Lords Sitting of 28 April 1970

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

VIOLENCE: PROTECTION OF COLOURED PEOPLE
LORD O'HAGAN: 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 steps have been taken to reassure coloured people, particularly in East London, that they receive as much protection from unprovoked assault as any-one else.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently gave an assurance in another place that every citizen, no matter what his colour, is entitled to equal protection from the police in his lawful activities and that the police will fulfil that duty. Senior police officers gave a similar assurance to a recent meeting of Pakistanis in East London.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the reports in to-day's newspapers that some Pakistanis, from East London I understand, particularly because of Sun-day's events, are planning a protest meeting at Downing Street? Is the noble Lord sure that the message has got through?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one can-not be absolutely sure. Communication with these people is one of the problems; but in so far as my right honourable friend has any influence I am sure that he will "get over" to the Pakistanis concerned. The problem here is one of hooliganism and not of racialism.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the Answer that my noble friend has given, may I ask him whether it would not be possible to replace the Pakistani vigilantes, some of whom are
928
apparently carrying offensive weapons, by an inter-racial special constabulary com-posed of volunteers who would have walkie-talkie sets and who would be able to get into touch with the police immediately?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have a chief inspector of police in that division, as in ten other divisions, whose sole duty is liaison activity. We have special police directed into the area; and there are 18 police officers in the division who have volunteered to learn the Bengali language. I think that this country has done as much as any other country to try to help those who choose to live among us.

IMMIGRANTS' TAX RELIEF CLAIMS
2.39 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 since February 8, 1968, they have found means of drastically checking fraudulent claims for tax relief by immigrants for non-existent dependants, and whether such tax reliefs are still being granted for dependants not living in this country.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for some time now the Inland Revenue have been making more detailed checks on new claimants. There has been no change in the law to exclude relief for dependants resident overseas.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, did not the noble Lord tell me two years ago that it was virtually impossible—those were not his exact words—for the Inland Revenue to check on dependants who were not in this country and that that was one of the questions that was going to be looked at? If it is virtually impossible to find out whether the information they receive is correct, why do not Her Majesty's Government stop it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means. Stop what?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, stop granting tax relief to dependants who are not in this country.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that suggestion was examined but it was found impossible to apply it without penalising the innocent or having quite blatant differentiation between coloured and other immigrants. That solution is not possible. It has been found possible to apply further tests and I hope that to some extent the problem is contained. But I would add, since I have just answered another Question, that this form of tax evasion does not help the kind of integration we are seeking to achieve.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, surely this is breaking the law. This is not a' question of integration or of no integration. Is this not purely a question of breaking the law?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, but in the case of the other Question it is a matter of enforcing the law. To the extent that it is possible to find out about misrepresentation in the completing of tax returns, the law has been enforced.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, could not the onus of proof be left on the claimant?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is one suggestion that I will ensure is considered again.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS AND INJURY AWARDS
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the increase in offences of violence and the fall in the value of money since 1948, they will review the powers of Magistrates' Courts to order an offender to pay damages for injury under the Criminal Justice Act 1948 and whether they will in the meantime, direct the attention of magistrates' courts to such powers as they already have to order the payment of damages for injury.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Advisory Council on the Penal System is at present undertaking a comprehensive review of the powers of all criminal courts to order offenders to pay com-
930
pensation. The need for modification of the powers of the courts will be considered in the light of the Council's recommendations. Under Section 11(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 a magistrates' court, when placing an offender on probation or discharging him conditionally or absolutely, may order him to pay damages for injury up to a maximum of £100. There is no need to remind magistrates' courts of these powers to award compensation.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer. I would ask two supplementary questions. First, is there not a case for extending the power of magistrates' courts to order compensation for injury where the sentence is a suspended one? This is a new sentence introduced since the 1948 Act. Secondly, if £100 was the appropriate limit in 1948, is not a limit of something like £250 appropriate now?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend raises two very relevant points, which is what I would expect from him, and I have no doubt that both points are being considered by the Advisory Council. In any case, I trust that, as a result of his raising the matter, they will be so considered.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the Report of this Council is likely to be received?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I understand in the middle of this year.

CAMBODIA AND ARMS SUPPLY
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Government of Cambodia have made a request for arms and, if so, what: has been the response.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, no direct request has been received by Her Majesty's Government; the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Could he just define what he means by "direct request"? And would Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the situation is aggravated by the fact that both sides, American and Viet Cong, have defied the 1954 Agreements and that we should refrain from sending arms to that country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not quite know how I can help my noble friend in regard to my first Answer. It is perfectly well known that the Cambodian Government said that they would receive arms from any country that was willing to supply them. Certainly Her Majesty's Government did not regard that as a direct request. I agree that it would be quite wrong for us, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, of which Cambodia is one of the Protocol countries, to supply arms to Cambodia.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Mentally handicapped children]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert (" and
(iii) in proving his eligibility for qualified teacher status he shall be entitled to
932
count years of experience both before and after obtaining the diploma in the teaching of mentally handicapped children.")
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I drew attention to the recent announcement by the Secretary of State that staff holding a diploma in the teaching of mentally handicapped children would be recognised as qualified teachers provided that they had had five years' post-diploma experience. I said that this was extremely welcome in principle but that it seemed to us to be an excessively long period when one takes into account not only the fact that these teachers have had experience before they take their diploma but also that normally the teachers' training period is three years and the qualifying period four years. I was very pleased that on Second Reading I had the support of both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and also of my noble friend Lord Grenfell.
Two distinct cases are involved. There is that of the young teacher under 25 who has to take a two-year diploma course and there is that of the teacher over 25 who takes a one-year diploma course. It is primarily the skilled teacher with a lot of experience, the over-25 teacher, whom this Amendment is designed to assist. There are among them a very large number of devoted teachers with a great many years of experience, and these are the teachers to whom the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln paid an eloquent tribute during the Second Reading debate.
As things stand, on the transfer to the Education Service they will be required to have served for five years after they received their diploma before they gain recognition as qualified teachers. That seems to me an onerous condition, and my Amendment suggests that it would be fairer if they could count the years of experience they have had in the Service before taking the diploma as well as those after. It seems to me that once the Ser-vice is integrated there will be the same inevitable urge towards a fully qualified service as there is in the present Education Service. The situation might well arise where a vacancy occurred in a senior post for the teaching of mentally handicapped children, and a teacher of normal children who had taken his teacher's certificate and had, maybe, one or two years' experience of teaching might apply

933
for the vacancy. He would be considered a qualified teacher, whereas an applicant who had had 20 or 25 years' experience of teaching mentally handicapped children but had not yet completed his five years' qualifying service would be treated as unqualified; and the other teacher might get the post.
My Amendment also would be of some benefit, though much less, to the young teacher. I am particularly concerned with younger teachers because, as I understand it, their situation is that they have first of all to have 12 to 15 months' experience of teaching with the mentally handicapped; they then take a two-year diploma course and then they must nave five years' experience—a total of over eight years—before they become qualified. This morning I was informed that, over and above the five years' qualifying period, they are required to serve a further two years probationary training instead of the one year of the teacher of normal children. The sum now adds up to over ten years' experience before they are treated as qualified. I think that this is adding insult to injury, and I would ask the noble Baroness whether this really is the case. It is certainly a shattering blow to the ambitions of many young students, if they have to face that sort of discrimination.
The Amendment does not go very far in helping them, unfortunately. It would allow them to count the 12 to 18 months' previous experience before they took their diplomas. But I should hope that in the course of time we could go further than that. In my opinion, they should be able to qualify after a two-year period. There is certainly no question of dilution in this matter. We are not diluting the teaching profession. There are over 300,000 teachers, and fewer than 1,000 teachers with these diplomas. Surely the teaching profession can afford to be generous, and if they are not generous surely the Government can be. I beg to move.
LORD GRENFELL: I spoke on Second Reading on this subject and I told the House then that the chairman and a deputation from the Training Council for the Mentally Handicapped were going to call on the Minister yesterday. They did so and he was unable to change his point of view. I personally find this deeply
934
distressing. As I said in Second Reading, it means that our teachers are going to remain second-class teachers. Our children are going to remain second-class pupils. I cannot understand why this should be, but I am told that it is a trade union decision. If we are going to be completely governed by our trade unions it is a sad thing for the future of our country. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Aberdare in this matter. Not myself alone, but many others, feel this very deeply The noble Baroness knows as well as I do what it means to teach mentally handicapped children and that these teachers wish to have the recognition they need and deserve.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to add a plea from these Benches that the utmost consideration should be given where cases of genuine hardship are involved and that the Bill should not apply too rigorously in certain cases of experienced teachers with a background of many years' skill in dealing with mentally handicapped children. They should not be completely ruled out because they are unable to accept the period of five years which this Bill lays down. Where cases of genuine hardship are concerned, I would ask the Government to exercise the broadest possible interpretation of the terms of this Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lords who have spoken know that I have great sympathy with this Amendment, but I think that we must keep to the facts of the situation. The diploma of the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped is given for a two-year course with a minimum entry qualification of three "O" Levels or a one-year course following a substantial relevant service. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made reference to 12 to 18 months' service. It is a qualification of good standing in this field, and its holders are recognised generally, and in particular by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, as being fully qualified teachers of mentally handicapped children. There is certainly no question of them being second-class teachers. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, in particular, to know that the Secretary of State proposes that when holders of this diploma join the educa-

935
tion service, they will be known as recognised teachers of the mentally handi-capped—R.T.(M.H.). We also have to recognise that the diploma course is shorter and more specialised and has a lower minimum entry standard.
We are concerned here with the qualification for teachers with general teaching qualifications. As I said on Second Reading, the five-year period is not so difficult as it sounds, because a large number of students will have that necessary qualification. I was not quite certain about what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about the 25 years' teaching.
LORD ABERDARE: It depends on whether the five years are before or after the diploma. The present requirement is that they do five years after the diploma; but they could have done a lot before.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It is difficult without actually knowing an example of such teachers, and I do not know of any. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a large number will have done the five years.
On Second Reading, both noble Lords opposite were a little uncertain about facts I gave them and I will repeat them. The Secretary of State has power at present to accept as a qualified teacher anyone holding a diploma, which is not necessarily that of a qualified teacher, if he or she has been teaching for ten years. This refers mainly to people holding a Montessori certificate, to Irish teachers and to teachers from abroad. But in the present case my right honourable friend has exercised his judgment and reduced the ten-year period to five. So that this concession (if I may put it that way) provides a comparable situation. We should appreciate that the normal rule should apply when granting qualified-teacher status to holders of diplomas in teaching. This is what is intended. Those who are entering this course of training now will have an opportunity of continuing on a three-year course or of taking a more specialised course and they will not be considered in connection with this five years' experience.
I hope that both noble Lords will appreciate that this is not a question of
936
the union but of a difference of qualification and that these teachers are getting due status. It simply means that if they want to be qualified teachers in every type of subject they will have to wait for five years. I hope that noble Lords will accept the point I am trying to make. It does not imply any lack of consideration for these teachers or any downgrading. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the two-year probationary period was news to me. I have checked this matter with the Department and they have no knowledge of it, either. I am not certain where he heard it, but I hope he will appreciate the situation and not press this Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I supported the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on this matter on Second Reading, and having heard Lady Phillip's reply I must confess that I am no whit the wiser about the Government's reason for being against the Amendment as it stands. If I may say so with great respect, I do not think that the noble Lady has given us any reason at all why a given amount of experience, which we are all agreed for the purpose of this Amendment is necessary, should necessarily all be after gaining the diploma, and why one should not be able to spin it out over the period before and the period afterwards. If a teacher has a diploma, and has the teaching experience, what does it matter whether the experience is after he obtained the diploma or before? We have not yet heard an argument against that.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I can only say that the teacher training course does not stipulate this. In other words, you do not enter a college of education on the basis of work which you have carried out before. It is held to be useful, but it is a different entry level. Therefore there must be some difference when you are taking these people into the status of qualified teacher. Training for work in one field—and I give the example of those who have trained in nursery work through the Montessori certificate—is not the same as becoming a qualified teacher of every age in every type of subject. There is a difference which I think even the noble Lord will appreciate.
LORD ABERDARE: I must say that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, am not at all happy about this matter. I am

937
quite happy for the future, when it comes down to everybody having a three-year course. But I think the Government are being extremely niggling in this matter to those people who are at present in the service and who have done a great deal for it. There are many other ways in which it could be done. Perhaps there should be conversion courses for what the noble Baroness called R.Ts. (M.H.). Are normal teachers going to be called R.Ts. (G)? It does not seem to me to be right, when the service is being integrated. We should show much more generosity, and I cannot help feeling that we are not going about it in the right way.
Perhaps I may answer the question on the three years' probation. This is contained in a letter (which I will show to the noble Baroness) from the Department of Education and Science to a student at one of the junior training centres. It has caused a great deal of alarm and despondency among students who are just about to qualify. They now have to face five years' service, plus two years' probation service, before they are treated as qualified. It is making them very despondent indeed. I do not wish to press the Amendment at this stage, but I hope I may be able to make some better impression on the noble Baroness, perhaps in conversation afterwards, when we can see whether we can get together on it, because I feel sure that the Bill at present is doing an injustice. Meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.4 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
(" () Nothing in this section shall impose any liability on a local education authority to provide residential homes for children for whose education they may become responsible under this section.")
The noble Lord said: When my noble friend moved the Second Reading of this Bill she referred to the special position of the Inner London Education Authority, pointing out that that Authority is not itself a health authority. It is be-cause of that special position and the need to secure some definition of the responsibility of that Authority in regard to the provision of residential accommodation for those children for whose education they are likely to become respon-
938
sible under this clause that I have tabled this Amendment.
The Amendment is certainly not in-tended to exclude the possibility of that Authority providing such accommodation. Indeed, the records of the Inner London Education Authority and, before them, of the London County Council are outstanding in the provision that they have made for boarding school accommodation for children with special education needs, whether it be E.S N., maladjusted, physically handicapped, dual-handicapped or multi-handicapped. It would seem that there may be instances where, although the education authority will provide the education, the purely residential care could still best be under-taken by the health authority or the hospital service Indeed, there may well be a point where the very cost of having to provide residential accommodation could itself become a heavy burden for an education authority such as the I.L.E.A. In those circumstances, I bag leave to move this Amendment, which would leave an authority such as the I.L.E.A. free to provide residential accommodation in case;: where it is in the best interests of the child that it should do so, but under no obligation to do so where education and residential care call for different specialisations. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy for having given me prior notice of this Amendment, and of the reasons for it. I think it will be useful to him if I give the full note on this particular Amendment and clause. The effect of Clause 1, and in particular subsection (1) is to provide that the powers and duties of local education authorities under the Education Acts to provide education in Schools shall in future apply equally to those children suffering from mental handicap, who up to the time when the clause becomes law will have been excluded from the education system under Section 57 of the Education Act (to be repealed under the Bill) as unsuitable for education at school.
The clause thus extends to these children the right to education already ex-tended to other children, but imposes no duties on local education authorities in respect of them beyond those already operative in the case of other children.

939
Nothing in the Education Act imposes on local education authorities a duty to provide residential homes for children of school age or otherwise; nor does any part of Clause 1 impose such a duty. Section 50 of the Education Act gives the local authorities the power, where it seems to them necessary in order to en-able a child to attend a suitable school, to provide board and lodging under such arrangements as they think fit. But this is first an enabling power, and not a duty; and secondly, it is restricted to the provision of board and lodging to enable attendance at school: it does not relate to the provision of a place of permanent residence for a child. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GRENFELL: In the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that I would know that within the present structure a period of 10 years qualified a teacher for full duties status. She mentioned something about 10 years in her speech just now, but I was not quite clear as to her meaning.
The other point, on which she kindly wrote to me, was not fully answered, to my mind, and I feel that it is vitally important. When the handover is done, what will the qualifications for holidays be for the teachers? At the moment, under the health authorities they have three weeks, with an option for hospital management committees to extend that by closing the school. Indeed, at this moment we in our hospital management give them six weeks. It must be remembered that in transforming to education they will, I understand, have the right of about three months' holiday. I believe that is about the length of the normal holiday that a teacher has. This will need a good deal of thought by the hospitals concerned, as I mentioned on Second Reading. I do not expect to get an answer about this now, but the education authorities ought to consider all these
940
questions carefully, so that we may get advance notice. The time is coming next year when the changeover will come into effect, and we shall need notice of these matters in order that organisation can be put into motion.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I will try to explain the point about the five and the ten years to the noble Lord. At the moment the Secretary of State has power to give the status of qualified teacher to somebody who has a diploma or teaching qualification which is not the same as an English college would give. This is a special power which he exercises only in certain cases. In such a case the person must have taught for ten years before he would be considered, all other factors being equal. The Secretary of State could have made that the qualification for teachers in this case also, but he decided not to do so; he decided to make it less—five years. So he has made a concession. The ten-year qualification applies at the moment mainly to teachers from other countries who have all the qualifications though they are not qualifications which are recognised here: people who have taken a course like Montessori (and I believe that there are certain kinds of physical education courses as well which give a teacher training certificate) but not to the teacher training qualification for teaching all types of children. The Secretary of State can exercise that right at present and does so in certain cases. We shall return to this matter at a later point in the Bill, as it relates to another Amendment.
On the question of holidays, a very interesting note has appeared which may or may not reassure the noble Lord. It says, rather cryptically: "Either more money, or increased staffing—a point to be settled." At any rate, it seems set fair for the changeover. I think three months' holiday is a slight overstatement; I do not believe the holiday is quite as long as that. There is a period of five weeks in the summer—six in some cases. I do not think the noble Lord could make it up to three months with the other periods. There are 12 school days off at Christmas, and 12 at Easter, so I think it would be rather difficult to make it up to three months. I hope that answers the noble Lord's points.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Supplementation by Secretary of State, in special cases, of certain awards by local education authority]:
3.14 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from (" section ") to ("references") in line 6.
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading we had a good many speeches on the question of subsection (4) of Clause 2, which is the clause that gives the Secretary of State the right to supplement grants to students cohabiting with a member of the opposite sex. I dc no! want to go over all the arguments again, but, briefly, many of us feel that it is quite wrong in an Education Bill to condone, or seem to condone, immoral behaviour, and to ask the taxpayer to support it. I have read very carefully through all that was said on the Second Reading, and in particular what was said by the noble Baroness. To my mind there are two points which emerge quite clearly: first, nobody wants to take any action which would in any way affect children; secondly, there is a feeling, shared by many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, that it is wrong for the Department of Education to make official regulations to cater for students living in sin. If there is an odd case of hard-ship involved, then that is a matter for social security and the Supplementary Benefits Commission, not the Department of Education.
In the Amendment, in which I am very glad to be so powerfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and my noble friend Lady Emmet, I have sought simply to leave out all mention of cohabiting students and, at the same time, to leave in all the references to the children. At the moment it says:
"… references to a person's wife or husband include a woman with whom that person cohabits as his wife or, as the case may be, a man with whom that person cohabits as her husband, …"
If my Amendment is agreed to that will be deleted and we shall be left with:
"… references to a person's child include that person's stepchild or illegitimate child and a child adopted …"
That entirely meets the case that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on Second Reading, when she said:
942
"… no student is going to be allowed to keep a wife or a mistress …or someone with him unless there is a child."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/4/70; col. 386.]
That is precisely what we are aiming to do by leaving out these very words in the Bill. The noble Baroness was intending to do it in the regulations, whereas we are doing it through the Bill by removing that part of this subsection which deals with cohabitation.
Surely if there is the odd case where there is hardship for a student, someone with whom he is cohabiting and a child, it can be left to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. They have looked after these matters since 1962, and there must be extremely few cases. The noble Baroness said that these arrangements would not affect more than a thousand students, and only less than 1 per cent. of those would not be married, so we are dealing with fewer than ten students, and some of those probably have children eligible under my Amendment. There-fore we are dealing with very few people, and surely they could look to the Supplementary Benefits Commission if there was any hardship. This is a simple Amendment; it seems to meet all the points made by the noble Baroness on Second Reading, and I hope she will accept it. I beg to move.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I spoke at some length on the Second Reading of this Bill last week, and I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. We are, however', discussing a new principle that is being introduced in this Bill and I should like to emphasise some of the points that I made last week. First, we are living at a time when we see unrest in every university, and all of us would have expected that the Government would give a lead to students. That is why I, for one, found it difficult to believe that a measure was being introduced which would not only condone sex before marriage, and imply that it was quite all right, but also subsidise it through the taxpayer. We have to think of the repercussions. If a young student, after working for a short time, decided that he or she wished to study again, why should not a worker in a factory, after having worked for three years, say, "I will become an apprentice. It will mean that it will be rather difficult for me to keep my dependants, but the Government will help me."? That facility does not

943
exist at the moment, although we want skilled people. There is no question of an apprentice being told that if he cares to become a skilled person, and to that end to undergo a further course of study, the Government will be responsible for either his wife or family—and certainly not the girl with whom he cohabits.
In the case of a girl, it is specified in the regulations that she can be 21—only 21—and the Government may give a grant to her lover. If that is right for the better-off, how many of these boys and girls in universities realise how fortunate they are, having opportunities that were denied their fathers and grand-fathers? They are already fortunate, but now we are coming along to some of these boys and girls who are already very spoilt and saying, "Here is another con-cession."
It has been said that these benefits will be only for mature students. I said on Second Reading that a mature student does not need a mistress or a lover as a crutch. I have about ten relatives, nine of them men, who are doctors, and although they groaned about the long course of years at university, none of them groaned because the Government were not supporting their girl friend or boy friend. It just meant that they had to face up to being disciplined for a number of years. I am saying that it is in the interests of boys and girls to-day to make them learn the value of discipline and control.
As a feminist, I feel very strongly that once more the permissive society is introducing a measure which will bear most heavily on the girls. It is no good people coming to me, as they have done, and saying, "Edith, there is equality on this. The woman can have her lover and the man can have his mistress." As I said previously, what nonsense! All of us who have been to university know perfectly well that if a man has a girl friend and sleeps with her he is regarded as rather a gay boy; if it is known in the university that a girl sleeps with a man, nobody says, "Well, it is only one"; people just use that horrible expression about her "sleeping around". Under this measure the age of the girl has to be 21. Some irresponsible, nasty youth can bring pressure to bear upon a bright, intelligent girl and say to her,
944
"If I become your lover you can apply for a grant." On the other hand, while the man certainly has to be 25, he can take a mistress of any age; he can have one of 18. So I say that once more the permissive society is being, as I believe, cruel to the girl; I think that this Bill proves it, and I want to protect her.
As for those of us who believe in the institution of marriage, as I have said I cannot think of any alternative to the institution of marriage, but this measure surely is going to undermine it gravely. Again, has this nothing to do with morals? If a widow who has been married for many years and has a miser-able little State pension cohabits with a man, she risks losing her pension. Are we going to change all that? A widow, a teacher, wrote to The Times about this and said, "It is a pity we widows cannot now cohabit with male students; we'd be all right." What are we coming to?
I have already spoken on the subject of accommodation. We have not had the details about this. If the widow I am talking about incidentally cohabits with a man in her own house she loses her pension, but if she has an affair with him, and sleeps with him regularly in another house, or in his house, she can get her pension. We want to know details about this. When two students have established the fact that they are sleeping together, if they cannot get accommodation or a flat near the university will they still be able to get their grant?—because they will certainly be cohabiting. We are told time after time that these people number only 1,000, or 10 per cent., or whatever the total may be. The Bill is not yet on the Statute Book. Why are we saying that there are not very many? We do not know how many there are going to be. How can we possibly judge from the number who obtain supplementary benefits? As I have said, supplementary benefit has been regarded as a net in which to catch the unmarried mother and her child, but it has never encouraged extra-marital intercourse: there is nothing in supplementary benefit to encourage this. But now a Government Department is coming along and giving its blessing. There is no difficulty here of a student feeling slightly ashamed because at a university he goes and asks for a grant for his mistress. I feel that that argument has no validity at all, and

945
I ask the Committee, for the sake of the institution of marriage, for the sake of these boys and girls, and particularly for the sake of young women, to support this Amendment.
3.26 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I should like, in a very few words, to sup-port this Amendment. Like the noble Baroness who has just sat down, I made my views known, I think quite clearly, on Second Reading; but I do not think it does any harm to dot the i's and cross the t's for just a few minutes. It is, I must say, horrifying to me—really horri-fying—that the Ministry of Education (not of Social Service but of Education) should suggest that the taxpayer should support an illicit household, and that the Minister should sanction this and un-doubtedly—and I think this is the important point—in the eyes of the recipient approve of it. The noble Baroness has just said that we understand that at the moment there are perhaps only a few of these cases. But once this principle is approved, where is it going to stop? We cannot possibly say that there will continue to be only a few, once this principle has been publicly accepted by the Minister of Education.
As I think was asked at Second Reading, how many times can the recipient change partners and still keep this grant? And how many illegitimate children is he or she going to be allowed? After all, if it is all right once, why should it not be all right twice? I am frankly shocked by my Church's attitude to this matter during the debate on Second Reading. I always thought that there was one, if there were not two, of the Ten Commandments very suitable to this subject. Is there anything that is going to stop (shall we call her?) a lady of leisure, except at night, from applying for a grant, provided that she has her "A" levels, to keep her occupied in the day in studying social science from a different aspect? This is a permissive society and I cannot see that one should stop her in certain circumstances. Surely the Ministry of Education should look at the whole man and woman, not just at their "A" levels and so forth, and see whether assistance from the taxpayer is going to produce an individual who is going to be of benefit to the society in
946
which he lives and from which he obtains assistance.
Where feckless people—and these are feckless people—produce illegitimate children, I should have thought their first duty was to try to earn a living to support them. But that idea seems to have gone quite out of fashion, and the whole of the present tendency, encouraged I am sorry to say by the present Government and this Bill, is to undermine the principles, whether they go back to Aristotle and Plato, to Christian religion, or to any other great religion or philosophy under which our civilisation has developed. I think this is going to be done at very great cost to the nation, and we shall soon reach the stage when the reputation of the British nation, which stood so high in the world, will degenerate; and instead of being called Perfide Albion, we shall be called, "Degenerate Albion".
3.30 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It seems to be necessary to look carefully at the nature of the proposal contained in this clause and the arguments put up in favour of the Amendment. On the Second Reading, I think there was a great deal said which was very wide of the mark. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, could, it seemed to me—and seems after re-reading it—be explicable only on the basis that she did not believe a word that her own Front Bench was saying or that she had prepared a splendid piece of polemic and was not going to abandon it whatever happened. We are not talking about masses of mistresses or gangs of gigolos; we are talking about approximately ten cases at any one time —and I do not think that the suggestion that this Bill might encourage more such cases is valid, because it appears that the regulations will be drawn very strictly indeed (and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will have something to say about this) almost certainly all involving children, where there may be real hardship if the student is going to continue with his or her studies.
The arguments against this appear to fall into two categories. The first says that these people should not be helped; the second says that they should be helped in this particular way. If we take the first argument, that they should not be helped, the argument here runs that if you choose to live together unmarried

947
you flout the laws of society and must take the consequences.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It is an intellectually respectable theory, but it is one which I reject on liberal grounds. I do not believe that the State has any right or any business to discriminate between people on the basis of their private morals. In the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said:
"I really feel that the country should now be told by the Government whether chastity and virginity have any intrinsic value at all ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/4/70, col. 372.]
This seems to me to be a most extra-ordinary statement. The qualifications of this Government, or indeed of any other Government, for telling us whether chastity and virginity have any intrinsic value are non-existent, and should remain so.
A second and more conclusive reason in many of the cases put forward for these people not being helped at all is the vast administrative difficulty in making a judgment on these matters. Here perhaps I might make a point which appears to have been misunderstood by the writer of the letter to The Times quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and indeed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, herself. The whole question of what is done about pensions for widows is governed by the ability to administer the pension scheme. Why it should be all right, in the administrative sense, for a widow to keep her pension if she sleeps with men outside her house but not if she has a man co-habiting with her, is because of the administrative fact that he is then assumed to be supporting her. This assumption may be wrong, but that is the reason for it. It is not because the Government have decided at any stage to take a moral stand on this, and to say that a widow must lose her pension if she sleeps with another man.
The great advantage of a marriage from an administrative point of view, quite apart from its virtues theologically and socially, which I completely uphold, as I hope your Lordships will accept, means that one can be safe in assuming that dependants in a marriage are true
948
dependants and that the arrangement will continue for the foreseeable future. There are real difficulties about identifying dependants in a more casual liaison. But if, as in this case, the Department of Education and Science think that it will be not too difficult to make a judgment on these matters and to frame appropriate regulations, I for one am prepared to take their word for this.
The second main reason put forward for opposing this clause as it stands was that these people should not be helped in this way. Again this argument breaks down into two. The first side of it was quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who said:
"I agree that hardship and misfortune which is not the fault of the person concerned must be alleviated, but I implore the Government seriously to consider any Amendments which may be moved in respect of Clause 2, either by noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House, and to consider re-drafting subsection (4) so that it does not read as at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/4/70, col. 383.]
I apologise to the noble Lord if I have it wrong, but this seems to me to be a case for thinking that they should be helped so long as no one knows that they are being helped. I think that is taking hypocrisy, even in its best sense as a tribute paid by vice to virtue, a little too far in a Government Bill.
On the other hand, the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, in the Second Reading debate, that all matters dealing with the support of de-pendants should be dealt with by the Ministry of Social Security and not by the Ministry of Education and Science is one with which I thoroughly agree. I think it would have been the right thing to do to make the whole question of support for the dependants of those in education, apart from their purely tutorial and educational expenses, part of the machinery of social security. But that is another matter; that is a change in the whole system. It has little to do with this Amendment. It is a valid point to raise in a Second Reading speech, but it is not valid at this particular moment be-cause the whole of the support in regard to the dependants of students comes under the Department of Education and Science and we are merely dealing now with one corner of that.
I believe that the objective of helping these few people to continue with their

949
education and to look after their dependants is right. I must say that I am shocked to hear from the Labour Benches this talk of "spoiled students". These students are getting a great advantage, we know, but it is no more than any human being has the right to have, even if it is better than their parents had. I reject the argument that these students should be penalised because of the views that they hold on sexual morality, and I expect that the Department of Education and Science can so draft these regulations to make certain that they will help only those who are true dependants, if they are to be helped, and if the whole burden is not to be shifted on to the Department of Social Security, then I think it is right that they should be helped in a particular way, and that is in the way set out in this Bill. I think this whole thing is a storm in a teacup. I intend to support the Government on this matter and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will defeat the Amendment.
3.37 p.m.
LORD SOPER: I regret very much that I was not able to take part in the debate on Second Reading. I want now to resist this Amendment. I have no particular stomach for the speech I am trying to make, and I confess that when I first became aware of this matter through reading the daily Press, which is a dubious initiation into many matters of importance, my Nonconformist hackles at once rose. This seemed to me to be a new superfluity of naughtiness on the part of the Government; and it seemed also that here we were appearing, at least, to put a bonus on promiscuity, and so on.
Then I read about the Bill and learned a few of the facts which surround this very largely, as I think, irrelevant debate. If we are talking about basic and ultimate ethics, I shall have something to say about that in a moment. But this particular clause is no innovation, and if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, feels that it should have been included under general welfare, rather than under general education, I would immediately reply that, as I see it, in a modern civilised society education is as peremptory a right as is the provision of material needs. I cannot draw a distinction between the inalienable right of every citizen, whatever
950
his moral code, to the opportunities of education as every individual person in the community would also have the right to the amenities of social and physical living. Furthermore, as I see it there are ample safeguards in the provisions of discipline whereby this particular provision will not be generally granted in a careless fashion but will be closely scrutinised.
On principle there are two issues which govern my own decision. Regretting, as I do, the moral decadence of the community in which I live, and holding no support for immorality, or indeed for extra-marital intercourses or cohabitation, there are two principles which I think must make me judge that this is a right inclusion. The first is that we are recognising a fait accompli, and not encouraging people to undertake a particular form of behaviour. If that is so, we are en-titled to ask whether this is a case generally of sexual irregularity or sexual irresponsibility; and as the evidence tends to build up here are cases—a very few of them—in which, for reasons which may be good or may be bad, there has been a large element of responsibility in the actual cohabitation. It is not merely a casual, fly-by-night kind of intercourse; it is a regular established condition. And here the principle of the Christian faith, as I understand it, immediately becomes valid.
I do not believe you have any right to punish people who vary the Christian code and depart from it by the taking away from them of the means of life itself. I believe that, whatever judgments you must make and whatever penalties you are entitled to impose, they must not be in the realm of denying to human beings the opportunity of finding the means of life; and those means of life, as I understand it include an adequate opportunity for education as well as for food and drink, clothing and shelter. Therefore, very briefly, whatever these people—and there are not so many of them—have done, and whatever they intend to do, if we are to express our disapprobation of their behaviour (and I feel compelled so to do), let us not take it out on them by denying to them what is their inalienable right. After all, the sun shines on the evil and the good; let the sun of material benefits shine on the evil and the good. And the rain descends

951
on the just and the unjust: let the rain of education descend on the just and the unjust. Let us express in other ways our disapproval of their behaviour. Let us accept the basic Socialist creed that what-ever a man does, whatever his condition, whatever his paramour may do, he is entitled by Divine Right to the means of life. Let this clause stand and let this Amendment be rejected.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to put a few questions to my noble friend who will ultimately reply, particularly arising out of Lord Soper's remarks. What is the position, and what does Lord Soper mean by this "inalienable right"? There is no question here of withdrawing any money or anything of that description, any grant. The difficulty arises over the way in which it is going to be done. Some of us find it rather difficult to under-stand why, because a person is a student, he should be covered by an educational grant, as distinct from a man who might have lost his job consequent on redundancy and is having to go through a period of retraining. As such, if he is implicated in the way expressed in this particular Bill, he would have to receive all benefits for illegitimate children through social security, completely distinct from the grant he would receive during the time he was undergoing this retraining.
I do not think this is a question of whether a person is living immorally, as we understand it, or living in cohabitation with someone else; I do not see that that principle arises at all. I certainly take the view that what a person does in his own private life is entirely his own business. The point I do think seriously about is whether because they are students they should be dealt with any differently from ordinary working people. I have not heard the reason expounded and I should like my noble friend who is going to reply to explain to me exactly why this difference should arise in this particular direction.
It is alleged that if the Amendment is accepted it will not be possible to make any payment at all. I should like my noble friend to give me the answer as to whether that is correct or not, because I cannot see why, if this Amend-
952
ment is accepted, it should interfere with the basis of payment of allowances that has been in operation for some consider-able time. I believe that when this Bill was introduced, some discussion took place on this principle and the point was made that probably it would be dealt with in a different way in the process of time. My noble friend, the Secretary of State, who is, I think, one of the best Ministers of Education we have ever had and who is doing an excellent job of work, is probably honouring the type of agreement that was suggested as long ago as that. I admire him for so doing; and, knowing he is a man of honour, I can fully understand that. But I think that on this particular occasion there is rather a misjudgment of the actual position.
I understand that there are only nine or ten persons involved. It could be argued that if this Bill goes through as it is, that nine or ten may probably be increased in number. If a person wants to cohabit with someone else, that is his private business, but if a student is so doing there is no reason why he should be dealt with any differently from any other section of the community. I sincerely hope my noble friend will be able to give us some clear explanation why there should be this difference, or alternatively agree to give further consideration to the whole subject, because there is a rather strong feeling in many sections of the community in regard to this matter.
We in the Labour Party are advanced in our views; we passed the Sexual Offences Act. This little clause itself can give quite an opportunity to our opponents later on to make capital out of us, to say that we are preparing to subsidise cohabitation in the way mentioned in the Bill. I do not think these words are necessary at all. The subsection itself covers the illegitimate children perfectly well and we ensure that adequate pro-vision is made. It is all a matter of doing it in a different way from that suggested in the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I must confess I am not terribly worried about the way in which our opponents might tend to misrepresent the intentions of our Government. I could not help but admire the flow of words with which my noble friend Lady Summerskill expressed her

953
view; I only wish I could command words as she does in this House. But if I admire her words I certainly cannot accept her view. I belong to a Party which I believe is possessed of a strong sense of compassion. I believe that even in the field of education there is room for compassion, and if we have an educational system that lacks compassion there will be something very wrong with it.
I find myself in a very difficult position, where two of my noble friends, both of whom I greatly admire, are so much in conflict about what the Bill intends. We have the interpretation placed upon it by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, an interpretation which bears no relation at all to the interpretation given by my noble friend Lady Phillips on Second Reading on April 14. May I make one brief quotation from what she said, at column 351:
"Included among these supplementary allowances are allowances for the dependants of a student. Not all students are entitled to dependant's allowances. Only if a student is married before his course begins and either is over 25 or has supported himself for three years out of earnings may he claim, as of right, allowances for his wife and children. If he is not over 25, or if he has not sup-ported himself for three years, or married after the year in which his course began, he is not entitled, as of right, to allowances for his family."
Having quoted that passage from the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I would ask the Committee to accept that when she expressed that view she was indicating that these allowances would be limited in exactly the same way as allowances for unmarried students.
I was extremely impressed by the approach the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, endeavoured to make in pro-posing this Amendment. I took note that he said that it proposed no action which could in any way affect the children. Is not the effect of this Amendment some-thing which will drive a wedge between mother and child? Is it not an Amendment which in point of fact will separate mother from child? Ought we not primarily to be concerned with doing all we can to create stable relationships instead of doing something which may well undermine any possibility of achiev-
954
ing a stable relationship which might eventually result in marriage?
I shall find myself in no difficulty at all in supporting the Government if this Amendment goes to a Division. I hope that the Government will remain firm on the matter, for it seems to me that if the Amendment before us is carried it will mean that a student can obtain support for his child born out of wed-lock, but that the mother must fend for herself. I wonder what kind of morality there is in that. It seems that when we are talking about education and are moralising, we can know about children born out of wedlock, but we are not prepared to know and to acknowledge the mother.
As I said before, I am proud to belong to a Party which has a sense of com-passion. When I think of the figures that were given us on Second Reading by my noble friend, that not more than ten families a year are involved, I wonder what all the furore is about. Remarks such as "a licence for libertines", have appeared in some sections of the Press. The only licence that I feel is being employed on this occasion is in regard to the interpertation of a compassionate clause.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said just now that he wondered what the furore was about. This rather surprises me, because he knows perfectly well what all the furore is about. I need not go into this because it is obvious to the noble Lord. This is a question of principle. The Government appear to think that, just because only a few people are involved, it is quite all right. But it is a question of principle. I am worried about our image abroad. When journalists abroad read this clause in a Government Bill they will make great propaganda out of it. I am afraid that, along with Sweden (though I do not care in the least about Sweden) we are getting a name as being the most per-missive country among the civilised nations in Europe. I think that if this clause of the Bill is accepted as at present drafted it will do us a great deal of harm.
I shall not speak any more on this Amendment, as I spoke at great length on this clause on Second Reading; but

955
I should like to support my noble friend Lord Aberdare most warmly on what is really a mild Amendment. It does not affect the illegitimate child. I cannot understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He really does stretch the Ten Commandments. I think he would require twenty Commandments.
LORD SOPER: If the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene, I would remind the Committee that we are under no obligation to obey the Ten Commandments: they have been superseded.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It would take me a long time to answer the noble Lord on that.
I understood the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to say that it was no business of the Government to legislate on morals. Frequently we have Bills in which we legislate on morals; but the point is that here the taxpayer is being asked to pay for something that the great majority of people in this country do not themselves do. Certainly they do not do it when they are at university. They do not expect to have a mistress provided and paid for. I cannot follow that line of reasoning, either. I conclude by saying that if this measure goes through it really is a subsidy on sex. I warmly support the Amendment.
LORD CORNWALLIS: I had no intention of speaking on this Amendment. I, too, belong to a Party with some com-passion—I hope that I have some myself. I am greatly implicated in this matter because I am pro-chancellor of a university. All I wish to point out is that we are not dealing only with a question of morals and sex. In the university to which I have the honour to belong everything was perfectly peaceful and quiet; the students were doing what they had been accepted to do; they were not worrying about "sit-ins" and such-like until postgraduate students arrived. Those postgraduate students immediately started to stir up trouble. It was doubtful whether they meant to come for a postgraduate course or whether they came for ulterior motives. Some of the younger generation were led astray. Last term there was a "sit-in" for some consider-able period in a building that bears my name.
956
I should like just to warn your Lord-ships, before you allow a promiscuous society as well as a permissive society, that you are dealing not only with a sexual problem but with something that is breaking down the disciplines in the universities. I ask your Lordships to realise that, if we are to control the new, younger entry, if they are to be allowed to get on with their studies in the way they desire, it is important not to pander too much to those who do not show quite the restraint in their morals that we should all like to see and who perhaps set a bad example to the younger generation, who are the ones that really matter to us in the future. I am sorry to have to say this to your Lordships; but I should like, having had the experience of going through these worries and troubles in university, to say: "Please be careful what you do."
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: I supported this clause on Second Reading, and I did having looked at this matter carefully and having made inquiries. To my simple reading, which clearly was not shared by others of your Lordships, the prime concern was to deal with those situations where a student had, as a result of a relationship with a woman, acquired a child for whom he wished to hold responsibility. I still think that the sum of the debate, which has been concerned so generally with students and their mistresses, is unfair to the intention of those who devised the Bill. I fully recognise that we are dependent upon the word of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, and subsequently on the regulations which will be issued by the Department, as to how this particular clause will be administered. But to suggest that this clause is really concerned with making it possible for any student to apply for a grant for a mistress seems to me, in the context of what we were told from the Front Bench, a little excessive, and I think it has biased the judgment of the House. We have to recognise that we are pro-viding out of the taxpayers' money for these cases, so you cannot say it is a matter of not using the taxpayers' money.
The difficulty about Lord Aberdare's Amendment—I am not unattracted by it, because I have no desire whatsoever

957
to approve of a general lying around— is, for me, this distinction between a child for whom a grant may be made through the Department of Education and Science and the mother who, presum-ably (after all, a student's life is rather short), will need assistance and will have to go to the Department of Social Security. As I understood the Bill in this sense, it would put this particular group of students under the particular care of the Department of Education and Science, who would deal pretty searchingly with them. It may be that in some cases they would say, "No, you had better go off and earn some money." But it would be wrong to insist that this should always happen. I do not think we can afford necessarily to send every student away to earn his living because this has happened. I still feel that, so long as proper regulations are issued, this particular clause does not suggest an approval of immorality or permissiveness, but deals with this problem in a way that can be acceptable.
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am very happy to follow the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, because I agree with every word he has said. I have listened most carefully to the promoters of this Amendment but not one of them has convinced me, because it seems to me that this is not about a principle at all; it is about procedure. So long as we stick to the facts we shall not go very far wrong, but if we take off into a kind of limbo of righteousness it simply becomes impossible.
I think there have been three ways of dealing with the problems. One is by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but the Commission do not wish to exercise this discretionary function any longer. I am sorry that they do not wish to deal with it, but there it is and we have to accept it. The local authorities also find this discretionary function distasteful, and I think we must take that into account. The fact is that this clause does not alter anything that has been dealt with so far. It does not alter the arrangements for students' dependants allowances except to standardise them. Grants are both mandatory and discretionary for local education authorities. In cases of hard-ship they are discretionary, as they have
958
been when dealt with by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
I am against this Amendment and support the Government wholeheartedly. Like so many people on Second Reading, I was influenced by the lurid Press reports about the decline and fall of British morals, aided and abetted, they said, by Government legislation. But this was due to my ignorance, and now that I know about the contents of the Bill and this particular clause, it has completely cleared up all my reservations. My noble friend Lady Phillips was so lucid and clear in her explanation that when she had finished speaking I had absolutely no reservations about it. I think my noble friend will explain to us again to-day the reason for the clause which, I must stress, is a procedural one, without any change in what was previously handled by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the local education authorities. This is really what we have to stress. I am sorry that the Supplementary Benefits Commission are giving up dealing with this, because recently I had occasion to refer a hardship case to them and I was very impressed by the care and humanity with which they dealt with it.
Anyway, what is all the fuss about? I have become familiar with the discourses of ray noble friend Lady Summerskill on the "permissive society". Today's discourse is coupled with a kind of nostalgic comparison of the youth of to-day with the youth of the 'twenties and 'thirties. Does anyone believe that the Government have introduced this clause with the intention of subsidising sex and encouraging promiscuity among students? Certainly I do not. This is what is known in filming technique as a "blow up". We are dealing with a handful of students, and the Government have the welfare of the children in mind. The rules for these particular cases of hard-ship are absolutely clear. In this complex and troubled world, with its whole spectrum of married and unmarried love and the consequences and welfare problems which they incur, and which no Government, or Government Department, can ignore, one cannot just sermonise and continue to draw on this fund of righteous indignation which we all have in reserve. The Government have to deal with all the complicated cases of

959
hardship. That is what they are doing in this clause, and it is a far cry from the accusations of encouraging promiscuity and immorality which have been hurled at them.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I intervene with great reluctance, but I was appalled when listening to what was being said this afternoon at the utter hypocrisy of what is going on. It is utter hypocrisy. What we are talking about are facts which exist; facts which are manifest; facts which are plain; facts which have existed since Heloise and Abelard. We are not talking about something that is new in student life; we are recognising the facts of student life. If you think you are encouraging promiscuity in student life, promiscuity has always existed. What we are doing is trying to curb the consequences of promiscuity; we are not encouraging it. If we had any sense at all we should be restricting promiscuity by making it unnecessary for us to provide for the children of students who have to live in what would have been, in other definitions, constrained celibacy. But that has never existed, so what we are talking about is recognising something which is a truth, an absolute. What we are talking about to-day is a transfer of what some people are calling moral responsibility from one Department to another. Let us recognise that as an absolute fact. Let us see it as it really is, and do not let us go on pretending that this is some-thing which involves morals to a large degree. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley on that point.
This is something which we have to recognise is not a product of the per-missive society. We have been shutting our eyes to the fact that the permissive society has existed in a generation of students who are not in a position to get married at the age when I got married. Let us be quite clear about that, and do not let us fool ourselves into thinking that this is something which is profoundly and significantly destructive of society. What we are doing is recognising the nature of the society in which we live, and I hope that we are going to improve its nature.
4.12 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: A good deal has been said about morals and hypocrisy,
960
but I should like to bring the discussion back to education which is a subject with which I have begun to get involved. It is a fact, which is confirmed if one questions primary school teachers, that most of the children who find it hardest to learn, particularly in our under-privileged areas, come from bad or broken homes where the family back-ground is unsatisfactory. It is the flux of insecure family relationships, it is parents who will not talk to their children sensibly—probably because they are not happy themselves—which produce children who become maladjusted and a problem to our society. I believe that the cure for this is to be found in encouraging better family relationships.
This is not a matter of morals, although it has that aspect; this is a matter of a sincere approach—and, may I say, not a hypocritical one—to the sociological problems of our time. There are enormous numbers of broken families and children with problems. And as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, suggested, we must be very careful before we put in our legislation any measures which increase the fluidity and the flux of our social relationships, on which this unhappiness and these educational problems are really based.
Therefore I say to your Lordships that we really have to choose whether we are now going to pass legislation which helps to dissolve the family, or whether we are going to have legislation which encourages the family relationship as a reliable and durable background. For this reason, I have great sympathy with the Amendment, and I shall support it wholeheartedly. I suspect that there is very often a good deal of hypocrisy in some of the arguments—though not all—which we have heard, but I ask your Lordships not to think that I am trying to impugn the sincerity of those who have spoken from the Government Benches. But I urge that we should take another look at this problem and that we should think' very carefully before we undermine the family.
It is perfectly true that there are probably not so many cases like this today, but I suggest that if a clause such as this is passed there will in future be a great many more. Therefore we ought to look at this in a dynamic and not in a static way. I do not agree with some

961
of the arguments which have been used in this connection. May I say that I particularly dislike the Party atmosphere which has been introduced into this debate. I think that there should be a non-Party approach to this matter. I suggest that we should vote for this Amendment, with which I have every sympathy.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to make one point. This is a Christian country and we ought to carry through whatever we do according to the Christian faith. Our Lord Jesus Christ was himself sacrificed because he would not change, but it appears that a great many people who say, "Yes, I am a Christian" are quite willing to make exceptions which may be more convenient, instead of really continuing to be a Christian and making Christianity the main thought in their lives. I have heard nothing said about Christianity in this debate, but I have always considered that Christianity and the way we practise it should be our first consideration.
4.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: Some few years ago I was involved in the Church of England in the production of a Report dealing especially with the state of the illegitimate child. It was called Fatherless by Law, and the noble Baroness will remember it. The purpose of that Report was to encourage a sense of responsibility in those, so to speak, illegitimate fathers who had any desire or intention to exercise such responsibility. With that in mind, I originally felt that I should have to support the clause in the Bill. I fully understood that what was mainly at stake was an administrative matter, and I never thought for one moment that it was the purpose of the clause to let loose a great flood of licentious behaviour.
Of course, it is very easy to see hypocrisy if we start from the other side, but I am trying to stand aside from any of those emotional stances. Had the illegitimate child been left to run the risks of not being supported, I should have had to oppose the Amendment. But, as I see it, the Amendment protects the illegitimate child; and we all agree that, whoever is at all responsible for the situation, it is not the child. Therefore, following on the line I took during the debates on Fatherless by Law, I entirely
962
support the provision made for the child. I should personally have been satisfied if the mother also was protected.
I think there might have been some-thing to be said for this whole subsection coming into effect if indeed there was an illegitimate child. For one thing, there is the child to provide for and, furthermore, it would suggest at any rate a certain degree of stability in the liaison; it must have lasted at least nine months, unless that has been altered by now. Therefore, there would be some kind of stability which might justify the first part of the subsection. But I feel that the Amendment gives us an opportunity to protect the child, without actually putting on paper in an educational Bill that any laison of this kind can be provided for by law.
We are told that regulations will be made, but I do not know what sort of regulations they can be. What I am quite certain about is that if they were applied in any austere manner, there would immediately be a "sit-in" and very little opportunity to carry them out in the way intended. So that, without committing myself finally until I have heard the reply, I must give warning that I am inclined to support the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: To satisfy the noble Lord who said that he hoped this matter would be dealt with on a non-Party basis, may I say that I know that the Bishops are in a category by themselves but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who is alleged to be, so far as Bishops are concerned, on the extreme Right, is now on the extreme left. In any case, neither of us has any right to be on this Bench at all. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that on this matter I find myself agreeing with the Bishop of Leicester. I came here this afternoon to support the Government, but the speech by my friend (when I say "my friend", I mean my personal friend, who is also a priest, Lord Beaumont) has pushed me on to the other side. I am sure that that is the last thing he wished to do. I may have heard him wrongly, but he said that the Government ought to have no attitudes on these matters; that it was wrong for us to have moral attitudes. I simply do not believe that.

963
Only last week I was talking not to students but to a group of young people in South London who are a great problem to the country at the present moment. I do not want to say too much, because I hope my meetings with them will go on, but one of them boasted to me of the fact that he was responsible for four abortions this year, involving four different girls. Are we really indifferent to that? Have the Government no view on these matters? Are they completely indifferent how our young people behave? Or do we believe in a certain attitude to-wards life; an attitude of responsibility— I should like to say a Christian way of living, though others here, humanists, would find other words. I believe that people in all Parties, of all persuasions here, if pressed, would accept that we do believe in a responsible attitude to-wards life. I may be doing my good friend Lord Beaumont a grave injustice on this matter, but I would repudiate altogether what seemed to me to be the neutral attitude towards this problem which he thinks the Government ought to adopt.
Why I now think I shall vote for the Amendment, unless I can be persuaded when the noble Baroness replies, is be-cause those who are involved are not going to suffer as a result. There will be ways and means of meeting their need. But, unlike what the Government want, we shall not be doing something which will give the impression that this is a matter to which we are indifferent. At least I can say this: that although to some of us our undergraduate days were long ago—and we were reminded by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell just recently that what happened in the 1920s and the 1930s was long ago—before I became Bishop of Southwark I was for some years Vicar of University Church, Cam-bridge, and it is quite recently that I have been in touch with the under-graduate world. Indeed, some of the sons and daughters of your Lordships were my friends. I think it would be true to say, in relation to the many problems that confront undergraduates, that while they do not want to be preached at and do not want us to be pompous, nevertheless, if we can be sensitive to their problems and at the same time maintain those standards which enhance an atti-
964
tude of responsibility towards other human beings, it is of real help to them. Therefore, unless the noble Baroness can convince me otherwise, I intend to vote for the Amendment.
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My noble friend Baroness Phillips has asked me to reply. I do not suppose for a moment that I shall ex-plain the matter any more lucidly than she did, but it may be right that a man should express a view as well as a woman. I do not know how many noble Lords in this Committee know Mr. Short, but I think he will be the most surprised man in the country in the morning to know that he is sponsoring a Bill the effect of which will be to make the tax-payer subsidise sex in the universities; that he is putting forward a Bill which will enable any woman student of 21 to get a grant for a lover, and that what he is doing will affect the number of abortions which take place in the universities. That is to say nothing of what people abroad will think when they read the Bill. Nobody can think these things from reading the Bill. They may think them from reading what the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has said, but nobody could think them from reading the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which will enable any university student to obtain any grant which he can-not receive now, or to obtain any larger grant than he may receive now.
Surely, as responsible legislators we ought to see, first, what is the present position; secondly, what the Bill does; and, thirdly, what the Amendment would do. Of course, when most of us were of university age, apart from some very clever person who had won a scholar-ship, undergraduates were more or less confined, for financial reasons, to the sons of men who could afford to support them while they were at university. Now things are otherwise; and I must make it plain that I do not altogether agree with the view of my noble friend Lady Summer-skill that there must be something wrong if young people to-day get advantages that we did not have. I believe that most people to-day think it right that if a man, when at school, has gained the educational qualifications entitling him to a place at a university, then, if he can

965
find a place and is accepted, to the ex-tent that his parents cannot support him the State should.
This has been a fairly recent development. The Anderson Report was published only in 1960, and our present mandatory grants come from Section 1 of the Education Act 1962. As your Lordships know, there are three kinds of grant. There are, first, grants which it is mandatory for the local education authority to make; secondly, grants which they have a discretion to make; and, thirdly, the long stop, grants from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The mandatory grants are, of course, for a student him-self. If he has obtained a place, then the local education authority have to provide him with a grant on which to live, less, of course, whatever parental allowance there may be. If he is married, then he gets a grant to cover his wife and children, if there are children, provided, first, that the marriage took place before the course started and, secondly, that either he is over 25 (or, in the case of a woman student, 21) or he has supported himself for three years. Those, it will be ob-served, are very rigid conditions. Those were the only conditions, and they still are the only conditions, on which it was mandatory upon a local education authority to make a dependants' grant.
It was soon found that this was causing hardship in a number of cases. It was considered by the then Conservative Government, and they had a choice. When I say "hardship", I mean it was found that for financial reasons too many were having to come down in the middle of a university course, involving considerable waste to the State and, of course, a waste in their own lives. The Conservative Government saw that there were two alter-natives: one was to make the mandatory conditions less strict, and the other was to keep the mandatory conditions as they were and to confer on local education authorities a discretion to meet cases of hardship. In June, 1964, the right honourable Member for Marylebone, Mr. Hogg, announced in the other place that the Government were contemplating regulations on those lines.
The discretionary allowances which have been granted have depended on what local education authorities have regarded as cases of hardship, but, as I understand it, broadly speaking, the main
966
test they have applied is: "If we do not give a discretionary grant, is it virtually necessary that either this man or this woman will not be able to go to a university at all, or, if they are in the middle of a course, they will have to come down? "What is the sort of case in which this discretion has been applied? First, if you are married and you are 24 but have supported yourself for only two and a half years, you do not qualify under the strict mandatory conditions, because you are not either 25 or have supported yourself for three years; so you do not qualify for any mandatory allowance and unless you are given the discretionary one you cannot take up the place you have been offered at the university. That is the sort of case in which the local authority thought that there was hardship.
Secondly, there are the cases in which men have an illegitimate child; and almost always they marry at once. What is to happen there? There is no discretionary grant. Unless there is a discretionary grant, this means that a man who may have completed two years out of a three-year course will have to come down because he can no longer afford to stay at the university. Most courses are three-year courses; though a man may be studying medicine on a five or six years course. It may be that most of his time at the university would be a great waste of the State's money unless he was given a discretionary grant.
The third case is quite a common case nowadays when we have to accept the habit of earlier marriage. It is where the wife is at work and they agree not to have any children until the husband is qualified and earning. This is not at all an uncommon arrangement, and it is not confined to university students. I remember a man who had not had much advantage in life but whose great ambi-tion—he was a young man—was to be a barrister. He had married when he was young, and his wife entirely maintained him while he was taking his Bar examinations. He became qualified; he became a barrister, and a student and pupil with a member of my Chambers. Then when he had been a pupil for six months the fatal thing happened: his wife became pregnant; and, of course, there was no alternative but for him to give up the Bar, and he became a personnel officer

967
in a limited company. I do not know what has happened to him now.
That is quite a common cause of a discretionary grant where the man has gone to university, is married, knowing that if he marries after he starts he will not be able to get any grant; but that because his wife is going to work he will not need it. They do not intend to have any children until he has finished the university course; but unintentionally they do. It is cases of this sort in which discretionary grants are made. It will be observed that they are all cases in which the people concerned are married. These are not grants to try to split up marriages. They take into account that marriages must be kept together. There are about 1,000 discretionary cases, and since there are 162 local education authorities it means that each makes a discretionary grant in about six cases a year. Of the total of 1,000 cases 990 concern married couples. There are about 10 very exceptional cases a year where, in their wisdom, the local education authorities have thought it right to make a discretionary grant even though there has been no marriage. I am told that it is almost unheard of for this to be done unless there are children. But again, the authorities are thinking of keeping families together rather than parting them.
Suppose that a woman marries, stupidly, much too young, and finds that her partner is quite unsuited to her. They part company and the husband goes off with another woman. Later, she may meet a man whom she wants to marry, but she is a Catholic and there can be no question of divorce. They live together. If by that time she is only 25, and he may be 25, if he wants to do a university course is one to say, in that sort of case: "No, if you are foolish enough to fall in love with a Catholic and have been already married, then you cannot have a university education."? There are the exceptional cases. It is ridiculous to describe any of this as a grant for mistresses. Nor is there any-thing in the present position, or in the Bill, to enable a young woman, whether she is over 21 or younger, to get a grant for a lover. This is a complete misrepresentation of what the existing position is.
968
As to the long-stop, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, they have come into this only reluctantly and very com-plainingly. They point out that they cannot be made to do this: it is dis-cretionary, and in some cases they have paid only in default of legislation of this kind. They have to take into account whether a woman is living with a man for the purpose of deciding whether they should pay her less. I think that some suggestion was made at one time that the Supplementary Benefits Commission were doing something immoral in allowing for cohabitation. But they have to allow for that, because a woman who is cohabiting is paid less than if she is not; for the simple reason that it costs more for two people to live separately than together. If the Com-mission did not pay less in the case of cohabitation, then an unmarried couple living together would do better than a married couple would do.
The reasons why the Government put forward this Bill on this point are three. The first is that they have found that local authorities who have to exercise this discretion in the case of hardship vary very much in the way they exercise it. So, from the point of view of a student, it depends on whether he wants a place in a university from this county or from that county. This must happen where discretion depends on hardship and is vested entirely in the local education authority. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Leatherland is in his place at the moment. I thought of him because a local education authority can give grants to enable students to become qualified for any walk of life, be it doctor, be it lawyer; but, of course, since it is a discretionary matter, they do not all do the same thing. Essex, unless it has recently changed, is one of the only two or three local education authorities in the country which is quite ready to help anybody to qualify for anything except to be a lawyer.
A NOBLE LORD: Quite right!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Quite right!", I am told; but I do not know the cause of this. If you happen to become a student of an Inn of Court, it makes a good deal of difference if you happen to be in one local authority which in

969
those circumstances would give you a grant for those purposes.
Therefore, in the first place, the Government thought it would be better for the Ministry to exercise this discretionary jurisdiction so that it would be exercised uniformly and, second, because the Sup-plementary Benefits Commission say, "This is not a matter for us at all. One of our basic principles is, 'If you want anything from us and you are able to work you must make yourself available for work.' We have protested all the time at making any grants at all in the case of students because this is not in our line. This is a matter for the education authorities. In the case of everybody else, we say, 'No, you must make your-self available for work'. We understand why the students come, but it is contrary to our principles. This ought to be done by the education authorities and not by us." The third reason was that there was a good deal of batting to and fro. Students applying to the local education authority for discretionary grants were told to try the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and the Supplementary Benefits Com-mission would tell them to try the local authority. Those are the reasons for the change.
I appreciate the effect of this Amendment, which is that where there is a discretionary grant (and in most cases, of course, if the couple are not married) the children will be provided for by the education authorities; the woman will get nothing. The reason that she will get nothing is because the Supplementary Benefits Commission will not give her anything unless the student makes him-self available for work. It would be practical to ask: what is to happen? Here is this man with a woman and two children. He is to get a grant to maintain the two children. Is the woman to go away? Is the intention to break up the whole thing? How is he to attend lectures and look after two small children if the woman is not there? The only effect of this will be that, as I say, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will not pay, as I understand it, unless the student is ready to go out to work. After all, that is the basis on which they help people.
I invite the Committee to say that this really has been a complete storm in a
970
tea cup. The existing regulations—this thousand discretionary cases—are perfectly sensible ones; the perfectly sensible test being that because this man, although married, is not 25, or has not done his three years, he cannot go to a university unless he has some sort of discretionary grant to support his wife. When people get married during a course—which they ought not to do—either the student has to leave the university, or he has some form of discretionary grant. These 10-odd cases are all, I understand, very unusual cases in which the authorities have thought that it will be a hardship, even though the man is not married, if he does not get some form of grant. The object of the clause on this point is simply to enable the Ministry to achieve greater uniformity in the way of these discretionary grants, so that what a man gets does not depend on where he lives; and to relieve the Supplementary Benefits Commission of what has for the last five years been a matter of some embarrassment for them. They have always taken the view, "We should never have been brought into this at all, because it really contradicts our basic principle that the youth must be free to work; and while we understand why students are not free to work, this is not the sort of case with which we have to deal, and it really ought all to be left to the education authorities." It is on those grounds that I would respectfully ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to leave the clause as it is.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask my noble and learned friend one small question, because I am sure he did not intend to be unfair? He said that there was nothing about a girl of 21. Of course it is not in the Bill; it is all in the regulations. But perhaps he has not read them. On page 5 of the regulations it states that the age of the girl who could take a lover is 21.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend will allow me to say so, with great respect, that is not so at all. The mandatory allowance is granted to married people if the man is 25 or, in the case of a girl, if she is 21; or, if they have not reached those ages, if they have supported themselves for three years. There is nothing in the existing regulations or in the Bill to provide that a girl

971
can take a lover, or vice versa, at the expense of the State.
LORD ABERDARE: We have had a very wide-ranging debate on this Amendment, and I think the time has arrived to come to a decision, since views are very strongly held on both sides of the Committee. We have had some speeches that have gone rather wide of this Amendment. We have had some differing views from the Benches of the Bishops; we have had a new "Tablet" from "Mount Soper" with an inalienable right to regular established cohabitation. But none of this has altered the fact that those of us who support this Amendment feel very strongly that we are meeting all the points that we ought to meet in allowing the Department of Education to make proper provision by regulations to take care of students where they have dependent children.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admitted that in very many —nearly all—of the cases where supplementary allowances are given, and where the students are not married, it is the children who are concerned. If I may
take up the point that he made (and it was made also by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln), surely the regulations must take account of the fact of a student who has an illegitimate child to the extent of providing not only for the food that the child will consume but also for the fact that someone will have to look after the child while the student is pursuing his studies. Therefore surely, sufficient care must be taken of the child to ensure that if there is an unmarried mother living and looking after the child, there is some degree of support for her, too. I cannot see any difficulty here. All we are seeking to do is to take right out of the Bill, and out of the regulations, any provision for students who are cohabiting together, without children being involved; and if there is hardship we still think that this should go into the social security net.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Albemarle, E.

Forester, L.

Mansfield, E.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and ferrard, V.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gray, L.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Grenfell, L.

Molson, L.

Barrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Bath and Wells, L.Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Guest, L.

Monsell, V.

Belstead, L.

Guildford, L.Bp.

Morrison, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hankey, L.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hertford, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Hodson, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Murray of Newhaven, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Caccia, L.

Ilford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Camoys, L.

Jacques, L.

Oakshott, L.

Chichester, L.Bp.

Jellicoe, E.

Reglan, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Cowley, E.

Lansdowne, M.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Helens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Leicester, L.Bp.

Salisbury, M.

Crathorne, L.

Lichfield, L.Bp.

Sandford, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Liverpool, E.

Shannon, E.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Loudoun, C.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Dundee, E.

Lucan, E.

Stamp, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Egremont, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Strang, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Thurlow, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Suffield, L.

Teynham, L.

Wynford, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plummer, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Rea, L.

Annan, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Balogh, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyton, L.

Lincoln, L.Bp.

Soper, L.

Boothby, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Swaythling, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Mais, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Meston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wise, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wright of Ashton wider Lyne, L.

Fulton, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MOLSON: I move the deletion of this clause in an exploratory spirit. It is not at all my intention to divide the House, but it is a matter of a certain amount of educational interest. On Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said:
"We are convinced that students should be encouraged to complete their course before they take on the responsibility of a wife or children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/4/70; col. 353.]
She went on to give a reason to explain that remark in what I should call (if she will allow me to say so) a complete non sequitur. She went on to say:
"For this reason we intend that any allowances paid to students in respect of their dependants should be seen to come from a different source and be paid in a different form …"
At an earlier stage she had explained the conditions governing the payment of dependants' allowances as requiring a student to be married and over 25 before his course began. Many students who get married and have dependants during a
974
course are in their twenties, and a few who may be following a long undergraduate course may be older.
What I should like to know is to what extent the student population of this country is at the present time married. It was interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, say that although she was engaged, she abstained from marriage until she had taken her degree. It was exactly the same in the case of my father, who got engaged when he was quite young but did not marry until he was qualified as a doctor. I find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone can be a serious whole-time student who is at the same time living a married life. There have always been exceptional cases where someone who has started in one profession and wishes to change to another goes up to the university and is already married, but for the ordinary student to be married during the time that he is really hard at work on academic studies seems to me to be an appalling handicap to any real excellence in scholarship.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we must accept the modern idea of marriage at a very early age. I do not know that I do

975
accept it; and certainly I would say that where public money is going to be spent upon education, the fact that a student is already married, and presumably largely preoccupied with married life, is really a reason why a grant should not be given to him except in certain rather special cases. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will see that I wholly reject his view that provided a young person has passed certain examinations at school that automatically justifies his being given a university education, if there are other reasons why it is unlikely that the money is going to be usefully spent.
One of the opponents of the previous Amendment (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder) spoke about there being an inalienable right to education quite regardless of the conduct of the student. I am quite sure that that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science has certainly indicated plainly that it is not his view, or that of the Department. So it is that I gave notice to the Minister that I thought that on his clause it would be valuable if we had a short debate in which she could indicate what are the views of the Government and of local authorities upon this matter; and in what way they are seeking to give effect to their view, with which I am in complete agreement, that students should be encouraged to complete their course before they take on the responsibility of wife or children. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for his courtesy in giving me notice of the comments that he was going to make in his speech in moving this Amendment. I do not wish at this point to repeat the clear exposition that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave of the ways in which the awards are made to students, because the noble Lord will know that as well as I do. I wonder whether it will comfort the noble Lord if I give him the few figures that I have —and I am sorry that I am unable to give him a full set of figures at such short notice.
The available estimates suggest that the proportion of married students with awards from public funds is as low as
976
1 to 2 per cent. of the total number of award holders. I hope the noble Lord will accept that this bears out the fact that students are encouraged to complete their studies before they marry. I hope that he will agree with me that if a man marries, or is already married (and a noble Lord who is not now present made a point about stable backgrounds), it would be wrong not to assist this young couple if the young man wishes to con-tinue with his studies. The estimated 1,000 students who are being assisted under the existing schemes, which Clause will replace, will represent about one-third of the 1 per cent. of the student population. So these can be reduced down to really small numbers. But they will exist, bearing in mind what my noble and learned friend has said about young people these days tending to marry earlier. The latest figures of the ages of men undergraduates show that two-thirds of all men and three-quarters of all women undergraduates at the universities are under 21, and about 6 out of every 10 postgraduate students are under 25. In relation to that there is this small percentage of those who are married.
But one has to recognise that this matter needs to be dealt with, and that is why this clause is in the form that it is. I think perhaps, in view of the fact that this will be an amended clause, that some of the arguments now fall. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the authorities have a sense of responsibility in encouraging young people not to marry but nevertheless, if this happens, then to assist them to have some kind of stable back-ground.
I hope that this explanation satisfies the noble Lord. I am sorry that I cannot give him fuller figures, but the figures I have given will show that this is a very small proportion. I was speaking to a group of young people last weekend—and I must say that some of your Lordships must be unlucky in the students that you meet. I thought they were so sensible, well-balanced and compassionate that I should have been delighted to have been among them. They certainly did not appear to be at all irresponsible. But perhaps I have been lucky in meeting the right ones. At any rate, the married students are in a very small proportion.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving us

977
those figures. They are extremely satisfactory. I therefore ask leave to with-draw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exclusion of postgraduate courses from giants under section 2(1) of Education Act 1962]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Right of appeal to Secretary of State
". It shall be the right of any teacher with ten or more years of teaching experience, who is threatened with loss of employment as a result of Schools Regulations made under the Education Act 1944 as amended, to appeal to the Secretary of State, who, after consultation with the appropriate local education authority and teachers' association, may make such exceptions to the Regulations in individual cases as he in his discretion may think fit."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a quite different subject. As this is a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, I have taken the opportunity to put down an-other miscellaneous provision. To keep things in order, I have also put down an Amendment to the Long Title to cover this matter. The object of the Amendment is to meet some difficulties and injustices that have arisen as a result of the Department of Education's circular, 15/68. This circular, in paragraph 19, laid down that no temporary or occasional teachers could be employed after August 31, 1970. As I said in moving the first Amendment to this Bill, no one quarrels with the objective of a fully qualified teaching profession. This is a highly praiseworthy ideal. But in this case, as in the case of teachers of the mentally handicapped, surely it is folly, at a time when we are short of teachers, and when the teachers unions are campaigning vigourously for a reduction in class sizes, to dispense with the services of teachers who, though they may not on paper be technically qualified, have given excellent service to their schools for many years.
It is not easy to generalise, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to one case which is typical and which was raised on an Adjournment Debate in another place on March 18 by my honourable
978
friend the Member for Banbury. This was the case of a Mrs. Green. She taught in a primary school at Ascot-under-Wychwood, in Oxfordshire, from 1933 to 1939. During the war, because her husband was on war service, she had to leave to look after her children; but she returned again in 1947, and she is still teaching at that primary school. She is 54 years old and has had 29 years' teaching experience. She is an extremely good teacher, is deeply loved by the children she teaches, and she is highly regarded by the parents in this tiny village. Of the 285 inhabitants, 212 have signed a petition asking that she may stay on. The school governors want her to stay on; the local education authority wants her to stay on. But because of this instruction the Secretary of State is, unfortunately, powerless. When the matter was raised in another place, the only answer that came from the Government was that she should take a course for mature students. At 54 years of age, with 29 years' experience this is really asking a bit much.
The case of Mrs. Green is only one among many. There are some 3,000 teachers in this plight. It seems to me that it will be a terrible waste of manpower if we; throw them out of teaching at this moment. In the other professions this has never happened, There have been various instances where other professions have decided to become a fully trained profession. Those members of the profession, though untrained, who were working in it at the time of the takeover, were absorbed and the new regulations applied only from that date onwards. I would instance the dentists, veterinary surgeons, architects, as well as some of the professions supplementary to medicine, such as chiropody. In all these cases this has happened.
I have no quarrel with the objective, but I ask the Government not to dismiss these 3,000 teachers purely for paper reasons. I have endeavoured in this Amendment, which may well be imperfect in form, to allow these teachers to appeal to the Secretary of State. But I have made two stipulations about this appeal. First of all, it will apply only to teachers who have had at least ten years' experience, so that only the highly experienced teachers will be able to appeal. Secondly, I have inserted the provision that the

979
Secretary of State shall consult with the appropriate local education authority and with the appropriate teachers' association. It might well be that in certain cases both the local education authority and the teachers' unions would be perfectly happy for a particular person, whoever it might be, to continue in the teaching profession. Surely it would be a great pity if, merely because of the rigid nature of the circular, this did not take place. I hope that the Government will accept the underlying principle of doing justice to individuals, many of whom, on every-body's admission, have given long and devoted service to teaching and are cap-able of further valuable service if their services are not terminated for these rather rigid paper reasons. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I rise to support this Amendment. I have every sympathy with the Government and the teachers' unions in their desire to strengthen the quality of the teaching profession, but the Government have moved a little too fast in this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, it would have been better, rather than insisting on paper qualifications, if the Government had concentrated on making certain that the new entrants to the profession were adequately qualified. It seems to me that this idea of excluding a number of teachers who have been teaching for quite a long time—and reasonably satisfactorily, in most cases, because of course no one is compelled to employ a teacher—is moving too fast.
The machinery that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has devised for the clause seems to be very good. I realise that the Government may say that there is a very difficult problem raised over giving this kind of discretion. It seems to me that the burden is on the Government to exercise this kind of discretion. If the Government are going to move fast, not only to change and tighten up on the entry to the profession, but also now, after a certain number of years, to say: "The people who are teaching must be qualified or must stop teaching", they ought, for the sake of justice to the individuals, as well as for the sake of lowering the size of classes, to be prepared to make exceptions—difficult though this may be.
This is not a small matter. I travel about a country a good deal, visiting
980
constituencies of various kinds in the interests of my Party. At question sessions I find that this matter is raised at almost every meeting I attend. Almost everywhere I go there seems to be knowledge of a hard case, or two hard cases. There is a very real case for the Government to think again on this matter, and I hope that they will do so.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Perhaps I should re-state the background—not at any length—for this recommendation was the result of the findings of a Working Party. It is rather important to note that the Working Party recommended that after a two-year transitional period ending on August 31, 1970, unqualified teachers should be allowed to continue in service only if they were, first, un-certificated or supplementary teachers. The qualification for "supplementary teacher", which frankly I had not struck until I went to Oxfordshire, was an extraordinarily low one. You had to be over 21 years of age, fit; and there was some other qualification, though I cannot at the moment recall what it was—probably it was that you must not be a Peer. Certainly it was a very low qualification, and one that I felt almost anybody could satisfy.
Then it went on to say that student teachers—in other words, people waiting to go into a training college—and instructors (and this is quite a large group that we have all met: people with particular qualifications, woodwork masters, typing instructors, and people of that kind) should be employed—and in the case of the instructors, only in their particular skills—only so long as no suitably qualified teacher was available for the purpose. The Secretary of State implemented these recommendations by a particular circular—not the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred. Now that the end of this two-year period is approaching, the Department are getting strong representations about this group, which is not quite so large as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested. He will be glad to know that. The figures available show that about 800 still seem to be in full-time service; and there are a number of part-timers.
The largest category, as the examples cited have shown, are the middle-aged women still teaching infants. Some of these will become qualified by long

981
service—in other words, under the first category. Some with special skills will be able to stay as instructors. These are the alternatives presented. Some will become auxiliaries. The noble Lord quoted this particular circular, but I wonder whether he noticed paragraph 10, which says:
"Where an Authority wish to appoint as a qualified teacher a person with qualifications not listed in the Appendix, an application for the acceptance should be made to the Department."
In other words, there is virtually still the right of appeal; and this is exercised and cases are decided on their merits.
The Lord President told the House of Commons in April that the Secretary of State was considering whether any relaxation of policy would be sensible—this was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred. The matter has accordingly been considered with great care. I have had talks with the Lord President about this, but he has concluded that it would not be right to suggest to the other parties that there should be any change in the current trend of policy. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has instanced other professions which have in fact done this, but I hope he will agree that under the three clauses I have mentioned most of the people concerned would be absorbed. In other words, we are not really faced with a group of people who would be un-employed. But I think that all professions are very chary of admitting willy-nilly those who do not have qualifications. This is reasonable.
I am sorry about Mrs. Green. I can-not help feeling that perhaps along the line she might have been able to avail herself. At 54 she returned to teaching. The opportunities in teaching for having a period in which you can qualify are quite remarkable. I have always said that no teacher need ever be out of date, or in fact unqualified. Local authorities are always very helpful in matters of this kind. I expect the course she took suited her for family reasons. But she will be absorbed, though not necessarily in exactly the same way as she is now. She has no qualifications at all. I felt that perhaps the noble Lord would cite a case of this kind, but I hope he will agree that it is not a strong enough case for inserting a new clause of this kind.
LORD ABERDARE: I thank the noble Baroness for that clear explanation. She mentioned the first part of paragraph 10 of this circular. Should the Oxfordshire local education authority wish to continue to employ Mrs. Green as a qualified teacher, with qualifications not listed in the Appendix, would they therefore be able to apply to the Department for the acceptance of her qualifications?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The onus is on the employer.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
MARRIAGE (REGISTRAR GENERAL'S LICENCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PARISH COUNCILS AND BURIAL AUTHORITIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

EXPLOSIVES (AGE OF PURCHASE) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
5.28 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I begin what will be a comparatively brief speech by saying that the Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable and learned friend Mr. Niall MacDermot. He had in the course of framing the Bill the assistance of right honourable and honourable and learned friends who had an experience of chairmanship or deputy chairmanship of quarter sessions. It was in the light of their experience, and in the light of some remarks which were made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in a very particular case, that this Bill was thought of and ultimately drafted. Therefore, with that kind of thinking in another place, I have the utmost possible confidence that your Lordships might give this Bill a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. In point of fact, in another place the Second Reading was taken "on the nod", and occupied only seven minutes of a Committee of the Whole House. That was all that the other place felt was necessary in consideration of the Bill.
However, so far as the purpose of the Bill is concerned, I think I can take it very quickly. In the 1962 Road Traffic Act—this is what Clause 1 deals with particularly—among many other things, penalties were established for varying motoring offences. In many minor cases no disqualification was involved at all; in others a disqualification was laid down in the Act, but it was enforceable at the justices' discretion—for example, the case of "totting up". Some of us who were on the Standing Committee of an-other place during the passage of the Bill were somewhat concerned at the totting up system, whereby if a man had had his licence endorsed three times in three years he could be disqualified at the discretion of the magistrates—and some peculiar instances were given at that time. I remember one of my honourable friends saying that he had been convicted of driving in Regent's Park at 25 m.p.h., the limit then being 20 m.p.h., and he felt that if it happened to him again he might be disqualified. Some of us were concerned about that.
984
Things became easier, and in effect that kind of disqualification has been at the discretion of the justices. But other offences were made mandatory so far as disqualification was concerned. In other words, justices have no choice but to disqualify people for certain offences, and unfortunately it crept into the Act, so far as that list was concerned, that if a man drove a motor car while he was disqualified, he should be further disqualified for so doing. As the years have gone by this has turned out to be a complete anomaly, in a way that I am quite certain was not intended by Parliament. The Bill seeks to do one simple thing so far as Clause 1 is concerned; namely, to remove that offence from the list of mandatory disqualifications into the list of discretionary disqualifications for the magistrates. Clause 2 would enable people who have already been disqualified because they drove while disqualified to appeal for the purpose of getting that final disqualification wiped out. Magistrates in the lower courts, chairmen of quarter sessions, recorders and judges have had this experience time and time again over the years, and they have come to the conclusion that it is time that Parliament did something about it.
My Lords, I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice might be here—he indicated that he might—to support the Bill. In his absence, perhaps I may be permitted to cite a case, because it was in this particular case that everything came to light. It was a case in May, 1969, Regina v. Johnson, and in giving judgment the Lord Chief Justice explained:
"The appellant was a man with 19 previous convictions, nearly all connected with motor cars. He was a compulsive driver while dis-qualified. In no instance was there a case of his being a bad driver, but because of the statutes applicable, he had already run up a period of disqualification which did not expire until 1984, and the court was now compelled to add a further two and a half years, making it 1987. Yet the probation officer in his report said that probably the only thing that would keep the appellant out of trouble in the future, and the only thing he could do, and do well, was to get a job driving a car. Such circumstances were constantly appearing in cases with which the court had to deal."
The noble and learned Lord added:
"Really it is for Parliament to consider whether this court should not have the power to unravel all these disqualifications and give

985
a young man a chance to do perhaps the one thing that he can do in life."
My arguments are largely based on that statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and my honourable and learned friend Mr. Niall MacDermot tells me that he has had help in this Bill from the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport and from his honourable friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
It may be, my Lords, that someone may think that there are many other anomalies arising in that same Act. This is true. I understand that the Ministry of Transport are considering all these anomalies at this time. It might be asked: why this one now? All I can say is that this is urgent, and the Ministry of Transport give the assurance that if this Bill goes through it will not in any way interfere with their consideration of the future Bill. That being so, I do not think there is a great deal more I want to say, except to stress—and I think this is important—that this is not taking away the disqualification for driving a motor vehicle while disqualified. It is taking away the mandatory side and allowing the magistrates to have discretion. I have always felt in magisterial work that justices should have as much discretion as can possibly be given to them. I have said so in both Houses, and I have always felt that it was a mistake to shackle justices with mandatory penalties. Every case differs from every other case and it is only the magistrates who can judge. In this case, all the circumstances will be taken into consideration when the magistrates come to deal with the matter. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a quick passage through this House—as quick as it obtained in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Royle.)
5.37 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Royle, on introducing this little Bill so cogently and clearly. I do not disagree with the general principle that courts should have discretion, but there are one or two points
986
that I think the Minister might help us by answering when he winds up the debate.
If this Bill is put on to the Statute Book —and I gather that it has a very fair wind from the Government, so it probably will be—the leniency that is pro-posed here will make an odd contrast with the mandatory disqualification in drink-and-driving oases. There has been a growing tendency for Parliament to take a stiffer view about the more serious road traffic oases, because of the danger to life and limb of other people; and personally I do not disagree with this. But I should like to hear the Government expound their view of how they reconcile the relaxation which is proposed here with the distinct tightening of severity in other aspects of road traffic law. Would the Minister also say what is the position now about disqualified drivers who con-tinue to drive? Am I right in thinking that there are large numbers of people without driving licences driving about the roads? How serious is this? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Are we going to make this position worse or better? The case quoted so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred, is in itself very convincing, but in the law there is a little adage to the effect that "hard cases make bad law". I should like the Minister, if he will, to deal with that aspect. In general, as I have said, I am in favour of the courts' having discretion. But I would also support the general stiffening of legislation in regard to road traffic cases, and I should like to hear the Minister expound on how he reconciles the two.
5.40 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, this Bill is entitled,
"An Act to amend the law relating to disqualification for the offence of driving while disqualified."
When considering what amendments are proposed in the Bill, I think it is necessary to cast one's mind back on the history of how these offences have been dealt with in the past, back a little further than did the noble Lord, Lord Royle, who only touched on the matter of disqualification. Before the Road Traffic Act 1960 came into force, a per-son convicted of driving while disqualified was punishable in accordance with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1930,

987
the material portion of which reads as follows:
"… that person shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or if the court think that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a fine would be an adequate punishment for the offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine …"
The High Court, in a case before them in 1951, held that the circumstances which avoided imprisonment must be special to the offence and not special to the offender, and it was further held, in another case in 1955, that in the case of a defendant under 21 years of age the justices should have regard to the Criminal Justice Act 1948 and not sentence him to imprisonment unless of opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.
At this date, endorsement or disqualification was discretionary under the Road Traffic Act 1956. It must be remembered that at that time a driver disqualified for less than a year could apply after six months for a removal of the disqualification, or, if disqualified for less than six years but not less than one year, after half the period of disqualification had passed. The position of the person convicted of driving whilst disqualified was materially changed by the Road Traffic Act 1960 in the following ways. That Act made such a person:
"liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or,… to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine."
In other words, the Act no longer pro-vided that driving whilst disqualified should ordinarily be punished by a term of imprisonment. Nor will a term of six months' imprisonment normally take effect immediately, as the Criminal Justice Act 1967 obliges the court to suspend the taking effect of such a sentence. But once again it must be remembered that by the Road Traffic Act 1962 a person convicted of driving whilst disqualified must be disqualified for such period, not less than twelve months, as the court thinks fit, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified.
The same Act requires that "the period of any disqualification imposed" for
988
driving whilst disqualified shall be in addition to any other period of disqualification imposed, whether previously or on the same occasion. The Lord Chief Justice, as has been mentioned, has on more than one occasion drawn attention to the difficulties arising from the compulsory further disqualification for twelve months of persons convicted of driving whilst disqualified where the offender is a young man who appears unable to resist the temptation to drive. Some of these offenders, as a result of repeated convictions, have accumulated a series of consecutive disqualifications which together amount to a disqualification for a quite unrealistic number of years. And here it must be remembered that the Road Traffic Act 1962 also introduced the procedure known as "totting up", whereby an offender whose licence is endorsed for the third time within a three year period must be disqualified for six months. The disqualified driver is frequently caught by this further disqualification, as he may well have more than one endorsement on his driving licence within three years. Moreover, he will almost invariably attract at least two consecutive periods of six months' disqualification under the totting-up provisions, as the disqualified driver is also the uninsured driver. The Bill's proposals do not appear to be designed to affect this.
Although not specifically road traffic law, another provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, besides the provisions I have mentioned already, provides for social inquiry reports before a sentence of imprisonment is passed. Although this section is not yet in force, the Secretary of State has recommended that such re-ports should be obtained. If there is merit in the suggestion that custodial treatment is particularly appropriate for the person convicted of driving whilst disqualified, and that the position that existed under the 1930 Act ought therefore to be re-stored, it should also be made clear that this class of case is excluded from the Secretary of State's recommendation, and the offence of driving whilst disqualified added to the offences which are listed as being offences for which the penalty is six months' imprisonment or less, that can be ordered to take effect immediately.
Many of those convicted of driving whilst disqualified are under 21 years of age, and therefore it is relevant to

989
observe that they can be sentenced to a period of detention in a detention centre, although the possibility of this often depends on whether there is a vacancy in such a centre at the time when the sentence is passed. Driving whilst disqualified is a serious offence deliberately committed, and the punishment therefore must be one that reflects the seriousness.
To sum up, therefore, while I agree that to burden the offender with consecutive disqualifications can mount up to such proportion that they become un-bearable, this sanction must be replaced with a suitable punishment that reflects the seriousness of the offence and which will act as a deterrent. Many of these offenders are young men who cannot pay fines of the size which should be imposed, and, if they pay at all, pay over such long periods and after many inquiries into their means, with perhaps a period of supervision, that the immediacy and force of the punishment is diminished. The impact of disqualification is for most drivers very real and is the strength of the 1962 Act. Stern measures must be taken to prevent a small section of the community flouting the law while disqualified.
In my experience, there are now many more cases that come before the magistrates' courts of driving whilst disqualified than there were prior to the abandoning of the penalty in the Road Traffic Act 1930, and therefore I am convinced that by far the best way to deal with such offenders is to restore the provisions of the 1930 Act. Then it will be possible to warn the offender who is disqualified for the first time in some such terms as, "To drive whilst disqualified is a very serious offence, and if you are convicted by a court of so doing the court might have no option but to send you to prison; so be very careful not to drive again before your disqualification comes to an end." I hope that if this Bill proceeds consideration will be given at a later stage to the matters I have outlined.
5.49 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have no objection to the principle of this Bill, and I am given added confidence by the fact that I know that the noble Lord who introduced it is, as I am, a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, and
990
therefore his opinion is likely to be very reliable. But I do share to a certain extent the misgivings of my noble friend, Lord Nugent. I hope that magistrates are not going to interpret this Bill as an instruction for leniency, and the reason for that hope is this: by far the greatest number of accidents on the road to-day are due to nothing more nor less than gross carelessness and lack of consideration for other people. They are not due to in-ability to know or lack of instruction as to what the rules are. They are, of course, increased by bad road surfaces, bad weather conditions and so on, but the fact is that a careful driver could always avoid doing these things. Therefore, I sincerely hope that magistrates; will interpret this Bill not as an instruction for leniency but merely, as the noble Lord said, as an ability to exercise discretion.
5.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has recently pleaded for more discretion for learned judges, and also for magistrates, and one must have that plea in mind when considering this Bill. To pass this Bill would be consistent with Lord Parker's plea, and I personally humbly support it. But I should like to make two or three observations: upon it, because it will quite properly deal with the case that one gets from time to time in a magistrates' court, where a man is already disqualified for a very long period. I had such a case a week or two ago, where the person concerned had al-ready been disqualified until 1985, and under the totting-up procedure we ought to have disqualified him for a further six months. We refrained from doing that on the somewhat doubtful grounds; that the fact that he was disqualified for such a long time was a mitigating circumstance; but I understand that it was held by the High Court to be such.
I do not at all dissent from what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Swaythling. I agree that driving while disqualified is a serious matter. When a man is disqualified in my court, I personally always try to remember to warn him of what will happen if he drives. As Lord Swaythling has suggested I warn him that probably he will go to prison if he drives while disqualified.

991
The position that would arise under this Bill has been compared with the position under the Road Safety Act: it is questioned whether the discretion should be extended to that Act. I hope that the day will come when magistrates can be trusted with a discretion under that Act, but I do not think that it has yet come. I believe that that is an exception to the rule; but one day I hope that it will come. In my view, this Bill will be an improvement to the law because, as I have said, it will deal with the man who is described by probation officers as "motor car mad"; that is to say, those who cannot do anything except drive cars, and who cannot be restrained from driving cars. I think that this Bill will cope with the situation which arises from those cases. Therefore, while I agree with the two noble Lords who have requested that a stiffer view should be taken of this serious offence, I nevertheless think that this Bill might well find its way on to the Statute Book.
5.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend for introducing this short Bill this evening. It is directed to a limited problem, but in the Government's view it is an important mea-sure. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, asked me whether I could, as it were, quantify the size of the problem. I am afraid that I cannot do that. What I can say is that the views of the legal profession, starting with the Lord Chief Justice and spread over the nation as a whole, have convinced my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport that this measure is necessary. That is why we have this short Bill introduced this evening in your Lordships' House.
I think that nearly everybody who has spoken is himself a magistrate and has experience of this particular problem; and I know that the views expressed are reinforced by the leaders of the legal profession. We believe that affairs as they now exist create difficulties which hamper the rehabilitation of a large number of young offenders who are unlikely to find useful employment or to settle down in society unless they can lawfully drive a car, but which, in a significant number
992
of cases, virtually make criminals of boys who might otherwise have got through a period of car-mad adolescence, not without contact with the law, but at least without serious crime.
We have to face the fact that driving while disqualified is a difficult offence to deal with. Disqualification itself is a means of removing dangerous drivers from the road. It is also a deterrent of unique value to the most serious road traffic offences, and buttresses an import-ant part of our road traffic law. Driving while disqualified involves an element of contempt of court—indeed, of the whole fabric of road traffic law—which makes it particularly serious. I think the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, expressed concern about this aspect of the problem. For many drivers it is probably self-enforcing. I suspect that some who, wrongly, feel that, say, a conviction for speeding would not mark them as anti-social, would still regard it as nearly unthinkable to ignore any disqualification which the courts might impose in respect of the offence, and would view the possible consequences of doing so, not only the legal consequences but the withdrawal of trust on the part of their employers, for example, as quite un-acceptable. But for the car-mad youngster the situation is very different. His desire to drive is so great that a disqualification is very difficult indeed to observe. There are only two things that will make him observe it: one is the risk of being caught; the other is the chance that by observing a supportable period of disqualification he can gain the opportunity of a new start and then drive law-fully.
The operative word here is "support-able". A long period of disqualification will leave a youngster such as this with no hope of ever making good as a responsible and law-abiding driver. The period of mandatory disqualifications under the Road Traffic Act is no more than one year and, apart from disqualifications from totting-up and for driving while disqualified, all disqualifications are concurrent. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling. The courts are, in general, therefore free to avoid very long periods of disqualification, and for the most part we may assume that they impose them only where they consider a long disqualifica-

993
tion necessary as a deterrent or to protect the public against a dangerous driver. In the case of consecutive disqualifications, however, they have no option but to impose periods which may in aggregate be very long, irrespective of their views on its value in the particular case.
It would not be in order for me to talk to-day about consecutive disqualifications on totting-up. In any case, this is probably not the main problem. The trouble normally begins where a driver— normally a very young driver—is initially disqualified for an offence such as driving under age, fails to observe the disqualification, and then once again is disqualified for at least another year running consecutively to the original disqualification. The future begins to look hopeless, and there seems no point in even trying to observe a period of disqualification which the boy knows he is going to find quite unendurable. Each time he fails to observe it and is caught, he automatically finds the period of his disqualification prolonged by at least a further year. Sooner or later, the in-evitable happens, and a court faced with an entirely unacceptable series of affronts to the authority of the law decides that there is no alternative but to send him to prison. If only they had been free to deal with him earlier on, just as severely perhaps but by some means other than disqualification, this progression need never have taken place.
But this is not the end of the difficulty. A driver who is disqualified for a single period of two years or more can apply for the removal of his disqualification, either after two years or, if that does not take him halfway through the period of disqualification, at the halfway point. He can in any case apply at the end of five years, even though he may have been disqualified for life. It does not follow that the court will always agree to remove his disqualification so early. But at least this gives him hope and a reason for observing the disqualification until he can apply for removal.
A driver who has suffered a period of consecutive disqualifications is in a much less favourable position, however. He can certainly apply for the removal of any single disqualification at the appropriate point, and the commencement of the other disqualifications is then brought forward, but at best he has to apply to
994
the court in respect of each disqualification and there is no question of his being able to apply for the removal of them all at the end of the initial five years. Moreover, if the individual disqualifications are each for two years or less, as may often be the case, he is unable to apply for early removal at all, and all this adds to the hopelessness of his situation. Even if he is sent to prison, it does not wipe the slate clean. Indeed, the courts, in disqualifying for an offence in. respect of which the offender has also been imprisoned, have been required to impose a period of disqualification which runs beyond the prison sentence. It may well happen, therefore, that a boy who has been sent to prison, who has lost his previous job and who is qualified for little else beyond driving, will find him-self precluded from taking up the one job he could do and so from settling down again after his sentence.
Against this background, the Government are in no doubt that the Bill pro-vides a useful measure of reform, and I thank my noble friend for bringing it before us to-day. I must, however, make it quite clear that in supporting the Bill— and I hope this will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford—the Government are in no way implying that it has come to regard driving while disqualified as other than a very serious offence. The provision for a mandatory, consecutive, disqualification has undoubtedly created problems in relation to the rehabilitation of the young offender, but it was an attempt to deal with a very serious problem. The problem, indeed, remains serious. In 1968, for example, there were nearly 12,000 convictions for the offence. This is no less than 170 per cent. higher than the level of convictions in 1962, when the mandatory consecutive disqualification was introduced. Admittedly during that time the volume of traffic on our roads has risen by about two-thirds, and the introduction of the totting-up procedure has also in-creased the number of disqualifications. Hence the number of people open to the temptation of driving while disqualified.
It follows that if we are to make less use of disqualification for the offence, we shall have to make increasing use of other penalties. It may be, for example, that at some stage we shall have to look at the possibility of some increase in the fines for the offence, and certainly I

995
should expect to see greater use made of the suspended prison sentence. Already the courts are making a good deal of use of this penalty for driving while disquali-fied—in 1968 it was imposed in well over 2,000 cases—and it may be that this points the way to the future. I think noble Lords will agree—and I felt this was the sense of this evening's discussion—that it is essential that disqualification should not be disregarded with impunity. I hope I have said enough to make clear both the reasons why the Government support this Bill and also our determination that the offence of driving while disqualified shall continue to be dealt with as seriously as ever, although not necessarily by further disqualification.
As I understand the Bill, it is really designed to deal with the rather special case of the young man or woman who in many ways is living a perfectly sensible, normal life, but who has a peculiar impulse to drive, and this has brought about problems which the Bill is attempting to remove in order to prevent a young person in due course from drifting into a much more serious relationship with the law. I cannot myself, however, exactly relate the attitude of the Government towards this particular aspect of the problem with our attitude towards the much more serious problem of disqualifications arising from drinking and driving. I think the noble Lord will agree that it is rather difficult to quantify. I am sure we all agree that the question of driving while under the influence of drink is intensely serious and a very much more grave situation than the one we are talking about tonight. I will talk to my right honourable friend and bring to his notice what the noble Lord has said, and if he can perhaps make it rather clearer than I can I am certain he will do so. How-ever, I will write to him about it. I hope the points I have made about the greater use of a suspended prison sentence in affairs such as this goes some way to meet the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Swaythling. With those remarks, I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.5 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, in view of the speech that has just been made by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, I do not think I need say much more in
996
winding up the debate except to express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have taken part, and particularly to those who have expressed reservations. We cannot come to an answer on a question of this kind without looking at every aspect of it, and I did not consent to take over the Bill in your Lordships' House without having studied the matter a long time ago, and particularly when it came as this particular Bill.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that it is a very serious offence to drive while disqualified. It is; but the important point is that many of those people who drive while disqualified are not guilty of any other road traffic offences at all, and yet they become disqualified, in many cases for many years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and it has just been expressed by my noble friend, that it is perhaps necessary to have some review of the penalties. We must not forget that there are other sanctions besides the disqualification, and if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament those sanctions will still be operative. There may be a necessity for the re-examination of the penalties, and I could not agree more with what has just been said by my noble friend that perhaps a suspended prison sentence is the answer in many cases. I am grateful for the interest which has been shown in the Bill, and I hope now that your Lordships will agree to its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
6.7 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill which comes from the other place and is designed to implement recommendations contained in Reports Nos. 25 and 26 of the Law Com-mission, published last year. I used the word "recommendations" but perhaps I ought more accurately to describe them as "proposals", because the Law Commissioners point out that the topics with which the Bill deals are really issues of social policy, about which it is not strictly within their purview to make recommendations.

997
What the Bill does is to bring to an end certain forms of action which lie under the existing law and in which damages can be claimed: forms of action which are, broadly speaking, I would submit, out of accord with modern thinking and which, when they are brought, are generally brought from motives that should not commend themselves, and are unseemly, in that they involve a parade before the public of details of what was said and done between a man and a woman, which modern thinking would regard as private between them and unfit to be paraded before the public gaze. That is not all the Bill does. There are in it one or two provisions which I would describe as resulting from the changes which it makes in abolishing these actions, and I will in due course say a word of explanation of them to your Lordships.
Clauses 1, 2 and 3 deal with the action for damages for breach of promise. That action is, by Clause 1, finally abolished for all purposes. The case for that change is the broad case which I have sought to deploy before your Lordships. It is: an action which is rarely brought; it is; an action which, I should have thought, is nearly always brought for motives that do not commend themselves. If an engagement to marry terminates, that is an occasion of great sadness. It may cause acute and lasting distress to one or both of the parties. Circumstances differ so enormously that it is very difficult to say who is to blame, if either party is to blame. Probably in the great majority of cases both of the two parties to the engagement realise, in their heart of hearts, that a mistake has been made, and it is indeed in the interests of both of them that they should not proceed to a marriage which, because of a fundamental difference between them, is unlikely to be a happy marriage.
Under the existing law the man, or the girl, can go to the court, as readers of Pickwick Papers will remember only too clearly from the case of Bardell v. Pickwick, and claim damages on a broad basis to include injury to their feelings, humiliation, loss, loss of advantages which they would have acquired through entry into the marital status—a whole variety of topics which ought to be private and intimate. The issue before the court is: was there a promise and, if so, was it broken by the defendant?
998
I submit to your Lordships that the time has now come when those of us—and I think that that is 100 per cent., even in this permissive society—who deeply respect and cherish the relationship between man and woman which we call marriage, and who regard it as something of a sacred companionship productive of enormous happiness, the disruption of which can cause great unhappiness, will surely say that if an engagement to marry comes to an end it should not be made worse in the rare case in which there is that unseemly parade before the public of the details which led up to the rupture, and of the loss which is said to ensue from that rupture. That is the case for the abolition by Clause 1 of that first form of action.
It cannot be abolished without some provision for the sort of property changes which may have been made by the parties when they were contemplating marriage, and that situation is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. To take an example, the young man and the young woman may have jointly bought a house which they intend to be their family home. Either he or she may have expended a great deal of labour or money, or both, in get-ting it ready; and when the marriage does not take place what is to happen with regard to that house? I submit that the law would be left bare and unsatisfactory if some provision were not made for that sort of situation, and that is the provision which Clause 2 makes.
It precludes the discussion of who was to blame. It provides a summary procedure for ascertaining what are their respective rights under the principles which are partly existing under present law, and are partly those now embodied in our law by Clause 28 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill 1970 (I call it Clause 28, because that Bill has not yet finally passed through all its stages in another place) which I shall explain in a moment. Clause 28 of that Bill provides as follows. If there is property and both parties have ex-pended money in its acquisition, and have expended labour or money upon its improvement to a substantial amount, then both are regarded as having a beneficial interest in that property. That is the situation as Clause 28 enacts it as between man and wife. Clause 2 of this Bill extends that situation to a young man

999
and a young girl who are engaged to marry but have not actually married. Therefore, if the marriage does not take place, in the sort of situation which I have described—that is, where there is a house which both have acquired and have worked upon with a view to fitting it as a family home—then both are regarded as having rights in it in accordance with the contribution which each of them has made.
Clause 2 provides, as I have said, a summary way of ascertaining those rights. It is the summary method which is pro-vided by Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 to decide disputes as to property as between man and wife. That summary procedure is now made available, as between a young man and a young girl who were engaged to be married, when the engagement has been broken off. The object is to try to do justice between them in that sort of situation, and to try to do it in a summary way which will avoid publicity, avoid bitterness and avoid a recital of distressing details. The actual procedure is before a Master in Chambers or a Registrar in the Divorce Division, and an appeal lies to the Judge in Chambers— proceedings which take place without the glare of publicity. I commend that principle in the first place, and that method of applying it in the second place, as being suitable to the sort of situation which may emerge when a marriage does not take place and an engagement is broken.
I now come to Clause 3. Clause 3(1) is also designed to remove bitterness. If one party has given property to the other when engaged to that other person, upon the understanding that the property shall be returned if the marriage does not actually take place—it may be shares; it may be anything—then he or she is not precluded from getting it back from the donee by virtue of the fact that he or she was responsible for the engagement being broken off. That is no longer a bar. Therefore, the courts are relieved of the disagreeable necessity, in a situation of that sort, of trying to ascertain blame and who was responsible for the fact that the wedding did not take place.
Clause 3(2) deals with a special situation; namely that of the engagement
1000
ring. The law at the moment is that if an ardent young man says to his blushing young woman, "Kindly extend the third finger of your left hand in order that I may encircle it with this engagement ring", he is deemed to say to her at the same time, so the law says—this is the kind of make-believe that some of us lawyers sometimes engage upon—"and I hereby donate you with this ring, subject, nevertheless, to this: that it is a clear understanding between us that, should the marriage for any reason not take place, you have to return the ring to me and the property in it re-vests in me."
Clause 3(2), I should have thought, reduces that somewhat unreal situation to common sense. Under the terms of Clause 3(2), the engagement ring will now be regarded, if your Lordships decide to pass this measure, as an absolute gift. That is, however, subject to the rare sort of exception where there may be a young man who presents his young woman with what is, in effect, an heir-loom. He may encircle her finger with a ring with which his father encircled the finger of his mother in a similar situation, and with which his grandfather perhaps encircled the finger of his grandmother. That is the sort of case where an heir-loom is used for the purpose of an engagement ring; and I should have thought it would be the ordinary thinking of everybody that no young girl would wish, should the engagement un-happily be broken off, to retain that ring in those circumstances, but would be glad to return it. That is achieved by Clause 3.
I take Clause 6 together with the first three clauses, because it is really the result of the abolition—if your Lordships so decide—of the action for breach of promise of marriage. In 1948 a case was decided in the courts; it is not necessary to mention the names, and I shall call the lady involved "Mrs. X". Mrs. X, years before, had entered into what she thought was a lawful marriage with a gentleman whom I shall call Mr. X. She lived with him for many years, and he then died. It turned out on his death, though she had never known it and he had always deceived her, that the marriage was no marriage at all because it was bigamous, Mr. X having been previously married to another lady.

1001
My Lords, by what I would, I hope correctly, describe as a somewhat extended application of the existing law of breach of promise of marriage, in 1948 the courts found it possible to grant some support from the estate of Mr. X in favour of Mrs. X. They did that upon this basis. They held that it was established that in fact Mr. X had broken a promise to marry Mrs. X, and had also broken a warranty which he gave to Mrs. X that he was in a position to marry her. I would describe that, I hope fairly, as a somewhat extended application of the existing law of breach of promise. If the action of breach of promise goes, people in the unhappy situation of Mrs. X will have no remedy against the estate of the man to whom they thought they were married.
The effect of Clause 6 is to help their situation in the following way. Your Lordships will know that in 1938 an Act of Parliament was passed called the In-heritance (Family Provisions) Act. That was an Act which enacted that if a testator dies and leaves dependants (in effect, a surviving wife; or son or daughter, subject to certain qualifications) and in his will makes no reasonable provision for their support, the courts are given a discretion to order that there shall be taken from his estate what is necessary to afford them support, broadly speaking not in excess of two-thirds of the income from the estate. Clause 6 seeks to remedy the situation of people in the position of Mrs. X by saying that henceforth, provided that they have acted bona fide and genuinely thought that they were lawfully married, and provided that the court thinks it reasonable so to do, they shall be entitled to recover from the estate of the man to whom they thought they were married such provision as the 1938 Act allows to be awarded to dependants. I hope your Lordships will think that that is an elementary measure of social justice.
I come now to Clause 4. Clause 4 puts an end to the action which, before 1857, used to be called the action of "criminal conversation". It is hardly "conversation", and we do not now regard the conduct which gave rise to the action—namely, adultery—deplorable as it may be, as criminal. But from 1857 onwards the old action of criminal conversation was administered by the
1002
divorce courts, and it was an action which enabled a husband to ask for damages against a person who had committed adultery with his wife for that adultery. Be it noted that there was no corresponding right given to the un-fortunate wife to ask for damages against an adulteress with her husband; but this, as I have said, dated from ages long passed by.
That, surely, is an extremely unseemly action. It is an action which is brought by petition in the divorce courts; and it can be joined with a prayer for divorce or judicial separation, or it can be brought without any such prayer. It can, in effect, be brought by a husband who says, "I do not seek to put this woman from me; on the contrary, I propose to keep and use her. But you have used her without my permission, just as you might have milked my cow without asking me. Therefore, I propose to ask for damages against you—damages at large, solace for feelings, and all the rest of it". I would submit to your Lordships that such a claim for damages, particularly when it is not joined with a claim for divorce or judicial separation, is really repulsive. For a husband to say to the adulterer with his wife, "You, in effect, pay me a fee for what you have done", was, I should have thought, wholly repugnant to decent thinking, to what people think appropriate to-day. That action is finally abolished by Clause 4, and I hope your Lordships will approve of that change.
That brings me to Clause 5. Clause 5 abolishes three forms of action of very ancient standing. The first is the action for persuading a spouse to leave his or her home. I suppose that in the days of early Victorian melodrama the gullible, wide-eyed spouse who was an easy prey to the blandishments of an over-rich philanderer or philanderess drifts through the pages of early novels. The spouse deserted is, under the existing law, given the right to claim damages. If the spouse deserted is able to say that the philanderer or philanderess is rich, the damages are larger. Could anything be more unseemly? Could anything be more unseemly than a spouse coming to the courts and saying, "Look, I have lost my wife or my husband to a rich seducer —may the courts give me damages in return"? That is ended. Your Lord-ships may well think that, as is the case,

1003
very rarely do these actions come before the court: still more rarely do they succeed. If they do come before the court, they are wholly unsavoury in their details; they are not promoted by motives of which anybody would approve —blackmail, pressure, revenge and all the rest of it may well enter into it. I hope your Lordships will say that that sort of action should go once and for all.
Then, my Lords, one comes to the action for loss of service of a female child owing to her having been enticed, raped or seduced. Again, in the pages of Victorian melodrama I suppose one has read about the dutiful daughter who, because she becomes round-bellied, can no longer go about her daily household duties. The existing law says that, should that happen, her parent may sue for damages for loss of her services. The parent has to prove loss of service. Under the decided cases, I gather it is even enough if he proves that she used to bring him up his morning tea. He can go to the courts and say, "My daughter is pregnant. She was an obedient daughter; she used to bring me up my tea; she does that no longer; I there-fore want damages". Again, my Lords, can anyhing more unseemly be conceived?
The third head of action is the action for harbouring a runaway wife or child. A hundred or 150 years ago, if a child or wife left a cruel household, perhaps driven out by the conduct of an imperious father or tyrannical husband, so economically dependent were they that they would have to come back in due course in order to avoid starvation. They would have to crawl back and beg forgiveness and ask, as a matter of mercy, to be re-introduced into the home from which they had fled. Anybody who harboured them and prevented them coming back in those circumstances could be sued by the husband or the parent for damages. My Lords, all that belongs to a bygone age, and I hope your Lordships will say with-out difficulty that you come to the conclusion that that sort of action should be ended.
That concludes the whole Bill, and I have no more to say to your Lordships about it than that it is designed to come into operation on January 1, 1971, which is the date when the Divorce Reform Act
1004
also will come into operation; and it is also the date when the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, as to the major part of it, will come into operation. I present this Bill to your Lordships as, in effect, rounding off the changes in our matrimonial law which were introduced by those two major Acts, and rounding off the thinking which inspired them. I hope that your Lordships will think it right to give this Bill a Second Reading as introducing decency and right-thinking in an area in which there are very ugly happenings, on rare occasions, before the courts under the existing law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stow Hill.)
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the House has had the benefit of a crystal-clear description from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, of the reasons lying behind this Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum identifies the sources of the material which it con-tains—at least I think all the material except the subsection about the engagement ring, which was inserted in another place—and the Working Paper set out at the back of Law Commission Paper No. 25 dealt in some detail with the arguments for and against the retention of damages for adultery or enticement. Paper No. 26 deals with the breach of promise of marriage. In both those cases, for reasons which I very well understand, the Government have not thought that they wish to introduce legislation themselves; but, at any rate to judge by what was said in another place, the attitude of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is, I think, likely to be one of benevolent neutrality.
I do not know what the right reverend Prelate is going to say but I certainly support the principles underlying this Bill. This is not a Party matter and each person must speak for himself. But I think it is right on Second Reading to draw attention to a few things which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did not point out. I do not in any way criticise him for this; he was explaining what is in the Bill and was not apologising for what is not in it. I think that on reading the proceedings in another place one can derive a certain principle from what

1005
went on there. The Law Commission have said, expressly in the cases of Clauses 4 and 5 and I think implicitly in relation to breach of promise of marriage, that the decision whether or not those forms of action should be abolished, and if so what is to be put in their places, is really a social and a moral one and it is necessary for Members of both Houses to consider whether there is any good at all left in those actions.
It occurred to me, as I read the proceedings in another place, that although the origins of all those actions which are abolished by this Bill are now wholly outdated and based on concepts, particularly about the status of a wife, which have been described in the Law Com-mission's Paper as "barbarous", the interesting thing is that the courts have managed to use them on occasions (and probably, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, as an extension of the original intentions of the action) to do good. And I looked very carefully and with great interest at the Amendments moved both in Committee and on Report stage by the honourable Member for Pontypool, Mr. Abse, who always seems to me to be the epitome of learning in this subject of the law. If there is any-thing good to be derived from any action he knows about it and he knows how you may properly use it.
He put forward two suggestions which I think are interesting. One of them is dealt with by the Law Commission in their Paper; the other, I think, is not. The first that he put forward related to another extension of the breach of promise case. That was where the girl who was engaged had become pregnant; but then the marriage did not occur and she wished to get some recompense, not possibly so much for herself as for the child. If she had gone under affiliation proceedings she could only get periodical payments; but the breach of promise action has been used by the courts as an occasion on which to award her a lump sum payment, once and for all, a capital sum, probably settled, but perhaps in some cases not. This was certainly not the intention of the breach of promise actions; but it remedied a defect in the law which otherwise applies to these cases.
Then, when we deal with the damages for adultery, it appears to be the case
1006
that although everybody disapproves of the revelations that come out, the possibility of blackmail, the collusion, and so on, there may nevertheless be cases in which the courts find that it is suitable, proper and just to require the co-respondent to pay, again probably a lump sum, not probably to be used to recompense the aggrieved husband for his hurt feelings and all the other things for which the action was originally intended, but in fact to provide some sort of financial sup-port for the wife and particularly for the children—again a by-product of the original action, but one which is used to good effect by the courts. Since Parliament has been invited to see whether it approves of the abolition of these actions, I thought it right to tell the House that those two matters had been raised which are not directly on the subject; but which will, of course, go, too, if this Bill is passed in this form.
The one by-product specifically dealt with is in Clause 6 which, as the noble Lord explained, is something which obviously had to be coped with. But the Bill does not deal with the two matters that I have mentioned. When I read this I thought that there was some merit in what the courts had achieved; but I thought equally that it was a very poor way of doing it. If one wishes to abolish these forms of action because they are really untenable in concept, one does not wish to keep relics of them simply for some specialised by-product not connected with the original form of the action. It may be that one needs some alteration in other legislation to provide protection where there would be none if these forms of action went; but the one thing that I feel one should avoid is to hold on to these outdated relics in order to provide some marginal remedy which cannot otherwise be provided by the law. When these two by-products of these actions were examined it was found that, however carefully one tried to draft the clause for the retention of what was thought to be good, one always came back to all the distasteful and thoroughly unpleasant, aspects of the major actions as we know them. One came back to recrimination, to collusion, to blackmail, to all the nasty words that you find peppering these Law Commission Reports. There was no way, it appears, even with the most expert draftsman's help, of avoiding this.

1007
If that is the case, then certainly I would suggest to your Lordships that what we should do is not to try to amend this Bill so as to keep these little bits and pieces that we might think useful, but rather to think whether we should not amend other legislation, more modern legislation, so as, for instance, to enable a lump sum payment to be provided in affiliation proceedings instead of only periodical payments. I believe that the Fyner Committee are to be allowed to consider this in the course of the much wider remit into which they are now inquiring.
The same I think cannot be said of the question of the co-respondent having to pay damages in some form for the benefit perhaps of the children. I do not see that there is anything here other than a straight choice: either the man or the woman (because I think that what-ever is done it would have to be equal as between the sexes) is required in suit-able cases to make contributions which would assist the children of the deprived family or he or she is not. That is the only area of judgment I have identified that remains where the House will have to make a decision. Everything in this Bill on the face of it seems to be right.
There is just that one underlying matter left which has not been resolved; at any rate, there it is for the consideration of your Lordships, in case anyone should wish to put down an Amendment on it. I would not myself do so. I have read the working paper at the back of the Law Commission's book, in which the arguments are very carefully set out and various solutions are suggested. But at the end they come to what seems to me an overwhelming condemnation of the course because it resurrects all the old difficulties. Above all, it brings back the one thing that the Divorce Reform Act abolished. It brings back recriminations and questions of guilt into an area which will otherwise now be entirely free of them. It also discriminates so that it would be only an adulterer who would be required to pay, whereas anybody else who in any other circumstances had contributed to the breakdown of the marriage would get off and would no longer be caught. In my view that discrimination cannot be justified after January 1 next year. That is another very strong reason,
1008
and I think there are more in the Law Commission's Report.
My Lords, those are the matters that were dealt with in another place. They were dealt with quite thoroughly by, I think, a representative cross-section of the House on Report stage and on Third Reading, and it was the final judgment of another place that the Bill was right in its present form. I think so, too, my Lords, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading to-day.
6.42 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, at this hour I propose to speak only very briefly, but I should like at the outset to associate myself with the tribute paid by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the extraordinarily clear and interesting manner in which he introduced this Bill this evening. I am proposing to address myself only to one aspect of the Bill but I do so because, as this is a matter that affects marriage, I think per-haps a word ought to be said from one who sits on this particular Bench; though I hasten to explain that I am not speaking in any representative capacity but am speaking purely personally.
It is still the case that the established Church takes in its places of worship about half the marriages that are celebrated in this country every year; and in my time I have officiated at a good many. I think it is becoming increasingly the practice for clergy to do everything they can in the way of preparation of these couples for marriage, so that they may come to their marriage in the right frame of mind and so that every possible chance is given for the marriage to be successful. Clearly, however, the all-important thing is the approach of the two persons them-selves—and this is where I welcome this Bill—because those two persons must come to their marriage with a real desire to marry one another. There must be no holding back mentally, there must be a real desire on the part of both to give themselves to each other for life.
I think it would be a very serious matter if one of those parties went to that marriage ceremony not really wanting, in his heart of hearts, to go through with it, but afraid that if he broke off the engagement he might be liable to a breach-of-promise action. I have mentioned this as

1009
relating to a man; but, as we know, it might apply the other way round. While the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, spoke, I thought very movingly, of the unpleasant character of an action such as this, when private matters are dragged out into the open, I felt that we should remember also those cases where possibly an engagement might have been broken off, and it might have been for the good if it had been, but where it was not broken off because of this fear of what might happen in regard to a breach-of-promise action. Nothing, my Lords, is more important for this country than that we should have happy families with a stable marriage bond; and obviously, if we are to have that, people must enter into marriage because they want to, and with no holding back at all. It is because I believe that this Bill will help towards such a situation that I support it.
I should like to mention one other matter with regard to the breach-of-promise action which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross: the possibility of a lump-sum payment. The plea for a lump sum for the unmarried pregnant woman who has allegedly agreed to sexual intercourse because there was an engagement has, I think, certain ethical objections, as well as being retrograde; also I should have thought it is objectionable on the ground that hard cases make bad law. Further, I would urge that a law which put an engaged woman in a special position as regards the unfortunate result of sexual intercourse outside marriage would risk fostering the idea that an engagement was legally permissible as a trial marriage. In this House this afternoon there has been a good deal of talk about sexual inter-course outside marriage, and about its unfortunate results, but in regard to this Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with it and I am very glad to support it.
6.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has explained this Bill to us with his customary lucidity, and I have very little to say. It is a Private Member's Bill; it has nothing whatever to do with Party politics, and the Government are neutral.
1010
There is not today, and there will not be at any stage of this Bill, any Government Whip on it. In these circumstances, my sole function is to assist the House, at this stage and at Committee stage, in any way I can. In view of the hour, I think the less I say tonight the better. Indeed, all I will say is that this is a Private Member's Bill. It was given a long Committee stage in the other place, when a number of Amendments were put down, and it also had a substantial Report stage. At the end of all that the Bill comes to your Lordships' House exactly as it began, with two exceptions only.
The first is that, whereas under the Bill as introduced it would have come into force a month after Royal Assent, it will now, for the reasons explained by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, come into force on January 1, 1971. Secondly, with regard to the engagement, I imagine that quite a number of people were surprised to hear that under our present law gifts given during an engagement are assumed to be conditional, and that that includes even the engagement ring. The honourable Member for Pontypool, Mr. Abse, was insistent that that was not at all what the girls in South Wales understood. If I may say so, speaking personally, I should have thought that the other place, in making the Amendments they did, expressed an honest intention, in thinking that, prima facie at least, the ring is intended as a gift. I spoke to a member of my office staff whose mother is one of those sprightly ladies of un-certain age who always knows her own mind. He had asked his mother what she thought about this, and she said that no decent man would ask for the ring back and no decent girl would fail to offer it back. But these are interesting questions which we can discuss further when we come to the Committee stage. For the moment, I join with other noble Lords in hoping that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, in winding up the debate may I simply say that I am very grateful for the way in which the House has received this Bill and for what noble Lords have said? May I thank them particularly for their very kind references to myself—wholly undeserved but much enjoyed.
On Question, Bill read 2a and com-mitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

TONGA BILL [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill gives effect to his Majesty the King of Tonga's expressed desire that his Kingdom should progress towards full independence in 1970. In a broadcast on March 12 of this year, His Majesty named June 4, 1970, as the date for the termination of Tonga's status as a British Protected State. A special Session of the Legislative Assembly has been summoned for to-day to seek the support of all Tongan representatives to endorse a resolution to that effect.
Your Lordships will know that these islands were named by Captain Cook as the Friendly Islands, and indeed there has always been a very close and warm relationship between Tonga and our-selves. This was recently reaffirmed by the very warm welcome given to Her Majesty the Queen, His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness Princess Anne, when they visited Tonga on March 7 of this year.
The purpose of the Bill is to make provisions consequential upon the attainment of independence on June 4, 1970. The termination of the protected status of Tonga will be effected either by a Declaration on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or by an Exchange of Letters. Either method will terminate the provisions of the existing Treaty of Friendship of 1968, under which British protection is exercised.
Perhaps I should remind your Lord-ships that Tonga was first placed under protection by a Treaty of Friendship in 1900. That Treaty has been amended and replaced several times since. Under the present Treaty of Friendship, Tonga assumed complete responsibility for her internal affairs, except in connection with certain legislation required for defence purposes, and a greater degree of responsibility for external affairs. The Treaty contains a provision to permit transfer by the United Kingdom to Tonga of responsibility for defence and such external relations as are still a United
1012
Kingdom responsibility, without amending the Treaty or making a new one. After the transfer of the remaining United Kingdom responsibilities the Treaty will simply provide for peace and friendship between our two countries.
With regard to Commonwealth membership, Tonga wishes to become a full Commonwealth member and her application is being processed. With regard to aid, with which your Lord-ships will of course be concerned, we are giving considerable support to Tonga's current development plan, both in technical assistance and capital aid. Her new Development Plan (1970 to 1975) is now being prepared. Tonga has had a locally enacted Constitution since 1875, with a Parliament, Privy Council and a Cabinet. There is therefore no need for the Bill to contain any provision empowering Her Majesty to grant a Constitution to Tonga.
Your Lordships will be familiar with Bills of this kind, and this particular Bill is merely to make certain consequential provisions. I feel sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing to His Majesty the King of Tonga, to the Prime Minister, to the Government and to the people of Tonga, heartfelt good wishes as Tonga achieves her Independence. I commend this Bill to the House. I trust and sincerely believe that Tonga has a great and happy future.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when Captain Cook landed on the Tonga Islands, almost exactly 200 years ago, he christened them the Friendly Islands, not being aware that a number of natives had formed a conspiracy to assassinate him, about which they never told him. The name is an appropriate one. I do not know any noble Lords who have been there; I never have myself, but I know that the climate, the vegetation, the scenery and the people are all equally delightful and amicable. I do not think that any of us will ever forget the smiling face of the late Queen Salote when in 1953 she drove through pouring rain to attend the Queen's Coronation in Westminster Abbey.
The people of Tonga have had their turmoils and troubles and even civil wars, as other nations have. I think that the only really oppressive dictatorship they

1013
have ever suffered from was that of an English Wesleyan parson, Shirley Baker, in the 1880's. Baker, having supervised the conversion of all the islands to the Wesleyan religion, proceeded unmercifully to persecute all other Christian sects, so that the British Government had to help in restraining and eventually in removing him. But the reason why the King of Tonga requested a British Protectorate in 1900 was not to shield against religious persecution but to protect his people against the possibility of annexation by some other Power. I think it is one of the most creditable achievements of British Colonialism that under the late Queen Salote, whose reign lasted for nearly fifty years, and of her son, who has since succeeded her as King, the progress of Tonga has been so happy and so prosperous. It is one of the few places in the world—I think that Ireland is the only example in Europe—which have developed on the basis of peasant proprietorship, which on many grounds of social philosophy many of us admire in principle but which, alas! is not compatible with Western European ideas of the affluent State; but that is how they have gone in Tonga.
Now the King has decided, and we have agreed, that the British protectorate is no longer necessary and that it shall come to an end in June. As the noble Baroness has said, it is not necessary to have any new declaration or action, but only to cancel the Treaties forming the Protectorate and the subsequent confirmations of them, which this Bill does.
There are only a few questions I would ask arising out of the Bill, and the noble Baroness has already referred to all of them. I sent her a note of what they might be. I am not clear about exactly how many, if any, of the responsibilities in regard to defence and external affairs we are still left with. I am not sure whether there are none at all or whether we are still supposed to be obliged to respond or help in any particular way.
In regard to citizenship, I am not sure of the implications of Clause 2 with regard to the British nationality Acts. I should like to be quite clear about the position of the people of Tonga in future and what rights they will have in regard to Great Britain. About aid, I probably ought to know, but I do not, how much aid we have been giving to Tonga and
1014
how much it will be. Will that be changed in any way as a result of the Bill?
Finally, I understand that the noble Baroness said that the King and his Government desire to remain full members of the Commonwealth. Does that mean that Tonga will be a fully sovereign State, that the Tongan Prime Minister will come here when there is a Common-wealth Prime Ministers' Conference and that Tonga will be a full member of the United Nations?
I am sure that we are all glad that Her Majesty the Queen and members of her family have visited Tonga on Her present Pacific tour, and I know that the House will wish to extend to the King and people of these delightful islands the best wishes for their future and assurances of our continuing friendship.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the whole House will echo the warm and friendly sentiments expressed by the noble Earl towards the people of Tonga in their new independence. I should not like to follow him into the rights and wrongs of Irish peasants' proprietorship at this particular time, but I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House have the same feelings of welcome towards Tonga's independence.
I can reassure the noble Earl about the question of citizenship. Clause 2 is quite straightforward. The people of Tonga will have Commonwealth citizenship and will be members of the Commonwealth in the same way as any other Commonwealth State, such as Canada, Zambia and so on. In this way the Prime Minister will be heir to the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth, and if he should wish to come to a Commonwealth Conference, he will be welcome in the same way as other Prime Ministers. That is the point which I think concerns the noble Earl.
With regard to defence, there is no residual commitment for defence by this country under the terms of this Treaty. The noble Earl asked how much aid there had been. To take the last five-year period of the relevant plan, just under £1 million has gone from this country in various forms of aid. In addition, a C.D. and W. Exchequer loan of £200,000 has been made for the

1015
Nuku'alofa wharf. The allocation for the coming year is £250,000. There is to be a development plan, which is being prepared at this moment with British assistance, and when we have that plan we shall be willing to negotiate aid as a result of the plan if the Tonga Government wishes to negotiate with us, as I feel sure they will. The relations seem to be completely happy. We look for-ward to a progressive and developing relationship with Tonga in the future, and I am sure that the whole House will wish them well.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL
7.3 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I beg to move the Third Reading of this Bill. The Bill is promoted by the Welland and Nene River Authority and Mid-North-amptonshire Water Board. The purpose is to authorise the construction of a reservoir, which I think is already known as Empingham reservoir, in the upper waters of the River G'wash, in Rutland. The reservoir is required to meet the insistent and growing needs of this area for water. Your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading and committed it to a Special Committee. The Committee have now reported that the Bill should be allowed to proceed.
After the Bill had been given a Second Reading, the House passed an Instruction to the Committee to give special consideration to certain matters. A copy of the Special Report of the Committee has been circulated to your Lordships and in those circumstances it will not be necessary for me to dwell at any length on their recommendations.
The Committee were instructed to give special consideration to the effect of three matters, which are really matters of a local character. First of all, the Committee were required to consider the effect upon agriculture, by which I think is meant local agriculture. The Committee have found that the disturbance to agriculture will be serious—indeed, so serious that it ought not to be undertaken unless
1016
the need for the Bill is imperative. The Committee go on to find that the need for this Bill is imperative, and that in those circumstances, notwithstanding some disturbance in conditions of agriculture, it ought to proceed.
Another matter to which the Committee were required to give special consideration is what is called "visual amenity". I think we all know what is meant by "visual amenity". The Committee have reported that they are satisfied that the scheme will provide a new visual dimension to the area, and that they believe that it may ultimately come to be accepted as a visual asset. The Committee were very much impressed by the proposals which have been made by the Promoters to ensure that the visual character of this area is not unduly disturbed by the construction of the reservoir. There are proposals for encouraging the growth of grass and other things on the dam itself, which will have the effect, to some extent, of concealing it; for planting trees in different parts of the area; and generally they have invoked all the assistance that landscape gardening could give in avoiding disturbance of the visual character of this neighbourhood.
The last matter the Committee were asked to consider was the interference with local communications. After the Bill had been promoted, agreements were made between the Promoters and the local authorities dealing with the disturbance to local communications during the construction of the reservoir and after it had been brought into operation. The Committee were quite satisfied that those agreements will avoid any unnecessary interference with local communications, and they point out that the Minister of Transport, who was at one time concerned with these matters, has now withdrawn. The Committee were also required to consider two other matters of a more general character. They were required to consider whether the storage capacity of the reservoir was not excessive. So far from finding that the storage capacity was excessive, the Committee have found the opposite: they have found that it is only just adequate. I think that this disposes of that particular matter.
The Committee were then required to consider the possibility of obtaining in-creased supplies from other sources, of

1017
which the project for the construction of a barrage in the Wash was of great importance. The Committee examined the Reports of the Water Resources Board dealing with the Wash Barrage project, and a number of other matters. The Wash Barrage is only in the very early stages of its progress. I understand that what is called the "desk survey" has been completed, but that the "feasibility study", upon which the practical character of the proposal depends, has not yet even begun. The Committee join the Select Committee in the other place in urging upon the Government the urgency of proceeding with the Wash Barrage project. But even if the barrage proposal had reached the stage of approval, it would still not be possible for it to be completed in time to take the place of this reservoir. The demand for water which the reservoir will meet will be-come acute in about five years' time. It is not possible for the Wash Barrage scheme to make such rapid progress so as to be in time to contribute in any way to the requirements of the neighbourhood which this reservoir is intended to supply.
During the Second Reading debate a number of other possible sources of sup-ply were indicated by different noble Lords in the course of discussion. I do not think I need go in detail into those proposals. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Committee considered each of these proposals and, for one reason or another, rejected them. It is possible that certain limited supplies might be obtained from some of these sources: from the Lincolnshire lime-stone, and perhaps from the brickfields in Bedfordshire. In the first place, how-ever, the cost of the water would be very great, and in the second place—and this is perhaps more important than the cost of the water—the quantity available would be quite insufficient to meet the needs of this area. The Empingham reservoir will give a yield of 50 million gallons a day. The other sources, assuming that the water could be obtained from them, would give a yield much less than that. It would not be possible for any of these others sources to take the place of the proposed reservoir.
Now, my Lords, may I turn to two other matters? The Committee, at the end of their Report, draw attention to the embarrassment which they experi-
1018
enced in having an Instruction referred to them for consideration without any-body present at the meetings of the Committee who could explain the proposal to them. I can quite see that in those circumstances the Committee were placed in the position of the Judge and of the Inquisitor. They felt it embarrassing, and I think that your Lordships will probably agree with them. I am quite sure that a special Instruction ought not to be given to a Committee unless it deals with something which is individual and specific to the particular Bill under consideration. I am quite sure an Instruction to consider a matter which ranges outside the field of the Bill and impinges on public interests will always place a Committee in an embarrassing position. Many of us who have been concerned with these Bills passing through your Lordships' House have felt that the procedure for dealing with them is not by any means satisfactory. It tends to be dilatory, it tends to be ex-pensive, and sometimes uncertain. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is here and I imagine that he is going to reply for the Government. I hope that he will be able to tell us that the Minister is going to consider the procedure for dealing with these Water Bills. I hope that the result of his consideration will be that the procedure will be more effective than the procedure which we have to follow at present. In those circum-stances, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Ilford.)
7.15 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like to say a few words about one aspect only with regard to the Special Report of the Select Committee to the House; namely, what they say in the last paragraph of their Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, towards the end of his remarks, also referred. The Committee mentioned in that paragraph the very considerable difficulty that they were in in considering matters raised in the Instruction which were not the subject of a Petition. The House may remember that in the debate on the Instruction which took place last February I drew attention to the procedural difficulties which are inherent in asking Select

1019
Committees to consider matters which go right outside objections contained in Petitions.
If I may remind the House, the basic principle underlying consideration of a Bill by a Select Committee is that its provisions should be looked at in the context of local need balanced against local opposition as expressed in Petitions, which of course may be Petitions for amendment of the Bill, or Petitions of general objection. Select Committees are equipped to hear witnesses and evidence on these matters and, having done so, to adjudicate on the dispute between the Promoters and the Petitioners. But, as soon as they are asked to consider a question on which the evidence adduced is not open to cross-examination or rebuttal by an expert witness, they find them-selves at the disadvantage in dealing with it mentioned in the Report.
The House will see that paragraph (iii) —if I may take the obvious example— of the Instruction calls on the Select Committee to consider, and I quote:
"… the possibility of increased supplies from existing sources or national schemes."
That is an example of a case where a Select Committee is asked to take into account considerations of national policy, in this case with regard to the supply of water. On the last occasion I also referred to the Motion pending in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and said that the debate on the noble Lord's Motion would provide the House with an opportunity to consider how matters of public or national policy arising out of Private Bills could best be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has been good enough to consult me and I am now considering whether there are any procedural steps which could be taken to meet the difficulties which are raised when the House or a Select Committee has to consider these questions when they arise in connection with Private Bills.
7.19 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, very briefly, since I was in some small part responsible for the difficulties which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Commit-tees described, I should like to thank the Select Committee for their labours and
1020
the noble Lord for his co-operation. I think he will agree—although I accept entirely what he has said—that in present circumstances the action which I and others took was not wholly unreasonable. I think, if I may say so, that that has been justified by the fact that the Select Committee has wholly supported the Special Report of the Select Committee in another place that there should be a feasibility study for the Wash Barrage. I know that my noble friend Lord Ilford has said that the desk study is completed, but the feasibility study, in his words, has not even begun. I hope very much that we shall hear from the noble Lord who will speak for the Government that a decision has been taken as to that feasibility study.
It is true to say that the Report of the Select Committee also—at least by implication—agrees that there should be no further large, new surface reservoirs before 1975, by which time, one would hope, either from the Wash Barrage or from other sources, alternative supplies might become available. In conclusion I should like to apologise to your Lord-ships' House if I was in any way a nuisance in this matter, and I am grateful for the co-operation which I have received.
7.20 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, having been called upon to be Chairman of the Committee which examined this Bill, I felt it was my duty to attend this debate in order to answer any questions which might be put to me and also to report to your Lordships' House that to the best of our ability we have tried to carry out the instructions which were given to us by the House. That I now do, I hope very briefly.
There are just one or two paragraphs in the Report to which I should like to draw attention. The first is that which deals with the Report made to another place by their Committee and with which we entirely agreed; and that was the one referring to the Wash Barrage. If we were in Holland, or if the Wash were in Holland. I personally am satisfied that the Wash Barrage would have been built a very long time ago; but for some reason we are more conservative than the Dutch are at work of this kind. I plead with Her Majesty's Government, in an entirely non-political way, that

1021
they should proceed with the utmost urgency with an investigation into the Wash Barrage. It is hearing the evidence placed before the Committee that has reinforced my view that no time should.
In the course of those proceedings I learnt for the first time the difference between a desk study and a feasibility study. I understand that the former leads in due course to the latter. But what I should very much like to know is what follows that, and when does a feasibility study lead to something further? I think we should be just a little ashamed of be lost in proceeding with this matter, ourselves as a country that we have done so little in this respect, because not only the Wash is concerned; there are many other estuaries in Britain which could be enclosed for similar purposes, either for reclamation of land or for the reclamation of water. We heard in evidence—and indeed it is well known —that in one of our present Colonies the very same thing has been done, and done successfully, for the production of a water supply. I refer to the work which has been done in Hong Kong. If they can do it, my Lords, why cannot we do it? It may, it is true, have been easier there than it would be here; but, still, we may have greater resources than they.
As to the details, I will take no time in repeating them because we have tried to report fully our view. I can only repeat that we appreciate the seriousness of the position when 5 per cent. of an English county is to be put under water. Because that is the case here: 5 per cent. of the County of Rutland goes under water. That being so, one approaches this matter with some seriousness. When I remind your Lordships once again that, in spite of that, the Committee came to the conclusion—without hesitation, I may say—that this Bill had to proceed, per-haps your Lordships will appreciate the importance of the matter and the fact that we really felt that there was no alternative. That is the position: there is no alternative to this Bill unless there is to be a very serious shortage of water in this particular area.
I want to say only one more thing, and that is to refer to the penultimate paragraph of our Report. I, greatly daring, went so far as to suggest that in Reports of this kind the paragraphs might be numbered, but I was assured that this
1022
would be a most revolutionary proceeding and it had never been heard of be-fore. I therefore dropped my suggestion quickly. But it might be easier if they were numbered. As the sections in an Act of Parliament are numbered, I do not see why paragraphs in a Report of this kind should not be. However, in the penultimate paragraph we mentioned the difficulty which has been referred to by other speakers. It is a procedural difficulty and I should be the last to suggest that the procedure adopted is wrong; I do not think it is. I think there is no better way than that Bills which involve this kind of study, and maps and reports and evidence, should be referred to a Committee such as a Private Bill Committee of this House. I cannot think of a better way. But we must face the fact that it is very expensive for people to petition against these Bills.
My Lords, I can only conclude these few remarks by saying that I suppose the day will come in the Welfare State when we shall have legal aid for petitioners against Private Bills. That being so, I hope I have satisfied the House that we have done our best to carry out the instructions given to us. I repeat that I can see no alternative but to pass this Bill.
7.26 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I will just briefly support what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said about the difficulty of a Committee of this kind considering a matter when they have only one counsel—for the Promoters—appear-ing before them. It so happens that I was the Chairman of a Committee on a Private Bill, which sought to demolish a Paddington church. An Instruction was moved in this House that we should consider certain matters, which of course we did to the best of our ability. But I found there, as did the Committee, precisely the same difficulty which has been highlighted by the penultimate paragraph of the Report of this Committee, and particularly the words which say in effect that the Committee were asked to be both judge and inquisitor. This is precisely it. First of all, you have to frame questions; you have to be to a certain extent in opposition to the Promoters; and then ultimately you have to take a decision which must be a fair, or ought to be a fair and a judicial decision. I cannot

1023
see quite which way we can get out of this difficulty, but I am sure that this is not the right way to deal with a matter of that kind.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has down a relevant Motion, no day named, on the Order Paper. I was hoping that we should have discussed it before to-day. But, after what the Chair-man of Committees has said to-day, I hope he will manage to ensure that before vary long we have a chance to discuss this, as I see it, very important matter. I rather feel, with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that eventually if the House decided to send a Bill of this kind to such a Committee which had the assistance of counsel on one side only, the House would be able to instruct the Committee to employ counsel for the other side. I can see the difficulties of this. It would add to the cost. Nevertheless, what the House clearly wants to do, and ought to do, is to ensure that both sides of a question of this kind—and invariably such questions are very important—have a fair hearing before the Committee. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will manage to get the discussion he spoke about before very long, and that the House will give it the attention it deserves.
7.29 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I say very briefly that I endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. May I also bear testimony to the wise championship, and sustain the eloquent ex-position, of the case for the Bill which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. I was one of those who sat on this Committee, and I must state strongly that every attention was given to every aspect of the case. The possibility of alternatives was most carefully considered, and in the end we were unanimous in agreeing that the particular proposal within the Bill was indeed the only proposal that met the case.
This provokes two thoughts in my mind. First, the fact that in the days to come there will be an increasing need for water supplies. This opens up a vast question, particularly if our population expands too rapidly. The second thought is that one regrets very deeply when one hears that the inundation of a large part
1024
of one of our countries will inevitably mean the submergence of farms that are precious to the owners and to the farmers. Indeed, a great deal of fanning land is thus destroyed. I want again to express my deep appreciation of those who have to sacrifice in the national interest farms which are cherished by them. One feels strongly for them, but I am sure that in the end they come to realise that this is a matter of national necessity and although we greatly regret the passing of valuable farm lands and holdings, this is just one more illustration of how sometimes sectional interests have to be sacrificed in the national interest. Finally, I want to bear testimony to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for his excellent control and direction of the Select Committee.
7.32 p.m.
LORD MILNE: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Ilford I am well aware that at this time of night brevity is the most acceptable form of oratory. I trust that noble Lords who have hitherto opposed this Bill will accept the Report of the Special Committee and will give the Bill a Third Reading. Although technically a Private Bill, this is surely one of national significance. The works involved have long been recognised as inevitable, both nationally and locally. The only question open was: where and when. This Bill is no more palatable to the Promoters than it was to your Lordships' House. We were party to the Act of 1963; we entrusted to the Promoters the responsibility to plan and provide for the water that is considered necessary. Now, when a Bill is presented by them, the evidence on which satisfied two special Committees of the other place, could we possibly frustrate it?
If, as I hope, the opposition is content to stop here, I believe that this Bill will have achieved much. Through the Bill, and the Special Committee procedures, local feelings have been fairly ventilated in a way that could not have been achieved by a Ministerial Order. Emphasis has rightly been placed on the lack of alternatives, but above all in this Conservation Year, under the pressure of population, pollution and other forces, and with the year 2000 only 30 years away, both the real need and the obvious difficulty of a really monster storage site have been highlighted. And I hope that

1025
this will put an end to what has aptly been described as a "rash of reservoirs".
7.34 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, as others have done, I thank the Select Committee for their work on this Bill. I should like to start with a small point. At one point in their Report the Committee refer to the impact of the scheme on local agriculture. The Committee point out that the Promoters had hoped that a large pro-portion of the (roughly) 1,000 acres of land situated between the limits of deviation and the minimum operational line would have been handed back for agricultural use. But the Committee go on to say that account will now have to be taken of the land required to meet the wishes of the Countryside Commission.
It has not been possible for the Countryside Commission and the Regional Sports Council to discuss with the River Authority and the County Council the details of the provision which ought to be made to cater for visitors who will, in any event, congregate at the reservoir. There were no discussions because, as the Committee were told, the Promoters decided not to enter into such discussions before the Bill received the consent of Parliament. My Lords, I have no idea why they thought this, and I think it would have been more helpful to the Committee if there had been discussions so that detailed information could have been available. The point I want to make now is that only a fraction of that 1,000 acres is likely to be required for this sort of purpose. The Countryside Commission have told me that they suggested in a paper sent to the River Authority and the County Council that about 100 acres is the likely need for recreation purposes, especially for car parks and picnic areas.
I come now to the reference in the Special Report of the Committee to the Wash Barrage. In the Government we have, of course, given thought to what the Select Committee had to say about a feasibility study, and we have consulted the Water Resources Board. That Board is busy preparing a report on the desk study from all the material which
1026
has been assembled, and it will report to the Minister not later than July. Publication of the report would have to come after that, of course, because it would take a considerable time to print.
So the first question our Committee's Report brings to mind is whether there is anything that could usefully be done during the period of perhaps three months between now and when the Board reports. I do not think there is, my Lords, because it would mean taking the Board off the work of the report, and that is a question, which I answered during the Second Reading debate, of how the Government should decide, once the desk study report is received. Obviously we have to wait for the report, and we have to read it. In doing so, the Government will be mindful of the recommendations of the Select Commit-tees of both Houses of Parliament who have considered the present Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, referred to the sequence—desk study, feasibility study, and what happens then. Of course, if the desk study is favourable, a feasibility study will be undertaken. If the feasibility study is favourable, a barrage will be built. That is the sequence.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, also said that if this were Holland the Wash Barrage would have been built already, and that even in Hong Kong such a thing had been done. But I am sure it will not have escaped his notice, or that of the House, that among the small group of nation States with a higher density of population than ours are to be found both Holland and Hong Kong. I think this is sufficient explanation of the fact that we take to barrages after those countries.
The noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees has spoken on what Parliament does when a Bill of this nature comes before it. This is in the context of the ability of our Select Committees to bring witnesses before them for examination and cross-examination. He spoke in the context of a paragraph in our Special Report which had something in the nature of a complaint of what they were able to do. I shall speak, therefore, only on what Bills are likely in the opinion of the Government to come before Select Committees of this nature in the future.
The Government will introduce a Bill, before the end of this Session, to remove a defect in the 1963 Water Resources

1027
Act which requires reservoir Bills promoted by river authorities to come before Parliament as Bills. They have to come as Bills because the defect in the Act is this: that although the Act gives to a river authority an undoubted right to build a reservoir, it does not give to the river authority an undoubted right to discharge water from that reservoir down the river, which is the point of the whole thing. This was an accident, and I make no complaint against the Party of noble Lords opposite who included that accident in their Bill: it can happen to anybody. However, it has to be rectified, and the Government will introduce a Bill to rectify it.
When this Bill has been passed river authority reservoirs will no longer have to come before Parliament, broadly (and I speak broadly), unless they take common land or inalienable National Trust land. There are a great many details about this, and reservations, which I do not think your Lordships will wish me to bore you with at the moment. But the broad picture is that, once this Bill has been passed —if Parliament accepts it—there need be no more Bills for river authority reservoirs unless common land or inalienable National Trust land is involved. Such projects will proceed by Order, the Minister making the Order after public local inquiry; and the Order will be subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure if certain factors are involved; otherwise, the democratic discipline exercised on these proposals will be by means of the public local inquiry, which is of course cheap and easy, and no longer by the Parliamentary Select Committee, which, as we all know, to our regret, is expensive and difficult.
To return to the Empingham Bill, the Government agree with the Select Committee appointed by the House to examine it that the Bill should now receive a Third Reading.
7.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the Select Committee, and especially to its Chairman, Lord Merthyr, for helping us with this altogether admirable Report on this very difficult matter. May I briefly make a comment on the information
1028
which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has given us, and thank him for it. First, on the Wash Barrage, it is welcome news that the Water Resources Board is now working on the production of the desk study and that the Minister will have it in the summer. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us whether publication will follow as soon as printing can be completed.
On the noble Lord's interesting in-formation about the Government's intention to amend the 1963 Act, I take his point that this was something he inherited, a defective Act. But I am sure that he was very glad to inherit an Act at all; an Act which, of course, took a very great deal of setting up. There are, unfortunately, other defects in the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is a little optimistic in thinking that Private Bills will only be needed when common land or National Trust land is involved. Inevitably, with a number of these water conservation schemes trial boreholes are needed in advance. There is no power in the Act for that. Pipelines are needed, and there is no power in the Act for that. Therefore, I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet knows that, unfortunately, in our 1963 Act, of which my Party was parent, there are other defects.
The amending Bill which is to come before us shortly will remedy the fundamental defect that there is no power at present in the 1963 Act for a river authority to discharge water into a stream. That will be a major achievement, and undoubtedly will suffice in some cases to save a river authority having to promote a Private Bill. But there will be, I am afraid, a number of other cases where river authorities will still have to go forward with Private Bills in order to promote the water conservation schemes they have to engage in.
These more comprehensive amendments will obviously have to await a future Government—no doubt the other side of a General Election—but I hope that this will be given some degree of urgency, because it was undoubtedly in-tended that these developments should proceed by Ministerial Order. It is far the best way for them to proceed in the normal way. This would give full opportunity for people in the locality to appear at the public inquiry, cheaply and with-

1029
out difficulty, and really would be better for everybody. But at the present time the Government are limited, understand-ably, to promoting a Bill which is non-controversial, which has to be squeezed into a very tight legislative programme. I fully understand this, and I fully under-stand that the Government could not include in this Bill any of those other desirable features which might have raised controversy.
For myself, I warmly welcome what the Government are going to do, but I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships to know that there will still be Private Bills coming forward. I need hardly say that the river authorities will not promote Private Bills unless they have to, but there will be some. May I conclude, as it appears that this Bill is about to receive your Lordships' assent, by giving my best wishes to this enormous project to which such care has been devoted, so that we may proceed rapidly with the development and supply of the extra water needed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if, with the leave of the House, I may speak again, there are two points to which the noble Lord referred that I would take up. First of all he asked whether the Wash desk study would be published. The answer is that it will. Then he spoke of the other reforms beyond the amending Bill the Government has announced it will introduce, and he said this will be a non-controversial Bill and it would have to be squeezed into the end of the Parliament. This is not so. This is a limited Bill because the Government is awaiting the Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which has been called upon to advise the Government on a total reform of the water industry. Such a total reform must in any case be carried out at the same time and as a result of local government reform, and if the Government provided by our Party continues in office it will undoubtedly be so carried out.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Ilford.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.