Lords Sitting of 3 February 1967

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry

THE CASE OF JAMES HANRATTY
11.5 a.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: 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 report of the police investigation ordered by the Home Secretary into the claim by James Hanratty that he was in Rhyl when the A6 murder took place will be laid before Parliament prior to any final decision being made as to whether or not an independent inquiry should be set up to consider the case.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I will answer this Question, if I may, in the absence of Lord Stonham, who I know everyone will be glad to hear is making excellent progress, and who has been much encouraged by the many messages received from your Lordships in all parts of the House.
The Answer is that, when the investigation has been completed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider in what form its outcome could appropriately be made public. The report itself will be confidential, as are all police reports.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. May I ask whether he does not think it is most important that the public should have an opportunity to learn the full facts upon which the Home Secretary may make his final decision?
THE EARL or LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is very much more skilled in the law than I am, but I think
1090
he will agree with me that the Answer I have given is the correct one, and one that would be given by any Home Secretary in the circumstances.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider this: that those who put forward the case for some inquiry do not rely only on this one matter of a possible alibi? While we appreciate the concession which the Home Secretary has made, is the noble Earl aware that there is a great deal of evidence now which calls for an inquiry into many other matters?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, certainly there is a great deal of material bearing on this case; but whether it can be called evidence is something that I must leave to the Home Secretary and his advisers.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is the most satisfactory state of affairs that we no longer have to hang people before making inquiries into their guilt?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Certainly, my Lords. A great majority of this House, as the noble Viscount knows, are very well content that after so many years capital punishment has been abolished.

MALTA
11.9 a.m.
LORD ALPORT: 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, in view of the fact that Malta is not likely to remain a major defence centre, consideration can now be given both by Her Majesty's Government and by the Government of Malta as to what steps would be necessary to make Malta a free port.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, whilst we have already assured the Government of Malta of all possible co-operation in making available land which may be needed, the establishment of a free port in Malta is

1091
a matter for their decision and is not dependent on a reduction in defence facilities in the Island.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask whether this particular subject was part of the terms of reference of the high-powered committee which was to go out to advise the Maltese upon future policy of development?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is a very interesting and, indeed, imaginative project, and one to which a good deal of study has already been given; but the commercial possibilities and the economic benefits to Malta need to be looked at in a very hard-headed way. The straight answer to the noble Lord's question is that this was not included in any terms of reference because the terms of reference were not drawn up. It is, however, precisely the kind of thing which might have been looked into by the high-powered team of industrialists, had the offer been accepted.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask a further question? Does the offer still stand if the Government of Malta, after subsequent thought, wish to change their mind?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the offer to send out a high-powered team of industrialists, the answer is, Yes.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, with regard to the offer to send out a high-powered economic team, is not the difficulty over the economic development of Malta, first, its comparatively isolated situation, and secondly, the lack of water? In these circumstances, would the Government look more closely into a proposal that I raised the other day; namely, the development of tourist trade from this country to Malta?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, My Lords. The development of tourist trade is going ahead. The Maltese Minister for Tourism will be coming to this country next week, in order to help stimulate still further the development of tourism. On the noble Lord's point about lack of water in the Island, it is certainly the fact that if there were more water a good deal more could be done to develop agriculture. I personally should like to think that such a project as the new programme of desalination
1092
could make a contribution to the future economy of Malta.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the contribution that Malta has made, not only to this country but to others, any consideration has been given to my proposal that the British Government should seek to initiate a world fund, to include contributions from America, from France and from other countries, as some recognition of the part that Malta has played?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was going to say that my noble friend keeps harping on this question of what we and Malta have done together. I can assure my noble friend, as I have done before, that we are conscious of this. So far as the possibility of other countries' helping is concerned, it is not for us to decide. We cannot compel anybody else to take over responsibilities that we have had hitherto. Inquiries have been made and discussions have been held, for example, with the United States of America. That they have not led to any decision on the part of the United States is no fault of ours.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister, who I know is sympathetic towards Malta, whether he will press the Government to make a statement that until the commission which it is suggested should be sent out has reported, no further steps should be taken to alter the present situation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will see that the noble Lady's suggestion is brought to the notice of those concerned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, aware that his suggestion this morning about the desalination of Malta is a very sensible one? May I ask him to pursue it with the Government, and particularly with his noble friend Lord Shackleton who was rather scathing about desalination, at any rate in this country, only a few days ago?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am assured by my noble friend Lord Shackleton that the allegation is quite falsely laid at his door. The difficulty in this matter is one of finance. I understand that in this sphere we are coming to the point when it is economical, provided that the plant is sufficiently large.

1093
Whether it is feasible to find the funds for such a project in Malta is a matter for consideration by the Malta Government as well as by us through our aid programme.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, while my supplementary question may be slightly outside the scope of the original Question, may I ask whether my noble friend can say now what is the total financial contribution annually made to Malta?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the best way I can put this, is to say that it works out at £18 per head every year for each man, woman and child of the population of Malta.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, in view of the fact that Malta is a NATO base, may I ask whether consultations have taken place between us and our NATO allies?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to that question is, Yes.

OVERSEAS ASSETS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
11.14 a.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: 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 Prime Minister was correctly reported as having stated, during his recent visit to Paris, when questioned about Great Britain's short-term financial liabilities, amounting to some £3,000 million, that these liabilities were amply covered by overseas investments; and whether Her Majesty's Government will state to what investments the Prime Minister was referring, and to whom they belong.]
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained, in answer to a question at his Press conference in Paris on January 25, that the United Kingdom possessed total overseas assets on a scale considerably greater than the total of the country's external obligations, short-term and long-term. Thus, at the end of 1964 the United Kingdom had total net monetary liabilities to official
1094
and private holders overseas of about £2,000 million. At the same time the United Kingdom held net long-term assets overseas of some £4,300 million; these net assets included official assets of over £800 million gross and private assets of over £9,400 million gross. After making allowance for developments in 1965 and 1966, the United Kingdom remains a very large net creditor in the world. My Lords, a more detailed estimate of the United Kingdom's external assets and liabilities, as at the end of 1964, was published in the Pink Book, The United Kingdom Balance of Payments, 1966.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his reply. Is it not correct that, for example, the Malaysian Minister of Finance informed the International Monetary Fund at their meeting in September last that as soon as possible, without putting undue strain on sterling, Malaysia intended to diversify her sterling holding in London? Has not Her Majesty's Government to expect this sort of orthodoxy to be expressed by other Governments holding sterling in London, and would not any discouragement of this course make sterling no longer a freely convertible currency and thus diminish its status?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hesitate to wear my other hat as the Leader of the House and suggest to the noble Lord that his supplementary question is far removed from the original Question. I suppose I must not seek to defend myself on such grounds, but had anyone else been answering this Question, I should have said that the noble Lord's supplementary question bore no relationship to his original Question. I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot be expected to confirm or deny the precise wording of some statement made by a particular Government last autumn. I would only commend to the noble Lord, if he is worried about the future, the fact that it is a long time since sterling has been riding so high—as the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, was good enough to point out in the debate on Wednesday.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would be kind enough to repeat the figures of

1095
our assets abroad at the end of 1964. I thought I heard him say that our assets were £4,000 million of which £9,000 million were privately owned, but I am sure that I must have misheard him.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I find it impossible myself ever to understand figures and I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl misunderstood these. What I said was that the net assets—it is this distinction between net and gross assets—the net long-term assets, after setting off the counterclaims, which we held at the end of 1964 were £4,300 million, and these net assets included official assets of over £800 million gross and private assets of of over £9,400 million gross.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Nine thousand?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Yes, £9,400 million gross. Now I look at the answer I see that it was not very happily worded, if I may say so. Although it is correct, it would be difficult, I suggest, to find a more obscure way of putting a simple point; but the facts are as I have stated.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl; and I ought to have listened more carefully. But does it not follow that if there are over £9,000 million private assets and £800 million public assets, which comes to probably a little over £10,000 million, if our liabilities were £2,000 million only our net assets must surely have been more than £4,000 million?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not think we can carry it very much further in this form, but if the noble Earl reads the Answer he will see that he is mistaken and that this is not a slip by the Treasury—that would be too good to hope for.

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENSING) BILL [H.L.]
11.20 a.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he read a second time. It was as long
1096
ago as last June when I ventured to introduce a Bill, entitled the Registration and Control of Unlicensed Clubs Bill, to provide for the registration of premises used by clubs, organisations and other bodies for the purpose of entertainment, including music and dancing. It is always said, and rightly, that no lawyer can draft his own will in a satisfactory form, and certainly no mere Judge can draft his own Bill. Therefore, I should like at the outset to express my sincere thanks to the Government for having made the services of Parliamentary Counsel available. In the result, I have what I feel sure is a vastly improved Bill.
Before turning to the Bill itself, may I spend a few minutes dealing with what I am convinced makes legislation along these lines a matter of urgent necessity today. No doubt many have realised the dangers arising from these unlicensed clubs, but I think it was only in 1964, arising from the situation in Manchester, that the public really became alive to what was going on. It was in 1964 that entertainment clubs of a kind were introduced in Manchester. They go by different names—coffee and dance clubs, beat clubs, jazz clubs and the like. They are clubs at which refreshments of the coffee, snack and soft-drink variety are available, and they offer evening and often all-night entertainment in the form of "pop" music. If these so-called clubs were open to the public the proprietors would be subject to the existing legislation dealing with music and dancing licences, and it is no doubt to avoid this form of control that they form a club, whether real or sham, so as to avoid its being classed as public entertainment.
These clubs naturally attract the young, and those of a more disreputable nature, in particular those with no fixed abode, abscondees from approved schools and other institutions, as well as those who desire to escape supervision by their parents, and indeed supervision by any adult control. They wander about from so-called club to club. It was quite common to find a girl sleeping in a different club every night, and even during the day, when the clubs were supposed to be closed. Many clubs were, in fact, really nothing more than common lodging-houses. Often acts of violence took place on the premises and, to say the least, the moral conduct of those there was not

1097
above reproach. Even after closing hours, they congregated in the street, damaged property, and made a general nuisance of themselves to the neighbours.
Almost more important, it was found that dangerous drugs were being sold, distributed and taken on such premises. True, most of these were of the Indian hemp, "purple heart" and other drugs of the amphetamine class, but activities were certainly not confined to those and extended to heroin, cocaine and morphia. Often these so-called clubs were found to be owned and run by persons who exercised no control, or no effective control, over what went on on the premises; indeed, they were often themselves people with criminal records. Finally, the premises, chosen probably because they were the only ones available, were quite unsuitable, often comprising cellars, attics, or space in buildings which were about to be demolished. They were dirty, crudely decorated, with a minimum of furniture and little in the way of sanitary facilities.
I imagine—and indeed I hope—that few, if any, of your Lordships have had personal experience of these clubs. Therefore I feel constrained to give a few illustrations, albeit they disclose rather lurid details. One of these clubs in Manchester went by the name of the "Forty Thieves' Coffee Club". It was run by two men, both with criminal records, one with 30 convictions for dishonesty. The premises consisted of a basement room, dirty, poorly furnished, with poor lighting and inadequate toilet facilities. Only a blanket separated the ladies' toilet from the view of club members and there was no flushing mechanism whatever. Inside, there was conducted a flourishing drug traffic. Since opening, 24 girls frequenting the premises, of whom four were under 15, came to the notice of the police as missing from their homes; 14 were found there in the early hours of the morning, and when the police raided the premises nine persons were found in possession of drugs, seven of them girls under 17, one wanted for breach of probation and another missing from her home. Another club, appropriately, or inappropriately, named the "Heaven and Hell Club", was raided on one occasion by the police and, quite apart from finding persons in possession of drugs and offensive weapons,
1098
they took no fewer than 42 female and 13 male juveniles to the police station. All these were later collected by their parents, who were not aware of where their children had been and were horrified, to say the least, at the circumstances.
These are but a few of the examples of what was found to exist at Manchester, and I am afraid that these clubs are by no means confined to that city. Since then, they have sprung up in a number of places. I have heard of them in Liverpool, Birmingham, Brighton and Leicester, and it may be that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry may have illustrations from Coventry. It is like a disease which is spreading at the moment all over the country. Only recently, I understand, a survey was carried out in Greater London by the National Association on Drug Addiction. It was carried out in 50 "beat" clubs, and of 215 juveniles interviewed, 135 admitted experimenting with drugs, and 48 claimed to take them regularly.
I emphasise that this is not a Bill to deal with traffic in drugs—it must not be confused with that—but at the same time these clubs do afford a very convenient forum where the young can meet, take drugs, be supplied with drugs and peddle drugs. I believe that this Bill also may have some effect on the clubs which are springing up every day in Soho. It is true that it can be argued that they are affording public music and dancing, and therefore could be properly licensed under the existing legislation. But they do form so-called clubs, probably purely sham, where one arrives at the door, pays something to go in and is made a member automatically. Therefore at the moment they claim to be uncontrolled. If this Bill were passed, I think it would enable those clubs to be caught either as public places of entertainment or as private places of entertainment.
All this prompts one to ask why these activities have been allowed to continue for so long. The answer is that at the moment there is no effective method of control. It is true that the police can, and do, raid these premises from time to time; and after a raid there is no doubt some improvement. But the proprietors know only too well that there is little chance of their being prosecuted. They realise that the police may prose-

1099
cute those who resort to the clubs if found in possession of offensive weapons, drugs or the like; but the chances of having evidence to prosecute one of the proprietors for himself peddling drugs or being party to what is going on are very small. These people know only too well that there is no need for them, under the present legislation, to effect any control or supervision whatever.
It is in these circumstances that the object of this Bill is to provide machinery which can be adopted by local authorities to license the proprietors of any such clubs, and to impose such conditions as they think fit as terms of the licence. Those conditions would not only affect questions of opening and closing hours, structural arrangements, provisions to guard against fire risk, provision of proper sanitary facilities and the like, but could impose standards of behaviour, control the objectionable activities which are carried on in these clubs and, above all—and this is important—make it a condition that representatives of the local authority or the police shall be able at any time to go on those premises to see that the conditions of the licence are being fulfilled.
With that short introduction, I turn now to the Bill. The scheme which was the subject of the earlier Bill that I ventured to introduce was a scheme whereby control was effected through the registration of premises. This was, to a large extent, based on Section 18 of the Manchester Corporation Act 1965,which was a Private Bill. It seemed to me that that was at any rate a precedent, and might make it possible that a Bill modelled on those lines would be completely uncontentious. But I agree that that Act had this real defect: that it was impossible to provide for the registration of private houses. After all, we are dealing with private entertainment on private premises, and to register private houses seemed to be asking too much. The scheme of the present Bill is not to register penalties, but to license proprietors of premises where certain activities are conducted for private gain; and I emphasise that it is hitting only those who carry on activities of this sort for private gain. The scheme is to enable any local authority which has the power to control public entertainment,
1100
public music and dancing to be able to exercise similar control to license premises used for private entertainment.
Unfortunately, the Bill has to become a little complicated, because the powers of local authorities to control what I call public entertainments vary from place to place. They are powers which arise under different Statutes. If I may turn to Clause 1 of the Bill, your Lordships will see set out in subsection (1) a number of Acts of Parliament. It will be seen, for instance, that the area in which the Bill may be applied by adoption is the area covered by the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890. That is an Act for places outside London, Part IV of which enables a borough or urban district council to adopt the provisions of that Part IV and to control public entertainment. In the case of a rural district, it may be declared to be in force there by the Secretary of State.
Under paragraph (b) of the same subsection, the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act 1926 applies to the counties of Essex, Hertfordshire and so much of the counties of Buckinghamshire and Kent as lies within 20 miles of the City of London or the City of Westminster. That Act provides a measure of control which can be exercised by local authorities in the area in regard to public music and dancing. In Greater London, the licensing is regulated by the London Government Act 1963, which is referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause I.
Finally, there are, in addition, licensing provisions in a number of local Acts—for example, The Manchester Corporation Act, the Cheshire County Council Act and the Nottinghamshire County Council Act. These Acts enable the local authorities in those areas to license public music and dancing. It is true that there are some local authorities outside London which have not adopted the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890, and therefore they would not be able to adopt the powers under this Bill. But if I may go right ahead for a moment and refer to Clause 6(3) of the Bill, it will be seen that if in future a local authority adopts the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890, it will, in turn, be able to adopt the provisions of this Bill.
Clause 1(2) takes one to the Schedule to the Bill, which in Part I is providing

1101
in respect of each area the authority which may adopt the Bill and the relevant licensing authority. Thus, it will be seen, to take one example, that in a borough or county district which has adopted the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 the council of the borough or county council is the authority which may adopt the Act, and the licensing authority is the licensing justices. Part II of the Schedule sets out the procedure whereby the provisions of this Bill may be adopted.
Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which is the vital provision here, lays down that premises used for dancing, music or other entertainment will require a licence if three conditions are complied with: first, that they are in an area to which the Bill is applied, in an area where the local authority has adopted the provisions of the Bill; secondly, that the entertainment is not private but takes the form of the so-called clubs; and, thirdly, that the entertainmer is promoted for private gain. Subsections (2) and (3) provide exceptions. Thus, in subsection (2) any premises which are already licensed for public music and dancing may be used for private music and dancing if within the hours of the public music and dancing licence. If the hours are to extend beyond that, then alicence will be required. Subsection (2)(b) excludes all licensed premises where there is already adequate control. Subsection (3) goes on to exempt cinema clubs, theatre clubs and public broadcasting studios.
Finally, subsections (4), (5) and (6) are designed to define what is intended by the words "private gain". They are modelled to a large extent, I think, if not wholly, on Section 54 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Thus, subsection (4) provides that, provided that the proceeds are applied for what one might call the purposes of the society, then the fact that one member thereby gets a financial gain does not mean that the entertainment is run by that society for private gain. Subsection (5) goes on to refer to the sort of society being a
"Society which is established and conducted either—
(a) wholly for purposes other than purposes of any commercial undertaking; or"—
and I understand this is peculiar, really, to football supporters' clubs—
"(b) wholly or mainly for the purpose of participation in or support of athletic sports or athletic games."
1102
Clause 3 deals with the duration and transfer of licences. I think it speaks for itself. The licence may be granted on
"such terms and conditions (including conditions for securing entry to and inspection of the premises) and subject to such restrictions as may be specified"
in the licence. Those are, as I concede, very wide words. They would not only enable conditions to be made as to hours of opening and safety and sanitary precautions, provision for exits, emergency exits, lighting, fire risk and the like; but enable wide conditions to be imposed, as indeed are now imposed, in regard to the licensing of public music and dancing.
I have before me Patterson's Licensing Laws, and there will be found set out forms designed for use in areas where the Public Health Acts Amendment Act has been adopted. I take this only as illustration, but the recognised conditions are conditions such as: the licensee shall in all things conduct the premises decently, soberly and in an orderly manner, and so on; any performance of a kind commonly known as striptease and involving the removal of garments shall be conducted in a particular manner; no part of the premises should be used habitually by prostitutes; due precautions to be taken for the safety of the public, the performers and the employers; no posters or photographs of an indecent character and the like, to be displayed on or off the premises or sold thereon, and matters of that sort. I give that only as an illustration of the terms that could be imposed on the grant of a licence, and no doubt they could include terms and conditions dealing with the consumption of drugs and the peddling of drugs.
Subsection (2) of Clause 3 provides for an annual licence, and also provides that licences can be of a shorter term so that the licence may be renewable from a common date. Subsection (4)—this is really a matter of detail—provides for a fee being paid of £5. In fact, the corresponding fee for public music and dancing is only £1. There is power to raise it and, in any event, it is thought that in an application of this sort dealing with private premises it would be right to fix a higher fee having regard to the work involved.
Clause 4 deals with enforcement. I do not think there is anything very much I need refer to in that clause. It is

1103
intended to be wide to cover not only any person concerned in the organisation or management of the undertaking, but also any other person who knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that an unlicensed entertainment would be provided. Subsection (2) deals with breach of terms, conditions and restrictions. Finally, subsection (3) lays down the offence and the penalty, the fine not to exceed £200. I am told that that penalty is in line with revised and increased penalties which are one of the subject matters of the Criminal Justice Bill now before Parliament.
Clause 5 shows one of the difficulties thrown up. Clause 5 deals in the first place with appeals from the refusal of a licence or refusal to renew a licence, or against the terms and conditions. But having, regard to the fact that, as I pointed out, the legislation in respect of public music and dancing varies from place to place, it so happens that the only appeals provided are to those local authorities the subject matter of the London Government Act 1963 and of any local Act which happens to provide an appeal; in other words, for all those local authorities who adopt the Public Health Acts Amendment Act there is at the moment no appeal. Bearing in mind that we are making, as it were, an inroad into private rights, that we are dealing with private premises, it seems quite wrong that there should be an appeal in one area and no appeal in another. Therefore, if we get that far (if I may put it that way), I hope at the Committee stage to introduce an Amendment which will give a uniform right of appeal against the refusal to grant or to renew a licence; against the terms and conditions of the licence, or against the revocation of the licence—a common method of appeal in whatever area the so-called club is situated.
A similar point arises on subsection (3) of Clause 5, because under the Public Health Act 1936 any proceedings for enforcing the control exercised over public music and dancing must have the consent of the Attorney General. Here again, it seems quite illogical that in some cases local authorities have to go to the Attorney General and in other cases they do not. I understand that the Attorney General does not think that there is any reason why his consent should be
1104
required in matters of this sort, and so again I shall at a later stage seek to introduce an Amendment to delete the provision which requires consent by Her Majesty's Attorney General.
Clause 6, the title and the definition clause, is formal: and, as I have said, subsection (3) of the clause will enable a local authority which has not yet adopted the Public Health Acts Amendment Act to do so, and thereafter it will be able to adopt the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Finally, I would point out that there is no equivalent in Scotland relating to the control of public music and dancing, and any control in regard to Northern Ireland would be a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland. Accordingly, subsection (4) states that
"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland."
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parker of Waddington.)
11.55 a.m.
THE EARL. OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to express my respectful appreciation of the cogent and lucid way in which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has introduced his Bill. The House will perhaps forgive me if I pay him the compliment of repeating some of his observations, although he has explained the Bill so clearly that there will be no need for me to cover all the ground again. As many of us are aware, considerable concern has been expressed in the last year or so about the growing dangers, moral as well as physical, to which young people in particular are exposed as a result of the activities of a relatively small number of private clubs. The Government therefore welcome the Lord Chief Justice's Bill which, as he has said, replaces his Registration and Control of Unlicensed Clubs Bill, and the Government acknowledge this and have provided him with assistance in drafting its provisions. These have been drawn as carefully as possible so as to deal with the mischief aimed at without catching premises or people whose activities are already adequately controlled or which need no control.
As I have indicated, there has been a growing weight of evidence (from questions asked in another place, from letters

1105
to the Press and to Ministers and Members of Parliament and from the authorities responsible for public order) that private places of entertainment do in certain cases require some degree of control. At present the legal position, as the noble and learned Lord has explained, is that many places of entertainment which basically rely on an appeal to the general public are able to evade control by the simple expedient of forming a private, so-called club. No licence is required by them under the Licensing Act 1964, since no intoxicating liquor is sold; and no public music and dancing licence is required since, technically at least, the music and dancing they provide is private. The result is that the police have no power of entry (without a search warrant) and there are no proper safeguards as far as public safety or hygiene is concerned. The fire risk is often considerable. Moreover there is the danger, which is certainly a fact in some cases, that some of these clubs may become a refuge for the drug pedlar. Many young people who become members of a jazz club in all innocence because of a love of music or dancing may find themselves enticed in the intimacy of a private club into trying drugs in the form of one or other of the so-called "pep-pills" which, though not addictive, can be habit-forming and can be obtained lawfully only on doctor's prescription. That introduction can, as our society is beginning to learn with sorrow, be the first simple step towards addictive drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, which can, and frequently do, ruin life, family and career.
The Lord Chief Justice has said that he hoped and believed not many of your Lordships would have first-hand experience of these clubs. There are relatively few Members of this House who are young enough to be much tempted, or whose custom, I suppose, would be ardently sought. I have, however, in the company of police officers, been to some of these clubs (where the managers were kind enough to let us in; because we could not have gone in without their good will) and I certainly came away from my visits and discussions with an even stronger conviction than before that a Bill of this kind was necessary. I do not want to rest too much on a personal
1106
investigation of that sort; the main evidence, of course, is vastly more solid than any impressions of mine.
An additional problem that such unlicensed private clubs sometimes bring in their wake is that their hours of closing may be long after midnight, by which time local bus and train services have closed down. Young people in many of the big cities have had, as a result, to resort to sleeping on the pavement or in bus stations, waiting for early morning transport to appear. Alternatively, they have had to accept lifts home, not always from the most reliable or most respectable members of the community—which is perhaps an understatement. Always, in our complicated society we have to try to strike a fair balance between the right of the individual to do exactly as he pleases and the duty of the community as a whole to ensure that neither it nor its members come to irreparable harm. In some cases it is necessary to prevent individuals from harming themselves, although one is always anxious to interfere as little as possible.
It is true that under this Bill many premises at which private entertainment is provided and which are at present conducted in a most proper way may be required to be licensed. These clubs, however, will have nothing to fear from the provisions of the Bill, since the licensing authority will require only the high standards to which they already aspire. Nor should any condition as to inspection of the premises by the police or local authority be objectionable to them.
I should point out, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, did, that the decision upon what particular conditions should be imposed in each individual case is, under the Bill, left to the licensing authorities, who best know about local requirements. Furthermore, as he again explained, the Bill provides to a large number of premises exemptions from its effect. These premises include places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, premises already licensed for public music and dancing (to the extent of that licence), cinema clubs and theatre clubs, as well as sporting and recreational clubs. So the exclusions have been carefully worked out and are quite wide. In addition to these exemptions, there is the point that the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, will

1107
be adoptive and then only in the areas where public music and dancing legislation applies. This will mean that it will be applicable only in those areas where the local authority considers that private places of entertainment present a real problem. The adoption of the provisions of this Bill will obviate the need for these local authorities to promote legislation of their own on this subject, which Manchester, Brighton and Hove, among others, have already done.
There is, I think, no need for me to say more at this stage, except that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope it will, the services of Parliamentary draftsmen will continue to be made available to the Lord Chief Justice—that is, if drafting help is needed—either before Committee stage or between Committee and Report. In particular, the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that lie would wish to move Amendments to Clause 5 in Committee, and he has explained what he has in mind. The Government have no objection to raise to either of the two Amendments suggested. If the Bill receives a swift and successful passage in this House, it is to be hoped that time may be found for it in another place. I can enter into no commitment now, as old Parliamentary hands will understand, but I am sure that the sympathy, the very genuine sympathy which the Government have with the aims of this Bill will by now be apparent. I ask the House to support the Bill and I hope that when the time comes we shall give it a Second Reading.
12.4 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, for bringing in this Bill; to offer him my warm support and to express the hope that the Bill will quickly become law. There surely can be no doubt at all of the need for such legislation. I am glad that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has been making his own personal investigation recently into these problems. I expect he had much the same experience as I had, some three years ago, when I was Home Secretary, when I got an admirable chief superintendent of the Metropolitan Police to take me round for several hours one night to show me some of the police problems
1108
in Soho. I certainly ended up with a clear conviction that the moral damage that could be done by the "near-beers", the strip-tease places and the nude-posing establishments (incidentally, entrance to a nude-posing place is slightly less expensive than to a strip-tease) is small compared with the drug peddling combined with opportunities for vice of many kinds in the so-called clubs catering for teenagers.
I had time to introduce and take through Parliament two Bills, one aimed at the "near-beers" and one to tighten up the law relating to "purple hearts". The latter has had some good effect, though I do not think it has been entirely successful. What is more relevant is that before I left the Home Office I called a conference of Home Office officials and senior officers of the Metropolitan Police to discuss the particular subject that we are debating today. I knew there would not be time to legislate on it in that Parliament, because obviously it was a more difficult and far-reaching matter and would have required a longer Bill than could have been put through in the time. But we had that conference to consider what further controls were necessary over such clubs, to which, as the noble and learned Lord said, the police have no right of access unless they have reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed, on the basis of which they can get a search warrant. I had in mind, had the Election turned out differently, to introduce Government legislation. But then the Government changed and now, in default of Government legislation, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has decided to act; and I am very glad to know that the Home Office has in fact helped with the drafting of this, his second Bill.
My feelings in 1964 about the crying need for further powers of control over these so-called clubs were richly confirmed by the evidence that was given in May, 1965, before a Commons Committee on a clause in a Private Bill promoted by the Manchester Corporation. If any noble Lord has not been wholly convinced by the speech of the noble and learned Lord this morning, in moving the Second Reading, I will gladly lend him a copy of this evidence, which I would say would persuade even the most cynical that legislative action was necessary.

1109
In that Private Bill the particular clause, which was an unprecedented clause, was allowed with Amendments, and I believe that this had good effect in the City of Manchester; and other authorities—Brighton, for one—subsequently became interested in seeking similar powers. As the noble and learned Lord has said, quite rightly, this evil is not confined to London and Manchester: it is liable to spring up in all sorts of places where it is possible to attract groups of teenagers, and unless Parliament legislates I have no doubt that the evil will spread more widely.
Meanwhile, following Manchester's Private Act in 1965, the honourable Member for Twickenham in another place, Mr. Gresham Cooke, who had been the Chairman of the Commons Committee on the Manchester Bill, was so deeply impressed by the evidence given, particularly by the Chief Constable of Manchester, that he himself introduced in another place a Private Member's Bill to extend the Manchester powers to the whole of England; and I was one of the backers of his Bill. That, as I say, was in 1965. That Bill, of course, approached more closely the noble and learned Lord's earlier Bill, for the registration and control of unlicensed clubs, and as national legislation might not, for the reasons he stated, have been so effective, if I remember rightly, Home Office Ministers, in the last Session of the last Parliament, discouraged Mr. Gresham Cooke from pressing on with that particular Bill, explaining that the Government were engaged on further studies with a view to finding the most effective form that national legislation could take. Then we had the 1966 Election, which in any case cut the last Session of Parliament short; and now we have the noble and learned Lord's Bill, which, I fancy, embodies the results of this further Home Office work as well as his own thinking.
If any noble Lord is still uncertain whether this is a matter in which Parliament should interest itself, he may care to repeat the experience of the noble Earl and myself, and go round Soho with an experienced police officer, preferably in the early hours of a Saturday or Sunday morning, and see some of the youngsters who have been found outside some of these clubs, very often affected by drugs, and then taken along to the
1110
police station. And he will be able to hear the shock of horror of many of the parents when they are rung up and asked to come and collect their young girls or boys. So often the parents have suspected nothing at all. A favourite device is to ring up one's parents and say "So sorry! I have missed the last train home. But it is all right, because a friend of mine says I can stay at his house for the night." The story is not true, but the way is open then for a night out in the clubs.
The noble and learned Lord said, quite rightly, that these clubs attract some of the more disreputable young people. But they also attract many perfectly clean-minded young people who go there for the first time when they are taken by somebody, or go on their own for "kicks", and then discover that it is rather exciting, and get caught up in the atmosphere, and may gradually slide into the evils which these clubs purvey.
I have just two questions on the Bill. First of all, is there any loophole in the wording of Clause 2(1) of which the owners or the managers of some of these unscrupulous clubs can take advantage? Will this Bill possibly lead to the development of a new type of club which is so designed as just to escape this definition:
"dancing, music or any other entertainment of the like kind"
but yet will have the undesirable features of these clubs? It is not so much the actual attraction a club offers as the reputation it creates for itself which will attract the teenagers. It has to become an "in" place, a place where it is the thing to do to be seen; because although so many of these boys and girls declare themselves in revolt against all forms of authority, they are sheepishly orthodox in frequenting what are the "in" places of the moment and keeping out of the others.
My second question is about fire risk. Are the Government as entirely convinced as is the noble and learned Lord that the terms and conditions referred to in Clause 3(1) will include everything that may be necessary to insist upon proper precautions against fire? Work was going on at the Home Office three years ago, I know, on a new and up-to-date legislative code against fire risk in

1111
all sorts of places to which people resort, including clubs like these where the fire risk is sometimes very high indeed. This was another piece of urgently needed legislation which I hoped the Government would bring in as soon as it was ready. It must surely be ready and drafted by now.
The whole country was stunned by the tip horror at Aberfan, in October, and now everybody is asking why there were no proper safety regulations for tips. I dread that one day there will be a fire horror in one of these overcrowded basements, and scores of young people will lose their lives, and it will be discovered that, though the danger was known and proper fire precaution rules had been drafted, they had not yet been brought into effect.
Can the Government assure us that there is no risk of that? What power has the local authority, or will it have, to insist that the owners or managers of such premises must not allow people to crowd into them for entertainment of any sort without providing completely effective fire precautions and safe means of escape in case of fire? Even the news this morning of a fire in Soho, though it was not in a basement, brings home to us how acute the danger is. Many of the places against which this Bill is aimed, whether or not they are a peril to morals, are an undoubted peril to health and to life. I hope that your Lordships' House will help the noble and learned Lord to make this Bill as comprehensively effective as possible, and to bring it into operation quickly.
12.15 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, but I am glad that a voice from the Bench of Bishops should be heard in this debate, because it gives me a chance to say, not only on behalf of the Church of England, but, I think, on behalf of the wider Church, how grateful we all are to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, for sponsoring this most important Bill. Before making a few comments about it, I should like to make it quite clear (it is hardly necessary; nevertheless, I think it is important that I should) that the Christian faith is not, as some foolish people think, a negative faith which
1112
spends its time denouncing pleasures and restricting opportunities for enjoyment. On the contrary, the Christian Church believes wholeheartedly in the value of young people getting together, if I may so put it, to make a joyful noise, singing and dancing.
I cannot claim, as the two previous speakers have claimed, to have been round the kind of places depicted in this Bill. Nevertheless, when I was Bishop to the three Armed Services, I did have an opportunity of going round places somewhat similar, in the City of Hamburg, and therefore I know of the dangers that exist in places of this kind.
I support this Bill wholeheartedly, because I believe that, if it becomes law, some local authorities will use the powers it confers to take positive steps to improve the quality of the local recreational facilities attractive to the young.
Clause 3 of the Bill enables the local authority to grant licences which include conditions for securing entry to and inspection of the premises. This may well have, as I hope, the happy result of inducing local authorities to appoint inspectors who are knowledgeable about youth work, and who would be able to advise, as well as to enforce minimum standards. As a result, who knows! some private coffee-dance clubs might be encouraged to develop along lines that would result in the best of them becoming as socially acceptable and useful as the best of the pubs. In future years we may well see in this country coffee and dancing becoming the youthful counterpart of beer and darts. If these clubs for young people develop, as we hope they may, along the lines of the very best public-houses in this country, then some private coffee-dance, beat and jazz clubs may well emerge as a positively good influence in community life. There is no evidence whatsoever that the great majority of young people today like to congregate in the dark places for their dancing and music. As I have said, it may well be that as soon as legislative provision has enabled the elimination of the bad examples which attract condemnation of the lot, then the whole level of this kind of entertainment for young people may improve almost beyond recognition.
In passing, may say that the Church has not been totally inactive in seeking

1113
to provide this quality of club. The Times on January 24 publicised a club precisely of this sort, the current name being discotheque, a somewhat odd name for an ordinary, though high-quality club, which now takes place in the crypt of a church of which many years ago I had the honour to be Rector, namely, at Woolwich. To-day this club is run by a curate of the church, not for private gain and avowedly not specifically for religious motives, but because, in the words of The Times
"…it was better that local teenagers had in reach a discotheque where they would not be approached by drug peddlers or ensnared by the perils of a big city life."
There is no reason why private enterprise should not fulfil that objective more generally and adequately than can be done out of church funds and in church buildings, always provided that control by licensing will wipe out the bad places at present causing all who offer this form of recreation to be condemned.
It is for this reason that I am in general support of the Bill, but there is a second reason why I support it. It is that the present situation is undoubtedly making a mockery of the law which regulates the conduct of public places of entertainment. The proprietors of these "low dive" places, by running them technically as clubs, are defying the community's decision to regulate by licence places where people congregate for music and dancing. It is high time, and consonant with good social morality, that the law should be amended so that the spirit of what was intended by the early legislation can be enforced.
Of course the people of this country must not be deluded into imagining that by means of legislation vice will be removed. It could well be that the kind of young people who continue to frequent unsalubrious and rowdy dance clubs, might after this legislation find even more degrading ways of passing their time. A tighter control over undesirable premises must be accompanied by two or three other important factors. First, change of ownership. In the past it has been found that it is a change of ownership which produces a change for the worse in atmosphere. This Bill might well include the requirement to notify change of ownership. Secondly, police supervision, which I believe to be most important, might well be linked strongly
1114
with Youth Service officials. While most people see the necessity for police action, they realise only too clearly that police action by itself does not always produce the desired results.
For example, in one city recently where dope peddling among young people became known to the police, the youngsters were approached and charged and the peddlers simply warned-off, with the result that they were able to sell their wares in another area. In other words, the disease had not been cured but simply transferred from one set of people to another. But in another city, where police liaise regularly with the Youth Service officials and depute four C.I.D. plain clothes detectives to maintain contact with clubs, they are able by these means to know in advance of possible undesirable developments and often, therefore, can prevent them happening at all. Possibly an extension of this kind of liaison would help to ensure inspection which is effective against the undesirable, and not disruptive to the good clubs.
Thirdly, if this draft Bill is to become more than a first-aid operation, some means need to be found for encouraging and making possible the kind of social provision, particularly in city centres, which offers an alternative to those undesirable clubs which most people agree need eliminating. This means, among other things, both a change of emphasis in provision and the money to make this possible. In short, the powers of the law must be complemented by considerable social work among the young people themselves.
On two or three occasions in your Lordships' House I have drawn attention to the country of Sweden, and I do this once again to-day. It has been brought to my notice that for the past 11 years Stockholm has utilised a service known as the Night Patrol which employs full-time workers, has a residential hostel with 25 beds and day facilities for washing and eating, and where young people who are for the most part the hard core of the unattached, are helped sympathetically and professionally at moments of crisis. This important work helps those in need to be related once again to adult society, to regain their self-respect, and to have better chances of finding useful employment.

1115
Such a large-scale venture can only be undertaken if Government funds are available to foster such an important but neglected part of the Youth Service. Furthermore, in addition to these social provisions, there is urgent need for people capable of dealing spiritually with this urgent and growing problem. A book I read recently, entitled The Cross and the Switch Blade, which was written in America and which depicts what is happening there among people suffering from this tragic vice is worth reading, and gives some hope for the future of this country.
I would make only two further small comments. A number of people express alarm at the behaviour outside the kind of premises referred to in this Bill. Small and badly equipped premises often lead to complaints by local residents about rowdy behaviour and the fouling of the pavements and the streets. To take but one example, the provision of adequate toilet facilities could reduce this nuisance, and supervision of these should be within the powers of the local authority and the police. My final comment relates to employment of children. The Press has recently reported the case of a fourteen year old girl employed in a club. She had run away from school and home. This suggests the need for supervision of those employed in clubs, unless—and here I am ignorant of the facts—this is already covered by other legislation.
I apologise for taking up your Lordships' time, but I felt that it was right to express, on behalf of the Church, our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for this valuable piece of machinery which will, in effect, empower local authorities to require the licensing of any places used for entertainment like music and dancing, even if they are not technically public places because entrance is restricted to club members. This tightening up of machinery will prevent places that would not otherwise be controlled from escaping by assuming the nominal status of a club. For this tightening up one cannot but be grateful, and I hope that the few attempts at constructive additions to this Bill may be borne in mind in this and in future legislation.
12.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I join all other noble Lords who have spoken
1116
in welcoming this Bill, not only for what it expressly sets out to do, but especially as a very important contribution to controlling the spread of drug addiction; though I recognise that this is by no means the only good purpose which it will serve. Last Tuesday I had occasion to visit Spelthorne St. Mary's, an establishment which has been run for nearly 90 years by the Sisters of St. Mary's, Wantage, treating and rehabilitating women and girls who are alcoholics or addicted to drugs. Bearing this debate in mind, I asked the Sister Superior what significant trends she was experiencing to-day. This year has been significant in three ways. For the first time more drug addicts than alcoholics are being admitted: the average age of the new admissions has gone right down into the 20s; and all the new, young drug addicts who have been admitted have come to Spelthorne St. Mary's on account of the things which they have been doing resulting from their drug addiction, from contact with the courts or the police or the probation officers.
Thinking more particularly of this debate, I asked Sister Patricia about these new addicts and whether all of them started on the road towards addiction in the kind of clubs about which we have been talking to-day. Not at all to my surprise, she confirmed that a great number of them did begin in clubs like those, not at first aware of what they were doing; starting on reefers or amphetamines and then, when the kick which they got from them seemed not to last long enough, going on to heroine and cocaine. But, incidentally, she also said that a number of her patients started in art schools, technical colleges and colleges of further education. So on that evidence—and I think it is about as good evidence as there is available at the moment—we can welcome this Bill as tackling some part of the problem of drug addiction and one of its sources.
It has been good to hear in the course of this debate of the number of local authorities which have already taken action to obtain powers to control the clubs about which we are talking, and, not least, powers to apprehend the people who are pushing drugs on to the young people who congregate there. I hope that when they have the new powers to be provided under this Bill

1117
they will make good use of them, too. But, in the meantime, and in view of what I have just said, it would perhaps be as well for local authorities, when they are dealing with the most considerable mote which is in the eyes of some club proprietors, not to overlook any little beams which there may be in the eyes of teachers, headmasters and principals of colleges where drug trafficking is undoubtedly also going on.
I particularly welcome the Bill for the opportunity which it provides, in Clause 3 in particular, for licensing with the right kind of discrimination and scope and discretion. As the right reverend Prelate has just said, the last thing we want to do, in dealing particularly with drug addiction but also with other abuses, is to have a general clamp down on all private clubs. When the Bill to which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor referred just now was going through Parliament, the Northern correspondent of The Times, in an article on May 12, 1965, made an analysis of clubs, I think in Manchester, which bears repetition now. He was classifying the clubs which he had visited. He said:
"Club No. 1 would satisfy anyone. It is well decorated and even looks clean when the main lighting is switched on. It has fire exits, closes before midnight, and is run by a manager who insists on reasonable dress and cleanliness and who has often helped parents to trace missing children. There are several beat clubs of this standard in the city and most people will be happy if legislation brings them all near to it."
He went on to describe Club No. 2 and Club No. 3, and at the bottom of the list he described Club No. 4. It
"…consists of a dilapidated detached house which looks something like a Tennessee Williams set with Manchester rain added. It is surrounded by a rubble and litter-strewn yard labelled 'Car Park'. Juveniles are supposed to leave at 11 p.m., but the house is open all night, every night, until 6 a.m. Recently a girl of 17 was arrested there after she had stabbed a boy of 16 in the back."
We do not need to close down Club No. 1 in order to eliminate Clubs Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and it is good to see that this Bill is drafted in such a way as to enable local authorities to have discretion.
It has been said, and I think with good reason, that in dealing with drug addiction we are now dealing with a rapidly spreading social epidemic. I am sure it is not yet serious in total numbers, but it is extremely serious judged in terms of
1118
the rate at which it is spreading, and it is catastrophic for the people among whom it is spreading. I should just like to mention some of the figures which were mentioned on Monday in the debate in another place. In 1959 there were 454 known addicts, three-quarters of whom were what I believe are called "stabilised addicts", under doctors' orders. Only a quarter, just under 100, were addicts who had reached their condition for no good medical reason. In 1965 there were 927 addicts, of whom 500—more than half—had become addicted for no good medical reason and not as a result of medical treatment: a fivefold increase in this kind of addiction. Also, although in 1959 there was nobody in that category under 20, in 1965 there were 145 young people.
This Bill is extremely welcome as one very important step towards containing the spread of this social epidemic of drug addiction, and for that reason alone it deserves support from all sides of the House. But, in itself, it will not be enough to cope with this problem, and even coupled with the steps outlined by Her Majesty's Government in another place on Monday it will not be enough. More measures, more soundly based on better research and evidence and extending over a far wider field, will be required. I hope very much, with other noble Lords who have spoken, that Her Majesty's Government will not be long in bringing them forward. Meanwhile, this important Bill is all the more welcome.
12.38 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. This Bill will, I am sure, be very warmly welcomed by the local authorities, whose views I am sometimes able to express in your Lordships' House. The local authorities, in their capacity as education authorities and as child welfare authorities, are very familiar with the conditions which were described in such a graphic manner by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. They are very much concerned by the increase in the numbers of these so-called clubs, and by the evil which these clubs do among the young persons who frequent them. The local authorities have been very conscious of the inadequacy of their powers to prevent this evil. Some of them, notably the City of Manchester,

1119
have endeavoured to remedy that defect by legislation in Parliament. But I am quite sure that this Bill will be warmly welcomed among them.
I have only one or two comments which I desire to make on the Bill. First of all, I am told that there are clubs at which no music, no dancing and no entertainment are provided. They are known as "coffee clubs" and sometimes by other names. Those clubs have just as evil an effect upon those who frequent them, as clubs at which dancing or music or entertainment are provided. It would, I am sure, be desirable to bring clubs of that sort within the licensing provisions of this Bill. It may not be easy to find a form of words that would achieve that result without unduly interfering with the conduct of an ordinary café business, but if it is possible to do that I am sure that the value of this Bill will be substantially enhanced.
The other matter to which I should like to draw attention for a moment is the question of inspection. Here again, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, we are dealing with private premises, and therefore, perhaps, cannot carry the powers of inspection too far. But I am sure that this Bill would be strengthened and made more useful, and that no legitimate private interests or rights would be interfered with, if the powers of inspection given to local authorities—and in particular, the inspection of premises before a licence is granted—could be carried a little further.
My Lords, those are the only comments I desire to make at this stage of the Bill. Perhaps I may respectfully associate myself with those noble Lords who have expressed their appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for his action in bringing this Bill forward.
12.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I am not going to make a speech, but before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice replies I should like to point out that, of course, this Bill does not affect Scotland. I can only hope that another similar Bill will be produced to cover Scotland. One can seldom open a paper without finding some
1120
ghastly story, usually emanating from Glasgow, about knifings, murders or attempted murders in these so-called clubs. I fear that a Bill on similar lines is equally required for Scotland.
12.43 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we know from experience of this type of Bill that, at this very moment, this one is being watched by some very astute lawyers to try to see what loopholes they can find in it. I think the lesson to be learnt is that we have to pay a great deal of attention to the drafting rather than to the main purpose of the Bill, which is our usual exercise in these matters. Perhaps I may just call the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice to Clause 2, subsection (4). I am not a lawyer, but that would be the loophole that I should try to exploit if I were wishing to set up one of these clubs. I may be quite wrong in that, but I hope he will give it some attention before the Committee stage.
12.44 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I do not intend to make a speech, but I should like to join in the warm welcome that has been given to this Bill, which must be very gratifying to the noble and learned Lord. He must feel it as some reward for the labours he has put into it that his Bill has received such great support. With other noble Lords, I happen to be a Vice-President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is President. The A.M.C. welcomes the Bill, as I am sure, too, do the local authorities. I think a word should be said for the local authorities in this debate, because, after all, they will be the people who will have to carryout the provisions of the Bill when it becomes law—and I know that the local authorities are looking forward to its becoming law. They are very much aware of the problems arising in their respective areas. There may be one or two minor Amendments which they will submit at the Committee stage, but that is by the way. Speaking personally, I should like, with respect, to join in the congratulations which have been expressed to the Lord Chief Justice on all sides of this House, and in the warm welcome which has been extended to the Bill.
12.45 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like just to add my word of welcome to the Bill. The only doubt I have about it is whether it is strong enough. There are many people in this country at the moment who are battening on young people and who are after what they can get out of leading them into crime. As a magistrate and as a chairman of quarter sessions, the more I see of the administration of criminal justice the more I become convinced that a great deal of the crime with which we are confronted, and which constitutes such a very serious aspect of our national life, is due more to bad associations than to anything else. The young people get into a milieu in which this sort of thing is approved; and the people who run these clubs are, of course, the very people who build up that atmosphere. It is a very serious business indeed.
My court is situated, one could say, on the high road between Scotland and Manchester. What the noble Earl opposite said about Glasgow I appreciate only too well, because we have the young Scotsmen and girls coming down from the North and others coming up from South Lancashire. After spending some time in these clubs, it is easy for them to find some unattended motor car which they can pick up and in which they can go off on a spree. Then, when they are off in that sort of way, they can just as easily find some house which they can break into. In these clubs they associate with people who have been in approved schools or at Borstal, and the whole atmosphere is a really evil one. It is a very serious state of affairs from the point of view of the national morale.
I think we must hit hard at the people who are providing the facilities for this sort of thing. I doubt whether a fine of £200 is enough. A great deal of profit is made by many of these people, and they could afford to pay a great deal more. Indeed, they could, with profit to the community, be sent to prison. I regard this type of activity as very much more serious than the activity of the man who is out of work and frustrated and who breaks in and steals, perhaps, only a few shillings. The type of activity going on in these clubs is very serious indeed, and I would much rather a man who is encouraging young people in these bad
1122
habits were sent to prison for two or three years than the ordinary, rather feckless housebreaker, who is one of the principal types of client at my quarter sessions. I hope, therefore, that it may be possible for this Bill to be tightened up from the point of view of the punishment which can be meted out to these people.
12.48 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, may I say at once how gratified I am at the general reception given to this Bill? Indeed, I count myself fortunate in having the support of the Government, of representatives on all sides of the House, of the Church, of the Association of Municipal Corporations, of the County Councils Association, of the police and, I gather, of Scotland. I am most grateful to those who have taken part in the debate for raising the various matters that have been discussed. Perhaps I may deal with them in reverse order. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, felt that the penalty should be more severe. In fact, if he reads subsection (3) of Clause 4 he will see that such a proprietor or promoter can not only be fined £200 but be sent to prison for three months as well.
LORD CHORLEY: I do not think that is sufficient. I should like to see it put up from three months.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I think the important question in the debate which has been raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is whether the words in subsection (1) of Clause 2 are wide enough—in other words, whether there is a loophole. This is a matter which has concerned me very much, and I can assure your Lordships that it will be considered again. On the one hand it may well be said that cases must be rare when teenagers, the young, resort to what is merely a coffee bar as a club (not a public coffee bar), where there is not even a juke box, where there is no form whatsoever of music and dancing entertainment. It may be that there are the occasional coffee bars run on a private basis which are resorted to by the young; I know not. But what we are considering here is an invasion of private rights; and it is really for consideration whether, by widening the scope of Clause 2 (1), we are making an undue inroad into those private rights.

1123
May I leave it that this point will be carefully considered before the Committee stage?
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, also referred to the matter of inspection by the police. As the Bill is worded, it is always open to the licensing authority to make that a condition; and I observe also that it is a common condition, it would be almost a standard condition, in regard to public music and dancing that police constables for the county and members of the fire service shall at all times have free ingress. That can always be provided for. I should have thought that there was something to be said for not making that a compulsory condition; because genuine clubs that are above suspicion may require a licence and the licensing authority would think it quite wrong to make it a condition that the police should at any time come upon the premises. That, again, will be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, referred to the question of fire risk. I think he was really directing his remarks more to the Government than to me, as, needless to say, I cannot speak in respect to their intentions regarding a national compulsory code for all premises. But I venture to think that it is clear under Clause 3(1) that the licensing authority have ample power—as they have in regard to public music and dancinglicences—to impose very stringent conditions dealing with the fire risk.
May I finally thank the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Coventry for his support? Like him, I am the last person to wish to deprive the young of what I might call wholesome entertainment. In the course of the Bill I have received a number of letters from people accusing me of depriving the young of their enjoyment. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have no intention of doing that, but rather hope that this will not only eliminate the bad entertainment but promote better entertainment of a more wholesome kind. I think the right reverend Prelate referred also to the fact that it might be a condition that there should be notification of a change of ownership. Of course, it is the owner who is licensed; and if there were a change of ownership the new owner would himself require a licence. But the
1124
same danger might lurk in a change of manager. There it would be possible for the licensing authority to make it a condition that any change of management, as opposed to ownership, should be covered. The same would apply, I concede, in regard to the employment of very young persons on the premises, and how they are treated. That, in turn, could be made a condition.
May I say again how grateful I am to those who have taken part in the debate. I think this Bill, if it becomes law, will serve a very useful purpose. The Manchester Bill has really worked wonders; indeed, it began to work wonders before it ever became law. It was the introduction of the Bill which helped to clean up Manchester.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEST INDIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

FUTURE BUSINESS
12.57 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short Business Statement. It is proposed that we should take the Second Reading of the West Indies Bill, which has just been given a First Reading, on Thursday, February 9—that is, next week. I should like also to comment on the business which is now on the Order Paper for Wednesday, February 8. It is quite clear that the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, which is an important Bill, is the subject of considerable interest. In order that it may be considered at a fairly early time in the day it is proposed that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be taken as first business on Thursday, February 9. It is also further suggested that the Hartlepool Order 1966 should be taken after the consideration of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill. I thought it right to make that Statement for the information of the House.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing the House of these changes. He will

1125
appreciate that the suggestion came forward only very recently, so that I have not been able to consult with those of my colleagues who are particularly affected. But I have every confidence that the new arrangement will be satisfactory.
As I am on my feet, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are meeting on a Friday for the first time for a good many months, to say the least. While appreciating that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, succeeds in organising the business of the House, I think, to the general satisfaction, I would point out that on Tuesday and Thursday of this week we rose at what was really a very early hour. On Tuesday it was at 5.47 p.m., and on Thursday at 4.50 p.m. If we had been able to sit another two hours on each of those days it would not have been necessary to have a Sitting today. Noble Lords will appreciate that on the Order Paper there is a Sitting on Friday, February 10. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will bear in mind that the House does not take too kindly to Friday sittings and that next Friday's may be the last for some considerable time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection to this proposed rearrangement of business for next week, but I should like to ask one question. I am interested in the West Indies Bill, and I propose to speak on it. Could we have some indication of how long the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order is expected to take? With regard to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, I should like to say that we appreciate, of course, the difficulty in which the Chief Whip finds himself: that business sometimes collapses far earlier than anticipated. I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that it is not to the advantage of noble Lords to meet too often on Fridays; but it is of great advantage to those noble Lords who wish to move Private Members' Bills to be able to do so. I think that we might occasionally put ourselves out, rather than that important Private Members' Bills, such as the one we have to-day, and Questions, such as that to be asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, should be jeopardised. After all, the business of Parliament comes first, and if it is neces-
1126
sary to sit on a Friday we on these Benches are quite prepared to do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Regarding the fact that we rose early on two days this week and are now sitting on a Friday—which I agree is one of those rare occasions—all I can say is that I have been a Whip since 1958 and have been responsible for organising business since 1964. I am still learning. I have not yet mastered the art of looking in the crystal ball or reading the runners in terms of the length of speeches. Nor have I any control over the business of another place, and there are occasions when one foresees a fairly heavy week only to find that something unfortunate has happened in another place so that the business becomes light.
This is a problem, and I do not know how we are to overcome it. This House is changing in character. We have far more Life Peers who are anxious to speak and to take part in our deliberations. Apart from discussing Bills, they wish to discuss also matters of public importance. On the other hand, the Government have a very heavy legislative programme, and one tries to make it possible for these matters to be discussed at the right time. To-day we have had a very interesting debate, and I question whether it would have been quite so interesting had it taken place at eight o'clock on some other day. This is one of the problems which have to be taken into account by those responsible for business management. I would assure the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that so far as I am concerned sittings on Fridays will be rare occasions. So far as I am concerned, we shall sit on Fridays only when perhaps he and I can at least agree that what is before us is of national importance.
In reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the West Indies Bill, the Order of the House, unless we make a contrary Order, is that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order should be taken as first business. I do not know what line the Opposition or Members of your Lordships' House may wish to take upon it. I hope we may have a short, and perhaps sharp, debate on it and then move to the important West Indies Bill.

1127
We will certainly see that we control our business, particularly in view of the fact that we shall be adjourning at about 4.15 p.m. for the visit of Mr. Kosygin. This is a matter over which we shall be in communication with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and noble Lords who sit on the Liberal Benches. I thank the noble Lords for their reception of the Business Statement and I apologise for having to bring them in on a Friday, although I must say that we have had a remarkably good attendance.

CHILDREN'S TELEVISION PROGRAMMES
1.3 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the importance of children's television programmes, and the generally low level of such programmes at present, they will consider setting up an independent Children's Television Foundation which would have the responsibility of providing the children's programmes on both channels. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I should like to explain a little my reason for doing so. I should like to begin by saying that I do not pretend to be either an expert on children or on children's television. In this matter, I am in the same position as most adults, if not all of them. All we can do is to guess and grope in the dark about what really attracts children and how they will react to programmes. Nobody, not even the best expert on children's programmes and publications, can really know for sure. I think we all agree on the importance of this issue. We should all agree that television is a powerful medium, and that children (I am speaking largely of that section of the population aged 12 and under) are the most vulnerable and most important section of our community; and that therefore this is a question we cannot afford to ignore or to overlook.
My Question speaks of the low quality of children's television programmes. Because a Question has to be short, this is perhaps a little unfair. It is, I think, basically true in some areas, but in fairness I should like, first of all, to pay a tribute to the many good programmes
1128
and to the devoted producers behind those programmes. In particular, my Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the British Broadcasting Corporation which is so often knocked and denigrated in these days; and to Doreen Stephens, euphemistically called the Head of Family Programmes, though one never quite knows what that means: she is really responsible for children's programmes. I think Miss Stephens has succeeded in achieving for the B.B.C. a coherent contemporary policy for children. I can assure your Lordships that I do not think her department was responsible for the rather self-indulgent production of Alice in Wonderland, but she has some remarkably good programmes to her credit, notably "Play-school"; "Watch with Mother"; "Blue Peter"; "Crackerjack", and "Jackanory." There is another programme called "Pinky and Perky"—
LORD SHEPHERD: Hear, hear!
LORD WILLIS:—which I hasten to assure your Lordships is not the programme which took place last night between David Frost and George Brown. It is a Sunday afternoon programme which I personally dislike heartily and could do without, because it seems to me to have the worst ingredient of all children's programmes, that of condescension.
My main criticism to-day is directed against the Independent Television Authority and the commercial companies associated with it. With rare exceptions, they are just not doing their job in this particular area of television. Children's television in Independent Television is the orphan of the ratings. All the "protein" goes to the other programmes, and the children's departments are dying; or, if they are not dying, they are suffering very badly from malnutrition. The basic difference of approach between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. may be seen from the fact that one single B.B.C. children's programme has more people working on it than many departments of some of the big Independent Television contractors—more people on one programme than are employed on the whole of the children's work in some of our big companies.
In this respect it is only fair to say that I.T.A. is at a disadvantage because of the fragmentation of its network into

1129
various companies, with the result that they all produce bits and pieces. There is no overall policy, and as a result the children suffer. Over 25 per cent. of the programmes for children on Independent Television are imported films. They are not all bad, but some, my Lords, are woeful. They are cheap and nasty shadow versions of adult series, and the reason for this is clearly financial: it is cheaper to buy foreign films than to make your own programmes. A 30-minute episode of an imported film series can be bought for showing in a region for the sum of £300, and you cannot get near making your own series for that. It is cheaper, and it is easier. There have been no new film series—by that I mean specifically those made on film—since "William Tell", which was a long time ago. I believe that this is false economy, and it ought to be altered.
Apart from these imported films, we have a rag-bag of shows, many of them mere time-fillers, and most of them produced on half-a-shoestring. It says much for the ingenuity of producers that some are effective. Oddly enough, the best record in this field is that of a small company, Southern Television, which has produced a splendid series, "Children of the New Forest", and one or two very good programmes called "How". At the other extreme, you have a big company like Grenada which really ought to know better. This company does not recognize the existence of anybody in our population under the age of five, it does not transmit anything in its area for people under five, and it produces very little in the way of children's television generally. They produce "Junior Criss-Cross Quiz" and "Zoo Time". Both programmes seem to have been running for ever and both are beginning to look like it.
The situation is much better with the other big companies. Rediffusion's "Playtime" was a break-through. It was excellent, but for some inexplicable reason it was replaced by a much poorer programme. A.T.V.'s "Wonderland" is another good example of excellence and, so, in its own way (though not to my taste), is "Thunderbirds". The remarkable thing about "Thunderbirds" is that, with every new series, they get nearer and nearer to making these puppets behave and speak like human beings, and we
1130
are eventually going to reach the day when the producers have the great idea of deciding to use living actors as a "gimmick". "Thunderbirds" occupies a slightly different territory. It is rather like "Batman". It is a sort of "grown-down" programme. It is not for grownups and certainly not for those who are growing up. It occupies a territory in between, a kind of neutral territory, in the hope that it will appeal both to children and to adults.
There are two things lacking in my view—first, an overall policy, and, secondly, money. There is an I.T.A. committee, I understand, to co-ordinate the work of children's programmes departments, but this has no teeth and no positive lead has come from the I.T.A. The result is that the children's departments of the various companies are at the bottom of the barrel. I am not referring to the personnel, but to the fact that they get less attention and less money. If they want a film camera or any money, they go to the bottom of the queue, and no one is really interested.
My Lords, no one can be proud of children's television on the I.T.A. network. It could be used to enrich and widen the imagination and experience of hundreds of thousands of children. Instead, it is a fumbling, negative, cynical, confused mess. I.T.N. have proved what a central organisation can do for news. And that is what is really behind my Question. Why cannot we recognise that children's television is at least as important as news, and set up some kind of central children's television foundation, financed by both organisations—I.T.A. and B.B.C.—which can afford to centralise resources and bring in the finest talent we have in this country to make the best possible programmes for children, on the basis of research among children, so that we get the right programmes with the right approach? That is what is behind my Question. It may seem a long way from the discussion we had just now on the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, but I do not think that it is all that far away. We cannot afford to be negative about this important area of programming, and that is why I ask this Question of the Government.
1.12 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the importance of the effect of television on children and the young is immense and at present incalculable, and that is why we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for having raised this question today. Like him, I claim to be no expert on children's television. Like him, I fully recognise that, so far as children's reactions are concerned, all of us grown-ups are guessing and groping in the dark. I have at the moment but little qualification to speak from family experience, because my youngest child is 22 and in Nigeria, and my first grandchild is 1¾ I feel that as a grandfather I may gain in experience as the years go on.
I am not going to join with the noble Lord in his attack on the independent companies, because though he is perfectly entitled to express what views he likes, it struck me as slightly inconsistent with his original profession of modesty that he was later so certain about what was happening in one part of the field. I should like to associate myself with him in what he said about the excellent work done by the B.B.C. in some of its children's television programmes.
Perhaps my principal reason for rising is to ask the Government whether they can tell your Lordships' House anything more about the progress of the work that is being done by a research committee which was set up when I was Home Secretary. At that time, through the agency of the I.T.A., a considerable sum of money was made available for long-term research, and as Home Secretary I was asked to take the initiative in setting up the committee. This committee, commonly known at that time as the Committee on the Impact of Television on the Young, was established under the excellent chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University. Since then it has, I think, published two working papers and a progress report. But nearly four years have passed since May, 1963, when I announced to Parliament its appointment, and though I certainly always envisaged it as engaged in long-term research I had hoped that within four years we should be seeing results that could be made of practical value to the broadcasting authorities and others.
1132
I am certainly not one who is going to underrate the importance of research in depth. Indeed, one of the dangers in this field is that almost any individual thinks he can speak with authority on what effect particular programmes have on the young. What we all need to learn is that no single individual can speak with certainty about this, and it is a wholly appropriate field for research by the finest minds. But I have some fear, in reading the working papers of this committee—and I have the latest, entitled Attitude Formation and Change in my hand that the research on which it is engaged is becoming more and more extensive so that the time may never come when it is able to focus its findings in forms that will be of practical value to those who are responsible for television programmes.
Again I do not deprecate the stretching out of this research extensively. One clearly must not rule out any aspect of research that may be relevant. But my anxiety is that this committee should produce work of practical importance to the television authorities before television itself has been supplanted by some other form of communication. I submit that there is a need now for specific findings from this committee as quickly as possible, in order that the television authorities and everybody may take them into account.
I hope that I shall not be taken as saying anything derogatory about the members of this committee, or about the practical work it has done so far. Indeed, if anything has gone wrong, I must certainly share the responsibility, because I set up the committee and invited certain people to take part in it. But I hope that your Lordships will join with me in feeling that, though research of this kind must be long-term, nevertheless it must not be infinitely long-term, and that at a certain point it should be focused back sharply on the subject so that all of us can learn lessons from it.
I hope that what I am saying in no way cuts across the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in asking this Question, but I feel that whereas he expressed pungently his personal opinions about some of the programmes, it is also necessary that objective research of this kind should be pursued, and pursued vigorously, and then eventually brought

1133
into practical focus. I must apologise to the noble Lord in that in a sense I have widened the field of the debate, because I realise that his Question relates only to children's television programmes, whereas this Television Research Committee obviously has to include within its purview programmes that may be watched by children, though in fact they are primarily intended for adults. But I think that what was in the forefront of the noble Lord's mind was the effect on children of the television programmes they watch, and perhaps in that case he will excuse me for having broadened the field of debate on his Question.
1.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, it is usual when rising to speak on any subject to have some experience of the matter under discussion. I am afraid that, along with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I cannot claim that I am getting experience in the television field, and particularly children's television, through grandchildren. I am afraid that I have not yet reached that stage, because my grandchildren are still too young to be affected by what appears on a television screen. However, I have had some experience of taking part in children's television programmes, having had a small series in that field. I entered the field very starry-eyed, having had no experience of television; but the stars faded at a fairly steady pace, and soon went out completely. There was a whole number of things wrong with the field, including those which my noble friend Lord Willis has mentioned. I had not intended to speak today, but in view of what my noble friend said, I felt that I ought to intervene.
There were a number of other things wrong, quite apart from the lack of cash and the lack of importance from which this branch of television suffers. There was an enormous inefficiency throughout the whole machinery of Independent Television which caused a number of quite unnecessary troubles. For example, it was impossible to film anything if it was more than about an hour and a half away from television headquarters; and even then one could film only something which was capable of being filmed by a large team of people. In my field, of inland waterways and boats, to carry a television team of the sort which was
1134
deemed necessary by A.T.V. one would have needed a whole flotilla; and one could certainly never have made the films one wanted to make.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, if I may interrupt, in fairness to the Independent Television companies, I think I ought to remind my noble friend that it is not so much the companies who insist on carrying large crews but the unions.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: That may be so; and it may be that this is another case for setting up what we have recently set up with regard to the Press. Nevertheless, it considerably reduced the quality of what one wanted to film. If one had anything which, because of its very nature, one wanted to film with a small team, one could not do it. For example, I do not know how one would have adequately filmed bird-watching, or have taken films from a glider, and such things which have to be done by one person with a camera in his hand. Even with items which could be done with a team, and which were better done with a big team, one could never get the team very far from London because of the time intervals. By the time they had been taken to wherever they were wanted, and had been got back, a large part of the day had passed. I found the business frustrating in the extreme. And even when we got into the studios, the proper use of the material seemed to be difficult to arrange.
I think it is time that somebody looked into this whole field, and, quite apart from my own comments on the matter, I wish strongly to support my noble friend Lord Willis.
1.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, first of all, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Willis that I yield to no one in my admiration for him, both as a writer and a speaker in this House; and, as always, he has put his Question with that wonderful use of language and great clarity that we have come to expect. I only hope that I am never on the wrong end of his comments or questions, because I should hate to be described as "a fumbling, negative, confused mess". I feel that he has shown, as he always does, that he can tell us many facts pungently and clearly.

1135
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we are glad that he raised the question of the Committee on Research. I remember having the pleasure of hearing one of the members of that Committee speak, and being most impressed by what they were doing. The noble Lord will appreciate that, as I am speaking largely on a brief from another Department, I cannot give him the answer for which he asked. However, I hope that he will put down either a Starred Question or an Unstarred Question, so that we can discuss this matter. We are grateful to him for reminding us that we are concerned not only with children's programmes, in particular, but with all that children look at on television and the effect it may have upon them.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Willis that I had some discussion with members of the B.B.C. whom I happen to know, but I was a little diffident about mentioning this as it may appear to discriminate against I.T.A. Therefore, I am delighted that he has paid tribute to the section of the B.B.C.'s programmes that I should probably have mentioned.
None of us, I imagine, would dissent from the first part of the Question that we are discussing: that children's television programmes are important. Children, and especially very young children, lack experience and discrimination; their attitudes of mind, tastes and interests, are largely unformed. The uses that television makes of its power to contribute to the development of those attitudes, tastes and interests, is self-evidently of great importance. On the second of my noble friend's two premises—the statement that the level of children's programmes is generally low at present—one is bound to have considerable reservations. To my noble friend it is obviously a point of deep conviction, because he is reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that he thinks the standards of children's television are scandalous, and that the programmes are starved of money and talent; and he has developed his views here this afternoon. How widely these views are shared is, of course, another matter.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I recall the constitutional basis on which the broadcasting services in the
1136
country are founded. They are entrusted to two public corporations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Each is under a duty to provide them as public services for disseminating information, education and entertainment. Each is to ensure that its programmes maintain a high general standard in all respects, and a proper balance and wide range in the subject matter. Within this necessarily very general prescription of the purposes their services are to serve, each has full responsibility for the content of its programmes.
My Lords, it is also fundamental to our concept of broadcasting as a public service that it is independent of Government and Parliament. The Government do not intervene. My reply to the criticism of children's programmes must be, therefore, that it is not for me, as the spokesman for her Majesty's Government, to justify or to defend. It is against this general constitutional background that we have to set the proposal contained in the Question of my noble friend. We have established these two public Corporations to provide the broadcasting services, under the distinguished chairmanship, if I may say so, of two Members of your Lordships' house, both of whom, I think, are in their places. Since full responsibility is required, they must also be accorded full authority, and I am quite sure my noble friend would agree with this wholeheartedly. You cannot say to them: "This is your business and you must answer for it; on the other hand, we in the Government will intervene." Responsibility and authority must go together.
In practical terms the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. must retain the editorial responsibility for what they transmit in children's programmes, as in any other. The principle underlying the proposal is really that some other bodies should assume this editorial responsibility in respect of children's programmes, and that the B.B.C. and I.T.A. should simply provide the means of transmission. I know your Lordships will all appreciate that such a change would carry the most far-reaching implications. It would point the way to the establishment of a number of separate trusts and organisations, each responsible for a particular class of programme, while the B.B.C. and I.T.A. would simply serve as the transmission authorities.

1137
There is a view that children's programmes are a class apart, and that they could quite exceptionally be made the responsibility of a specialist trust. But I doubt very much whether, the principle of special responsibility having been conceded, it would be possible in the longer run to confine its application to one class of programme. And even if we could, I should still doubt the wisdom of such a course. It seems to me that there is everything to be said for what I might call the comprehensive view, the view which sees the service of television as a whole.
The responsibility which the B.B.C. and I.T.A. bear for children's programmes is part of their general responsibility, and it is not altogether a different kind of responsibility, because we should remember that children do not look only at children's programmes. Alice in Wonderland has been mentioned. I am sure my noble friend would agree that there has even been at some stages doubt whether Alice was even written for children; but certainly the television programme was not at any time suggested as having been screened for children. Children look at all kinds of programmes, many intended primarily for adult audiences.
I believe it is of great importance that there should be an informed understanding of the nature of the wider responsibility that the broadcasting services have to children as part of the general audience. The fact that there are in these two organisations people working, on both the production and the administrative sides, on programmes for children, must contribute materially to such an understanding. The question seems to be this. If there really is room for dissatisfaction with children's programmes, then it follows that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. do not attach much importance to them. Whether my noble friend's evaluation of children's programmes is widely shared is probably open to question, but my information is that the public response to children's programmes, as it makes itself felt to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., suggests that the programmes are generally well received. But, whatever one's opinion of the programmes, there can be no doubt of the importance that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. attach to them. The B.B.C. are on record as
1138
saying they have a responsibility to use the expensive and powerful medium of television to enlarge and enrich the total experience of children who watch their programmes. The I.T.A.'s Annual Reports for 1964–65 and 1965–66 refer to the efforts being made to improve Independent Television's output for children.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I do not see how it is possible to say that the I.T.A. in particular recognise the importance of television for children's television programmes. They may well do it in words, but the fact of the matter is that all the children's departments in the companies are starved of money and personnel.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would not presume to question the noble Lord's superior knowledge on this subject. My knowledge of children is in a slightly different field, but I have always found it difficult to equate the best productions of any kind, even the best schools, if I may say so, necessarily with money.
I believe that some of the best films in the general field have been made on small budgets, so perhaps we must not too closely ally this to money. Naturally, we can only assume that the integrity of the I.T.A. is such that when they make this statement in their Annual Report they are endeavouring to carry out these things. I do not doubt that both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. are acutely aware of the importance of children's programmes and of the need to ensure that they get their fair share of the resources. One would hope that this debate to-day would make some of the independent programme companies think whether they are, in fact, carrying out some of the recommendations which both television programmes have laid upon them.
I would sum up as follows. My noble friend Lord Willis, whose contribution to the art of television is widely recognised, has told us that in his opinion children's programmes are on a generally low level, and his opinion is one that we are bound to respect, though not necessarily completely to accept or follow. It is not for me to express the view of the Government on the level of these programmes. It would be less than fair if I did not put on record, however,

1139
that the public's response to children's programmes, as it makes itself felt to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. in general, is—I think this is the safest phrase we can use—that they are well received. I have here a letter, selected at random, on one of the programmes referred to by the noble Lord—he could say this is not answering his point—congratulating the B.B.C. on Play School. It comes from a teacher, and contains this rather significant comment:
"I only wish a programme of this ilk was available for school viewing."
It seems perhaps also to give room for some thought in another field.
If the noble Lord is unable to share the general view—in other words, that
1140
both Corporations consider their programmes generally well received—it does not necessarily follow that it would be right to set up the kind of machinery he proposes in his Question. The principle he introduces would be inconsistent with those on which our broadcasting services are conducted. The right course would be to impress upon the responsible authorities, the B.B.C. and I.T.A., the importance of making children's programmes fine and worthwhile productions. I do not doubt that they are both acutely aware of the need to do so, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord's Question and the discussion it has prompted will reinforce that.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before two o'clock.