likely to be tempted in this direction, if this Bill goes through will say: "Ah! Now we are 21, it is quite all right. It is legal."
The Church, through the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St. Albans, have
636
said that the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. I am sure that this is the view of the Church; I accept it, and I am glad that it is so. But if the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards, they must have the law on their side as well. Then why produce this Bill? That is, I think, a complete non sequitur. I had a letter from a Bishop during the debates last summer who said that the Bishops were divided more or less in the same proportions as were the people in the country. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said that the country is now divided 60–40.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: That is the opinion poll.
LORD BROCKET: As the noble Lord says, that is the opinion poll. But we do not get any of the Bishops coming here to speak against the Bill. We have a wonderful attendance of Bishops tonight: it is the best attendance we have had since the Bill came up last time.
I want to say just one or two things further. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, references to the Merchant Service. Clause (1) of the Bill allows this act among those over 21. Then Clause 1(5) says:
"Subsection (1) of this section shall not prevent an act from being an offence (other than a civil offence) under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957."
Since that subsection was put into the Bill—and I entirely agree with it—I have thought that it shot the whole principle of the Bill to pieces, because what is good for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—and I hope for the Merchant Service—should also be good for ordinary civilians.
I want to quote only one other figure. I think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the majority of the House of Lords was in favour of this Bill. On October 28, 96 Peers voted in favour of this Bill—and I must say I am ashamed to note how few voted against it. However 96 Peers voted in favour of the Bill, and at the present time there are 1,016 Peers entitled to sit in this House if they want to. That is all I have to say. I hope we shall have a Division, and that this Bill will be defeated.
7.9 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in the arguments he has put forward, and to congratulate him on having the good sense and the courage to introduce this Bill once again. There is no doubt from the debate we have had that there is a clear-cut division in the House, and I doubt whether any of us will convince others to a different way of thinking. But those who hold the views that I do can, I think, without doubt, point first of all to a marked shift in public opinion over the last few years. I think we can also claim there is a good chance that reform along the lines of Wolfenden will give better protection to the young people in the future. I think it will make the path a great deal easier for those who are trying to get help to deal with what they themselves feel is a very difficult personal problem. This certainly is the view which has been expressed by anybody who has had experience of universities. I feel that it must inevitably reduce the considerable amount of blackmail which has surrounded this problem for a very long time.
In addition, as I said on a previous occasion, research is tending to show that the development of the homosexual condition, and the form which it takes, may well depend on the events in a person's life, and the attitude which society adopts towards that condition. There is evidence that the present law itself can in some cases be a direct cause of homosexuality. It is certainly true that not all homosexuals are born, and this is why we want homosexual reform; to see whether we can reduce the number of people who have this problem, and who immediately find themselves within the ambit of the criminal law. In my view it is high time that the law was changed.
It is also important to recognise—as I should have hoped the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, would have recognised, having read Mr. Michael Schofield's book from cover to cover—that there is now the suggestion that the child-molesting homosexual and the adult homosexual, as we have known him in the past, are quite different phenomena. In new circumstances, and in a new atmosphere, there may well be a great and hopeful line of research which will show us that we can differentiate along that road. To those who say that this Bill legalises vice, that
638
it will lead to social decline, and that it will do harm, I should like to say this. If I understand homosexual practices, then I find them abhorrent. But I find the law full of injustice; I find it full of stupidity as it stands at the present time, and my sympathy goes out to any such minority who are oppressed in this fashion. But when I find that research is tending to indicate that the present law is doing positive harm, and that a Committee as powerful as Wolfenden reported along these lines, then I believe it is right and proper that we should see that law changed.
I respect the honesty and sincerity of the opinions which have been put forward by the people who take a different view from myself. But they are just views, as mine are. I would say to our opponents that their views are getting further and further away from the sociological research results which are being shown, and further and further away from public opinion, as we are able to judge it. As for male prostitutes, who have been mentioned on three occasions to-night, I should have thought that, where satisfying relationships can legally be entered into by adults in private, the attraction of the male prostitute must as a result diminish quite considerably.
I want to make only one more point on the merits of this case, and that is the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I think he said that the introduction of a measure of this sort was bringing this House into disrepute.
LORD FERRIER: Contempt.
LORD BYERS: Contempt—even worse. I must protest at that, as a relatively new Life Peer. I would say that I am quite shocked that anybody should hold that view, and it shows how out of touch the noble Lord is with public opinion. This House has gained tremendously in reputation for the courage it has had in the case of homosexual reform, capital punishment and abortion law reform. This is a House which has demonstrated that it is understanding of the problems which are facing the people of this century. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it is a House which is in touch with change, and this is where I believe we can do a tremendous amount of good in the social reform that is needed in the corning years.
LORD FERRIER: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think I said that I was repeating what had been said to me by people in various walks of life, which is the case. Only last night was one occasion.
LORD BYERS: That is very interesting. I take it, from what he said, that the noble Lord agrees that this is bringing this House into contempt. Does he or does he not?
LORD FERRIER: I do.
LORD BYERSThen I can only tell him he is completely out of touch with the people of this country as a whole. He may have some very odd friends who meet him every Monday night, and tell him these odd stories. Let him ask the editors of the newspapers—
LORD FERRIER: Oh!
LORD BYERS: They are practically all Conservative to-day. Let him ask the universities, the professions and the people who are in touch with public opinion, not in his own club, or wherever he goes on Monday nights to meet these Bishops.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may interrupt again, I suggest that we might ask the Clerk to read Standing Order No. XXIX, relating to "Asperity of Speech".
LORD BYERS: If this is to be regarded as asperity of speech, I think perhaps we ought to have a clearer definition. If I have offended the noble Lord in the way in which I have spoken, then I must withdraw. But I do not withdraw the comment.
LORD FERRIER: Then I am satisfied.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, there is one final point that I should like to make. I should have thought that with a measure of this sort there was a strong case for affording Government time for a Bill at the very start of a new Parliament. Subjects like homosexual law reform raise a certain amount of emotion, and the best time to test the Houses on a measure of this sort is, in my view, at the beginning of a Parliament when there is time for the Bill to be looked at objectively and in a detached way and for it to he put into law, so that one can see how it
640
works. I have every confidence that this Bill will work. I should like to see it tested in another place this Session, and not left for two, three, or four years towards the end of the Parliament, when one knows that the charged atmosphere of a General Election is coming forward.
7.17 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, as between the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I incline to the view of my noble friend. Like him I voted against this measure before. Like him, I think I registered a silent vote, and, like him, I am grateful for the opportunity of putting to your Lordships, however briefly, the considerations which weigh with me.
I am not shocked in any way by this Bill. I do not have anything but the greatest respect for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the faithfulness with which he has followed a cause in which he believes, and for the compassion which everything he has said has shown, as my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir said earlier. I do not believe that the law regarding homosexuality is satisfactory from the point of the homosexual. I very much doubt whether, in some cases, the prosecution, the imprisonment, and so on, does anything but harm. In the only case with which I have had any close personal relationship—and it was a tragic case, affecting somebody for whom I had the highest respect—I am quite certain that the op ration of the existing law did not help him. Indeed, I think that he might have been helped if the law had been different—but I do not know.
In spite of that, I am against this Bill, and I am against it for this simple reason: that in it—and I think in all the other measures which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, quoted as showing the enlightenment of this House—we have been far too much concerned with the effect upon the criminal, or, at any rate, upon the object of our sympathy, and far too little concern with the effect upon society.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, that charge was made in the capital punishment debate, and I think we can say there are many of us—indeed, I should say all of us—who cannot be accused of being guilty of that sort of consideration.
LORD COLERAINE: Capital punishment is another case, and perhaps I could just say this, as the noble Lord has raised the subject: I voted for the abolition of the death penalty. I am not sure now that I voted correctly. I voted for that Bill because I did not think that capital punishment had any direct deterrent effect upon a potential murderer. But to go back to the point I was making when the noble Lord intervened, I think that Act, combined with the other measures to which the noble Lord referred, has had a very dangerous effect upon society, because the tendency of all the measures which we have passed in recent years has been to diminish the responsibility of the individual for his own acts, and I do not see how anybody can deny that. That has been the tendency and I think it has been a disastrous one. We have only to look at the newspapers—the moors trial, anything you like—to see the effect of that tendency. In every field, whether it is in literature, in what old fashioned people used to call "pornography", or the death penalty, or this tragic subject which we have been discussing this afternoon, Parliament has come in and said, "Do not worry; you are not responsible. It is the law that is wrong".
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, in a most interesting speech this afternoon, said we had to recognise that society was a new thing; that in our own boyhood before the Great War, and I hope that when we were young men, society was confined to the individuals who composed it. Now, vast numbers of people who were then outside society are a living part of society and they are setting their own standards. The noble Lord said they will not any longer put up with advice from their betters. I wonder whether they are wise in that? I wonder whether we are wise to encourage them in that view? I wonder whether there are any of us who would not benefit from advice from our betters, and in particular—I am not thinking of social classes or wealth or anything else—I wonder whether we should not, all of us, benefit if we paid a little more attention to the accumulated wisdom of the past and the experience of mankind, and relied a little less on our own cleverness, which, God knows!, is landing us in a most terrible predicament.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I take up a remark made by the noble Lord,
642
before he sits down? While thanking him for his most courteous reference to my speech, I would point out that the point I was trying to make is that it is not always wise to try to enforce moral standards by law. Would the noble Lord not agree that while the Victorian age was one of the severest in its moral code and its standards, it is nevertheless odd that this country in the Victorian age had the highest rate of child prostitution of any country in Europe?
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? The question of male prostitution has been raised on more than one occasion in this debate.
LORD COLERAINE: Not by me.
LORD BOOTHBY: No, not by the noble Lord but by other speakers. Would the noble Lord not be inclined to agree that these creatures live mainly by blackmail and nothing else?
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, having listened by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir earlier in the debate, I was assured by him that this blackmail aspect of the problem is very much exaggerated. May I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan asked me? Of course I agree. Horrible things went on in Victorian times: evils and corruption and wickedness and sin of every kind. But what seems so appalling to me is that in those days these things stemmed from conditions which could produce nothing else, whereas the corruption and the wickedness of our own day is stemming from the Welfare State. I think there is all the more reason for the law to give a backing and a sanction to morality in conditions as they are to-day.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat may I ask him whether he can define a little more clearly what he means when he refers to "our betters" from whom we are to take advice, and how we are to recognise these "betters"?
LORD COLERAINE: I am sorry; I am afraid my noble friend—if he will allow me, my noble connection—was not listening to me. I defined "our betters" as those who had gone before us and I said that we should all of us do well to pay attention to the accumulated wisdom and experience of the past. It

643
was not I who used the phrase originally; it was the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I was taking him up on it.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Would the noble Lord agree that many of those who have gone before us were not our betters but were in fact malefactors?
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I do not think we can pursue this argument indefinitely, but I would ask the noble Lord to read the works of Edmund Burke, and I think he will understand what I mean.
7.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I, too, am not going to enter into this argument, or, indeed, into any of the arguments to which I have listened over the last four hours. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in introducing his Bill, said that when Mr. Humphry Berkeley introduced it in another place in the last Parliament he did so without altering a single comma. My Lords, they did not even correct the misprint.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, with great respect I think I said "a single word". Am I wrong?
LORD STONHAM: There was one word, but I am happy to assure the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that it has now been corrected. However, the point I wished to make was that we are now considering essentially the same Bill which your Lordships considered very closely for many days in all its stages and to which, in all essentials, noble Lords gave a very substantial majority. On behalf of the Government I have again to say that on this Private Member's Bill, which has excited to-day such deep feelings, and in some cases passionately expressed feelings, the role of the Government is a neutral one, but we shall continue to give such help as your Lordships need with regard to the drafting of any Amendments.
Having heard, I think, nearly every word of all the previous discussions in the last Parliament on this subject and almost every word of the Second Reading Debate, I am bound to say, expressing a purely personal opinion, that this debate has been less satisfactory than those which preceded it, because to-day we
644
have concentrated far less on the contents of the Bill, and what it proposes to do, than we did on the last occasion, when we went into it very deeply and thoroughly, and when the House delivered a decisive verdict.
I can appreciate that on a subject such as this we all have deep feelings, but I regret that at times those feelings have seemed to overcome some noble Lords to the extent that they appeared to think that other noble Lords who did not share their views were in some ways less worthy. It would never be my role to suggest what anyone's Christian duty was: that is a matter for each individual to decide for himself. But, again expressing a purely personal view, as a very ordinary member of the Anglican Church, I can say that I am very glad that the most reverend Primate and a number of right reverend Prelates have considered it their Christian duty to come and express their views on this Bill in the way they have done. Apart from saying that, I propose to devote my remarks to dealing only with points raised in the debate.
The first is a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, regarding the position, if this Bill becomes an Act and if it is unchanged in this regard, in the Merchant Navy. The position as I understand it is that if homosexual acts on British merchant ships were no longer to he criminal offences the master of a British ship would have no sanction to employ against members of his crew who engaged in homosexual practices. The master has a Common Law power to arrest and confine any seaman or other person on his ship if he has reasonable cause for believing this is necessary for the preservation of good order and discipline or for the safety of the vessel. And certainly her Majesty's Government would never wish to do anything, or indeed, if they knew of it, allow anything to be done, which would interfere with that necessary right.
The master also has an ordinary Common Law right to dismiss a seaman from his ship, but he must obtain the sanction of a British consular officer before he discharges a seaman at a port outside the United Kingdom. These powers may at

645
present be exercised by the master in respect of a seaman who commits a homosexual offence. But if both the Common Law and Statute Law are changed in respect of homosexual conduct between consenting adults, it is argued, as I understand it, that the master's Common Law powers will no longer be available in respect of such conduct on board ship. It is further argued that the position is different from that in the Armed Services, where disciplinary sanctions will still be available, for example, against conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
There is a complication, as I indicated when I ventured to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, which makes it difficult to give clear advice as to the effect the Bill would have on life at sea. This is that the laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland apparently apply equally with the law of England on British ships, and the Bill is confined to England. It is therefore arguable that the master's powers would not be affected by the Bill, because he could invoke the law of Scotland instead of the law of England, as he may do now. This, of course, as the noble and learned Viscount was quick to notice, is an unattractive argument in the case of an English ship that trades from English ports and never visits Scotland. My case was that it is not an English ship but a British ship, subject to British law, and whichever port it trades at it will still rely on British law. But I do not want to rely on that argument alone in this case. We are looking into the legal position to see how it can be clarified.
There is one other thing I would say. It has been quite rightly said, and stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that a great many young men are in the Merchant Navy; and I believe that about a quarter of all seamen in British ships are under 21. It is right to say at once that nothing in the noble Earl's Bill will affect the position with regard to homosexual practices in relation to people under 21. It relates only to such conduct by consenting adults in private. I am coming to the point the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is going to raise. He is going to say that it would nevertheless be a bad influence on these young men, and I do not dispute that.
I think the noble Earl said parents may be reluctant to allow their sons to enter the Merchant Navy. I hope no
646
parent at this moment will have the impression that this kind of situation is going to be allowed to arise because of this Bill in its final form. Therefore, I welcome what he said, and I undertake that the Government will give careful consideration to these problems in the light of all the views that have been expressed. We will seek to clarify the legal position and, if we may, advise the noble Earl, Lord Arran, before Committee stage, whether anything, and if so what, should be done to deal with this point which has quite rightly exercised the minds of several noble Lords.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked me two questions, one of which I have now answered. The second question he put to me—I took it down at the time, but if I have not it correctly he will correct me—was this: will it be a criminal offence if a number of people engage in promoting homosexual acts; will it be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Homosexual acts in private.
LORD STONHAM: I accept that. As I am sure he would expect me to say, a simple answer is not really possible. So much would turn on the nature of what he called "promotion" and whether the homosexual acts were in fact offences. If they were not it might not arise.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am asking this question. If this Bill is passed, an act of homosexuality between consenting adults will not be contrary to the law. I am asking whether, if there were an agreement between a number of people to promote such acts, that would be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief or not.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble and learned Viscount is aware, because he himself through an Amendment put some of the provisions in the Bill to guard against this, a great deal hinges on the particular case. He mentioned promotion. The noble and learned Viscount is well aware that if that promotion really meant a male brothel, then it would be covered in Section 5 of the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may interrupt again, I will not press the noble Lord for an answer to-night, but I would

647
certainly press it at a later stage. If he boggles at the word "promotion", I will put it this way. If a number of people agreed together to encourage the commission of acts of homosexuality between adults, will that be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief?
LORD STONHAM: I shall be very glad to look into that. But I assure the noble and learned Viscount that, after nine months of almost continuous work on the Abortion Bill and the Sexual Offences Bill, I do not boggle at any word in the English language.
I do not want to run away from the question, and certainly in Committee, when we get down to it, I should like to deal with this important point. But, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the standard definition of the crime of conspiracy is that it is committed when two parties agree to pursue an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means; and an agreement to do acts which, though not offences, are outrageously immoral or extremely injurious to the public may constitute an agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is so cognate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, on a stage of the other Bill, spoke of clubs for this purpose. Would they be covered?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we dealt with clubs in the Licensing Act. I myself put forward many Amendments in Opposition. But it is no use trying to give a general answer to this question. It would be necessary to look at the precise point of the particular club and the purpose for which it was being run. I am only trying to answer questions, but I seem to be getting as many interruptions as if I were being controversial. Again, as Lord Dilhorne will know, the law of conspiracy—the whole question of Common Law misdemeanours—is at present under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I am quite sure that I have not wholely satisfied the noble and learned Viscount, but then neither he nor I thought that I should. We can take it up at a later stage.
I come to what I thought was the one remaining point that required an answer,
648
as distinct from arguments which have been deployed—exactly the same arguments as have been deployed before: that is the point of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about those persons who have been convicted of offences which would not be crimes if this Bill became law. First, I would question Lord Arran's estimate of about a hundred such people in prison. I asked for the figures prior to this debate. I am afraid that the statistics are necessarily compiled in accordance with the law as it is now, not in accordance with the law as it would be if this Bill were passed. Therefore, in our statistics there is no distinction between offences between consenting adults in private and other homosexual offences. The only thing we can turn to is the special study which was done for the Wolfenden Committee, when it was found that 108 such persons were sent to prison in a period of three years ending in 1956. Since the Committee reported, the practice has been introduced of the Director of Public Prosecutions being consulted about prosecutions for stale offences, those giving rise to blackmail, and offences between consenting adults in private. He confirmed this instruction to Chief Officers of Police in 1964, and therefore it is likely that those numbers have considerably diminished since the Wolfenden Committee looked at the matter in 1956.
But, as the noble Earl will appreciate, the point is really one of principle. It is a dangerous argument for a reformer to advance because the only way to avoid the uncertainties and transitional difficulties before a change in the law is made is not to change the law, nor institute reforms. In this country the only way to change the law is by Act of Parliament, not by a Bill which makes some progress, nor by a Report from a Committee.
The noble Earl mentioned landmarks. There are landmarks, such as the Wolfenden Report and, if I may say so, the passage of the noble Earl's Bill. But one cannot argue that because one of those landmarks has been reached, one must regard the law itself as having been changed. To me, the truly surprising feature about Lord Arran's Bill is not the delays which it has encountered but the rapidity of the progress it has made. If you compare the long and tortuous path of the Bill for the abolition of capital

649
punishment, I find it difficult almost to believe now that it is only just over a year since the noble Earl put down a tentative Motion calling attention to the Wolfenden Report. Now many of us expect this Bill to reach the Statute Book in a matter of months.
I am more than ever convinced, particularly from the debate we have just had, that the real way to deal with questions of this kind is by Private Members' Bills. The Government have given drafting assistance, and will give more; and in so doing this Bill has been transformed from a declaration of intent into a viable piece of legislation. Progress has been so rapid that we should surely continue on the path which has taken this Bill so near to success, and not abandon this course and deal with the matter in some other way. Like, I imagine, most noble Lords, I am unable to dissociate the discussion we are now having from the Second Reading of the earlier Bill and our comparatively recent discussions in the previous Parliament. I recall the decisions that we then made, and I hope that we shall make further progress.
7.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, we have had our debate. I did not think it was such a bad debate. Perhaps there was nothing particularly new to say, but
at least those of us who feel strongly spoke strongly once again. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, this is a matter on which those of us who disagree will probably never agree. I must confess that I feel somewhat depressed by the sad things said by some noble Lords in regard to our youth. I do not believe that our youth is waiting to be corrupted, or is in any way corrupted, any more than it has ever been. I do not think that the country is "going to the dogs". I think—and perhaps this is an original thought—that our youth is perhaps a little selfish. But of course young people are always selfish.
I know that there are dangers in this Bill. There are dangers in all reform. I suppose there was a danger in the Bills for the abolition of hanging for sheep stealing and of slavery. These things seemed to a number of wise people at the time to be wrong; but they were done, and Britain survived and was the better for it. If your Lordships will courteously approve this Bill once again, which I am far from taking for granted, I propose to proceed further.
7.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Devonshire, D.

Plummer, B.

Airedale, L.

Dunrossill, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Amherst, E.

Effingham, E.

Queensberry, M.

Annan, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Faringdon, L.

Reay, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Rothermere, V.

Audley, B.

Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]

St. Albans, Bp.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Just, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Segal, L.

Bedford, D. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Boothby, L.

Hertford, M.

Sorensen, L.

Bowles, L.

Jessel, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L.

Killearn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Byers, L.

Kinross, L.

Strang, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Lilford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Lincoln, Bp.

Swanborough, B.

Colgrain, L.

Listowel, E.

Terrington, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Wellington, D.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Darwen, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Derby, Bp.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Devonport, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rowallan, L.

Blyton, L.

Glentanar, L.

Saltoun, L.

Brocket, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Simon, V.

Coleraine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne. V. [Teller.]

Kilmuir, E. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Exeter, M.

Lindgren, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falmouth, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.