Lords Sitting of 13 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

SUEZ CANAL CLOSURE
3.6 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have with regard to the reopening of the Suez Canal for international traffic.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I regret that Her Majesty's Government as yet have no information on the reopening of the Suez Canal. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on June 21 that one of the elements in a settlement of the problems of the Middle East must be respect for the right of free and innocent passage through international waterways for the ships of all nations. We are, of course, keeping closely in touch with other Governments who have an interest in this matter.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, does not the realistic approach to a solution of the Canal problem lie through a package deal involving, first, the withdrawal of the Soviet naval forces from Egyptian waters; secondly, the demilitarisation of the East Bank of the Canal to an agreed extent; and, thirdly, the removal at once of the obstacles which impede the channel and the restoration of free passage for the ships of all nations, including those of Israel? Will my noble friend undertake to see that these points are ventilated at the United Nations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my noble friend has stated the situation very comprehensively. There is no doubt that a final settlement will have to involve a withdrawal of Israeli forces and respect
1254
for the right of free and innocent passage through international waterways; and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made this clear at the United Nations. I think my noble friend referred to the withdrawal of Soviet naval forces from Egyptian waters. I understand that these forces are in United Arab Republic waters at the invitation of the United Arab Republic Government, and that the Soviet Admiral said on July 10 that they would remain there for a one-week visit only.
As regards the removal of the physical obstacles, there was a report in The Times yesterday which broadly gave the position. In fact, if I might inform the House of this, I do not think there is any question of there being any concrete dry docks sunk, but there are probably some caissons or dredgers, and even when agreement is reached the actual physical removal of the obstacles may take some weeks.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? It may well be that the package deal suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, is not capable of fulfilment; or it may be the wrong one. One would like to examine it much more carefully. But at any rate it is a constructive proposal, and so far as I know Her Majesty's Government have made no constructive proposal about the reopening of the Canal. Certainly we on this side of the House would very much welcome an approach by the Government with constructive and concrete proposals.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord was asking me whether I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, had suggested. I gather that was his question. If not, the noble Lord might like to frame his remarks in the form of a question, and then I will get it right. But this is not an easy problem. It is not within the power of Her Majesty's Government themselves to open the Suez Canal. It will depend, and must depend, on a settlement of the situation in the Middle East, and in particular on some sort of agreement in relation to the Suez Canal. Obviously, there is a great deal of activity going on along these lines in diplomatic circles and at the United Nations; but I am not quite sure what sort of plan, other than the proposals which my right honourable friend

1255
put forward in his speech, the noble Lord would ask for.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, my noble friend will of course appreciate that I did not ask whether the Government were in agreement with my ideas. I am seeking to stir up something that will break the deadlock that undoubtedly exists. That deadlock is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government. What I am seeking to do is to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Government some ideas which I hope they will take into consideration and, if necessary, have ventilated at the United Nations.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord surely did not intend to tell the House that we could not expect the Suez Canal to be reopened until there was a political settlement in the Middle East. This surely cannot be right. A political settlement in the Middle East may take a long time.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstood me—perhaps it was my fault. I was not referring to a general political settlement in the Middle East, although the absence of one makes it more difficult to achieve a local settlement. But I did mention some of the conditions which were contained in my noble friend's statement, one of which was the withdrawal of the Israeli forces—and this, after all, is not likely to take place without some sort of agreement or conciliation. It is in this matter that the United Nations are engaged and in which the Government are particularly concerned; and we continue to emphasise and discuss with our friends the importance of the right of free and innocent passage. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting what was possibly a mistaken impression that I gave.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in view of the great damage done to Europe's economy by the periodical closure of the Suez Canal, and to this country in particular, would not the Government consider whether the time has come to encourage the creation of rival facilities by pipe-line and road from Eilat to the new port on the Mediterranean?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I should be very sorry at
1256
this stage to consider that it was not possible to reopen the Suez Canal and achieve the guarantees that we all wish. I have noted what the noble Lord has said; but I should have thought that it was early to start thinking of an alternative to the Suez Canal.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us how many countries have ships impounded in the Canal? Are the ships of any COMECON country impounded?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the answer to latter part of the question is, Yes. There are Swedish, German, United States, Greek, Norwegian, Italian, Bulgarian, Czechoslovakian and Polish vessels—and the number includes one ship carrying urgently needed food for India.
LORD GEDDES: Could Her Majesty's Government say whether they are in touch with the owners of the four British ships detained in the Great Bitter Lakes with regard to welfare and possible reliefs, if necessary, for the crews abroad?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is, of course, very much aware of the shipping position. I am glad to say that we are in constant touch with the owners. Access to the Canal is restricted; but we understand that ships' agents in Suez and in Port Said are supplying the ships with what they need and are taking mail to them regularly. There is also the question of crew replacement. This is very much in the mind of the Government who are closely in touch with the owners.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said that The Times report was broadly accurate, might it be possible to get some preliminary agreement that at least the Southern part of the Canal should be opened, so that the vessels at present impounded could escape?—and particularly the ship with urgent food supplies for India.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I said that The Times report was broadly in agreement with the facts. I am not precisely aware of how serious are the obstacles that may remain at the Southern end, but I agree with what the noble Lord has said.

REHABILITATION OF ARAB REFUGEES
3.15 p.m.
LORD BYERS: 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 Mr. Nils-Goran Gussing has been asked by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make recommendations on the organisation needed to achieve the constructive rehabilitation and resettlement of the refugees in the Middle East.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it was announced in New York on July 7 that the Secretary-General had appointed Mr. Nils-Goran Gussing to assist him in discharging the responsibilities laid upon him under paragraph 3 of the Security Council's resolution No. 237 of June 14 regarding the civil population and prisoners-of-war in the areas of conflict. Paragraph 3 requests the SecretaryGeneral—and now I quote—
"to follow the effective implementations of this resolution and to report to the Security Council."
Her Majesty's Government naturally welcome any step designed to increase the United Nations' presence in the area—and welcome this step in particular.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, are we to take it from that that there is hope that some organisation will be given the responsibility for the long-term, constructive resettlement and rehabilitation of Arab refugees?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Certainly, my Lords, there must be hope; but I am afraid I am no better equipped than is the noble Lord to assess the extent of that hope at this precise moment. I should add that Mr. Nils-Goran Gussing is expected to visit all the areas occupied by the Israeli forces and will stay in the region for about a month. He will make his headquarters in Jerusalem.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations to make representations along these lines to the Secretary-General? Many of us are afraid that the oppor-
1258
tunity which has been presented for resettling the refugees may well be lost.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am quite sure that our representative in New York—who is known to everyone in your Lordships' House as a man of extreme capability, ardent spirit and very high standing in these matters—is doing all that is possible. I cannot feel that what I have told the noble Lord to-day should be grounds for disquiet, but very much the opposite.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, has the noble Earl any further information about what the Israelis are doing independently in the way of settling the refugees, and whether the United Nations mission will co-operate with them?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure they will co-operate with anything that is being done; but I have no more recent information than has been given to the House previously. We have had a number of questions on this matter, including one this week.

PASSPORTS: PERIOD OF VALIDITY
3.18 p.m.
LORD AlLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give consideration to an extension of the period of validity of the British passport from the existing 5 years to 7½ years, with a resultant renewal period of 15 years instead of 10 years.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, at a meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in April, 1947, on passport and frontier formalities a recommendation that the total validity of a passport should not exceed 10 years was adopted. Her Majesty's Government supported this recommendation. Consideration is being given to the desirability of introducing a passport which would be valid for 10 years from the outset and which would not be renewable. I hope that a final decision on this matter will not be too long delayed.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy and for that far-from-unhelpful reply, may I ask him whether he is aware (though I do not quite see how he could be) that I myself happen to be in the throes of obtaining a new passport at the moment, so that I should declare an interest? Would he not agree that for an increasing multitude of travellers the adoption of my proposal would save much time, labour and irritation in the purgatory of form-filling and in the odious necessity for obtaining fresh photographs—generally caricatures of the individual—one of which has to be countersigned by some kind friend who must perjure himself by saying that it is a true and good likeness of the applicant? And all this, my Lords, before these wretched applicants can obtain a passport and proceed abroad upon their lawful occasions.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I must confess that I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, was in the throes of the appalling ordeal which he has described to us so graphically. I must assure him, having known the noble Lord if not for ten years at any rate for five years, that I think any photograph of him taken now—provided the camera does not lie—would make him even more handsome than he was five years ago. I agree with the noble Lord that anything which can be done to minimise the amount of forms which have to be filled in and the amount of work which has to be carried out, not only by the applicant for a passport but by those who have to deal with the applications, will clearly be in the interests of good administration, the travelling public and the country at large. For that reason this subject is being investigated at the present time, and, as I say, I hope it will not be too long before some change can be announced.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, if and when the new ten-year passport is introduced, could there be a few more pages in it, as the period of its validity is to be increased?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is a suggestion which will certainly be borne in mind, and I personally endorse it.

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT: ARMS EXPORT LICENCES
3.21 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 their decisions as to licences for defensive equipment for overseas are governed by normal commercial considerations or by ideological principles—a practice not followed by other U.N. member countries.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the decisions of Her Majesty's Government about export licences for defence equipment are reached in the light of several factors. Political, economic, strategic and security considerations are all taken into account in deciding whether the export of a particular item of defence equipment may be permitted to the Allied, Commonwealth or friendly Governments to whom we might sell, having regard to the circumstances obtaining at the time.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the concern about this matter made clear in this House yesterday which, as will be known to the noble Lord, exists in the country as a whole, would he not agree, since this affects South Africa and Portugal, that the situation justifies review, particularly since it appears to be clear that recent circumstances concerning the Canal have put us in a different position with regard to the passage round the Cape and the necessity of using South African ports? Secondly, may I also point out that this not only endangers our actual strategic position but indeed causes anxiety about employment in this country? Would the noble Lord not agree on these two points: that we cannot afford to lose this very large amount of business, which other countries are taking from us, and, secondly, that it would be timely to review the position as he has stated it?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot give any undertaking about the noble Lord's last suggestion of a review.

1261
The matter is under continuous consideration, and each item is considered on its merits. Broadly, the principle applied is national self-interest, and we in the present Government interpret as national self-interest that we should support the United Nations in their resolution. I am sure that the noble Lord would not suggest, for instance, that we should export equipment to the unfriendly countries. I take his particular point with regard to South Africa, and I would only say that Her Majesty's Government have made their policy very clear, and we shall have to continue to honour it in the way we consider best in the national interest.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned falling in with the wishes of the United Nations, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, of all the countries supplying this type of material to South Africa, only the United States of America and ourselves are adhering to the embargo; and other countries, like France, Italy and Germany, are cashing in on our absence from this market? Would not the noble Lord agree with my noble friend that it really is time to have another look at the whole of this policy, both as to its effectiveness and as to the wisdom of its application?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I very much appreciate the force of the noble Lord's argument. Clearly, if there were a general breakdown, it would make a nonsense of the policy of the United Nations; but generally, although I have no precise figures on this, the United Nations members do observe the United Nations resolutions, although I agree with the noble Lord that there are exceptions and I have chosen my words very carefully on this. But I have noted what the noble Lord said.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, aware that, following the exchanges which took place yesterday, he rather left the impression that Her Majesty's Government were really not interested in this export trade to South Africa; and having regard to the general balance of payments conditions that seems a fairly—if I may use the word—callous attitude to take up in view of the difficulties we are in? Is that a
1262
correct impression to have formed, or would the noble Lord like to take the opportunity to correct it?—because I think, after what he said yesterday, it is an impression which is widely held.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that I am very sorry that I should have given the impression of being either uninterested or callous. It certainly was not my intention to give that impression, but I do not depart from the basic statements that I made.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as yesterday and again to-day it has been explained to us that Her Majesty's Government are following this policy from a sense of what they think to be right, and as the loss falls entirely on Her Majesty's subjects, would it not be a very good thing if Her Majesty's Government, in addition to the moral satisfaction of carrying out their policy, shared a little of the misfortune falling on the rest of Her Majesty's subjects by reducing the salaries of Her Majesty's Ministers when they take these decisions, so as to make the public feel that the Government are sharing in the burden?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are not interested purely in moral satisfaction.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether there exists such a thing as a practice not followed by some other United Nations member-countries, and if so what it is?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount is asking his supplementary question in relation to this particular Question. If he is, I have already mentioned that some nations are not fully honouring the U.N. resolution. If his supplementary question is not related to this Question, it would not, I submit, be in order for me to answer.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: can the noble Lord tell the House whether licences granted in respect of defensive equipment are of a standard kind? That is to say, can a particular type of equipment be exported from some other country which Her Majesty's Government would not agree to export from this country? Quite clearly, if this matter is not

1263
considered by all countries on a comparable basis, this country could be placed at a very great disadvantage.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, clearly, the form of licence is not similar in each country. I think the point made by the noble Lord is whether there is a different interpretation applied. I suspect that this must be the case, in view of the action of certain other countries.

ALGERIA: DETENTION OF BRITISH PILOTS
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further information about the British pilots and aircraft that were forcibly diverted to Algeria, and in particular whether acces to these British subjects has yet been granted to the Swiss Minister.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Walston will reply to that Private Notice Question by way of a Statement.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am certain that every Member of your Lordships' House has a deep interest in road safety. It is not only a vast subject, but one which, because of the tragic toll of road accidents day by day and year by year, rightly concerns us all. We all have our own theories of what ought to be done to stop, or at least to reduce, these tragedies—more and better roads, more and better training and propaganda, more traffic
1264
police, and so on. This Bill, which was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place and which I have the honour and pleasure to commend to your Lordships, deals with the subject of driving instruction. This is a measure which I feel is much overdue and will help in a real and positive way in keeping death off the roads. I have used the word "positive" deliberately, because I hope that your Lordships will not regard this as a restrictive measure. It is not meant to be and I do not think that it is restrictive. It seems to me that in the training of our new drivers and in teaching them the fundamentals of good and proper use of our roads lie one of the major hopes for the future.
The introduction of driving tests in 1935 under the Road Traffic Act 1934 was one of the far-reaching road safety measures introduced in the 1930s, together with pedestrian crossings and Belisha beacons. It is the measure which, at some time or other, has the most direct impact on the individual member of the public. It is something from which few of us escape, either personally or when a member of our family seeks to get the freedom of the road. I believe that something like 20 million tests have been conducted by the Ministry of Transport examiners since 1935—and may I say, a very good job they have done, too.
But it is not about tests that I want to talk, but about the preliminaries to them—the instruction of the learner driver. The introduction of the tests naturally brought with it a demand for formal instruction, and this was met by the formation of driving schools. The post-war boom in motoring has brought an increasing demand for tuition. I am told that something like 1… million new drivers take their tests every year. But by no means all of them pass the first time. In fact, the overall pass rate of 47 per cent. is deplorably low. The Ministry of Transport attribute this to two main reasons: first, the poor quality of much of the tuition given and, secondly, the reluctance of the public to have and pay for enough tuition.
Of course, the driving test weeds out the unsafe drivers, and no doubt those who fail benefit by their experience before eventually passing the test. But what a waste of time this all is! Moreover, I am convinced that many people

1265
in the driving tuition business are in that business for what they can get out of it, rather than for what they can put into it. Some of these people are taking money from the public and not giving value for it. That is bad enough; but it means also that their pupils are not being properly trained in the skills and behaviour necessary for safe driving today. The public, not unnaturally, tend to go to the instructor who offers the cheapest service and, as in other fields, this is not necessarily the best.
In 1962, the then Minister of Transport took power in the Road Traffic Act of that year to set up a Ministry register of approved driving instructors, on a voluntary basis, of course. This was created in October, 1964, and it then contained the names of just over 2,000 instructors who had passed the quite stiff examination set by the Ministry. Since then it has grown steadily, and I am told that the number of instructors on the register is now over 5,000. This is good progress and I congratulate the Ministry on it. But although the register provides the public with an indication of the best instructors, in my view it does not do enough.
For one thing, the demand for tuition is so great that the 5,000 or so Ministry-registered instructors could not possibly cope with it on their own. For another, the very instructors whom the Ministry have rejected as not being good enough are still going on teaching, and the public are apparently persuaded, despite the Ministry's publicity on the advantage of going to a registered instructor, still to go to them. The Ministry registry has set a good standard, but I believe that the time has now come when every driving instructor who gives tuition for a profit should have to satisfy the Ministry of his competence as an instructor and be included on the register. I know that there are other registers—for example, one run by the R.A.C. and another by the Motor Schools' Association. I do not know why the profession itself could not have set up agreed standards for its own observance, but they have not done so and I believe that the time has come for the Ministry to do this.
I do not think that we should go so far as to prohibit all tuition except by professional instructors. This would seem to me an unjustified intrusion into the
1266
right of the individual to train privately, if he wishes, bearing in mind the hurdle of the test at the end of the process. But I do believe that the learner driver who pays money for his tuition should get value for money and should get the sort of training which, if he absorbs it, will keep him out of trouble as a driver.
Now for some details of the Bill itself. Clause 1, subsection (1), contains the substantive provision of the whole Bill: that no driving instruction may be given for money unless the instructor is properly registered or licensed by the Ministry of Transport. I will refer to the licence later. Subsection (2) is equally important. This is drawn to prevent the requirement of the Ministry's registration being avoided by, say, a car dealer offering driving instruction as part of the inducement to buy his cars.
I do not propose to describe all the other 21 clauses of the Bill in detail at this stage, but your Lordships may like to note what I consider to be the more important features which stem from the main provisions of Clause 1. An unregistered instructor who gives tuition for payment will be liable on conviction to a maximum fine of £100 or four months' imprisonment, or both. The same penalty will apply to anyone who employs an unregistered instructor to give tuition.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the continuation of the existing voluntary Register of Approved Instructors and its maintenance as a compulsory register. I envisage that the system, and qualifications, will be very similar to those used for the present voluntary register under Section 23 of the 1962 Act. But if, as I hope, that register is made compulsory, it will be more appropriate for the procedure and qualifications to be laid down more formally. That is why Clause 3, among other things, lays down the possession of a substantive driving licence for four years as one of the prerequisites of registration. This will stop the growth of these mushroom schools started by people who pass their driving test one day and open a motoring school the next.
I envisage that the written and practical examinations set by the Ministry will continue on much the same basis, and will be of the same standard as at present, but it would be appropriate for

1267
the requirements on which the examiners have to be satisfied to be laid down in Regulations, as are the requirements for the driving test itself. This is provided in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 3. Similarly, subsection (2) envisages the continuance of the important follow-up checks which Ministry examiners carry out regularly on instructors who are on the register.
Subsection (6) of Clause 3 provides for registration to last for four yearly periods. There will be no further examination process, unless there is a gap of more than one year between the expiry of one period of registration and the application for re-registration. That is dealt with in subsection (7). Clause 4 deals with renewals of registration, which will depend, among other things, on the Ministry being satisfied as to the instructor's continued competence, as displayed in the course of the check visits which their examiners will carry out.
There will be occasions when, perhaps for some offence or because an instructor's standards of tuition drop, the Ministry will want to remove his name from the register. Clause 5 deals with this, and Clause 7 and Schedule 1 make provision for an appeals machinery to determine appeals made to the Minister. These provisions have been drawn up following consultation with the Council on Tribunals, and I hope they will commend themselves as forming a necessary and sensible safeguard for an instructor who is dissatisfied with a decision to refuse to register him or which removes his name from the register.
There will be a need for new entrants to the driving tuition profession to gain experience before they can expect to meet the standards for registration. This Bill does not deal with the training of new inspectors—that is something which I should expect to see covered under the Industrial Training Act, 1964—but provision is made in Clause 6 for a system of licensing for trainee instructors so that they can get practical experience at the job. But obviously it would be wrong for instructors to be able to go on teaching on the strength of that licence for a considerable period of time. The clause therefore contains power to limit each instructor to two consecutive licences. The duration of each licence is left to be
1268
settled in regulations. I would expect the period, initially at least, to be not longer than six months. I think it right that the Minister should have the flexibility which the Bill provides. This will enable her to fix the period after consultation with the interested organisations concerned (I am sure that she would wish to consult these organisations on the Regulations) and to alter the period should experience show this to be necessary.
The other clauses in the Bill deal with appropriate powers for the Minister to make Regulations about matters of detail—I have already mentioned the examination requirements, and other matters are the level of fees for registration, and the information to be given in support of an application—or ancillary matters, such as the issue of badges and certificates, their recovery if registration is withdrawn, penalties for forging a certificate, and the transitional provisions necessary to convert the Ministry's present voluntary register into a compulsory one.
I hope that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships, and that it will find its way on to the Statute Book. I believe that if we can raise the general standard of driving, tuition in this country we shall make a significant contribution to the cause of road safety. I believe that this Bill will do that by driving out of business the inefficient and inadequate instructors, and I, for one, would have no compunction about that.
Before I sit down, I should like to make one other point. The Bill does not deal with driving schools as such. This is because the unit that we need to control is primarily the instructor. Moreover, in a very large part of the field the instructor and the school are synonymous. I do not believe that, once we have all instructors properly qualified, there would be anything to gain by trying to control driving schools as well.
I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate to your Lordships the scope of the Bill and its aims. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome it as a constructive measure for road safety, and I hope that it will receive the speedy passage on to the Statute Book which it deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Lindgren.)

ALGERIA: DETENTION OF BRITISH PILOTS
3.47 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool asked earlier. If I may, I will use the same words as were used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place in answer to a Question. His words were:
"On the 9th of July an assurance was received from the Algerian Government that access to the two pilots would be allowed in the next two or three days. That assurance has not yet been honoured. In spite of the sustained efforts of the Swiss Ambassador in Algiers it has not yet been possible to see the pilots. The Ambassador is urgently seeking a further interview with the Algerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile I have sent a message to the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Bouteflika, through Lord Caradon in New York, asking that the Algerian Governments assurance about a visit to the pilots should be honoured at once. We are also, of course, in touch with the Governments of other countries involved.
"I do wish to assure the House that we are doing our utmost to get consular access to these two men. We are also pressing for their release.
"I fully understand the concern of the House in this difficult matter."
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, arising out of the disappointing, but not entirely unexpected, Statement made in reply to my Question by the noble Lord, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government realise that many people in this country—and I do not doubt that that includes many in your Lordships' House—are extremely perturbed (I refrain from using stronger language) at the complete failure of Her Majesty's Government to obtain access to these British pilots or, indeed, to obtain any reliable information about this distressing affair. Is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to use some more effective action to bring this about?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am well aware of the feelings of the country and of noble Lords, including the noble Lord who has asked this Question—feelings which are to a very large extent shared by Her Majesty's Government. But I can assure the noble Lord that the courses that we are pursuing not only are the main ones which are in fact open to us, but also are those which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, are the most likely to succeed, in the first place, in gaining access to the pilots and, in the second place, in securing their release.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us any reassurance as to the health of the two pilots and their well-being?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that assurance can only be given second hand or third hand. We have been assured indirectly, through the channels we have, that they are in good health and are being well looked after.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if the two pilots are eventually cleared of any responsibility for the diversion of their aircraft in the kidnapping of Mr. Tshombe, would the Government consider putting in with the Algerian Government a claim for damages in respect of their long, and apparently quite unjustified, detention?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this is a matter involving a certain amount of legal expertise which I do not pretend to have, but I should have thought that, had the pilots been unjustifiably detained in a manner contrary to the law of Algeria, they themselves would be in a position to institute proceedings against the Algerian Government. But I am not myself an expert on Algerian law.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not a claim lie for damages in respect of detention of the aircraft?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that would be a matter for the owners of the aircraft, or the charterers of the aircraft, to investigate; not for Her Majesty's Government.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that this has now become an international scandal? Is it not a fact that only nine days ago the

1271
General Assembly, by 116 votes to none, passed a resolution, one of the provisions of which was to call on all member States to recognise the essential and inalienable rights of the human individual? The fact that these two men are being held incommunicado surely is in conflict with that resolution. What I should like to ask my noble friend is whether, in addition to contact made with the representative of the Algerian Government in New York, the services of the Secretary-General could not be invoked, in view of the fact that this is in conflict with the wish and will of the General Assembly itself?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this has now become, in his words, an international scandal; and I also agree with the words he used on an earlier occasion about the intolerable behaviour of the Algerian Government in this respect. With regard to eliciting the help of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I should have thought it would be better, in the first instance, to pursue the matter through my noble friend Lord Caradon in New York, and at a later stage, if he is unable to get any satisfaction, I think that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Rowley should certainly be given very close consideration.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, is there any suggestion that these pilots may have been in some way connected with the kidnapping of Mr. Tshombe?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I know of no evidence whatsoever to support that suggestion.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord said last week that Algeria was not a signatory of the Tokyo Convention. Is it not a Convention widely accepted in the United Nations, and is not Algeria a member State of the United Nations? Furthermore, ought they not to be forcibly and publicly reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, or anybody else who can bring influence to bear, of the provisions of that Convention for the return of aircraft and permission for the passengers in aircraft in these conditions to be allowed to go on their way?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am quite sure that this is a line which my
1272
noble friend Lord Caradon will pursue in his preliminary negotiations. Whether it will more effectively be followed up, if he fails, as I hope he will not, by a more public announcement and statement on these lines, I think we shall have to leave to future developments.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I associate myself with the deep concern expressed from all quarters of this House about this intolerable position. The noble Lord said that there was no evidence that the two pilots were in any way implicated with the kidnapping of Mr. Tshombe. Does the noble Lord have any more information about the circumstances in which this incident in fact took place? I think I am right in saying that two of the Spanish guards have now been released. Are Her Majesty's Government in contact with the Spanish Government? Have they approached the Spanish Government with a view to eliciting from them at least some further knowledge, or some further information, about this case? I hope the noble Lord can tell us that they are taking this action. Can he also assure us that if the Government do not receive satisfaction to the various representations which they are making they have not closed their mind to taking, or at least considering, a whole series of possible steps which they should take to secure the release of these two men and the aircraft?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl of one sentence in the Statement made by my right honourable friend which I have just repeated, where he said:
"We are also, of course, in touch with the Governments of other countries involved".
So far, I repeat, there is no evidence that has come out to implicate the pilots in the kidnapping. But I can assure the noble Earl that we are in touch with any other Governments which may be involved in this matter, which of course includes the Spanish Government. With regard to the second part of his question, I can also assure him that the Government's mind is never closed, and in this case it is certainly not closed on these particular aspects of the problem.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have had discussions or consultations with the French

1273
Government, and whether he does not feel that possibly it might be useful, and more effective than relying on the Swiss Government? Also, does not the noble Lord feel that the relationship between the French Government and Mr. Bouteflika and Colonel Boumedienne may assist in some small way?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, since we have no diplomatic relations with Algeria, we naturally have to work through—and are very happy to work through, and are most grateful to them for being prepared to let us do so—the Swiss Government, which is the protecting Power in this particular case.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
3.57 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, to return to the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for the explanation which he gave us of the intentions and the methods by which this Bill will operate? The underlying intention of the Bill, to ensure an adequate standard of competence in professional driving instructors, is, I suggest, one which everyone should welcome, and certainly I do. But the method by which the Bill achieves that end is one for which, I am bound to say, I feel no enthusiasm; that is, by means of a compulsory Ministry of Transport register which all must join.
Reluctantly, I suppose at this stage of the proceedings I should advise my noble friends on these Benches to accept it, but I do so with the feeling that Her Majesty's Government have missed an opportunity to put before us a much more attractive scheme. As I am going to refer to the Royal Automobile Club Driving Instructor Scheme, I must now declare my interest in the Royal Automobile Club, as a member of its executive committee. The scheme which I should have liked to see would have provided for the accreditation of the R.A.C. and the Motor Schools' Association, if they could meet the necessary standards, as the Minister's agents for providing training and certification of driving instructors.
1274
The R.A.C. are the pioneer of training and testing of drivers. They started doing this in 1902. The scheme which the R.A.C. operate to-day was started by them over thirty years ago, and there are over 5,000 registered R.A.C. instructors. Their test is a good one. It is stiff, and about 45 per cent. of applicants fail to qualify. The fact is that, in the world of driving instruction, the R.A.C. certification is regarded as the highest you can get. The Motor Schools' Association is, of course, of more recent origin, and, I imagine, a good deal smaller in size, but I do not doubt that the Ministry of Transport has full details of its operation and standards. The R.A.C. certainly, and the Motor Schools' Association, subject to satisfying the Ministry of Transport of their capacity to meet the necessary standard, could continue to carry out training and testing of driving instructors as appointed agents of the Minister. The minimum of supervision by the Ministry would have been necessary, not much addition to Ministry staff would have been needed, and no significant increase in the demand on public funds would have been incurred. All driving instructors would have had to take one of these tests and the subsequent follow-up tests as required.
There is a sound precedent for a scheme of the kind I have described, in that the Royal Automobile Club has been made an agent of the Government for the conduct, registration and supervision of motor rallies on public roads. This has been operating now for the past three or four years, and doing so with every satisfaction to everybody. I had a hand in its origin and I have been delighted to see how efficiently and indeed how cheaply it works in the public interest. The R.A.C. has carried out this difficult function with complete satisfaction to the Ministry of Transport. There, again, is a field in which the R.A.C. has been a pioneer.
Under this Bill the Minister is going to require that all driving instructors must register with the Ministry of Transport, at a fee of £10, compared with the £5 fee now charged by the R.A.C. for their scheme. The Minister will, of course, have to engage additional staff to do this. I understand there will be an extra 25 civil servants to start with, but goodness knows how many there will be in due course!

1275
It will cost £100,000 to start with, and no doubt will grow in cost, like other Government Departments, as the years go by. I must say, in comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and in fairness to the Ministry of Transport, that the voluntary test that now exists is a good one, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said, there are about 5,000 on the register. It would be a good one, my Lords, because it was very sensibly copied from the R.A.C.'s scheme, and therefore it works very well.
In principle, my objection is against the Government stepping in to perform a function which is being performed satisfactorily by a private body and could have continued to be so performed in the future by one or more private bodies, though on a compulsory basis. I am one of those who do not subscribe to a common belief to-day that if there is something to be done the right solution is to ask the Government to do it and then everything will be all right. In fact things are by no means improved as a rule, and invariably they become more expensive. Although the Government are making a move in the right direction—and here I must acknowledge that efforts have been made to get agreement on this matter—I regret that the Government have not persevered and made these private bodies their agents for this necessary job. However, with the principle of the Bill I must agree, and therefore I support its Second Reading.
4.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend, Lord Lindgren, on his able and informative speech commending this Bill to your Lordships? As your Lordships will already know, Her Majesty's Government welcome it. No Minister of Transport would wish to lose an opportunity to introduce an effective measure aimed at more safety on the roads, provided that the priorities are right and that the demands it makes on resources, whether financial or otherwise, can be met. I have noted the objections made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to the proposals in this Bill. I hope he will forgive me if I do not join issue with him on the subject now but
1276
leave it to the later stage. For better or worse we have some other subjects to discuss to-day, and I will simply deal with some aspects of the Bill.
In his speech, my noble friend has properly called attention to the importance of really good driving tuition for the coming generation of drivers. This is one element of the education of road users; and education is, in turn, one of the "three E's" which successive Ministers of Transport have rightly described as being the key to greater safety on the roads—Education, Engineering and Enforcement. Driving tuition in this country varies widely both in its organisation and in its standards. There are large schools employing a number of instructors at branches throughout the country. There are, at the other extreme, "one man bands". But they all have one thing in common—that under the present system, uniformity in tuition standards is very difficult to attain. The Ministry's examiners, in conducting their driving tests, see the results of the training given to learner drivers every day. There is no doubt that some of it is extremely poor. Why the public should patronise these instructors, I do not know. I can only surmise that they are attracted by specious advertising, offers of cut price tuition or some other gimmick.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, have referred to the present Register of Approved Driving Instructors maintained, on a voluntary basis, by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport. To build this Register up so that it now contains over 5,000 names in a little over two years represents a good rate of progress and growth. But the fact remains that a large number of instructors have not bothered to put themselves to the test, and of those that have, no less than 45 per cent. have failed to come up to the standards which the Ministry have set as being those which would justify an instructor calling himself a "professional".
I accept the argument that in a matter as important as this—in which not only the technical skills of driving but the inculcation of a proper attitude to driving are vital to future safe driving standards—there ought to be a code of standards and practices applied to and by all professional driving instructors, from

1277
the large full-time concern to the individual giving instruction perhaps on a part-time basis. The Bill now before the House takes as its starting point the present Ministry of Transport's Register, and envisages its continuance on a compulsory basis, including the periodic subsequent checks to ensure that tuition standards are maintained. I am sure this is right. The Ministry's Register has, I believe, found favour with the majority of the responsible instructors in this country, and I am told that their organisations also accept the principle that registration should be made compulsory.
I think your Lordships will also agree that it is equally right that private tuition—for example by memers of the family—should be allowed to continue. Some of us may not think it a good idea, domestically or otherwise, for a man to teach his wife to drive; but if he wants to risk it, I do not think we should seek to stop him. Certainly, any prohibition would be very difficult to police and enforce. And we do not want to put obstacles in the way of people who are getting professional tuition going out with other qualified drivers for practice. The combination of good tuition and plenty of practice is the best recipe for success in the process of learning to drive.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I welcome the Bill to this House and shall be glad to do what I can to assist its passage. We do not think that the fact that it treats with the instructor but not with the school detracts from it in any way. If we get the standards right for instructors, I am sure that the schools will look after themselves. If they do not, and (as it might be argued) school principals seek to bring undesirable pressures on their employed instructors, then I am sure that the instructors' associations will be able to exert their influence to put matters right. The proposals in the Bill would, of course, call for some expansion in the Ministry's staff to handle the increased size of the Register. I cannot give a firm forecast at this stage, but I should not expect the increase to exceed 20 to 25 or so. The extra staff will need to be trained, and there will need to be a reasonable "take-on" period, but, as noble Lords will discover, the Bill contains suitable transitional provisions. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships
1278
and join my noble friend Lord Lindgren in hoping that your Lordships will accord this worthwhile measure a speedy passage into law.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the House has a very heavy agenda of business to-day, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will not take it amiss if I do not to-day deal in detail with the points he raised. The Committee stage of this Bill is to be to-morrow week, and I give an undertaking that if any points are raised either by Amendment or on the Question, That the clause stand part, I shall be happy to deal with them. There are, of course, answers. As a matter of accuracy—here I must declare an interest; I am chairman of the Motor Rallies Advisory Committee—I must tell the noble Lord that the motor rallies scheme, as far as the R.A.C. is concerned, is very heavily in deficit. That deficit is having to be met by the Government, and we are now in process of revising the cost of the scheme.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOKYO CONVENTION BILL
4.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I intervene at this rather late stage in the Bill to do two things: first of all, to

1279
apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in particular, for the absence of myself or any other Government spokesman last week on the Committee stage of the Bill. I can assure your Lordships had I known that there was going to be any question which required a Government answer I should undoubtedly have been here. As it was, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, dealt with the query in a far more able and authoritative way than I could have done myself.
I think it might be useful if I were to clear up, if it were needed, any remaining doubts that there may be in noble Lords' minds about the application of this Bill and the Tokyo Convention itself to the current matter of the British aircraft, GASNU, which is at present being held in Algiers. There are many questions which arise from this matter, and I think it may be in the minds of some noble Lords that the Tokyo Convention does in fact, or would in fact, facilitate solution of some of these problems. First of all, I should like to make it clear that at the present time, on the evidence that we have before us, it is impossible to say whether there has been an act of piracy, whether there has been hijacking, whether there has been unlawful seizure, or what in fact has happened, because there is no evidence that could be admitted in a court of law to enable us to reach a decision. Even if such evidence were available, it would primarily be for the court to decide which, if any, of the Articles of the Tokyo Convention, which, if any, of the clauses of the Bill, had in fact been infringed. So there is ab initio a considerable area of uncertainty in this matter, and I do not want anything I might say to appear to prejudge the issue.
The second thing which I should like to make clear to your Lordships is that as I understand it this question as posed by the noble Earl, is, of course (may I call it?) a multiple hypothetical question; it is based on several hypotheses. The first of those hypotheses is that we have in fact ratified the Tokyo Convention which, until this Bill has been passed, we have not done. The second hypothesis is that twelve countries have ratified the Convention and therefore the Convention
1280
comes into force, I think it is, ninety days after that has happened. At the moment only six countries have ratified the Convention, and therefore the Convention itself is not in force. Thirdly, it is based on the hypothesis that Algeria has also ratified the Convention. That is not only not the case, but there is no indication that Algeria is likely to do so; and Algeria in fact was not present at the Tokyo Conference. And, of course, as your Lordships will know full well, the Convention is operative only if both countries concerned have in fact ratified the Convention. So on all those counts it is, as I say, an extremely hypothetical situation that the noble Earl has envisaged.
However, he certainly has great substance in his point, and I am very grateful that he has brought it up, because although the immediate relevance to the problem of the British aircraft and pilots in Algeria is a somewhat remote one, this is the type of happening which can take place, particularly with the growth of air traffic and charter aircraft and so on, which this Convention has to some measure been designed to deal with. Therefore, though the present problem that we have with Algeria is unlikely to come within the ambit of this Convention, for the reasons I have given, it is the type of thing from which we may well draw considerable benefit with regard to other countries. It is therefore one additional argument in favour of this Bill becoming the law of the land and enabling us to ratify the Convention.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for having been so good as to clear up the point I raised during the Committee stage. I should like to apologise again for not having been able to warn him in advance that I was going to raise it. However, we received a very clear statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I must say that my impression from what he said was that this so-called hijacking of the aircraft—if it was hijacking—if it was not an act of piracy, probably did constitute unlawful seizure. But in view of the noble Lord, Lord Walston's reply now, and also the exchanges we had on the Private Notice Question earlier, I do not think there is anything more I need add to what the two noble Lords have

1281
said, except to say how important it would seem to be that as many countries as possible should sign and ratify the Convention. But if Algeria was not even at the conference when the Convention was drawn up, it looks as though it is a vain hope. Obviously, I should like to emphasise what must be in all our minds at present, and what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has already said, that the two pilots should be enabled to return to this country, in the aircraft presumably, and at once. But this is clearly a delicate matter, and I do not propose to press the noble Lord further this afternoon. I am most grateful to him for what he has said.

THE SUMMER RECESS
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for a few moments, to make a Business Statement? It may be for the convenience of the House to be aware that, while the date of the adjournment for the Summer Recess must depend upon progress of business, which the House will know is heavy, it is hoped that it will be possible to rise on July 28. It is proposed that the House should resume on Monday, October 23.

TOKYO CONVENTION BILL
4.21 p.m.
Debate continued.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the statement which was made by my noble friend Lord Walston in reply to the Private Notice Question, I agree with what the noble Earl has just said: that there is little point in pursuing the various aspects of what we call the "Algerian scandal". I do not know whether this is something that should be explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, or whether it is a political point, but this Convention was signed I think six years ago. Only six of the contracting parties have ratified. How long are we going to wait before the Convention itself comes into full operation?
Having regard to the subject matter, it is not an encouraging outlook that a vitally important Convention is apparently not taken seriously by those who signed it. I wonder whether, in due course, my
1282
noble friend could tell us which are the six countries that have in fact ratified so that we may know which are in default? On the other hand, it seems to me that, so far from denigrating the concept of the Convention, what has happened with regard to the two British pilots in Algeria intensifies the need for a Convention of this kind to be signed and ratified by every member of the United Nations—not that that is always followed by deeds. Just as all Member States, 124 member countries, have signed their adherence to the Charter of the United Nations, I hope that the Government will consider ways and means (I do not know how practical it is) of making this eventually into some kind of United Nations official Convention. Under Article 21 of the Convention, presumably it should be eventually registered with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. But I take it that that will not be done until it is operative; and it will not be operative until at least 12 signatories have ratified.
What an extraordinary position we are in! Five or six years after the vital Convention is discussed and drafted and signed, the whole thing is blown up into the light of publicity by the grossly unlawful act which took place on board this aeroplane and which at the moment is shrouded in mystery. In these circumstances, I would merely say that I strongly support the concept on which this Convention is based, and express my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, who I believe led the British delegation at the Conference, upon a fine piece of work. I would only regret—no doubt I share his regret—that to some extent it is still something which is in the realm of theory. I hope that when next we come to discuss this problem we shall have made a good deal more progress than we have to date.
4.24 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, to reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and acknowledging his kind remarks about the Convention, I have here a list of the ratifying States which is good up to June 23 of this year. It includes the three Scandinavian States, Sweden, Norway and Denmark; then Portugal, the Philippine Republic and the Republic of China—that is, Formosa. Of course, I and all those who worked

1283
on this Convention entirely shared his sentiment in wishing that this Convention should be brought into force as soon as possible. I know that Her Majesty's Government, unofficially, when the way is open to them, encourage other States to come along and ratify; but, of course, legislation is necessary to bring the Convention into force. This takes time, and one may perhaps hope that out of evil good may come, and that as a result of this Algerian incident there may be a rush of signatures and ratifications which may bring the Convention speedily into force. I do not think there is anything else that I need to add.
On Question, Bill passed.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is not unfamiliar to this House. As before, it sticks closely to Wolfenden, and indeed it is in substance the same Bill as that which your Lordships have twice been good enough to pass. It has now been debated, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, urged that it should be, in another place, and it has been passed there by a majority which I think I can fairly describe as overwhelming. The principle of reform has also been accepted by a considerable majority of those questioned in two opinion polls. In these circumstances, I do not think I need weary your Lordships by a further repetition of my own views about the principles of this Bill, which must be familiar to you. What I feel I must do is to outline and explain briefly the new clauses and alterations which derive from another place, and to commend them to your Lordships.
In Clause 1, there are two new subsections, (6) and (7). Subsection (6) ensures that the onus of proving that an alleged homosexual offence has been committed through not being done in private or without consent, or because one of the parties was under 21, shall lie with the prosecution. The clause is, as it were, a declaratory one, inserted to make quite
1284
certain that, as Mr. Abse said in Committee in another place:
"No one is in the position of finding himself having to prove a negative."
The purpose of subsection (7) is to make it clear that an act of whipping which may or not amount to an indecent assault shall not be made legal as an unintended side-effect of the Bill. The subsection achieves this by stating that "consent" applies only to homosexual acts as such. But flagellation of a male by another male remains an offence, just as flagellation of a female by a male is an offence. This subsection ensures that no immunity is given to the offence of whipping.
Clause 2 is a new clause, and an important one. In effect, it puts the United Kingdom Merchant Navy in the same category as the Armed Services. In other words, the Bill will not apply to merchant ships any more than to ships of the Royal Navy. Your Lordships will recall that this proposition was previously debated in this House on the initiative of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I confess that at that time I had reservations, but strong representations to the sponsors of the Bill in the other place were made by the National Maritime Board, which represents both the unions and the shipowners, and on the strength of these representations it was agreed that this clause should be inserted.
I do not myself think it unreasonable, first because the Merchant Navy is akin to the Royal Navy, in that discipline on board is essential; and, secondly, because merchant ships, again like ships of the Royal Navy, are often at sea for long periods. Clause 3(2) contains in line 19 the new words:
"or being a party to."
Those words were not in the previous Bill. The purpose of this addition is quite simply to make uniform the penalties for all offences under this clause. The additional words were inserted at the request of the Home Office.
Last, we come to Clause 8, which is a new version of what was Clause 7. Under it, as before, police prosecution in cases of offences between men over 21—that is to say, offences committed when more than two persons were present, or in public places, or where there was no consent—will be, as it were, automatic

1285
and without reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. But in a case in which one of the parties is under 21 the consent of the Director will be needed to prosecute; and for two special reasons. One is that the younger man may well be blackmailing the older man—which, as we know, often happens—and it is important therefore that the case should be examined as a whole, not simply on the bald facts, so that full justice may be done. The other reason is that a situation may occur in which there is a continuing relationship between two young men and when one of them reaches the age of 21 he suddenly becomes subject to far greater penalties, even though the responsibility may be equally shared. Such, as it were, "across the line" cases, call for special investigation and discretion.
In order, however, that the police may not be hampered in their duties by these things, a second paragraph has been added which allows them to arrest or charge any such person without awaiting the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will lie with him merely to say whether the charges shall be proceeded with, and the requirement of his consent by no means implies, of course, that his decision either way will be a foregone conclusion.
One more word, my Lords, and I have done. It may well be that noble Lords will wish to divide the House this afternoon. If this should happen—then two things. First, I would dare to hope that noble Lords will speak briefly, as I have tried to speak, so that the Division may not be too late; and, secondly, that I shall entirely understand the wish to divide. If ever there was a matter of conscience, it is this. And just as the supporters of the Bill firmly believe it to be right, the opponents are equally convinced that it is wrong. And they may wish to register their disapproval once again.
Nor, my Lords, do I forget three voices, alas! now stilled: those of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir; the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, and the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, who spoke in condemnation of what we are seeking to enact. It is not for me to make points for the other side, but I have always respected my opponents and their point of view, and I should like to be entirely fair. But the
1286
more I have come to learn of the plight and the unhappiness of homosexuals, the more convinced I have become that this Bill is necessary. I earnestly pray that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Arran.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill and to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on his tenacity in introducing it in this House once again. I say this all the more sincerely because we all know the tremendous strain which his health has been suffering in the past few months, and we are glad to see him taking an active part once again in our proceedings.
When I spoke on the Second Reading debate on a similar Bill over a year ago, I said that there had been a marked shift in public opinion over the last few years, and during the past 12 months I believe that this shift has become even more pronounced. Its passage through another place has emphasised this all the more. Not before time, the law really is in the process of being changed—not in order that society will accept the homosexual, but so that the homosexual will be able to come to terms with himself. I believe that the present law is ill-conceived and unjust, and my sympathy—even though I abhor homosexual practices—goes out to this oppressed minority. I feel certain that reform along the lines of Wolfenden will not only give better protection to young people in the future, but may well reduce the number of people actually suffering from this problem, because they will be able to get real help openly from the time this Bill gets on to the Statute Book.
I have referred to Mr. Michael Schofield's enlightened book in which he suggests that the child-molesting homosexual and the adult-seeking homosexual are different phenomena; and under the new atmosphere which this Bill will create there will be a line of research which could show us how to differentiate between the two and what treatment is required. Among other things, I believe that the Bill should lessen the blackmail to which so many homosexuals are subjected. A considerable number of blackmail cases which come up in the courts

1287
have to deal with men who have committed homosexual offences. The passing of the Bill will enable the psychological and physiological sexual misfits to live in the way they choose without fear of prosecution or persecution.
I hope that the Bill in this House will not be opposed. We have won the reputation of being a reforming Chamber, and I hope that the present Bill will have a speedy passage through the House and on to the Statute Book. I say "speedy", because we have now debated this subject on many occasions during the past two years. I can well understand that noble Lords, like myself, will rise to reaffirm their position. But may I, with every respect to your Lordships' House, emphasise what Lord Arran said, and suggest that all our speeches to-day should be as brief as possible and that if we are to divide—and I hope we shall not—let it be sooner rather than later.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Bill, except for two clauses, is exactly the same as the Bill which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Arran earlier in this Session—although it seems a very long time ago. Exactly why the other place did not succeed in considering it I do not know. One cannot help feeling that it might have saved a little time if it had been amended there. However, this Bill, as I say, is exactly the same apart from two new short clauses, one about merchant seamen and the other about methods of prosecution which have been introduced. We have spoken so much on this subject, not only on Motions but on previous Bills of my noble friend, that, like the noble Earl and Lord Byers, I do not feel there is a great deal more which ought to be said. Whatever our views may be, most of us would wish to congratulate my noble friend on his perseverance for so long in this kind of legislation.
I remember that when I last spoke on the subject of a Motion moved by my noble friend, afterwards we had to broadcast on the B.B.C. about it at eleven o'clock at night. I know my noble friend will not misunderstand me if I say that I do not always agree with the emotional overtones in which he sometimes expresses his view on this subject. It would not be useful to try to have any kind of
1288
debate on pathology. I do not know much about that subject, but I find it very hard to believe—in fact, I do not believe—that more than a small minority of people who practise homosexuality are pathological cases who cannot help doing so. In my belief, they are not like kleptomaniacs who cannot help stealing, and the great majority know that it is wrong.
But, of course, it is quite a different question whether wrongdoing should in all cases be punishable by law. Most of the Ten Commandments are Commandments whose breaches are not punishable by law. Murder and theft are punishable and there are still a few vestiges of Sabbatarian law, and bearing false witness so far as it applies to legal perjury. But breaches of the rest of the Commandments are not punishable by law. As for the seven deadly sins, none of them is punishable by law at all, or could be. You could not prosecute a man for envy, anger, avarice, pride, gluttony or any of the others. The real question which we have always had to decide is: is it in the public interest that this particular kind of moral evil doing should be illegal, or not?
I do not have the figures ready to hand of how many other countries which have a Christian civilisation make homosexual misbehaviour illegal. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be able to tell us. I think the majority do not. Certainly, France does not. I think Germany is the only one which does, or did, have laws against it. But all of them, of course, have laws against homosexual ill-treatment or perversion of young persons, which is quite a different principle altogether. What we have to consider is this. We did, by a very large majority, pass the Bill before. Another place has, by a very large majority, passed the new Bill which is virtually the same.
VISCOUNT DTLHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Earl forgive me? Is he really saying that a majority of 18, which was the majority on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, is a very large majority?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there have been so many Divisions about this that I am afraid I do not remember which had a majority of 18 and which had a bigger or smaller one. I certainly

1289
remember larger ones, but I have no doubt there may have been some which were smaller than others. Of course, nobody wishes to discourage either my noble friend or anybody else from dividing and speaking against the Bill now. But I do not feel that the supporters of the Bill—I have always so far abstained from voting—will want to say a great deal more about it.
The Bill does not apply to Scotland, and I think the reason may be that prosecutions in Scotland are conducted by a different method. I asked the Crown Office about this, and I was informed that efforts have been made to find when the last prosecution of two consenting adult males in private took place, but nobody was able to remember a single one. The reason is that in Scotland prosecutions can only be initiated by the Public Prosecutor, in this case with the consent of the Crown Office, and that, in fact, they are never undertaken, except in cases which would still be criminal offences under this Bill. I think that—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? They are required to consider whether or not it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, and the fact is that they have never done so in living memory, so far as I can ascertain. Of course, they are required to consider whether it is in the public interest, and I had thought that the resulting difference might be a substantial one between Scotland and England, but I am not now quite so sure whether it is.
If your Lordships have read the report of the debate on the Third Reading in another place you will have seen that my right honourable friend Mr. Quintin Hogg appeared to suggest that there were very few prosecutions, even in England, which would be stopped by this Bill. I had always thought that there were a considerable number, and that there was a considerable problem of blackmail arising out of them. If that is not so, then the answer is that this Bill is not really very important. Under the Bill there is a very wide range of offences concerning persons under 21, or merchant seamen, or the Army, where there are special disciplinary reasons for having a different law, and in
1290
which no difference will be made by the Bill. Here, again, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could help us by giving us an idea of the actual number of prosecutions in recent years which have taken place in England, and which would no longer be able to be brought under this Bill. Whether it is considerable or very small, I do not know. But certainly there are none in Scotland.
I do not want to use the word in any sense which is offensive to anybody, but I have always resented the sentimentality which surrounds discussion on this subject. I have never taken a strong view on the actual merits or demerits of these legislative proposals. They do not apply at all to my own country under this Bill. I think I would probably feel, if I were an Englishman, that on balance the evil which is done by blackmail and by prosecutions which may be unnecessary, and which do more harm than good, arising out of the present state of the law, is on the whole greater than the evil which arises from homosexual misbehaviour in private between consenting adult males.
I conclude with what has to me always been the strongest argument against this Bill; that although it may be unwise to have our present law as it is, and although most other countries do not have it, the very fact of changing the law and of making this thing no longer illegal may cause people to think that Parliament approves of it and that it is a good thing. That has always been an argument which weighs with me very much. But that is something which your Lordships must judge for yourselves; whether the majority of educated people in this country will really take that view. When I consider what is probably the small number of prosecutions which have been taking place which under the Bill will now be dispensed with, and the very large range of misconduct concerning juveniles, and procuring, and other offences which will still be illegal, anyhow, I rather doubt whether the majority of our people will regard this Bill as a great encouragement to immorality and national degradation.
4.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I rise on behalf of many of my brethren in this part of your Lordships' House to reaffirm, very briefly, the support which we gave to the principles of

1291
this Bill when it was before the House on a previous occasion. In so doing we do not condone homosexual practices; nor do we regard them as in any way less sinful. But in supporting the Bill we are concerned mainly for the reformation and recovery, if it can be, of those who have become the victims of homosexual practices. The fact that the law as it stands is difficult to enforce, and leads so often to blackmail, frequently results in those who need spiritual and psychiatric help being reluctant to reveal themselves in order to obtain that help. It is our hope that if this Bill becomes law we shall be able to bring to more people the help, guidance and reformation which they need and which we believe it to be our duty to make possible for them.
4.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are often told that the Second Readings of Bills which come before Parliament ought to be devoted to the broad principles underlying the measures under discussion, rather than questions of detail, which ought to be left to the Committee stage. That, my Lords, is my reason for intervening to-day on this Bill, which has been moved by my noble relative, Lord Arran. My intervention will be very short indeed, for it is concerned with only one single point, though I believe it to be an important one. If I am asked why I have not made it before, my answer is that I have only just reached my conclusions, quite lately, after very considerable thought.
The point that I want to make to your Lordships, with all deference, is this. It is frequently suggested nowadays as a conclusive argument in favour of relaxing the existing laws with regard to such matters as homosexuality that such practices are not, in any true sense, crimes at all: they are sins, and should therefore not come within the purview of the secular law. I am sure your Lordships have often heard that argument. I certainly have, and I confess that I have found it very worrying. I have therefore tried to sort out in my own mind what is the proper relationship between sin and crime. When, in other words, does a sin become also a crime, to be treated as such? Who makes it a crime, and why? I have come personally to this conclusion, which I offer
1292
with very great diffidence to your Lordships: that it is when a community considers that a brake simply must be put on that sin because it is becoming a danger, not only to the individual who commits it but to the moral fabric of the community as a whole.
I raise this point this afternoon with regard to this particular Bill because I, like, I believe, others, am coming to feel that we are reaching that danger point in this country with regard to this particular sin, and possibly others as well. We are becoming too inclined to say to ourselves, "This is not a crime; it is merely a sin"; and from there it is all too easy to take a further step and say, "It is not really a sin; it is a misfortune, a psychological misfortune, which an individual has incurred not from any fault of his own but from a variety of circumstances—his upbringing, his temperament and so on—for which he is, truly speaking, not responsible". That is what we may broadly call "the diminished responsibility argument". It has been put very clearly this afternoon, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
That argument may appear a perfectly reasonable one when one approaches the matter purely from the point of view of the individual, but it may become, as I see it, an infinitely dangerous one if one approaches it from the point of view of the community—and that is what I believe is happening all too often to-day. We may believe each time we pass one of these Bills that we are becoming more good, kind and civilised, and even Christian; but what is really happening to us as a community, as I see it, is that our moral fibre is being steadily deteriorated. As we all know, subjects are to-day being more and more freely discussed, and practices which, until a very few years ago, could hardly have been mentioned at all in decent society, are now taken as a matter of course, almost by children. There as almost a sort of glorification of sex, and even of sex perversion, that is forced on our attention, not only on the films but in the Press. And though I may be regarded, my Lords, as being very old-fashioned in saying so, I cannot regard this as the right time for the community to relax its attitude towards such practices. I regard it, on the contrary, as a time when the community should do its

1293
utmost to show its aversion to them by any means in its power, as being a danger to the whole moral structure of the community itself.
I fully realise, of course, that it is entirely open to the community, if it feels so inclined, to change its mind regarding these practices, and to come to regard them as very largely harmless to the nation as a whole. And in that case, no doubt, it will regard a steady growth in the practice of homosexuality with the utmost unconcern. But I am not one of those who take that view. Nor, if I may say so, am I in the least impressed by the argument about blackmail; for if people did not practise homosexuality they would not be open to blackmail. It seems to me that one might use exactly the same argument about murder.
My Lords, if we were concerning ourselves to-day with, say, ancient Rome, or some other ancient country, and not modern Britain, and were to read in our history books that during a certain period, say, in the history of Rome the practice of homosexuality had grown to such a degree that it had been necessary for the authorities to take certain steps to relax the laws against it, I think we should all regard that as evidence of increasing decadence in the country concerned. And I am afraid that that is the only conclusion I can draw from the introduction of a Bill such as this in the British Parliament now. For that reason, my Lords, if the Second Reading of this Bill is pressed to a vote I am afraid that I shall have no option but to vote against it.
4.59 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I hesitate to address your Lordships once more on this subject because I have already spoken far more than I should have done in the various debates on this subject in your Lordships' House. But I feel that there is a completely wrong attitude on this subject promoted by what is known as Christian charity. I have had many letters and many conversations with people who have approached me because I have spoken of it in previous debates. Several of them have written to me, and have also spoken to me, saying, "Has nobody ever heard of the power of prayer?" They have found the value of that power; with God's help,
1294
they have succeeded in completely overcoming the disability from which they previously suffered. They have said, "Why cannot people talk more about that power?". We were told on the last occasion of several cases where Christ had forgiven sin. We were, in particular, told of the woman who was taken in adultery; and Christ's words were quoted: "Neither do I condemn …". But why was that quotation not continued?—for the words that follow seem to me to be the most important of them all: "Sin no more!"
My Lords, I was listening the other night to a debate on television on a new film of St. Matthew's Gospel that had appeared. During the discussion a Roman Catholic priest and a Protestant Minister were asked what had impressed them most about that film. It was that they had realised, perhaps for the first time, that Christ was not the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild"; but that he was indignant, and righteously indignant, in the face of evil; that he did not stand idly by saying that it was not his job, that it was not this and not the other; and that he never failed to condemn evil. One has only to look at the 23rd Chapter of St. Matthew to realise his views about the Pharisees and the sins for which he condemned them.
My Lords, we have the wrong end of the stick; we are now in a position where the sinner must be saved from the sense of guilt and shame of his sins. It does not matter how many other people have to suffer, he must not feel that guilt and shame. But that sense of guilt and shame is nothing but the normal psychological protection against giving way to these tendencies. There are a lot of things that many of us would probably do if it were not for the feelings of guilt and shame that we might bring upon ourselves if we did them. To-day there is too much thought for the evil-doer and too little for the person who is struggling to go straight. The Wolfenden Report admitted that the passing of this Bill would increase homosexual tendencies and increase homosexual practices. I see the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is shaking his head. That is what they said in their Bill; but they did not mind that—
LORD BOOTHBY: They did not produce a Bill.
LORD ROWALLAN: They did not mind how many were corrupted so long as they did not have the feeling of guilt and shame which they had earned for themselves.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him. I am not aware that Wolfenden ever produced a Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: He said "A Report".
LORD BOOTHBY: The noble Lord said "A Bill".
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord's forgiveness. It had become so well known as "Arran's Bill" and also as the "Wolfenden Bill"; because it followed so closely the recommendations.
Are we to sit idly by and watch the increase of homosexuality among the young people? Or are we to say: No; the evil-doer must suffer as the innocent must be protected? That is the proposition before us to-day. I am quite convinced, as was the noble Marquess, that this is the point at which we have got to stop and say, No; that we must get back our moral fibre and not be afraid to accuse the evil-doers.
5.5 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, no one who has just heard the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, speak will doubt at all the sincerity with which he expresses his views; and, of course, everyone will understand the sense of duty which made him, as a former head of the Boy Scout Movement, speak as he did just now. I have always had regard for those who sincerely felt that the passage of a Bill of this kind would encourage the spread of homosexuality among the young. But may I put into the balance, against his experience, my own judgment? For 20 years I was a tutor and head of a Cambridge college and now I am head of a college at London University. One of the happiest parts of my duties has been to get to know undergraduates and how they live their lives. One gets to know something also of their lives at school, and particularly at boarding school. Of all the changes that I have seen during these years, nothing has been more striking than the
1296
decline in homosexuality or to be more accurate, the decline in young men who are pretending, or flirting with, homosexuality. This is an immense change and the reason for it is obvious: to-day, boys in their teens go out with girls; the old days of segregation of the sexes, of shyness and awkwardness and of formal relations between them are over.
Of course, there will always be homosexuals. Even if this Bill is passed some will be sentenced for soliciting or for interfering with minors. The Bill does all that it should to protect the public. I do not believe it will lead to any increase in homosexuality among the young or have any adverse influence on their way of life. That is what I would put in the balance against the striking statement that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has just made. I do not believe this Bill will in any way lead to a weakening of the fibres of our moral life. We in this House have often debated that precise point and I will not waste your Lordships' time with further observations upon it.
My Lords, all that I would add is this. One does not have to be a Member of your Lordships' House for very long to be as jealous as its oldest Member for its great reputation and standing. Having passed Lord Arran's Bill twice, having educated public opinion, having stood (as this House should stand) as a forum where controversial issues can be debated and voted upon without Party alignment or without constituency pressures, should we not ask ourselves this afternoon how that reputation will fare if we were to defeat this Bill? Now that it has come to us from another place, surely we should re-affirm our past votes. It is true, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, reminded us in his interjection, that the number of votes by which Lord Arran's Bill was passed last time was not so many as all that. It is equally true that the number of votes that could be mustered in another place in the final stages of their debate was even smaller than the majority by which it was passed in this House.
I sincerely respect the feelings of those who still feel repugnance for this measure. If they feel this repugnance so strongly, then I suppose they must vote against it. But I appeal to those noble

1297
Lords who still feel this repugnance but who have followed the course of these debates in this House and in the other place during the past two years, to consider whether it would not be wise to abstain when the House divides. I believe that there is quite a new feeling of respect and admiration for your Lordships' House throughout the country, and particularly among the young, who have learned that this is not an assembly of inverted Micawbers waiting to turn something down. My Lords, let us enhance this respect, and either vote for this Bill or abstain from voting.
5.10 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I was interested in the noble Earl, Lord Arran's remark that his experience in the schools and universities, extending over his whole life, had been that there is a diminishment of homosexual practices. Having been in university life and connected with schools, my own experience is towards the same conclusion. It is something which one cannot reduce to mathematical terms, and one may indeed be wrong.
My Lords, it is a little presumptuous of me, a Scot, to address your Lordships when this Bill applies neither to Scotland nor to Northern Ireland. I am impelled to do so by the fact that, when the noble Earl, Lord Arran, introduced his Bill for the first time in this House, he queried a statement of mine that the Church of Scotland was against such a proposition. I had good reason for saying that as I had taken some care to discover what I thought would be the attitude of the Church of Scotland on this matter. The matter had not been discussed in the General Assembly for some five years previously, but I have to report to your Lordships that at the General Assembly held last May the Church of Scotland, discussing this subject, came out quite clearly, and with a very substantial majority, against the proposals in this Bill. I think your Lordships should be aware of that. There was a minority for the Bill in the Church of Scotland, as there are minorities against the Bill in other Churches.
Whether that is slightly from the curiosity angle; whether it indicates a difference of Presbyterian ethics—which is perhaps implied by the fact that Northern Ireland also is ex-
1298
cluded —whether it is a different system of Church government, or whether it is for some other reason than a purely religious one, it is very difficult to say. It may be that in Scotland we are not yet ready for the more permissive society that is overcoming England and encroaching into Scotland. It certainly is the case, I think, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that in this respect we have a more liberal legal system. It is less hidebound and more easily adjusted to the circumstances of the period than the system which obtains in England. On the other hand, my Lords, it may be merely that we in Scotland suffer from an inferiority complex by being the junior Kingdom.
5.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the subject we are debating to-day has already been gone into with the greatest thoroughness. I am confident that there are very few people in your Lordships' House who have not made up their minds on this subject already. My only reason for taking a few minutes of your Lordships' time is to reiterate what I have said in the past concerning the opinions that I believe young people in this country hold on this important matter. I cannot claim to speak as a particularly young person myself, but my work as a teacher in an institute of higher education brings me in contact with a great many people who are in their early twenties. They are very responsible and intelligent people, and it will not be long before they will be the people running this country and exerting more and more influence. I believe that among people of this age there is an overwhelming feeling that the law of this country should be changed.
I can speak with certainty, of course, only about my own students, but I know that almost 100 per cent. of them would support this Bill. I am convinced that if this subject were to be debated in any university in this country, one would find that the consensus of opinion would be almost totally in favour of a change in the law; and probably there would be a wish that the law should be changed very much more drastically than is proposed to-day. It seems to me that the important issue is whether homosexuality among men (for some odd

1299
reason nobody seems to be the least concerned about women) would be likely to increase if the law was changed. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, has put over very clearly that it is his fear that this would happen. I find it almost impossible to believe.
We have information from other countries that have altered their laws in a more lenient direction, and I do not think anybody has produced one shred of evidence to indicate that this change in the law has produced an increase in homosexuality. When I spoke on this subject before, I pointed out that in Sweden, where the laws were amended along the lines of the Wolfenden Committee recommendations in 1944, there has been no indication of an increase in homosexuality. One would like to know which countries that have altered their laws have seen a savage outbreak of homosexuality, and indeed an outbreak of those strange clubs that have been referred to in this House and in another place as "buggery clubs". I am confident that a careful study of this problem would indicate that these fears are without substance.
We know that the number of prosecutions for homosexual acts between consenting adults in private are very few. We also know—and I am personally happy about this—that the vast majority of acts between men in private are not detected, and therefore are not punished. It is impossible for the police to enforce the present law, and a law that is not enforceable seems to me somewhat meaningless. Furthermore, a law that imposes such monstrous conditions on the lives of a minority of people who I believe, rightly or wrongly, through no fault of their own are different from the rest, is a law that should be changed. Your Lordships supported Lord Arran's Bill when it came before you in the past and I sincerely hope you will support this Bill and give it a Second Reading.
5.19 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, at two minutes to eight this morning I was listening to the wireless and I heard a voice saying, "To-day the Sexual Offences Bill, sponsored by Lord Arran, gets a Second Reading in the House of Lords; and in 'The World at One' we are putting on a special programme including an interview with a practising homosexual". I hope
1300
that the prognostication is incorrect. I listened to the programme, "The World at One", which consisted of interviews between practising homosexuals of a type for which people like myself have the utmost sympathy and feeling. But, my Lords, I feel that programmes such as we have to-day are further evidence of the unbalanced approach in which a lot of media have indulged in regard to this measure, and for this reason. I believe that after the debates in your Lordships' House in 1965 and 1966, to which reference has already been made, when Bills introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, were being discussed, the Division figures were not altogether a fair guide to the opinion of this House. We all knew at that time that neither of the Bills could ever become law because of the Parliamentary time-table. This, I feel, kept many noble Lords from taking part in the debates. Certainly I found that I had to drive myself to take part in them. That is not the case to-day, because your Lordships' House is dealing with a Bill which has been sent up from another place, and it is our duty to debate it properly.
When on June 16 the noble Earl, Lord Arran, called for "a smashing majority", the figures were 78 to 60 in favour of the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Four Bishops took part in those debates. It seems to me curious when, as we know, the Church of England is split right up the middle on this issue, that four of the Lords Spiritual should support the Bill and none should be against. Perhaps in fairness to them the reason may be that the Bishops had paired. I should be glad to know if that were so, but the fact is that four Bishops voted for it, and no Bishop voted against it.
Your Lordships know my views from previous debates, and I do not intend to deploy them again, except to say that I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Rowallan has just said. He indicated that there were grave risks of increased homosexuality if this Measure based on the Wolfenden Report were adopted. But I pin my faith to the reservations made by Mr. Adair. To my mind, these are most important factors in our approach to this situation as it is to-day.
All I propose to do, in deference to the wish of the House that speeches

1301
should be short, is to add what I can to what has been said in opposition to the Bill. If your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that it will be rejected at a later stage. One cannot but admire the tenacity of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and his courage and determination in this matter, but I cannot respect him for having taken up this particular Bill, nor for persisting in it.
I am satisfied that the Bill will not stop blackmail. Why?—because, law or no law, the people as a whole detest homosexual behaviour, and blackmailers will continue to cash in on this fact. I am satisfied that the Bill is a "queer's charter" and will encourage that most loathsome creature, the male prostitute. I am satisfied that it will increase the temptations which lie in the path of adolescents. I am satisfied that Clause 2, excepting the Services and the Merchant Navy, makes absolute nonsense of the whole Bill. I cannot see why what is a crime in one part of the nation is not a crime in another. I am satisfied—and this is the worst of all—that this Bill would introduce into our way of life a horrible power in the hands of any man in authority in civil life. It will give someone who has power to promote or employ the power to make acquiescence a step towards advancement. I think that this is perhaps the worst feature of the whole Bill. I had a conversation the other day with a young grandmother who had some theatrical experience earlier in her life, "Ah", she said to me, "I see what you mean—the male equivalent of the casting couch". This is a dreadful situation, which I think must be borne in mind.
I appeal to noble Lords who are in any doubt whatsoever to abstain from voting. Even if they cannot vote for the status quo, they should abstain. As against the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I would say: abstain or vote against. It is not that I lack compassion for the unfortunate homosexual—I am also not lacking in compassion for those who are dragged into his net, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan said. I should like to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I feel certain that there has been a change in the people's attitude in regard to permissiveness in our society, not in
1302
recent years, but in recent months. I appeal to your Lordships to reject the Bill. I for one will go into the Lobby against it whenever there is a Division.
5.26 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I usually agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I regret that I am unable to do so on this occasion. I used to think that 20 minutes was the ideal length for a speech, so your Lordships may be relieved to know that, rather late in life, I have come to the conclusion that a maximum of ten minutes is better, and more effective. We have played this record anyway very often.
I am speaking only because I fired the first shots in this campaign with a speech to the Hardwicke Society in February, 1954, which got quite a lot of Press support. This encouraged me to ask certain questions in another place, which led to a correspondence between myself and the Home Secretary, then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; and this in turn resulted in the appointment of the Wolfenden Committee. My noble friend Lord Arran and Mr. Abse have now led, with conspicuous ability, the final Parliamentary assault.
I always estimated that it would take about ten years, following the publication of the Wolfenden Report and the animated discussion in Parliament and in the Press which inevitably followed it, to allow the climate of public opinion to change sufficiently to enable the necessary legislation to be passed. It has taken a little longer, but not much. The climate of public opinion has now changed right through the country, and there is general support for this measure. I assert that its main purpose is to remove the Labouchère Amendment from the Statute Book. I know that that is not the view of one or two of my noble and learned friends. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, does not altogether take this view.
I go back to the remark made in another context by Lord Kilmuir, when he said:
"It ought to be done by legislation directed to the point, and not by a side wind in a different Bill."
The Bill in which the Labouchère Amendment was inserted was a Bill to

1303
make further provision for the protection of women and girls. It was passed on a hot night, in an empty House, without discussion and without a Division. With great respect, and as against some noble and learned Lords in this House, I am content to rely on the considered opinion of Sir Travers Humphreys. He said:
"In committee Mr. Labouchère moved to insert in the Bill the clause, which ultimately became Section 11 of the Act, creating the new offence of indecency between male persons in public or private … It is doubtful whether the House fully appreciated that the words 'in public or private' had completely altered the law."
There is certainly no dubiety about Sir Travers Humphreys' remarks. That was how it was done, and that is what I think should now be undone.
In conclusion, I support this Bill for four simple reasons. There is a lunatic fringe of homosexuals who get a kick out of being on the wrong side of the law, and of the danger arising therefrom. To a great extent the Bill will take that kick away, and some of them may even give it up. Secondly, the vast majority hate being on the wrong side of the law, and wish only to be good and useful citizens, though they may sometimes, perhaps often, lead rather unhappy lives. Another reason why I support the Bill is because I am convinced that prisons are the last places on earth to which homosexuals should be sent. This really is an overwhelming reason.
I further believe that what consenting adults of either sex do in privacy is their own affair in a free democracy. I will not go into the question of sin and crime raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—I think we have already dealt with that, and he dealt with it extremely well to-day—except to say that I believe there is a difference between what some may hold to be a sin and, what the State may hold to be a crime; because "crime" means a crime against the State.
Finally, there is the question of blackmail. And do not think, my Lords, that it does not exist, or that it will not be reduced if this Bill is passed; or that blackmail is not a more horrible thing than homosexuality between consenting adults.
1304
This Bill does not go as far as I would wish. I think that some of the prescribed penalties are excessive. Nevertheless, it deals with what I believe is the essential point. I feel that we all owe a considerable debt to Sir John Wolfenden and his Committee for all the trouble they took and the work they did. It was not a very agreeable inquiry to conduct. Sir John once told me that, in suggesting it, I had done him the greatest disservice that had ever been done to him in his life. But he did a fine job. I would end by saying that I cannot help hoping that when this Bill and the Abortion Bill are both out of the light we shall not hear of sex in this House again for a very long time. Because the plain truth is that, after a while, sex can be very boring.
5.32 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, there are times in Parliamentary life when one has to face a Bill which one abhors, and yet to oppose it categorically would beg the question: what are you going to put in its place? After a great deal of thought, this is how this Bill presents itself to me. I think we all admire the courage of my noble friend Lord Arran in having persisted strongly with this measure; and nobody who knows him would doubt the sincerity of his motives.
At the outset, there is one question that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Whatever happens to this Bill, will the full stretches of medical research be put to the limit to try to help these unfortunate people, the homosexuals, and to try, at least in part, to cure them of these habits? Because with medical research as it is at present. I believe that this can be done, even if it takes a long time. I think it is a great fault to suppose that this can never be cured. Having said that, I would add that I hope some of the penalties which are outlined in the Bill will be looked at before the Committee stage, because some seem to me to be too lenient. I do not think that at this hour of the evening we want to pursue Committee points, but I am thinking particularly of Clause 5, which deals with living off the earnings of male prostitutes. It seems to me that the penalties there might be looked at again and, if necessary, increased. I would ask the Government and my noble friend to consider this.

1305
In one of the more popular Sunday newspapers last week there appeared an account, which some of your Lordships may have seen, of a homosexual wedding in a Continental country. I think the newspaper concerned is to be congratulated on high lighting this very nasty happening. I only hope that if this Bill becomes law, as I believe it will, the most vigilant eye will be kept on practices of this kind. I do not think these things could happen in this country, but it is possible, and I hope that the Government will read this particular article. I cannot remember in which newspaper it appeared.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It was the News of the World.
LORD AUCKLAND: I will not make any further comment on that, except to ask the Government to look at what I think is a serious matter.
It seems to me that the whole Bill has been well summed up by my right honourable and learned friend the Member for Marylebone in another place. To paraphrase his words, he described it as an undesirable Bill, because it would not have the alarming effects that some of its opponents claim it might have. My own feeling is that to oppose the Bill on Second Reading would be a mistake, because, as I said earlier, the whole point is that we have to think of what can be put in its place to deal with the element of homosexuals who cannot control their feelings. I can only hope that, even at this late stage, the Bill will be more thoroughly examined in Committee, particularly so far as the penalty clauses are concerned.
5.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Arran has recovered sufficiently to go through the Second Reading of his Bill—this Bill which has become a hardy annual. I am going to be shorter than usual in support of this Bill, as I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I have adduced before. We have debated this subject ad nauseam, and each time, though I have searched my conscience, I have discerned no reason for withdrawing my support for such a measure. I believe it is a step in the right direction of understanding and tolerance towards the age-old problem of human behaviour,
1306
which in the past the law has dealt with in the most savage way.
The sexual instinct is so ringed round with taboos and primitive fears that it is not surprising it is smothered in self-disception. I believe that in this context to bandy about with words like "normal" and "unnatural" does not bear even examination, let alone introspection or analysis. I have some sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, because he has had so much experience with young people, but in this context I sincerely believe that this Bill in no way increases the danger of corrupting the young. The law is still severe enough on compulsive homosexuals who find their pleasure only with young boys. After all, so-called normal men who display the same kind of vice with very young girls get off relatively lightly, and the results can be much more serious.
The assumption to-day that youth is a state of innocence, and therefore sexless, is in itself a false and dangerous assumption. It is here that I think the psychologists have a greater role to play than they have done so far. They could do much more to guide parents and teachers in instructing children. I am not referring to the simple biological facts, but to the deeper physical and emotional urges and the dangers they may encounter. A more profound understanding of human sexual behaviour is the best defence against temptation from older men.
As a society, we gloss over many perversions between men and women in private. The law, and society, are very tolerant towards these and turn a very blind eye. Those men who are born, conditioned or tempted irrevocably into homosexuality should have extended to them the same degree of tolerance as is extended to any other so-called perversion between men and women. I do not believe, my Lords, that intolerance towards homosexuals is a hall mark of virtue. So, once again, I support the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and wish him final success with it.
5.41 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I have not spoken on this subject before, and I take this opportunity to make my own position clear. I have my own approach to this matter, and I

1307
want to emphasise one or two things that perhaps have not been particularly emphasised, even from these Benches. If the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, detects in my speech some slight rift in the monolithic episcopal unity, I hope that it will be of some little encouragement to him. On that point, I think it is only right to say, as an objective fact, that when the Wolfenden Report came out there was a very clear statement by one of the most informed Committees in the Church of England on this matter which did in fact support the Wolfenden findings. And that really is the historical explanation of the apparent unanimity between the Bishops on that point.
I accept the fact that, in the modern climate of public opinion, it is no longer possible to keep offences of the type we are considering on the list of criminal offences. In so far as the change in public opinion arises from a new tolerance and a new charity, it is to be commended. But, in so far as it arises from a sense that moral values no longer matter, it is to be regretted. I suspect that both influences have been at work in this change in public opinion. There is a certain danger of coarsening of public taste merely by the prolonged discussion of these matters. I was a little shocked myself to see the final decision in the House of Commons announced in a banner headline of one of the London evening papers:
"Men Only Bill Passes at Last".
I could not help wondering how many children would ask their parents what that meant, and what sort of an answer they would get. It is just an indication of the price one has to pay for facing questions of this sort.
But the two points I particularly wish to make are these. It has been repeatedly said in these debates that a proportion of men cannot help being homosexual; and, subject to certain modifications, that is of course true. But it should not be assumed, because of the passing of this legislation—I think it will pass—that because a man is psychologically homosexual he is bound to give physical expression to these tendencies. All men, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have to learn to live with their sexual natures, to discipline themselves, and to see that the expression of their instincts is in accordance
1308
with their own and others' best interests.
The other point, my Lords, is this. I personally believe that the law has a much more positive contribution to make in the upholding of moral standards than is commonly recognised. It would be a bad day for Britain if we came to the point where law was reduced to the status of an agreed social convention, no longer related in any vital way to the law of Nature or, as I should wish to say, to the Law of God. My conscience will be clearer now that I have had a chance to make my position plain in this matter, and I think the balance of my convictions can be expressed only by abstention.
5.45 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, one of the great effects, it seems to me, of the protracted debates in another place and here on this topic has been the tendency, at least, to education in many fields where before there was little but ignorance and prejudice. It may well be, as the last speaker has said, that this has tended in some cases to produce a coarsening of thought. But on the whole the evidence I would bring from the Free Churches is that the process has been to the good, and that since this question first appeared in headlines this process within the Free Churches has led to an almost total unanimity, so far as it is expressed in our affairs, that, on the whole, this Bill ought to be supported, and that in general it clarifies and expresses quite important moral issues.
It would seem to me, if I may say so with respect, that there is still some confusion in the minds of some people, perhaps even in your Lordships' House, as between homosexuality as a condition, an ineluctable condition, and homosexual practices as a way in which that condition expresses itself. I am quite sure that homosexuals, so far as I know them, are not aware that they are doing anything wrong or being evil because they feel these particular feelings and sustain these particular idiosyncrasies. And if it he argued that discipline is always required with regard to sexual matters, how much more, how much harder, is that discipline in the very often unrewarding and un-creating kind of environment in which a homosexual has to display that discipline, rather than in the far more natural and

1309
creative way in which the normal discipline has to be displayed!
But it would not be for me to deploy these arguments again, except to say—and in this respect I can speak for the Free Churches in this country—that I support this Bill on their behalf, and believe that it represents a necessary change in the law; that it represents a proper attitude to some aspects of homosexuality—and there has been, I think, a temptation in your Lordships' House to ignore some of the severer penalties now exacted for the corruption of youth; that it does care for the sinner, as well as execrating the sin; and, above all, that it does draw this distinction, which I believe to be a necessary one, between sin, Lesbian practices, adultery—which practices, according, I believe, to the argument of the noble Marquess, ought, if they are increasing, to be brought within the framework of penal exactment. I do not think they should. I believe that this consenting behaviour pattern between adults is sinful in many respects, but not necessarily always.
Since we speak frankly, or I hope we do, I suggest that there are homosexual practices which in the beginning, in the simpler expressions of physical affection as between homosexuals, are as natural and as innocuous in themselves as any practices as between a man and a girl. I cannot for the life of me (this is a purely personal observation) see that it is sinful for two men to hold hands, realising as I do that that holding of hands may well be, at least in part, or involved in, a sexual behaviour pattern. However, this is to raise highly controversial matters. What is, in my judgment, not controversial is that in this particular regard, certainly so far as I am concerned, to pass this Bill will remove a great deal of the terror, the fear, the unnatural hazards that affront so many good and decent homosexuals, and may be the beginning of other and better legislation to follow it, whereby the recovery of such people to what we call a normal pattern of life may be made easier. I support the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to begin my speech, if I may, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Arran on his remarkable success in getting a very controversial Private Mem-
1310
ber's Bill to this stage. This is the third time we have debated the Second Reading of a Bill which has precisely the same object, and while I disagree entirely with the arguments advanced by my noble friend, and object most strongly to the purpose of this Bill, I should like to say how glad I am that he was able to move the Second Reading to-day, and to congratulate him most sincerely on the success that he has so far achieved. I cannot help thinking that if the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, were here (and I am not sure whether he is or not) he would greatly approve of the course this debate has taken. I cannot remember any occasion on which a subject of this importance has been debated in such a short space of time with so many Members of your Lordships' House making short, succinct speeches with regard to it.
I hope I may be excused, speaking towards the end of this debate, if, although I do not think I can say anything that has not been said before, I put on the Record again the reasons why I, for one, could not vote for this Bill, and why I would think it entirely wrong to adopt the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so generously gave: that the opponents of this Bill should waive their objections to it and abstain from voting. I do not suppose that anything I say will alter opinion; nor is it the case that anything that has been said to-day has altered mine. But there are one or two things which it is important to bear in mind. The discussion to-day has been very much on the lines that we must alter the law with regard to homosexuality. If that were the issue, and the only issue, I should find myself in favour of that proposition. But it is not; and it is worth bearing in mind that the question here is not whether we are just altering the law as to whether it is unlawful to be a homosexual, because there is no such law: the law relates to the indulging in homosexual practices.
I heard for the third time the noble Lord, Lord Boothby (who I cannot believe has read this Bill), assert that its main purpose was to repeal the Labouchère Amendment, and he referred to that Amendment and the circumstances in which it came to be incorporated in a Statute. He referred to remarks, as I

1311
well know, of the late Mr. Justice Humphreys with regard to that Amendment. But the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has ignored the fact that this Bill deliberately sets out—and if he had read the Bill he would appreciate it—to legalise sodomy, or buggery, as it is called, between consenting adults in private. If the objects of the Bill were merely to repeal the Labouchère Amendment, to make it possible (as it now is) to deal with the very kind of conduct which constitutes gross indecency, when it is in public, just in by-laws, I say again that I should be in favour of that proposal. But this Bill goes much further than that. It seeks to legalise the "full offence", as it is called, of buggery. And what justification is there for that?
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said in one of our debates that he regarded homosexual practices as "utterly abominable". Those were his views. Homosexual practices may take many forms, and the most abominable form of all is surely the commission of the full offence of sodomy. The question really at issue in this House to-night, and which I think divides the supporters of this Bill from the opponents of it, is the question whether it is right now, when that has been an offence on the Statute Book for hundreds of years, and when it has been regarded as a most grievous offence, to say that in certain circumstances that disguesting, abominable offence can be lawfully practised.
That, as I see it, is the issue. And what are the reasons put forward in support of this proposition? We are told, on the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that homosexuality in universities is decreasing. I am sure we are all glad to hear that. He did not go on to say that morality was increasing. Here I am concerned, not with the kind of dirty practices that sometimes take place in schools but with the proposals of the noble Lord that sodomy should be made lawful. And why? We are asked to pity, and indeed we do pity, those who are homosexuals. In some cases they cannot help it. But as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has so rightly said, it should not be assumed that
1312
because they have those tendencies they have to give way to those practices. In one debate we heard the noble Earl, Lord Arran, say that the number of those unfortunate people in this country was between half a million and a million. I do not know how those figures are ascertained.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, those figures were from the Home Office.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Even so, my Lords, I have never been prepared to accept everything the Home Office said as being entirely accurate—and that not only applies to the lifetime of this Government. Be that as it may, a former Home Secretary, the late Lord Kilmuir, gave the House some figures. He said that when he was Home Secretary, of 96 cases then in prison there were only 15 cases of genuine inverts, and the others, he said, included those who committed the act for motives of sensationalism or for money, or reasons of that sort.
Then the late Lord Brain, who unfortunately of course has left us, also said that the number of genuine inverts was a very small proportion of the population; and he said, too, that there were those who were in some cases both heterosexual and homosexual and (and I quote his words)
"perhaps married with children, but with homosexual tendencies which may or may not be given overt expression".
May not the relaxation of the law which the Bill proposes by making sodomy lawful in certain circumstances, make it less easy for people in this category to resist and fight against these unnatural tendencies? I believe it will, and that is one reason why I am strongly in favour of keeping that part of the existing law as it is now. The argument that the existence of a small percentage of genuine homosexuals justifies this change is really no more convincing than the argument that because some people are kleptomaniacs there should not be a law to prevent stealing.
Then we have heard again to-day the blackmail argument. At one time it was advanced as the main argument in support of this change. Reliance was placed on a statement made by the late Lord Jowitt as to his experience in relation to blackmail

1313
cases when he held the office of Attorney General. All the years I was a Law Officer not a single blackmail case in relation to homosexuality came within my purview. With regard to the blackmail argument the short answer, of course, is that if you do not engage in these practices you cannot be blackmailed. But the whole blackmail argument has been grossly exaggerated. This is stated in Wolfenden, in paragraph 110, and I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, trotted it out again to-day.
It is, in my view, a grave misconception to suppose that if this Bill is carried there will be a cessation or even a diminution in the number of blackmail cases, because, as Wolfenden points out, it is not so much the threat of criminal proceedings but the threat of exposure to one's friends and relations and the people with whom one is engaged in business which is the real threat behind the blackmail. I should think it is true to say that possibilities of blackmail will continue as long as such conduct is regarded generally by the public—and I hope that will continue for some time—as it is by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, as utterly abominable. Indeed, there are those who have spoken to me who think that blackmail will increase if this Bill is passed, and that the blackmail will take the form suggested by my noble friend Lord Ferrier in his speech: that acquiescence in these practices, the giving of consent, will lead to advancement in occupation or profession.
Then there is the argument, advanced on many occasions and again to-day, that if sodomy is made lawful it will be easier to give help to those who have these tendencies. I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London put forward that argument to-day. I must confess I do not understand it at all. If a person has these tendencies there is nothing to stop him from getting help now. I do not believe that it will encourage him to seek help to say that that shall no longer be an offence. Then there was the argument advanced in Wolfenden, and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to-day, that acts which are done in private between individuals who are adults should not be criminal. I have always regarded that as a fallacious proposition and one which
1314
simply could not be accepted as a general proposition in relation to the law. Does anyone seriously suggest that private drug-taking by adults should be lawful; that the sanctions against that should be removed? Could it not be suggested with equal force that we ought to abolish the sanction of the criminal law against drug-taking as it will then be easier to help those who take drugs?
I have now summarised as shortly as I can what I think have been put forward as the main arguments for this Bill. In my opinion, they do not in any way justify making this major change in the law. Your Lordships will note that I have spoken in relation to the offence of sodomy, and I should like to repeat and emphasise once again that if this Bill dealt merely with gross indecency, with the repeal of the Labouchère Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, constantly seems to think it does, my attitude would be different. But in my view no case has been made out for making any change in relation to the law of sodomy.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made, if I may say so, a most interesting speech. On one occasion he expressed the view, which I think he resiled from to-day, that the relaxation of the present law—and I quote his words—
"would give the appearance of extending social approval to homosexual conduct",
and that, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester then said, would be the last thing the Church would desire or support. I do not believe that what Parliament does in this respect will affect the question whether society approves of this conduct or not. I think that does not follow. But whether the Church desires it or not, if this Bill is passed with the Church's support it is, in my view, bound to have the consequence, not that such conduct will be socially approved, but that such conduct will be regarded as far less wrong than it was. It is bound to be regarded that your Lordships' House and Parliament as a whole are of the opinion that sodomy between adults is not such a grave sin or wrong as to be a crime.
As has already been pointed out, the last time that this House voted on a Bill with this object the Motion, That the Bill do now pass was carried by a majority of only 18. This time is the third time that we have had a Second Reading debate,

1315
and on a third occasion I hope good fortune will come to those who oppose the Bill. It is true that this Bill differs in some respects from those we have previously considered. For instance, under this Bill, under Clause 2, which was bitterly opposed by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, when it came before this House, members of the Merchant Navy will remain liable to conviction if they commit homosexual offences and sodomy with other members of the crew; but they will be able to commit those acts with complete impunity so long as the other person engaged in them is not a member of the crew—a passenger or someone else. This appears to me, to say the least, somewhat of an odd provision in our criminal law.
Little has been said about prosecutions for consenting adults for the full offence. I cannot myself remember cases where that has happened in relation to that conduct in private in recent years in this country. I think, in fact, the practice is very similar to that of Scotland, because my recollection is that the Director of Public Prosecutions always takes over the conduct of such cases. But I think that is really an irrelevant circumstance. What worries me is that this time, by altering the law, you are making it appear that sodomy is less sinful than it was. If I thought that there were the slightest chance at this late stage of getting the Bill altered to limit it to the Labouchère Amendment, I would, if the Bill got a Second Reading, move Amendments to it. But if the Bill does get a Second Reading, in the light of our experience of Committee stages on the earlier Bills I doubt whether we should ever get any amendment to it. So if the Bill does get a Second Reading I, for one, shall not seek to move Amendments to it in Committee.
It seems to me that we have discussed this subject, as I think the first speaker said, ad nauseam. We have been offered by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, the consolation that although Clause 1 removes liability from sodomy, in certain circumstances it retains the penalties for flagellation. I do not find that any great comfort. There are, I believe, those, like the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who think we should not vote against a Bill on its Second Reading when it has passed
1316
through another place. This is a Private Member's Bill and I do not believe there is any such convention or custom in this House in relation to such a Bill. I think there have been many occasions on which this House has rejected a Private Member's Bill. To reject a Bill for which it cannot be claimed that there is any mandate, which, although supported by the most reverend Primate and certain right reverend gentlemen, was not in fact supported by the majority of the Church Assembly, a Bill which in my belief this country does not want and one which will encourage decadence in our society, is not something which will reflect adversely on the reputation of this House, but is something which will make people think that in these days at least this House has preserved some sanity. I would say in conclusion to my noble friend Lord Arran, take this Bill away, bring in another Bill to do what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, stresses he wants so badly, the repeal of the Labouchère Amendment. My Lords, if any noble Lords will come into the Lobby with me, I will certainly record my vote against this Bill.
6.10 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but this is the third time, I think, that I have listened to the noble and learned Viscount on this subject and I felt that on each occasion I had made sincere and determined efforts to understand his point of view. The noble and learned Viscount and I differ on quite a number of subjects, although, surprisingly, I think, we have on one occasion on a controversial issue been found in the same Division Lobby. It therefore seemed that the gulf ought not to be unbridgeable. But every time that I listen to the noble and learned Viscount on this subject I am conscious that the gulf is completely unbridgeable.
I can understand that those noble Lords who oppose this Bill find certain practices repugnant. The way in which the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down pronounced the relevant words, the emphasis that he himself put, is, I think, a sincere testimony to the repugnance with which he views these practices. I ask myself: what are the opponents of this Bill afraid of? They cannot be afraid that these disgusting

1317
practices will be thrown upon their attention, because these acts are legalised only if they are performed in private. They cannot be afraid that there will be a corruption of youth, because these acts will be legalised only if they are performed between consenting adults. And obviously, they cannot be afraid, as they might be afraid in the case of illicit heterosexual intercourse, that such action will result in irresponsible procreation. I can only suppose that the opponents of this Bill will be afraid that their imagination will be tormented by visions of what will be going on elsewhere. Surely, if that is so, that is their own private misfortune, and no reason for imposing their personal standards of taste and morality on the minority of their fellow citizens who can find sexual satisfaction only in relations with their own sex.
6.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I would join with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and with many others, in saying with what great pleasure I offer to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, my congratulations, in that he has brought his Bill before us to-day for what is in effect the third time. I would also join with the noble and learned Viscount in hoping that if this Bill is given a Second Reading, we shall not again seek to move many Amendments in Committee. In this I have to declare some interest, because on every Sitting Day from now to the end of the Session I have to deal with one or other of five Bills in various stages, and if we do not go into Committee over and over again on the subject that we have discussed ad infinitum and, as some would think, ad nauseam, then it will be a considerable relief for me, irrespective of the view which you Lordships take of the merits of this Bill.
We have now had 17 speeches in less than 110 minutes, an average of six minutes per speech. If the Bill does nothing else, that is enormously to the credit of your Lordships' House. I am hoping not to spoil the average, but I must say at once that my reason for speaking at the end of this debate is, or rather was, so that on behalf of the Government I could deal with any
1318
factual points which were raised with regard to the Bill, and perhaps answer any questions which may be addressed to the Minister.
The first of these tasks is easy. Apart from the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who gave brief but lucid accounts of the five or six changes, Amendments or additions, which were made to the Bill in another place, only two noble Lords have made any real reference to the Bill at all: the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and the noble and learned Viscount. A number of noble Lords have, of course, made eloquent speeches about things which I have not been able to discover in the Bill at all, although indeed, as the noble and learned Viscount will accept from me, I, too, have read the Bill, and I do know what it is all about. Heaven knows! I ought to, because I have seen it grow from the first single clause which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, moved—it seems years and many un-pleasantries ago.
So I can now, having dealt with the Bill from the Government point of view—or, at least, dealt with all the points that have been raised, almost nil—deal briefly with some of the questions that were put to me. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked how many people who could at present be sent to prison will not in future be sent to prison if this Bill becomes an Act. As I think your Lordships are aware, the criminal statistics do not distinguish offences committed in private or with consent, and I really cannot say how many persons have been convicted in recent years for conduct which will now cease to be an offence.
But it will be recalled that my Department conducted a special examination, on behalf of the Wolfenden Committee, for the three years ended March, 1956, and it was then found that in those three years there were convicted of a homosexual offence a total of 300 persons who would not have been guilty of an offence if the law were changed as the Wolfenden Committee recommended, and indeed as this Bill would enact. The figure is of that order, so far as I am aware, something like 100 a year—or it would have been 11 years ago.
We cannot say that the pattern of offences and sentences is the same to-day

1319
as it was then. Opinions have been expressed, particularly by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that these practices are on the increase. He gave that as his opinion. We have had contrary opinions from my noble friend Lord Annan, and from the noble Marquess, Lord Queensberry. But, with respect, I think they were just expressing opinions. I cannot find any figures to confirm one or the other of those opinions, but I am bound to say that such figures as I have rather lead one away from the belief that these practices are on the increase. The figures for the last six years, which I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked if I could provide, starting in 1960, are as follows.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the only comment I would make is that this Bill has not yet been passed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was under the same impression myself. I was talking about the figures for the past six years, and the position, therefore, of convictions under existing legislation. I think the figures of convictions under existing legislation at least give some guide, however imperfect, to a trend. I would not put it higher than that. These are the figures of the total number of men convicted of buggery, attempts to commit buggery and indecency. They are: in 1960, 1,857; in 1961, 1,901; in 1962, 1,876. So there was little or no fluctuation over those three years. In 1963, the figure was 2,064—an increase; in 1964, 1,784; in 1965, 1,483, which is a sharp decline, and indeed far and away the lowest figure for at least those six years. I would not claim that they prove anything, but they give an indication in favour of those who think that these practices are not on the increase. I hope that that will be some comfort to the noble Marquess.
The noble Marquess also raised the point about sin or psychological misfortune. This is something one cannot prove as a fact. One therefore can rely only on investigations, and one knows that such views have been expressed. This point was carefully considered by Wolfenden, and in paragraph 21 of the Committee's Report they said that:
1320
"… there is a general measure of agreement … that there exists in certain persons a homosexual propensity which varies quantitatively in different individuals …".
They also said in paragraph 33:
"… there seems to be no good reason to suppose that at least in the majority of cases homosexual acts are any more or less resistable than heterosexual acts …".
That evidence, such as it is, is all we have. We have had opinions expressed in 17 speeches: 12 of them in favour of the Bill, 5 of them opposed to it. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that it is unlikely that any one opinion has been changed by this debate because there has been nothing new about it whatsoever. No new evidence has been produced. There have been a few Amendments from another place which would have been accepted and approved by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, which my Department believe are technically viable and which, we think, are improvements. But there is nothing more.
I have come to the end of the questions which were put to me except for the noble Lord, Lord Auckland's point about research. I am sure he will appreciate that I cannot give any positive answer about that because there are Departments other than my own which are concerned. But certainly the noble Lord's point has been noted, and the fact that these opinions have been expressed in a debate may well facilitate research if the Bill becomes an Act.
I believe that I have fairly discharged my duty as a Minister. Now I am free to speak as a person and as an individual, on what is, and always has been, a Private Member's Bill and on which, so far as the Government are concerned, there has never been a Whip or any pressure of any kind. Your Lordships will remember that I first spoke on this subject on a Motion moved in May, 1965. I was at great pains, speaking on behalf of the Government, to keep my remarks within the bounds of strict neutrality. I succeeded so unbelievably that both sides, supporters and opponents, claimed me as a sympathiser in disguise. But I have long since shed the cloak of neutrality on this subject, which in any case has fitted very unhappily on my shoulders, and I personally welcome this Bill unreservedly. That it appears before us now in its present form is due, not entirely, but in no small measure, to the

1321
energy and perseverance of its present sponsor. I have been in a position to know that he has had moments of frustration and disappointment, but he has refused to be deterred. He has persisted in bringing this measure before us, and we have at last reached a stage when this reform, as I see it, from being a remote possibility has become a likelihood. I say "reform" without hesitation, although I know there are those who think differently. I respect their view, but I cannot agree with them.
Among supporters of the Bill there are, I believe, differing views on whether it represents a major or a minor reform—certainly in regard to convictions, it is not going to affect a large number of people. There is room for more than one view about that, and I do not propose now to rehearse the arguments. But I firmly believe that this is a worthwhile measure which makes a right and necessary adjustment in the relationship between the criminal law and private sexual morality. In doing so, it will, I believe, pave the way to a better understanding of and sympathy for those unfortunate men who by nature—and some of them perhaps irrevocably—are homosexual.
Nobody can say that there is going to be anything hasty about our decision this afternoon or that the decision, whoever has the majority, will be ill-considered. We have debated this issue in detail and at length in your Lordships' House, and the present Bill is in all essentials the same as the Bill which your Lordships passed early in the Session. Surely, the time has come when it is our duty, whichever way we feel, to make a final decision. I have made my own personal feeling quite clear, but lest there should be any misunderstanding at all, let me stress that in expressing sympathy for this Bill I am speaking in my personal capacity. Other Members of the Government are free, as I am, to vote on this matter according to their personal convictions.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I shall be brief. This has been a crisp and a good debate, and I have been very impressed, as have others, by the shortness of the speeches and the good sense which they have contained. I have very little to say. I should like to give my personal thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Lord Dilhorne has been my opponent throughout these proceedings. He has sometimes been a hard taskmaster, but what little I know about procedure and about Parliament I have learned from him. I am in his debt, and I should like to acknowledge it.
I would say one more thing. It has been suggested several times during the course of the debate that blackmail will continue, or at any rate that the Bill will not have an appreciable effect upon it. I have no evidence, except perhaps this one case which I shall put to your Lordships. And although one swallow does not make a summer, I will tell the story, which has a happy ending. Last week a man rang my office and tried to speak to me. I was not there, and he said to my secretary, "Tell Lord Arran that for six years"—and this man, of course, is quite anonymous; I have not the faintest idea who he is—"I have been meeting a blackmailer once a month and have been paying out to him £100 in cash. I have paid out over £8,000 in all. I am a happily married man with three children, and it has almost bankrupted me. This month, for the first time, I have not kept my appointment." I hope the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will not think me overemotional in this matter, but I regard this man's statement—and there must be many others—as justifying all the efforts of your Lordships and of the other place, and particularly of Mr. Abse.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Archibald, L.

Boothby, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Airedale, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Amherst, E.

Barrington, V.

Brockway, L.

Amory, V.

Bedford, D. [Teller.]

Burden, L.

Amulree, L.

Beswick, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Annan, L.

Blackford, L.

Byers, L.

Caccia, L.

Hayter, L.

Rea, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Henley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hertford, M.

Royle, L.

Chorley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Colgrain, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Segal, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Darwen, L.

Latham, L.

Serota, Bs.

Denham, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L.

Donovan, L.

Lindsey, and Abingdon, E.

Sherfield, L.

Drogheda, E.

Listowel, E.

Soper, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Sorensen, L.

Dudley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Effingham, E.

London, Bp.

Stocks, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Faringdon, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Strang, L.

Fleck, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Francis-Williams, L.

Mountevans, L.

Teynham, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Norwich, V.

Walston, L.

Geddes, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Gifford, L.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Glasgow, E.

Platt, L.

Wellington, D.

Grantchester, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hacking, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hall, V.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Hankey, L.

Mills, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Monsell, V.

Blyton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ilford, L.

Oakshott, L.

Champion, L.

Kilmany, L.

Peddie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Popplewell, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Rowallan, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Latymer, L.

Rowley, L.

Daventry, V.

Limerick, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Lindgren, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shannon, E.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grenfell, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

PRICES AND INCOMES (No. 2) BILL
6.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. On July 5 your Lordships' House approved the draft of an Order which will activate Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act. The House had then before it, in the form of a House of
1324
Lords' Paper, details of the Bill which is now before the House, and we also had an opportunity of discussing in general the prices and incomes policy. I should therefore think that on this occasion I could be brief.
The only difference of any significance between the Paper that was before the House and the Bill lies in Clause 5 (page 7, line 23), where we have left out the words, "two months" and have inserted, "one month". Clause 5, subsection (7), provides that judgments in breach of contract cases instituted on or after June 5, 1967, may be set aside on the application of the employer, provided that they have not been satisfied in whole or in part. The subsection as originally

1325
introduced provided that such application must be made by the employer within a period of two months from the Bill's enactment. The Amendment substituted a period of one month for the period of two months. The original period of two months was chosen in order to allow the employer time to examine the situation and to make arrangements to lodge his application. The Amendment was tabled in recognition of the fact that so long a period of uncertainty might well prejudice industrial relations, and that the period should be as short as possible. Therefore we have decided that the period should be one month.
There is only one other word I should wish to say. On July 5 I expressed the Government's great regret at the necessity for such legislation and the deep reluctance with which we had to ask employers on July 20 last to break contractual agreements. We believe that the circumstances then demanded it, and I believe that the country as a whole, and the vast majority of our working people, recognise that to be so. The fact that we were required to make only some 14 orders under Part IV covering some 36,000 workers gives an indication of that, when you relate it to the 23 million workers of this country. I believe we have seen economic gain from the periods of standstill and restraint. We are now moving forward to a period when restraint must still be there but does not need to be quite so rigid. I think most people on both sides of industry recognise that if the sums which were held back voluntarily, in the most part, were now to be paid, it could have serious effects, and that much of the good that we have obtained could be lost. I would express the hope that workers and management will agree that the sums which were held back should not be pressed for now.
Clause 5 of the Bill is there to give protection to employers. It relieves them from the contractual duty that was there before the passing of this Bill. This protection is now quite strong and complete. As I have said, we very much regret the necessity to introduce the Bill, but we believe it is necessary in the circumstances, and we all look forward very
1326
much to the day when negotiations between employees and employers are on such a basis that there will be a recognition of the national interest. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I had rather understood that this Bill was going through "on the nod". All I want to say is that I think my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale and I sufficiently expressed our views on the Bill on July 5, so I do not want to add anything now, except to repeat, in view of what the noble Lord has said, that in our belief the success of this prices and incomes policy will depend on having more competition, on putting an end to restrictive practices and, most of all, on increasing our production, none of which things has yet been achieved.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of July 11, 1967), House in Committee accordingly.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received; and Bill read 3a.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in rising to move, That this Bill do now pass, I apologise to the noble Earl that I spoke without his realising that I intended to say a few words, but I thought I should at least explain to the House the one significant difference between the Paper and the Bill which is now before the House. Perhaps I may say, in conclusion, how grateful I am to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have made it possible for this Bill to be passed so quickly through your Lordships' House, and that it should now soon be put upon the Statute Book. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)

GIPSY ENCAMPMENTS AND WELFARE
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the increasing problem of gipsy encampments on road verges and lay-bys, especially in S.E. England, they will take steps in conjunction with county councils to cure this nuisance by the provision of permanent sites for the gipsy fraternity. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my purpose in putting down this Question on gipsies was not to harass the gipsy fraternity in any way but rather to help them. When we speak of gipsies we are now speaking of two types of people. There are the genuine Romany people who for generations have been in this country, and there are also persons of another type or class, who are in the majority to-day and whose numbers are increasing, who are referred to as gipsies but who are not really gipsies but travellers. Some people do not call them by such a polite name. I have heard them called locally "didekeis". My Question covers the whole country; but the only real problem exists in the South-East area, and especially in Kent.
One might well ask, why Kent? I suppose that the pattern of farming has something to do with it. You have in Kent a highly-fertile county, you have a lot of hops and fruit-picking which requires casual labour at certain times of the year, and you have coppice-cutting in winter—for instance, the chestnut coppices—which also requires casual labour. So Kent, by the nature of its agriculture and, to a certain extent, because of its forestry, has attracted people who undertake casual labour.
The Kent County Council and the district councils of Kent are very much alive to this problem and have done a great deal towards solving it. I can only remark that it is a great pity that some of the neighbouring counties have not done likewise. In 1962 the Kent County Council made a survey of the gipsies and found that winter accommodation on sites was required for 120 caravans. In consultation with the district councils, the County Council provided 10 sites, each to hold 12 caravans. The Kent County Council bore part of the cost with
1328
the district councils. What has been the result? It has been that news of this has got around and the gipsies or the travellers—call them what you will—from all parts of the country have flooded into Kent.
In January, 1966, the County Council estimated that they required sites for 313 caravans, accommodating 1,300 people. I have no later figures; but I understand the increase has been considerable. Through the generosity and go-ahead policy of the Kent County Council, the county is becoming a haven and a Mecca for all caravan-dwellers throughout the country. The Kent Planning Committee observed in one of its minutes of November, 1966, that it had no wish to see Kent becoming "a national reception centre for gipsies". On the whole, that was a fair comment. But what is to be done about it? Kent cannot be expected continually to provide sites to accommodate the gipsies of other counties. I have a home in the Stour Valley between Ashford and Canterbury and I am surrounded on all sides by gipsies. I have a high regard for the genuine Romany, but I do not have such regard for some of the people who have taken up the gipsy way of life. For instance, a few years ago I had 53 young ewes killed by what I will call "gipsy dogs". Actually, the dogs were not of genuine gipsies but of travellers on my estate. And one has, of course, no redress.
This winter on a lay-by of the Maidstone/Charing/Canterbury road which runs through woods of mine there moved in 14 caravans and about 60 people. They have been there the whole winter, with no form of sanitation. The litter has been appalling—old bedsteads, mattresses, tin cans and every form of rubbish. The village constable is very helpful, but he can do nothing about it. I complain to the Council and they do what they can. There is another aspect of this camping on lay-bys and verges. We had an incident where one of the children of these travellers got knocked down by a car. It is extremely difficult for motorists on these main roads where children, and often dogs, are running about in these big encampments. I am sure that serious accidents have occurred because of this.
But, the question is, what to do about it? The whole affair "snowballs". The

1329
Kent County Council find it is extremely difficult to acquire these sites because the nearby neighbours are rather against the idea of them, for obvious reasons. But, once they are acquired, the trouble is that more travellers crowd into the county. There are more caravans and more travellers. How can one stop this? In my Question I referred to providing "permanent sites". I could not make the Question too long, but I should have preferred to say "semi-permanent sites until these people are rehoused and integrated into the community". The Romany gipsies, people whose families have been gipsies for generations, should not be so integrated, and I should not want Her Majesty's Government, or the county councils, to try to force them to live in houses. I think that would be a very wrong thing to do.
I object to the people who pretend to be gipsies, and I wonder whether it would be possible to stop their numbers from increasing. I am against the provision of forms and the issuing of licences, but I understand that there exists a Gipsy Council. I also understand that there is a Gipsy King. I am not sure what part he plays, but, anyway, there is a Gipsy Council. I wonder whether anyone who desires to live the gipsy life could apply to the Gipsy Council which would vet them. Provided that they were pronounced genuine gipsies they could be licensed by the Gipsy Council, which licence would be confirmed by their local authority and would entitle them to receive assistance regarding sites. If we do not do something like that, I can see no end to this problem.
A great number of these people do not appear to be poor. They own nice cars, and some of them have very luxurious caravans. They are really living cheaply at the expense of other people. They do not pay rent or rates. I do not complain about the genuine gipsies, but I do complain about these travellers, who appear to be very well off and are taking advantage of the public. If the Government could devise a scheme to prevent this, it would be a good thing. I agree that the matter is very difficult, but we might get somewhere if all the county councils were responsible for the gipsies in their areas. We cannot have these people camping on the verges of our main roads. The anti-litter legislation is
1330
completely ignored by them, and this practice of camping on verges is also extremely dangerous because of the possibility of accidents.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication that Her Majesty's Government have some plan. But whatever the plan may be, the Government cannot rely on the Kent County Council to take in gipsies from all over the South of England. There comes a time when an end must be made to the good will of that County Council in this matter. Having said that, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some hope that something will be done about this problem, which is a serious one in the South-East, and especially in Kent.
7.6 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount Lord Massereene and Ferrard for raising this subject. I think it particularly timely, for two reasons. It was in June, 1966, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in his Circular 26/66, asked for reports from local councils on the steps being taken, and on the plans the councils had for dealing with this problem. The reports were not available when the matter was last discussed in another place in February, but I imagine that the information is available now. We look forward to receiving a summary of it.
It also appeared in the February debate that at that time there was before the Minister the result of a "sociological research project". That was the phrase used by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. If it was before the Minister in February, I hope that it may be before us to-night. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us that it will be ready for publication very soon, because I think that the provision of more information on this rather difficult problem will prove one of the best ways to deal with it.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard posed the problem in one form, a form in which it generally presents itself to the public at large. I should like to put it in rather different terms. The problem involves 15,000 people—3,500 families; 6,000 children of school age, hardly any of whom are attending school. These 15,000 people are all entitled, as

1331
is every other citizen in this country, to the National Health and Welfare State services. But nearly all of them camp, in a haphazard fashion, on the verges of roads, and, as was said by my noble friend, they are constantly being moved on by the police. Only a fraction of that number have access to main water supplies and W.C.s—let alone the other more sophisticated provisions of the Welfare State. This state of affairs may be said to constitute a nuisance to the more conformist and settled citizens of our country, but it also causes great misery to the gipsy population, composed as it is of these different ingredients, all of whom are as human as any of us, and who deserve better care and attention and service than they are getting.
I think it somewhat of a scandal that we have not yet been more successful in coming to terms with this problem in its modern form. The duty to do so, lies squarely on the local authorities; and, as Circular 26/66 makes clear, they already have the powers they need to deal with it. What then is the difficulty? The difficulty, my Lords, is exactly as my noble friend has stated it. Only a few councils, notably Kent, but I would add a few others—Hampshire; my own county, Hertfordshire and Surrey—are tackling this problem effectively. Those councils that are doing so are attracting into their areas the gipsies or travellers from the many areas where councils are doing absolutely nothing.
At first sight it would appear that the only solution is for Her Majesty's Government to take powers, which I understand they have not already got, to require local authorities in whose area there are gipsies to care more effectively for them. I hope very much that the Government will resist that course and will continue more effectively their present policy of persuasion; and to do it, as they have already begun to do it, by disseminating more knowledge and information about the gipsies and travellers. The more knowledge and information there is about the way their problems are being solved, where they are being solved, the more it will help to ensure that the problem is tackled more generally. My information mostly comes from Hertfordshire, where I live, and experience leads me to general conclusions and principles which I should like to offer to your Lordships, and on
1332
which the noble Lord may care to comment when he replies.
The first principle—and it is obvious enough—is that the planning of these permanent sites licensed or run by the local authorities must be prepared carefully and in confidence. We have got into a lot of trouble, and I am sure other local authorities have done so, by the premature announcement that action was going to be taken for gipsies in certain areas. When this happens, they descend in large numbers from all over the country long before preparations for their reception have been made, wardens appointed and so on, and any hope of persuading the local inhabitants and local authorities to receive and cope with them has been lost before it has started. Once a site has been selected and plans drawn up, then careful, extensive and confidential consultation has to go on with all the local bodies likely to be concerned. If this is done carefully, tactfully and discreetly, it can lead without too much difficulty to the acceptance of a site as a normal civic duty, and not to the rejection of receiving the gipsies as being too difficult.
Then comes the question of the selection and appointment of suitable wardens to run the site. This requires rather special qualities. In our experience, these appointments are held by a mixed and varied group of people. One of our sites is run by a retired policeman, with a retired colonel as his deputy, and a very fine pair they make. Another site at Hemel Hempstead for Irish tinkers is run by three young men who come from the Simon Community. These two groups of people bring entirely different qualities to the job they do. One pair comes with great experience and skill in handling men, and the other with youthful enthusiasm and compassion, but both handle their respective sites with great skill.
Another point that needs to be borne in mind is that the cost of making this sort of provision is not at all high, certainly not when compared with the cost of local council housing. I am advised that, as a rough figure, the capital cost, including the purchase of land at agricultural prices, works out at not much more than £1,000 per plot, and that the cost of running the sites, including the salary of the warden and the provision of

1333
basic services, is not much more than £50 per annum net.
I should like to mention in passing that on our sites, and I imagine on the Kent sites, it is not true to say—and I do not think that my noble friend meant to imply this—that all this is provided for the gipsies rent free. It is true that the gipsies who are moving around are not paying rent and rates, but those who are provided with proper sites are capable and willing to pay rent for them, the same as everybody else. Our experience on a small site for six caravans at Hemel Hempstead for Irish tinkers is that all the children, who are Roman Catholics, are at school and the families are receiving all the health and welfare services that any other citizen receives. There has been little trouble with the Probation Service, and there is no trouble either with the local authority or the local residents. These families are free to come and go in pubs, shops and everywhere else in the town. Elsewhere, in the camps which have been established longer than this one, and for Romany gipsies, an equally satisfactory situation prevails, with the children at school, and all enjoying the same services as everybody else.
I should like to make one final point. Let us be clear about our aims here. It is true that this sort of provision, if effectively carried out by all local councils that have gipsies living in their areas, will reduce the nuisance that my noble friend has mentioned, and this in itself is worth doing. It is worth doing for the humanity that lies behind it. But let us be clear about what we are not doing. We are not doing this in order to change the gipsies and their way of life. I do not believe that we have any right whatever to seek to do that. What we are doing, and what we want to get on doing more effectively, is to provide for this group of our people—and they are part of our nation—the same services, welfare and schooling as everyone else who lives in this country enjoys.
7.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has been at particular pains to make a distinction between the true Romany gipsy and the travellers,
1334
the pseudo-gipsies, sometimes known as tinkers. This is highly important but I am inclined to feel that a tendency has been creeping in, as it sometimes does in these matters, for the central figure in this problem to be lost sight of. It is a tendency to which I would draw your Lordships' attention, to forget the gipsy as a human being and replace him with an abstraction, existing only in the litter on the highway and lay-by, and in the municipal by-laws.
This is not to deny the necessity for the by-laws or the reality of the litter, but I think it possible to forget that the gipsy himself is in the midst of all this and that he is someone worthy of a particular kind of attention. I do not include, any more than other noble Lords do, the tinker or traveller or pseudo-gipsy. The genuine Romany, though strange and peculiar, but none the less interesting, is a person of certain unique characteristics. One of these characteristics (I think I am right in saying this) is that he forms the only ethnic group in Great Britain that is the subject of discriminatory prohibitive legislation—that is the phrase for which I have been struggling. For example, I believe that the gipsy is the only person debarred by blood alone from camping or erecting a booth on the highway, being classed in this matter with hawkers and some rather mysterious persons known as "nigglers"—and nigglers, for all I know, may include tinkers.
Regulations have always, I suppose, been made with an eye upon the gipsy, and no doubt for good reasons, and very likely they will continue to be so made. But the fact remains that the gipsy, of whatever kind he may be, is a sort of outcast: whether he is an outcast because of the regulations, or the regulations are made because he is an outcast, is possibly debatable. Less debatable, I think, is my feeling that people, on the whole, know very little about the gipsy anyway. We do not see much of him; we meet him only rarely; even more rarely do we invite him into our home—and if we did he probably would not come. I heard of a gipsy enlisted into the war-time Army who refused, I think successfully, to sleep indoors with the rest of the platoon. He insisted on sleeping under the floor, on the ground, under the hut. By our standards this was neither sociable nor

1335
civilised. I cherish the mental vision of his platoon commander getting down on all fours under his hut to inspect his kit.
It is possible, I suppose, that the gipsy's reputation for being untruthful or for stealing things is not altogether unfounded; and I should be the last to say that it is. Yet people who have studied his ways have found that in all these matters he has a code of his own that is a good deal stricter than many might suppose. His morality is not our morality, but it is a morality. So what have we left in the public imagination? We have, on the one extreme, a dirty, parasitic vagabond contributing nothing to society, except perhaps the word "pal", which is the Romany for "brother"; and, on the other hand, a picturesque, romantic figure of the hills and the open road—and, of course, a municipal headache.
It is not these matters that I have been mentioning that make the gipsy so astonishing and, in my view, an almost incredible figure. There is much more to him than that. What is incredible to me—well, not incredible, because I know it to be a fact, but remarkable—is that such a man can have continued to survive and exist at all. He has no recorded history. Since, being usually illiterate, he can neither read nor write, he has no particular religion of his own; what religion he has is usually of the country in which he finds himself mixed up, perhaps with a few traces of moon worship and a good deal of superstition. He has no central government or world-wide organisation; he has no one appointed by himself to speak for him in Parliament or anywhere else. He has no national leaders, and no voice in the affairs of this or any other country. He has no literature, no sophisticated skills, and remarkably little money. We, on the whole, do not even accord him the dignity of a proper name. If you look at the Order Paper you see even the word "gipsy" spelt with a small "g". The word "Romany", his own name for himself, is rarely used. These people do not live in deserts or forests and they do not live in the middle of the Australian bush, but, as often as not, in the midst of civilisation.
On the face of it, it seems to me almost impossible that such a people could survive at all. Yet, as I am sure
1336
your Lordships know well, the truth is more singular even than this. For the history of the gipsy is one of outlawry and persecution unto death. In our own time we have seen the horror of Hitler's slaughter of the Jews—the non-Aryan Jews. But what have we to say of exactly similar treatment meted out to the gipsies who are of purely Aryan stock, but of whom, none the less, it has been estimated that there perished in concentration camps under the Nazis no less than one-tenth of all the gipsies in the world? These gipsies, as I say, have no recorded history. But their language has persisted—the Romany language—and historians opine that the gipsy was an ancient race even before the time of his mass migration from Northern India a thousand years ago. Philological methods of research have shown also that his history can be traced back 2,000 years, and beyond that he disappears into the primæval mists. All these centuries since he has suffered his persecutions patiently, without fighting, often without answering back.
To that it might be commented, I suppose: what a spineless, inconsequent lot of layabouts they must be! Or, on the other hand, it could be argued that this is the Christian principle of turning the other cheek carried genuinely into effect. On this I express no opinion. For I fear—I hope I am wrong—that your Lordships may suspect me of trying to drum up some kind of irrelevant emotional sentiment for the gipsy at the expense of the county councils. I have been in a position to observe the ways of gipsies since infancy, and I assure your Lordships that I have no such wish. I have one wish only, and it is respectfully to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that here we have in these genuine gipsies, the Romanies, a very ancient race of almost unadulterated purity, imbued with a fierce pride of family, tribe and race. This, I suggest, represents a type of antique dignity. It is this dignity, however few the traces may be left behind after the gipsies have gone by in the lay-bys and on the road verges, that I wish to commend to your Lordships as worthy of considerable respect.
7.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the letter "M" appears after the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, on the list of speakers which I hold in my hand. But for that initial I should not have thought that so exceedingly competent and indeed brilliant a speech could have been delivered by a maiden speaker. In the accession of the noble Earl this House is greatly enriched. We congratulate him upon the speech that we have heard, and I am sure that I express the view of the whole House in hoping that he will assist our counsels again as often as possible.
I rise to ask one question which no doubt will be ably answered by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I understand that the county councils now have a power to make encampments at which travellers and gipsies—didekeis, or whatever you call them—can have facilities. But what are the powers of councils to prevent anybody from camping on the verge of roads? My County Council of Devonshire put forward a draft of a Private Bill to obtain power to prevent people from camping on road verges, and I understand that this was refused. Such powers may exist, and apparently do exist, in the case of tinkers and certain other categories mentioned by the noble Earl.
It is an issue which is of real importance in Devonshire that travellers in dormobiles and cars should be in some way restricted from using road verges as overnight encampments. The results of these overnight stays greatly disfigure our counties, and the results are far from hygienic. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he comes to reply, will be able to deal with that point.
7.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, chose to raise this matter to-day, in spite of the fact that it has recently been twice debated in the House of Commons, because it is a matter of increasing public importance and has given rise, if I may say so, to an extremely interesting short debate in this House. The noble
1338
Viscount himself raised many interesting points about the proper way to arrange the gipsies to continue their life in a possible manner, and for the rest of us to continue our lives in a possible manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made what I found to be an exceptionally thoughtful and well-informed speech about this topic, with every word of which I think I can guarantee I agree; and every word of what he said is in accordance with Government policy and what we wish to see happen. I would join with the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, on a remarkable maiden speech, and I hope that he will bring as much sense of history and of justice to bear on other problems later on in our discussions as he has on this.
My Lords, definition first. What is a gipsy? In law there is no distinction between a gipsy, a tinker, a traveller, or a didekei in between; and the common conception, preconception or misconception (I do not know which it is) that real Romany gipsies are good, tinkers and travellers are bad and didekeis are half and half, is not reflected in law. There has recently been a definition of a gipsy from the Lord Chief Justice, which was:
"A person leading a nomadic life with no fixed employment at no fixed abode."
So your Lordships will see that that means in law that gipsies, didekeis, travellers and tinkers are all "gipsies".
The one point on which I must join issue with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, is that gipsies are the only persons discriminated against, or discriminated about, by blood. They are not discriminated about by blood. They are discriminated about by occupation and residence criteria, and not in any sense by racial criteria.
The history, I think all noble Lords who have spoken, and probably others, would agree, is that the gipsies arrived 500 years ago. It has been a floating stock since then. Many have married into the house-dwelling population; many house-dwelling people have married into the gipsy community. It is all mixed up. For 500 years the reaction of the house-dwelling society to gipsies has been: "Move them on: Whatever they are doing, move them on." And although it

1339
has been uncomfortable for gipsies, it has been tolerable. The point is that we are rapidly approaching a stage—I do not think we have quite come to it yet—when this will no longer be tolerable, for the simple reason that land is so much more intensively used to-day than it used to be. There is hardly a bit of land around our big towns and cities, where gipsies like to be, which is not used for something, except the verge of the highway. And this is, of course, the worst possible place to bring up a family, and the most inconvenient place to leave litter about from the point of view of the house-dweller. This is what makes the problem increasingly acute in this decade. Any local authorities who are tempted to adhere to the traditional method: "Move along; I don't care where"—and some still are—are not helping anybody because there is nowhere to move along to.
So what we have to get towards, as everybody knows, is a system of permanent sites: enough for, I do not say all the gipsies in the country, but for quite a lot of the gipsies in the country—for a majority—to be on these sites at any one time. This still leaves them perfectly free to move on to another site, if they want to, for seasonal work or for any other reason. It will mean that the friction between them and house-dwellers is cut to a minimum, because everybody will know where the gipsies are; it is their place, and they can live as they wish to in it. It will also mean that any gipsy families (and I want to remind the House that when I say "gipsy" I always mean gipsy, tinker, didekei or traveller—the whole lot) who want to become settled persons and are attracted by the charms of schools and social services and a fixed job, and even—who knows?—in the end by a chance of a council house, will be able to achieve them in due course. It may have that effect for some, and for those who simply want to go on living as they have traditionally, it will not have that effect. They will be free to do so, moving on to the next site.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, inquired about the answer to the Ministry's circular issued by my right honourable friend last June. We are getting the answers in. They show a pretty wide diversity between county councils on performance in this task of providing
1340
sites. I think it would be fair to say, and generally accepted, that Kent, as I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, knows, are leading the way. For traditional reasons, they probably have the biggest number of gipsies to deal with, and they are probably best at carrying the matter forward. Hertfordshire are not far behind. It ill becomes a Minister to pick names for obloquy, so I will go no further down the list. But much can be learnt from experience and achievements in Kent and Hertfordshire.
Lord Sandford also inquired about the publication of the report about gipsies, which has been before the Minister. It will be published very shortly. It is in the press at the moment. I think it should transform the situation as regards knowledge about gipsies. I have seen it. I am proud that it was produced by the Research Department of my Ministry. It is a first-rate sociological job. It contains a highly informative section about experience in other countries, on the numbers of gipsies, their way of life, and what is done to help them and their neighbours in the 20th century. It contains a very much greater amount of information than has ever been available before about the way of life of gipsies in this country, particularly—and I emphasise this—from the economic point of view: how do gipsies earn their living? How is it possible for them to? What effect does the way they earn their living have on other, settled people in the same trades? Matters of this kind are dealt with in much greater depth than ever before, and the publication, when it comes out, should be a basic, factual collection of information for all future action in this field.
What to do? Where do we go from here? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was perfectly clear that the question is one for local authorities and that the responsibility should remain with them. I think there are very strong arguments for believing that that is the right way to do it. Some local authorities themselves press to be given stronger powers than they have at present, especially to move the gipsies on in the traditional manner. My right honourable friend is not at all convinced, at any rate yet, that this is desirable, because he has noticed that these demands come particularly from authorities which are not making

1341
any provision, while the authorities that are making the best provision in the form of camp sites are the least anxious to be armed with sterner powers to move them on.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, suggested that there should be a Gipsy Council, and that the Gipsy Council should license a true gipsy, and then he would be dealt with in a certain way. The idea of a Gipsy Council is, of course, one—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I understand that a Gipsy Council is already in being.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am aware of the existence of a body called the Gipsy Council, but before confering any powers on an organisation one must be sure that it truly represents those over whom it is to be given powers; and at the moment there is no way of ascertaining whether it does so or not. In any case, supposing the Gipsy Council—or a Gipsy Council—were to be given powers of licensing, one wonders what would happen to the others who were not licensed. It would simply mean that they would be on the roadside, with nowhere proper to go.
The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, asked about existing powers with regard to the roadside. The highway authorities, whoever they are—the Ministry of Transport in respect of motorways and trunk roads, and local authorities in respect of minor roads—have rather draconian powers in regard to moving gipsies along verges. They use those powers with differing degrees of imagination, and of course the point is that it is absolutely useless to move somebody on until there is somewhere for him to go.
To revert to the question of what should be done in the future, we are still at the point where we are all agreed what the result of action should be: more sites, smallish sites, sites of different sizes in different sorts of places and rightly sited sites—that is, sites which are not absolutely bang in the middle of a built-up area, which is a nonsense from the social point of view and from the point of view of the traditions of the gipsies themselves. Equally, however, the sites must not be stuck right away from any town so that the children cannot get to
1342
school, the women cannot get to the shops and the men cannot trade in scrap metal, or in whatever way they earn their living. The sites must be not in a community yet not completely out of range of it. The best way to ensure that there are sufficient rightly sited sites is something on which the Government are not in a position to adopt a very firm line. We are still hoping that the local authorities will be able to do the job sufficiently well with their existing powers, but we have under examination quite a diversity of means of ensuring that it will be done in another way if we become convinced that it is not going to be done that way.

ST. KITTS: DETENTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I understand that it has been arranged through the usual channels that the Question put down in the name of my noble friend Lord Bessborough is to be deferred until Monday.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BUXTON, STOCKPORT AND YORK) BILL
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREATER LONDON PARKS AND OPEN SPACES) BILL
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock.