Lords Sitting of 28 April 1969

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

BETTERMENT LEVY RELIEF
LORD WADE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their decision to grant exemption from liability to betterment levy on small transactions, they will permit the Land Commission to back-date the granting of this relief to the date of the introduction of the levy.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the terms of the White Paper published on Budget Day.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, so far as it goes. Does he agree that the introduction of the levy has created a number of anomalies and cases of hardship? If Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that relief should be granted in certain cases, surely the considerations which led to that decision should apply equally as strongly to transactions prior to April 5 as to transactions subsequent to that date. Secondly, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the Chairman of the Land Commission has indicated that there would be no insuperable administrative difficulties in back-dating this relief? If I may say so, the case seems almost unanswerable.
A NOBLE LORD: Then do not ask it!
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the considerations put by the noble Lord have, of course, been very much in the Government's mind. This is an issue of taxation policy which it is appropriate should be
640
discussed in the context of the Finance Bill in another place. It is true that the Chairman of the Land Commission has advised the Government on the practicability of retrospection, but I can inform the House it is not true that, as has been reported in the Press in some places, he has advised the Government that it ought to be done. He recognises that this is a question for Her Majesty's Government alone.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord said that this was a matter of taxation policy. But does he recollect that repeatedly during the passage of the Bill Ministers assured the House that the betterment levy was not a tax but a levy? It was on that ground that they justified imposing it on the investment property of charities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am prepared to accept that and to amend what I said. It is a matter of levy policy or charge policy. It is a charge upon the people, and as such is best discussed in the context in which it will be discussed in the House of Commons.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if it is not a tax why is it to be discussed in terms of the Finance Bill?
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what are the arguments against refunding the levy in cases in which it has been taken hitherto?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I may answer two questions at once. I think that a Finance Bill may be concerned with levies as much as with taxes—as is the one before the House of Commons. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will put down a Question on the wider point that he raised.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many cases would be affected if exemption were back-dated? Secondly, can he confirm whether the existing 10 per cent. exemption under the Act will still operate with the new exemption figure?
LORD KENNET: My Lords: I am not sure that I understood the second part of the noble Lord's question. The exemption which takes effect from April 5 this year in respect of sums of up to £1,500

641
will affect 10 per cent. of the cases. I think that ought to answer the first part of the noble Lord's question also.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is not retrospection, on the whole, a bad thing, whatever the matter?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that consideration is an obvious one; and one which is as much in the Government's mind as the arguments on the other side which have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Question. I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may we take it from the several replies of the Minister that the question will be an open one later on, when the Finance Bill is discussed, and that the matter is not by any means closed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government will be proposing a solution to this matter, one way or the other, in this context. Indeed there may be an opportunity this afternoon in the House of Commons for the matter to be raised.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Scrota proposes to make a Statement on the approval of private homes for the termination of pregnancy.
I thought it might also be helpful to inform the House that, in view of the number of speakers tomorrow, it is intended that dinner shall be available between 7 and 8.30 p.m.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
HARDY BROTHERS LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

TATTOOING OF MINORS BILL
2.42 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. A few days ago one of your Lordships, having heard that I was going to sponsor this Bill through this House—it is, of course, a Bill introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place—said to me, "Is this a subject on which you feel passionately?" Well, my Lords, the true answer to that question is that it is a subject about which I knew nothing at all a few weeks ago, but I have since learned something about it. I was not even present at the debate on the Un-starred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Royle, which gave rise to a very amusing discussion nearly two years ago. I think it was the noble and gallant member of the Senior Service, Lord Ailwyn, who won the prize on that occasion. If any of your Lordships have been looking forward this afternoon, to a good giggle, I can recommend a study of the Hansard Report of that debate on June 31, 1967; but this afternoon I am afraid that you will be disappointed in me.
As I have said, I had no special knowledge of the subject of this Bill until recently, but what I have since learned has convinced me that it is a suitable Bill for me to present to your Lordships, not as a joke but as something quite serious. On the other hand it is not a piece of legislation which will rock the nation. It is a modest, sensible Bill, amply justified by the facts of the situation. If I fail to convert your Lordships to my way of seeing it, that will be my fault and not the fault of my subject.
I do not think that your Lordships would be inclined to accept the principle of this Bill if I were to speak to you for a great length of time, but you will want me to say sufficient, I think, to answer two questions. First, why do I think that the tattooing of minors is a bad thing? And secondly, why do I propose that legislation should be passed against it? As to the first question, the practice of tattooing is a very ancient one. I have in front of me a report of a survey carried out by the Victoria University at Wellington, New Zealand, on the tattooing of girls in borstals. There are one or two words in the preamble to that report

643
which I thought might interest, if not amuse, your Lordships:
"Tattoos were in evidence in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and ancient Britain. More recently they became popular again in Europe to the point of being fashionable with royalty and the aristocracy, and of evoking the recent support of some noble Lords."
Then the Report quotes the Hansard Report which I have mentioned already to your Lordships.
Tattooing was commonly held to give protection against insect bites, heat and cold and disease, and claims to that effect have been voiced quite recently. I believe there is no justification for those claims, but probably the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, can tell your Lordships about that better than I can. On the other hand I have come across no evidence, at all events of consequence, to support the accusation that tattooing is detrimental to health. Of course, my Lords, a dirty needle stuck in your skin can carry trouble in with it, but it does not seem that that is a sufficient reason for passing legislation.
At this point, let me say that the purpose of this Bill is not to prevent tattooing but only the tattooing of minors. If any noble Lord should feel an urge to have a picture of some charming young lady tattooed on his epidermis there is nothing in this Bill that would stop him. Why is the tattooing of minors objection-able? Let me say, first, that in recent years tattooing has become prevalent among minors to an extent unknown in the past. This is particularly the case among young people of low I.Q. rating. Some 40 per cent. of those in borstals and detention centres are tattooed. Why do they do it? Sometimes there is a little more behind their decision than the consumption of a few pints of beer.
Many young men have themselves tattooed to show that they are men, and not boys. They do it as evidence of their virility, or their courage—it is a rather painful operation. Young women have themselves tattooed to tesify their devotion to the "pop" star or the boy friend of the moment. Among young people generally it has become a "trendy" thing to do. The motives prompting them are often silly, sometimes smutty and generally not seriously reprehensible. What, then, is the trouble?
644
The trouble is that as the years go by the foibles of youth fade, but the tattoo does not. That is at the bottom of the matter and that is the basis of my claim that the tattooing of minors is bad.
Evidence galore has been shown me of many young men and women who have lived to regret bitterly what they have done. I have had letters from consultant dermatologists and surgeons from all over the country, and I should like to read to your Lordships a line or two from a couple of those letters. A writer from Manchester says:
"There is a definite increase in the number of patients wishing to have this type of disfigurement removed, which causes a varying amount of psychological upset from personal distress to the breakdown of a marriage. Last year I treated an 18-year-old boy who had many tattoos on his arms, body and neck. Across his neck he had a horizontal four inch line tattooed in red and black, and in the centre of this line were the words 'cut here'. He was employed as an apprentice in a slaughterhouse, and apart from his own feeling of self-consciousness his pals made life intolerable at work with their constant gibes. … Many young men require tattoos on fingers and wrists removed before they can take up jobs as salesmen. There was also a young medical student with tattoos on his wrists and forearms who could not proceed with his medical course until these were removed.
An extract from a letter from Hove, in Sussex:
"I have seen in the last few years about half a dozen girls whose tattoo marks were incidental to the trouble for which they were consulting me. When I pointed out their tattooing, all of them said spontaneously how much they regretted that they had had it done. This observation also applies to about 90 per cent. of my male patients. A much larger number of male patients are tattooed and it is surprising how many regret having it done, even those who are unskilled labourers. This applies especially when their hands are involved."
I would read a word or two from another letter, which I think is rather a pathetic one, from a mother:
"I would say how happy I am that you are trying to pass this Bill to stop tattooing a minor. In 1957 our young 16-year-old son on vacation in England went with a group of teenagers and had a dreadful monstrosity put on his arm. When I arrived in England I was shocked and brokenhearted. … I am quite sure that a 16-year-old does not always know it is there for good. My son is now at school in the United States and only I know how ashamed of it he is. He still will never even wear a short-sleeved shirt. It is even more noticeable as there are no tattooists in the area where we live."

645
The purpose of the proposed legislation is not to interfere with the liberty of the subject but to protect a youngster from committing a folly which he or she will perhaps later bitterly regret. There is an additional reason. A tattoo professionally executed can in most cases be removed only by a nasty operation of plastic surgery. Every year now hundreds of young people apply for this help to get them out of their difficulties. But surgeons are busy men and the applicant may be told to wait for a year or for several years. The alternative for him is to apply to a surgeon in private practice, but that costs an amount of money which he cannot afford. He should not have been so silly, one might say, and of course he should not have had it done. But that is not really an answer to the problem, is it? We ought to give a better answer.
I have been convinced that this legislation is justified, and I hope that I have said enough in my short speech to convince your Lordships to view it sympathetically. In its passage through another place the Bill was supported by a list of well-known Members from all parts of the House. They were men and women whose support is bound to cause respect for the Bill.
I will go through the clauses of the Bill briefly. Clause 1 is the main operative clause. It makes it an offence to tattoo a person who is under the age of 18, subject to two exceptions. The first exception allows tattooing by order or direction of a qualified doctor for medical reasons. This has been put in because a surgeon may wish to indicate by a small tattoo mark when an operation has been performed needing a scar though in fact the appendix or whatever it may be has not been removed. The second exception covers a situation where a tattooist genuinely believes that the person tattooed is aged 18 or over and the exception makes it a defence for the tattooist to show that he had reasonable cause to believe that the person tattooed was 18 or over and that he did so believe. This is a protection against unfair prosecution.
I am informed that there is one local Act with a precedent for this clause. Section 1 of the Cheshire County Council Act 1868 makes it an offence in Cheshire to tattoo a person under the age of 18
646
except with the consent of his parent or guardian. That kind of qualification has been carefully considered but has been thought not to be adequate since the consent of a parent or guardian would not in fact be a guarantee these days that the young man was being tattooed justifiably.
Clause 2 is the penalty clause. The maximum fine of £50 for the first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence is regarded as being proper in relation to the penalties which are inflicted for crimes regarding the safety of children and other respects. For example, the fine provided for the safety of children at entertainments is £50.
Clause 3 defines "tattoo". The British Medical Association have been consulted about this and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he is speaking will say whether the Government accept the definition also. Clause 4 contains the Short Title and applies the Bill to Great Britain. The Scottish Office have no objection to its application to Scotland. Its application to Northern Ireland would not be suitable since it comes within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Parliament. There it is, my Lords. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that this is a proper Bill to which the House should give a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (Lord Robertson of Oakridge.)
2.58 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has brought this Bill forward, and in spite of his introductory diffidence I am grateful to him for explaining it so fully and so sympathetically. Obviously there is no question of Party in a Bill like this. I personally am going to support it. The only point of significance in that remark is that I believe that I am the first woman to have expressed any view on this subject in Parliament either during the proceedings; on this Bill in another place or in the debate in your Lordships' House a couple of years ago initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, whom we are to have the pleasure of hearing again this afternoon.
The point was made in another place that it is embarrassing for a young man who wants to marry a girl named Pamela

647
if he already has Rose's name tattooed on some part of his anatomy. I can definitely say how disturbed I should have been as a girl if, when I wanted to get married, I found my noble kinsman already tattooed with, "I love Diana". I should not have known which Diana it was. He might not have told me. I know that I should not have been a bit reassured if he had explained that it had all happened when he was only 16.
I have had something to do with the National Health Service, and it seems to me utterly deplorable that overworked National Health Service doctors should have to spend their time in plastic surgery units removing tattoo marks from men and women who had had them put on when they were foolish boys and girls. I know what a nuisance it can be in prison hospitals when tattoo marks have to be removed from prisoners because the tell-tale marks will stand in the way of their getting a job and starting a new life when they leave prison.
It has been suggested—and the noble Lord referred to it in his speech—that a Bill like this might be an interference with personal liberty. In answer to that suggestion I think it is significant that in another place this Bill received its Second Reading "on the nod". As I understand it, this means to say that if one of the 630 Members had objected, it would have been held up; but no one did. Members of another place are as sensitive to infringements of personal liberty as your Lordships are in this House, and it seems to me a significant point that in another place not one honourable Member wished to take the opportunity of killing the Bill by raising objection to it.
I am sure that it is wise to permit the tattooing of boys and girls under 18 with their parents' consent, but not otherwise. I have never forgotten a German friend of mine telling me that at the time when the last war was drawing to an end, and he foresaw the risk of chaos all over Germany and Central Europe, he and his wife had a tiny, in-significant tattoo mark put on their little child, so that if she was ever snatched away from them they could be certain of her identity if either of them came across the child again. We can be pro
648
foundly thankful that parents in this country have escaped fear of that terrible kind. There might well be some reason for putting a small tattoo on a child for recognition purposes, or indeed to hide a birthmark, and the Bill would allow that if the parents wished it. I support the Bill, for I think it will mitigate a small, but sometimes serious, social problem.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, is it really necessary to have a Bill such as this?
3.1 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Bill. I gave support to the Question which was asked in June, 1967, and I would renew that support. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has introduced the Bill clearly and well. I would say to him that, so far as I am aware, there are no beneficial effects to be obtained from tattooing. However, I think there are one or two medical aspects to which it is worth while referring. About 50 per cent. of people who are tattooed regret that they have been tattooed, and about 70 per cent. of those who are tattooed and get married.
Removing tattoo marks puts a great deal of work upon surgeons. One surgeon about whom I read removed about 200 tattoo marks in two years. Another in London removed 85, and a hospital in the Provinces removed 90 in the course of three years. That represents quite a lot of work. These people have to be in hospital for 10 days to a fortnight, and this probably costs the State about £250 each. The average age of these people when they are tattooed is 17 or 18; therefore they would be covered by the Bill in its present form.
There are certain dangers which were referred to previously. They are not common, but they are dangerous and they apply to tattooing generally. If the needles are contaminated it is possible to communicate certain diseases, of which one of the commonest is a virus infection of the liver. This can be quite a serious complaint and can spread widely. Moreover, there is a certain amount of difficulty for people who have tattoo marks on the exposed parts of their body—on their hands and their forearms—in obtaining employment in shops and supermarkets, where they have to expose a

649
certain amount of their body to the public view. Having made those short points, I support the Bill.
3.4 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in view of what has been said about the fact that I first introduced the subject of tattooing in an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House, and the lucid way in which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has introduced the Bill this afternoon, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything along the lines on which I then spoke; but when I asked my Question in January, 1967, I did it at the instigation of a number of eminent dermatologists who had expressed to me their grave concern about the spread of this habit. So it came about that we then had a short debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has referred to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, "won the prize" on that occasion for his contribution in the debate. I should not put it like that: I was very annoyed indeed, because he "pinched" my debate completely. But the House enjoyed the noble Lord's contribution on that occasion. It is an extraordinary thing that the unnamed admiral he mentioned seems to be known by everybody in these days. I do not know how that comes about.
On the occasion of the previous debate I received a great deal of encouragement from my noble friend Lord Beswick, who answered for the Government, and I should like to quote some of his words. He said:
"However, I can say that a Bill promoted by a Private Member would be a useful way of securing the view of Parliament. Though I cannot give my noble friend any firm commitments, I would emphasise that if he feels disposed to introduce a Bill, not necessarily in this Session but on some future occasion, I shall be glad to discuss with him, constructively, I hope, the possibility of according some assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31/1/67; col. 950.]
I re-read this remark some weeks ago, and I was just in the process of trying to prepare a Bill along these lines when I heard that Mr. Martin Maddan was introducing a Bill in another place. Naturally, I was delighted that this was so.
Many things have been said in another place—and I think they were said on the
650
occasion of my asking the Question—about interference with personal liberties. But I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not a question of personal liberties. This is a Bill which, if it is passed, will be a protection against impulsive decisions by young people, always resulting in disfiguration, and often later regretted and bringing remorse with the regret. In those circumstances, I feel that Parliament has a responsibility to see that young people are protected from what I regard as a very nasty habit and custom.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teynham (or it may have been another noble Lord), who during the course of the previous debate said that we did not want to make "cissies" of our young men. Well, my Lords, if I may express an opinion about it, whenever I see a tattoo on any part of the body of any of our young men walking about the streets "cissie" is not the word that comes to my mind; "pansy" is the word I think of, and that is the impression that it leaves with me.
It is interesting to note the enormous amount of support that this Bill, and the suggestion that we should do something about tattooing, so far as young people are concerned, has received from surgeons of the Royal Navy. They conducted a test at Portsmouth, and it was found that out of 2,000 ratings 46 per cent. had been tattooed; and under questioning, 50 per cent. of those expressed regret. Dermatologists tell me that they are inundated in many of our hospitals by people asking to have their tattoo marks removed. Dermatologists and other consultants in our hospitals have more important work to do in these days that to spend their time removing tattoos. Yet they can hardly resist a request from a person to have his or her tattoo removed. I suggest that this in itself is a reason for the prevention of tattooing in the early stages of the lives of our young people. In addition to the Private Act of Parliament to which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has referred, of the Cheshire County, there is another one that came soon after I had asked my Question in your Lordships' House. That related to Portsmouth. The promoters did not approach the matter in this way; they put a clause into a Private Bill, which is now law, making it compulsory for tattooists' premises to be

651
licensed, so that the local authority might have a control over those premises from many points of view, and probably particularly from the health point of view.
I have only one regret about this pre-cent Bill. It can affect only tattooing in our own country, and I recognise that much of this tattooing is done, particularly in the Forces, by tattooists in other countries: and young men come back to Britain with it already done. I can only hope that if Parliament at this stage decides that it is not a good thing that young people under the age of 18 should have tattoos, other countries will in the future follow our example. With those few words, my Lords, I want to give all the support I can to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and to congratulate him on the fact that he has seen fit to introduce this Bill into your Lordships' House, after it has had such an easy passage in another place.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have listened to the impassioned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, but I cannot say that I accept it in entirety. I think it is perhaps unnecessary to have a Bill to control the minors of this country against themselves. I was tattooed as a minor and it had no ill-effects; and in fact, as a result, I probably kept myself free from Oriental diseases, in spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, suggested that to have been tattooed as a minor I must have had a low I.Q., but I can assure your Lordships I did not have one as low as he thinks—at least I hope not. I cannot help feeling that it is a mistake to bring in these Bills—we have had many of them in the past—to keep on controlling the young. They have had enough trouble as it is, and I really cannot accept this Bill.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, as your Lordships can see, I have a tattoo mark on my right hand. I would support what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said, that there is a point in favour of an identification mark. Parents should allow young people, if they think fit, and in the circumstances which the noble Baroness mentioned, to be tattooed. They may even want them to be tattooed. I am
652
thinking back to the days of the 1914–18 war when there was a lot of loss of memory, shell shock, and many people wandering about. An enormous number of people were missing, and it was never found out where they were and what had happened to them. There was then a considerable fashion for being tattooed, as can be seen.
I must say that there is a reason in favour of identification, such as I have mentioned. If parents want to see their children again in the circumstances I have referred to, after they have lost their identity discs, they can perhaps, if their children have a mark of identification, find them in some asylum or somewhere in Europe (if the war is in Europe) and see what they are like. If they have a mark of identification the parents have a chance of finding them. Without that, it may be difficult to | identify very young children, for they all look much the same. Therefore, I would support an alteration of the Bill to the effect that, with the parents' consent, minors might have tattooing done.
3.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, all noble Lords who have spoken are, like myself, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for his lucid presentation of this small but useful Bill, which has the Government's very firm support. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, invited your Lordships to have a good giggle if you wish. But this is certainly no cause for laughter. I should have thought that the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte—and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Strange—would be covered by the Bill; but if that is not so, then I am quite sure my noble friend Lord Robertson will be glad to look at it.
I said that this is no subject for laughter. Certainly in recent years my Department have received many representations from parents, school teachers, doctors and others, asking us to legislate to prohibit the tattooing of young persons. The reasons for this, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, indicated, and Lord Amulree confirmed, are not primarily the fear of the risk of physical

653
health, although, as the noble Lord made clear, tattooing is often done in unhygienic conditions and there is thus a risk of transmitting disease.
The basic case for prohibiting the tattooing of youngsters rests on the need to prevent them in their tender years from marking themselves for life. There is abundant evidence that tattoos, often of a grossly unsuitable kind, on parts of the body where they cannot be hidden by clothing, lead to embarrassment and even acute distress in later life. Only a few days ago the Daily Mirror ran an article with a picture of a young man of twenty-five who had more than 100 tattoos on his body, including an eagle in full flight across his forehead. He said that prospective employers are put off by it. They take one glance and say, "Sorry, nothing doing." So, now, after five months out of work, he decided to "give his eagle the bird". He is to have a skin-grafting operation to remove the six-inch tattoo. He said:
"People just stare at me wherever I go. They think I'm a hard nut and always want to fight me to find out. Employers won't take me on. I never stand a chance. The eagle appeared after a night out with the boys. I had a few drinks. I just remember paying £3 10s. and asking for the eagle's wings on my forehead."
He said he had had his first tattoo done at the age of fourteen.
I can perhaps understand the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, since he disclosed that as a young man he had a tattoo. He asked us, as it were, to look at him and see that it made no difference. But who can tell? I have heard noble Lords in your Lordships' House say, "As a young man I was flogged regularly every week—and look at me now". My Lords, I have looked, and it has caused me to wonder whether they would not have been better if they had not been flogged regularly every week. But unfortunately the practice of tattooing has been growing in recent years, and it often indicates a disturbed or damaged personality. That is presumably why so many offenders are tattooed. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, mentioned that two out of every five boys and girls sentenced to borstal training are tattooed.
I recently visited a girls' borstal of some 70 girls sentenced to borstal training. I suppose I spoke to virtually every
654
girl there. There the proportion of those tattooed seemed higher than 40 per cent. We are considering girls aged about 16 to 20, more than half of them tattooed. They had a word tattooed across the back of their hand; perhaps a letter on every finger, or on the tips of their fingers. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said how embarrassed she would have been if, her name being Rose, she had found that her husband had the name Pamela tattooed across his chest. Just think of what we are confronted with—a future Home Secretary in a position of that kind!
Among the girls I saw, only two or three months ago, in that borstal there were many who had such messages on their forearms; an arrow-pierced heart with a frank declaration such as, "I love Jack". I said to one little girl who had such a tattoo on her forearm, "Is Jack your boy friend?". To which she replied, "No, I gave him up two years ago." I do not suppose she even remembered what he looked like, but she had his name on her arm for life. She told me that she was having an operation to remove the tattoo the following week. The remarkable and revealing thing is that these borstal girls, offenders all and virtually, by definition, disturbed girls, ask for an operation to remove their tattoos within a week or two of starting their sentences. I would say that was proof positive that even while they are still very young they come to regret their earlier folly. There is no doubt that unless the tattoos are removed, those which cannot be covered up by clothing can result in permanent psychological and social damage.
The prison medical service does its best to cope with this demand, but it is an expensive and not very constructive use of surgical skills. I heard the noble Lord say that outside prison people have to wait for over a year before they can have an operation of this nature. I should not like to feel that any young person might think, "If I am to get rid of my tattoo I had better get into a borstal as soon as possible, because I shall not have to wait there".
The removal is painful, and one sees these people with blistered skin and with the stitches in their arms. We are doing, and will do, as much as we possibly

655
can, not only with boys and girls but with adults in prison; but surely a much better way is prevention, and that is precisely the object of my noble friend's Bill. It may be argued—and this may well have been the thought which prompted the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—that subsequent embarrassment, regret or distress, or even descent to a sub-criminal culture on the part of those tattooed, is not a sufficient ground for interfering with individual liberties. It may be argued that the criminal law should not be used to restrict the freedom of even young children without evidence of very serious harm. My Department is traditionally concerned with questions of individual freedom and its preservation, and therefore this is a point we would not dismiss lightly.
I suggest, however, that a philosophical argument on the part of someone unlikely to be affected cannot seriously be weighed against the need to protect the young from falling into a temptation whose long-term effects they, at a tender age, are not in a position to grasp. Group pressures such as are to be found in the Services, local crazes, doing what everyone else seems to be doing, being tattooed for a lark or a dare, are the kind of things which can easily result in permanent disfigurement. In my submission, if this Bill is passed we shall be increasing, and not reducing, the true, adult freedom of choice of the individual if we prevent him, while he is young, from taking decisions of this sort which may have permanent, distressing and entirely unforeseen consequences. The Bill deals with a real problem in a way which is entirely justifiable. I believe it will prove effective, and I trust that it will receive unqualified support from your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene in order to join the list of those other noble Lords who have had a tattoo? I had it done at the age of 20, when I was a minor, and I still have it—but I did marry the right lady.
3.25 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I should like to end by expressing my great appreciation of the support for this Bill given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord
656
Royle, and, of course, from the Government Front Bench, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I am indeed grateful for their moral support. As to the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strange, in relation to permission for tattooing and parents' consent, I think that matter can be covered by the Bill, and if it is thought that some slightly different wording would improve it I shall be glad to give it consideration in Committee.
As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, it may be that he and I cannot see things in the same way. I feel strongly that we should protect young people from making asses of themselves in this way, because it is a lasting thing which they can live many years to regret. I hope he will not press his opposition to this modest Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Act of 1963 c. 2]:
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 7 and insert ("as if in paragraph (3)(a) of Schedule 5, after the words 'six per cent' there were inserted the words 'or such other percentage as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument' and as if at the end of paragraph 3 of that Schedule there were inserted the following:—
'Any power conferred by this paragraph to make an order shall include power to vary or revoke the order by subsequent order."")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships would agree, I think it would be for the convenience of the House for all three Amendments to be taken together in one speech, because they are very much related. Your Lord-ships will doubtless remember that the original Bill as presented dealt with only

657
two simple points. The first was the 104 licensing days for each track and the possibility of those licensing days being varied even within one licensing authority. The second point was to give power to the Home Secretary to vary the fixed 6 per cent. deduction from the takings of the Tote. On the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Stonham gave it sympathetic consideration but indicated that on both those points Amendments were desirable. I did my best on the Committee stage with regard to the point concerning the licensing of tracks for 104 days of racing, but my noble friend was not satisfied with the Amendment and indicated that he would probably have to oppose it at Report stage if it were not withdrawn. I willingly withdrew that Amendment and my noble friend accepted the Amendment in regard to the power to vary the 6 per cent. deduction from the Tote takings.
In view of what my noble friend Lord Stonham said on the Committee stage these three Amendments have been put down to simplify the Bill, to eradicate all reference to the licensing of the tracks on the 104 days and to concentrate on the power for the Home Secretary to revoke the 6 per cent. deduction from the Tote takings. Therefore, the first two Amendments on the Marshalled List remove all reference to the 104 licensing days, re-model the Bill—and I feel it is desirable that the Bill should be remodelled—and simply give the Home Secretary the power to which I have already referred, of varying or revoking the 6 per cent. deduction. Amendment No. 3 brings the Title of the Bill into correct perspective in relation to the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford, who has been speaking on this Bill on our behalf, is unable to be here to-day, but I have discussed the matter with him and we support the Amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has now put down.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lindgren for proposing these Amendments, which have the effect of removing from the Bill the provisions relating to the fixing of betting days, leaving in the Bill
658
only the provision enabling the Secretary of State to vary by Order the permitted deduction from the totalisator receipts on dog racing tracks, which at present stands at 6 per cent. In the Bill as it now stands there are two principles embodied: first, the one to which I have just referred, and, second, the one which would have enabled individual tracks to have their racing days on different days. To that proposition the Government have no objection in principle, but, as I explained to your Lordships during the Committee stage, the Amendments in the Bill by which it was proposed to achieve this were not satisfactory, and we saw no way of making them so. Therefore, I am very glad that my noble friend has moved these Amendments to delete these proposals, because it leaves the Bill in a form which is in principle acceptable to the Government, and I hope to the House; that is, perhaps I had better say, subject to final scrutiny. Subject to that final scrutiny, we believe that it may well go on to the Statute Book without further amendment. If it does, then it will provide a necessary, and I think a just, alleviation of the conditions under which these tracks are now operating. Of course, it is not for your Lordships' House to give any guarantee of success in another place, but I believe that if these Amendments are accepted the Bill will have a reasonable chance of going on the Statute Book even at this stage of the Session.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Amendments of Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963]:
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Schedule.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this Amendment is again consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 2, leave out ("the fixing of betting days at licensed tracks; and to empower the Secretary of State to alter").—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER 1969
3.34 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before the House on March 26, 1969, be approved.
This Order marks the second step in the implementation of the Government's proposals following the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs. The first step which was taken earlier this year was of course concerned with the ending of the obligation to stamp subsidised eggs. The Order in fact makes three changes in the present guarantee arrangements. First, provision is made in Articles 4(2) and 8 for the introduction of a standard quantity following the decision to end the obligation to stamp subsidised eggs. Secondly, provision is made in Article 7(2) for an acceleration of the phasing out of the loss sharing element of the profit and loss sharing arrangements so that if the indicator price is above the selling price in 1969/70, the proportion of the difference to be paid by the Government to the Board will be 10 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. as provided for under the previous Orders.
Finally, provision is made for the profit and loss sharing arrangement to cease to apply altogether after the guarantee year 1969–70. This effect is achieved by the wording of Article 7 which limits the operation of the arrangements to that year only, following which the subsidy will be on a flat rate basis. In addition, since the current Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1963 has already been twice amended the opportunity has been taken to consolidate the earlier Orders. I should perhaps mention that there is no need to deal statutorily with the ending of the feed formula or indeed the reduction of the guaranteed price following this year's Price Review since these arrangements have always been operated by administrative action.
My Lords, there has already been much discussion within the agricultural industry of the Government's proposals for the future marketing and subsidy arrangements for eggs from which the present Order stems. This House has already
660
had two opportunities to discuss these proposals when some very pertinent questions were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and other noble Lords, and I repeat on this occasion that the Government are well aware that the industry will need a reasonable transitional period to make an orderly adjustment to free market conditions, and our proposals therefore provide for a five year transitional period during the first two years of which the Egg Board have been asked to continue with their present function. I should also like to repeat that in making these changes we remain mindful of the interests of consumers and will continue to have these very much in the forefront of our minds. Finally, I should like to stress the importance which the Government attach to the introduction of a minimum import price scheme for eggs and egg products which we regard as an integral part of the new arrangements for eggs.
Your Lordships may also care to know that we are now pressing forward with further consultations with the interested organisations on the many details which remain to be resolved before the introduction as soon as possible of the necessary legislation as the third stage in the implementation of our policy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1969 be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.37 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining to us the purpose of this Order and its features, may I apologise for my absence when he started his speech. The noble Lord has explained the two changes which are intended here, and I should like to make this point to the noble Lord. The method of calculating the payments due to egg producers is already so complicated that hardly anyone outside the Ministry understands it—and I should think very few people inside—and it seems a pity to introduce further complications and refinements of the scheme when it is already on its way out. I make that point particularly with regard to the introduction of a standard quantity this year. I am not against standard quantities for commodities—in fact I think that on the whole they are sound in

661
principle—but I think there is very little point in introducing a new feature of that kind in the last couple of years of the scheme. I will not discuss the complexities of the other change because I believe they are too minimal to discuss, although I think they are a little unfavourable to the producers.
I should like to mention a document which I received this morning from the National Farmers' Union about the Order and indeed about the Government's decision to bring to an end the existing scheme for guaranteeing prices and markets for eggs. I feel that the views of the National Farmers' Union on these matters are of such importance that they certainly deserve comment, even though in fact on this occasion I do not find myself in agreement with them. The main burden of this document is to continue to inveigh against the Government's decision to bring this scheme to an end. My own view, as I have mentioned here before, is that the Government have taken a right decision and that they should now receive the support of the industry as a whole in getting the best transitional arrangements that we can in making an orderly transition into the future.
I am quite certain that the logistics of this industry are such that, with the mechanics of modern egg production, production can be increased so rapidly that it would probably be possible to get an increase of 50 per cent. from one year to another, and that no sort of Government guarantee system could possibly give stability to the industry. In fact, because it interferes with the free working of the market, it is more likely to make for instability than for stability. Therefore, the National Farmers' Union's anxieties about the hazard to the small producer are, I am sure, not real; and I believe that the Government have taken the right decision, although it means that there is to be a transition period which will be awkward for everybody. Nevertheless at the end of it I think it will be better for everybody, and that the egg-producing part of this poultry industry will then settle down to the same situation as the table poultry part of the industry, where a huge volume of table poultry is produced every year without a penny subsidy from the Government or from anybody else, at a low price to the con-
662
sumer and allowing at any rate a fair return to the producer.
The last point I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is that what would be most helpful to the industry now would be to hear the whole of the Government's arrangements for this transition, especially up to the point, in two years' time, when the existing system of the Egg Marketing Board, standing there as the ultimate buyer and the machinery by which the guaranteed price is implemented, comes to an end. I hope that the National Farmers' Union will accept the decision that the Government have made as being broadly in the interests of the whole industry, and will turn their great resources and energies to helping to work out with the Government the best transitional arrangements and the best arrangement for the future. I am sure that by doing this they would be serving the interests of the producers far better than by continuing to protest against the decision.
In regard to the Order itself, I would say again to the noble Lord that I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will not come forward with any further refinements to a most complicated piece of machinery for what is a diminishing period of time. With those comments, my Lords, I am pleased to support the Order.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, when the first part of the Order came out we welcomed it from these Benches as a step in the right direction and, on the whole, as sensible. I think the same about this set of Orders, and I agree fairly substantially with what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said. There is one small point which I think will require watching. It is not so much the small producer as the producer in isolated areas who may be in difficulty. I think this is something which will need to be watched closely under the transitional arrangements.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Henley, for the general welcome they have given to this Order and for their reaffirmation of support for the general policy of the Government in this sector of the agricultural industry. I

663
gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, seemed to think that this particular Order was unnecessary at this point of time. I only say to him that we undertook to phase out the old in bringing in the new, and the whole essence of a phasing operation is to do it in steps. As I said at the beginning, this is the second step; and there will be a third step. To that extent, I should have thought it was better that things were done gradually rather than in one abrupt change from the old to the new.
I accept what the noble Lord says about the desirability of letting the whole of the producers know the details of the Government's new policy, but of course it just is not possible to say that we can let them know either this year, or indeed next year. Certainly this year there will be discussions with regard to the import control arrangements on the minimum import price. One would hope that some decision will be taken in this matter as soon as possible.
So far as the raising of the levy is concerned, this cannot be settled until the new authority are established: as they have the responsibility, it must be done by them, and this may take some time. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that it was useful to have this intermediate step, and that as soon as possible we should come along with legislation embodying the necessary changes of the third step.
The noble Lord mentioned the document which has been distributed by the National Farmers' Union. I agree with him that, coming from the Union, it is an important document and it will have to be considered most carefully. However, I am sorry that it was not possible to get the document a little earlier; it makes it a little difficult to consider it properly. One doubt which comes to my mind when I look at the reservations, or criticisms, which the N.F.U. make is that despite all their criticisms, despite all the short-comings to which they call our attention, the fact of the matter is that many producers are of their own volition opting out of the present scheme. I cannot think, therefore, that the new proposals are so serious as one might gather from some of the criticisms made.
But, again, that is probably too simple a statement, and not quite fair, because
664
within the whole structure of the industry there are a number of producers who quite certainly will not benefit as do the majority. The remote producers, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says, will be disadvantaged. Their position will be a special one. Their position will have to be considered. So far as the overseas producers are concerned, in Northern Ireland and the Orkneys, special arrangements are being made. As to the rest, I think that what the N.F.U. say will have to be considered. But, over and above that, for the majority of the efficient producers I think that this will be a good second step towards a good scheme, and I should like to think that the House would be able to approve it unanimously.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ABORTION ACT AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, with the permission of the House and in view of public concern over the proper working of the Abortion Act 1967, I wish to make a Statement incorporating certain information which is being given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services at Question Time in another place this afternoon.
When the Act came into force on April 27 last year all private nursing homes in England and Wales used for the termination of pregnancies had to be approved by the then Minister of Health. In all, 59 homes were so approved for a period expiring on April 26 this year, which is just two days ago. This approval needed to be renewed if they were to continue to be used for the termination of pregnancy after that date; and 55 of the 59 have sought such re-approval from my Department. Of these 55, 47 have been approved for a further year; seven have received re-approval for two months only; and approval has been withheld from one pending further inquiries.
Your Lordships will wish to know the reasons for the limited periods of re-approval in the cases I have mentioned. The seven homes which have only received a two-month approval are all in the North-West Metropolitan area, and

665
the common factor between them is the high number of terminations performed there. Together they account for 90 per cent. of all terminations notified from private nursing homes in the whole of England and Wales during the first quarter of this year. Inspection by professional officers of the Department has revealed certain apparent deficiencies in the facilities in these homes, having regard to the large volume of work they perform. My right honourable friend is therefore using such powers as are available to him under the Act to safeguard the health and safety of women operated on in them. It: is for this reason that he has given only a short term re-approval to these seven homes and is also arranging for their re-inspection by his professional officers before giving any longer-term approval.
To complete the picture I should also add that five homes not previously approved have also applied for approval, and the necessary inquiries are in progress.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for making this Statement, and welcoming any efforts that her Department may make to ensure the safety of women entering these private nursing homes to have their pregnancy terminated, may I ask whether I am to understand that 7 out of the 59 approved private nursing homes accounted for no less than nine-tenths of all the abortions in these places during the first quarter of this year? I am sure the Secretary of State is right in making detailed investigations of these 7 homes, but do the Government agree that it will be only fair to them to reach a further decision well before the end of the two months?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for the Statement she has made, and to say how pleased I am to see what care is being taken by her Department that the homes which they approve will be as satisfactory as it is possible for them to be. I therefore welcome the decision that for certain homes which it is thought may not be quite up to standard the approval will be given only for two months, so that the people responsible may have a
666
chance to improve them in that time. I think this is a very satisfactory slate of affairs.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Baroness for making the Statement, and I apologise for having missed the early part of it. May I ask her whether, where nursing homes are known to have made grossly extortionate charges for the carrying out of the nursing part of these operations, any attempt is likely to be made by her Department to control these charges?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I thank the House for the way in which it has received this Statement to-day. The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, is "Yes", and that is why we are taking such particular care in these inquiries. I can assure her, and the House, that the officers of my Department will make their inquiries as quickly and as soon as possible, so that we can come to a firm conclusion. With regard to the point just raised by my noble friend Lord Segal about charges, if I recall correctly he made this particular point in a previous question on this subject, on March 25. I pointed out on that occasion that we had no power to control fees charged in private homes, or to lay down rules for the conduct of private homes. But we can (indeed, this is the object of our exercise at the moment) ensure the adequacy of the premises, equipment and staffing of private homes, and to this extent safeguard the health and safety of the women using them.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Baroness to say how many abortions were carried out by these homes, either individually or collectively? Can she say whether they carried out other operations as well, or are they used solely for the purposes of abortion?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, yes, I can give the noble Earl the figures for the first quarter of this year, 1969. In the seven nursing homes some 4,522 abortions were carried out. I cannot give him the other information for which he has asked, about their other work. If he wished for a breakdown of the figures for the individual seven nursing homes, I could let him have those figures.

PUBLIC HEALTH (RECURRING NUISANCES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 13 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ITALIAN PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was the intention that this House should adjourn during pleasure at about 4.45 p.m. while we had the privilege of listening, in the Royal Gallery adjoining, to the Address which President Saragat, of Italy, is to give to Members of both Houses. Before I move that this House do now adjourn, I would remind your Lordships that there is this privilege still before us at five o'clock.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, House adjourned at five minutes before four o'clock.