Sitting of 24 March 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Drift Nets (Prices)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the excessive prices at present being charged for drift nets, which are damaging the interests of the herring fishing industry; and if he will take powers to control them.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The price since decontrol has risen less than wages or the cost of the principal raw material. I do not propose to introduce price control.
    Sir R. Boothby: May I take it from that answer that my right hon. Friend is satisfied, after inquiry, that the prices being charged at present are not excessive?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:I do not think they are excessive, in view of what I have said. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to introduce elaborate price control. Indeed, the price is still lower than it was in 1952 when the control was in force.
    Mr. Awbery:Are we to take it that the policy of the Tory Party is to increase controls?

    Buckie-Peterhead Scheme
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, since he announcedthe launching of the so-called Buckie-Peterhead Scheme, there have been no developments of any importance in the North-East of Scotland; and as this has given rise to confusion and disappointment, whether he will now state precisely what has been achieved
    2242
    under the scheme, and what further developments the Government have in mind.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: One factory has been built and negotiations for a second are in progress.
    Sir R. Boothby: Does not my right hon. Friend think that one factory and a negotiation for another is a somewhat meagre result from the rather splendid scheme which he launched some time ago? Has he no further proposals to make beyond a negotiation for one further factory?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing my scheme in such glowing terms, but I had not thought it quite so elaborate. What I had intended was that we should take an opportunity, as I said at the time, to build one or two factories, and that we are doing.

    Jute
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade when, and in what form, a report and the relevant accounts of the operations of jute control will be published.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The annual accounts of the operations of the Jute Control are included in the volume of "Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets" published each year as a House of Commons Paper and are commented on in the Foreword to the Accounts. Those for the year 1953–54 were published in January last in House of Commons Paper 298.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sole report that is available for public scrutiny upon the affairs of Jute Control, which had a sales turnover last year of nearly £25 million, comprises only three lines and 35 words? Would my right hon. Friend, therefore, arrange for a more comprehensive report on the activities of this trading organisation to be made available to me?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind about this control, I shall be very happy to answer them.
    Mr. Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the report is made available to the whole House and not just to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade why he now continues the operations of jute control with monopoly powers in respect of imported jute goods; and what steps he is taking to permit private trading interests to participate in imports of jute goods with a view to satisfying the needs of manufacturers who are end-users of fabricated and part fabricated jute goods and yarn.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 15th February.
    Mr. Nabarro: While recognising the need for a measure of protection for the Dundee jute manufacturing industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the end-users of jute manufactured goods, notably the carpet industry, are very dissatisfied with the present arrangement? Can he, therefore, say whether he hopes at an early date to arrange for private enterprise participation in the import of manufactured jute goods?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I would not say that I defend this as a method of trading: it is a method which I took over. What I suspect is that if I try to tinker with it and amend it, it may be worse for all concerned.
    Mr. Strachey:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whether he defends this method or not, it has proved extremely successful and has given very good results indeed in Dundee and throughout the country? Will he not now give us some better assurance that he is going to preserve it? Otherwise there will be very great apprehension in the City of Dundee.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade with a view to winding up jute control, while retaining a measure of protection for United Kingdom jute manufacturing interests, what consideration he has given to the establishment of a statutory jute marketing board to deal with imports of jute goods, and affording representation on the board to private importers, jute manufacturers, consumers of jute goods, including carpet manufacturers, merchants, and Government representatives; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not consider that a statutory marketing board would offer much if any advantage over the present system as a means of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry.
    Mr. Nabarro:Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend is the head of jute control and also the head of the Monopolies Commission? Would he not, therefore, refer this tight-ringed public monopoly, namely, jute control, to the Monopolies Commission for careful scrutiny and investigation? Will he have a look, with the aid of his right hand, at what his left hand is doing?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If I might answer the Question on the Paper, I doubt whether my hon. Friend's suggestion, which amounts to the introduction of legislation to set up a rather complex and cumbersome State monopoly here, would do much good. It might well harm our relations with India, would probably damage Dundee, and I think would bring no benefit whatever to the hon. Member's constituents.
    Mr. H. Wilson:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in some respects at any rate, the proposal of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) follows very closely what we on this side of the House have proposed for the cotton industry? Having had two additional weeks to study this question, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us whether he can find any significant differences which apply in the case of jute and which justify him carrying on this form of State trading but which do not apply in the case of the cotton industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I thought I would turn down my hon. Friend's suggestion for reasons other than the reason that he happened to agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).
    Mr. Wilson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question?
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that this is a non-profit-making organisation?
    Mr. Nabarro: It made £3 million profit last year.
    Mr. Strachey: It may make profits for the public but it is a non-private profit-making organisation and has given very

    2245
    great benefits to the whole community. Would not the Minister explain to his hon. Friend that nothing that he can do to disturb it is likely to bring any benefit to anyone in this country?
    Captain Duncan: Would the Minister give a firm assurance that, in the exceptional circumstances of this trade, there will be no change in the system at present operating until an equally good system of protection is given to the jute industry of Dundee and Angus?
    Mr. Thorueycroft: I think there is another Question on the Paper on this subject.
    Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the character of these replies, I beg leave to give notice that I shall apply to you shortly, Mr. Speaker, for the allocation of one of your new Adjournment sessions to this subject.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) which sections of the United Kingdom jute industry and how many representatives of the business community in the Dundee area have made representations to him concerning the continuation of Government control of imported jute goods;
    (2) what estimate he has made of the effect the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have on the prosperity, efficiency, output and full employment in the United Kingdom jute industry;
    (3) what consultations the United Kingdom jute industry had with his Department with regard to safeguarding its position in the national economy before undertaking its large-scale post-war re-equipment programme.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Unless an alternative method of safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry can be worked out and introduced, the removal of control over the import of jute goods would have a serious effect on the prosperity, efficiency, output and employment of the industry. In view of the heavy concentration of the industry in Dundee and its distance from the main centers of population, there would be a danger of continuing large-scale unemployment. It is in view of this position that Ministers decided that the industry must be safeguarded, and I would refer the hon.
    2246
    Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 15th February.
    My Department is in frequent touch with responsible members of the industry and has from time to time received representations on the matters mentioned.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the carpet trade is not very well-founded, and that the last annual report of the Federation of British Carpet Manufacturers makes no representations whatever for the removal of jute control but, in fact, in making some criticism of the quality of yarns, criticises equally the Indian yarns with the Dundee yarns?

    Duty-free Machinery (Importation)
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Overall Manufacturers' Association concerning the importation of duty-free machinery.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A letter dated 4th November, 1954, making certain comments on the Wilson Smith Committee Report.
    Mr. Holt: Will the Minister look at this problem again, because the arrangement by which import duty on machinery is remitted only on amounts over £2,000 discriminates very severely against small firms and small parcels of machinery?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:Of course, not only have I looked at this very difficult and complex problem myself, but I have had the benefit of the Wilson Smith Committee's Report, which deals with the very matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

    Monopolies Commission (Restrictive Practices)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Monopolies Commission completed its investigations under Section 15 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Enquiry and Control) Act, 1948, into practices in the retail trades which tend to keep goods dearer than they need be; when he received the Commission's

    2247
    Report; and what action has been taken to deal with traders found to be discriminating in favour of or against a defined class of customers.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I expect to receive by the middle of the year a Report from the Commission on a reference under Section 15 of certain widely prevalent discriminatory practices—if that is the matter to which the hon. Member intends to refer.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to the matter which his hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in reply to a Question on 19th December, 1952. in which he said:
    "Broadly, the Commission are to report on practices which involve agreement amongst a number of traders who discriminate in favour of or against a defined class of customers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 298.]
    Is that the same matter as that to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and, if so, has it not taken a long time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think we are all talking about the same thing.

    Raw Cotton (Export Taxes)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade the value, expressed in pence per lb., of the export taxes on raw cotton exported to this country, imposed by India, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Mexico, and Peru.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I will, with permission, circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is a tendency for the taxes in all these countries to rise and, if so, does he consider that it is just as much a threat to our cotton textile industry as are cheap labour conditions in Asia?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not sure that I am circulating any alterations in these taxes, but I set out a list of what the taxes are. I should not like to express a firm opinion about the effect of these taxes, because the effect which taxes have on the world price of cotton is a matter of great debate.
    Following is the information:
    The present export duties on raw cotton in the countries mentioned are as follows:
    India: 6¾ d. per lb. except Assam/Commilla varieties, which are exempt from duty, and yellow pickings and linters and Zoda cotton, i.e. cotton of third picking and unspinnable quality, which pay a duty of 30 per cent. ad. valorem.
    Pakistan: Sind Desi. Punjab Desi and Commilla varieties 3·9d. per lb. Other varieties 5·85d. per lb.
    Egypt: Karnac and Menoufi varieties 6·96d. per lb. Other varieties 4·64d. per lb.
    Sudan: Sakel variety 4·9d. per lb. American type (Wild's variety) 4·42d. per lb. American type (other varieties) 3·94d. per lb. Lugata, Shawabik 2·45d. per lb.
    Syria: 1¼d. per lb.
    Mexico: Unginned 10 per cent. ad. valorem-Ginned 22 per cent. ad. valorem.
    Peru: The basic price is fixed by the Government. Cotton sold below the basic price is not liable to export duty. Cotton sold at above the basic price pays an export duty equivalent to the difference between the price paid to the producer and the basic price. The latter is subject to change from time to time.

    Newsprint
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade why he refused the Newsprint Rationing Committee's recommendation of a small increase in its newsprint ration.
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the recommendation made to him by the Newsprint Rationing Committee for an increase in the allocation of newsprint, what action he is taking to enable national daily and Sunday newspapers to increase space.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have authorised imports of 100,000 tons more newsprint this year than for 1954. The stock position is at present and is likely to remain for some months below the level which the industry has so far regarded as safe. The industry is now considering a scheme under which it would be assured of a higher level of newsprint imports and would accept responsibility for newsprint distribution. I am awaiting its acceptance of the scheme.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If the Minister's object is not to build up television advertising or paper stocks for election leaflets, why was it that in his speech last week

    2249
    he said that the newspaper industry perhaps does not want to be free of Government control? Why is he resorting to these strange antics to justify the only rationed Press in the world?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I exercise no control over what goes into the newspapers and am endeavouring to get rid of any controls of the way in which they are made. The sooner I get rid of those controls the better.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman able to make a greater allocation for newsprint? Does he not appreciate the great need for larger newspapers? Will he not answer my hon. and gallant Friend's questions? Are the stocks being retained until election time, as the "Observer" said, for Conservative speeches? Is it part of the policy to handicap the newspapers against commercial television? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer those two questions?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already increased the level of imports of newsprint from 350,000 tons to 450,000 tons, and if the scheme which I am suggesting goes through, that figures will rise to 500,000 tons on an annual basis to 1958. Here is a great opportunity for getting more newsprint and more freedom.

    Turkey (Exports)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent in the recent commercial debt settlement with Turkey the Turkish Government have undertaken to calculate their exports at world or above world prices;
    (2) to what extent preferential treatment in the settlement of their outstanding commercial debts due to them from Turkey will be afforded to those British creditors who, under the new agreement, purchase increased quantities of Turkish produce and minerals in the next five years.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Agreement provides that the Turkish Government will take all possible steps to encourage the flow of Turkish exports to the United Kingdom at world prices. Creditors who have promoted substantial exports of certain specified Turkish products to the United Kingdom may be paid by the
    2250
    Turkish Central Bank without regard to chronological order; I cannot say how far this provision will be applied.

    Exports (Port Facilities)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the letter from the Chairman of the Institute of Shipping and Forwarding Agents calling for improved export facilities.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a letter from the Institute of Shipping and Forwarding Agents on the question of British exports; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This letter was about port facilities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has replied.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the responsibility of the Board of Trade to try to avoid these long lines of lorries, which are held up for hours and sometimes for days, and as a result of which vital exports are not leaving the country? Will the President draw the attention of these gentlemen to the fact that, if they care to send their goods to the ports of South Wales, there will be no delay and their goods can be despatched straight away?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:The hon. Member is trying to tempt me into what would be a very attractive answer from the point of view of my location in the world, but at the same time this letter referred specifically to matters under the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, who has dealt with it.
    Mr. Jeger:Would the Minister bear in mind, when considering South Wales, that the Port of Goole in the West Riding offers unexampled facilities for a quick turn-round and good arrangements at the docks? But in considering export facilities, will he also bear in mind that there is uncertainty and anxiety in Goole when in one part of the docks coal is being exported and in another part of the docks coal is being imported? Will he bear in mind that his complacency about the present position of our exports is not shared there?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Because of those reasons, I was restrained in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

    Hire Purchase (Caravans)
    Lieut..-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will exempt caravans from the recent restrictions on hire purchase.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot yet add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner) on 10th March.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that about 90 per cent. of the caravans which are bought are bought by couples who either cannot afford to buy a house or are not eligible for a council house, and that to make them pay the whole cost in a couple of years places a very onerous burden on a deserving section of the community?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not want to make a statement in advance of the examination I am to undertake.
    Mr. H. Nicholls:Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind, when considering this matter, that a period of two years for payment by hire purchase for this property, which acts as a house, does not seem sufficient, and that a strong case could be made for extending the period to four years?

    Australia (Import Restrictions)
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about future trade prospects with Australia.
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the effect on United Kingdom exports of the import restrictions imposed by the Australian Government and on the representations which Her Majesty's Government have addressed to the Government of Australia.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Australian Government have felt obliged to impose new import restrictions in order to arrest the fall in their reserves. It seems likely that, in the next financial year, they may achieve a saving of up to £80 million on the current rate of imports. The effect on the United Kingdom may, therefore, be of the order of £30 to £40 million out of exports amounting in 1954 to £278 million. It is not possible to forecast the effect on particular industries since quotas are available for imports from
    2252
    any non-dollar source and in some cases for a variety of alternative goods.
    I do not consider that any formal representation against the general policy of the Australian Government in seeking to safeguard their balance-of-payments position would be either effective or appropriate. I shall, however, be in touch with the Australian authorities on detailed matters arising from these measures. The Australian Government have made it clear that they intend to relax these import restrictions as soon as their balance of payments permits.
    Mr. Bottomley:The Australian Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, at the beginning of this year, said that unless the United Kingdom Government stopped buying wheat from the Argentine and other subsidised products from other countries, the Australian Government would be compelled to stop importing goods from this country. Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether Her Majesty's Government made any representations at all in view of that warning?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:It is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to do barter deals in wheat with Australia or anyone else. It is true that the general movements in commodity prices—in wool, particularly—have had an effect on the balance of payments of Australia.
    Mr. Wilson:Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the delight with which this announcement was received by the Australian Union of Manufacturers and other protectionist circles in Australia? Is he aware that it is considered in Australia to go very much further than is required by the balance-of-payments situation in that country? In those circumstances, and in view particularly of the serious effects on the Lancashire cotton industry, will the right hon. Gentleman now make representations to the Australian Government about their action?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Australian reserves have fallen by more than £100 million in the last 12 months. In the last resort it must be a matter for the Australian Government to determine the measures which they deem to be required to safeguard their position. I have no doubt that in Australia, as in other countries, any action taken by the Government is greeted by diverse shades of opinion.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the President of the Board of Trade say what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to meet this warning?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no question of a warning. It has been known for some time that the reserves of the Australian Government were declining. Those movements were observed on both sides of this House. I think it was well within the purview of everyone that some cuts might be possible.
    Mr. Stokes: Why does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it was sound business to build up sterling trade balances in this country in time of war in order to blow Hitler to blazes, but that it is unsound business to build up sterling balances at the other end in order that everyone can have what they want?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I should not wish to enter into debate with the right hon. Member in the high realms of finance, but I think it is regarded as sound business at all times for a country running into balance-of-payments difficulties, and whose reserves are declining to take some steps to deal with that situation.

    Circuit Cinemas (Exhibitors' Representations)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from representative bodies in the film industry about his decision to increase the number of cinemas which circuits can control; and what reply he has made to these representations.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association has represented to my Department that the policy regarding the size of the circuits mentioned in my answer to the right hon. Gentleman on 3rd March is not adequate to protect independent exhibitors. The Association asked that the policy should be reconsidered. Its request is being examined.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware, despite the misleading information given by his Parliamentary Secretary, that there has been a substantial change of policy in this connection since Sir Stafford Cripps announced in April, 1946, that the policy
    2254
    was to freeze the status quo? Why has the right hon. Gentleman made this great change in policy without consulting the statutory Cinematograph Films Council first?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would never approve of "freezing the status quo." What the right hon. Member himself said about these powers was that he did not think they ought to be used in a restrictive way but only for the strictly limited purposes of holding the balance even between the large circuits. We are still pursuing the same policy as he followed in that respect, but I will examine the representations made by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association.
    Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has quoted some words of mine—with which I am well familiar—out of their context, will he inform the House that I prefaced them by saying that my policy was the same as that of Sir Stafford Cripps, which I have just quoted? Is he aware that my reference to the question of not using the powers in a restrictive manner was in response to a request from Sir Arthur Rank that he should be free to sell certain cinemas and replace them within the figure that had been agreed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:We seem to be going along the same lines, but I will look into the representations.

    Development Areas and Northern Ireland (Booklet)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to lay before Parliament a White Paper showing the action taken in Development Areas since 1948.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think that a White Paper is called for at present, but a booklet describing to industrialists the attractions of the Development Areas and Northern Ireland will be published about the beginning of May. I think this will be of interest to hon. Members.
    Mr. Wilson: While no doubt the booklet will be very valuable, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has at least half promised a report on progress in the Development Areas since 1948, and an undertaking was given in

    2255
    the debates on the Statute that reports of that kind would be made? Has the tight hon. Gentleman anything to hide about what the Government have been doing in the Development Areas?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, in fact unemployment there has fallen from 3.7 per cent. in September, 1948, to 25 per cent. in February, 1955. We have nothing to hide at all. I do not want to have too many White Papers, but if there is any specific information which has not been given in the course of Questions and answers, I shall be glad to give it.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a Development Area in the north of Scotland where we have not yet had much success in getting any industries there?
    Sir R. Boothby:As my right hon. Friend is producing a booklet, could he add a little description of the Buckie-Peterhead scheme in it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will bear that suggestion in mind.
    Mr. S. Silverman:Is the difficulty about issuing a White Paper on progress in the Development Areas that the right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no progress to report? Is it because since he made the Order concerning north-east Lancashire nothing whatever has been done except for plans—still incomplete—for one factory?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon.0020Member constantly reminds me that it is in that area that the Board of Trade has authorised the erection of the biggest factory ever undertaken in any Development Area in this country.

    Maldon
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the concern caused locally by the closing of Messrs. Crittalls' factory at Heybridge, Maldon, Essex; and if, in view of the fact that many Maldon people already have to travel 20 miles daily to and from their work, he will encourage the siting of new industries in or near Maldon.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, when suitable opportunity occurs.
    Mr. Driberg:While I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not had very much time to prepare that answer, and although I also appreciate that this problem is much smaller in size than that of the Development Areas generally so called, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the problem of these small market and country towns where there is not very much light industry and where the closing of an important factory means great inconvenience to people who have to travel many miles to work, or else seasonal unemployment?

    Horticultural Industry, Cornwall
    Mr. Haymanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the effect of the recent Review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on the horticultural industry of Cornwall.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft:I shall soon be issuing a White Paper containing the full text of the revised Agreement and a statement of the Government's policy.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the President bear in mind the importance of the horticultural industry to Cornwall, and its significance for the country as a whole?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:Certainly. Indeed, it was due to my action in Geneva last year, and the waiver I then obtained, that I was able to move on the horticultural tariff in a manner which, I think, was generally beneficial to the horticultural industry. On the general question, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper which will contain a comprehensive account of the full Agreement.

    Cinema Attendances
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade the total attendances at cinemas for January and February of this year, and the attendances in the same two months of 1954.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Information is not available about monthly attendances at cinemas. The latest available figures relate to the quarter October to December, 1954, when total attendances were 291 millions, compared with 306 millions in the corresponding quarter of 1953.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the Chancellor to the serious tendency revealed by those figures, and urge him to do what he can to arrest that tendency by reducing Entertainments Duty?
    Mr. Thorneycroft:All these figures are available to my right hon. Friend.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    £ Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing value of the £ sterling at the latest convenient date when compared with 20s. in October, 1951; and the comparable figure for October, 1953, and October, 1954.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 20s. in October, 1951, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for February, 1955, was 18s. 5d., and for October, 1953, and October, 1954, 19s. 2d. and 18s. 8d. respectively. This estimate is based on the Consumer Price Index and the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Dodds: What a shocking confession of failure.
    Brigadier Rayner: In order that this matter may be put into proper perspective, will my hon. Friend consider publishing in the Monthly Digest of Statistics a six-monthly account of the progress of the £ since the end of the war?

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when preparing his Budget, he will consider repaying post-war credits to all persons who are registered as permanently unfit for work because of illness or disability.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): All the suggestions that have been made for accelerating the payment of post-war credits, including this one, will be considered.
    Mr. Hall:Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to consider this request with more than his usual sympathy when he considers the Budget?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure my right hon. Friend will give very sympathetic con-
    2258
    sideration to any suggestion made by my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—but it is quite impossible, as these matters concern expenditure, to make any statement or give any indication whatever of Government policy in advance of the Budget.
    Mr. Gaitskell:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this concession, which was embodied in an Opposition Amendment proposed to last year's Finance Bill, would meet with the general support of the whole House if the Chancellor should see fit to make it this year?
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount outstanding of unpaid post-war credits; and how much of this is owing to people over 50 and over 60 years of age, respectively.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The estimated amount of post-war credits outstanding as at 31st March, 1955, is £540 million, of which it is estimated that £78 million relates to holders aged 60 and over and £187 million to holders aged between 50 and 60.
    Mr. Johnson:Is it not wholly deplorable that these vast sums should still be outstanding 10 years after the war? Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many people suffering hardship which would be alleviated if the British Government paid their debts, and that many people expected the Chancellor to do very much better than his predecessor?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend took a forward step in the payment of postwar credits only last year.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I received a letter yesterday from one of my constituents to whom the Government owe £60, and who has to depend on friends to make ends meet? What would happen if this man owed £60 to the Government instead of the Government owing him £60?
    Mr. Brooke: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had received that letter, but I feel quite sure it will be sent on to me.
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what proportion of the claims for post-war credits will still be outstanding in five and 10 years' time, respectively.
    Mr. H. Brooke: On the basis of the current rate of repayment it is estimated that about 56 per cent. of the amount of post-war credits originally created will be outstanding at the end of the financial year 1959–60 and about 44 per cent. at the end of 1964–65.
    Mr. Vane:Will my hon. Friend consult my right hon. Friend to see whether it is not possible to devise a scheme to pay off the whole of the outstanding credits in 10 years? Does he not agree that the present period of 35 years, which I understand is the estimate, means a very long business?
    Mr. Brooke: I have said already that my right hon. Friend will consider all the suggestions made, but it would be decidedly inflationary to pay off £500 million of this money immediately.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton:Have not the Government got the inflationary situation well under control? In those circumstances, why not pay off this debt?
    Mr. Brooke: That is precisely the reason why we do not want to spoil the situation by paying out £500 million.
    Miss Ward:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that to pay off some of the postwar credits, at any rate to the higher-age groups, would help the small-income groups? Is he not looking for a way to help the small-income groups?
    Mr. Brooke:I can only repeat, for I think the fourth time this afternoon, that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider all these suggestions.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the cost to the Treasury of reducing by five years and by 10 years, respectively, the ages for repayment of post-war credits.
    Mr. H. Brooke: A reduction of five years in the age for repayment would cost £91 million in the first year, and would increase the annual repayment in each subsequent year by about £500,000. For a reduction of 10 years the corresponding figures would be £184 million and £1 million.
    Mr. Gower: While appreciating the difficulty of this problem, may I ask whether my hon. Friend will bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact
    2260
    that the former figures are not quite as impossible as others which have been mentioned?

    Government Contracts (Tenders)
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recommend to the appropriate Departments that, in future, Government contracts should be made firm contracts without escape clauses for increases in the cost of materials or labour.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is already the general policy for Government Departments to call for tenders at fixed prices, and not to include variation of price clauses in their contracts. The uniform application of these principles is not, however, always practicable, for example in the case of certain long-term contracts.
    Mr. Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to spread this practice throughout industry? Does he not think it would be a useful practice, to prevent wage increases, when they take place, from being immediately passed on to the consumer?
    Mr. Brooke: I think I have stated the Government's policy quite clearly. It does, of course, take two to make a contract.
    Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend not agree that at a time when wage rates and costs are constantly rising, a time of full employment, which results in long delivery dates, an escape clause which allows for the variation of a contract with variations in costs of wages and materials frequently provides the cheapest method and not the most expensive to the customer of obtaining the article?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has stated one aspect of this problem.

    Disabled Persons (Tax Allowances)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider implementing the recommendation contained in paragraph 203 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income in favour of a claim for a tax allowance for grave incapacity.
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

    2261
    will consider, in his forthcoming Budget proposals, a relief whereby totally disabled persons may receive some extra income tax allowances as proposed by the Royal Commission on Taxation in its recent Report, Command Paper No. 9105.
    Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will be considering this and the other recommendations in the Royal Commission's Second Report when framing his Budget proposals.
    Sir I. Fraser:While a very few people receive what is called an attendance allowance, which goes some way towards meeting this point, would my hon. Friend bear in mind that practically all disabled or hurt people suffer daily disadvantages from their disabilities and yet get no help in this respect? Would he take that into account?
    Mr. Brooke:I can but repeat what I said before, that my right hon. Friend will study very carefully the arguments used in the Report of the Royal Commission on this and all its other recommendations, but I can say nothing more than that.

    National Land Fund
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what portion of the National Land Fund is to be used to finance the maintenance of national parks and other developments under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I cannot add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) on 1st March.
    Mr. Hall:Is it not a fact that when the National Land Fund was first established in 1946, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, described it as a nest egg which could be used to finance some of the operations envisaged in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act? As my constituency includes some of the most beautiful countryside in the whole of the British Isles, will my hon. Friend help in its preservation by using the nest egg before it becomes addled?
    Mr. Brooke:It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a nest egg in 1946, but the Government of that day made no provision for using any part of this fund for the purpose of national parks. It would require fresh legislation.

    Government Expenditure (Increase)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase in total annual expenditure of the central Government over the last: four years.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Including defence expenditure, about 33 per cent.
    Mr. Langford-Holt:Could my hon. Friend say what has been the percentage increase or decrease in civil expenditure on the one side and defence expenditure on the other?
    Mr. Brooke: Defence expenditure has increased by 88 per cent. I should not like to give an exact figure with regard to civil expenditure, but it is relatively small.
    Mr. H. Hynd:Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there has been this increase in expenditure in view of the Government's promises that they would reduce national expenditure?
    Mr. Brooke: There have, unfortunately, been wars and rumours of wars throughout the world.
    Mr. S. Silverman: With regard to the 88 per cent. increase in four years in defence expenditure, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what we got for the money?
    Mr. Gaitskell:Is the Financial Secretary really unable to tell us what the percentage increase in civil expenditure is? Surely he has the figures? Is it not at least about £200 million or £300 million?
    Mr. Brooke:On the civil side it is relatively small, compared with the expenditure on defence. I would willingly give the full figures if I were asked for them, but I have answered the Question put to me.

    Entertainments Duty
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why his regulations permit those who go

    2263
    to see an artiste performing at a restaurant, details of which have been sent to him, to do so without paying Entertainments Duty, whereas those going to see this artiste at a theatre will be obliged to pay such duty; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke:Entertainments Duty is charged on payments for admission to entertainments. When there is no payment for admission to an entertainment, whether at a restaurant or elsewhere, liability for duty does not arise.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not very unfair to think that if next month the wage earner wants to see Maurice Chevalier at the Palace Theatre he has to pay Entertainments Duty through the nose for the privilege, whilst rich capitalists can stuff themselves to the gills at the Ivy and then totter down the street to see the same artiste at the Cafe de Paris and pay no Entertainments Duty at all? Is not this sort of thing done very frequently by Her Majesty's Opposition, and should not this tax be removed?
    Mr. Brooke:It would be rather invidious to attempt to answer the latter part of the question, but my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to an interesting point to which consideration will be given. I can say no more than that.

    Industry (Fixed Investment)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his policy regarding increasing the rate of fixed investment in industry.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend's policy is to encourage fixed investment in industry by all means consistent with the Government's other economic objectives.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, urge upon his right hon. Friend, in view of the positively discouraging trends of the increase in the Bank Rate, the desirability of increasing the investment allowance in the Budget?
    Mr. Maudling: I am glad that the hon. Member recognises how effectively the allowance has been encouraging fixed investment, but I think that he tends to exaggerate the effect of short-term money rates on long-term fixed investment interest.

    Bank Rate (Short-term Funds)
    Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect recent changes in the Bank Rate have had upon the movement of short-term funds to or from this country.
    Mr. Maudling:Movements of short-term funds are difficult to detect and still more difficult to measure; such indications as there are indicate no large exceptional movements in either direction.

    Exchange Equalisation Account
    . Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Exchange Equalisation Account is still supporting the free market for sterling.
    Mr. Maudling: It would not be in the public interest for me to disclose the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account.
    Mr. Jenkins: Are we at any stage to be given an estimate of how much in gold and dollars this operation has cost the Exchange Equalisation Account?
    Mr. Maudling: We publish regularly figures of the movement of gold and dollar reserves, but it has never been and never will be the practice to disclose the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account, because that would not be in the public interest.

    Relief Funds
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what record he now has of the many public relief funds which exist; what estimate he has of the total funds in their possession; in how many cases their function has largely been fulfilled, or is now exhausted; and whether he will take powers to liquidate continuing administrations of obsolete funds;
    (2) whether he will take powers of supervision over the continuance of relief funds and their administration after the reason for their existence has disappeared or their main purpose has been fulfilled; and, if necessary, invite the general public to provide information, within its knowledge, on such matters;
    (3) whether he will take powers to order a compilation of all relief funds in existence, their dates of establishment

    2265
    their purpose, and how far they are now operative, with a view to effecting economies in office space and manpower.
    Mr. H. Brooke:There is no record of all these funds in the Treasury, and there is nothing I can add today to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a Question on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman on 15th March.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can I take it from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman is going to follow up the Prime Minister's promise to make an inquiry into this matter? Could the hon. Gentleman indicate what happens to the funds? Do they go on being perpetual annuities for those who are connected with them, or are they eventually brought into the public Exchequer or into some common fund in the last stages?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had any specific information on this matter and conveyed it to him, he would be glad to look into it. I can only repeat that any information from the right hon. Member or from any other quarter would be carefully considered.
    Mr. Woodburn:Would the hon. Gentleman read the second supplementary answer of the Prime Minister, in which he went a little further and realised that it was not in the power of a private Member to collect all the statistics and data about these kinds of funds and that it was necessary that it should be done by a public authority? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister certainly indicated his inclination to investigate the matter further?
    Mr. Brooke: The Prime Minister is anxious that it should be examined, but it is questionable what powers one has to collect this information. If information is available in any quarter which hon. Members would like us to consider we should certainly consider it.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Have the Government come to any conclusion on the possibility of implementing in legislative form the valuable and important conclusions of the Nathan Committee on this
    2266
    subject, not necessarily in this Parliament, but perhaps in the next?
    Mr. Brooke: That is a rather wider question.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION)
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on Government policy with regard to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on the Accommodation, etc., of the Palace of Westminster, that a House of Commons Commission should be set up to take over the powers at present exercised by the Commission for regulating the offices of the House of Commons and other matters concerning the amenities of the House.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Her Majesty's Government are considering this recomendation of the Select Committee. On the assumption that the existing House of Commons Commissioners are retained, it would, I am advised, be for the general advantage that they should present to the House each year a report on their work. Her Majesty's Government also favour the compilation of a code to govern the conditions of service of the staff of the House.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister to be a little more explicit than that? I understood him to say that what the Government contemplate is the continuation of the present House of Commons Commission. That is not really what the Select Committee recommended. The Committee recommended that a different Commission should be set up, which would involve a certain amount of legislation but which would give hon. and right hon. Members better control over the amenities of the Palace of Westminster. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it does not seem that what he says and what is now proposed meet the case?
  The Prime Minister: We are not enthusiastic supporters of the recommendation of the Select Committee, and we think that further consideration should be given to the matter. From inquiries which have been made in various directions, we have not found much active support for the recommendation.
  Mr. Panned: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Select Committee's Report was completely unanimous? Would he also bear in mind that the present Commissioners of the House are the Secretaries of State whose offices were extant about the year 1812? Is he aware that whilst it was possible during the 19th century for a busy Secretary of State to attend to the affairs of the House, in reality at the present time the Commissioners act only through Mr. Speaker and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman not bring the Commissioners of the House within ideas of modern usage and make them an efficient, democratic body?
  The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman has said shows, I think, the need for careful consideration of this matter.
  Mr. Stokes: But we have been waiting a long time for the Government statement on this matter. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he recollects that the set-up of this Committee was predominantly Tory in fact, and whether he remembers, as my hon. Friend has said, that the report was unanimous? Has he really studied the minutes, and whatever may have been the advice given to him, does he realise that both Mr. Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms supported the contentions of the Members of the Committee?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions, the Committee was predominantly Tory must not lead him to suppose that, in judging a matter affecting the House of Commons as a whole, we should not take a complete, comprehensive and impartial view.
  Mr. Stokes: But the Prime Minister is doing himself less than justice. I did not bring that up as a party shot. I was really pointing out that had the Committee not been so completely unanimous anything rather revolutionary could easily have been outvoted. As a matter of fact, the Committee was unanimous, and will the Prime Minister say how much longer Her Majesty's Government will need to consider this, and may we have an assurance that we shall have a decision before the right hon. Gentleman himself retires from the Premiership?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to speculate on the competition of these unknown events.

  PRIME MINISTER AND MR. MOLOTOV (CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister how far the text of the recent correspondence between himself and Mr. Molotov, now published by the Soviet Government, is a correct and complete version of the exchanges between himself and the Soviet Government on the subject of talks between political heads of States; and whether the Soviet Government asked his permission before publication.
  The Prime Minister:Sir, I am informed that the Russian text of the correspondence as published in the Soviet Press is complete and correct. In view of the very full statement I thought it my duty to give the House on this matter, I think Mr. Molotov was fully justified in publishing the full text without further communication with me, and I am quite content that he should do so.
  Mr. Wyatt:Was it not very wrong of the Prime Minister to make a premature disclosure of confidential letters with the Russians, because is it not the case that if we disapprove of anything he might have written in a private letter he would only lose his job, whereas the men in the Kremlin stand to lose their heads? Is it not very inhibiting to future private exchanges if they feel they cannot rely upon us not to reveal them when we think fit?
  The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use Question Time for making offensive imputations on the Soviet Government.
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister if he will publish a White Paper giving the full text of the exchange of letters between himself and Mr. Molotov in 1954 dealing with his proposal for high-level talks.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be very happy, if the hon. Member desires it, to send her a copy of the White Paper which was issued on Monday and has been available in the Vote Office ever since. I know she has had other serious preoccupations lately.
  Mrs. Castle: Having read the White Paper which the right hon. Gentleman had published since I tabled my Question, may I ask him what it was that led him to change his mind about the value of personal contacts between him and Mr. Malenkov last year? Can he tell us whether it was that his colleagues in the Cabinet vetoed the proposal or was it that the United States Government raised objections?
  The Prime Minister: I have not changed my mind at all about the value of personal contacts. I have, however, to think about their timeliness.

  WORLD DISARMAMENT
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resources required for modern armaments, the destructive power of new weapons, and the international tensions which powerful armaments aggravate, he will appoint, as a member of the Cabinet, a Minister for Disarmament.
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister or Minister of State for Disarmament.
  The Prime Minister: I have little to add to the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) last Tuesday. The internal organisation of the Foreign Office already provides that the study of disarmament is handled by a single department, called the United Nations Department.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Foreign Office deals inter alia with the affairs of the United Nations under the authority, of course, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is himself guided by the Cabinet. Disarmament is handled by the Disarmament Commission, which is an organ of the United Nations. The present arrangements are therefore natural and convenient from every point of view.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision? Does he not think that, in view of the very urgent importance and the great complexity of the questions involved, it would be of advantage to have a Minister of high authority to give his whole time to this work?
  The Prime Minister: The Minister of State speaks with the full authority and acts with the full authority in this respect of the Foreign Secretary and of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Strachey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that even more important than this would be for the Government to change their policy on disarmament and come out in favour of abolishing test experiments in nuclear weapons?

  THE PRIME MINISTER AND M. MENDES-FRANCE (CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister (1) why he decided to publish the correspondence of January this year between himself and the then Prime Minister of France;
  (2) if he will make a further statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to ratification of the Paris Agreements in the light of the unusual terms used in his letter to M. Mendes-France, dated 12th January of this year.
  The Prime Minister: An extract from my letter in reply to one from M. Mendes-France was read in confidence, without my being consulted, to the French Senate Commission on Foreign Affairs on 10th March by the French Foreign Minister. Various garbled versions of the extract without reference to its context immediately appeared in the Press all over the world.
  I felt that the House might expect to be as well informed of a communication by a British Minister as the Parliament of another country. I, therefore, in reply to a Question, said that I would ask M. Mendes-France whether he had any objection. Before, however, I had written to him he informed our Ambassador in Paris that he intended to release the text of our exchanges to the Press. This was done on 21st March and I therefore published them here at the same time and issued a White Paper on the 22nd. As M. Mendes-France is a supporter of ratification, he must have felt that the publication would be helpful at this moment. I agree with him, and I hope it will very soon be seen that we were right.
  I have no further public statement to make upon the subject.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister say what he means by the policy known as the "empty chair," to which he refers in the letter?
  The Prime Minister: It has nothing to do with the "empty seat."
  Mr. Bellenger:Is any way known to the Prime Minister by which confidential exchanges of letters between heads of States can be kept confidential and not be made public by fortuitous publication to the Press, which, I think he will agree, does harm to all countries?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the evils, when they become noticeable, are very likely to breed their own cure.

  HONG KONG
  Sir I. Horobinasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disclosure of President Roosevelt's desire at Yalta for cession of Hong Kong to China, he will assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have never entertained and will in no circumstances entertain any such suggestion from whatever quarter.
  The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are resolved to maintain their position in Hong Kong. The passage in the recently published American record of the Yalta talks, which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind, refers to a meeting between President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin on 8th February, 1945, at which I was not present. According to the record President Roosevelt said he knew that I would have strong objections to this suggestion. That was certainly correct and even an under-statement.
  Sir I Horobin: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his answer will give great satisfaction and contribute greatly to the confidence and security of a loyal part of the British Empire? Will he also bear in mind that it strengthens the claim of Her Majesty's Government to its friendly co-operation in some of the difficult trade matters with which, we understand, my right hon. Friend is dealing today?
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to tell us we are going to keep Hong Kong and at the same time keep it in a state of semi-starvation?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a complete abuse of the rules of the House.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has placed before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding political and military changes in that Organisation in the event of the non-ratification of the Paris Agreements, referred to in his letter of 12th January to M. Mendes-France.
  The Prime Minister: I have not placed any proposals before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation upon this hypothetical question.
  Mr. Warbey:Do the threats uttered by the Prime Minister in his extraordinary letter to M. Mendes-France mean that in the event of the non-ratification of the Paris Agreements he would propose denouncing all our Treaties of alliance with France; and is he aware that public opinion in this country would never tolerate a policy of forming a military alliance with Germany and leaving out in the cold our ally across the Channel?
  The Prime Minister: I do not really think that that is a fair conclusion to draw from anything I have said, nor do I accept the hon. Member as an outstanding judge of the course of public opinion in this country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28th MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will move a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty relating to the erection of a Memorial to the late Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor.
We shall resume the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, which it is hoped to conclude by about 7 o'clock; and then consider the Motion to approve the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order.
TUESDAY, 29th MARCH—Report and Third Reading of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Committee and remaining stages of the Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.
Motion to approve the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order.
WEDNESDAY, 30th MARCH—Report and Third Reading of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY, 31st MARCH—Supply [10th Allotted Day].
It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker, out of the Chair on Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1955–56.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) will call attention to the need to bring the police forces up to full strength and improve their conditions of service.
FRIDAY, 1st APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
Today, we propose to ask the House to consider the Motion to refer the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill [Lords] to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading. Discussions have taken place through the usual channels, and I hope that the proposal will be agreeable to the House.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may also refer to the Motion on a Privilege matter standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and other hon. Members.
[That the complaint of the hon. Member for Maldon regarding the action of the Deputy Assistant Chaplain General, Salisbury Plain District, in threatening the Reverend J. P. Stevenson, one of his subordinate chaplains, with a view to influencing proceedings in Parliament, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.]
I have considered this matter and suggest to the House that the Motion might well be agreed to without debate and referred to the Committee of Privileges. When the Committee has deliberated and made its Report, the House might then be in a better position to debate the matter should it wish to do so. If this
2274
proposal commends itself to the House, I will arrange for the Motion to be brought forward for discussion on an early day.
Mr. Attlee: It seems to me that the last two suggestions would meet the convenience of the House.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, having studied one of the leading articles in "The Times" today, he will find time for the Obscene Publications Bill, if necessary withdrawing the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill to do so?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not know about that. It does not follow that I have to read all the leading articles in "The Times. "The hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to a Private Member's Bill which, I suppose, has to take its chance, like all other Private Members' Bills. We shall proceed with the business announced for today, which includes the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill.
Mr. Woodburn: After the Prime Minister's performance today, can the Leader of the House tell us where the Conservatives got the idea that he was too old to do the job?
Mr. N. Macpherson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to give time for a discussion on the agreement approved by Her Majesty's Government at the recent G.A.T.T. conference at Geneva?
Mr. Crookshank: That will, no doubt, come up for debate, but not next week.
Mr. Harold Davies: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we are to have an opportunity of discussing the state of British agriculture before the Easter Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I thought we did that two Fridays ago.
Mr. Robens: In view of the speech made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) yesterday, alleging bribery by certain commercial interests to workmen by the provision of pensions schemes and other matters, is it intended that time will be provided for the Minister of Labour to make a statement on this very important matter?
Mr. Crookshank: I have every confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend. If at any time he thought it necessary or wise to make a statement, he would do so.
Mr. H. Morrison:Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has every confidence in his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) and what he said yesterday? We want to know what the Government's view is.
Mr. Crookshank: It is not for me to distribute bouquets any more than the right hon. Gentleman does to some of his supporters.
Mr. Robens: Does not the Leader of the House realise the gravity of such a speech in trade union circles? Does he not feel that it is necessary that the Government should make their position perfectly clear through a statement by the Minister of Labour?
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure the position of the Government is perfectly clear in all these matters. As I have just said, I have every confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend to handle the problems which may arise affecting industrial matters within his purview.
Mr. Robens: Surely the Leader of the House must recognise the fact that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has a close relationship with a member of the Cabinet and that the public pay a great deal more attention than usual to what comes from a source like that?
2276
Again, I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not feel that it is important that the Government should make a statement on this matter through the Minister of Labour, or will he provide time for a debate so that we may discuss the whole subject?
Mr. Crookshank: I really do not think I can go any further, and I certainly cannot lend myself to any smear campaign.
Mr. Lewis:Is the Leader of the House aware that those of us who were present when the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) made his speech challenged the Ministers on the Government Front Bench who were in charge of the matter under discussion and asked them to make a statement disowning their hon. Friend, but not one of the Ministers agreed to do that? Are we, therefore, to take it that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West was, in fact, speaking on behalf of the Government Front Bench and that the Government Front Bench supported his statement?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot carry the matter any further at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Although this Bill appears to be somewhat technical and complicated, its aim is, in fact, simple. As is set out in the opening sentence of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty's Government to take over from 1st April, 1955, the control, administration and payment of the pensions of persons who served the Crown in India and are now living outside India, Pakistan, Aden or Burma.
  The Bill is a simplification and an improvement of existing arrangements. While many details are filled in in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, I should like, if I may, to give some further points on the Bill's history and purpose. Finally, with the permission of the House, at the end of any debate which may arise, I will attempt to answer the points which may be raised.
  Following on the Indian Independence Act, 1947, hon. Members will no doubt recollect that in 1948 the Government of India purchased for a capital sum of £168 million sterling annuities from which their sterling pensionary commitments have since been met. This purchase was made from sterling standing to India's account and the annuities purchased appear as part of the National Debt charged on the Consolidated Fund. The debt is shown in the normal way in page 58 of the Financial Accounts of the United Kingdom for 1953–54. Those, of course, are the last accounts which have been before the House. The balance of debt outstanding on 31st March, 1955, is £129 million. The last figure shown is somewhat more than that, but that figure was for the year ending 31st March, 1954.
  Later, that is, after the 1947–48 Agreements, it became clear that considerable administrative advantage could be gained both by the Government of India
  2278
  and by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom if the latter could take over responsibility for these pensions, offsetting the financial liability against the cancellation of part of these annuities. This is the arrangement which is now agreed in the present Bill. This proposal was started, I understand, in the time of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) when they held office at the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Treasury respectively. The Agreement which has now at last been reached is shown in the letters attached to the First Schedule of the Bill.
  If I may take the Clauses of the Bill one by one, Clause 1 approves the arrangements which have been agreed with the Government of India. These arrangements are set out in the letters exchanged between the Financial Minister of India and the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in India which are contained in the First Schedule of the Bill, that is, in pages 4 to 7 of the Bill. The arrangements, in brief, involve, first, the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the obligation to pay the pensions in question; secondly, the payment to the Government of India of a capital sum of approximately £40 million sterling.
  This sum is the difference between the capital cost of the pensions as now estimated, and the amount of the debt outstanding on 1st April, 1955—that is the figure I mentioned a moment ago of £129 million—and the third main point in this Agreement is the payment of a further capital sum of about £6 million to the Government of India in respect of the Indian Income Tax which they would have collected from the pensions had they not been transferred under this Agreement. On the other side of the ledger—and I will explain this in detail in a moment—the National Debt is reduced by £88 million sterling; that is the item I have already referred to in page 58 of the last accounts.
  The number of pensioners affected, which includes members of the non-Secretary of State's as well as the Secretary of State's Services, is about 23,000. All categories of pension—Service, disablement and family pensions and pensions from what are known as the Un-transferred Family Pensions Fund—are included. The pension bill for 1955–56,

  2279
  the coming financial year, is about £5·8 million and will, of course, decrease each year. I should apologise to the House, because, as the final draft of the Bill came out in the wash, in page ii of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, paragraph 7 (a), there is the figure of £5 million and that should be £5·8 million.
  Similar terms are under discussion with the Government of Pakistan, but final agreement has not yet been reached. Clause 1 (2) empowers the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to give effect to any agreement reached with the Government of Pakistan. If agreement is reached, the amounts payable to the Government of Pakistan would be approximately £360,000 in respect of the difference between the balance of the annuities and the estimated cost of the pensions, and £400,000 in respect of Income Tax.
  Returning to India, the Agreement to transfer the control of these pensions will, I hope, be generally acceptable to the House and will be welcomed, I trust, by retired members of the Indian services. Hon. Members are no doubt fully aware from Questions which have been asked from time to time and correspondence in the Press and their own constituency correspondence that Indian pensioners have felt some apprehension about their pensions and have also asked for pension increases. The existence of this feeling and the presentation of these requests are a minor source of friction between the two Governments, more especially as the Government of India have felt unable to grant any increase in pensions and Her Majesty's Government have felt obliged, in order that ex-members of the Indian Services should have comparable treatment with pensioners of the United Kingdom Services, to extend to the former benefits, where appropriate, of such measures as the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1947 and 1952, and the many improvements in disability and widows' pensions.
  If this Bill is enacted, the award of all the benefits which have already been granted and the future payment of the pensions themselves will become the full statutory obligation of the United Kingdom Government. The transfer will, therefore, I submit, be of mutual advantage to both Governments and to the pensioners concerned.
  2280
  May I say—I am still on Clause 1—another word about the financial effects which are somewhat complex, I am sorry to say, and how they will affect the United Kingdom Exchequer. There will be an addition to the Votes to provide for the payment of the pensions which will amount to £5·8 million this year and will gradually diminish. This will be offset by a saving to the Exchequer by the cancellation of a debt of about £88 million sterling together with the interest thereon. This latter sum would, in the normal course of events, have been discharged by the payment of the annuities until their extinction in the year 2007–8. This figure of £88 million is the latest estimate of the future cost of the pensions to be transferred.
  As I have already mentioned, the amount of the debt outstanding on 31st March this year is £129 million. This latter figure was arrived at as a result of the estimates of the pension bill, made in 1948. The difference, of about £40 million, will continue to be paid from the Consolidated Fund, and this debt will be discharged in 10 equal annual installments with interest at 1 per cent. per annum.
  Under the Agreement of 1948 this annual surplus would, if the present proposals were not accepted, in any case have accrued to the Government of India year by year until the year 2007–08. The payment of this £40 million, therefore, is only the acceleration of the payments which would otherwise have become due to the Government of India and is not a new commitment. Her Majesty's Government originally proposed that, under the arrangement in the Bill, the payment of this surplus should be made each year as it accrued, but the Government of India pressed for it to be paid in one lump sum. The agreement to spread payment over ten years represents a compromise between the two opposing points of view.
  A third point, which I mentioned earlier, is that there is also a payment to the Government of India of a capital sum of about £6 million in respect of the Indian income tax that would otherwise have been collected from the pensioners. Against this payment must be set considerable savings to the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Income Tax law makes provision for certain relief from tax in this country in

  2281
  respect of tax borne in another country, and Indian pensioners have been entitled to this relief in the past.
  As Indian tax will not be deducted from pensions after 1st April, 1955—that is, next week—the pensioners will not have to bear double tax and so the need for affording them relief will disappear, and the yield of United Kingdom tax from the pensioners will increase. In addition, the necessity to compensate pensioners for Indian tax in respect of which full double taxation relief could not be given—I will refer to this later when explaining Clause 2—will largely disappear.
  The saving to the Revenue in double taxation relief and to the Exchequer from the disappearance of tax compensation will ultimately counter-balance the payment of the capital sum of £6 million to the Government of India. The payment of this capital sum will be made also in ten equal annual instalments, together with interest, and will be voted.
  I come to Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government of India Act, 1935, conferred immunity from Indian income tax on certain classes of Indian pensioners residing outside India. The grant of independence to India in 1947 made it possible for the Government of India to withdraw this immunity, and they did so with effect from 1st March, 1951. Because the immunity was originally conferred by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and because a subsequent Act of the same Parliament—the Indian Independence Act of 1947—made the withdrawal of the immunity possible, Her Majesty's Government accepted the moral obligation to compensate pensioners for any extra taxation which they incurred by reason of the decision of the Government of India. The grant of this compensation was announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on 18th June, 1951.
  Payments under the tax compensation scheme have so far been made from the Commonwealth Services Vote under the authority of the annual Appropriation Act, but the opportunity is now taken under the Bill of giving permanent statutory cover to the scheme. As I have already explained, the need for the scheme will largely disappear after pensions have been transferred to the
  2282
  United Kingdom Government, though a few isolated cases may occur in the future.
  A similar immunity was conferred on Burma pensioners by the Government of Burma Act, 1935. This immunity was withdrawn by the Government of Burma on 1st October, 1954. The Indian scheme has, therefore, since been extended to pensioners of the Government of Burma. As, however, control of Burma pensions is not being transferred to the United Kingdom Government, the Burma scheme will continue in full operation.
  I have already said that Her Majesty's Government have extended the benefits of certain Pensions (Increase) Acts and other Measures to Indian pensioners, Some of these increases were covered by the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948 and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, but in other cases payments have been made from the Commonwealth Services Vote under the authority of the annual Appropriation Act. Clause 3, read with the Second Schedule, empowers the Treasury to make rules covering all cases. These rules will not alter the basis on which the benefits have already been given. The power to make an Order under Clause 2, and to make rules under Clause 3, is to be exercised by Statutory Instrument, which may be annulled by a Resolution in either House.
  It is not Her Majesty's Government's intention that the arrangements proposed in the Bill should affect the liability to United Kingdom Income Tax of pensioners residing outside the United Kingdom. Pensioners who are regarded as resident in the United Kingdom for Income Tax purposes are at present chargeable to United Kingdom Income Tax on the whole of their pensions and they will continue to be so when the new arrangements come into force.
  Pensioners who are not regarded as resident are at present not chargeable to Income Tax on their pensions. Under the new arrangements they will, I understand, come within the charge to United Kingdom Income Tax on the whole of their pensions, but I am informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has it in mind to propose legislation to continue the exemption which the non-residents at present enjoy.

  2283
  I apologise again for the technicality of the Bill. I have tried to reconcile with some simplicity of explanation the complexity of the subject matter. I should not like to end my remarks without expressing the thanks of the Government to Ministers in India, and to officials both there and in the United Kingdom, for all the work which they have put in to reach this agreement. A number of those concerned, like the pensioners whom we have been discussing, are members of the Civil Services to whom the Bill applies. They are carrying on, as I had the opportunity of seeing for a few days last summer, the great traditions of administration of which they—that is, the present civil servants in the Indian sub-continent, no less than we in this country—are justly proud.
  The administrators in the sub-continent are faced with the most tremendous problems. I certainly appreciated some of the forces of nature with which they have to contend. I think that we might say that their occupation out there is indeed a vocation, with rewards beyond mere material payment. We must hope that it is an encouragement to these pensioners to know that their work in these countries which they love so much is being carried on so well by their successors.
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his lucid exposition of what is necessarily a very complex Bill, especially in its financial implications. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman said, when we were in office we started the negotiations which have resulted in this Measure being brought forward today. We make no complaint that considerable time has passed since these negotiations were started, because, of course, in the nature of things, these matters take a tremendous time to negotiate and work out.

  We are sorry that the arrangement with Pakistan is not far enough advanced to enable it to be included in the Bill. We hope that there will not now be any very great delay—as I understand. I believe that the Bill makes no difference at all to those pensioners who served in Pakistan.
  2284
  The whole of the Bill, with all the transactions that have led up to it, presents an excellent example of good, intimate and friendly Commonwealth relations such as exist between all the various members of the Commonwealth. The question of paying pensions to British civil servants employed by the Government of India at the time of the transfer of power could have been an extremely awkward matter, but, in fact, it has been worked out from the beginning with great friendship and smoothness.
  As I understand, although the Bill makes one or two useful changes, the essentials are not altered; that the pensions concerned will continue to be paid, as they have been in the past, out of Indian money, out of the sterling balances owing to India which are as much Indian money as any other money in her possession. That needs to be emphasised. These pensions will still be paid out of India's money, and India will continue to recognise the obligation to pay the pensions which she undertook at the time of her independence.
  As I see it, the changes are, first, that owing to the recalculation of the actuarial considerations involved, it has turned out that less of a capital sum will be needed to discharge these pensions than was originally anticipated; and that, therefore, some of the sterling balances set aside for this are, in effect—and this is a result of all the complex finance of it—being paid back to India. More important, the administration of the pensions, is to be transferred from Indian to British officials. As the hon. Gentleman said, this will make it easier for Members of Parliament to take up cases. That has been a difficult thing to do in the past, because of the passing from London to Delhi and Karachi and back again.
  It also means that it will perhaps be easier for the Government to pay any increases of pensions they award to make them equivalent to similar pensions in this country—although that has been done—and it will make Income Tax simpler. No great charge will fall on the Revenue, but for the people concerned, Income Tax problems will be simpler.
  Some people have from time to time asked why it was that India refused to

  2285
  pay increases of pensions to these pensioners when increases were awarded on similar pensions in this country. That point has been made, and some times adverse comments have been made on it. As I see the matter, India has been absolutely right and justified in her attitude. It was no part of the original bargain that such increases should be paid. Certainly, neither India nor any other Government can make payments of pensions to people living in their own territory dependent on the decisions of other Governments.
  It is impossible, and, in fact, would lead to increases being paid to pensioners living in India beyond the scope of increases paid to pensioners of the Indian Government. It would be as though we had undertaken to pay pensions to a certain number of, say, Americans resident here, and were compelled to increase those pensions every time the American Government decided to do something in their own country, regardless of what we were doing here.
  No injustice has been done as a result of India's decision. Both the previous Government and the present Government paid all the appropriate increases to the pensioners concerned. I am a little sorry—though I understand why—that Burma cannot come under this scheme. It will create certain anomalies, and the administrative advantage to pensioners who served in India or Pakistan will not apply in the case of Burma. All I wish to say about that is that Her Majesty's Government must have responsibility for the proper adjustment of increases of pensions, and so forth as, I have no doubt, will be the case.
  There are a number of smaller points which I should like to raise on particular Clauses when we come to the Committee stage. I do not think that any Amendments will be put down, but there are one or two points about which I am not certain, and which I should like to raise when the Chair puts the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Apart from that, as I have said, we welcome this Bill. Had we been in office, we should have introduced something very much like it ourselves, and we shall facilitate its passage through the House in every way reasonably possible.
  4.5 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Spens: I should like to start by saying that I am not one of those drawing a pension payable by the Indian Government, either directly or indirectly, and, therefore, have no personal interest in this Bill. On behalf of many pensioners who have been anxious about their pensions, I wish to voice the gratitude with which they will receive this arrangement which, I think, has been made very wisely both by the Government of India and Her Majesty's Government.
  I differ with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) on only one point. It is not only a question of the control and administration of the payment of pensions, but, as I understand, Her Majesty's Government now undertake the primary liability for the payment of the pensions, after certain payments and cross-payments have been made. Whatever happens in the future, I understand, Her Majesty's Government remain primarily liable for the payment of these pensions. Not only that, but they have gone out of their way to bestow at once on the pensioners the increases which they would have received had the pensions been previously payable out of moneys from this country. That, of course, will be very much appreciated.
  The main advantage of this is that there were obviously possibilities of great differences between the two countries about these pensions. One of the difficulties arose when India, quite rightly, thought fit not to impose Income Tax on British pensions at all; but in the ordinary course of events, quite rightly, under her own powers, thought fit to impose Income Tax on incomes drawn by persons resident outside India who were drawing incomes from India. Under such a general category necessarily fell the whole of the pensions of those members of the services concerned.
  That immediately created a very great difficulty and we all appreciated very much the attitude of the late Government, when, I think almost at the very first time it was raised in this House, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the responsibility for making good to the pensioners the difference between the amount by which their pen-

  2287
  sions were diminished because of the extra Indian income tax. That has gone on ever since. This cannot be received otherwise than with great satisfaction by all these pensioners.
  When I read the Bill for the first time I was concerned whether all classes of pensioners drawing pensions from India were covered. In spite of what has been said by the Minister, I am bound to say that I am still a little anxious. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to:
  "… the pensions of persons who served the Crown …"
  That is a technical expression. The Minister has told us something of which I was not at all sure when I first read the Bill, that the non-Secretary of State services as well as the Secretary of State services are covered. That will relieve a great deal of anxiety among those who were members of the non-Secretary of State services and drawing pensions from India. Even so, do these two expressions, the Secretary of State services and the non-Secretary of State services, cover everyone? Is there not a possibility that there are still some categories drawing pensions from India who do not come within one class or the other?
  There were persons whom all of us back from India regarded as protegés of the first Lord Wavell, who did his best to try to look after the financial interests of a number of persons in subsidiary services—persons in local authority services, services of corporations, services of railways and various other categories who did not come under the original arrangement made before the separation in 1947. I should like to hear a statement, either now or later, making it quite clear whether they are in the categories of pensions derived from India payable to persons in this country who served in India other than in purely civil employment, not covered by this Bill.
  There is another point to which I want to refer. Those of us who have taken some interest in Indian affairs know that there is dispute even now in certain cases where the right to the pension or the quantum of the pension has not yet been agreed either by the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan, or the Government of Burma, although I have never had a Burmese case myself. I am wondering whether it is possible for Her
  2288
  Majesty's Government to take over, deal with and settle these disputes.
  I am rather afraid, when looking at certain clauses in the letters, that it is contemplated that some of those concerned may still have to bring proceedings in India or Pakistan, which I think would be extremely regrettable. If it is possible to make an absolutely clean sweep of all the difficulties now, surely this is the time to do it. If there have been any difficulties between the Governments over the payments of these pensions, I would urge most strongly that we should do everything we can to clear up all these matters at the present time. If Her Majesty's Government could see their way to taking over any disputed cases and dealing with them directly, I think that would be of very great advantage.
  I was also anxious about those who were drawing pensions from India and who were not resident in this country. At first sight, they did not appear to come within the provisions of the Bill. I gathered, however, from the Minister that, although it may be necessary for a short period for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to charge these pensions, as from 1stApril, with Income Tax, his statement gives some assurance to these pensioners that that position will not last for long.
  I think it is desirable that all the anxieties of this fairly large class of pensioners should be removed once and for all. I must say, speaking with diffidence and care, that this Bill comes at a time when some of us are very glad to see these arrangements brought to completion, because we have been compelled to regard with considerable apprehension and anxiety some of the proposed legislation, including, perhaps, changes in the constitution of India, which are being very seriously considered there, and which, to our minds, appear, at first sight, to be whittling down and lessening the protection of private property in India.
  It is, therefore, a great thing that the pensioners who draw their pensions from India should have, as I believe that they now have, a first and primary liability on Her Majesty's Government for their pensions. I congratulate the Government and members of preceding Governments,

  2289
  who initiated the original talks, because I well know how difficult and prolonged they have been, on the completion of this arrangement, and I hope that before very long arrangements with Pakistan will also be completed.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Dugdale: This is one of those pleasant occasions when there is no controversy whatever between the two sides of the House. It also seems to me to be an occasion—and I was very glad that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the Under-Secretary of State used it—to pay tribute to the men whom we are discussing today—the men who have done such very fine work in the past for India.

  There have been many civilisations in India and they have given many different gifts to her. Some of them have given gifts of stone for great buildings. I do not think that any of our gifts can be compared in that respect to the gifts of past civilisations to India. We cannot compare, for instance, the odd little parish churches scattered about India with the magnificence of the great mosques which we see as a result of the Mogul civilisation. That is not our memorial.
  Our memorial is something very different. It is the construction of a great system of law and order which has given to India something which she did not possess before we went there. In the construction of this great system, the men whom we are discussing today have played a notable part. It is not, I think, always realised—although I am sure everyone here realises it—that during those years when the Government of India was being carried on by us 800 British civil servants were looking after the vast number of 200 million people.
  Sir P. Spens: Four hundred million people.
  Mr. Dugdale: Statistics are a little difficult to check up, and the population statistics of India are not, perhaps, quite so accurate as they are in this country. At any rate, these hundreds of millions of people were looked after, as regards their civil service, by 800 British people, and the Indians working with them.
  It is a wonderful tribute to think that 800 people could have done what they
  2290
  did in building up this great system of law and order which has done so much for India. I think that those who are sitting in retirement now, when they hear of the congratulations of the Under-Secretary of State and others of us in this House, may feel a little less depressed than they might otherwise have done. Let us tell them that their work was not in vain and that they performed a notable service for India.
  I would say, in conclusion, that there are now other territories of Her Majesty, which may be gradually passing into freedom, which have their civil service—their colonial civil service. I hope that the work being done there will be appreciated, as the work of the Indian Civil Service has been appreciated. I am glad that it has been appreciated not only by Englishmen but also by Indians and Pakistanis. I had occasion two or three years ago to go to the Civil Service School in Lahore, where I saw Pakistanis being taught by British civil servants so that the work might be carried on as it had been in the past. That I think, is the best form of appreciation that can be given to them. I hope that when other territories become self-governing they will show the same appreciation by carrying on the best traditions of the Colonial Service in the way that the people of India are carrying on the best traditions of the Indian Civil Service.
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: I want briefly to add my congratulations to those which have been extended to the Parliamentary Secretary and to right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the part which they have taken in bringing this Bill before the House. I am quite sure that it is a most useful contribution to the feeling of security of the pensioners concerned. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of India and Pakistan all want to see added security for those people.
  I should like, however, to make a few points concerning the Bill. I understand that the proposals are purely a paper transaction. For myself, I should rather like to see a fund set up whereby it would not be impossible to foresee some added material advantage to the pensioners. I know that my hon. Friend will not be able to reply to the point tonight, but I hope that it will receive the careful

  2291
  attention of the Treasury. Even if that is not possible, I should like to see an estimate made now of the amounts expected to be paid out year by year, and, in so far as those amounts actually paid out fall short of such an estimate, the pensioners themselves be given the advantage of the balance in hand.
  We in this House have to face the admittedly very difficult circumstances of 1947. One of the legacies left was a considerable feeling of bitter disappointment among those people that their claim, which was based upon a magnificent and a quite unchallenged record of service, had been overlooked. I instance particularly the case of the Indian Government service—I am not referring for the moment to the Indian Civil Service itself, but to those allied services, forestry, railways, agriculture, education, and the rest.
  The pension was fixed as long ago as 1855 at the rate of £500 a year. It is really true to say that that rate, which was for twenty-five years' service, has not been materially altered or increased in a hundred years. That fact alone gives rise to a feeling of very considerable dissatisfaction among the 23,000 or so who are affected. They feel that they are paying the penalty for their loyalty and restraint in that, before the outbreak of war, they did not, for fear of embarrassing the Government, press what they nevertheless felt to be a most reasonable demand.
  We must bear in mind that they are a small and dwindling body of people who will never be added to. They are men who undertook to serve their country and India in an alien climate, facing many severe and personal problems as a result. They were necessarily exposed to the rigours of a climate much less kind than our own. They suffered a good deal from enforced separation from their families. The burden of educating children was often a very much heavier one than for those who were at home. Finally, there was the fact that, when they came to retire, they were faced with the very considerable expense of setting up home in this country for the first time.
  I think that these and other considerations should lead all of us, and particularly Her Majesty's Government, to a fresh and most considerate re-examination
  2292
  of the problem of these people. Paying tribute, as we do, to their amazing record, which is so willingly acknowledged by all those most competent to speak in India and Pakistan, I think that this is an astonishing record of service by a comparatively small body of men to this subcontinent, a record of immense achievement both in development and in administration, absolutely untarnished by any corruption, and which had as its main characteristic the absence of selfishness and a desire to serve.
  It is with these few words that I very strongly urge upon Her Majesty's Government the real need to look again at the case of this small number of people whose record in service has won immense laurels throughout the world for the name and reputation of their country.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker:With the permission of the House, I will answer very briefly the one or two points which have been made. I thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have welcomed the Bill, including the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who spoke for the Opposition, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who raised this point about the future responsibility for these pensions.
  As I said in the course of my earlier remarks, the award of all those benefits which have already been granted, and the future payment of the pensions, will, of course, become the full statutory responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, and, therefore, will not remain in any way the obligation of the Government of India. On the other hand, the saving of £88 million will be offset against it.
  Another point was raised by the right hon. Member for Smethwick. He implied that it might now be easier to pay increases. I would not like to give to the House a feeling that there was any suggestion in the Bill which would commit any future Government to give increases in pensions. We cannot, of course, commit successive Governments, either from the other side of the House or this. This is, as it were, a piece of machinery to improve the existing arrangements, the responsibility for which will be handed over on 1st April from the Government of India to Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I was only referring to increases paid to similar sorts of pensioners in this country—the extension of such increases to these people. I did not mean special increases which would be their own exclusive privilege. I take it that that is what the hon. Gentleman also means.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think so, but we should like to look at that when it is raised, probably in Committee.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South raised the question of who are covered by the Bill. The only persons excluded are the pensioners of the former princely States who may be some of the individuals of whom he is thinking. Also, of course, the employees of municipalities, and so on. The Bill covers pensioners of Central and Provincial Governments, including State railway employees.
  I have here a list of the people: there are about five pages covering the various categories of pensioners included. It makes fascinating reading, although some categories, I understand, have only one pensioner remaining. These of course, have been included, and the Bill itself sets out those included. If there are any cases which my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind, I hope that he will raise them with me.
  I also welcome what the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dug-dale) said about this great service, and I am sure that his remarks, as well as those of other hon. Gentlemen, will be welcomed by those in India and by these pensioners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has taken a particular interest in these pension cases and these pensioners, as have a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We sympathise with the remarks he made about their retired years. I tried to pay a tribute to what they have done, and I hope that they will find a little consolation in the fact and the knowledge that their work, and how it has been carried on, have been so well appreciated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to arrangements as to pensions and connected matters made or to be made between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan, and to amend the law in relation to certain pensions and other benefits arising out of service in or connected with India, Pakistan or Burma, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any moneys required by the Secretary of State for discharging his functions under the said Act of the present Session in relation to any such arrangements (whether for providing pensions or benefits or for his administrative expenses);

  (b) of any moneys otherwise payable by virtue of any such arrangements by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (other than moneys which, by virtue of the National Loans Act, 1939, fall to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund);

  (c) of any moneys required to make good income tax for which relief has not other wise been given which is deducted under the law of India or the law of Burma from any such pensions as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session;

  (d) of any increase of any pension and any increase in the administrative expenses of any Minister attributable to the application or extended application, with or without adaptation or modification, of any provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 and 1947, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1954, or the Superannuation Act, 1949, to such pensions or persons as may be specified in the said Act of the present Session,

  and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Consolidated Fund, or into the Exchequer, of any moneys falling to be paid therefrom or thereto by reason of the application of sections six and eight of the Pensions Commutation Act, 1871, to pensions commutations arising by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I think that I am right in saying that an Isle of Man (Customs) Bill has been introduced into this House every year since 1898, and upon frequent occasions before that date. This one has the distinction of being different from any of its predecessors, and I hope that that at least may be accounted unto me for righteousness.
  The Isle of Man has its own Customs tariff, but the tariff itself is contained in Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is a situation which might seem liable to the reproach of being taxation without representation, but the normal course is that Tynwald first passes resolutions concerning the island's tariff and then this Parliament validates them by legislation.
  Resolutions having temporary validity are passed when necessary by Tynwald to give immediate effect in the island to changes in duties corresponding to changes announced in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. It is also the practice of Tynwald to pass resolutions renewing the annual duties for a year at a time, from August of one year to August of the next. That is why an annual Isle of Man (Customs) Bill is introduced into this House each summer and has to be passed into law before we rise for the Summer Recess.
  The islanders for a long time have wanted their de facto right to fix their own Customs duties recognised, by Tynwald being given power to legislate upon them with no intervention at all by Parliament, the Treasury or anyone else. They also have other desires—not connected with Customs matters—upon which, as the House knows, negotiations have been in progress for some time. Full agreement upon all those other matters has not yet been reached, but with regard to Customs duties it has been agreed that we can move a stage forward towards meeting them. Hence the presentation of this Bill.
  2296
  We could have waited and kept this back until a general and entire settlement had been reached, but we are anxious to go forward step by step rather than to stand still. The Government therefore recommend that this new step be taken. The main purpose of the Bill, which is contained in Clause 1, is to provide that henceforward a resolution of Tynwald upon Customs duties can be validated by Order in Council. It will then have full statutory authority. The whole of the island's tariff will no longer be contained in Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament; it will come to be contained in Tynwald resolutions confirmed by Order in Council. Hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate the satisfaction that that will rightly give to the island's pride.
  Clause 2 deals with a separate matter, which is also based upon agreement between our Government and that of the island authorities. Under the Isle of Man Customs, Harbours and Public Purposes Act, 1866, a payment of £10,000 a year has to be made by the island, out of Customs revenue, to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. In 1949 an agreement was reached that for five years from 1950 this contribution should not be one of £10,000, but should be fixed upon a new formula which recognises the growth of Customs revenue. Tynwald has so resolved, but a Tynwald resolution cannot over-ride an Act of Parliament. The 1866 Act is, therefore, still binding. That Act provides for the payment of £10,000 a year—no more and no less. So, since 1950, in addition to paying over its £10,000 a year, the island has put the rest of its agreed contribution into a suspense account.
  Clause 2 will, therefore, amend the 1866 Act, to make it clear that it is possible for this extra sum—or, indeed, any other extra sum—to be paid over to us. The House will be interested to know that at the end of the last financial year—31st March, 1954—the amount payable to us was about £300,000. It will, of course, be more now because nearly a whole year has since passed. I hope that the House will raise no objection to our receiving this money; equally, I feel sure that the House will wish to express its appreciation to the island.
  I have tried to be as brief and as clear as possible. The Bill is a practical measure of advance. I understand that

  2297
  the island authorities favour, in principle, what the Bill seeks to do. In case any hon. Member thinks that Parliament is being asked to give up anything which it ought to retain, let me assure the House that nothing in the Bill derogates from the existing right of Parliament to pass legislation upon matters affecting the Isle of Man, including the imposition of Customs duties in the island. The rights of Parliament are preserved, and, at the same time, the Bill is welcome to the island. As a sensible step forward, I commend it likewise to the House.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not intend at this stage to go into the details contained in the two Clauses to which the hon. Member has referred. We shall come back to them when we reach the Committee stage, when it may well be that my hon. Friends will wish to raise points of interest.
  It will be a matter for regret to some hon. Members that Isle of Man (Customs) Bills are now to cease. We have become used to having one every year. These Bills have rarely aroused strong feeling. Occasionally we have had a strenuous debate, but normally they have gone through in a calm atmosphere. Some of us regret that one more landmark to which we have become accustomed will disappear.
  I understand that the passage of the Bill will cause great satisfaction to the people of the Isle of Man. The Financial Secretary has told us that they are in agreement with what is now proposed. We do not oppose the Second Reading, but we reserve our right to raise points in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Committee upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS)
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session concerning customs duties in the Isle of Man, it is expedient to authorise provisions with respect to the payment into the Exchequer of any of the proceeds of such duties.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  To report Resolution and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Report to be received upon Monday next; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Clause 1.—(WORKS TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "book" to insert "newspaper."
  It is in some ways unfortunate, though inevitable, that this is the first Amendment we are considering. The reason is that most of the Amendments which I have down and which I hope we shall discuss later are designed to limit the operation of the Bill, whereas, on the face of it, this Amendment seems to extend it. I have put the Amendment down to give the Bill some sort of approach to logical form and to give the Government, through the Attorney-General or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, an opportunity of explaining why they have chosen the rather mystifying form in which the Bill is drafted.
  The effect of the Amendment would be that Clause 1, instead of reading at the beginning
  "This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures,"
  would read, "This Act applies to any book, newspaper, magazine" etc.

  2299
  It is not clear why, if they are convinced that it is necessary to bring forward a Bill at the present time and in the present form, the Government should specifically exclude its application to newspapers, I am very doubtful of the value and effect of the Bill. Certain newspapers, particularly Sunday newspapers, give more and more space to stories told in pictures. It will not be denied that these stories often portray, to use the words of the Bill, incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature. Sometimes they are pictures of crime.
  I am most careful about imposing any sort of censorship on the Press. I take the view—and this is why I am doubtful about the Bill—that one ought to be careful about imposing any sort of censorship. It is not clear why we should include magazines and books within the scope of the Bill and, in advance, give specific immunity to newspapers. In the course of a very powerful speech on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) argued with some effect that some of the most undesirable writing at the present time takes place in newspapers. I do not say that this Amendment is one of our major Amendments, but I would like the Government to tell us why they have chosen to give complete immunity to newspapers and not to magazines and other publications.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: There is great logic in the proposal made in the Amendment. If the Government are to make fools of themselves, they may as well do it in wholehearted fashion. If a line is to be drawn, there is no logical reason why it should be drawn in such a way as to make newspapers immune and to put into jeopardy other publications which we have been discussing. We had a lengthy debate on the Second Reading in an attempt to discover from the Government how they were going to draw lines.
  It might be argued that some newspapers have been making a big effort to clean themselves up in recent years. A campaign was recently conducted, or was conducted at any rate a few years ago, by Lord Kemsley, in the name of what he described as "cleaner journalism." Space was taken in the "Daily Graphic" and "Sunday Graphic" advertising
  2300
  Kemsley papers as those which published all the news and pictures fit to print. Just before the war a large campaign was run on those lines, and it was conducted and kept going till, I think, 1953, when an advertisement appeared in the "Empire News"—which comes from Kemsley. It said:
  "The Bishop of St. Albans, writing in his diocesan leaflet, says:
  'We have a wide choice of Sunday papers The best of them are really good and hardly any more expensive than the trashy section. In choosing a paper we must remember that it is a choice for the family.
  'The children will read the papers we bring into the house, and we must ask ourselves what is to be the effect on them. Some people say they buy their Sunday papers just for the pictures, but what message are the pictures bringing their children? What standard are they setting before us?"
  This appeared in the "Empire News" only a year or so ago.
  The astonishing fact about the situation is, as anyone will agree who has seen the "Empire News" in recent weeks, that the "Empire News" is now the most pornographic newspaper in this country.
  The House was asked during the Second Reading who would carry off the competition if we had to judge which was the most pornographic newspaper in the country. At that time I made an unwitting error. I gave the crown to Lord Rothermere, but having had copies of the "Empire News" brought to my attention since then, I must say that Lord Kemsley carries off the crown with hardly any competition at all. The "Empire News" is a product much worse than anything produced by Lord Rothermere, but it is not only in the "Empire News" that that has happened.
  During the Second Reading debate many Members flaunted horror comics. I know that is not an agreeable practice, but here I have the advertisement of the "Daily Record":
  "Scotland's daily newspaper. Exclusive. Women and crime. Frank revelations."
  and I thought that this pictorial revelation might come under the Bill. This paper is produced by Lord Kemsley, who for many years ran a campaign saying that he was trying to clean up the newspapers. We know there is great hypocrisy about the way in which the newspapers say they are cleaning themselves up, and I think Lord Kemsley

  2301
  owes a statement to the British public. There are newspapers in South Wales and other parts of the country owned by him. On the front of them we are told "A Kemsley newspaper. "The country has a right to know from Lord Kemsley whether, in fact, he agrees with all that is being done in the Kemsley papers in Scotland and all that is being done in the "Empire News" which, as I think everyone who has seen it would agree, is, without question, the most pornographic newspaper in the country.
  It may be asked, as the Amendment suggests, why not bring newspapers within the scope of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I am against this legislation altogether. I do not think that the problem can be dealt with by legislation. This Bill is very dangerous in many of its other Clauses, and we have not yet been told whether we are to have any effective Amendments in regard to them. It would therefore be highly dangerous for us to widen the scope of the Bill at the very beginning, when the object of most of us who are critical of the Bill is so to narrow it that it deals with horror comics but leaves no risk of injury to free expression of opinion. If we start by widening the scope of the Bill, we shall widen its dangers.
  I am, therefore, very doubtful about this Amendment. Indeed, despite its obvious logic, I would oppose it. I believe that it is necessary that public men and this House of Commons should state quite clearly what they think about this debasing form of journalism which is perpetrated all over the country, and particularly in Scotland. But the way to do that is to make plain to those who are dealing in this traffic, this pornography—and doing it purely as a commercial proposition—just what decent people think about it.
  The way to show what we think is not by legislation which can be used against the just and the unjust, and which can be twisted, as previously legislation dealing with obscenity was twisted, to deal with publishers engaging in a perfectly legitimate trade. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment to a Division. I believe that, if accepted, it would widen the scope of a Bill which we have yet to discuss and before we know whether the dangerous parts of it are to be withdrawn by the Government.
  Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. I have no objection to the poster produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), but I should like your guidance, Sir Charles. When last a poster was produced in this Chamber it was I who produced it. It made a perfectly innocent offer of a reward of £2,000 to anyone who could trace the whereabouts of Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. It was immediately ruled to be out of order. The poster now produced by my hon. Friend is pornographic and nothing else. Am I to understand that the only type of posters that are in order are pornographic ones?
  Mr. R.T. Paget: Further to that point of order. Is not the test really that anything may be in order which is revelant to a debate? Here we are considering pornographic publications, and I should have thought that any display of pornography might be in order and relevant.
  The Chairman: This is, of course, a debating Chamber, but we do bring in samples. I do not see anything wrong in what was done.
  Mr. Rankin: It was, then, completely wrong to rule me out of order on that former occasion when I produced a poster dealing with another matter which at least was much cleaner than this?
  The Chairman: I have no recollection of the occasion. Did I give the ruling?
  Mr. Rankin: No, Sir Charles.
  Mr. Ede: There is obviously a difference of opinion about the suitability of this Amendment between my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). Although during the Second Reading debate they seemed to be driving in double harness, I understand that on this matter they now desire to proceed in different directions.
  I do not think that the question of pornography is other than incidental to the Bill. Its main aim is not at pornography but at something quite separate. Anyone knows that to a large number of the children whom we hope to protect by this Bill pornography has no interest at all. Even the amorous scenes in the cinema, generally speaking,

  2303
  only bore that section of the child community. Perhaps it is a very good thing that that should be so.
  I merely wish on this Amendment to allude to something said by both my hon. Friends. Generally speaking, we on this side desire to see the Bill become law. That is not to say that we think that it is perfect or that there are sufficient safeguards already in it, but as far as concerns the type of publication at which it is directed—a very limited and notorious type of publication—we think that steps should betaken to prevent publication. That is not expressing any view at the moment about what adults may be expected to read and to enjoy. I am a quite unashamed follower of John Milton in his expressions in the Areopagetica, which contains the greatest expressions on civil liberty which have ever been addressed to this House. That was in the year of Master Moor.
  I am not very much concerned, therefore, about this Amendment. I should, however, like an assurance from the Government that the Bill is drafted sufficiently strongly to catch a document that might contain all the matter now to be found in one of those books which were circulated during the Second Reading but published in newspaper form in an effort to escape the penalties and prohibitions provided in the Bill. I have no other observations to offer on the Amendment, but I hope I have made sufficiently plain the general view of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side with regard to the main purpose of the Bill.
  5.0 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller):I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary will be grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for his observations and for his indication about the approach of the party opposite to this Bill. For my part, I realise that to frame a Bill of this character is a difficult operation; one needs to make it as precise as possible to deal with a particular evil, and it is not easy to achieve that object, but of course we will carefully consider the suggestions which have been put forward.
  The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) indicated that this was one of the few Amendments in his name
  2304
  which would extend the operation of this Bill. In one way, of course, it would if accepted. The right hon. Member for South Shields did not want the Bill extended in its operation but felt that the omission of any reference to "newspaper" might leave a loophole for escape in connection with horror comics. I want to answer both those lines of argument.
  I would say, first of all, to the hon. Member for Stechford that the object of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman agreed, is to deal with one evil of a particular character. It is not the object of the Bill to interfere in any way with the liberty of the Press. The addition of this word as proposed by the Amendment would, in fact, make it appear at least as if the Bill were intended to operate in some way to affect the liberty of the Press.
  The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was whether, under the Clause as it now stands, someone who wanted to make money by publishing horror comics could avoid the operation of this Bill by publishing in the form of a newspaper.
  Mr. W.A. Wilkins: Or as an inset.
  The Attorney-General: The answer is, no. A horror comic as defined by this Bill could not amount to a newspaper. As the Committee will see, this Clause is very carefully drawn. It says:
  "… work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  It does not say, "work which consists of stories wholly or mainly told in pictures. "That is a very important point which seems to have been missed in some of the comments made on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  For that reason, I say that it would be most improbable—indeed, one would think impossible—to publish a work wholly or mainly consisting of stories told in pictures which could ever amount to a newspaper.
  Mr. Paget: The "Daily Mirror" has done it.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: It is not a newspaper.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend says that it is-not a newspaper. We had better not embark on that field. I would

  2305
  not go so far as to say that the "Daily Mirror" is a horror comic—if it is a horror comic at all—at which this Bill is directed.
  The hon. Member for Stechford said that this is a narrow Amendment and is not as important as some which will be moved later. We are not able to accept it for the reasons I have indicated. I think the Bill is adequate in its present form to stop evasion of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The addition of this word proposed in the Amendment would at least make it appear as if the Bill were intended to affect the liberty of the Press, and of course there is no such intention. Therefore, I do not think that the amendment of the Bill in this way is necessary.
  It is perhaps a little unfortunate that we are dealing with this narrow Amendment first, because there are Amendments later on the Order Paper which might, and probably would, affect the Committee's consideration of some of the earlier Amendments. I do not know whether it would be in order for me now or perhaps on the next Amendment to indicate the Government's attitude to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stechford, in Clause 2, page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
  (2) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not, in England or Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General.
  I can indicate that when we come to that Amendment the Government will be prepared to accept it. I mention that now because it seems to me that it would be convenient to the Committee to know that, since it has a bearing on some of the other Amendments.
  I should like to make this general observation. One might ask why some such provision was not in the Bill originally. I take the view—and I am sure my predecessors in office also took this view—that one must be very careful indeed about inserting provisions of that kind in our criminal legislation, because it is a longstanding tradition in England that except in particular instances any individual can institute a prosecution without securing someone else's assent. Therefore, one feels that a strong case has always to be made out for the insertion in a Bill of a provision of this
  2306
  character and that it should not frequently be introduced.
  There is also another factor which ought to be borne in mind when considering whether it should be introduced, and it is this. When the Attorney-General gives his consent, the fact that he has given his consent has to be proved in the course of the proceedings, and so it becomes known to the bench, perhaps in some remote part of the country, that that case has been considered by the Attorney-General of the day and that it is thought to be a proper one to be the subject of a prosecution.
  That might conceivably—I hope it does not—affect one's attitude towards that case. But having listened to the views expressed on this point on Second Reading, and bearing in mind the difficulties that exist in defining precisely the horror comic, we feel that in this instance there is indeed a proper case for accepting that Amendment when it is moved, so inserting in this Bill a further safeguard to secure that prosecutions are not launched against publications of a character which do not really come within the evil aimed at.
  I hope I have not exceeded the bounds of order in making those few remarks. I feel that perhaps in saying that at this stage the progress of the Bill may be expedited and that it may not be necessary to spend so long on the later Amendments. At any rate, I thought it only right that the Committee should know at the outset the Government's attitude to that Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I want to make a comment on what the Attorney-General said. He used the phrase "liberty of the Press" as if one distinguishes newspapers from other publications. The great early battles for the liberty of the Press were fought about pamphlets and books and not about newspapers, and the liberty of the Press means the liberty of the subject to be able to make his views known on any subject on which he feels that he has a call to address the public. I should not like it to be thought that we accepted the phrase "liberty of the Press" as applying only to newspapers. It applies to all sorts of printed publications.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I did not intend to speak on this Amendment but intended to leave it to those who would raise different kinds of problems; but I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept the word "newspaper." It seems to me that their decision leaves the situation wide open.
  The justification for the inclusion of the word "newspaper" was made more by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot) than by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). It seemed to me that he showed quite clearly that there were newspapers which did all the things which the Bill is designed to limit and probably to prevent.
  I do not propose to mention these newspapers by name, but most of the mischief done in newspapers in this respect is done not in pictures but in the articles and the news which they accumulate. I cannot agree that youths are prevented from seeing newspapers. Wise parents today encourage children to read—they certainly want them to read the newspapers—and I think it would be wrong if newspapers were not included within these provisions.
  I regret that the Attorney-General has indicated that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment. If they do not accept it, then newspapers will not be included in these provisions. I hope the Government will have second thoughts on the matter, because at present they are leaving the situation wide open. Do we intend to remedy the situation about which there has been a public outcry for the past year? If we do, then I am sure that when we have completed our deliberations we shall have cause to regret the omission of newspapers from these provisions.
  Mr. Wilkins: I hope the Attorney-General will not feel that we are merely trying to be awkward or "cussed" about the Amendment. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I regard it as a rather important Amendment.
  Some newspapers already publish children's editions at the week-end, and it may well be that it will become a growing tendency for the great national newspapers to publish these week-end editions specifically for children. I have also in
  2308
  mind that we might see in this country a practice which exists in America of children's pictorial insets into newspapers, which are used as a medium for telling stories by pictures.
  I am not suggesting that at present our national newspapers which publish these children's editions are in any way violating what we regard as the ordinary decencies of publication. Indeed, I think that they sometimes err in that direction more with adults than with children. We are to be able, more or less, to control what magazines and newspapers can publish. If the ordinary national papers transgress in a way which would be punished if it were done in books or magazines, then we should be stupid if we left ourselves in a position where we could take no action against those papers.
  I want to ask the Attorney-General whether the sort of things which I have mentioned—insets or week-end children's newspapers—would be covered by the words in line 5, "or other like work …"Would the Attorney-General be able to bring such instances as I have quoted within the ambit of those words in order to exercise control over those publications?
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the Attorney-General for having intervened so early in the debate on this important matter, but I am bound to say that from his point of view it might have been better for him to have waited a little longer, because he might then have discovered what the Amendment was about. From his speech, it seemed to be something which he had not then discovered.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was immensely struck by the idea put forward that one preserves the freedom of the Press by excluding newspapers from these provisions. Newspapers are the freedom of a small band of people who can afford the necessary half-a-dozen or so million pounds. The means of expression for which it is important to preserve freedom are the means of publication available to those ordinary citizens who have rather fewer millions—pamphlets, which I presume are covered by this subsection, and books. I have not yet discovered any conceivably logical reason, other than the

  2309
  power and influence of the Press in the Tory Party, for excluding one set of publications which make use of pictures for telling a story and which belong to rich men while including another set which is likely to belong to people less powerful.
  Let us see what this definition means. We have the phrase
  "other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  I raise the question of the "Daily Mirror." Let anybody look at the "Daily Mirror." I will deal with some others later. Hon. Members will find in the "Daily Mirror" about a page-and-a-half devoted to strip cartoons and nothing else. What do they do except tell a story in pictures? Hon. Members will find a large part of the rest of the paper consisting of pictures which are in no direct way connected with any article in the paper. They are simply pictures with a caption. Are they not pictures which tell a story? Do not the strip cartoons and the pictures with captions cover at least more than half of the "Daily Mirror"?
  I am not saying for a moment, when I speak of the "Daily Mirror," that it falls within this definition, but I say that it is at least arguable. We have heard the Attorney-General's view. Maybe we shall hear the Solicitor-General's view and learn whether he agrees with him. We then may hear whether the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) agrees with either of them, and possibly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—who is not in the Chamber—may not agree with any of them. Where this sort of general complexity arises, should we pass it away like this? I raised the question of the "Daily Mirror" not particularly because it is pornographic. In that field it may have done some pioneering work, but it has long ago been outstripped by the "Daily Sketch," and everybody has been left an "also-ran" by the "Empire News."
  Mr. Ede: Hardly "outstripped. "That is rather an unfortunate phrase.
  Mr. Paget: It was used deliberately—it was finally outstripped, I repeat, by the "Daily Sketch" and now, with newspapers like the "Empire News" and the Rothermere Sunday Press, it is a com-
  2310
  plete "also-ran." We are not discussing this matter particularly in terms either of its violence or pornography, but as to whether it falls within this definition. There are many other newspapers which today—it is becoming progressively more so—mainly consist of stories which are told by pictures. If we wish to exclude them, surely we should use some words which plainly do so. I see no conceivable reason why they should be excluded and if—I feel this is most doubtful policy—it is desirable to use legislative machinery in order to cut out stories of crimes, acts of violence and incidents which are repulsive or horrible from any publications, I find no good reason why it should not be used to cut it out from all of them.
  Finally, we were told—this seemed a most curious reason—that we should not persist with this Amendment because the Attorney-General is later going to agree to another Amendment which would make his consent necessary to prosecutions under this Clause.
  The Attorney-General:That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I indicated at the first opportunity, whilst trying to keep in order, the attitude of the Government towards that later Amendment because I thought it would be of assistance to the Committee to know it at the outset of its deliberations.
  Mr. Paget:I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking us to reject this Amendment and he then proceeded to tell us he was going to accept another Amendment. What the relevance of that was to this discussion if it was not a reason why we should reject this Amendment, I do not know. I certainly think it seems an extremely odd one, because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is trying to make the Measure rather fairer in that it should hit everybody concerned instead of only just the little man. Here we have something which is to restrict even further the people who actually are to be prosecuted. It would seem that the acceptance of the provision requiring the consent of the Attorney-General was a reason which made the acceptance of this Amendment all the more necessary.
  It may be said that we do not want gratuitous or fancy prosecutions brought against newspapers all the time, but if

  2311
  that is cut out, why on earth should we not have newspapers in? We have enough experience of the Press to know that it will do absolutely anything which sells newspapers. It will publish absolutely anything that sells newspapers. If we cut out the horror comic and there is a demand for it, the ethics of the Press will not prevent the Press from printing that kind of thing. We know very well that children go straight to the strip cartoon pages. If we are to deal with this matter at all, why should we not deal with the strip cartoon in the newspaper? If those cartoons go in for violence, sex, brutality, and crime, why should we not deal with them? In order to prevent fatuous, vexatious prosecutions, we have the Amendment which is promised later. Surely the Attorney-General can reconsider this question and try to make this Bill a rather better one?
  Mr. W.R. Rees-Davies: When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I was attracted to it, because, in principle, I am sure the Committee would not want to draw a distinction between the liberty of the Press and the liberty of a publisher. What is wrong for an author or a publisher must be equally wrong for a newspaper.
  As I understood the observations of the Attorney-General, he certainly did not dissent from that view and would not for a moment distinguish between the way in which the liberty of an author and the liberty of the Press are to be treated. With a keen appreciation of the Bill, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed the moral when he said that the Bill deals entirely with what is known as the horror comic and not with what is known as pornography. Many of us in this Committee have seen horror comics, and we appreciate that the horror comic is quite separate and distinct from the class of pornography to which many hon. Members have referred. I have not seen indications that the horror comic as such—which should be prevented—is to be found in the newspapers of today. The horror comic which is being disseminated is frequently disseminated in secret and not in public. There are no means of preventing the increase of the horror comic in the case of the ordinary publisher without legislation, whereas
  2312
  there is the Press Council in the case of the newspaper.
  I agree with the Amendment in the name of many hon. Members opposite, and also hon. Members on this side, which calls for a time-limit on this Bill. I do not think it necessary for the Bill to go further than the narrowest of limits. I think the Government are quite right here, on careful consideration, not to include the newspapers because, in fact, it is not necessary to include newspapers. If for one moment I thought that this was to be for the protection of the newspapers of this country as against the small publisher or printer, I would not support the Amendment under any circumstances.
  It was indeed unfortunate that we should have had a typical, unprincipled, erroneous and scurrilous speech by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr.Foot), who took this opportunity to attack, apparently, his pet enemy, Lord Kemsley. I thought the remarks the hon. Member made were wholly unjustified. It is quite wrong to try to use this Chamber deliberately—where one is privileged—for the purposes of attacking great newspapers of this country—or defending them. Therefore, to pick out, as he did, one newspaper proprietor by name, when in fact there are many other newspapers in this country which may also be at fault, was in my view entirely wrong. It was utterly irrelevant, and the issue to which the hon. Member referred—that of sex—is not even contained in this Bill.
  What we are dealing with is incitement and encouragement to crime arising out of the portrayal in pictures, or mainly in pictures, in these terms. Here is the definition, as I see it, of a horror comic: publications which unduly emphasise or glorify the commission of crimes or acts of violence or cruelty or instances of a sadistic, perverted, wanton or unashamed form, for its own sake. That, I think, is a fairly comprehensive definition.
  5.30 p.m.
  The upshot of the argument of the hon. Member for Devonport was the glorification of sex. He produced a poster illustrating a woman looking like a prostitute. It is not that with which we are dealing today, and I hope we shall continue along more moderate lines to try to arrive at a fair conclusion.
  Mr. Foot: I would point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment refers to newspapers. Surely, therefore, I was entitled to discuss newspapers, since the Amendment refers to them? If the hon. Gentleman likes to defend the newspaper he referred to, well and good, but certainly I am entitled to attack newspapers, and I do not think that any other hon. Member of the Committee would wish to say a word for the "Empire News."
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Of course the hon. Member was entitled to discuss newspapers. What he did not mention in his speech was the term "horror comic" or the question of horror comics. What he dealt with exclusively was the question of sex, and in dealing with sex in the newspapers he very carefully chose one Conservative newspaper proprietor for criticism and deliberately left out every other newspaper and proprietor, including the "Daily Mirror" and others concerned.
  Mr. Foot:What the hon. Member has said is quite untrue. I went out of my way to say that on Second Reading I had done an injustice, I now thought, to Lord Rothermere by giving him the crown for the competition in pornography. I said that, having now had the "Empire News" brought to my attention, I had to confess that I had done him an injustice. Obviously Lord Kemsley was the man in question. Therefore, I mentioned two proprietors. I could have mentioned some others, but I mentioned the worst examples.
  Mr. Rankin:When my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) moved the Amendment he said that it was of a minor nature. I think that it has assumed a significance, since he moved it, that perhaps he had not anticipated. The feeling has been expressed, on this side of the Committee at least, that we do not want to do anything that would limit the freedom of the Press. In spite of his strictures of certain Press barons, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would disagree with that point of view.
  However, while we may not want to curtail the liberty of the Press by introducing the word "newspaper" into the Clause, there is an aspect of the matter which so far has not been touched on, and that is that the newspapers have put
  2314
  themselves within the scope of the Bill, because a number of newspapers today are publishing newspapers for children. The "Junior Daily Express" and the "Junior Mirror" are samples of newspapers that are now being published for children.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Is my hon. Friend really telling us that there is a "Junior Mirror"? Is he really telling us there is something more junior than the "Mirror"?
  Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend can develop that argument in his own time, not in mine.
  It is a fact to be remembered that the newspapers themselves have projected themselves into the Bill, whether we like it or not. Therefore, I submit that if we leave the word "newspaper" out of the Clause we shall confer on the newspapers, at least at a certain level, a freedom—
  Mr. Foot: A licence.
  Mr. Rankin:—a licence to be outwith the principle we want to establish. We are trying to limit the horror comic, and we are trying to bring it under control and to keep it away from children, but if there is not a very exact definition, a more exact definition than we have yet had from the Attorney-General, of what publication we have in mind we shall at the same time confer on newspapers, through their junior editions, a freedom or licence which we are seeking, in the interests of the children, to withdraw from other publications. That is a point about which, I hope, the Attorney-General will have something to say.
  Mr. Ede:I want to emphasise a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). The phrase in the Clause is:
  "book, magazine or other like work …"
  As I understand it, a book is a publication that, generally speaking, is either stitched or bound. I think that a magazine, generally speaking, is a work that is stitched. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South mentioned the case of an inset in a newspaper. We all know the sort of thing.
  For instance, from time to time we get in "The Times" an engineering supplement, and there is an annual account that

  2315
  appears on 1st January of what has been happening in the preceding year. It is not stitched. That is the kind of thing to which my hon. Friend alluded. That seems to me to be one way in which the Bill could be evaded, by having some kind of pictures and stories put on to paper that is not stitched and which is sold inside a newspaper, or as a junior newspaper. I should like to be quite certain that that kind of thing is covered by the Clause.
  We know that the supply of these books in this country has temporarily ceased, but we also know that at least one of the proprietors has said that if the Bill does not go through he will resume publication. He may be employing some lawyer—not an hon. and learned Member of this Committee, but somebody outside—to try to find a way round the legislation. I am quite sure that nearly every Member of the Committee is concerned that by no subterfuge shall these people be able to carry on a trade which we regard as morally harmful to the youth of the nation. I should like the Attorney-General to pay attention to that point.
  The Attorney-General:Of course one pays attention to everything the right hon. Gentleman says, and in response to him, and in response to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), I should say that whether a production—to use a colourless word—comes within the description of
  '… book, magazine or other like work …"will be a question of fact which will ultimately fall for decision by the court.
  I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that the question whether something constituted a book or not depended on how the leaves were attached together. I will certainly consider whether, for instance, by the insertion of the word "pamphlet" or "circular" the definition in line 5 of the Bill could be expanded, without at the same time making the character of the Bill so extensive that something other than the horror comic could be brought within its scope, because that is not what one wants to do. I can assure the right hon. Member for South Shields that we shall give consideration to his suggestion.
  The Amendment deals solely with the question whether the word "newspaper"
  2316
  should be inserted. It was for that reason that I made some reference to the liberty of the Press. I, of course, share the views which have been expressed about the liberty of the small publisher to print what is proper. I was not seeking to draw any distinction, nor is there one to be drawn, between the big publisher and a little publisher, a big newspaper and a little newspaper, the big man and the little man, but I was dealing with newspapers in speaking to the Amendment.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) seemed to make a rather slighting reference to the way in which his hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) moved the Amendment, in that he implied that one had not discovered from the way in which it was moved what the Amendment was about. I was sorry to hear that, because I thought that the hon. Member for Stechford had made it perfectly clear. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton seemed to express the view that the "Daily Mirror" clearly came within the scope of Clause 1.
  Mr. Paget: Not "clearly."
  The Attorney-General: It is for the hon. and learned Member to form his own view, but I would not go so far as to say that that newspaper consisted
  "wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—

  (a) the commission of crimes; or

  (b) acts of violence or cruelty; or

  (c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;

  in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person …"
  I really feel that I have now dealt as fully as I can with the points which have been raised on the Amendment. I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. and learned Member that he misrepresented my argument, because I was not arguing my case on the Amendment in relation to the acceptance or otherwise of another Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Stechford will now be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Rankin: What about the "junior" newspapers?
  Mr. Paget: I thought that I had made it reasonably clear that the Clause is in

  2317
  two parts, one describing the sort of publication and the other describing what is in the publication as defined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). As to the first part, that is, the words:
  "This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  I feel that it would be at least arguable that the "Daily Sketch" and "Daily Mirror" and various other newspapers are "other like work" consisting mainly of stories told in pictures.
  I did not consider that the newspapers to which I referred did deal mainly with the commission of crimes, or acts of violence or cruelty and so forth, but that surely is the irrelevant part here because, whether it be a book, a magazine or a newspaper, it does not come within the Clause unless the conditions (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled. What we are looking for is whether a newspaper which by definition does (a), (b) and (c) falls within the scope of the Clause or not.
  5.45 p.m.
  I think that the Attorney-General now agrees that the "Daily Mirror" and the "Daily Sketch" fall within the description. Therefore, if they comprise (a), (b) and (c) they fall within the Clause. If we are going to have the "Daily Mirror" and the "Daily Sketch" included, why should we not have other newspapers if they do likewise? That is what we are asking.
  I cannot understand why the Attorney-General is so stubborn about the Amendment. After all, he himself pointed out what everybody knows—and he seemed to think that it was a triumph and something which he had discovered—that if the stories do not portray the commission of crimes, or acts of violence or cruelty or incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature which would tend to corrupt a child or young person, the newspapers are all right. Why should they worry? Books and magazines are all right. Why not let them all stand on fair terms with each other, and let some of the Sunday newspapers see that they do not consist mainly of accounts of the commission of crimes, or acts of violence or cruelty, or incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature. Let us see if they do not. It may be that the courts would decide. Why should we keep them out?
  Mr. Hale: Those of us who have not been present at the Second Reading debate on a Bill are always in difficulty when speaking on an Amendment. Attention in this case must be directed to the insertion of the word "newspaper" and it would be out of order to deal with anything else, though I am by no means in favour of inserting anything at all. I do not like the Bill very much, apart from the good work it has done in improving Anglo-French relations. The first belly laugh heard since the war came from the Continent at the news that the British Government had produced, in the same week, a White Paper dealing with defence against the hydrogen bomb and a Bill to ban the horror comic.
  I apologise to the "Daily Mirror." I expressed astonishment just now at the existence of a "Junior Mirror," but I have since learned that there is a "Junior Sketch. "This must be the most astonishing feat since Rutherford split the atom. I tremble to think what may appear in some of these newspapers from time to time under the popular, large-circulation newspaper proprietors, with one or two honourable exceptions. Lord Beaver-brook is entitled to special exception in this matter. He has kept the "Express" free from pornography, even if the standard of accuracy is not always high.
  Let us consider what really has happened. There is a Sunday newspaper called the "News of the World." It is honoured by the regular writings of two hon. Members of this House. Everyone knows what that newspaper reports-buggery, sodomy, bestiality and rape. These are the special items on which reports are sent from all over the country. When I was a little country solicitor I never heard of the "News of the World" until some big salacious case cropped up, and out there would come the special reporters and interviewers and the photographers to take pictures on the doorstep. The paper has pandered to salacity for years.
  The former proprietor of the "News of the World," who, like all newspaper proprietors, finished up in another place, was on terms of intimacy with distinguished Ministers and indeed Prime Ministers and archbishops. He was often consulted and he exercised great political influence. Suppose we had an illustrated "News of the World." In view of the

  2319
  sales of horror comics none of us would say that there is no demand for an illustrated "News of the World." Is such a publication to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made reference to this subject when he spoke. The hon. Gentleman who criticised him was very unjust, and it seems to me that he has not read the speech made by my hon. Friend on Second Reading, because my hon. Friend did, in fact, refer in very great detail to a number of publications. There is the "Weekend Mail," which I see being read in railway carriages wherever I travel. The "Weekend Mail" was a technical paper until a few months ago, when someone swung it over to salacity.
  There is no question whatever as to what is the purpose of the "Weekend Mail." It is devoted to the modern cult of the mammary gland in every possible form or in every reasonably attractive shape. This is what distinguished men who rose as great men and substantial men are doing quite deliberately, and doing for money. If we are ever going to pass the Bill, I see no reason why these papers should be excepted.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Would the hon. Member agree that the insertion of the word "newspaper" will not prevent publication of cases heard in courts of law such as he has referred to?
  Mr. Hale: Of course, it depends on how they are treated.
  The hon. Member will remember that the "News of the World" used to thrive on divorce cases. Nothing was more attractive than a juicy divorce case. Then Parliament intervened and prevented the recording of the details of evidence in divorce actions, and, apart from one or two publicity-hunting judges, the facts now brought out are such that they do not provide enough to sell the "News of the World," so it has had to extend its sphere. But the hon. Gentleman said that this Bill had nothing to do with pornography. I accept at once that it is directed against sadism.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. Does he appreciate that it is a fact that there
  2320
  is not one word in this Bill which deals with sex—that it deals with cruelty and not with sex?
  Mr. Rankin: That is not the case at all.
  Mr. Hale:The hon. Gentleman is so inaccurate in what he says that I question whether he has read the Bill at all. Is rape a crime of violence? Does not rape come within the provisions of this Clause? Of course it does. A trial for rape could be deliberately presented in such a way as to stir up people to crime. The hon. Gentleman should read the Clause. I suspect that he has read it, but he does not understand it. For that I can willingly forgive him, because I do not think anyone can understand it.
  Words like "tend to corrupt" are so vague and so difficult to judge that different juries will come to different conclusions, so that we are embarking on the whole business again in another form, and the possibility of having prosecutions directed against the very people whom we do not want to touch. In point of fact, the wording of the Clause is such that a pamphlet on cruelty to children issued by the N.S.P.C.C. could quite easily come within the scope of the Clause. We talk about tending to corrupt children, but statistical analyses from the United States of America show that 80 per cent. of the readers of horror comics in that country are in the adult age group.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is not going to withdraw the Amendment. I cannot see why these gentlemen should be specially excepted. I see every reason why they should be specially brought in. I accept very much what fell from the lips of another hon. Member, that one just does not know what they are going to do and one does not know what attitude these papers will adopt when the horror comic has been wiped out and the desire for sadism remains an unsatisfied desire out of which they may be able to make money. The "Weekend Mail" is a classic example. "Reveille" is also a classic example. There is no question of what such papers stand for. Of course, they tend to corrupt morals. They are bought for that purpose, they are published for that purpose, and people who claim to be respectable cash in on this unhappy state of affairs.

  2321
  That, at the moment, is all I want to say, except for one general observation. Morals do alter a great deal, and anyone who talks about morals today should read the speech made in another place last week because it might make some people feel that even Christian values are altering, too. I am not sure whether in a hydrogen-bomb world we want to stop horror comics. I am not sure there will not be an increase in the demand for juvenile delinquents when we live in an age in which we contemplate the murder of 5 million or 6 million innocent people because we disagree with their rulers.
  I am not sure it will not be necessary to harden the youth of the country, stir them up, have a few extra juvenile delinquents with a tendency towards criminal propensity which could make it tolerable for men to live in the hydrogen-bomb age. The whole aspect of morals does alter. There were times when people were concerned about a single life, when in this House we talked about the execution of an innocent man and the miscarriage of justice. How can people talk like that in an age when we think about murdering 5 million people who have done nothing wrong?
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think the hon. Gentleman is now getting very far from the Amendment.
  Mr. Hale: I do not want to press the subject. I think I did make the point I was trying to make.
  What I would suggest is that an illustrated brochure on the effects of the bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or an illustrated brochure on the medical effects of the hydrogen bomb explosion in the Marshall Islands, might well come within the scope of this Clause, because I cannot think of anything more likely to corrupt the morals of the people than the Government White Paper on Defence, and if it were sufficiently illustrated it would tend to break down the whole morale of the people and introduce a new system of ethics and morals.
  That is all I desire to say at this stage on the subject before the Committee, and I hope that I have kept strictly within the limits of the Amendment.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr.
  2322
  Rankin) said, we have had a fairly extensive debate on the Amendment, going perhaps wider than I anticipated at first. We have had two interventions from the Attorney-General which we always welcome, but I do not take the point of view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the Attorney-General was necessarily saying that because he was going to accept a later Amendment we should not press this one. What I understood he was arguing was that, because the Government would accept a later Amendment, therefore he was hopeful of putting the Committee in a friendly frame of mind.
  If so, I am bound to say that as we have on the Order Paper no fewer than five pages of very important Amendments, as the Home Secretary has himself indicated he is going to be very open-minded about Amendments, as "The Times" this morning wrote its third leading article against this Bill, saying that it hoped a great number of Amendments would be seriously considered, and as the Attorney-General, speaking on the first Amendment, asked us to go as far as the bottom of the third page of the Order Paper before finding an Amendment which the Government are willing to accept, all that is hardly likely to put the Committee in a frame of mind in which these earlier Amendments should be allowed to lapse.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: That is not necessarily so.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to have that indication from the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), but it would be very much more interesting to hear it from the Attorney-General. We are not going to have any such indication apparently, and I am afraid we have to assume that the position is very much nearer to that which I stated than that stated by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.
  6.0 p.m.
  I consider that during the debate my hon. Friends have made a very powerful case for the Amendment. I do not think that either of the interventions by the Attorney-General answered the case at all. In fact, I feel that the only case against the Amendment was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot), whose speech was the

  2323
  only one which gave me any doubt whether we should press the Amendment to a Division.
  I thought it was possible that, in replying to the Amendment, the Attorney-General would say that it was unnecessary, and that if newspapers offended in such a way that they ought to be proceeded against they could atomatically be proceeded against. However, the indication that he gave in his first intervention was that it was almost unthinkable that newspapers could come within the terms of the Clause, or, indeed, the Bill. It is clear, from what some of my hon. Friends have since said, that that is not the position and that one can easily imagine a position in which, if it is desirable to have the Bill at all, it would be desirable to proceed against newspapers.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, the Attorney-General was very unsatisfactory on the general question of his attitude towards freedom of publication. It is not good enough to draw a distinction between the Press and every other form of publication. Although the Attorney-General subsequently thanked my right hon. Friend for his remarks, he did not withdraw his own remarks, and as far as we know the position of the Attorney-General is still that he thinks that the freedom of the Press is safeguarded so long as one can prosecute anybody except newspaper proprietors. That is a very unsatisfactory situation.
  In view of the Attorney-General's very unsatisfactory answer, and the very convincing speeches that some of my hon. Friends have made, I advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.
  Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I should like to make one or two points against the Amendment before we have a Division on it.
  When I spoke in the Second Reading debate I disclosed at once my interest, as I do again now, in that I am a book publisher and include, among other books, children's illustrated books. It might, therefore, be thought that I should be in favour of including newspapers in the general ban which otherwise will be confined only to members of my own profession, the publishing profession, but
  2324
  I oppose the Amendment for the following reasons.
  If any newspaper proprietor were to publish a horror comic in any conceivable form, he would not be saved from prosecution. Indeed, he would fall under exactly the same regulations as any other type of publisher. A newspaper is, by definition, a purveyor of news, usually daily news. No newspaper of which we have any knowledge:
  "consists mainly or wholly of stories told in pictures…."
  I understand the word "stories" as meaning fictional stories. If I am wrong, may I be told so? Are we not dealing with fiction and not with stories in the journalistic sense?
  Mr. Ede: Does not the editor send the reporter out with instructions to get a "story"?
  Mr. Nicolson: I was making that very point. Are we interpreting "stories" in the journalistic sense or in the ordinary sense that we use in common parlance?
  Mr. Ede: Surely it is not a matter of our interpretation. It is a matter of how the judge or the magistrate will interpret it when the matter goes to a court of law.
  Mr. Nicolson: There is another Amendment—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We have not yet reached "stories" in the Clause.
  Mr. Nicolson: Sir Rhys, it is most relevant—
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss "stories" until we have disposed of the Amendment.
  Mr. Paget: With very great respect, Sir Rhys, what we are discussing is whether "newspaper" should be inserted after "magazine." If it is inserted after "magazine," it will then be defined by the words that follow; it will be a newspaper which:
  "consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  Therefore, I humbly submit to you that in considering whether we should include "newspaper" we must consider the definition of the newspapers which we are proposing to include.
  The Deputy-Chairman:That matter may arise when we reach those words, or on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, when it will be appropriate, but so far we have not reached that point.
  Mr. Hale: Further to the point of order. How can we decide—how can I decide; I am trying to use my limited faculties in this matter—whether or not to insert "newspaper" until we have cleared up the points as to whether we are referring only to fiction or to matters of fact as well?
  The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the word "stories" here. We might discuss the definition of "newspaper," but we cannot discuss words which appear in a later part of the Clause. It may be appropriate to discuss them when we come to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, or if there is an Amendment on the Notice Paper with regard to them, but we cannot discuss them at this point.
  Mr. Paget: With great respect, Sir Rhys, the word "stories" appears here as part of the definition of "newspaper." I believe that you were not here during the earlier part of the debate when the matter was gone into. We have been discussing this subject for some considerable time. Here we have to discuss whether we are to put in "newspaper," not a newspaper generally but a particular newspaper as defined, and "newspaper," as defined, is a newspaper
  "which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is a definition of "newspaper." We cannot go on to the definition of "stories."
  Mr. James Hudson: Further to the point of order, Sir Rhys. Have we not already reached the word "book," and after book" are we not proposing to insert "newspaper"? "Book" is defined in the Clause as being strictly limited to one consisting
  "wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures. …"
  If "newspaper" is to be inserted after "book" it will be a newspaper of the same character, dealing with stories told wholly or mainly in pictures. Have we not reached the word when we have already taken the word "book"?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Might I put my difficulty to you,
  2326
  Sir Rhys? In common with other hon. Members in the Committee, I am being asked to insert in the subsection "newspaper." There is an argument that the insertion is unnecessary because newspapers which would comply with the other conditions of the Clause are already covered. Whether that is true or not may depend on what a newspaper is, and if a newspaper tells "stories," then the definition as to whether the "stories" are true stories or fictional ones becomes vital to the consideration of the question whether the word which my hon. Friend wishes to insert is necessary or not.
  The Deputy-Chairman:I must remind the Committee that we are going through the Bill line by line and word by word in Committee. We are, of course, entitled to discuss the definition of "newspaper," but we have not reached "stories." The argument about "stories" may be quite relevant when we reach that word, but not now.
  Mr. Nicolson:Perhaps I might continue with my argument but omit that point.
  On two other grounds a newspaper can never be a horror comic. If a horror comic is published under the auspices of a newspaper, then the sheet ceases to be a newspaper and becomes a horror comic. Newspapers contain news. [Hon. Members: "Not always."] They never consist wholly or mainly of pictures. Even the "Daily Mirror" does not wholly, or even mainly, consist of pictures.
  Furthermore, a newpaper, as we understand the term, is published for adults. There are children's newspapers, but they are not newspapers in the sense that we usually mean that word. They are much nearer to being magazines. There actually is a publication called the "Children's Newspaper." But one will see that it is not a newspaper in the sense that the "Daily Mirror" is a newspaper. It is much more like a magazine.
  My contention is that if any newspaper were to publish, as part of its newspaper, or as a supplement, or as a separate publication, anything which was remotely like a horror comic, it would fall within the definition in the Bill as it now stands. My argument is that this insertion of the word "newspaper" is totally unnecessary. I am entirely in agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is desir-

  2327
  able not to leave out newspaper proprietors and so exempt them from provisions to which other publishers are subject. I say that they are not left out, but are equally liable.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Member tell us when a newspaper is not a newspaper? The newspapers published for children are registered as newspapers. Can he claim, therefore, that they will come within the definition of magazines?
  Mr. Nicolson: So-called newspapers published for children could come within the definition of the Bill, because they would certainly be covered by the term "other like work." They are not newspapers in the sense the hon. Member used the word, but in the eyes of a jury they would certainly be covered by the Bill, although they are much closer to the magazine type of publication than to a newspaper, in the sense that we use that definition.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I do not propose to detain the Committee more than a minute or two, because I think that the argument with which I agree most has just been advanced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). I have heard nearly all the debate, and I have not heard that argument answered. I am bound to say that had he not spoken I would not have heard it put forward so completely, nor so lucidly. As I understand it, the position is this: let us suppose that a court has before it a printed publication—and I am deliberately using a neutral expression—and supposing that printed publication tells stories, either true stories or fictional stories, wholly or mainly in pictures. Let us suppose that that document purveys in those stories—

  "(a) the commission of crimes; or

  (b) acts of violence or cruelty; or

  (c) incidence of a repulsive or horrible nature; in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt …"

  Such a publication would clearly satisfy every requirement of the Clause.
  Would the defendant be entitled in such circumstances to argue, "Although I have committed the offence defined in every detail in this subsection, nevertheless I am not liable to be convicted because my publication is registered as a newspaper"? I should have thought that such a defence would have been
  2328
  impossible. Every element of the crime would have been covered. The only possible way in which a defendant could escape would be by arguing that he was publishing neither a book nor a magazine nor any other like work. I should have thought that that would have been an impossible defence to maintain. I should have thought, therefore, that an examination of the actual definitions of the Clause makes it abundantly clear that a newspaper which was covered by every other element in the charge defined in the subsection would be covered by the subsection without the insertion of the word "newspaper."
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Paget: The great difficulty here is this. The view which my hon. Friend has put is exactly opposite to the view which the Attorney-General puts. The Attorney-General has told us that his consent will be necessary to a prosecution because of a subsequent Amendment. We are, therefore, in the peculiar position that my hon. Friend takes a point of view which is exactly opposite to the Attorney-General's point of view. The Attorney-General's point of view, rightly or wrongly, is likely to prevail, because he has to give his permission for prosecutions—unless we get another Attorney-General.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he cannot now speak again.
  Mr. Silverman:I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend, because his question has cleared up some confusion. I very much regret that my interpretation of the Clause should differ from the Attorney-General's, and I readily confess that there is a presumption that he might be right and I wrong.
  Mr. Paget: Oh, no.
  Mr. Silverman: Nevertheless one dubious Member of the House of Commons is determined not to accept the ipse dixit of the Attorney-General, even from a most distinguished Attorney-General, but to look at the words himself and try to interpret them, certainly in the light of such advice as he can get. I unrepentently still prefer my own interpretation to the Attorney-General's, and I am fortified by the extremely lucid argument to which I listened a few moments ago.

  2329
  I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend that any Attorney-General would fail to do his duty. His duty, if the obligation of deciding whether a prosecution should be brought or not brought lay upon him, would not be to distort a plain meaning of words in order to avoid bringing a prosecution which in every other case he would be bound to bring. Unless the argument that has been advanced can be more completely answered than it has been so far, I advise my hon. Friends not to take this to a Division because the Amendment is not needed. There is always a danger, if one puts in words which add nothing, that on a third interpretation of the Clause one might tend to widen its application to a measure which one would wish to avoid.
  Mr. Hale:My hon. Friend is making two separate propositions. In the first he is conceding the remote possibility that the Attorney-General is right. Strangely enough, I think that he is right. He is conceding a point that should be cleared up by the House of Commons. Has he applied his mind to the well-known rule of ejusdem generis?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am trying to keep this debate in some sort of order and not to have to listen to two speeches at once. In Committee hon. Members can speak as often as they like but not by inserting one speech in another.
  Mr. Silverman: I should have thought, in answer to my hon. Friend's second point when he was saying that the interpretation of the words ejusdem generis was against my argument, that the words "other like work" were a plain and lucid English translation of the Latin phrase he used. We do not have to apply the rule of law when we have the plain words of the statute itself. It would be impossible to argue in the case that I have described that a publication of that kind was not a
  "book, magazine, or other like work…."
  Mr. Gower:Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a newspaper had these characteristics it would really cease to be a newspaper and would partake of the nature of a book or magazine having similar characteristics?
  Mr. Silverman: I would not say that it would cease to be a newspaper, but that in those circumstances it would be
  2330
  irrelevant whether it was a newspaper or not. It would be covered by the Clause. That is the argument which I advance for consideration. I think that it is exactly the same argument as that advanced from the other side of the Committee by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch.
  Mr. Ede:There is always a danger on Bills of this kind that we get involved in a lawyers' field-day. We started with two of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Now we have had a dispute between two members of the other branch of the profession—my hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). It leaves laymen in the unfortunate position that this appears to be a subject which might very well, one way or the other, involve considerable expense in litigation to get the point solved after the Bill has left the House of Commons.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave an indication in his second intervention that between now and the next stage of the Bill he would consider whether the words were quite sufficient to deal with the kind of thing that we have been discussing now for rather more than an hour. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having heard the whole of the arguments in which both sides of the Committee have participated, will be able to give an indication that he and his colleagues in the Government will seriously consider between now and Report whether the point has been sufficiently covered so as not to provide a way out for people who are determined, if they can, to continue to make profit out of the publication of the harmful publications alluded to in the Bill. If he could give such an assurance, I think that we might then pass to the next Amendment.
  The Attorney-General:I really cannot add to what I have already said on this point. I said in my second intervention—I do not propose to make a long one now—in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), that, of course, one would willingly look at the wording between now and Report; but I indicated that

  2331
  we should be looking at it not with a view to bringing within the ambit of the Clause something which the Clause is not aimed at, but with a view to preventing some breaking up of the magazine—the horror comic as it now is—into small fragments for the purpose of avoiding the operation of the scheme.
  Many other points have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised the point whether or not some publisher of horror comics might be able to evade the operation of the Bill if he produced a horror comic, not in the form of a book or magazine, but in the form of a section. That is a point which I said I would look at, and I will. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not want to increase the scope of the Clause to bring within it something which is really not the kind of evil aimed at by the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that most of my hon. Friends will agree that the
  Attorney-General has certainly not said anything to make us change our minds about what we should do on the Amendment. I was in a difficulty when I spoke last. No other hon. Member had risen and I assumed that that was the end of the debate. However, other points were raised and, as my right hon. Friend said, there was a dispute between lawyers.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) want newspapers to be within the ambit of the Clause. Though they believe them to be there already, they ought, for safety's sake and without doing any possible harm, to vote with us. I cannot see that we are doing any harm by pressing the Amendment to a Division, and we may be doing some good.
  Question put, That "newspaper" be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES

  [6.25 p.m.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Benson, G.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Rankin, John

  Beswick, F.

  Holmes, Horace

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Ross, William

  Bowden, H. W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Keenan, W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Clunie, J.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Collick, P. H.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Craddock, George (Bradford,S.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McLeavy, F.

  Wallace, H. W.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mellish R. J.

  West, D. G.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Monslow, W.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Follick, M.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Oswald, T.

  Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Owen, W. J.

  Willis, E. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hale, Leslie

  Pannell, Charles

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pargiter G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hannan, W.

  Parker, J.

  Mr. Paget and Mr. Roy Jenkins.

  Hastings, S.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Odey, G. W.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon.N.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

  Page, R. G.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Heath, Edward

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Visoount

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Black, C. W.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hutochison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Bullard, D. G.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Campbell, Sir David

  Kaberry, D.

  Russell, R. S.

  Carr, Robert

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Savory Prof. Sir Douglas

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Scott, Sir Donald

  Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth.W.)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Sharples, Maj. R. C.

  Cole, Norman

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Shepherd, William

  Colegate, Sir Arthur

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Crowder, Peter (Ruislip—Northwood)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Teeling, W.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Flnlay, Graeme

  Marples, A. E.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

  Webbe, Sir H. (L'nd'n & Westm'r)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Medlioott, Sir Frank

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Wills, G.

  Glover, D.

  Neave, Alrey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, H. R.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Grimond, J.

  Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and

  Mr. Redmayne.

  Sir Ian Horobin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the end, to insert:
  "not being a work first published before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine".
  This Amendment, and the next two Amendments in my name, in line 6, being directed to limiting the effects of the Bill, I should like first to make an observation about my own position regarding the Bill generally. The next two Amendments seek, after "stories" to insert "being fiction" and after "pictures" to insert:"
  "not being reproductions of photographs."
  My position is similar to that of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Could we be perfectly certain that
  2334
  this Bill hit only at what we all commonly call horror comics, I should be wholeheartedly in favour of it. Indeed, I may say that it was over two years ago that this agitation first started in my Settlement at Mansfield House, long before it was taken up elsewhere.
  In common with the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I am extremely anxious and worried about the text of this Clause as it stands, because I am not yet by any means convinced that this Measure hits only what we desire to hit. I do not think that my exposition of this Amendment need take long. Most of what I wish to say on this and the other two Amendments could probably more

  2335
  appropriately be said on the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. I shall, therefore, endeavour to assist the Committee by moving the Amendment very briefly.
  It raises an important point which, in my submission, should assist the Committee and the Government. Rightly or wrongly, the Government have in this Bill chosen to endeavour to find an objective test. They have tried—and I am afraid that they have not yet succeeded—to define a purely objective Measure which would put into legal terms what we generally call a horror comic. Many of us are not satisfied that they have yet found a sufficiently narrow definition.
  This is the first suggestion being advanced to ensure that we do not catch the people that none of us, I believe, wish to catch. Over and over again during our debate on Second Reading, we had illustrations of the kind of publications—I use the neutral term used by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—which had got into difficulties in the past in obscenity prosecutions, which were definitely not what we would term horror comics, but which might be caught by the Clause as it stands. This Amendment is the first attempt to get rid of a great many publications of that kind which it is not intended should be dealt with.
  The horror comic, as we know it, did not exist before the war. There is no special virtue in the year 1939. The fact that I am proposing or suggesting it to the Committee is in order to cut out, at one fell swoop, a great many of those difficult cases which might bring this Bill into contempt if and when it becomes law; to cut out a whole series of difficult decisions by the Attorney-General—if, as he has told us, we are to have that Amendment later—and, as it were, to narrow the field from the start by saying that what we are talking about in this Bill is something which has come into our disgusted purview only since the war.
  I suggest to the Committee, therefore, that if it be true, as I suggest it is, that nothing which could possibly be called a horror comic existed before the war, we can avoid a great many difficult cases which we have discussed backwards and forwards ever since this Bill was first mooted, both in this House and in the
  2336
  Press. For a great many difficult cases do exist regarding publications before the war.
  Is it not wise, if we are considering drawing up a Bill based on an objective test, to lighten the ship, as it were, from the start so that we do not become involved in discussions about Hogarth's "Rake's Progress" and the rest of it? Such cases have presented themselves to us and, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know perfectly well, they are the kind of cases which we do not wish to have cluttering up either the courts or the office of the Attorney-General. Why not, therefore, get rid of them from the start?
  The horror comic is something which came into existence, worse luck, like the hydrogen bomb, after the war. Why not let us begin our deliberations—even if this Amendment were accepted we should still have a great many difficult matters of definition to deal with—by cutting out at the start any possibility of confusion and nuisance in dealing with publications with which we are not concerned?
  I suggest to the Committee—and I hope that the Attorney-General may feel that he is able to be reasonably accommodating in the matter—that it might be wise to limit our definition by putting into the Bill some such Amendment as I am moving to reduce the area of possible confusion.
  The Attorney-General:I think it may be helpful to the Committee if I intervene at this stage, because I gather, from what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that both sides of the Committee want to see this Bill passed. I hope that I shall be able to allay some of the fears put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin). I do not think that, arising out of the Bill, there will be any of the kind of problems which have existed in relation to prosecutions under other Acts.
  The Bill is related solely to one particular evil—that of horror comics. If my hon. Friend is right, as he may be, that horror comics, as we know them, are an entirely new feature of our life, the Amendment certainly is not needed. The danger of our accepting the Amendment is that it may provide—and I will indicate why in a moment—a fairly extensive loophole for those publishing horror comics who want to go on publishing

  2337
  them. It seeks to lay down an arbitrary date, and to make the scope of the Bill depend on the date of publication. My hon. Friend has taken the year 1939. Let me take the case of some offensive work of a corrupting nature published before that date which is found by some of the publishers and printers of horror comics.
  Supposing the Amendment was not put into the Bill. The Amendment refers to
  "not being a work first published before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."
  A new edition of that work might well bring it into the sphere of the horror comic—by introducing new pictures drawn like horror comic pictures—and horrifying.
  I must advise my hon. Friend that, while I appreciate the purpose of his Amendment, to accept it would, I think, be dangerous and harmful to the object which I was glad to note he wanted to achieve. Therefore, I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment, bearing in mind that, even if the Amendment were not accepted, no prosecution could be instituted without the Attorney-General's consent. That is the safeguard and will be the safeguard against prosecutions in what one might call extreme borderline cases, and a safeguard which does not exist in relation to certain other prosecutions. I would ask my hon. Friend whether we cannot perhaps proceed to a more substantial Amendment, and whether he will withdraw the Amendment before us.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: I think that many of us in the Committee will be greatly disappointed by the remarks of the Attorney-General about the Amendment. I should have thought that it was a most reasonable and ingenious Amendment. The reply of the Attorney-General only adds to our fears.
  I do not know whether the Attorney-General was present throughout the whole of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, but he must have known that in that debate concern was expressed on both sides of the House about the Bill; it was certainly not confined to this side of the House. Hon. Members opposite expressed their concern about certain aspects of the Bill in much the same terms as we did, and many hon. Members in favour of the main purpose of the Bill also expressed their fears.
  2338
  It adds to our fears when the Attorney-General gets up and says blithely, "I do not think that there is any danger of this Bill being misused as other Acts dealing with similar subjects have been misused in the past." We are now proposing the same kind of claim that was made, when it was originally introduced, about the obscenity law which led to so many miscarriages of justice. It was said at that time that it could not be used for purposes which would be anti-libertarian, but very soon it was proved that it could be so used, and it has been so used recently. Therefore, it would follow that the Attorney-General's reply has not taken account of the expressions of fear about this Bill and the way in which it could be used, which have been expressed on both sides of the House.
  Let us take the precise objection which the Attorney-General makes to the Amendment. He says that it may leave a very large loophole, that is, that people who published something which was a horror comic before 1939 would be able to republish it now. I imagine that there were very few such publications before 1939. There may have been one or two publications of such a nature.
  Mr. Paget: "Horrors of war."
  Mr. Foot: If that were so, perhaps it might be simpler to change the date to 1929. That, I should have thought, would have excluded all horror comics and any such danger as the Attorney-General has envisaged, even if there is such a danger. Instead of even considering the possibilities of an Amendment along these lines, the Attorney-General rather discourteously dismisses it as an insubstantial Amendment, and asks that we should get on to Amendments that are more substantial.
  It was said by the Attorney-General earlier that he intended to accept a later Amendment which says that the Attorney-General would have to approve a prosecution. My hon. Friend, in commenting upon that, suggested that his understanding of the Attorney-General's statement was that that was to be the only Amendment we were to be permitted by the Government. I cannot really believe that that is the situation. After all, we are not dealing with the Boundary Commission now. We do not have to have everything accepted in advance.

  2339
  The Attorney-General must not think that he can treat the House of Commons in the way in which he treats the law courts. He cannot expect that with the dazzling eloquence which achieves him such fame in the law courts he can browbeat us in this fashion. Judges may quail, but the House does not mind his savage tongue.
  I hope that the Attorney-General will approach this problem with a little more flexibility. Here is an Amendment moved by one of his hon. Friends in a most reasonable fashion. The hon. Member does not insist on the exact date, and he says that possibly a different date might be preferable; but it is an Amendment precisely designed to deal with one of the chief dangers that we have in mind, that classical works could be dealt with under this Bill as they have been dealt with under the obscenity law which was devised for an entirely different purpose.
  I hope that the Government will not deal with the other Amendments in the spirit which the Attorney-General has indicated in dealing with this Amendment, because if they do there will have to be a very fierce and long battle about the whole of this Bill. It would be very much better for the Attorney-General to accept an Amendment of such moderate intention as this one, and to accept it in a wider spirit. He would find that a much better way of getting the Bill through the House of Commons.
  Mr. Norman Cole: I should like to support, if support is needed, what the Attorney-General has said. He mentioned the point that this might well lead to a loophole if there were an illustration of some ancient work, possibly a classical one, which was produced at the present time by means of an illustration which was similar to that in horror comics.
  There is another weakness, if I may say so with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), who moved this Amendment. It says:
  "not being a work first published before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."
  and it does not say where first published. I doubt whether anyone is in a position to say what was published in America before 1939, or in France or anywhere
  2340
  else. This Amendment would not have the effect which my hon. Friend has in mind. It is always a dangerous thing, I think, to put in a suggested date in a Bill of this kind which is directed towards a principle, the principle which is behind these horror comics, and what they do.
  The question of morality and corruption is not indicated by dates, years or centuries. It is a basic principle, and it seems to me that if we are all united in directing our attention to the horror comics—and prosecutions will only be brought with the concurrence of the Attorney-General—we should not complicate the matter further by introducing a date.
  I do not think that the Amendment will lighten the ship; I think that, in many ways, it may well add some complications to the Bill and will leave more opportunities open to those clever gentlemen who wish to make money out of the publication of these things. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the force of the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
  Dr. Horace King: In my first intervention on this Bill, may I say that I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) will accept the advice of the Attorney-General and will withdraw his Amendment? I have recently returned from America where tremendous financial powers behind the crime comics have successfully prevented the United States from dealing with this matter in any way.
  Any weakening of the Clause as presented to us this afternoon would afford a loophole which unscrupulous people might easily use in order to destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. We did not invent the horror comic in 1939. There was horrific pictorial literature possibly in our childhood, and the mere defence of some modern purveyor, with all the new technique of modern illustration, that he managed to dig up his raw material from some period before 1939 seems to me to be a loophole which this Amendment would provide.
  After all, one could take the works of the Marquis de Sade first published in France and published cheaply later. Anyone could select a crime from one of those works and plead as a defence that it was written in 1787, or thereabouts.

  2341
  I hope that the Committee will not accept Amendments which weaken this Clause. Let us freely safeguard, but do not let us provide loopholes which powerful syndicates can use in order to destroy the Bill.
  Mr. R. Bell:I share the disquietude of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) about the views which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has put forward. I ask him to think again about this. Ministerial assurances given during debates are very deceptive. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) referred to the assurance given by the Lord Chancellor when the Obscene Publications Bill was introduced in 1857. We all know how much weight that carries.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he is going to accept a later Amendment which provides that no prosecution can be brought unless it is by or with the consent of the Attorney-General. The anxiety which I feel about relying on Ministerial assurances is that they weaken as time passes. They always bind the person who makes them and the holder of his office for, at any rate, a certain number of years.
  If my right hon. and learned Friend could tell us what is the general attitude of the Government towards some Amendments which appear later on the Order Paper and which deal with a time limit in the Bill, that would go a long way towards reassuring me about his attitude to this Amendment.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should not anticipate the next Amendments.
  Mr. Bell:I do not wish to anticipate them, Sir Rhys. I merely wish to say that my attitude towards Ministerial assurances regarding how the Measure would be used would be very greatly influenced by the knowledge of how long the Measure is going to remain in force. If it is going to remain in force for only four or five years, or some such period, then the assurance which the Attorney-General has given—whether or not it is an adequate substitute for my hon. Friend's Amendment—would be reassuring. But if there is no time limit, then I do not think that we should be asked to rely on Ministerial assurances though they are given in entirely good faith and
  2342
  will remain available in the Attorney-General's office for some time to come.
  I am very much attracted by my hon. Friend's Amendment. I think that it narrows the field and cuts out the immense majority of printed works from the operation of the Bill. The danger which my right hon. and learned Friend suggested and which was repeated by two other hon. Members, that old works of a horrific character might be dressed up in a new form as horror comics, and that thus this Amendment would provide a loophole, does not carry much weight with me.
  It seems to me that if anyone takes old illustrations of a classic work and reissues them in a form which could be called a horror comic, he has, in effect, created a new work within the meaning of this Amendment. I cannot imagine how that could be done without a new work being created, and, on those grounds, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this Amendment and to realise that a good deal of genuine anxiety exists on this subject in all parts of the Committee.
  Mr. Ede: We are getting into the usual trouble which occurs when there is a unanimous decision that something must be done. I believe that the House was genuinely of the opinion that something must be done to stop the corruption of youth by the horror comics. Of course, it is very dangerous lest in that frame of mind we should pass some legislation which we would afterwards regret.
  Some of the speeches made on both sides of the Committee this afternoon indicate that some people are out to kill the Bill, some because they have an adopted daughter of their own whom they wish to put in its place, and which deals with something on which there is not nearly so much unanimity as there is on this Measure. Others, again, wish to kill it because they genuinely believe that the House ought not to touch subjects of this kind at all.
  I still think that something ought to be done, and I think that in this Measure we have the basis of something very good and sufficiently limited. But I certainly do not want to see a date included, because, when I was Home Secretary, I had to deal with a Bill which was promoted for the purpose of removing the theatrical censorship. The stupidity that

  2343
  arises from putting in dates cannot be better illustrated than by what occurs there. I think it says that any play before 1843, or some such date, can be performed, with the result that all Restoration comedies can be played unexpurgated. But a certain phrase which George Bernard Shaw wished to put into one of his plays—a phrase which is used by 99 per cent. of the population—was excluded.
  Mr. Rankin: What was it?
  Mr. Ede:My hon. Friend being a Scotsman, I would not pollute his ears with the words, but, having been a sergeant-major myself, may I say that my vocabulary goes a great deal further down the alphabet than did George Bernard Shaw's?
  7.0 p.m.
  Let us see what would happen here. As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, I was brought up on "Pilgrim's Progress," and I then produced an illustrated copy of it. A perfect example of horrific literature written in simple English is the fight between Apollyon and Christian. I invite anybody whose memory of it is not complete to re-read the details of that and the later fight with Giant Grim. In the edition which I brought to the House the picture illustrating the fight in which Grim was engaged seemed to show, in one picture, all the successive strokes that fell upon him. "Pilgrim's Progress" was written well before 1939.
  Sir I. Horobin: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stop it?
  Mr. Ede: I do not want to stop it, but I should not like to see in children's hands an illustration showing in detail each of the strokes that these doughty warriors inflicted upon their opponents.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he was brought up on this book. He seems to have enjoyed the experience of seeing those pictures in his youth, but he now wants to stop other children from seeing them.
  Mr. Ede:No, I do not. One picture describing the whole fight is one thing, but it is quite another thing to have a series of pictures, by which a child's mind can be diverted from the general tenor of
  2344
  the work to the particular matters which John Bunyan so graphically described, with no moral drawn as Bunyan drew it—although I was never quite sure what was the moral with regard to Apollyon, because he was allowed to survive to carry on his evil practices upon further pilgrims—
  Mr. R. Bell: Surely the moral with regard to Apollyon was that his proper place was straddling the path?
  Mr. Ede:I should not have thought that that was the moral which Bunyan intended to draw.
  Mr. Bell: Of course it was.
  Mr. Ede:Then it just shows the further difficulty that one gets into when one attempts to go into matters of interpretation. I hope that we shall realise that putting in this date will not afford any real safeguard for anybody, but may result in the most stupid and amazing anomalies, such as those which the present censorship law involves in other spheres. I certainly hope that the hon. Member will not feel that he ought to press the Amendment.
  Sir I. Horobin:I cannot say that I am convinced by the argument, but I must obviously pay great attention to the combined opinions which have been expressed from both Front Benches in this matter. I am bound to admit that, generally speaking, fixed dates are a nuisance, but I am rather sorry at the very curt and cursory way in which an honest attempt to deal with a genuine difficulty was met by the Government Front Bench. I hope that it is not setting the pattern for subsequent Amendments.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins:If the hon. Gentleman is going to say at this stage that he wishes to withdraw the Amendment, I can assure him that some of my hon. Friends would like to support him before he does so.
  Sir I. Horobin: That puts me in a difficult position, but as there are certain more important Amendments which I still hope will receive friendly attention from the Front Bench, and as this one does not seem as important as those, it might be bad tactics to irritate the Attorney-General by pressing him to accept the Amendment. I can do no more than ask

  2345
  leave to withdraw the Amendment, but it may be refused. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) sought leave to withdraw the Amendment at such an early stage. I do not share his view that it is an unimportant Amendment. The whole burden of the Government's case has been that the Bill deals with an extremely narrow problem and an extremely limited category of publication. As I understand it, the Amendment is designed to limit that category still further by excluding completely any consideration of the classics.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member has inserted the right date, but minor details such as that can be dealt with on the Report stage, provided that we get a reasonable response from the Government, which I am afraid we have not had upon this occasion. Like my hon. Friends, I was not at all convinced by the arguments of the learned Attorney-General in this matter. He seemed to be saying that although the Bill dealt with a very narrow problem, the Amendment, which was designed to narrow it still further, in fact opened up a loophole. The argument which he has used in that respect was effectively replied to by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), but there is also another argument in favour of the Amendment which has not yet been mentioned.
  If the Amendment were made, Clause 1 would read:
  "This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work not being a work first published before the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures …"
  I should have thought that that ruled out re-publication in a different form. The only matter which the Amendment protects is matter which was published in that form before 1939. It may well be that horror comics existed in the United States before the last World War, and that the date ought to be put further back.
  Mr. Paget: The words "published in England" could be inserted.
  Mr. Robinson: Yes. That might meet the difficulty. I do not share the dislike of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the insertion of dates in Measures of this kind. There is not the slightest parallel between this matter and the difficulty which he said he was up against in regard to censorship in the theatres. I do not share his distaste for Restoration comedy in an unexpurgated form.
  Dr. King:My hon. Friend is very desirous of protecting the classics. Can he tell us of one classic, published before 1939, which may be described in the terms of the Clause?
  Mr. Robinson: I should have thought that Goya's "Disasters of the War" might well come within the purview of the Bill.
  Mr. Paget: And Hogarth's "The Rake's Progress."
  Mr. Robinson: Yes. I believe that this is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, but the Government's reception of it has been most churlish and hostile, and I hope that the House will not give the hon. Member leave to withdraw it.
  Mr. N. Nicolson:I think that it will weary the Committee if I go on disclosing my interest as a publisher. With the permission of the House, I make this third disclosure as the final one for this evening. I do not disagree with the Amendment, or with what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said about it, but it will cover only a tiny field. It will cover only those publications which were produced in pictorial form before the war and which a publisher today wished to reproduce.
  It would in no sense protect the classics, which I gather was the main intention of my hon. Friend, and with which I entirely agree. I wish we could devise a form of words which would afford that protection to Bible stories, fairy stories and what we normally call the children's classics. The Amendment will not do it, because neither Bible stories, fairy stories nor children's classics—such as "Alice" and "Black Beauty "—were originally produced in pictorial form; they were all written down.

  2347
  The only category covered by the Amendment would be drawings made before the war from those stories, which a modern publisher might wish to reproduce, but the context of those stories—which is what matters—would not be covered at all. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not extended his noble effort to try to cover the textual matter as well, but perhaps that would not fall within the general principle of the Bill.
  Take a story like Robin Hood, which most of us regard as an innocuous story for children, although it contains many incidents of violence. The story is traditional folk-lore. It is not written down in an accepted text. Everybody who tells the story tells it afresh in his own words. There is no copyright. When it is told in pictures, there are again no standard pictures illustrating the story. Each publisher commissions an artist afresh to make new pictures.
  Therefore, even Robin Hood, which might otherwise be coverable under (a) or (b), or indeed under (c), of the Clause, would not be safeguarded by my hon. Friend's Amendment. I support the Amendment, but I draw attention to the extremely narrow field it covers. I disagree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North who said that this was a matter of extreme importance. It is of very minor importance.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins:It may, of course, be that what was said by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. N. Nicolson) has a great deal of force, but his approach is very different from that of the Attorney-General and of one or two other hon. Members who have spoken.
  If the Attorney-General had said something like what was said by the hon. Member and had indicated that the Amendment was not as well drafted as it might have been—this is no reflection upon the ability of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir Ian Horobin) as a drafter of Amendments—but that he would look at it and try to make it more effective, we could have felt sympathetic to his point of view. He has not done that. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch might have endeavoured to get the Attorney-General to say that he would look at it again,
  2348
  but the Attorney-General has not given us any encouragement along those lines.
  The hon. Member gave what support he could to his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. Whether the Amendment goes very wide or not and is a matter of great importance or not, the discussion upon it has raised one issue of very considerable importance. I understood it was the clear view of the Government that the Bill was designed to catch what are commonly known as "horror comics" and nothing else at all. Some hon. Members who have spoken on the Amendment would like to catch certain things which they regard as undesirable but which are not horror comics. To move over to that new principle is extremely serious.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) does not disagree with my approach to a lot of points connected with the Bill, but in his speech he turned the full force of his vehemence on me for my reference to another Bill which I have not yet advocated this afternoon.
  Mr. Ede:Not this afternoon, but my hon. Friend did make a speech on the Second Reading in which he referred to it.
  Mr. Jenkins: It is not wrong to make a speech about a Bill one is bringing forward.
  Mr. Ede:I have not accused my hon. Friend of any crime. All I have done is to differ from him. I hope that is not a crime.
  Mr. Jenkins: I was not suggesting for a moment that it was. My right hon. Friend indicated that he differed from me about another Bill, and I thought he did so with considerable vehemence. I do not complain about that, but he cannot complain if I draw attention to it, which is all I have done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to Restoration comedy, saying that it gave rise to difficulties in putting a date into the Bill. He was on a very different principle. Whatever we may think about censorship of the stage, it exists as a general censorship. The Bill does not contain a general censorship. It is designed to deal with one specific evil, which is admitted on all sides of the

  2349
  House and which is a phenomenon that has arisen only recently. Whether it has arisen entirely since 1939 we cannot be quite sure. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that perhaps we should put in an earlier date. He suggested 1929, and perhaps that would be appropriate. We could then say, "Since the late Lord Brentford ceased to be Home Secretary," which would be a very reasonable provision to insert into a Bill of this sort.
  The Amendment has considerable merits. Unless the Attorney-General can be at least a little more sympathetic towards it than he has been so far to anything that we have put forward on the Bill, we ought to carry the matter further.
  7.15 p.m.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I doubt if we can carry out the main purpose of the Bill unless we accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin). The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has put the publisher's point of view. He said that every new pictorial publication had to be new because it had to be re-drawn and re-executed. I want to put the case of the danger that the Bill offers to books like Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," which is one of the earliest horror books produced in this country.
  Sunday was made horrible to me as a child, because when we sat in the parlour Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" was opened. On Sunday night I was afraid to go to bed because of the hideous pictures of tribulations and sufferings of people that were engraved on my mind. I have no doubt that other children benefited from it much more than I did, and I have no doubt that Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" ought to be preserved, but the publishers of the original plates could not pretend that the book was not a horrific publication.
  It was a publication showing the most bestial violence upon people, with tortures being applied in much the same way as in the American publications. There were whipping, branding, burning and all the paraphernalia of the horror comic without the comedy, if there is comedy in a horror comic.
  A book like Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" is not curious, in the sense of the
  2350
  word used by the pornographic publishers, and I seriously suggest that it is a publication which ought to be permitted to go on. The publishers could be prosecuted under the terms of the Bill, as I fear the publishers of other such works might be. For that reason I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I support the Amendment. I dissent from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he suggests that some of us who support the Amendment and other Amendments are out to kill the Bill. That is not so. I dislike the Bill and think it is unnecessary; the cure may be worse than the disease, but I am not out to kill the Bill. I am out to trim it to its proper shape, to narrow its scope and to sharpen its purpose.
  The Bill is to deal with a specific evil, the nature of which we all understand and clearly visualise in dealing with all the Clauses of the Bill. Yet the Government have fallen into the temptation, natural in the drafting of all legislation, of saying, "While we are at it, let us make sure that it will catch this, and stop that loophole, and then we might conceivably prevent some fresh, hypothetical evil from emerging under the cover of the Bill." By the time they have finished the Bill has cast its net very much more widely than was originally intended.
  If some of the works which were published for the first time before 1939 were horror comics we should have seen them, and should have legislated against them before now. We are now suggesting that these works published before 1939 will emerge as horror comics because there is some new taste for horror, and that the publishers, the evil-minded men who are seeking to profit from this traffic, will delve into the past and find works which they can present afresh in horrible form.
  I submit that there is no evidence that that may take place. This evil with which we are now dealing has a modern context. It is in all the jargon, and presented in the form, which reflects this modern, troubled and wicked age. As far as my limited contact with horror comics shows, the trade is not going back into the history of literature for its material.
  Dr. King: Does not my hon. Friend know that the worst of these publications—the Frankenstein series—is based on a respectable piece of literature of 100 years ago and might easily shelter behind the Amendment?
  Mr. Houghton: I think that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) made a very good point about the legal interpretation of what is a "work"—whether a work first published before 1939 would, in fact, be protected if it were presented in entirely new form.
  I admit that there are difficulties of interpretation, even in the Amendment, but the Bill is absolutely littered with scope for all the lawyers in England to make enough money out of it to send their sons to Eton. Who is to condemn a well-intentioned Amendment like this on the ground that it possibly has some weakness in draftsmanship when the whole Bill is full of terms which will, quite obviously, give rise to the most serious difficulty?
  We look to the Attorney-General to assist us in achieving our purpose. Notoriously, he never does assist the Committee to achieve its purpose. I can well understand the complaint of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) that he was dealt with cursorily and tersely by his right hon. and learned Friend. A Minister of the Crown to whose lot it will fall so frequently to return a negative answer really ought to cultivate the art of gracious rejection. It will smooth the passage of the Bill, and will at least give those who disagree with him the impression, it may be false, that he really sympathises with what they are trying to do and will assist hon. Members to express themselves in Amendments which are reasonably presented for the acceptance of the Committee.
  We ought to keep this Bill firmly fixed on its original purpose—and even take some risks in keeping it to that purpose. We cannot make the Bill absolutely watertight from any point of view, either in respect of what it will contain or what it will do or what it will keep out. The Amendment does at least attempt to narrow the purpose of the Bill to the evil which we want to stop, and does not extend it far beyond that original purpose.
  Mr. Reader Harris: I am rather sorry that the Attorney-General intervened quite sc early in the debate. I could have hoped that he would have first heard some of the arguments that have been deployed
  I support the principle of the Amendment. That we should have a hard-and fast date of 1939 is not so important, but I think that the Attorney-General should look again at the Clause and the Amendment with a view to narrowing the operation of the Clause. As at present draftee it is very wide indeed—much wider that the House of Commons intended. It now covers any book or magazine which tells its story in pictures
  "being stories portraying … the commission of crimes."
  I thought that in introducing this legislation the House wished to deal with pictures portraying violence, sexual crimes and so on. The Clause just baldly says "the commission of crimes." I am ignoring the condition about tending to corrupt because that term is so wide as to mean nothing.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend should not leave out the words:
  "… in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt …"
  Mr. Harris: The Clause, as drafted, covers an enormous number of publications which do not deal with personal violence at all; pictures of people breaking into a bank—violence on a door, not on a person—manipulating locks and safes, and making off with the money that has been inside. That tends to corrupt the young because it shows how easy it is to break into safes and take the money. I am not so sure that it would not cover the "Billy Bunter" series. Those boys used to break into tuckshops and so on; that is crime and might put ideas into the minds of young people.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd):I hope that the hon. Member will not go further on those lines. He is now dealing with words which appear later in the Clause. This Amendment deals only with the proposed date.
  Mr. Harris: I appreciate that, Mr. Hynd. I only mentioned that point to show that something is necessary to limit the Clause to what we intended. At present it is very wide indeed, and the

  2353
  Amendment does something to limit the Clause. I would ask the Attorney-General once again to give further consideration to the Clause.
  Mr. William Keenan: Some hon. Members have attempted to justify anything which has been produced in the past. Some things may be works of art and considered by the artistic to be all that is desirable, but their reproduction may be just as bad, just as injurious and as vile as some of the publications produced in the last few years under the title of horror comics. In that respect, I see no justification for narrowing the Clause.
  Do we or do we not intend that some limitation should be placed on what most reasonable people regard as a very undesirable social matter? The Bill may be a lawyers' paradise—though I do not concede that—but there is scarcely a Bill that is passed that is not a lawyers' paradise. Hon. Members must have noticed the number of lawyers who have participated during the last three or four hours in twisting this Clause up and down and down and up. 7.30 p.m.
  I would remind the House that there were publications before 1939 which we would be ashamed to circulate today. I have seen some of them, some of which were not published in this country, I think. There was one called "Photo Fun," or something like that. There are publications that are brought into the country from the Continent and elsewhere by our seafarers, and there is no justification for the reproduction of them.
  I think that the Clause should be left as wide as possible so that we can deal with any attempt to publish such works. Behind the opposition to the Bill, the efforts to restrict it, and to prevent a good Bill from being passed, are journalists and people concerned with literature.
  The Attorney-General: It is to be expected that when we have a Bill of this sort before us there will be those who criticise it on the ground that the line has been drawn too narrowly and that there will be those who criticise it on the ground that it is too widely drawn. The first Amendment proposed to the Bill was moved on the ground that the Clause
  2354
  was too narrow, and now it is suggested that the Clause is too wide. I believe that we have struck the right balance, and I hope that I shall satisfy my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the line here drawn is drawn neither too widely nor to narrowly.
  It is difficult, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, to define with such a degree of precision a horror comic that is it not within the bounds of possibility some other work could come within the description. I think that the Committee will recognise that. It is because I recognised that, and because my right hon. Friends did, that I indicated earlier—I am sorry the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has been somewhat ungracious about it—that I should be accepting an Amendment, when it is moved, to provide that no prosecutions should be instituted without the Attorney-General's consent.
  I am quite confident that neither I nor any successor of mine would contemplate for a moment instituting a prosecution in the case of something like "The Rake's Progress" or anything of that character, or in the case of what we might call a normal reproduction of the work. I am quite sure of that, because the Bill is aimed at what we know as horror comics.
  I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) felt that I dealt cursorily with his argument. I dealt with it shortly because I did not think he would want me to deal with it at any length. Although we have, I think, to retain this wording to make sure of hitting the horror comic, with that other Amendment to which I have referred accepted there will be, in my belief, no risk whatsoever of a prosecution being instituted against the reproduction of such a work as "The Rake's Progress."
  I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, first, on the ground that I do not believe for one moment that it is necessary, but, secondly, on what I believe is a much more important ground. Here I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell). I do believe that the insertion of these words would open a loophole.
  Let us consider work published before 1939; there is a reproduction, a new edition—say, of "The Pilgrim's Pro-

  2355
  gress"—very generously illustrated, consisting of illustrations that tell the story in pictures, as it has to be told to come within the scope of the Bill. I can see a quite considerable argument, were this Amendment accepted or similar words put in the Bill, taking place in a court as to whether that pictorial representation was really the work first published. I think that ingenious efforts would be made to say it was, and they might prevail. It is for that reason I do not want to see that loophole created through which the people at whom the Bill is aimed might escape.
  In my opinion this Bill is really very different from the ordinary law in relation to obscene publications. In relation to that law there is no provision requiring the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution. That is the safeguard here, and I suggest to the Committee—those Members of the Committee who really want the Bill—that this is an Amendment it would not be wise to accept.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins:The Attorney-General has drawn an important distinction between this and the general law relating to obscene publications, saying that prosecutions in the latter case do not require the consent of the Attorney-General. I wonder if he could say whether any prosecutions, as distinct from proceedings for destruction orders under the Obscene Publications Act, under the common law of obscene libel, have been taken in the past year without the consent of the Attorney-General.
  The Attorney-General:I think that if I were drawn into that discussion I should run the risk of being stopped by you, Mr. Hynd. This is not the occasion to deal with that Bill, in which, I know, the hon. Member is most interested. When the time comes I will deal with that.
  I wish to deal with this narrow Bill, which in my view is just on the right lines. I know it must be expected that there will be criticisms from both sides of the Committee on many Amendments—both ways. I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) say that he is not out to kill the Bill. I hope I have been able to convince him that if the Amendment were accepted, although it would not kill the Bill, it would leave not so much of the Bill alive.
  Mr. Rankin:The argument, as far as I followed it, of the Attorney-General was that this Amendment would create a loophole which would weaken the Bill. I think that if that were the case it would meet a good deal of opposition from both sides of the Committee, because it was made clear in the first two hours of the debate on Second Reading that arguments which seemed to bring in matters not pertinent to the Bill made the House hostile, and brought about a feeling of division; immediately we discussed the limited purpose of the Bill as defined in its Title the House was unanimous in supporting it.
  I think it is not wrong to say that the feeling that was expressed was that the Bill should as far as possible be limited and that nothing should be done to extend its purpose. If I follow the argument of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), that is precisely what he is seeking to do, and in my view that is what the Attorney-General is seeking to undo. He says this Amendment may create loopholes. I think one of the functions of every Parliamentary Bill has been to create loopholes. I should like to hear the Attorney-General tell us of any Act of Parliament that did not create loopholes.
  Mr. Cole:I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that such a publication in the future, whether it takes the form of the horror comics we have seen or not, should be prohibited by the Bill.
  Mr. Rankin: I do not want to embark on the exploratory argument the hon. Member invites me to enter upon, but if he does not accept this Amendment he will create loopholes which he does not want to create.
  At about the time of the Second Reading "The Times" drew attention to the fact that the Bill as presented to the House could bring under its definition of horror comics the time-honoured story of "Three Blind Mice" If the Amendment is not accepted, the Bill can still bring within its scope the story of "Three Blind Mice." That story is generally told in pictorial form and it is a horror if ever there was one. No single picture book today shows the final scene. No

  2357
  picture book dare show the three blind mice without their tails.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Is the hon. Member really saying that a jury would say that that story tended to corrupt youth?
  Mr. Rankin:If the hon. Gentleman is going to allege that pictures showing mice in that mutilated form will not harm or have a serious influence upon young children, I shall beg to differ from him. One could say the same of a whole library of those children's classics on which we have been reared. There is, for instance, "Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie." Who is going to say that one can catch living creatures, put them into a pie, bake them alive and then expect when one opens the pie to find them beginning to sing? [Laughter.]
  It may be fantasy to hon. Members, but it is a fact to a child.
  I do not think that "The Times" was being fantastic when it advanced the argument that tales of that nature might be endangered by the Bill. They would be saved by the Amendment. If the Attorney-General cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, surely he might agree to reconsider the matter and see whether some form of wording could not be devised for the Report stage on which the House and the Government might agree.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 70. Noes 143.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES

  [7.43 p.m.

  Blackburn, F.

  Janner, B.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Clurlic, J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Collins, V. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Viant, S. P.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Monslow, W.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mulley, F. W.

  West, D. G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Oswald, T.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Owen, W. J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Follick, M.

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Foot, M. M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Willis, E. G.

  Grimond, J.

  Parker, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hale, Leslie

  Proctor, W. T.

  Hastings, S.

  Rankin, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hayman, F. H.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Sir L. Plummer and

  Houghton, Douglas

  Ross, William

  Mr. K. Robinson.

  Hudson, James (Eaing, N.)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cole, Norman

  Gower, H. R.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Colegate, Sir Arthur

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Assheton, Rt.Hn. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Heath, Edward

  Barber, Anthony

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Black, C. W.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Fell, A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Finlay, Graeme

  Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Braine, B. R.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Fraser Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Iromonger, T. L.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Clarke, Brig.Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Glover, D.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Kaberry, D.

  Neave, Airey

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Keenan, W.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Sharpies, Maj. R. C.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Shepherd, William

  Kerr, H. W.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Studholme, H. G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Oliver, G. H.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Orbach, M.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Page, R. G.

  Turton, R. H.

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wall, Major Patrick

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Redmayne, M.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wills, G.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Marples, A. E.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Maude, Angus

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Russell, R. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Mr. R. Allan and

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Scott, Sir Donald

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "stories", to insert "being fiction."
  This is a more important Amendment than the last, and I hope to help progress by introducing it very shortly. The point we must get clear in a great deal of our discussions in the Committee and on this Amendment is exactly what, in fact, we are trying to deal with. We have been told over and over again that the object of this Bill is solely to deal with what we call horror comics. I am not a lawyer, and it may be that "stories" is a term of art. I do not think it is, but the point of this Amendment is quite clear. When we talk about "stories" in this Bill, are we meaning stories in the fictional, imaginative sense, or are we dealing with pictorial records of things that have actually happened, even if that record is horrible?
  On the last Amendment some of us were much concerned whether this Bill would, in fact, catch things which were not horror comics but works published years ago for reasons which have nothing to do with our problem. On this Amendment we are concerned whether the Bill as drafted will catch only the horror comic we all know, the purely imaginative, very disgusting and undesirable pictures of stories dealing with imaginary, unpleasant characters, or can it deal with stories in a very different sense, stories in the journalistic sense?
  If I may put it in its simplest form, would a description in pictorial terms,
  2360
  whether by drawings or photographs—and I will not trespass on the next Amendment that will try to cut out the latter possibility—of napalm bombs in Korea or a description in "Picture Post" in pictorial terms of Belsen or a Japanese prison camp come within the terms of the Clause? That would be a story in one sense of the word. Would it or would it not be a story in the sense of this Bill?
  If so, I submit that this Bill is in danger of dealing with things that we have been told over and over again it is not intended to deal with. In this Bill we are not attempting to stop descriptions, however horrific, even though they may fall into the hands of children and may have an evil effect, which are dealing with things that actually happen. I would deny altogether that the standard of what might corrupt a child must be the sole factor of what adults should be allowed to buy, sell or read about the world in which we live.
  If this Bill has the result of making it impossible to put in pictorial terms some of the terrible things that happen in war or happen even in peacetime, then it is going outside what we are told is its intention. The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that this Bill deals only with that to which it is supposed to be limited, namely, horror comics.
  We should not open the door or create a loophole whereby the Attorney-General or the courts could make it difficult, or impossible, or dangerous or a crime to put into a pictorial record the terrible

  2361
  things amongst which we have to live. I submit that it is worth very careful consideration and we should, therefore, limit stories to what I understand stories to be in the fictional sense and not in the journalistic sense, because it is with horror comics that we are supposed to be dealing.
  Dr. King: I shall oppose the Amendment. It is very difficult for me to convey to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) that many of us who would vote against this Amendment share his view. I understand that what both of us wish to proscribe is something very specific and something very definite, but none of us would say that this Bill would do any of the things that he fears it might do.
  But I rise again just to point out exactly what we are attempting to cope with. I am willing to grant that the horrific imaginings of fiction in the crime comic are something beneath anything that happened in history, and if we were to concentrate on mere fiction we should be eliminating part of the crime comic. But my experience is that one can make a crime comic almost out of anything. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) mentioned Robin Hood. I have seen Robin Hood turned into a crime comic. I have seen a crime comic of "Macbeth" and even of "Ivanhoe."
  What we are after is not the basic subject matter but what this particular group of people can manage to make. If we said that the story must be some crime which actually happened, it is quite possible for the crime comic artist to select his crime from history, embellish it, as he manages to embellish Robin Hood, and produce a crime comic founded on fact which equals in horror anything which could have been produced from his imagination.
  My fear throughout this debate is that Amendments proposed in perfectly good faith to protect serious works of art may be used as an alibi or a loophole through which the whole comic picture industry may wreck this Bill and go on, as it has done before, producing its works, not from "Frankenstein" and "Macbeth, "but from Jack-the-Ripper and a number of other well-known crimes. I hope it will be possible for the hon. Member to
  2362
  withdraw his Amendment. If he presses it to a Division, I am sorry but I shall have to vote against it.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: I associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Test (Dr. King). I was one of those who approached any idea of legislating against horror comics with the very greatest distrust, and only very reluctantly and after a very considerable time was I convinced, on the evidence that I had in the field of work in which I am interested in connection with the courts, that something had to be done about it.
  It is very important that, having decided that something has to be done about it, one faces up to the calculated risk that one is taking. It is a risk if one tries to carry out legislation of this kind. Once one starts trying to draw a line here and to cut out something else there, one has a situation in which one will not be able to direct one's attention to the mischief at which the legislation is aimed. This is a very good illustration of the point. I should think—I do not know—"stories" would cover any kind of narrative whether true or not. I think it should, and I think there is no case whatsoever for trying to draw some kind of artificial distinction between something which is called fiction—I am not certain of the definition of "fiction"—and something which is called true.
  I remember that at one time there was a publication called "True Story Magazine" which published some very edifying stories which were said to be true. I had no means of proving that they were not true. However, I do not think that the corrupting influence of that kind of thing is made any less by the fact that somebody says it is true. One can get oneself into most awkward tangles. It is possible to make a most magnificent horror comic out of the story of Deborah or Samson. It would not be beyond the enterprising gentlemen who produce horror comics to produce one called "Bible Stories for Children" which would, under the facade of being Bible stories for children, be horror comics based on the more fruity passages from the Book of Judges.
  If the defence is said to be that this is true and not fiction, how will the jury

  2363
  decide whether the story of Deborah is true or not? I can imagine it having to take flights into higher criticism and obtaining conflicting evidence from theological experts as to the probabilities of the story being true or not. The whole thing is completely unreal and would merely open the way to a great deal of abuse.
  We are all fairly clear what we are trying to do. We are trying to stop the publication of corrupting literature of the horror comic type from wherever it may be drawn. The fact that it tries to masquerade under the title of a narrative, some historical event or some true story seems to me to be wholly irrelevant to the question.
  Therefore, I think that one has to be quite brutal about it and say that one has to take a risk. We have to take the calculated risk that we shall never have an Attorney-General who is a bonehead; as long as that is so, we can take that risk and reasonably assume that when the question of a prosecution arises the matter will be looked at as a whole and a decision taken. Once we set out on this path, that is a risk that we have to take, however reluctantly we do it.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) asked what was intended by "stories" in this context. I think that the definition which has just been given by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is as good a one as I can find, namely any kind of narrative. It means stories in the natural sense of the word, and that is, of course, fairly wide.
  The arguments which were used on the last Amendment are equally applicable on this Amendment. That applies both ways. The previous Amendment sought to exclude from the operation of the Bill older works, if I may so call them, on the ground that they could not be of such a kind as to be within the definition intended by the Bill. The present Amendment seeks to exclude from the Bill true stories, again on the ground that such stories cannot be intended to be—I believe that is the way my hon. Friend put the argument—with in the meaning
  2364
  of the Bill. The answer to that was given by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on the last Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I hope to speak on this Amendment in a moment.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that by careful selection from the classics—he cited the case of "Pilgrim's Progress"—it would be possible to produce something which would be within the intention of the Bill by a process which might be called the reverse of expurgation. Similarly, by careful selection from real life—for example, from the disgusting crimes which sometimes take place—it would be possible to produce a very typical horror comic.
  If the Committee wants evidence of that, there is an example which I have just found in a recently published book. It will be familiar to hon. Members. The example given is of crime detective comics, and at the top is written "Real police cases. "There is cited just the kind of thing which the Bill is designed to prevent.
  If the Amendment were accepted, it would open a loophole with serious consequences, for it would prevent the Bill from operating properly. The Bill is designed to frustrate the efforts of people who will certainly take every advantage of any loophole left in it. The Bill must not be wider than necessary for its purpose, and, if it is to be effective at all, it must not have loopholes in it. The Amendment would provide a loophole, and for that reason I advise the Committee to reject it.
  Mr. Ede: I hope the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) will feel that at any rate on this occasion his Amendment has not been dealt with cursorily. A serious argument has been addressed to the Committee as to why it should not be accepted.
  At a very critical stage in what is generally regarded as the most important trial in the history of mankind, the judge asked "What is truth?" Under this Bill, if the Amendment is accepted, judges will have to ask themselves "What is fiction?" How much of history is actually fact?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The prosecution would have to go further than that. It would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it was fiction, and one could never do that.
  Mr. Ede: That was precisely the point at which I was hoping to arrive, but I do notcomplain that the hon. Member has managed to get me there a little before I might otherwise have done.
  I do not want to do other than to suggest that the argument which was adduced by the Under-Secretary is really quite conclusive on this specific Amendment. After all, there has recently been a series on the B.B.C. dealing with some of the historic legends of this country. For example, one programme dealt with the murder of the two children in the Tower and similar occurrences, and one might get involved about whether they were fact. Undoubtedly a great many people believe that the accepted story has no basis in fact at all. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, East will think fit to withdraw the Amendment.
  Sir I. Horobin: I am bound to say that on this occasion the balance of argument is against the Amendment. Before asking leave to withdraw it, however, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the discussion on this and previous Amendment has shown the difficulty of arriving at a really satisfactory and completely objective definition. Although, as I say, the balance of arguments has been against the Amendment, it seems to me that the case for later Amendments will be enormously strengthened. Those Amendments will bring in the matter of intention.
  It has become increasingly clear that we are in an impossible position. Without producing loopholes for these unpleasant people to walk through, we are making it possible to prosecute in cases where we have no desire nor intention of prosecuting. Everything that has been said hitherto strengthens the argument that the Government, with the best will in the world, have not so far succeeded in finding an objective test. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "pictures", to insert,
  "not being reproductions of photographs."
  2366
  I can very quickly put this point to the Committee. All those who have looked at these horror comics know that they do not deal with photographs, and for a very obvious reason, which is that one cannot photograph Dracula and the horrible beast in the lagoon, or whatever it is. Once again, some of us are very much afraid that we may be putting in danger productions of a quite different kind. I refer to the case I gave earlier of a "Picture Post" supplement on Belsen or the Korean war which ought to be published and read by adults, although it is unsuitable for children.
  My submission is that we can conceive of photographs being used for the horror comic type of publication only if they are matters of sex. One can photograph, as we all know, extremely unpleasant things dealing with sex, although the photographic material is not the staple diet of the horror comic. If it were to be used by the horror comic, it could be dealt with by the ordinary obscenity laws. We do not require to put ourselves in danger once again by bringing in things which are not really horror comics, because if they are obscene photographs they can be dealt with by the law of obscenity. This Amendment is designed as one more attempt to see that we do not put in peril publications which are not horror comics.
  Dr. King: I should like to support the Amendment. I know that there can be pretty repulsive photographs, but nothing in photography can approach the kind of thing which we are out to destroy by the Bill. The Amendment would provide some of the safeguards which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) has been seeking for quite a time this evening, and I hope that the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider it.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. N. Nicolson: I am sorry to oppose the Amendment, but I do so most strongly. If the Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, it could release a flood of concealed horror and pornography in publications designed for children. Both hon. Members who have spoken have said that one cannot by photography produce some horrific, bestial result as one can by drawings. That is not true. One can, by methods of trick photography and posed

  2367
  pictures, produce a most horrifying result. Indeed, the tendency in modern magazine illustration is to turn away from the drawing to photography and the posed photograph.
  Children are much more easily attracted to photographs than to drawings. They prefer the photographs, and by the Amendment one would be providing a loophole through which a coach-and-pair could be driven. If the Amendment is agreed to, the publishers who have said that they intend to continue publishing horror comics if the Bill is not passed will rub their hands with glee. I most earnestly suggest to the Committee that the Amendment is highly dangerous and would thwart the whole purpose of the Bill.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I regret that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. I should say at the outset that in its present form the Amendment is defective, since it might be held to cover works reproduced by photographic methods from an original drawing by an artist, or a so-called artist. In fact, that is one of the methods by which this type of publication is produced and it is for that reason that the words "photographic film" are used in later Clauses. I do not want to give my hon. Friend an answer of a purely technical kind. I should also like to answer him on the merits of the case.
  His intention is to prevent proceedings against such documents as illustrated pamphlets drawing attention, for example, to the horrors of Belsen, or similar publications. I do not think that the method he has adopted is satisfactory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said, the Amendment would provide a loophole in just the same way as did the previous Amendment. For all practical purposes the Amendments are on all fours with one another.
  If it is desired to exclude these particular works, and if it is thought that there is any risk whatever of their coming within the ambit of the Bill, then the right method is to make an Amendment which has already been referred to, and ensure that prosecutions are not brought in ridiculous cases. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
  Sir I. Horobin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 1, line, 9, to leave out:
  "(a) the commissions of crimes; or."
  I think that I can state the case for this Amendment very briefly. It is that in my view the inclusion of the words which I propose to leave out is either superfluous or very dangerous. It could be argued that the words are superfluous on the ground that they are embraced by paragraphs (b) or (c). It is difficult to imagine the commission of crimes which can also not be described as:
  "acts of violence or cruelty; or … incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature."
  Therefore paragraphs (b) and (c) embrace the commission of crimes.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Under which paragraph—(b) or (c)— would the hon. Gentleman say that the forging of a cheque would fall?
  Mr. Foot:That question brings me to the second half of my argument. I agree that we can get some forms of crime which might not be included in the definition which I have just quoted, but if there are such crimes I do not see why children should not be taught about them.
  Either the words are superfluous or they are dangerous. I should have thought that, on the first ground, this might be considered to be a convenient drafting Amendment, but if it is claimed that there are special kinds of crimes which might be portrayed in these horror comics, and which the Government are particularly eager to catch, we come to the second half of the argument about their being dangerous.
  We have had a large number of examples of books or incidents which everyone in the Committee would not like to see prevented by the operation of the Measure. However, I should have thought that many of them were the types of crime which children have been discussing, in one form or another, ever since the world existed. We had mention of Robin Hood a little earlier. Robin Hood was engaged in the commission of crimes. Therefore, a perfectly innocent and proper portrayal of the story of

  2369
  Robin Hood in pictures might, under the Bill, possibly involve penalties.
  It may be argued that we have the words:
  "…. in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person…."
  We all know that these words can be loosely applied, and that is a test which we shall debate later. It is a test which many of us do not like, but I suggest that it would be a simple improvement in the Bill to exclude the reference to the commission of crimes.
  The "Dick Barton" stories could portray in a pictorial form something which might be thought to come within the scope of the Bill. I should not have imagined that that was the intention of the Government. We could take all the detective stories. Sherlock Holmes in a pictorial form might possibly be considered by some magistrates to be within the scope of the Bill. Again, I do not think that that was the intention of the Government.
  If the Government knocked out the words which I propose to delete, they would not weaken the Measure in any way in dealing with horror comics. Real horror comics are dealt with under paragraphs (b) and (c). In one sense this Act is a test of the desire of the Government to bring the Bill to bear on the purpose which they have always declared to be their purpose, and that is to deal solely with horror comics.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I rise to oppose the Amendment, which I can do briefly. These words are not superfluous, because the whole of the crimes of forgery, theft, robbery and so on are included only in paragraph (a). They would not be:
  "acts of violence or cruelty, or … incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature."
  On the other limb of the argument, the test under paragraph (a), that is the only heading under which sexual crimes come. Paragraph (b) does not deal with sex at all, nor does paragraph (c). Therefore, if we are to deal with sexual questions they must come under the first paragraph.
  I will give an example. One could produce a horror comic quite easily and do it not fictionally but from truth, by telling the story of procuration—the Messina brothers, or some one like that. One could picture the procuration of
  2370
  young children or young women for carnal purposes or prostitution.
  Mr. Foot: Would not that come under the heading of: "incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature"?
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No, it would not.
  I do not think that that is what is meant by the words "repulsive" or "horrible" The word "horrible" means ghoulish, and the word "repulsive" means re-pellant in the sense which one finds the horror comic. I do not regard that as being synonymous with sex or lewdness. I am dealing with lewdness at the moment, and with the type of crime such as procuration or the procuration of young children.
  I do not believe that at this point it is necessary to amend the Bill at all. This is a process of giving guidance to the bench or to the jury about the sense in which the words "tend to corrupt" should be translated.
  I invite the hon. Member and the Committee to lend their support at a later stage to other Amendments on the Paper when we come to the words "is intended to" It is in that place and not in this that we need to amend the Bill.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:The Amendment would have the effect of removing what are popularly known as crime comics from the purview of the Bill. It is true that there are some perfectly genuine and proper publications of the comic variety which contain stories of crime, but that mere fact in itself would not bring a story or a publication within the scope of the Bill. The Bill applies only to
  "work which consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures…"
  portraying crime, violence, cruelty, or horror. I am not using the exact language of the Bill, but that is the effect of it.
  In any case, it would be for the court to say whether the effect of the publication would be to tend to corrupt, as defined by the Bill. The fears of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that innocent publications might be caught as a result of the inclusion of these words are unfounded; in other words, there is no danger in leaving these words in the Bill.
  He argued, alternatively that the words were superfluous; that it was unnecessary to include them in the Bill, because the

  2371
  commission of crimes was already covered by the other paragraphs. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), some crime is not violent.
  I cannot do better than give an actual example from a horror comic which I have seen. One of these publications, circulated in this country, depicts a child of 10 who murders her father and succeeds—to use an American phrase—in "framing" her mother and her mother's lover, who are electrocuted, thus enabling the child to go and live in luxury with her Aunt Kate. The murder of the father is not shown in any of the pictures, so in that case there would be nothing which would come within the terms of the other paragraphs.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Foot: Could not the murder be described as an act of cruelty, even though it was done retrospectively?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is nothing actually depicted which is either cruel or violent. It is all left to the imagination. That, I should think, could be exactly the kind of story we should deplore and wish to prevent by this legislation. I do not think that these words are either dangerous or superfluous, and I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Foot: I am not convinced by the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary, although I am sure that he has done his best to convince me. He has given the grounds on which he thinks that these words should be included, but I still cannot agree. I think it improper that we should take action to deal with stories which may be describing other sorts of crime which are not
  "acts of violence or cruelty"
  or
  "incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature."
  These have been described to children in one form or another ever since the printed word came into being.
  I should have thought that a Government, avowedly and determinedly setting out to restrict this Bill, as surely as they can, to dealing with horror comics, would have erred in the direction of saying, "At any rate, we can leave out the whole field of these other kinds of crimes which have
  2372
  been discussed in children's books ever since there were any children's books."
  In fact, the Government have not been prepared to make any concessions about this. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the Committee may get on with the discussion of other Amendments. But I hope very much, from the Amendments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—even though they may be withdrawn in order to assist in the progress of the Bill—that the Government will realise that there is a very strong feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that, so far, they have not indicated a real attempt to carry out the alterations which were argued for during the debate on Second Reading.
  We have not yet had an indication from the Government that they are approaching this Committee stage in the spirit in which we hope we shall deal with even more important Amendments later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mrs. Irene White: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "as a whole."
  I am hoping that this will be the first Amendment accepted by the Government—at least, the first Amendment accepted in proper order, because the Attorney-General very much anticipated the debate by indicating that he would accept what is, I think, the twenty-fifth Amendment on the Paper.
  As the Committee knows, I have very strong reservations about much of this Bill, which I think might be improved considerably, and which I hope will be improved by the acceptance of later Amendments. This Amendment is an effort to assist the Government to improve the Bill in the form in which they appear to have conceived it. I cannot understand why, for the particularly narrow purpose of dealing with horror comics, they should allow such latitude by saying that a work, as a whole, must tend to corrupt before any action can be taken against those responsible for it.
  Surely it is perfectly easy to conceive of a publication in which the larger part consists of stories about the commission of crimes—"Dick Barton" stories and so on—including pictures of acts of violence. Pirate stories and Wild West stories, in

  2373
  themselves innocuous enough, might be used as a vehicle—as they could so well be used, if the Bill is left as it is at present drafted—for one or two stories or serials of precisely the kind which we do not wish to have put into the hands of children. If the purpose of the Government is to protect children and young persons from seeing such pictures and reading such stories, I should have thought it in their interests to accept this Amendment making it impossible to bring a real horror element into a publication which contained just sufficient innocuous matter to keep it within the law. Therefore, I hope that the Government will say that it is a commonsense Amendment which should make it easier for them to achieve what they have in view.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: I am delighted that at last I have found an Amendment which I can wholeheartedly support. It seems to me that, when discussing some of the other Amendments, Members have been rather anxious about this Bill and have been seeking to find someway in which to alter it. In this case I think that the words "as a whole" are entirely unnecessary. In fact, they make the intention of the Government weaker. If these words were deleted and the judgment were not upon the work as a whole but on any part of the work, I think that would fulfil the intention of the Government, and I hope that they will accept the Amendment.
  Dr. King:I would briefly express the hope that the Home Secretary will consider carefully the arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward. I am always afraid of a loophole that the industry may make use of, and under this Clause it would seem to be possible for a crime comic to contain 49 per cent.of the kind of thing which we are out to destroy, provided that there is 51 per cent. of innocuous matter around it. If we took away the words "as a whole" we might remove that possibility.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish to support the Amendment. I think that the Minister will have very great difficulty in resisting it, particularly in view of his statements on previous Amendments. This is the one Amendment to the Clause which, I think, is of importance. I feel that the whole
  2374
  purpose of the Bill is to ensure that our young people are safeguarded from anything offensive that might be found in such publications. The purpose of the Bill, which I support wholeheartedly, would certainly be strengthened if the Amendment were accepted.
  Mr. G. H. Oliver: Like my hon. Friends who have already spoken, I think that this is the one Amendment we have had up to now that I can support. I recognise that while the words "as a whole" stand, quite juicy paragraphs or pages could be inserted in some journal portraying crime, violence or cruelty, or incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature which, by reason of these words and because they did not represent the work as a whole, would appear to escape entirely the intentions of the Bill.
  If a portion of a work has odium attached to it which this Bill seeks to destroy, that is no reason why an exception should be made in that case. I agree that if it were a comparatively small portion of the publication it would be easy for the publisher to know that it was there. It would be easier for the printers to know that it was there and for the writer or drawer of the illustration to know that it was there, but it would be very difficult for the person selling the thing to discover that it was there, because it would necessitate the seller going through the publication to discover exactly what it contained. I recognise that is a weakness, but, on the other hand, if it contains objectionable features which this Bill seeks to prevent, I can see no logical reason why it should be immune.
  Mr. Ede: I wish very strongly to support this Amendment. I have not found it possible to support any of the earlier Amendments with any great enthusiasm. I was only convinced about the need for the first Amendment when I heard the third speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General on the subject. But, with regard to the others, I have had no doubt that they were intended to weaken the Bill, and I am exceedingly anxious that it should not be thought, without very good reason, that this Committee regards with any enthusiasm at all the trade of the people who have been engaged in publishing these books.
  This Bill is aimed at dealing with publications intended for children or

  2375
  young persons, and the phrase under discussion is one which has been taken out of legislation dealing with general publications, but mainly with those for persons of adult opinions and adult standards of judgment. I suggest that anyone with a knowledge of children knows that one picture of the kind which this Measure is aimed at preventing, being the main subject of the book, can have the most harmful effect on a child's mind, even if it is the only one of that type in the publication.
  That is the case which I hope the Government will consider. We are not dealing here with the adult mind but with the child mind. It may even be that one horrific picture of the most detestable kind would make the more impression if, in fact, it were the only one of its kind in a book which was otherwise unobjectionable. That is the case which I wish to put to the Government. It has been well spoken to by my various hon. Friends who have addressed a few remarks in support of the Amendment, and I earnestly hope that the Government will feel that the Bill as drafted, with the inclusion of these three words, fails to that extent from the general purpose that they have set themselves.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster):Of course the case has been well spoken to, of course it is important, and of course we shall see whether in any way we are taking a wrong view about this matter. I assure the Committee that the difficulty is how we can be fair to the supposed defendant without these words. This issue may be tried, not by experienced magistrates like the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). but by a jury, and the judge sitting with that jury would have to tell them how to view the matter.
  If we left out the words "as a whole" and just left it to the members of the jury to take the publication to their room to consider whether it would tend to corrupt, and so forth, they might innocently get down to picking out from the book, not one story, as the hon. Lady suggested, but perhaps one picture, and by concentrating on that one picture they might arrive at a conclusion which was not really fair or just to the defendant.
  On the other hand, I should have thought that one could tell them, "Go
  2376
  and look at this work as a whole, and, if you find one picture which is so horrific or repulsive—so representative of the element of a horror comic—that you regard it as predominant, and as a clue to the whole of the work, you can, if you please, treat the work as something which tends to corrupt."
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Blackburn: It is not a case of asking the jury to look at the work as a whole; the Clause contains the expression
  "that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt."
  That is the danger as I see it.
  The Solicitor-General: I follow the hon. Member's point, but I beg to assure him that I am not arguing a different point; I am dealing with precisely that point.
  It is the work as a whole that the judge wants the jury to look at when deciding whether or not it would tend to corrupt. I should have thought it right to tell the jury that looking at the work as a whole involves looking at some part of the work and assessing its degree of importance in relation to the whole, in the context of which we are speaking, and that if, viewing the work as a whole, they find one part which they think is so predominant and important that it is true to say that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt, they would be applying a just test in the matter.
  We are here trying to hit a well-defined target in a well-defined manner, and it is merely a question of providing the right scheme for the purpose. I cannot think that I should be right in commending this Clause to the Committee without the words "as a whole" because I think that it might produce an unjust result. To that extent I should not be prepared to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. I ask the Committee to accept the view that, as the Clause now stands, it provides the fairest solution. In reply, however, to the request of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I undertake that we shall consider as best we may, before the next stage, whether or not the view which I present to the Committee is entirely right, or whether we can make some improvement less than the total omission of the words "as a whole."
  Mr. Paget: I am somewhat confused here. I cannot understand how a work

  2377
  which tends to corrupt cannot, as a whole, tend to corrupt. Can the Solicitor-General give me an example of a work which tends to corrupt but which, as a whole, does not tend to corrupt? I cannot conceive how the difference can arise.
  The Solicitor-General: Does it not arise regularly in relation to allegedly obscene publications? We have had plenty of recent instances where juries have been told, in relation to certain novels, "You must look at this book as a whole and decide if it tends to deprave or corrupt. "It might well be that if one picked out of the book some page, that page would be manifestly corrupting—frankly, what the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself would call dirty—but if one took a fair view of the whole book, the view might be quite different. I think there is a distinction.
  One might find a page, a passage, or a picture, which, naked and without adornment, would manifestly tend to corrupt, but one's judgment of the value of the work might be entirely varied if one looked at the work as a whole. It is, therefore, important, when looking at what is being measured as tending to corrupt, that one should look at the whole and not at part of the whole.
  Mr. Ede:With the greatest of respect, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has really directed his mind to the point which we have raised. His retort to my hon. and learned Friend has been entirely in the context of dealing with adults and with publications in respect of which prosecutions have been instituted because, taken as a whole, they tend to corrupt adults.
  Adults, one may assume—although in some cases it would be an unwarrantable assumption—can assess a work as a whole; but we are dealing with children, and in the main with rather illiterate young persons. All the evidence goes to show that the great sale for these comics is among children under 12 or 13 years of age, and persons above that age, up to 17 or 18, who are only semi-literate at the best. That type of mind is not capable of assessing a work as a whole when there is one definitely terrifying and corrupting element in it. That is the case which my hon. Friends have put before the Government, and I hope that it will be considered from that point of view.
  The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not want to make another speech, but I want to indicate, as not lacking in courtesy to him, that I have not failed to take note of that point. What was in my mind was that in the event of a trial by jury the persons who would have to assess whether a work tended to corrupt a child or a young person would be adults. That is the point.
  Mr. Ede:Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not neglecting the point that the Attorney-General would have to give his fiat before there could be a prosecution? Let us assume that the Attorney-General—and I hope it will not be long before the hon. and learned Gentleman himself will occupy that position for a few days—gives his fiat. Before he does so he has to look at the book in the light of these words. He would find it difficult to say that one, only one, terrifyingly corrupt picture was a sufficient ground for giving his fiat; whereas it might have the most appalling effects upon a considerable number of children.
  Mr. N. Nicolson: May I, as a publisher, state my view? My hon. and learned Friend has indicated that he will look at the matter again. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has he?"] He has. I should be perfectly happy to be judged upon the phrase without the words "as a whole." It would give me sufficient safeguards.
  The word "work" is a generalisation because it does not refer to any specific part of the work. The word "tend" is a generalisation. The word "corrupt" is a generalisation. These three generalisations would give me sufficient freedom within which to make my own case to a jury, and would allow them to take a reasonable view of the matter. The words "as a whole" simply add a fourth generalisation. I would not be upset if they were excised from the Bill.
  In a work of literature it would be difficult to have one's work judged as a whole, but weare talking about pictorial corruption. There, I think, it is perfectly fair to take one page, one sheet of illustrations, and, if it does contain some elements which are corrupting, then the publisher of that sheet should stand the consequences. It is not so easy to take a picture in context as it is a phrase or a paragraph of text. Therefore, with-

  2379
  out great enthusiasm for this Amendment but without any strong feeling of opposition to it, I would concede that there is a good deal in the arguments advanced from the other side of the Committee, and I should be pleased if my hon. and learned Friend could accept them.
  Mr. Houghton: As this seems to be of those occasions when one can speak one's own mind without getting into too much trouble, I propose to express a view differing from that of most of my hon. Friends who have spoken on this side.
  I propose to look at this, as the Solicitor-General suggested, from the point of a member of the jury. Even if these words are not put into the Bill, I believe that it will be necessary for the court to use them in explaining the law to the jury. After all, if the words are not in, how will the Clause read? It will read
  "… in such a way that the work would tend to corrupt …"
  Even to a reasonably intelligent person like myself, it would be necessary for the judge to say that the work must be interpreted as meaning not just one isolated piece of the work but the work as a whole. In explaining this particular phrase he would drift almost unconsciously into those words.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) that one picture or one group of pictures in the work as a whole may be so horrible that they would predominate in the impression which would be made on the mind of the child, but I cannot conceive of a work as a whole that was innocuous as to the most part but was offensive and corrupting as to a small part. Surely there would be some general theme, a general presentation of whatever the book was trying to get across. I think also that, in certain circumstances, there would, in looking at the work as a whole, be some mitigation of the offence that a particular picture might give.
  It is very difficult to theorise about this and to think of the hypothetical context of a book which might contain some part of objectionable material which, on some kind of quantitative analysis, might not be the work as a whole. In explaining
  2380
  this to those who have to judge, I think it would be presented in this way: "You must look at this thing as a whole, of a piece, and if part of it predominates in your mind as having a possible influence on the mind of a child, then the work as a whole has to be judged by reference to that particular part of it."
  If the Solicitor-General could think of words which could replace these and which would be an improvement—I confess I cannot think of any at the moment—the purpose of this phrase might be served. I do not think that it would improve the Bill to leave the words out altogether.
  Mr. Cole: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General seriously to consider the possibility of inserting words with a view to their effect on the Bill as a whole. During Second Reading I drew attention to this point in this Clause. I quoted the example of a clever publisher who would take an existing horror comic of so many pages, put it in a larger publication, the rest of the new publication being of such entirely innocuous matter that the work as a whole could not be regarded as corrupting. It would have exactly the same effect, because the people would not bother to read the innocuous matter.
  9.0 p.m.
  If we are not careful about these words "as a whole," I am afraid that what we are trying to do will be nullified by legal niceties in a court. I do not see why we cannot use simple English to convey what we want to do. I suggested on Second Reading that we should use the words "in such a way that the stories would tend to corrupt." What is wrong with that? We are, after all, talking about stories, not written matter. Why not simply say what our object is? Our object is to ensure that stories which tend to corrupt shall not be conveyed to children and young persons. Why should we say "the work as a whole"? Why not use the word "stories"?
  I am afraid of these words "as a whole. "An unscrupulous publisher could insert a horror comic in a much larger work, an innocuous book, and the book would be bought for the horror comic portion. He would not lose anything in sales. Books are today sometimes bought for certain portions of them. It would

  2381
  be difficult for a fair judge and jury, considering a book of 60 pages of innocuous matter but containing five pages of the sort of noxious matter we have in mind, to say that the book "as a whole" tended to corrupt. If one prosecution brought against such a work were thrown out, other publishers would promptly follow the suit of the publisher who won that case. I do suggest that my hon. and learned Friend should consider some such words as I have suggested.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider this part of the Clause again, because it seems to me quite clear that without the words "as a whole" it would fulfil the purpose the Government intend. Let me read it without the words "as a whole":
  "… in such a way that the work would tend to corrupt a child or young person…."
  It is not a question of one photograph or a few words taken out of their context, but a question of the work. I agree with the hon. Members who say that there is no real difference between the passage with the words "as a whole" and the passage without the words "as a whole."
  A jury, considering the Clause with these excessive words, may ask, "What is the object of having these words 'as a whole,' when already the passage speaks of the work tending to corrupt?" The Solicitor-General knows very well how the mind of a jury works, and he knows that a jury may say—I do not say that every jury would in every case—that those words mean that unless the whole or the bulk of the work is corrupting no offence is committed. I do ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the matter again.
  Mr. R. Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) is under the impression that every picture tells a story. He put forward the point of view that every individual picture tells a story, and I do not think that that is quite correct in the interpretation of the Bill. I thought that we were all fairly clear as to what we wanted from the Bill. We wanted to strike at horror comics and nothing else. Therefore, every form of words which provides a distinction between horror comics and other publications exactly fulfils our purpose. The words of the Bill help that purpose.
  2382
  Hon. Members have been speaking about the possible corrupting effect of one picture or one sheet. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South said that five pages out of 60 might be corrupting. We are getting a long way from horror comics and are beginning to think of books.
  Mr. Cole:Whether we are getting a long way from horror comics or not, would my hon. Friend be prepared to see a publication in which even five pages might lead to corruption?
  Mr. Bell: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that what we are trying to strike at is the horror comic. We are not trying to add a little to the general law on obscenity.
  Mr. Blackburn: Would the hon. Member not agree that if the words "as a whole" remain in the Bill it will be quite possible for the people who are now publishing horror comics to continue publication, making 51 per cent. of the contents unobjectionable and 49 per cent. objectionable, and get away with it?
  Mr. Bell: That is most certainly not true. Let us consider the purpose for which the words were inserted. The Government, in drafting the Bill, obviously wanted to be very sure that we should confine our attention to horror comics. It would be quite wrong to convict someone because one picture in the middle of the book was horrifying. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) gave a good example of that when he referred to a picture of Christian fighting with Apollyon, which he said was horrific, and might have profound and unfortunate effects on a child, and tend to corrupt.
  The Bill is expressly framed so as not to strike at that sort of thing. One could imagine "The Pilgrim's Progress" pictorially represented so as to bring it inside the definition in the Bill, that is, a story told mainly in pictures. Some people might think that perhaps 5 per cent. of the pictures were horrific, but that would not bring them within the scope of the Bill, because the general tendency of the work was a moral one and did not tend to corrupt. Therefore, although the pictures themselves might be horrific, the work as a whole would not be a horror comic within the meaning of what we are trying to strike at through the Bill.

  2383
  We have all seen horror comics or know of them at second hand. There is no horror comic that I have seen or of which I know which would not be struck at by the Bill, and there is nothing which is not a horror comic which the form of words in the Bill would not exclude. Certain hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South have said that if we strike out the words "as a whole" we do not alter the meaning legally. If that is so, there is no justification for striking them out. [Hon. Members: "Or for leaving them in."] There is a merit in leaving them in. We make doubly sure by keeping them in, and in the Bill we want to make doubly sure that we do not strike at anything which is not a horror comic.
  Let us emphasise that all that we are aiming at is a work which "as a whole" tends to corrupt, and that anything else which does not as a whole tend to corrupt, and which may indeed have a high moral purpose, should not be in any peril from the Bill because that work contains rather dreadful pictures. Hilaire Belloc's "Cautionary Tales" or something like that does not tend to corrupt, and because there are some ghoulish pictures in it, that does not matter. I look on these words as a sort of assurance which I should not like to see dropped from the Bill.
  Mr. Paget: I have an objection to putting into a Bill words which mean nothing when that Bill is to be handled by the law courts, because the people who handle the Bill will be deceived into thinking that those words mean something. The words "as a whole," I respectfully submit, mean absolutely nothing at all. It makes not the slightest difference whether they are left in or taken out.
  Here we have the words
  "would tend to corrupt."
  If there is a book many inches thick, and it contains one single picture that tends to corrupt, then it is a book that tends to corrupt, although 999 pages of it may be perfectly innocent. On the other hand, if there is one page which shows a highly successful crime and taken alone would tend to corrupt, but
  2384
  on the next page is shown a criminal being successfully caught and brought to justice, then that work is not a work that tends to corrupt. Whether these words "as a whole" are in or not does not matter a solitary chipolata. If these words are unnecessary, as I say they are, I would ask the Solicitor-General to take them out.
  Mr. R. Bell: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider this question? Has he not completely destroyed his argument by referring to the next page and implying that the picture is to be understood in its whole context? If the total context is material then the words "as a whole" carry us a very long distance.
  Mr. Paget: Let me deal with that point. Let us think of the phrase
  "would tend to corrupt."
  If the work, in page 1, provides the solution to a successful crime, and in page 2 shows the chap being caught, that is not a work which would tend to corrupt, and whether there is "as a whole" or not in the Bill does not make a sausage of difference.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I think that the Committee is in some danger, in its desire to destroy the horror comic, of getting the size of the problem out of perspective. I think I am right in saying that the horror comic is already dead, and that, in fact, it is no longer possible to buy one. As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of this Bill has, in fact, been achieved, and its success will be judged by the fact that probably no prosecutions will ever have to take place under it. That is what I suspect all of us would hope.
  I think that the danger is that, in taking out the words "as a whole", we shall be depriving the publishers and the other people struck at in Clause 2 of the whole defence provided by the last four lines of Clause 1. If "as a whole" were taken out, and each particular object or picture or succession of pictures could be looked at by themselves, then it would stand to reason that paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) in Clause 1 would automatically be caught up by the remaining words of the Clause, and those words, which are supposed to be a defence, would no longer serve as one.
  9.15 p.m.
  There are, after all, what are commonly called Westerns, cowboy and Indian tales, any one of which may, in an isolated picture, portray an act of violence. Surely we do not want to strike at a whole series of that type of publication on which many of us were, so to speak, brought up, and which anyone would expect a jury to look at as a whole in order to decide whether or not the publisher should be convicted.
  Surely the Government are justified in retaining "as a whole" if there is any doubt at all whether the words add or do not add anything to the Clause. We have had legal opinion from both sides of the Committee saying that perhaps the words add something and perhaps they do not. If there is a doubt of that kind, the words should be retained.
  There is a danger that in our anxiety to destroy the horror comic we may become rather fussy adults and tend to forget that children have very much more resilient and less morbid minds than most of us are tending to credit them with at the moment. I very much hope that we shall rely on the resilience of the children rather than on our own attitude, in theory, to some of these things. I certainly urge the Government to keep in the Bill a perfectly fair defence, to which bona fide artists, publishers, and so on, are surely entitled.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: While I do not wish to take a particularly strong line against the Amendment, I agree more with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) have said than with most of the other points which have been put forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) is clear that she- is putting forward this strengthening proposal in relation to a censorship Bill only because it is a particular sort of Bill which, in her view, deals only with pictorial publications. In her opinion, that gives a very special connotation to the words which she has used. That may be so, and there may be some force in the argument.
  I find it difficult to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the words "as a whole" could not possibly make any difference at all. I agree with the
  2386
  hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South on this. He made the case against it by saying that one could have a situation in which one picture, considered alone, might corrupt, but if one turned over the page and read what came after, it might not corrupt. What is of importance is whether the courts, juries or anybody else, will be instructed to turn over the page or whether they will be encouraged not to do so.
  Mr. Paget: Surely the whole point is that if by turning over the page it does not corrupt, then the work does not corrupt.
  Mr. Jenkins: That may be so, but—I do not want again to incur the wrath of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in getting too wide of the subject—after all, the only parallel in existing law to which we can turn in considering what will be the practical effects of what we are doing is the existing law relating to obscene publications. It is impossible to study a number of the cases of obscene libel which have occurred without taking the view that there is room for a very substantial difference of approach according to whether one considers a work as a whole or isolated passages in it.
  There is no doubt a tall that certain prosecutions have been brought and have been sustained on the basis of isolated passages. Therefore, I cannot accept for one moment the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that it makes no difference at all. It is still possible to see the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East that there is a certain difference, because one is not dealing with a continuous novel but with something which should be put into its component parts. However, that is a different argument from saying that there is nothing in these words.
  I can see some point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East said, but this is one of the few respects in which the Bill moves in a slightly more liberal direction and I would have a little doubt about taking out one of the few liberal phrases that we now have in it. I recognise that there is a distinction with pictorial publications, but I am not sure that it is strong enough to make us take out these words which go in a liberal direction. Nor do I think that the first

  2387
  Amendment we make should be one that is not in a liberal direction, but towards a tightening up.
  Mrs. White: I am entirely unconvinced by the assurances of the Solicitor-General. I am sorry about that. He said he would look into the matter again, but he said it in a tone that did not carry much weight with me. I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) who are very much concerned with the amendment of the law in another direction. With that, as I made clear in the Second Reading debate, I am in complete and entire sympathy, and I most emphatically agree that the law of obscenity should be amended in the direction they wish and that for a work of art, a novel or a publication of that sort, it is quite wrong to deal with it other than as a whole.
  But the Government's whole argument on this Bill is that they are not dealing with works of that kind. That was the whole point of the Solicitor-General's speech. The Government say that they are dealing with a specific type of publication which is not necessarily produced as a whole but which is very often a conglomeration of individual items not necessarily connected one with another. For that reason, I urge that to leave these words in the Clause is likely to have an effect on the mind of the jury which would be quite wrong. It brings a quantitative criterion into this matter which is quite unsuitable in the circumstances. The position is perfectly well met if these words "as a whole" are left out, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, the effect we are really trying to reach is in the phrase "that the work might tend to corrupt." He would leave out the words which would make any jury say that they must look at this and see—
  Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Lady has again used the word "jury," which has been used on this and other occasions in different parts of the Committee. From where does she get the idea that the person accused will ever be taken before a jury? This is a case of summary jurisdiction.
  Mrs. White: I am sorry. I was misled by a learned argument. There is a stage in the proceedings where a jury might be asked—
  Mr. Ede: Surely the fact that four months is fixed as a maximum penalty entitles the accused to elect to go before a jury. As soon as the case opens in the magistrates' court he will be so told, and he will have to make his election whether he goes before a jury or not.
  Sir I. Horobin: Summary conviction.
  Mr. Ede: If he says, "I would prefer to be dealt with by this court," then, of course, he does not go before a jury. It is his own fault if he does not.
  Mrs. White: Whether it is a jury or a magistrate, whoever is trying to deal with this, if these words "as a whole" remain in, will tend to look at the publication and say that there are three, four, five or six stories, or serials, which are perfectly all right and therefore he must not do anything about the other one or two which might have a most depraving effect upon children.
  Those of us who have had anything to do with children and their reading will agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that children would not look at it as a whole. Their attention would be concentrated on the one or two items which might well have been put in for the precise purpose that we are all trying to combat by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) tells me that already in the United States the traditional Western story magazines are being invaded by precisely the kind of thing which we are out to prevent. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendment is of substance.
  If the Government are trying to deal only with the narrow point of horror comics, we should not be misled by arguments that would certainly apply to other types of publications but not to the types of publication about which we are trying to do something effective. Therefore, I am unable to be satisfied with the assurance given by the Solicitor-General, and I do not wish to withdraw the Amendment.

  2389
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 82.

  Division No. 50]

  AYES

  [9.26 p.m.

  Altken, W. T.

  Cower, H. R.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Grimond, J.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, R. G.

  Assheton, Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn,W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Heath, Edward

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Black, C. W.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Redmayne, M.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hyltem-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Russell, R. S.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Scott, Sir Donald

  Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph (E. Grinstead)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Sharpies, Maj. R. C.

  Cole, Norman

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Shepherd, William

  Colegate, Sir Arthur

  Kerr, H. W.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Teeling, W.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Turton, R. H.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Drewe, Sir C.

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Fell, A.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macpherson, Nial (Dumfries)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Marples, A. E.

  Wills, G.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Woollam, John Victor

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Mr. Kaberry and

  Glover, D

  Mr. E. Wakefield.

  NOES

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hudson, James, (Ealing, N.)

  Ross, William

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Janner, B.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Keenan, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney. S.)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Clunie, J.

  Lever Leslie (Ardwick)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Collick, P. H.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Collins, V. J.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Viant, S. P.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  West, D, G.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Oliver, G. H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Orbach, M.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Oswald, T.

  Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Owen, W. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Willey, Frederick

  Hannan, W.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hastings, S.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Willis, E. G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Yates, V. F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Proctor, W. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hoy, J. H.

  Mr. Holmes and Mr. A. Allen.

  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "tend to."
  It would obviously be unwise for me to say that I take the view that this is the most important Amendment that we have yet discussed. May I say that it is the most important Amendment of those in my name which we have yet discussed and that we are about to discuss?
  This is an Amendment—I make no bones about it—which seeks to some extent to limit the operation of the Bill, but I hope that I shall not, and that any other hon. Members who support me on it will not, automatically be accused of trying to wreck the Bill. I think that it was generally understood when the Bill was brought forward for Second Reading that the Government were moving with great caution in this matter, and that they were very anxious to look as favourably as they could upon any Amendments which, while they would not limit the ability of the Bill to catch horror comics, at which the Bill was aimed, would, none the less, try to prevent certain difficulties associated with any censorship Bill if it should be drawn in too wide a way. This is one of those Amendments.
  As the Home Secretary knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows, some of us have doubts, not about legislating against horror comics—in principle, I am not against that at all and I wish to make that absolutely clear—but about the basic principles on which the Bill is drafted, and this is one of a number of Amendments which I shall move in order to try to change some of those principles. I hope that in doing that I shall not automatically be accused of trying to wreck the Bill.
  This is not in any way intended to be a wrecking Amendment, nor are the Amendments which follow intended to be wrecking Amendments. They are Amendments intended to allow the Bill to catch horror comics at which, we were told earlier, this Bill was exclusively directed; although we have heard certain disturbing sentiments from some hon. Members indicating that they would be quite glad to see the Bill catch a large number of other publications as well.
  As I say, this Amendment is not in any way a wrecking Amendment. It is intended to allow the Bill to continue
  2392
  to deal with the specific object at which it is directed, but it is intended to subject what is, by its very nature, a difficult Bill, because it is a censorship Bill, to searching scrutiny, and, if possible, to make its dangers as little as possible.
  This Amendment, to leave out "tend to," would, if it were carried, have the effect of making the relative part of the Clause read as follows:
  "in such a way that the work as a whole would corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall …"
  instead of,
  "in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall …"
  To that extent, the Amendment, if carried, would mark a move away—not a complete move away but an important move away—from the words of the relevant passage in the Hickling judgment of 1868. That, it seems to me, would be a desirable thing to do because the Hickling judgment, as I tried to indicate in arguments which I put before the House on Second Reading, and with which I will not attempt to weary the Committee at this stage, has caused a great deal of trouble.
  One of my principal objections to the method by which this Bill seeks to achieve its thoroughly worthy object is that it lifts the language of Hickling and elevates it from a judgment to part of a Statute. That does not seem to me to be a very worthy or a very desirable thing to do.
  It is not at all clear to me why we should have the words "tend to" in the Bill, except for the reason that they are part of the Hickling judgment. I very much doubt whether, if the words "tend to" were not in that judgment, it would ever have occurred to the Government or to the draftsman to insert them in this Bill. I hope that they were not put in merely on the ground that they have become common form.
  I hope, too, that we shall hear from the Home Secretary for the first time, because I think that we should be very glad to have him contribute to our debate on the Bill, and to hear from him exactly what purpose it is thought that the words "tend to" will serve if they are kept in the Clause. What, for instance, will the Clause mean with those words in it which it would not mean if they were excluded?

  2393
  If one looks at the words "tend to" in the Oxford Dictionary, one finds a number of different meanings given to them. But the meaning which one could best apply in this context is "to be apt or inclined" to corrupt children or young persons into whose hands these publications might fall. That is really a very vague and roundabout test.
  Is it really too much to expect, if people are to be convicted on a criminal charge because of publications with which they have been associated in one way or another, that the prosecution, which does not have to show that the publication is intended for young persons, should have to show, not merely that there would be a tendency for it to corrupt those into whose hands it might fall, but that it would.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields implied, in his speech on the previous Amendment, that that was in the Bill, but there is nothing in the Bill to imply that a publication might "tend to" to corrupt. There has to be the possibility that it might fall into the hands of the young. If one is merely dealing with the position in which something is apt or inclined to corrupt, it is really very difficult indeed to believe that the decision is left much more than a matter of taste on the part of the magistrates, or, if the case comes before a higher court, on the part of the judge and jury.
  It is possible that these words do not serve any particular purpose, that they are unnecessary, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thought were the words "as a whole" which we were discussing on a previous Amendment. In that case, there can be no point in having them in the Clause. But if they merely serve the purpose of making what has to be shown a much more roundabout, vague and indirect affair, and of making it very much more difficult for the prosecution to proceed on something which is not at all clear, then I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I hope, is himself going to reply to this Amendment, that he should consider whether he cannot break away from this rigid Hickling judgment, which has done a great deal of harm, and take out these words, leaving something more clear and
  2394
  more definite on which the prosecution can proceed.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bell: I support the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). The words "tend to" tend to occur in Acts of Parliament, and it is rather difficult to know whether they materially affect the meaning or whether they are merely stylistic. If the words do not add to the sense, I prefer the expression "would corrupt," but I am inclined to think that they do add to the sense, and that they thereby lower the standard of corruption which the Bill imposes, and which I think we should keep high, because this is a Bill to restrict liberty. The words "tend to" are too vague, and we should not put people to the peril of such a vague interpretation.
  This Measure will be interpreted in a great many courts, usually before magistrates, and these words, being very loose in their meaning, could expose people to a very uncertain degree of peril. We have listened twice to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) talking about "The Pilgrim's Progress," and he has expressed the view that the picture of Christian grappling with Apollyon tends to corrupt the young.
  Mr. Ede: It did.
  Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman says that it did corrupt the young. I could not wish for a better example because, if he adheres to the view that the picture of Christian grappling with Apollyon does corrupt youth, what are we to expect magistrates to think might tend to corrupt? There is my case made for me, and I need add nothing to it.
  Mr. K. Robinson:Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), I want to make it quite clear that I am in favour of legislating against horror comics and that none of the Amendments which he has put down—to some of which I have added my name—seeks in any way to wreck the Bill. Our sole aim is to make it a better Bill and to help the Government in their express intention to limit the application of the Measure to horror comics.
  The purpose of the Amendment—which I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not consider an unim-

  2395
  portant one—is to take out two words which have an extremely unhappy history in the world of obscene libel. As my hon. Friend reminded the Committee, they represent the key phrase in the Hickling judgment, which has bedevilled the whole question for the last 90 years. They give far too much latitude for differences of opinion, differences of view and differences of taste on the part of magistrates. It may be that, strictly speaking, they add nothing to the Clause—in which case they should go—but now that we have come to the point of legislating upon this matter of horror comics it seems a pity to take this one phrase, which has done so much harm, and enshrine it in statutory form in a limited Bill dealing with one facet of this topic.
  I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will pay heed to the pleas which have been made to him in this matter and will show a little more readiness to accept the view of the Committee than he has done in the case of earlier Amendments.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George):I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) for drawing attention to the fact that I am speaking for the first time in this debate. I can assure the hon. Member that had we proceeded a little more quickly he would have had that pleasure much earlier. That is a fact for which I cannot take any responsibility. I agree that this is slow progress for a Bill which had the unanimous approval of the House. However, we may get on a little more quickly later.
  Let me say a word or two appropriate to the Amendment. We have done our best to draft the Bill as tightly as possible. We have only one objective, which is to deal with horror comics. That is why the Bill is very strictly drawn and it is one of the reasons why we hesitated to accept the previous Amendment, which would have widened the Bill, which we do not want to do.
  The hon. Member for Stechford and his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), said they hoped to get a better reception for some of their Amendments than they had had up to
  2396
  now. I will deal with that point later, but I must say now that many Amendments on the Order Paper are designed to make it more difficult to prove an offence under the Bill. That is something which, when I look back at the general agreement there was about the purpose of the Bill, I am not anxious to encourage.
  I would again remind the House that the Bill is designed to stop horror comics. Fears were expressed on the Second Reading, and have been repeated in the Committee, that the powers under the Bill would be used to suppress other publications. I have said again and again that those fears are greatly exaggerated. The wording of Clause 1 gives what we intended, a very narrow definition of the publications we are after.
  Reference has been made today to what might happen to a publication which printed a magazine article on the horrors of Belsen. From the very narrow terms of Clause 1 it is clear that a single article of that sort appearing in a magazine, even if it were told in pictures, would not be sufficient to bring the magazine within the scope of the Bill.
  I would remind hon. Members of the words of the Clause, because they are tremendously important. They have been misunderstood by more than one hon. Member today. The words show that the work must consist
  "wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures";
  not, be it noted, "wholly or mainly of pictures." There is a very great difference between those two phrases. Therefore, the scope of the Bill is, as we intended it to be, very narrow indeed.
  It has been suggested that the terms of the Bill are too narrow and ought to apply to a publication which contained any pictorial matter which would tend to corrupt young children. That was raised, I think, on the Amendment before the previous one, and has been said on one or two occasions. In drafting the Bill the Government deliberately avoided that. As I said just now, the Bill is designed specifically to deal with what we know as horror comics.
  I have made it clear before, and I want to make it clear again now, that it is not the purpose of this Bill to suppress publications other than those at which it is aimed. There are four main ways of doing

  2397
  what we seek to do. The first is by very carefully defining the class of publication to which the Bill applies. The second is by requiring the consent of some central authority for prosecution. The third is by limiting the duration of the Bill itself; and the fourth is by adding a new ingredient to the offence, which would necessarily make it more difficult to prove.
  As to the first method, I believe, that the definition contained in lines 5 to 11 in page 1 does define the publication within very narrow limits, but I am quite prepared to consider any suggestion that may be put forward with that object. I only wish to repeat that the object of the Government in drawing the Bill in its present form was to make it as narrow as possible, having only that one objective in mind.
  The second method, that of requiring the consent of some central authority for prosecution, is followed in an Amendment in page 1, line 21 in the name of the hon. Member for Stechford, which my right hon. and learned Friend indicated earlier he was prepared to accept. The hon. Member for Stechford made some reference to the fact that that was done so early. The Amendment could not possibly have come earlier than where it is, and the sole purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend was to try to meet some of the hon. Gentleman's points. We thought that his fears would be allayed by the knowledge that the consent of some central authority would be required for prosecution.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I did not, of course, in any way object to the Attorney-General announcing that he was going to accept the Amendment. All I said, and say again, was that the mere announcement from the Treasury Bench that one Amendment on the third page of the printed Amendments was to be accepted could not be regarded by those hon. Members having many Amendments on the Paper as being a great degree of concession.
  Major Lloyd-George: I am very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I should have thought it a great concession. Indeed, from what I heard during the Second Reading, I think it is a major concession. We thought it a courtesy to the House and to hon. Gentlemen to announce it in order to save hon. Gentlemen talking more than necessary.
  2398
  Obviously, we are disappointed. We thought it might be of assistance, because we know that hon. Gentlemen do not wish to talk more than they can possibly help. That has been my experience over a number of years. The alternative would have been for my right hon. and learned Friend to wait until consideration was given to the Amendment to Clause 2, in page 1, line 21.
  The third method—limiting the duration of the Bill—was raised several times on Second Reading, and there are a number of Amendments about it. Here again I can say that the Government would look with very much sympathy on the ideas contained in those Amendments. The fourth method really brings me to the point of this Amendment. I apologise for going into this at some length, but it is a matter of tremendous importance.
  10.0 p.m.
  The fourth method is that adopted in the Amendment now under discussion and several others, that is, to add a new ingredient to the offence itself, which would make it necessarily more difficult to prove. Its obvious disadvantage is that not only would it lessen the risk of unreasonable proceedings—if there is such a risk—but it would make the Bill much less effective for the purpose of preventing the distribution of harmful publications, which is the purpose of the Bill.
  If the Committee can be satisfied that the scope of the Bill is sufficiently limited as regards the class of publications to which it applies, and if the Committee is satisfied as to the circumstances in which proceedings may be undertaken and as to the duration of the Bill itself, then the essential question, it seems to me, the Committee has to consider is whether it is necessary, or, indeed, desirable, that the courts' powers should be so hedged round with restrictions that it will become exceedingly difficult to establish the guilt of persons engaged in the business of producing and distributing harmful publications.
  Many of the Amendments on the Order Paper would, if they were accepted, make the Bill so full of holes that it would not be worth proceeding with. I want to make that plain to the Committee. One by one they may not be so bad, but, if they were accepted as a whole, they would whittle away the power of the Bill. When

  2399
  we have taken so much trouble to make the Bill as narrow as possible we simply cannot afford to take away any of the power that it contains.
  It may be said, perhaps, of this Amendment and others, such as that relating to intent, which is a very important matter indeed, that they are of importance in the amendment of the law relating to obscenity generally. But the law relating to obscene publications applies to any form of publication and is not restricted to pictorial publications of a kind which, to put it at its lowest, is not a very likely medium for the expression of ideas, or likely to constitute serious adult reading.
  It may be that there are features in the law regarding obscenity which require amendment, and, as the Committee knows, I am giving very careful consideration to the proposals put forward by the Authors' Society, which have been incorporated in the Bill which the hon. Member for Stechford introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule some time ago. I want to impress upon the Committee that we are not at this moment considering amendment of the obscenity law. The Government's view is that it would not be right to introduce into this Bill provisions designed to make it more difficult to enforce it and which, whatever their merits in the wider field of obscenity, are unnecessary for the purpose of preventing abuse of the powers contained in this Bill.
  I think that some hon. Gentlemen are apt to forget what the Bill is for. This Bill is to protect children and young people. Sometimes, when I hear some hon. Gentlemen speak, I fear they are apt to forget—I am not suggesting any one disregards it—the main purpose of the Bill. In talking about obscenity and so on, they are apt to forget what the purpose of the Bill is. We are agreed about that purpose. There is an overwhelming majority in favour of it. There was no vote on the Bill on Second Reading. The purpose is to protect children and young people.
  I say to the Committee with all sincerity that there is no real and practical need for these Amendments, which would make that object more difficult to achieve if they were accepted. I will do no more than repeat what I have already said—that in my judgment this Amendment, and other Amendments which follow, will
  2400
  do nothing other than weaken the powers of the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not accept them.
  Mr. Ede:The Home Secretary used a phrase at the beginning of his speech about general agreement. I hope that it will be realised that those words must relate to discussion on Second Reading. The Bill was not introduced under any general agreement, before it was published, that it would be acceptable to anyone other than the Government. As far as I know, it was not shown to anyone other than the Government before it was introduced. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Bill was introduced as a result of any general agreement. But a general agreement with its main purpose was expressed on Second Reading, although that was hedged round by varying degrees of a desire for safeguards mentioned by hon. Members on both sides.
  I want to make that clear, because I should not like it to be thought that hon. Members who have been critical of the Bill have been departing from any assurance given before the Bill was introduced that an easy passage was assured for it.
  Major Lloyd-George: I was not intending that. I was rather thinking of the right hon. Gentleman's own words when he spoke earlier today about the unanimity with which the Bill was received. I never for a moment supposed that that was to be taken as applying to all its provisions.
  Mr. Ede: That is fair, but I still feel that the Bill is being used as a pacemaker for another Bill, and I am not pledging myself to support any of the proposals in the other Bill. Nobody must assume that because speeches are made in certaindirections on this Bill that that pledges anyone as to what he is going to do if the other Bill comes along, because that is a Bill which raises a very great deal of controversy, far beyond anything that is involved in this Bill.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the Amendment does not wreck the Bill but fills it so full of holes that it will sink.
  Major Lloyd-George: This Amendment makes one of the holes.
  Mr. Ede: This is one of the many holes which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks might be torpedoed into the hull of the Bill and might cause it to sink. Whether it is wrecked on the rocks or caused to sink, it becomes a total casualty in either event, and I will certainly not support any Amendment which will have that effect. I have been in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's place and I would regard this as a wrecking Amendment, for how is one going to prove that a thing positively would corrupt? Has one to say, "Six children have been before a juvenile court and they said that they were led to do this thing through reading this particular comic"? If one cannot point to anybody who has been actually corrupted and will own up to it, how will one prove that the comic would corrupt?
  Mr. K. Robinson: One cannot prove either that a thing would tend to corrupt. One can only express an opinion upon it.
  Mr. Ede:Very well, now let us come to that. What will tend to corrupt may very well be within the competence of people who have been associated with children, and I hope that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), as the years go by, will have acquired the personal experience which will enable him to deal with that particular point.
  Mr. R. Bell: I hope I shall never have the experience of the right hon. Gentleman who has admitted tonight that he has himself been corrupted.
  Mr. Ede:But I have managed to reform; which is more than the hon. Gentleman is ever likely to do, judging by the performances he has put up tonight.
  I suggest that to leave the words "would corrupt" in that positive form is to make it impossible to get a conviction. We all start off with the idea that we want to stop these publications. My hon. Friends who have criticised this Bill so vehemently tonight have not put forward a single constructive suggestion to say how, if this Bill is defeated, they would secure that a conviction could be obtained. Let us be quite sure of this. If they are relying on my hon. Friend's Bill, it will be a
  2402
  very long time before any Government brings forward a Bill of that kind. I venture to say that in the end the law of obscenity, if it is going to be amended, will be amended as the law on divorce was amended, by a Private Members' Bill which managed to secure in a good deal of cross voting in the House and in Committee the support of the House as a whole.
  These are the kind of things that Governments do not like to tackle, because it involves them in controversy with their own supporters and they do not desire unnecessarily to get involved in that sort of thing. I believe that the horror comic is a great evil and has been a great evil in this country during the past three or four years. The opinion of all the teachers with whom I have spoken is that this is an evil that ought to be dealt with.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that, although I had one or two conversations with him, I never suggested that he should bring in a Bill of this magnitude. I had hoped that a Bill dealing with sadism would probably have been sufficient to deal with it, but the Government have had the courage to bring in this Bill and, as it received a unanimous Second Reading, they are entitled to expect the support of hon. Members or constructive alternatives.
  Clearly this Amendment is not a constructive alternative. It is an attempt to give a preliminary canter to an amendment of the law of obscenity that they hope will be in another race which will not take place this Session or quite possibly this century.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman explained how difficult it would be to get a conviction on a charge of publishing works which would corrupt a child. May I remind him that, in fact, that was precisely the charge upon which Socrates stood trial. Quod juventutem corrumperet, not that he tended to corrupt the youth but that he did corrupt the youth. He was tried and convicted on that charge. So it is not right to say that it is not possible to convict someone on a simple charge of that sort unless you get a child and cut it in half to see whether it has been corrupted.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: It is a question of fact whether one corrupts but it is a question of opinion for a bench whether

  2403
  one tends to corrupt, and the latter is much easier.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I think it is a question of opinion whether one would corrupt or not just as much as it is a question of opinion whether one would tend to corrupt or not. At the same time, I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary that the words "tend to" add something.
  The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) suggested that the words were otiose or that they were dangerous because they were otiose. I thought that my right hon. and gallant Friend answered that point very fairly and honestly by admitting that the words add something in the sense that the Bill is likely to catch more people than if the words are omitted. I believe that is right, and I support that view.
  When we are dealing with children it is a different matter from when, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, we are dealing with adults. As far as the definition of the offence is concerned, apart from the circumstances of the prosecution and the length of time which it should remain on the Statute Book, we have to go wide and we must take risks. For that reason, if we are to make the Bill effective, it is a risk that we have to take.
  I would, however, demur from the rather quantitative view of the evidence that was taken by my right hon. and gallant Friend. He seemed to suggest that it was a matter of adding up the number of holes which were being driven through the Bill and ascertaining whether they amounted to enough to sink the ship. That seems to me to be not sufficiently discriminatory. Holes are of different sizes and shapes; some may not really be holes at all. It seems to me that one cannot take them and weigh them—
  Mr. Ede: As a whole.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke:—as a whole. It seems to me that, although logically it is possible to accuse and convict someone of purveying works that corrupt youth, we shall certainly catch more people by the inclusion of the words "tend to" and we have got to catch them.
  Mr. John McKay: I have not been here very long, but I have been listening very attentively to this discussion. I have simply been trying to apply my ordinary common sense, if I have any, to the point under discussion. Having decided that this matter is regarded in the country as a definite and decided evil, we have prepared a Bill to meet the feelings of the people and to stamp out the evil.
  The Amendment suggests the deletion of "tend to," therefore leaving it as an absolute fact that the publications must corrupt the children who read them. We can argue that whether we retain the words or delete them the judge or the jury will have difficulty in deciding the issue. Anyone who has to adjudicate on a point like this has to take into consideration all the evidence that has been supplied. By retaining the words "tend to" we give those who have to adjudicate a good deal more power in coming to a decision. Surely that is what we want. We want the Bill to be so framed that when people have to implement it they can feel that the actual provisions of the Bill give them some elasticity and they are not limited in coming to their judgments.
  There is no question which is the better thing to do. The people who will have to operate the Bill must be absolutely satisfied that the publication could corrupt. It has been argued that we can have different opinions about that. Of course we can. We can have different opinions about most things. However, I think that we will all agree that it would be cramping and limiting the scope of people who have to judge these cases if these words were not left in the Bill. They must be given the opportunity of using their judgment in deciding, not whether there has been absolute corruption, but whether the whole tendency of the publication has been of that character.
  When we are dealing with an evil which, it is unanimously agreed, should be wiped out, our general attitude ought to be—and I am positive will be—not to cramp and limit the courts in making a decision, but to give them a fair opportunity of taking all the evidence and then using their judgment. I am entirely convinced that the Amendment will not satisfy the people who are anxious to wipe out the evil. They certainly agree with the

  2405
  Government that the words in the Bill should stand.
  Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) will forgive me if I tend not to be able to follow him completely in his argument. On the earlier Amendments to the Bill I have tended to find myself very muddled because of the legal opinions given from both sides of the Committee. I now find myself in the position that I tend to need the legal opinion of both sides of the Committee, because the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that if the words "tend to" were left out, as this Amendment suggests, the words "would corrupt" would in fact get no conviction.
  Mr. Ede: I only followed the line of the hon. Member's right hon. and gallant Friend in saying that.
  Mr. Fell: Yes, but I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of almost every subject under the sun. I also have the greatest possible respect for the knowledge of my right hon. and gallant Friend on almost every subject under the sun. However, I must say that I cannot accept either the right hon. Gentleman on that side or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on this side when they say that the words which will be left if this Amendment is carried will result in no convictions being brought about. I wonder where all the great legal panjandrums have gone.
  I notice that the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has gone. [Hon. Members: "He is not learned."] I sometimes think that he is very learned. I notice that the hon. and very learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has gone. [Hon. Members: "He is not learned."] I am very sorry, but I think he is very learned. I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is not here to correct the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields in what I think is an unwarrantable assumption on his part.
  Therefore, I am left either to tend not to be able to make up my mind, as was the case on the last Amendment, or, as it so happens, in the absence of this great knowledge—
  Mr. John Hall: I am sure that, quite unintentionally, my hon.
  2406
  Friend has overlooked the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who is sitting opposite.
  Mr. Fell:I have the greatest respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester, but I was unfortunate in not being in the Committee when he gave it the benefit of his great knowledge on this subject.
  Mr. R. Bell:Reference to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester has reminded me that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is present.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: It is obvious that the hon. Member forYarmouth (Mr. Fell) is absolutely in the clouds, because the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester has not uttered a single syllable on this topic.
  Mr. Fell: I apologise in a most profound way to the Solicitor-General, because I could not see, from a back view, that it was indeed such a distinguished presence that we had with us. I hope that he will give us his opinion whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields was right in saying, in following my right hon. and learned Friend, that there would be no convictions if the Amendment were carried.
  Having said all that, I do not want to "tend" to say anything more. I want to say very definitely that, short of receiving these great pearls of wisdom from one of my hon. or right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I propose to support the Amendment. My reasons are as follows—
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: The hon. Gentleman will be expelled if he is not careful.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Fell: Hon. Members are perfectly at liberty to laugh at that which is funny. In my humble opinion it will not be very funny for those who get convicted under this Measure if they are wrongly convicted. The Bill speaks of
  "incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature" which would "tend to corrupt."
  I can imagine the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—[Hon. Members: "The right hon. Gentleman."]—I thought that he had been demoted. I

  2407
  can imagine the right hon. Gentleman for Ebbw Vale regarding the portrayal of a boxing match in all its grim and gory details as something of a great example to the youth of the nation. On the other hand, I can imagine the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) regarding the portrayal of a boxing match as the portrayal of incidents of a repulsivenature which would "tend to" corrupt children.
  Mr. K. Robinson:In defence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), is not the hon. Gentleman confusing him with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?
  Mr. Fell: Seriously, there could obviously be that difference of opinion about what is repulsive—I hope that I am keeping within the bounds of order—between the two right hon. Members opposite who are so much together in everything else. Yet we had an hon. and learned Member—I hope that I am right this time—on this side of the Committee interjecting to say that if "tend to corrupt" was left as it was, it would be a matter for the juries rather than for the magistrates and the judges. I think that was the point that was made.
  Mr. Rees-Davies:My interjection in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was to this effect. It is a question of fact for the judge and the jury if it is proved that the words would corrupt. There is a lesser burden of proof on the prosecution if it is a matter of opinion for the bench or the jury to decide whether there is a tendency to corrupt. Therefore, there would be fewer successful prosecutions on the ground that the words would corrupt though there would be some. On the other hand, there would be far more successful prosecutions where the jury or magistrates used their own opinion. I dare say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would agree with that.
  Mr. Fell: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that. It is one thing to get successful convictions and another to get the type of successful convictions that we want. There is only one purpose in the Bill, and that is to stop the circulation of what we know as horror comics.
  2408
  Until my mind is perfectly clear—[Interruption.] I presume that I am allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen to help me clear my mind on this question. Until my mind is perfectly clear that it is impossible under the Bill for people to be wrongly convicted, people who may, for instance, have portrayed what might be a slightly bloody boxing match in some news sheet, then I am certainly not going to support anything which will make it more easy to convict those who may not be guilty of the crime of trying to seduce the minds of young people by circulating horror comics.
  Therefore, on the arguments so far put forward—and there may be others—I shall certainly support this Amendment.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that he was in some difficulty in considering the Amendment and also the Bill. I think that that is the state of mind of many hon. Members. Some of us have been hoping for some enlightenment from the lawyers. We do not always get it. We have been told that the Bill is a paradise for the lawyers. I have not the same feeling for the lawyers as some other hon. Members have. I am a journalist, and I always recall the statement made by William Hazlitt, the most famous journalist who ever sat in the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, that the only thing that gave him respect for the House was the disdain it had for lawyers.
  In some ways this Amendment has provided the most interesting debate of the whole of the Committee stage. We have had an impressive agreement between the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred once again to the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) about the other Bill which he wants to introduce, and made the very remarkable charge that this Amendment is part of a conspiracy to introduce something which is really concerned with the other Bill, and that my hon. Friend is not concerned to try to improve this Bill. There is no real ground for that accusation.
  What my hon. Friend is doing—and I should have thought he had every right to do it—is to recall the history of the

  2409
  law of obscene libel, because what happened in that case is likely to happen in this. If we are trying to test the justice of a certain Clause by experience, my hon. Friend has every right to recall what has happened under a similar Measure. I should have thought that the examples he quoted were for that purpose, and not to try to have an under-cover debate upon another Bill.
  It is true that during the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend and myself, and many other hon. Members, expressed the view that it would have been very much better if the Government had brought in the other Bill and tried to deal with the subject as a whole-rather than in this fashion.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I hope that the hon. Member is not going to enlarge the scope of the debate to cover a Second Reading point.
  Mr. Foot:I was only following very directly what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields upon the same subject—and what was said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was mainly concerned to say, "We had a unanimous vote after the Second Reading debate. Why are we having such a long debate upon the Committee stage?" My reply is that we are having a long debate because the Government have introduced the wrong Bill. We said during the Second Reading debate that it was very slipshod to deal with the problem by selecting this small part of the subject, and that we should get into great difficulties during the Committee stage because of that.
  There is nothing wrong about taking that view. It may be that both Front Benches are agreed that this is the best way of dealing with the matter, but some quite eminent people take an entirely different view. I do not often agree with the leading articles in "The Times," but that newspaper has said repeatedly what I am saying, and has put it as strongly as it can. Therefore, our argument that this is an awkward way of dealing with the matter should not be dismissed by either Front Bench as being unworthy of consideration.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now enlarging the scope of the debate to a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Foot:If you are calling me to order about that, Sir Rhys, I would point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman began to speak on this Amendment by saying what were the four protections under the Bill. It was a very impressive speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made the most impressive case for the Bill that he has made in the whole of these debates. He made it impressive because he put into proper perspective anearlier concession which the Government had offered, about the Attorney-General having to bring a prosecution. He offered us another concession, which we are very glad to have. Therefore, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, before coming to this Amendment immediately, said to the Committee, "We can only understand this Amendment if we consider it in the background of all the other protections which I am providing," surely we, in discussing the same Amendment, are entitled to refer to the protections which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I am extremely glad to hear that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make a further concession on top of that one that has already been made. We do not know exactly what its terms will be. He says that he will agree to an Amendment limiting the period during which the Bill will operate. That brings us to the fourth of the protections under the Bill to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. He said that we could have the protection which seeks to limit the kind of conviction which would be obtained under the Bill.
  That brings me to the first "tend to" and to the Amendment. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." It is all very well for him to come in and say that when he thinks I have reached the end of my speech, when in fact I have not reached the end of it at all. Let the hon. Member listen to the whole of the debate, not come in at the fag-end of it and say, "Hear, hear." If he comes back a bit later he will be able to cheer much more effectively.
  I come to the question of the words "tend to corrupt." We have had legal opinion from the back benches, but not from the Front Bench, showing that the jury or magistrate will have to make up their minds on a matter of fact if the words

  2411
  are "would corrupt" and on a matter of opinion if the words "tend to corrupt" are still left in. That may be right or wrong; we have not very much certainty about it. We are entitled to discover how these words have operated when they have been used in cases before. My hon. Friend said, in his original speech, that the main part of his charge was that the words "tend to corrupt," which were incorporated in the Hickling judgment and which have given rise to so many difficulties in another connection, have for the first time been put into a Statute.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not answer that argument at all. What is the origin of these words? Where did they come from? Why are they used? Is it not a fact that they were brought fromthe Hickling judgment and incorporated into the Bill? If that is the case, it makes us all the more suspicious, and we have a right to an answer from the Government on the point. Lawyers may disagree about it, but if we take the whole wording "work as a whole would tend to corrupt," or, as the Amendment would make it read, "in such a way that the work as a whole would corrupt" I think that it would be a matter of opinion for the jury or magistrate in both cases. They are both a matter of opinion.
  If they are, that knocks out the main plea that has been made for the maintenance of the Clause as it stands. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman claims that the reason we get few convictions is that we have to settle on matters of fact, but surely in the whole Bill we are saying that the horror comics would corrupt. That is the purpose and the reason for the Bill; and the reason the Government are taking action is that they say that this kind of horror comic would corrupt and is corrupting.
  10.45 p.m.
  If the Government say that, why do they not say it in the Bill? Why do they seek some other words, to be subject to some other kind of interpretation? Therefore, we are fully entitled to have from the Government an explanation as to where they got these words, why they have put them in; and although the right hon. Gentleman has gone further than he went before to make concessions in order to meet some of our objections, he has not dealt with the main objection
  2412
  we had on this particular account. I hope we shall have, if not assistance from him, assistance from the Solicitor-General.
  We are all very sorry that the Attorney-General has had to go—or maybe he is coming back. It was said by my hon. Friend earlier that probably the Attorney-General had not mastered the art of gracious rejection. I have never had that feeling about the Attorney-General. My objection to him is not that he has not mastered the ways of smooth persuasion.
  I have many criticisms of him, but I rather like the Attorney-General for the blunt, downright, John Bullish way in which he says these things to the House, and I am sorry that he is not here to tell us exactly what the Clause really means. I am sure, after all the confusing statements which we have had from all the lawyers in this Committee on this particular Clause, which deals with a matter that has worried courts and judges for the last 50 years in another connection, there is only one voice that can state so clearly what we would all understand, and with which we would all be satisfied, and that is the voice of the Attorney-General.
  Mr. Gower:I do not agree with the suggestions that there is a deliberate attempt to get this Bill to be withdrawn, or to fall so that another Bill may be brought in.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment before the Committee does not deal with another Bill.
  Mr. Gower:Very well, Sir Rhys, but that point has been made. I should like to submit that here the words which are complained of are obviously clear in their meaning, and it is just a question of the term. "To corrupt" is so much definite and affirmative that, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), of course, put forward arguments which establish in his mind some doubt about the word "repulsive." I am quite prepared to admit that word might require greater definition, or might be an unsuitable word, but he said nothing to disprove or prove the need to alter this particular wording here.
  Mr. Fell: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would be difficult enough to

  2413
  find what "repulsive" is, but even doubly difficult if one made it "tend to become repulsive"?
  Mr. Gower: I do not accept that view at all, because I think everyone here knows perfectly clearly what is meant when one says "to tend to do" something.
  Mr. Hale: If someone will tell me what the word "tend" means, I shall be very grateful. The word "repulsive" is a word which means something different to every beholder. Repulsiveness is nothing to the one to whom it is applied; it is a matter for the receiving party.
  Mr. Gower: I said that the objections being made by people who uphold this wording are not objections to the phrase "tend." They are really objections to the word "repulsive." Therefore, I feel that the Committee should agree to this Clause. As my hon. Friend said, extreme care has been taken to establish a narrow definition of the kind of evidence which we have in mind. This is not something vague and undefinable.
  An obvious attempt has been made in the Bill to narrow the definition and to put clearly before the courts what is meant and intended by Parliament. In these circumstances we should not object to what is a quite reasonable wording, which will provide the courts with a reasonable chance of arriving at decisions in accordance with Parliament's intention.
  Mr. MacColl: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Mr. Foot), in his very interesting speech, did not really address himself to the problem with which the Clause deals. The problem arises because children are such incalculable creatures. It is impossible to say in advance whether or not anything is going to have any effect on them. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) told us he had been corrupted by "The Pilgrim's Progress." I have never been corrupted by "The Pilgrim's Progress. "No one could state any reason why it should have had that effect on my right hon. Friend and not on me.
  All one can say in advance about the effect of a horror comic on children is that children may be more likely to commit crimes of violence if they read it than
  2414
  they would if they did not read it. We cannot judge the matter on the basis that one child has shown signs of corruption after reading it. We can consider only the general likely effect of the publication upon children. That seems to me to be the simple, commonsense approach which we should take to the problem.
  We can judge the direction of an arrow in flight, but we cannot judge whether it will hit the target, still less whether it will stick in the target should it hit it. All we can ask a court to decide is the likely effect of a publication on children, and if we accepted the Amendment we should very seriously handicap the court.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I said, when I moved the Amendment, that I welcomed the prospect that the Home Secretary was himself going to reply to the debate upon it. I did not realise then that he would reply, in effect, not only to this proposal but to a great number of other Amendments which we shall consider later. Some of the difficulty of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) arose because the Home Secretary made the debate very wide.
  Major Lloyd-George: Twice I have been charged with making the debate wide. I did so in answer to a specific observation of the hon. Gentleman that I had done nothing at all in the way of promising any concessions.
  Mr. Jenkins: Naturally, I do not in any way object—it would be quite inappropriate if I did so—to the way in which the Home Secretary answered the case for this Amendment, and, as my hon. Friend said, in so far as that enabled him to develop a general attitude to the Amendments and to the Bill, I welcomed what he did. However, it has meant that the Amendment has assumed an importance greater than that which it would have had if the Home Secretary had chosen to reply to it in a rather narrower way. I think that the Committee should appreciate that.
  As I understood the Home Secretary, he took the view that this Amendment, and others like it, would in some way be a violation of the unanimity with which, so far as voting was concerned, the Bill was received on Second Reading. It is important to make it quite clear now

  2415
  that on Second Reading some of my hon. Friends and I expressed strong criticisms of the Bill, and that the Lord Advocate, winding up for the Government, said he would welcome Amendments in Committee, and looked forward to the Bill being improved.
  Therefore, I do not think the view can be taken that because the Government are accepting two Amendments which, although of considerable importance—I do not deny that for one moment—do not, as it were, impinge upon the main feature of the Bill, hon. Members, in putting down Amendments which seek not merely to limit the time in which the Bill will be in operation, not merely to decide who made initiate prosecutions—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is going a little wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. Jenkins:I certainly do not wish to get out of order, Sir Rhys, but, as I indicated, the Home Secretary did treat the Amendment as to some extent a symbol of other Amendments following it, and he replied to it as being one which would make a loophole in the Bill. He said that the undesirability of the loophole was that there were other loopholes which, added together, would sink the ship—or whatever was the metaphor. That was one of the main grounds which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put forward in opposing the Amendment, but I do not think that he applied himself to the actual terms of the Amendment.
  The main purpose of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech—and he put it very powerfully indeed—was that we should not worry about having too restrictive a Clause here, because the sole purpose of the Bill is to catch horror comics, and, since we would all agree about that, there was nothing more to worry about. But my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport indicated that we have had an unfortunate experience in this respect. "The Times" dealt with the subject matter of the Amendment this morning, and said that this is one of the respects in which the Bill is at once too narrow and too wide.
  "The Times" recalled again the words of Lord Campbell, in introducing the Obscene Publications Act of 1857, which
  2416
  I quoted on Second Reading. They were remarkably similar to those used by the Home Secretary today. Lord Campbell then said that the sole purpose of the Act was to catch works which were pure pornography, and nothing but pornography. That was very similar to what the Home Secretary said, yet no one can say that that Act has been applied in such a way that at times it has not been applied to works which cannot possibly come within that term.
  We therefore cannot accept the good purposes of the Home Secretary—which we do not for a moment deny. We cannot accept his or anybody's else's assurance that the intention to direct the Bill against horror comics as an argument for drawing the terms of the Bill as narrowly as possible. It may be argued that the use of words like "tend to" makes certain prosecutions more difficult. That may possibly be the case. However, I beg hon. Members opposite who may be a little impatient about this to consider further when they are inclined to say, "What do these arguments matter compared with the great object of stamping out horror comics and avoiding the corruption of children?" When they ask that, I would reply that once one is on the slippery bad slope there is no stopping before one is in a state of complete censorship.
  The Home Secretary moved the Second Reading of the Bill very nervously, and said that when one was dealing with a censorship Bill of any sort one had to be very careful. Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "We have drawn it as carefully as we can so far as this type of literature is concerned," but one cannot be too sure. Too many examples have been given of works which are not pornographic but which might be proceeded against under the Bill. It is a sad decline from the Home Secretary's original approach that he is now saying that we must be very careful not to make changes at all which will make the job of the defence any easier or the job of the prosecution more difficult.
  11.0 p.m.
  On this Amendment, at any rate, we who support it represent a minority point of view in the House, but I think it is an important point of view. I hope that the Government will consider allowing a free vote. I do not think they need

  2417
  worry about the result of this Amendment. I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. Hale: I rise to make a suggestion, but I would first make this observation. I do so with diffidence, but I am not one of those who believe that knowledge of the law disqualifies people from making it. I have spent a good deal of time giving advice, free or otherwise. Much of my advice is not taken. It gives me cynical satisfaction to know that I have been away from the office so long that practically all the advice I give is inaccurate. I agree entirely with those who say that the word "tend" is very difficult to define. I was sincere when I asked an hon. Member what it meant. He never told me. His speech showed some approval of the Clause, though he gave no reason for it.
  I am prepared to give the Committee the result of my recent researches. The word "tend" has two different meanings, one of which has nothing to do with that which is indicated in the Bill. I have here the shorter Oxford Dictionary, and, therefore, it is a brief definition. It says:
  "1. to have a motion or disposition to move towards;… To direct one's course, make one's way, move or proceed towards something; 2. To have a disposition to advance, go on, come finally, or attain to some point in time, degree, quality, state, or other non-material category; to be drawn to or towards in affection. … 3. To have a specified result, if allowed to act; to lead or conduce to some state or condition. … 4. To swing round with the turn of the tide or wind."
  This is a useful little Bill. I do not want to be facetious about it. Every time I make a statement of gravity I seem to create a wrong emotion. I agree that it is a good thing to do away with horror comics. They are beastly things. It will be a good thing to do away with them. What judge of assize, however, will rule to the jury on the word "tend" on definitions like that? What does it mean? I accept the view that if the words are left out the Clause becomes virtually a nullity. I do not believe that juries are going to convict. The jury would have to draw the inference that this is so bad that it must corrupt even the incorruptible. I do not believe there would be convictions. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, might consider some other words.
  2418
  I would suggest one word which is used constantly in the courts, though it is not an easy one to define clearly. That word is "reasonable" It has different connotations, but the "reasonable" man is now part of the legal literature and system. He is the man on the Clapham bus, if I remember aright.
  Mr. Foot:I am always glad to have legal advice from my hon. Friend, free or not, but will he say why, if this Committee can say, "This is a horror comic," a jury cannot say the same thing?
  Mr. Hale:Because a jury is charged with a specific duty. A judge has to sum up in the terms of the definition. He has to say to the jury, "You have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt not merely that this is material which could corrupt, but that it does corrupt, must corrupt, and did corrupt."
  I should have thought that "reasonably be expected to corrupt" was a perfectly fair definition. It is well in line with our legal tradition. I think that it is a fair definition. If one has to prove a lad has been corrupted, one is left to open to a wide defence. It could be proved that a lad had read horror comics for years, but had attended Sunday school regularly and was reasonably well behaved and had voted the right way at a political election. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will seriously consider using some words which are less vague and more in accord with the tests that could be applied.
  Mr. Ede: After all, anyone can take the shorter Oxford Dictionary and read out a definition of any word and have the best comic five minutes he is ever likely to have in the Committee. Nobody knows that better than my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who came into the Chamber armed with a dictionary. However, I must say that the latter part of his speech impressed me and I hope that the Government will, between now and the Report stage, consider the suggestion which he has made. It would leave to a judge summing up—or, what is more likely, to a chairman of quarter sessions summing up—a better opportunity of explaining the matter to the jury than would the "tend" by itself.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us—and he is now supported by the

  2419
  hon. Member for Oldham, West—that to leave out the words "tend to" would produce a state of affairs which could not be other than a wrecking of the Bill. On a matter of opinion like that, hon. Members on this side of the Committee are entitled to vote as they think proper. I shall support the Government in resisting the Amendment, because I believe that if it were carried we should have produced a Bill that would be inoperable for carrying out what was unanimously agreed to be necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  It was not the Government's intention to sit late tonight and I must admit that I thought we would have made more progress by now. I merely register my personal disappointment. I do not want to inconvenience hon. Members and I hope that the Committee will accept the Motion.
  Mr. Ede:I see no reason for opposing the Motion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I keep a close watch on the clock after eleven o'clock and we are getting into what I regard as a danger zone. To some extent I share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the progress we have made. I hope that the Bill will reach the Statute Book and I also hope that it will be believed that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have occasionally not been supporting the Government feel very seriously about any possible infraction of the liberty of the Press, using that word in its widest possible connotation. We must expect that discussions about this kind of Measure will excite feelings which will lead to the prolongation of argument.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the- Scottish Standing Committee.—[The Lord Advocate.]

  CASE OF JAMES WEAVER
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling: I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary for asking him to stay on a little longer following the sort of afternoon and evening which he has had; but it has been my luck to obtain the Adjournment for tonight, and I want to raise the question of the granting of a pardon to a man sentenced for murder, but eventually reprieved, and this is a matter which my right hon. Friend alone can answer.
  I should like to say at once that I am not a detective, nor a lawyer; nor will I try to criticise the judgment of the trial judge, or the judgment in the Court of Appeal. All that I wish to do is to ask a few questions of the Home Secretary, following some information which I have been able to obtain, to see whether there is any possibility of this case being reconsidered.
  Briefly—and this case goes a long way back—the facts are that in April, 1928, a retired chemist in Brighton, Mr. Friend-Smith, was attacked and taken up to the Downs outside Brighton, where he was most brutally treated and robbed of his money, and also his watch and chain; and here I should say that the watch and chain are not unimportant to this case. Later, he was able to get back to his home, but he had been so badly beaten up that his wife could not recognise him; she could only recognise his voice. A doctor was sent for; he was seriously injured, but he did not die for nearly five weeks; that is, about the middle of May, 1928. A short time after this attack, three men were arrested in Brighton and charged with the attack. They were, however, allowed to go off on bail so that, apparently, nothing more serious was considered at that time.
  It is my belief, as well as that of many other people, that the police knew that these men had been connected with a gang in the town, and that this was a very good excuse for getting rid of them. I do not believe that any of the police

  2421
  officials believed that the case would get to the stage of a charge for murder, because the man was not dead; so there was no question of these three being wanted for that. As time went on, after Friend-Smith's death, the police found themselves unexpectedly more and more involved. When these men were arrested they asked to be confronted with the man who had been injured; a reasonable request, one would think, but the police would not allow it.
  Lord Hewart said he presumed that that was because the man was too ill; but when he eventually died, these three were re-arrested, charged with murder, and taken to Lewes. After a four-day trial they were condemned to death; but the attitude of the three men would rather incline one to think that they never expected anything like this to happen.
  Later, the appeal was heard and Lord Hewart turned it down. He made a very famous speech about what circumstantial evidence really can mean. I believe that it has been quoted frequently since then. It is not uninteresting to remember that this tragedy was taking place at the same time as the appeal over the famous Oscar Slater case was being tried. Englandand Scotland were particularly interested in both cases. They caused a very considerable sensation.
  On 14th August, the then Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, turned down the suggestion of a reprieve. That night three women went to see Lady Rawson the wife—now the widow—of my predecessor, Sir Cooper Rawson, and told her remarkable tales about what was going on at that time in Brighton. I have talked to her about this recently myself. She remembers it well. The visitors also told her about the whereabouts of the watch and chain which, during the inquiries, had never been found.
  This lady felt that this was definitely evidence which should be brought before the Home Secretary even though he had already refused a reprieve and there were now only a few hours before execution was due to take place. Next morning she got into touch with Sir Cooper Rawson, who was in London, and they went to see the Home Secretary. Later, there was a discussion on the subject and, finally, 14 hours before the execution was due, the reprieve was granted.
  2422
  One can imagine that that caused a considerable sensation in the country and especially in the Brighton area. So much was that so that the next day the Home Secretary felt it incumbent to issue a statement, in which he said:
  "It is unusual for the Home Secretary to make any statement about capital cases other than the official notification of his decision, but, as Parliament is not sitting and as the Brighton murder has excited public interest, the Home Secretary thinks it desirable to amplify the official statement issued last night regarding the three prisoners convicted of the murder."
  The statement added:
  "The proper function, and the only function, of the Home Secretary is to decide whether, when a prisoner has been convicted of murder, and as a necessary consequence sentenced to the only penalty prescribed by law for this offence, there are any circumstances which would justify him in recommending mitigation of that penalty, or whether the law should be allowed to take its course. In considering this question the Home Secretary is bound by no rules of procedure. He takes every relevant circumstance into consideration and consults with any person who is in a position to give useful information or assistance."
  Finally, it said:
  In the case of the Brighton murder the Home Secretary has for many days been giving the most careful consideration to all the circumstances, and yesterday, upon a further review of the case, felt justified in reconsidering the previous decision not to interfere with the sentence passed by the court. The Home Secretary thinks it desirable to point out that his recommendation for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative does not cast any reflection upon the justice of the jury's verdict or the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, but he has felt just that element of doubt in the case which, in his opinion, makes it undesirable that the irrevocable penalty should be inflicted."
  "Just that element of doubt"—that surely is what we ought to be considering again. I should like to know whether, as time went on, the Home Office ever took any further steps to find out more about the watch and chain—about that element of doubt of which the Home Secretary spoke.
  Why does this man, Weaver, ask for a pardon? He says:
  "I have decided to ask for your help, after seeing that the widow of the murdered man has now passed away."
  The widow actually died about four weeks ago, and that, presumably, is the reason why he had kept quiet after coming out of prison in 1941.
  "I feel that as the reopening of the case can cause no distress to the only close kin of the

  2423
  murdered man, now is the time to make a determined effort, for the sake of my family and my own peace of mind during my remaining years, to clear my name."
  Further, he says:
  "I am hoping that you will use your influence to persuade the Home Secretary to reopen the case. I should like to have some of the original witnesses in the case questioned again, particularly the two police officers who conducted the inquiry, Mr. Cyril Beer and Mr. Thomas Wells, who later became Chief Constable of Hull. In addition, a woman named Nell Watts, who now lives, I believe, in London, can I am sure throw considerable light on the actual crime. She was closely associated with Donovan, who is now dead, and once told me she would see I was not found guilty as she knew I was not concerned."
  That letter I passed on to the Home Secretary, and I must say that I was greatly impressed by its contents, as I believe was the Home Secretary, also. That is the reason why this man is now asking for a pardon. I have had only three weeks in which to look into this matter and try to find out something about it. Naturally, the first thing was to try to find Nell Watts. I must say that I am grateful to the police of Brighton for the efforts they made to do this. She has been found and has been spoken to by a friend of mine, as well as, I believe, by the Home Office.
  In speaking to my friend, she said that she had nothing to add to the evidence which she gave at the trial, but that, perhaps, it would not be a bad idea to consult one of the other three men who is still living, a man named Taylor. She said that she thought that if he wished, he could probably throw considerable light on the case. Taylor has changed his name since he came out of prison. We do not know where he is, and he has not come forward. Donovan died some years ago.
  Then, out of the blue, I received a letter from one of the jurors—a very elderly gentleman now—and I went to see him. He told me that after the case was over he felt so upset about it that he personally wrote to Sir William Joynson-Hicks. He said he thought that the sight of the widow in weeds sitting there and looking so miserable all the time had considerably influenced the jury.
  He pointed out in his letter that although he had asked for both Taylor
  2424
  and Weaver to be condemned to death, he had also asked that they should be recommended to mercy, but that others on the jury who knew Brighton very well, and who knew this group of people, had persuaded him not to insist on that. It was also said that one could not be condemned without all three being condemned. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can tell us whether that is right or not.
  Lastly, the juror suggested that I should try to find some of the other jurors so that they could all get together and do something to clear this man's name. I have only been able to appeal to the Press for that purpose in the last few days, and as a result I have found another juror, who has written to me from Newhaven as follows:
  "Dear Sir,
  Just to let you know I was one of the jury in the case in 1928 for the Brighton murder, and I was very pleased when I saw on the placards the three men were reprieved on the morning of their sentence as I was the one who argued for manslaughter and not murder until I almost collapsed and had to give in. I had just come off another case when called up again. Excuse scribble due to neuritis—and old age—85 in 10 days."
  It is a point to be remembered that these jurors, and practically everybody else connected with the case, are in their 70s or 80s, if they are alive at all. If we are to do anything for this man, it will probably have to be done fairly soon. I should like the Home Secretary to get into touch with the two ex-police constables, because I think it better that he. rather than I, should do so.
  The most important point of all came up yesterday, when counsel for the defence of one of the accused at the trial spoke to me and told me of something about which I knew nothing—I wonder whether the Home Secretary knows about it—namely, that a year after this case was over he was sent for by Sir Ernley Blackwell, who was then legal adviser to the Home Office, and who showed him a statement made to the police by the murdered man, who had lived for a month after he had been attacked. The police said that they did not believe that statement and, therefore, they did not bring it up at the trial.
  Lord Hewart, when summing up, said that it was amazing how Mr. Smith appeared to be very reticent about the matter. But he was not. He made a

  2425
  statement—and when Sir Ernley Blackwell asked learned counsel to whom he had shown the statement, "What would have happened if you had known about it at the time?" my friend said, "Without any doubt I would have got them off." That reminds one very much of the Oscar Slater case, the appeal about which was going on at that time. I ask the Home Secretary to look into that point and remember that what happened in the Oscar Slater case might very well have happened in this.
  I only ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to keep this matter open for the time being, to give us an opportunity to try to find out all the extra evidence and information that we can. We must not forget that we are dealing here with a man who is only 50 years of age; who has quite a time in front of him, and who, in his final words to me, said:
  "I beg of you from the bottom of my heart to do what you can to help me. God knows I am innocent. I shall face Him when my time comes at last with a clear conscience. But for the sake of my children I would like my name cleared in this world, too."
  11.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): In the short time that remains I shall deal with this very difficult case, which occurred a considerable time ago and which gave the Home Secretary of the day—Sir William Joynson-Hicks—a very great deal of anxiety.
  The prisoners submitted a number of statements and petitions after their conviction, criticising evidence given at the trial and claiming that various people could establish their innocence. These were carefully investigated and all possible inquiries were made. In no case was the prisoner's claim substantiated, and Sir William Joynson-Hicks came to the conclusion that the law must take its course. On further consideration, however, he decided that there remained a scintilla of doubt. This did not mean that he thought that the men were innocent—indeed, I believe that in a statement he referred to the fact that he thought that the verdict was a correct one—but it meant that he was not so completely satisfied of their guilt as to be justified in allowing the irrevocable penalty to be exacted.
  2426
  The Home Secretary's position in this matter and the significance of his decision were set out in a statement which, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, was communicated to the Press. That statement was issued on 15th August, 1928, and put the situation very clearly. My hon. Friend has read some of the relevant parts already and I shall not go over that any further.
  From time to time while the prisoners were serving their sentences, all three of them submitted petitions protesting their innocence, but no new information of substance was produced which was not before the Home Secretary before he came to his decision. The scintilla of doubt has never been resolved one way or the other. Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see this doubt removed. I assure my hon. Friend that I am very ready to consider, as, indeed, all my predecessors have been, any new information which can be produced and to have it investigated, as far as investigation is possible after a lapse of twenty-five years.
  We have already followed up the only new line of inquiry, which was suggested in a letter from Weaver which my hon. Friend sent to me. It suggested that a woman who was associated with one of the other two men had told Weaver at the time that she knew that he was not concerned in the murder and would see that he was not found guilty. Weaver added that this woman was not called at the trial. In this recollection he is at fault. She was called by the prosecution, but her evidence related to the movements of one of the other defendants. We made immediate inquiries, on receiving that information about this woman, to try to trace her. She eventually was found and was asked whether she had any information to give. She has told us that she has no information beyond what she gave at the trial, and, in particular, no information which would throw any doubt at all upon Weaver's conviction.
  I assure my hon. Friend that if new information is produced in the future it will be examined promptly and thoroughly. I would emphasise—I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate this—that it must be new information. There is no purpose to be served by my

  2427
  re-examining evidence which was before the courts and before the Home Secretary at the time. It was their responsibility to come to a decision on the information, and I have no reason to think that the decisions which they reached were not the right ones.
  Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend look into what counsel for the defence told us about the evidence
  2428
  given by Mr. Smith shortly before he died, and which was held by the police?
  Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly do that, but I feel that that was possibly done in one of the many reviews of the case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  London Dock Facilities (Crawley Industries)
  London Dock Facilities (Crawley Industries)
  Wool Tissues (Imports from Italy)
  Wool Tissues (Imports from Italy)
  Anglo-Czechoslovakian Trade
  Anglo-Czechoslovakian Trade
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Bank Rate (Dunbartonshire Representation)
  Bank Rate (Dunbartonshire Representation)
  Association Football (Tax)
  Association Football (Tax)
  Veterinary Medicines and Drugs
  Veterinary Medicines and Drugs
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL SERVICE (EVIDENCE)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL SERVICE (EVIDENCE)
AGRICULTURE
  Red Clover Seed
  Red Clover Seed
  Myxomatosis
  Myxomatosis
  Fertilisers (Prices)
  Fertilisers (Prices)
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  FORESTRY WORKERS, WALES (HOUSING)
  FORESTRY WORKERS, WALES (HOUSING)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates' Courts (Police Counsel)
  Magistrates' Courts (Police Counsel)
  Betting and Lotteries
  Betting and Lotteries
  Convicted Murders
  Convicted Murders
  Continental Day Trips (Passports)
  Continental Day Trips (Passports)
  Police Records, Notting Hill (Research)
  Police Records, Notting Hill (Research)
  Adoption of Children (Report)
  Adoption of Children (Report)
EDUCATION
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Sub-Normal Children
  Sub-Normal Children
  Science Students and Teachers
  Science Students and Teachers
  School Places, Manchester
  School Places, Manchester
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
  Boarding Schools (Fees)
  Boarding Schools (Fees)
  Teachers (Sickness Ratio)
  Teachers (Sickness Ratio)
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  VIET NAM (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  VIET NAM (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  MEAT IMPORTS
  MEAT IMPORTS
  HOUSING ESTATES, SCOTLAND (COMMUNITY CENTRES)
  HOUSING ESTATES, SCOTLAND (COMMUNITY CENTRES)
  ROYAL NAVY DEPOT, CEYLON (ELEPHANTS)
  ROYAL NAVY DEPOT, CEYLON (ELEPHANTS)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
  REMPLOY FACTORIES
  REMPLOY FACTORIES
  FOLLAND GNAT AIRCRAFT (ORDER)
  FOLLAND GNAT AIRCRAFT (ORDER)
  RING ROAD, CHESTER
  RING ROAD, CHESTER
  RESEARCH (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)
  RESEARCH (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAY MENTS) ORDER, 1955
  3.4 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN) rose to move, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which is laid before your Lordships under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, is the first of a number which will be introduced in the near future as the existing guarantee arrangements for agricultural produce fall due for renewal during the coming year. The purpose of the order is to provide a framework into which the Government's decisions as to the nature and level of the fatstock guarantees can be fitted after each Annual Review. The broad arrangements set out in the order are intended to continue from year to year, subject to amendment if necessary at any time.
  As the order is entirely procedural and technical, it does not state the price guarantees for the current year nor does it define the classes of fatstock which they cover. These matters are determined, as they have been in the past, in accordance with the Agriculture Act: first of all, in the Minimum Prices Orders which provide minimum guarantees for up to four years ahead, and then each year for the year immediately ahead in the White Paper which is presented to Parliament after each Annual Review. Your Lordships will remember that the White Paper for the current year was presented early this month and details of grade descriptions and weight ranges were published on March 14. This order, by filling the need for a formal structure of arrangements for paying fatstock guarantees, completes the pattern for the determination
  144
  and administration of fatstock guarantees.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I dealt briefly with the main articles of the order. Article 3 deals with the classes of cattle, sheep and pigs to which the order shall apply. These will be specified by the Government in the light of their conclusions after a review under the Agriculture Act. The general intention is to cover those classes of stock which are reared and fattened with the main object of producing meat, and to exclude breeding stock. These detailed determinations, which in general follow the practice of previous years, have been published in the White Paper and in the Press announcement after the Annual Review. The House will by now be familiar with the system of collective and individual guarantees by which the prices for fatstock are supported. These are dealt with in Articles 4, 6 and 7 of the order. I do not think I need deal with them in detail since those of your Lordships who are interested will have made it your business to understand them when they first came into operation after the derationing of meat last July.
  Article 8 provides for the making of deadweight guarantee payments (based on the average of individual guarantee payments under Articles 6 and 7) for carcases of cattle and sheep certified under approved grade and deadweight schemes, and for pigs certified at bacon factories and deadweight certification centres. This guarantee is intended to equalise trading conditions between the live and deadweight systems of sale so that neither has an advantage over the other merely because of guaranteed payments. Article 9 provides that quality premiums for pigs may be paid out of the funds available for implementing the guarantee. Article 11 enables different arrangements to be made for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, though, in point of fact, apart from minor technical differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, we do not at present intend to introduce any variations in the different countries. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.8 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this order is of some importance, and I am sure that I and my friends on these Benches need no more excuse to make some comments than the noble Earl needed to explain it at some, length. I do not propose myself to make any comments on the merits of the policy of private trading in fatstock. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, the purpose of this order is to provide the machinery for making payments for guaranteed prices to producers under the policy of private trading to which the Government have reverted. I would only say, because it directly relates to the order, that the permanence of this order, when it has been approved by your Lordships and by another place, will depend upon the permanence of the marketing policy it purports to carry out. As your Lordships are aware, we on this side of the House believe in a policy of State trading in livestock. We believe that such a policy is preferable to private trading, and that is our marketing policy. It follows that the life of this order is tied up with the political lives of noble Lords opposite, and whether they continue to occupy their present position in your Lordships' House for a longer or shorter period of time will depend upon the good sense of the electorate.
  But I welcome this order because it is inspired by an intention to last longer than previous orders that have been made for the same purpose. It is obviously desirable—and everyone would agree with this—that ten years after the war these arrangements should no longer be made, as they have been made up to now, under Defence Regulations. Again, orders which have to be renewed by Parliament at short intervals, like previous orders on this subject, have the additional disadvantage of taking up a good deal of Parliamentary time and, of course, of aggravating uncertainty in industry, because there always must be an element of uncertainty so long as an order is continuously subject to approval by your Lordships and by another place.
  Finally, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question in relation to Article 11 of this order. This is something interesting and something quite new. Article 11 appears to be asking Parliament to give the Minister an important
  146
  new power, and I can assure your Lordships that it is not a power that we ever thought necessary or desirable while we were responsible. This is a power to vary the standard prices in the guaranteed individual prices for fatstock in different parts of the United Kingdom. For example, the Minister could presumably fix one price for England and Wales, quite a different price for Northern Ireland, and yet a third and entirely different price for Scotland. I am not saying that this power is unnecessary; I am far from being dogmatic about it. But I think the noble Earl should tell us why the Ministry are asking for this new power, because it is obviously undesirable for Parliament to give the Minister a new power unless it is shown by the relevant evidence that it is really necessary. The noble Earl said that there was no intention of using this power at the moment, but presumably the Government would not be asking for authority to use this power at any moment unless there were some reason why they wished Parliament to approve of it. I should be obliged if the noble Earl could answer that question when he winds up.
  3.11 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it will save time if I make one or two remarks before the noble Earl replies. Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I agree that it is desirable to have this greater permanence of policy by the passing of one order instead of the custom which has hitherto prevailed. In so far as that gives a sense of security to the farm producers of the country, that is all to the good.
  I have nothing to add to what my noble friend said on the other point, which I regard as of considerable importance. I do not know whether my noble friend would agree that this assessment of the various localities apparently fits in again with the Government's private enterprise idea. It is perfectly true that the Milk Marketing Board, for example, have reverted to the practice, I think to some extent discontinued during the war, of having a slightly differential price for milk in the different milk regions. No doubt, there is something to be said at times, having regard to the climatic condition of a particular area, for fostering the production of the best agricultural commodity for that area. Nevertheless,

  147
  I think the Government should be careful, especially where they may want to stress the production of one particular article more than another, to see that they do not thereby induce undue production of one line by carrying the idea of specialised prices too far. Nor should those who have tried to fulfil a policy adumbrated by the Government find themselves, because of a serious variation in the other direction, left in a position which is unfair to them.
  The only other thing I want to say upon this order is this. Apart from a general debate on the Agriculture Estimates, this is about the only opportunity one has to give vent to one or two grievances of the farmers themselves. This order covers, in a very wide sense, fatstock, including sheep and pigs. I must say that the reversion to private enterprise has been, at times, a fairly good thing for the farmers, especially in the short season, say from Christmas onwards, and very good prices have been obtained. On the other hand, very good prices have had to be paid by the consumer. About the only justification that I have heard for it yet on behalf of the Government is that it shows that the British consumer wants the best meat, is determined to have the best meat and will pay the best price for it. That is all very well for those people who have the money, but it does not secure all-round average prices for the best meat to the whole of the consumers in the country, which is the principle lying behind what my noble friend was saying in contrasting the private enterprise system with the State trading system in a commodity of such importance as this. Moreover, there is inherent in the minds of many farmers the feeling that, behind it all, there are tremendous loopholes in the scheme under private enterprise. Sometimes the farmer used to grumble about how these things worked under State trading. He used to think his products were not graded properly until the meat was sold on behalf of the Government. Then if there was too big a set-off it went to the ultimate benefit of the State. Now, the farmers talk in a very different way. I can prove some things by personal experience.
  Take, for example, the grading of pigs, which is dealt with under Article 4 (3), mostly in sub-paragraphs (d) and
  148
  (e). In the case of pigs which are sent to the bacon factory in order to get this guarantee, the most extraordinary things go on. I should like to pay a tribute to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation for the successful way in which they overcame the Government's delays last year: they have really done a good overall job. But, as I say, I see some extraordinary things happen about pigs sent to bacon centres for grading. I had some fine specimens the other day, just the sort for bacon, and they were sent along for the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, from the other side of Colchester to Chippenham. They were all just about the same size when they went off, weighing out at a difference of about 6 or 7 lb. between the lightest and heaviest of the six. Three of them were graded; they got the guarantee. The other three were not graded at all. And whereas the three pigs that were graded brought a price, say, of about £19 a pig, the others brought about £11 a pig. The difference between the weight of the lightest of the graded pigs and the heaviest of the ungraded pigs was 2 lb. They had to be sent 150 miles. So the farmer gets 5s. or 7s. for what is called "shrinkage" for long distance, and he loses because those pigs are not graded. On a margin of 2 lb. he loses £6, £7 or £8. Therefore, in giving general approval to the Government's idea of having a longer basic period for the general powers sought here, I think it is time that that point was considered—because, believe me, those pigs of 6 score 14 lb. that were regarded as too light to be graded were all sold at the top price in the market. The farmer does not get the money. What has happened to it in between?
  I should like to ask the noble Earl what is his information at the Ministry concerning how that works out. Does the bacon company then make the pigs into bacon and get the top price—the bacon being even more desirable to some members of the public, because they like it a shade leaner—or are they sent for pork? If so, if the farmer sent in pigs of 3, 6½ or 7 score for pork meat, he would get a guarantee; but he gets nothing out of this. That seems to me wholly inequitable. I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to say now: "I can see exactly this afternoon how that can be put right," but I hope that before the next agricultural

  149
  debate, he will have looked into it and brought to us a proper and progressive policy to put that matter right.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was worried about Article 11. Perhaps I may give him an example of how that operates this year. As he knows, we have some progeny testing stations being set up. In order to finance them, a deduction is being made. In Northern Ireland there will be no progeny testing stations, and therefore the deductions will not be made from pigs reared in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is necessary to have this power to fix a differential price between Northern Ireland and this country.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining that point, but, potentially, the application is a good deal broader, is it not? Under the terms of this article there could be a different price for fat cattle, for instance, in Northern Ireland as compared with that in England and Wales. I wanted to know whether the Government had any reason for wishing to have the power for making different prices of that kind.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the noble Earl that certainly there is no intention of doing that at the moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, seemed to be very worried about his pigs. First of all, the price which is paid by the Fatstock Marketing Corporation is not in any way controlled by the Government: it is entirely their affair. The Government do not enter into that at all.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Private trading.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I understood the noble Viscount to say that some of
  150
  his pigs did not get the guarantee. But all pigs get the guarantee. If he would let me have details of it, I will look into it and see that he does get his guarantee.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I am not really worried about my own particular case. This has simply opened a vista to me, showing what is happening over a wide front to people who are sending their pigs to bacon factories. I want to know what happens to the difference between the £18 or £19 received under the guarantee by weight of a pig of 6 score 16 lb., and the price obtained for a pig of 6 score 14 lb.—a difference of only 2 lb. weight—for which he gets no guarantee and on which he may make a £7 or £8 loss. I want to know who is getting the difference. Is it the consumer? Who is making this prodigious profit?
  EARL. ST. ALDWYN: I must point out to the noble Viscount that it is the responsibility of the breeder to weigh his pigs accurately before he sends them to market. Frankly, that is half the trouble with a great many farmers; they simply look at a pig and say that it weighs so many scores, and they do not bother to put it on the scales.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How on earth is a farmer, when he has weighed his pig and got his 6 score, 18 lb. as a sort of minimum, and then has to send it 150 miles by road, being restricted to a small arbitrary shrinkage allowance, to be protected against losing the whole of the balance of the guarantee, amounting to £6, £7 or £8?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will certainly look into this matter, and I will communicate with the noble Viscount later.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BRITISH WOOL (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1955
  3.22 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order also is laid before your Lordships under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and it is designed to take the place of the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1951, so as to provide for changes in the arrangements governing the guarantee for wool. The changes are intended to make the operation of the guarantee more flexible. If they are approved, this order will be followed by the usual annual order fixing the guaranteed price for the year 1955–56 on the new lines, and by a new financial agreement with the Board which will accord with the new order and will extend the period of operation of the price stabilising fund.
  Your Lordships may remember that wool was the first product for which the guarantee under Part I of the Agriculture Act was effected through the mechanism of a marketing scheme. Before the British Wool Marketing Scheme came into operation there had been no opportunity for gaining experience in working schemes of this kind, so I do not think it is surprising that the arrangements made then were not perfect. They were designed to run for five-year periods and we have waited until the fifth year before proposing changes in the light of experience. Broadly speaking, two changes are being made by this order. The first affects the Board's obligation to pay certain sums to producers. The second concerns the marketing allowance which was determined each year under the 1951 order. The arrangements for implementing the guarantee for wool are complicated but with your Lordships permission I will try to explain them briefly.
  Under the 1951 order the Ministers fixed an average price for wool at the point of sale from the sheep farmer to the Board. The Board was then required to draw up a schedule of prices for each description and grade of wool so that the weighted average of these prices should by the end of the year as nearly as possible be not less than the guaranteed average. If the Board misjudged (and it
  152
  is a very difficult calculation) it had to meet the cost of any over-payment out of its own funds and any under-payment had to be made good unless the Ministers agreed to relieve the Board of this obligation. In fact, the Board has been extremely successful in making these calculations and has never so far been more than 2d. per pound out. In three years there have been very small under-payments. If the Board had been obliged to make these good by supplementary payments the cost of the extra work, stationery, postage and other things would have swallowed up far too much of the total sum involved. The Ministers therefore permitted the Board to keep these sums in reserve. We have now come to the conclusion that this provision requiring the Board to distribute a precise sum to producers, the overwhelming majority of whom are its own voting constituents, is cumbersome and unnecessary. Therefore this provision is left out of the draft order now before your Lordships. Under the terms of this order the guarantee will be to the Board and its distribution will not be restricted by order.
  As regards the second change, the Government have each year fixed a marketing allowance in advance at so much per pound of wool, and the idea of this at the outset was to allow the Board to keep anything it could save out of this allowance, while it would have to bear out of its own funds any amounts by which it over-stepped the allowance. Now that we have had some experience with this we have come to the conclusion that there is no real distinction between the guaranteed price and the marketing allowance. Moreover, it has involved the Government each year in stating what amounts to an opinion on how much it was worth while for the Board to spend on marketing its wool. This we think is inappropriate, and we have therefore left this provision out of the new order.
  The result of these two changes is that the guarantee under this new order will be to the Board and will apply at the point of sale to the wholesale buyer. That is to say, the Government will be guaranteeing the price which will be received by the Board after it has paid its marketing costs. The rest of the order—which is the most important part—is unchanged in substance, though it has been reworded to take account of the consolidation of the marketing allowance with the

  153
  guaranteed price. There will therefore continue to be an arrangement between the Ministers and the Board to set off profits and losses, taking one year with another, with the Exchequer standing behind the Board as guarantor if the losses should exceed the profits.
  We are indebted to the producers representatives for their helpful co-operation in drawing up these proposals, and the Board is to be complimented on the success of its operations. With the help of these guarantee arrangements a high and stable price for British wool has been maintained without any call on the Exchequer; and, though prediction is very dangerous where markets are concerned, the present prospect seems to be that this happy state of affairs will continue. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 16th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining the important and extremely intricate differences between the proposed Wool Marketing Scheme and the existing scheme. I think that this is a case where everyone has learned from experience. The defects of the old scheme have become manifest and the Government are now trying to remedy those defects by means of this new order. I think that when this new scheme comes into operation it will prove to be simpler to operate than the old scheme. It is extremely satisfactory that the farmers, the Board and the Government have all agreed about its advantages. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl said in this regard: that it is a tribute to the efficiency and the good will of the Wool Marketing Board that they appear to have earned the complete confidence of the farmers. I hope that this happy state of affairs will continue in time to come.
  3.29 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before we pass this order I wonder whether the noble Earl would give his attention or draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to something which I understand is causing our woollen
  154
  manufacturers in Yorkshire grave concern? I think the order which we are now discussing affects the problem. I am referring to the use of tar, pitch and other insoluble mediums with which fleeces are marked which substances cannot be removed from the wool without the use of a detergent or chemical which is highly dangerous to the operatives in the textile industry of Yorkshire. I understand that this is a very serious matter. It arises in regard to not only our own fleeces but also the fleeces that come from Australia. As the noble Earl will know better than I, there is now available a modern marking solvent which will not cause the fleece to deteriorate so much. I am told that manufacturers in industries exporting to America are losing many thousands of pounds through their inability to remove this pitch and tar marking from fleeces, and therefore from yarn, and that it will not take the very highly coloured dyes demanded by consumers in modern conditions. Can the noble Earl tell your Lordships whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared either to put a premium price on clean wool or to bring in legislation to prohibit other than clean wool from coming into the country and being marketed? Such an assurance might help our textile manufacturers, and I feel sure that anything which can help those manufacturers to face the present stiff competition in overseas markets will receive the ready support of Her Majesty's Government.
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I rise in great humility to oppose this order. I come from Romney Marsh in Kent. The Rye National Farmers' Union have passed a resolution against the order. The Romney Marsh Union have not yet met to discuss the order because it has been pushed through at such short notice. This seems to be an order produced not by a Conservative Government but by a totalitarian Government. No wonder noble Lords on my left have approved it! I should like to bring two points to your Lordships' notice. First, the Wool Board have come to terms with Her Majesty's Government without carrying out their obligations to their members—the producers of the wool—as laid down in the first Annual Report in 1951 and confirmed in the first annual general meeting in that year. It

  155
  was then said that the ultimate disposal of any quinquennial surplus not required for the operation of the scheme would be decided by the producers in the annual general meeting, in the light of conditions obtaining in four years' time, when the amount of the surplus was known.
  I believe there is a surplus of some £2 million to £3 million. So far as I can see, this order "snaffles" that surplus, made by the 1950 wool clip, although the producers were promised that they would have a voice in deciding what should happen to it in five years' time. Her Majesty's Government have "snaffled" that sum and have given to the farmers a guaranteed price for wool; but before doing so they have absorbed all the profit made by the Wool Board. Is that quite fair? My second point is that this new order is a guarantee to the Board and not to the producer. The Board can do what they like with money realised from the sale of wool but the producers have no leg to stand on. I should also like to bring out the point made in Article 5, paragraph (2) that if no such arrangement has been made, the Board shall deal with it
  "in such manner … as the Ministers may determine."
  That is a totalitarian act. I should like to hear what can be said upon this by the noble Earl who is to reply.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken seems to think that we are all totalitarian except himself, but there is this great distinction between this side of the House and that—we have not "snaffled" the money. The complaint is made that Her Majesty's Government have done so. Noble Lords will expect a clear answer on where the money has gone.
  3.36 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked about tar marking on wool. I can assure him that the Board is extremely concerned over this matter. In the years 1953 and 1954 it has imposed a penalty of 4d. per lb. on tar infected wool, and is proposing in 1955 to increase that penalty to 6d.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Hear, hear!
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: There are good means of marking which do not affect the wool, and it is hoped that, by this penalty, producers will be encouraged to use those means and to desist from the use of tar. I am afraid I am not in a position to give any answer, at the moment, regarding Australian wool, but I will look into that matter and let the noble Lord know.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Earl explains away these "totalitarian" tendencies, may I thank him very much for what he has said? The action proposed by Her Majesty's Government will go a long way. Will the noble Earl also give an assurance that, if the steps at present proposed to be taken do not cure this trouble, there will be no hesitation about making even more pronounced the differential between the prices for clean wool and dirty wool, to overcome this very serious problem?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is a matter for the Board, who, I am sure, will bear it in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, gave a quotation stating that the ultimate disposal of any quinquennial surplus not required for the operation of the scheme would be decided by the producers' annual general meeting. It is only fair to point out that the phrase was immediately preceded by a warning that it was impossible for the provisional board (which was responsible for that Report) to make any commitment on behalf of the Board which would be in operation in 1954–55. I would point out to the noble Lord that this is hardly totalitarianism. It was the Board, and not Her Majesty's Government, who were to decide at the end of the term what should be done with the money—whether to use it then or to carry it forward.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I think the noble Earl will agree that the question was to be decided at the annual general meeting of the members of the Board—that is, of the producers—and that that annual general meeting has not taken place. You came to arrangements with the Board without that meeting taking place.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Board have full power over that money. It rests solely in the hands of the Board.

  157
  The noble Lord quoted a figure of between £2 million and £3 million as the surplus. I must reassure him. The actual surplus is somewhere between £1,500,00 and £2 million.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, does that include the underpayment for the last three years? There is three years' underpayment, and I believe that it comes to between £800,000 and £900,000.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: As I understand it, the total surplus which there is likely to be is between £1,500,000 and £2 million. Those are the figures.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether it would be correct to say that a large part of this surplus would be treated as a stabilising fund, which would be paid out to the farmer if the price of wool were to fall?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lord, I am delighted that the noble Earl has in fact given my reply for me. In view of his most helpful words, I do not think I need say any more.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.

  NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
  3.42 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to prolong the upper age limit for National Service in the case of those who have tried to avoid their obligations by staying abroad during the last year of their liability. Your Lordships will remember that the National Service Act of 1947 and the Consolidating Act of 1948 provided that young men may be called up between the ages of 18 and 26, although in certain cases of postponement on the grounds of personal hardship this limit may be extended. In the case of doctors and dentists there
  158
  was an upper age limit of 30. The whole of these National Service Acts were built upon the principle of the universality of service and only a very few classes of person were given statutory exemption. The remainder have been liable for service and have carried out their obligations cheerfully and patriotically.
  The principle of universal liability for National Service, together with a flexible system of deferment, in proper cases, has worked extremely well. On January 1, 1955, the first age group which registered under the 1948 Act—that is to say those who were born in 1929—began to pass out of the liability as they reached the age of 26. So it is possible at this stage to consider how the system has worked over a full cycle of years. Of the 300,000 men in the 1929 age group, all but 1,000 who have gone abroad have been satisfactorily accounted for. Some of this thousand may well be coming back to this country during the course of the year. In some cases there are strong grounds for believing that certain of them propose to remain out of Great Britain until after their 26th birthday has passed, so that under the existing Act they would then be able to return to the country later this year having successfully avoided the obligations which their contemporaries have cheerfully shouldered. The number of such men is very small. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour, when asked to estimate the number in the 1929 age group, replied that he thought it was about 300. But although relatively few in number, they give rise to very proper and long-standing grievances among men who themselves have done their service, and also among their relations. There has been considerable public concern, and we felt it right to amend the original Act so as to prevent this mean evasion. The Bill before your Lordships will achieve this. It is short and its essentials are contained in two clauses.
  Clause 1 brings within the scope of the Bill men who reached the present upper age limit on or after January 1 this year and who have been subject to registration under the main Act. Subsection 1 (b) of Clause 1 is designed to prevent an escape from liability under the principal Act by a man who, although living here ordinarily some time after attaining 17 years and 8 months (which is the earliest age

  159
  at which men can be required to register) has ceased subsequently to be resident. Those who are brought within the scope of the Bill are those who are absent from Great Britain for a period or periods aggregating not less than 28 days during their last year of liability. The Bill is directed solely towards men who go abroad as a means of evading National Service. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 defines those men to whom the Bill shall not apply. There has been concern in another place about the position of men in the Merchant Navy, but specific assurances have been given that bona fide seamen will not be called up by reason of the Bill. I am glad to confirm these assurances.
  Clause 2 makes it clear that the powers in the Bill are permissive, and action will be taken only when the Minister, after the fullest investigation, causes individuals to be summoned to attend for medical examination under Section 8 of the main Act. Thus, only when there is prima facie evidence of intention to evade National Service will the machinery of this Bill be set in motion. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill is necessary. I think, too, it is a model of brevity. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House certainly have no quarrel with this Bill which, as the noble Lord has explained, is designed to stop a leak—a small leak it is true, but nevertheless a leak—in the operation and universality of the National Service scheme. The noble Lord mentioned that the right honourable gentleman the Minister, in another place, had given a figure of 300 as an estimate of those who might possibly have had the intention to avoid National Service. Even for that number, I think it will generally be agreed, a Bill of this sort is worth while having, because nothing touches public opinion on the raw so much as the idea that someone may be getting an unfair advantage over his neighbour. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS) BILL
  3.49 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: My Lords, this is a measure designed to improve the pensions and superannuation benefits for the staff of the trustee savings banks and their dependants. The Bill received unanimous support in another place, and I feel sure that it will receive similar sympathetic consideration by your Lordships. I gladly move the Second Reading of the Bill because of my close association with the trustee savings banks, both as chairman of the National Savings Committee and as a trustee of one of the largest of these banks for some twenty years.
  There are eighty-four trustee savings banks in the United Kingdom, with total deposits amounting to approximately £1,100 million. They operate nearly 1,300 branches and employ a staff of some 5,500—mostly men, of whom, naturally, a great many are married and have dependants. At present the benefits payable to the employees of these banks and their inspection committee are regulated by the Trustees Savings Banks Act going back nearly thirty years. This means that any change in the benefits payable can be varied only by the passing of a new Act. This Bill, if passed, would eliminate the necessity of fresh trustee savings banks legislation for this purpose, as it is designed to give the Treasury power, by means of orders, to authorise the payment of new or altered benefits. The Bill provides that these benefits should correspond to, but not exceed, those which are currently payable to civil servants.
  The second purpose of the Bill, and one which to my mind is well overdue, is to make provision for the widows and children and other dependants of employees of the banks who died while in the service of the bank, none of whom is covered by existing pensions schemes. In other words, trustee savings banks have no power at present to look after widows and orphans of their employees. This also would be done by Treasury order, and the benefits and other payments would be limited to the corresponding benefits payable to the dependants

  161
  of civil servants. Any such scheme, of course, would be contributory, in the same way as superannuation schemes applicable to civil servants. Your Lordships may know that the staffs of trustee savings banks are closely akin to, although not actually, civil servants, for the trustee savings banks are operated under the supervision of the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury.
  The absence of provision for the dependants of trustee savings bank employees who die in harness has brought great hardships, as at present the banks have no powers to make any substantial payments to widows or personal representatives of the deceased. The most they can do is to allocate one year's salary. I know personally of a distinguished servant of a trustee savings bank who died only last week before reaching pensionable age—at 58 years of age, as a matter of fact—and his family will suffer as a consequence of there being at present little or no provision for them. Many other examples could be quoted. The Bill gives power to apply to trustee savings banks not only existing Civil Service superannuation legislation but also any further legislation of this kind as it may occur. This flexible arrangement is in keeping with current practice and has the virtue of eliminating the need for further legislation if and when the superannuation provisions for civil servants come to be revised.
  I would add that any orders made under this Bill will be subject to the annulment procedure of this House, so that they car be fully scrutinised before being finally approved. I would also point out that payment are made by the trustee savings banks out of their own funds, and therefore this Bill will not mean any charge whatever on public funds. The terms of the Bill are acceptable to the Treasury, the National Debt Commissioners, the Trustee Savings Banks' Association and their Inspection Committee and will give pleasure to the National Savings Committee, who work so closely with the trustee savings banks throughout the country. I am proud to have been given the task of piloting this small measure through your Lordships' House. It is the first Bill I have moved, and I doubt whether I shall ever move one that is at once more necessary and
  162
  more useful. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mackintosh of Halifax.)
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, perhaps it will be a good thing if I take this opportunity of stating the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill, because they have not had such an opportunity in another place where, apart from a speech from the mover, the Bill went through without any debate. We approve most heartily the Bill and we think it more than appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, who draws in the savings, should be the man who looks after those who handle those savings. The National Savings Movement has been vital and is becoming more vital every day. We wish that the noble Lord would sometimes come and take part in our economic debates in order to give us some of the background information which he alone possesses about that Movement. I feel that I speak for the whole House in extending this public invitation, which I hope he will not be able to refuse.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, I have to declare an interest. Like him, I am a vice-president of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association, and I am also the chairman of a trustee savings bank. I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House will echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in regard to my noble friend. He has done, and is doing, great work for the National Savings Movement, and the trustee savings banks work in harmony with that Movement.
  So far as the Bill itself is concerned, its provisions have been so lucidly explained by the noble Lord that it is necessary to say little more. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that the Government approve the purposes of the Bill. From my own experience I know that it will put right some serious hardships, though unfortunately, in the nature of things, these provisions cannot be retrospective and cannot deal with some of the distressing cases of which we already know. I think it would be right to say here, on behalf of the Trustee Savings Banks' Association, how much we appreciate the ever-ready help given to the Association by the officials

  163
  of the Treasury and the National Debt Commissioners. It is not often that one has an opportunity of paying tribute to work of this kind, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, will agree. I believe I can say that there is no opposition to the Bill on this side of the House, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
  3.58 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask a question about the convenience of debate on this matter. We have a large number of Amendments—almost like a Report stage. Would it, or would it not, be convenient for the House to dispose of the Amendments on the Third Reading, and then having done that, make our speeches about the Bill on the next stage, on the Question: "That the Bill do now pass"? I suggest that that might be convenient, if the Government and other noble Lords agree.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I would much rather speak straight away on the Third Reading. Then, if the Bill survives my powerful speech, we may go on to the Amendments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMON WEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I think we should get this matter clear. Were we to take the normal course, it would be the one which the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition proposed. Until we have disposed of the Amendments we really do not know what it is we are reading a third time.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: On the other hand, we do not know whether there will be a Bill to go on with at all.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, that is an observation more appropriate to a Second Reading than to a Third Reading. It does not very much matter in which way it is done: whether we take the general debate now or after dealing with the Amendments; but I take it that we do not want two debates. If the House prefers, we can have the debate now and after that take the Amendments, and then take a formal Motion that the Bill do pass.
  EARL JOWITT: I am willing to fall in with any course, but any Member of the House is entitled to speak on Third Reading and to divide the House against the Bill. I do not mind which course is taken.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I should like to speak about the Bill now, but if the Government say they would rather take the other course, I do not mind giving way.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I had every intention of putting down a Motion on the Paper to move that this Bill be read again six months hence, but I have been persuaded, much against my will, not to do such a thing. I was told that this is a Conservative measure, and that I am a Conservative. Frankly, I was not impressed by that argument at all. This is not a Conservative measure; it is not a Party measure; it is nothing else but a departmental Bill, and a very bad one at that. It seems to have no Minister at the back of it, except perhaps the composite, mystical figure of Mr. Lennox Boyd-Carpenter. I have a great love for another place, where they work very hard—much harder than we do—and where life is grim, and perhaps it would be a shame to deprive them of seeing this Bill when it arrives there and of having a good laugh.
  I have refrained from that drastic step, but I feel in my bones that there are few of your Lordships who would not vote against this measure if you were voting on nothing else but its merits. The Bill is described as a "Road Traffic Bill." Noble Lords in charge of the Bill have alternated in their descriptions between "road traffic" and "road safety," whichever they liked. In my opinion, however, it is a new criminal law

  165
  amendment Bill. It is vindictive in every sense, and it suggests that by the intimidation of penalties the roads can be cleared of accidents. It might also be described as a London spoliation Bill. Our great squares in future are to resemble enormous petrol stations; and I suppose every two hours a horn will blow and there will be a general post of one vehicle passing from one position to another, because it cannot remain in one place for more than two hours. That is the Government's solution to the traffic problem of London.
  I should like to extend my sympathy to the three noble Lords in charge of the Bill. They were, of course, acting under instructions—instructions to resist everything—and, in my opinion, they resembled a trinity of Molotovs falling over each other to say "No." I have seen on their faces astonishment, chagrin and humiliation when they realised that they had themselves to voice what was in their briefs. It is a curious thing, but your Lord ships' House, which has always been so distinguished in these motor matters, knows a good deal more about the subject than the Department, and time and again noble Lords in this House have shot to pieces the proposals in this Bill. We have had the repeated cry ad misericordiam: "Please withdraw your Amendment, and we will promise to look into the subject." How many times has that been said to us? It has been said on every important subject that has cropped up. I think it is the duty of the Department to look into these things before they present a Bill, and not to put forward half-baked proposals that can be, and have been, pulled to pieces. We had from one of the noble Lords the ingenious and ingenuous plea that the arguments made would be brought to the notice of the Minister. That seemed to me quite a charming idea; but I should have thought that the Minister himself might have read Hansard when the creation of his Department was having such a rough handling, as it has had in this House.
  There are two subjects with which I myself was concerned: one was the speed limit, and the other was the offence of being "drunk in charge." I referred to a pledge which was given by a former Government and which was not implemented, but I will not go into that matter
  166
  again. Your Lordships will remember that I asked that the speed limit should not be enforced in the small hours of the morning, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft told us that the figures of accidents were extremely bad during those hours. I have been into those figures, and they are interesting. The noble Lord is right in one particular, as to the hour from 12 midnight to 1 a.m.; but from 1 a.m. onwards the accident rate is practically negligible. The total casualties in the whole of England—not only fatal accidents but injuries—in controlled and uncontrolled areas is 238,000. The peak hour, the worst of the day, is between 5. p.m. and 6 p.m., in which hour a total of 24,000 people are injured. The figure goes down, until, from 11 p.m. till 12 midnight, it is 8,000. From 12 midnight to 1 a.m. it is higher than I thought, at 3,000; but from 1 a.m. to 6 a.m. it goes down to 800. It is at that particular time that I should like to see the speed limit taken off. I hope that in this funny sort of inquiry that was promised—which afterwards the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, said was only consultation with the Minister, and not the making of an inquiry—they will consider that particular position.
  I was rather upset that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, was not in the House when I made this proposal, because he made a powerful speech at a later stage in the debate. Your Lordships will know that the Lord Chief Justice, if you know him personally, is one of the most agreeable, charming and companionable men that exist. But his reputation outside, to people who do not know him, is that of a very fierce Judge, who might well be described as a sort of modern Judge Jeffreys—the sort of man who might easily give you penal servitude for life for parking without a light. But what does he say about the speed limit? He considers it a farce that should be done away with. That opinion was reechoed throughout England, and every newspaper said that at last we were thinking clearly on this matter and how much they agreed with the Lord Chief Justice. I hope that after those remarks, addressed to your Lordships by the Lord Chief Justice, the investigation into the speed limit which was advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be

  167
  taken rather more seriously and considered extensively.
  As to the "drunk in charge" question, the position, I think, was wholly unsatisfactory. Everyone admitted that the law was wrong: it is believed to be wrong throughout the country, and the Government said it was wrong. Yet the combined talent of the whole of the Civil Service could not frame an alternative Amendment. Really, I cannot believe that that is a possibility. I welcomed the contribution to the debate on that subject of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, because his words rang through the country as a little clear thinking, when he said, "Better that many people get off than that injustice should be done and the law look foolish." That is the position to-day, and that is the position that apparently will be perpetuated unless the pundits of the law can find a suitable Amendment. I cannot help saying that I disapprove of this Bill, but I must congratulate the three noble Lords in charge. Never in the whole of my experience of political life, which extends over about thirty years, have I seen noble Lords put in a more embarrassing and hopeless position than they have been over this Bill. I think it is due largely to the courtesy of the House that they have not repeatedly been shot to pieces.
  Now we come to the Third Reading. There are rumours of an Election. Whether it will come soon or late, we do not know. Frankly, I hope it will come soon and that another place will not be bothered with this Bill, but that it will find its way quickly to where it belongs; that is, the wastepaper basket.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the question is that this Bill be now read a third time.
  EARL HOWE: I wanted to say a word—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may we have some guidance from the Acting Leader of the House? We understood that the Third Reading was to be formal, that the Amendments were then to be put and that we could make the speeches on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." An exception was made in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to which my learned friend did not object. Can we now proceed
  168
  by the method which was suggested by the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I think we must keep some sort of order in these proceedings. There are two ways of proceeding. One is to take the Third Reading formally, then have the Amendments, and then to proceed to a debate on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." Now that the Third Reading has been moved and the debate has started, I should have thought it would be convenient to conclude the debate on the Third Reading, and then go on to the Amendments.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do we now proceed—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: You now proceed to make your set speeches.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not our set speeches, but in the order which has been arranged through the usual channels
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, I think so.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will allow me, I will proceed—
  EARL HOWE: May I inquire what has been agreed through the usual channels? I am anxious to say a word on the general question, following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What was agreed through the usual channels was, as I understand it, that the Third Reading would be taken formally, that the Amendments would then be discussed and voted upon or disposed of, and that we should then have a debate on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass." There was no intention of cutting anybody out. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has started the ball rolling, we will now take the general debate in which everybody who wishes to speak on the Third Reading can do so. Then, having disposed of that, we will come later to the Amendments.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I am sorry if I have upset the proceedings of the House, but I was not in the channel.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We should have hated not to have had that delightful piece of obstruction of the channel.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if it is the wish of your Lordships I will now resume the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. I regret that I shall have to proceed in somewhat the same strain as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Your Lordships' House has received many Bills ill-conceived and slipshod in their drafting and conception, but in my experience I doubt whether there has ever been a Bill which has left your Lordships' House that has not had deeply imprinted upon it the hallmark of your Lordships' House as a Revising Chamber. In my experience, now extending over a few years, I think we could always say, whether we agreed with the principle of the Bill or not, that at least it left your Lordships' House with some credit to us and that we wished it well.
  To-day we are being asked to give a Third Reading to the one notable exception. I do not mind from which standard this Bill is judged—it is just deplorable. I do not mind whether it is judged from its contribution to road safety, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said, as a Road Traffic Bill: it is equally deplorable. I will deal, first of all, with its contribution to road safely, because that allows me to deal with Clause 1. That clause sought to set up a grandiose scheme of testing stations—I should estimate somewhere in the region of 15,000 stations, employing 100,000 people. The problem it sought to solve was the prevention of exactly 2,501 accidents out of 200,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, rightly said, that scheme was shot to pieces by your Lordships. I think the comment of the Economist was apt—that the dimmist bureaucrat could never hope to see a clause like that get safely through your Lordships' House.
  We on this side of your Lordships' House were in a most difficult position. We were pressed from various quarters to lend our support not to give this Bill a Second Reading at all. In consultation with my noble and learned Leader, who had put upon me the responsibility, on behalf of the Opposition, of conducting the examination of this Bill in your Lordships' House, we decided that it
  170
  was our public duty to subject this Bill to the fiercest investigation, but that we should at least allow your Lordships to try to make it a better Bill, and not throw it out, neck and crop, upon the Second Reading. It was with that attitude in mind that we approached this problem.
  I would call your Lordships' attention to the debate we had on the first day of the Committee stage, when we on this side, with the support of many noble Lords sitting on the Government side of the House, found ourselves so diametrically opposed to one of the principles in the first clause that we found it necessary to take your Lordships into the Division Lobby to express your opinion. Your Lordships expressed an opinion contrary to the terms of the Bill. It is always nice to defeat a Government of the other political persuasion, but I confess that I never considered that the victory won in that Division Lobby as a defeat of the Government: rather was it a defeat of the bureaucratic mind which thought your Lordships' House was nothing but a rubber stamp. I have a shrewd suspicion that quite a number of noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench were just as delighted as we were at the result of those Division Lobby figures. With the end of the consideration of that Clause 1, a noble Lord from the Back Benches of the Government side moved the deletion of Clause 1. Again, we on this side of the House were in a quandary, and it was only because the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made such an impassioned appeal to your Lordships not to throw it out neck and crop, as it deserved to be thrown out that we desisted. The noble Lord, in my view quite rightly, did not press his Amendment.
  I am going to read from Hansard precisely what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 191 (No. 20), col. 61) of February 15. He said this:
  "I told your Lordships a few moments ago that Her Majesty's Government were quite prepared for discussion and that I believed that by our common intelligence, we could work out a system."
  The noble and learned Viscount went on to say, in column 62:
  "It is the good fortune of the Government that we have had a number of suggestions put forward, and these will be considered and we shall try to find the best method; but (and I

  171
  choose my words with the greatest care) I say that it would be a major tragedy if, at this stage in the Bill, your Lordships' House were to eliminate the suggestion of testing and so eliminate what I believe will be a great help in dealing with our problem."
  The noble and learned Viscount ended with these words, in column 63:
  "Let us go on, as I say, co-operatively, in order to try to get the best Bill we can. But for us to delete the clause, and for it to go out from this House that we are prepared to tolerate the danger of ill-conditioned vehicles and ineffective brakes, would, I repeat, be a major tragedy."
  That put it into our minds, as I know it put it into the minds of all noble Lords opposite, that what we could safely do was to bow to the wishes of the noble and learned Viscount, for whom we have such a profound respect, and that the Government would bring forward, before the next stage of the Bill, a reconstituted clause which would more closely conform to the wishes expressed from every side of your Lordships' House.
  When we came to the Report stage, however, the only view that was put forward was the view from this side of your Lordships' House. In another place (I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not mind my saying this) that might have been considered to be legitimate Parliamentary tactics, but in your Lordships' House a harsher term would be more appropriate. I think it is to the everlasting disgrace of the Government that they never implemented at all the undertaking which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave, which alone saved that clause from being turned out of this Bill.
  It was again on the Report stage, and on behalf of noble Lords sitting on this side of your Lordships' House, that I put down the only Amendment to Clause 1. Again the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made an impassioned appeal, and my Amendment was just defeated. And what has happened? Here we have a Clause 1 that is a disgrace to any legislative Chamber. For my part, I tell your Lordships this: that it offends so much against my instinct of pride of workmanship that I have not even troubled to put down an Amendment on Third Reading. I am ashamed to allow this clause to go to another place as the workmanship of a House of the calibre of your Lordships' House. I am ashamed of it. What does it do? It is completely
  172
  inoperative. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was not using extravagant language when he said that, when it gets to the other place, the only thing they can possibly do is to give it a good laugh—because it will never work. It cannot work.
  I felt desperately sorry for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is in charge of the Bill and to whom I should like to pay my tribute. All the way through this Bill, he has done his best, in face of terrific opposition—not opposition from Her Majesty's Opposition, but opposition from that place where bureaucracy reigns. He was not allowed to do what I feel certain in his wiser moments he would have done—that is, to send this Bill forward at least with a workable scheme. What are the Government doing? They are telling another place that our considered judgment on this matter is that hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money should be spent on putting up grandiose testing stations and trying to staff them with non-existent labour, at wages which the Government can never afford to pay—to cure 2,501 accidents. Yet when, at a later stage of this Bill, I bring forward a common-sense Amendment that would prevent the 2,650 accidents caused by dogs, it is greeted with ridicule. That is the balance that has been preserved throughout this Bill.
  Take other concessions to road safety. We are told that to give the police some very slight authority to stop 40,000 accidents happening every year to pedestrians through jay-walking is ridiculous. We argued it on Committee stage, and we argued it on Report stage. Yet in this Bill we blindly put responsibility on the police for controlling 12 million cyclists and for bringing them within the scope of the road traffic law as it applies to motorists. As every chief constable will say: "It is just an impossibility." Take this Bill as a contributory element in relieving the great congestion on our roads. The best that the noble Earl could say—let me be fair; perhaps I should say the worst, because there are four clauses which give a right to designate parking places on our main streets, to litter our sidewalks with parking meters—was: "I doubt whether there will ever be a designation order made because of the difficulty, through this Bill, of ever getting

  173
  a designation order." Those are the exact words that the noble Earl used.
  Looking through the Bill, I find one or two good things, and they are the only things that will help me salve my conscience. The one good thing that was in the Bill, and the only good thing that was in the Bill to start with, was the rectification of the anomaly in the law as regards contract carriages. In that regard I have paid tribute to the Government. I repeat ray tribute. There is a cleaning up of some anomalies of the law. They were never cleared up in the original Bill, but your Lordships on both sides of the House insisted upon it.
  There is the case of the 30 m.p.h. limit with the lamp standard that was proposed—that was a new clause in the Bill. The ridiculously little item regarding motor mowers was put in. But steadfastly, all the way through the discussions on this Bill, there has been stub-born resistance to put in the Bill the one thing which would make any contribution towards solving the great social scourge of this country, road accidents. Every proposal we put forward was bluntly refused. When the heat and the dust of this Bill has faded away, should the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, read some of the puerile nonsense that was put into their briefs for the purpose of resisting some of these Amendments, I am quite certain that blushes will suffuse even their cast-iron countenances, because some of it is an insult to the intelligence of the people who read it.
  My Lords, we on this side of the House can do no more. Whatever else may be said, I think it will be agreed that during the passage of one of the most difficult Bills that has passed through your Lordships' House for quite a long time we on this side have played the part that Her Majesty's Opposition should rightly play. We regret nothing that we have done. We have tried at every turn to get the Government to do something regarding the congestion of our roads caused by abnormal loads. Times without number my noble and learned Leader and I have begged and begged. We have tried to do something to see that the by-passes of our towns and cities were used. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft (this, I think, illustrates the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, made so well), on the Committee stage used these words:
  174
  "of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would put his finger on this point. It is a weakness in the law and we intend to do something about it."
  But nothing has been done. When, on the Report stage, I asked the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, why not, he said, "Well, we have not had time." I said, "Are you going to do it on Third Reading?" He said, "No." I asked, "Will you tell me when you are going to do it?", and he said, "We might do it in another place." That has been the whole attitude of the Government to this Bill, and it is one which I can only regret. It makes the position of Her Majesty's Opposition still worse.
  The noble Marquess the Leader of the House interposed himself in the middle of the arduous discussion that we had, I believe at the end of the Committee stage, and before the Report stage. The noble Marquess made a speech on the debate concerning the reform of your Lordships' House, which, if he will permit me to say so, was one of those speeches which we have come to expect from him and which we admire so much. I speak only for myself, but I think he then paid a tribute to Her Majesty's Opposition and those of your Lordships on all sides of the House who spend their time in the ordinary hard work—if I may use the expression, the chores of legislation. It is sometimes to be regretted that the care and thought which are put into this work, in a non-political sense—because right from the start to the end of the discussions on this Bill not one note of Party politics has crept in from either side—and the reasoned arguments which have been put forward from life's experience have not weighed a little more heavily. However, we now say "Goodbye" to this Bill. We hope that in another place it will be altered. There is no Party issue here, but unless this first clause, which is, I think, the biggest blot I have ever seen on any Bill, is shaped to tackle this problem seriously, then the attitude that we on this side of the House take when the Bill comes back, will have to be the subject of very serious consideration.
  4.37 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, when, months ago, we were told that a Road Traffic Bill was on the stocks, many of us who are deeply interested in this subject formed the highest hopes of what

  175
  might come to us. I can only say that when I saw the Bill I was bitterly disappointed in it. I am afraid I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in regard to this matter, because this is a subject to which, off and on, I have devoted a great deal of attention throughout the years. I can only describe this Bill as a ramshackle Bill. When we heard about it in the months gone by, many of us thought that we were going to have a really constructive plan presented to us for the prevention of road accidents and for the general betterment and speeding up of traffic. Now we have got Clause 1, which deals with the examination of cars. No doubt your Lordships have seen in the newspapers an account of a terrible accident which occured the other day in which a reverend gentleman was killed. That matter is still sub judice, so I cannot go into it; but undoubtedly, so far as I can judge, it was due to a defective vehicle. But there are only 2,000 accidents (2 per cent. of the total) caused through defective vehicles. Those figures are disclosed in the official statistics. All this has been said before, but I cannot help but say it again. It is quite right to say that some of these statistics have already been vitiated by the tendency of the driver, when an accident takes place, to blame everybody and everything except himself, including the condition of the car, whereas if the driver were to exercise more sane judgment the accident might never have occurred. However that may be, we have got Clause 1.
  I think Clause 1 could be a most valuable clause in any Bill. Unfortunately, the discussion on it was vitiated from the start by the noble Earl who was speaking on behalf of the Government, when he said that the examination of vehicles for defects was not going to be at all elaborate. What does that mean? It means simply that the test is a purely pro-forma test which will indicate that any particular car on the particular day upon which it was tested passed a test. It will indicate nothing else. It will not indicate that that car can be depended upon not to be the cause of some terrible accident in a few weeks' time. Unless you carry out a really thorough test—which, in my submission, should be the case—you cannot possibly tell; but nothing of that sort is contemplated in
  176
  the Bill. The original proposals put into the Bill were completely and obviously unworkable. I am perfectly certain that 6,200,000 cars could never have been tested in a year as those proposals required. The Minister of Transport only yesterday stated in another place that in the next three years the number of vehicles licensed on the road will increase by 1½ million; so that within three years there may be some 7½ million motor cars on the road. An examination of that magnitude is quite impracticable.
  The House, in its realism, went to a solution which might be practicable and it is trying to relate Clause 1 to the testing of second-hand cars. That clause could be very valuable if those cars were properly tested; but they will not be. They are to be tested on one day. Who knows what will be the condition of brake linings and similar things a fortnight after the test? Such questions will never be answered. The House then considered the question of garage staff. Anybody familiar with the motor industry will know perfectly well that additional suitable men cannot be found because they do not exist. To-day garages are short-handed because they cannot get the type of really efficient garage foreman that they must have. I know that, because I happen to be connected with a firm in the engineering industry, and if those people were available they would quickly be snapped up, not only by my own firm but by every one of our competitors. What is the good of a Bill which tries to bring arrangements of that kind into being? I am all in favour of the Minister's having his pilot station, about which he is so keen. I am sure it will provide valuable data for the Ministry. But beyond that Clause 1 is just a mirage to lead everybody up the garden path and means nothing. It will not work and it will do no good whatever.
  I cannot understand the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the next provision in the Bill, that for parking meters. The Report of the Working Party on Car Parking in London laid down as clearly as possible, without ambiguity, that there were three proposals which hung together, and that to take one without the other was a course which should never be considered. That is stated in Appendix J of that Report. To have these meters scattered about will bring no solution of the problem which

  177
  brought them before us. Parking meters would never have been heard of had it not been for the extreme congestion caused by parked cars in London. The idea was brought from America, a country whose cities and towns are very different from ours and where what happens bears no analogy to what happens here. Parking meters are per se no solution to the traffic problem in London or any other big city. The introduction of parking meters will bring problems peculiar to themselves. Who is to look after parking meters all night? In our earlier discussion on the Bill, I gave the House some details from New York. In June last, 180 were broken into; in July, 306. There will be a number of similar episodes here if meters are widely adopted. Is this to be another job for the police, who are already understaffed? They have other things to do besides seeing whether people are trying to break into parking meters or whether the red discs have appeared.
  It is pathetic to consider this when, day by day, the traffic in this country is increasing at the rate of some 400,000 new vehicles licensed every year. Our traffic problem is obviously going to get much worse unless some drastic action is taken. There is nothing in this Bill to enable action to prevent extreme congestion in London. What are we to do when the speed of all traffic in the central London area, or any other big city, is brought down, as it is to-day, almost to walking pace? The London Transport Executive will not be able to make their undertaking pay, and we shall have further demands for fare increases as a result. Action far beyond that contemplated in this Bill must be taken on a drastic scale. There is another aspect of parking meters. Is it not a shame for Her Majesty's Government to tell the unfortunate motorist, who is already paying well over £1 million a day for being allowed to drive his car on our inadequate road system, that he must pay further charges for the use of the highway? Parking meters, as provided for in this Bill, are only a device for "milking" and "soaking" the motorist—a very popular pursuit. But there are limits in this direction, and not all those who own motor cars are wealthy people.
  I fear I share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this Bill. For me there is only one bright
  178
  spot—the charm and courtesy with which the whole thing has been handled by our Front Bench. They have really had a most difficult job, and have been shot at all round. They seem to have few friends anywhere around your Lordships' House, but they have tried at all times to deal with us in a fair and kindly way. I would assure my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Selkirk, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, of my deep gratitude for the great help they have given at every stage. I only wish I could think better of the Bill than I do. I think it is a dreadful Bill, and I am completely opposed to it.
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, pretty well everything that can be said about this Bill has been said; in fact most of it has been said twice, and at very great length. I wish to make only a few brief remarks. I hope that I may be allowed to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the courtesy and consideration of the Ministers in charge of the Bill; but I am afraid that my congratulations will stop at that point. Her Majesty's Government seem to have been reduced to playing the very worst sort of cricket. Unable to face the bowling, they have been reduced to blocking every ball with a dead bat; and they have certainly failed to score.
  In anything to do with road traffic or motor cars we can learn something from America, and I have made it my business to try to get some information from America on matters contained in this Bill. I will refer to only two. From what I have heard from America in regard to parking meters, I can only express the hope that the noble Earl will not be disappointed in the results of what he has described as an experiment which Her Majesty's Government must be allowed to try—though I fear that he may be. In this regard there are some for whom I feel sympathy. People will pay a great deal for peace and quietude in these days, and many people pay large prices, or large rents, for houses or flats in quiet squares and localities, I fear that many of those people will find the quietude for which they have paid highly disturbed by an influx of motor cars the drivers of which are seeking refuge from the parking meters.

  179
  The other matter to which I wish to refer on Clause 1 is the question of the inspection of motor cars. There is in America an association called the Travelers Insurance Companies, and these people, of course, have a financial interest in motor car accidents, because whenever one of their clients has an accident, or is involved in an accident, and is responsible for it, they have to pay up. The consequence is that, just as President Coolidge's preacher was "agin" sin. so these insurers are against automobile accidents. For twenty years now they have been publishing annually a book on such accidents, analysing the causes. I think these figures are relevant to Clause 1. In 1953, 43,500 cars were involved in fatal accidents, and of that number 96·7 per cent. of the cars were in good condition Over 2 million cars were involved in non-fatal accidents, and, of that enormous number, 98·3 per cent. were found to be in good condition.
  These are the views of the American insurers upon the causes of accidents:
  "Our annual studies … have shown that more than 90 per cent. of the vehicles involved were in good condition. The highways were adequate if used at the speeds for which they were designed. We found the weather to be a negligible factor. We found that curved roads were no more hazardous than straight ones."
  These were variables in the accidents, but they were all variables in the equation of highway safety. The insurers go on to say:
  "The constant, unchanging factor was the man, woman or child who sat behind the wheel of a car and transformed it from a useful servant to a projectile of destruction; or who, as a pedestrian, walked carelessly into the path of danger…. In most accidents, the guilty party is man and not machine, mind and not motor, reflex and not roadway."
  There is not one word to be found in this booklet, to which I have referred, which endorses the idea of compulsory automobile inspection. I venture to think that these extracts from that book issued by the insurers of America, constitute a very pertinent comment upon Clause 1 of the Bill, and support and endorse what has been said in protest against Clause 1 this afternoon.
  4.52 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to make but a very brief speech, if only for the reason that all I want to say has
  180
  already been said graphically and in strong terms—stronger, perhaps, than I would use: I am not accustomed to use strong language about Bills. I will say merely that I think this is the worst Bill I have ever seen introduced into this House. Here there is an immense problem which does not raise Party issues at all. There is a frightful death-roll on the roads. The Government have a young Minister who has done very well before; and we very much hoped that he would give us some really original ideas and put some thought into this Bill. But this Bill might have been produced by a crabbed old man who had lost all interest in life and who regarded all these things as inevitable. I am bitterly disappointed. The only few new ideas this Bill does contain were largely brought about at the suggestion of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House.
  I must say this to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has criticised Clause 1 of the Bill—entirely justly as I think, for it is quite ridiculous. I would add a little to the history given by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who also speaks with great authority on this matter, had an Amendment down to leave out Clause 1, and the Committee decided—very rightly, in my view—that all this business of testing by private garages should go. But, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth has reminded us, it was the Lord Chancellor's intervention that undoubtedly saved the clause as it then stood, because no one can doubt that, had we had Division, the whole of the clause would have gone. The Lord Chancellor intervened, and, out of respect to him, we allowed the matter to stand over to a further stage of the Bill. When the further stage of the Bill came, we moved that Clause 1 should go out altogether. Then Lord Teynham, who had previously put down an Amendment to omit the clause, voted in favour of retaining it. Then there was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who made a speech against Clause 1 in that very discussion, and who has made another devastating speech against Clause 1 to-day. In what Lobby did he vote when he had the chance of getting rid of Clause 1? He voted in the Lobby in favour of the clause. It hardly lies in his mouth to

  181
  criticise Clause 1. If I may say so, it is just that sort of thing which makes one sometimes despair of this House.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, but I explained that I knew the Minister was very anxious to have a pilot station; and it was for the benefit of the pilot station that I voted for what was left of Clause 1.
  EARL JOWITT: There is precious little about a pilot station in Clause 1. If only Members, when this House is dealing with Bills which are not Party Bills (I realise that in the case of Party Bills the position is different), could be relied upon to say what they think and to vote as they think, then I think the House would become a much more effective place than it is at the present time. I am not going to labour this point. Everyone knows that Clause 1 is ridiculous. I am all in favour of having vehicles tested; I do not want to have "dud" vehicles on the road. The problem is how to use to the best possible advantage the existing manpower. It is hardly possible to get enough men to do the testing. Obviously, the Government cannot have a great many men employed upon this business: there is only a small army, and it must be used to the best advantage. I think it is manifest to anyone who considers the arguments that, if this testing is to be carried out, it must be by the spot check, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth—to whom, for his knowledge and energy about the Bill, I feel that not only this side but the whole House is greatly indebted—advocated.
  All the way through all the stages of the Bill, what has happened to every suggestion we have made? Take, for instance, the question of dogs. Some 2,500 accidents a year, I believe, are attributed by the police to the presence of dogs on the roads. I say that if a man takes his dog for a walk on the road he ought to have it on a leash. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice says, "Oh, but we have never done that, you know—we have never had any legislation making it compulsory to keep dogs on a leash." Then Lord Mancroft, with some nice little joke, turns down the proposal, and refuses to have it. And there we are: not a thing is to be done to try to stop these 2,500 accidents. And 75,000 dogs are killed every year on the roads of this country.
  182
  Nothing is done about that, and the suggestions which are made about it are ridiculed.
  Then I had a suggestion to make about heavy loads. I should like to mention this matter because the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seemed to think that I had said I thought the drivers of heavy loads were abnormally selfish. The noble Lord said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 191 (No. 33), col. 1036) that I had
  " … given the impression that the road hauliers are inconsiderate to everyone else; that as long as their loads, the abnormal loads, are below certain sizes and weights, they do not care anything for anyone else:"
  I do not think that at all and I never said so. I am quite certain that they are like the rest of us; and while some are more selfish than others, on the whole I believe them to be a decent lot of people. The problem is that if it is necessary that abnormal loads should travel along our roads, so far as we can we ought to arrange that they travel at a time and packed in a manner to cause the least possible inconvenience to other road users. That is my only proposition. Various suggestions made on this matter have been received with a complete lack of sympathy. Take the instance which the noble Lord gave of giving the policeman some sort of power to control and direct pedestrians, thereby possibly reducing the vast sacrifice entailed there. There again, absolutely nothing has been done.
  We did not refuse to give the Minister power to have his parking meter experiment, though he is a pretty optimistic person who thinks that that is going to make any real contribution to the road problem. What we must do is to get these parked cars off the roads, so that traffic is allowed to move, and not to give a sort of licence to motorists to park and block up the roads. If the Government provided proper parking places, then that might solve the problem. Everywhere I turn in this Bill I find complete lack of imagination, of willingness to try something new and of thinking things out. I hope that this Minister, of whom we had hoped so much, will think again about this Bill when he has heard what is said about it on all sides, and that by the time the Bill gets to another place he will see whether he cannot give us something better. Of course, if there is going to be

  183
  an Election, as I have read in the papers, then this Bill will die its death; and I think its death will not be at all untimely.
  5.3 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, in some ways I wonder whether this Bill is worthy of the great flow of rhetoric which has been flooding upon it from one side of the House and the other. When I introduced the Bill I said it was controversial, but I also said, although some noble Lords seem to think differently, that it was a modest Bill. It does not attempt to do a great deal, but if the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will allow me to say so, it did a number of things which he could not stomach. He complained that there are no novelties in the Bill, but the novelty that is in it he does not like. What we have tried to do in this Bill is to clear up and strengthen the road traffic law as it stands at the present time. The Bill is not the whole of the Government programme. Far more important is the programme of road construction, and I would venture to say that our educational programme is also more important. I know that the word "education" is sometimes used ad nauseam. I think it is worth noting that the casualties among schoolchildren show that it is paying some dividend. It is also worth noting that last year the casualties were fewer than they were in 1938. That is an impressive fact, which shows that some progress is being made in the sphere of educating those who use the roads.
  The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, delivered some strong criticisms of the Bill, but the point that struck me was that they did not attack what was in the Bill so much as they complained of what was not in the Bill. In Clause 1 we have inserted the requirement of an Affirmative Resolution. I do not want to leave the House in any doubt about this—the Government are not pleased with Clause 1, and they reserve entirely the right to make such alterations as they may think desirable. But I think it is worth saying to those who poured such scorn on Clause 1 that in a recent Gallup poll 80 per cent. of the people questioned said that cars should be inspected.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why should we not?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Earl said something very close to it.
  EARL JOWITT: I never meant to pour scorn on the idea of inspection. I think it is an admirable idea, if we have the people to do it, but we have not.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Earl agrees with inspection. I must confess that some of his speeches led me to suppose that he was not in favour of inspection, but I am delighted to accept what he has said, and I do so readily. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, complained of a number of things which we had not put in the Bill. One thing he said did hurt me a little. He suggested that we had said we would look at a number of points and did not do so. I really do not think that that was quite fair. We have looked at all the points raised, and if we have not been able to meet them I can assure the noble Lord it was not for lack of trying. There are many questions which arise on these points and we sought to meet the points which he raised. I know that he raised them with great force, but some of them presented great difficulties. We have tried throughout the Bill to keep a sense of balance between the different road users—the motorist, the cyclist, the pedestrian and the highway authority. All of these people have had the disciplinary laws applying to them slightly strengthened, but we have tried to keep the balance between them. If I may express one regret, it is that the point of view of the pedestrian was not voiced very often. I make a notable exception of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who certainly made a clear and distinct speech in that respect. Unfortunately, there were not many more.
  I think I am right in saying that we have accepted every practical idea which was put forward. In the course of these discussions we have accepted no fewer than twenty-one Amendments of substance. If any noble Lord doubts that, I ask him to look at the Bill itself. When it came here it had twenty-five clauses; it now has thirty-three—that is an increase of 30 per cent., which is quite a good productivity figure, whichever way we look at it. I have noted the noble Lords who have suggested Amendments, and according to my table the noble

  185
  Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had seven major Amendments accepted; the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had four, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, four; and there are a number of other noble Lords who made Amendments at one time or another.
  I hope your Lordships will not press this Motion to a Division. There are points in this Bill which we should like to improve, but there are a number of provisions which are worth while. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, nor the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, criticised so much what is in the Bill as what is not in the Bill, and therefore I hope they will allow the Bill to be read a third time. We appreciate the trouble which noble Lords have taken in making many suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. I should like especially to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has shown immense ingenuity and great industry in examining various propositions—propositions which we also have examined fully, on his suggestion. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has brought to our discussions an immense, long and varied experience of motoring, and who, I think, has not missed a single day, or, indeed, a minute of the ten days on which we have discussed this Bill. We are indeed grateful to those two noble Lords.
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 1 [Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles]:
  5.11 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the first five Amendments really do no more than fulfil an undertaking I gave on the Report stage that no cars will be brought under the conditions of Clause 1 except after Affirmative Resolution passed in both Houses of Parliament. I can assure your Lordships that these five Amendments do no more than that. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 6, after ("vehicle") insert ("to which this subsection applies and'').—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 13, leave out ("Provided that this'') and insert—
  ("(5) The last foregoing subsection applies to motor vehicles of such classes or descriptions as may be specified by order of the Minister:
  Provided that the said").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  The EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 29, after ("make") insert ("orders and").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 30, after("and") insert—
  ("(a) an order under subsection (5) of this section shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, (b)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment carries out the bargain the noble Earl made before we went to the Division on Clause 1 which the Government won by the skin of their teeth. I thank the noble Earl for carrying out this part of the bargain, and, in fairness to him, I should tell your Lord-ships that the other two things that he was rather morally committed to do—that is, to put the other part of my Amendment into this Amendment—I asked him not to do, as I thought it would not be appropriate. But for this Amendment I thank him very much, and I think it may turn out to be the lifeboat in which the Government can, so far as Clause 1 is concerned, row away safely.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
  ". Where a person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence under section eleven of the Act of 1930 (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) and the court is of opinion that the offence is not proved it shall be lawful for the court, if it

  187
  is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under section twelve of the said Act (which relates to careless driving or driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road), to find him guilty of that offence."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack dealt, I felt in a kindly way, with my new clause on the Report stage, but I think on re-reading what he said that I did anticipate some of the objections which he foresaw to my clause. However, as a layman in these matters, I did not feel able to counter his points until I had had time to study them. On that account, I have put the clause down again on Third Reading, in order to try to reply to some of the objections which the noble and learned Viscount raised. My remarks are, therefore, rather in the nature of what the French call l'esprit de l'escalier—that is to say, the bright remarks one thinks of when going downstairs after the interview.
  There were, I believe, two main objections raised by the Lord Chancellor. The first was that under the present procedure it is made quite clear, either by the existence of a second information for careless driving or by the magistrates using their powers under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, that the defendant is faced with an information for careless driving; whereas under the proposed new clause, if the defendant was not legally represented, he might not realise that he could be found guilty of careless driving on an information for dangerous driving. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not lay too much emphasis on this objection, because defendants usually are represented. I think the answer to the objection is in the words of the noble and learned Viscount, that a defendant who is on a charge of dangerous driving is usually represented by a solicitor or counsel who will know the legal position. Even if a defendant is not legally represented, I feel quite sure that the court would inform the defendant of the position and would make it quite clear to him that the court could convict of careless driving if it dismissed the case of dangerous driving. If there is any doubt about this, however, I think my proposed clause could be amended by adding a clause in the following words:
  "Where a person is charged before the court with an offence under section 11 of the Act of 1930. the court shall, before informing
  188
  him of his right to be tried by a jury under the provisions of section 25 (3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, inform him of the provisions of this section."
  That, I believe, would meet the point which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has raised.
  The second main objection was that the Amendment is limited to courts of summary jurisdiction, and magistrates will have the power to find a person guilty of careless driving on an information of dangerous driving, while a jury will not have that power. While a jury does not have power to find a person guilty of careless driving, because this offence is a summary offence only, a magistrate's court at present has the power to find a person guilty of careless driving, but either a separate information is necessary, or the court, if it dismisses the information for dangerous driving, may direct a charge to be preferred for the lesser offence of careless driving. I have previously pointed out the technical difficulties which may arise on both of these procedures, and the only purpose of this Amendment is to simplify the procedure in magistrates' courts free from the technical difficulties that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Winster.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, on the last occasion the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would give the matter consideration, and I rise now just to say that I hope the consideration is favourable to the clause. I too have given it consideration, and I remain of the opinion that I formed on the previous occasion: that, on balance, this is a good clause. I have always felt the danger that it might be said we are giving the magistrates an easy way out. But, after all, they have that to-day, if two summonses are brought; or they have it, even where two summonses are not brought, when they can direct that the proceedings be taken for careless driving. I am not at all impressed with the argument about a jury. Careless driving is a summary matter which does not go before a jury at all and, with great respect, it seems to me that there is no substance in saying that this cannot be extended to the justices unless it is extended also to proceedings on indictment.

  189
  As the Lord Chief Justice said on the last occasion, I think this is a procedural matter. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, told us, in effect, that this is what his court is repeatedly doing, and it is what I think ought to be done. The effect of the new clause, therefore, is that two informations will not in future be necessary; it can all be done in one. I think it is desirable; it clears up procedure, and may avoid a great waste of time. As I know quite well, what happens in a good many magistrates' courts is this. The man is first charged with dangerous driving, and the evidence is called. If the magistrates then come to the conclusion that it is not a case on which they ought to convict or send the man for trial on the dangerous driving charge, they proceed to consider the case of careless driving; and the whole of the evidence has to be heard over again. That is an appalling waste of time, and I cannot see that anything is gained by it. Under the simple procedure of this Amendment that will be avoided. The magistrates will hear the evidence, and if they consider it a fit case for committing, they will do so. If, on the other hand, they think it is not a case strong enough to commit, they can there and then deal with careless driving on the evidence they have heard. I think it is a useful procedural reform. I am supported by the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, who has a great knowledge of these matters, also thought so. I would humbly urge the Lora Chancellor to take that line and to let us see how it works.
  5.22 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for raising this matter again, and I should like to assure him and the noble and learned Earl that the matter is seriously receiving consideration, and sympathetic consideration. The noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition will realise that, on a matter like this, one has not only to consider those of us in the Government who deal with the legal points but also to consult the police in the various parts of the country. That has taken longer than I anticipated. I am sure that all the House would wish us to complete that consultation before coming to a decision.
  190
  The noble Lord, Lord Winster, said that I have not put much stress on the first point. One knows, as a matter of fact, that insurance companies are interested in the result of these cases, and therefore the defendant is practically always represented, and his representative ought to be alive of the point. The major point which I had in mind was this—perhaps I put it rather badly in comparing, without elaboration, the summary and the indictable offence. The difficulty that appeared to some of those who have been considering this point is that if, on the summary charge of dangerous driving, it is permissible to bring in a decision of careless driving, there will then be pressure that when the dangerous driving is dealt with on indictment there should be a similar way out. It is true, as the noble and learned Earl said, that careless driving is only a summary offence; but I think every noble Lord who has considered these cases would view with a certain amount of apprehension the idea that it should be brought in as a loophole to juries in the case of indictable offences. I think that is something which requires serious consideration, and the pressure was something which we thought had seriously to be considered. At the end of this marathon consideration there is one point which has never been denied in all our discussions, and that is that juries have a reluctance to convict on serious cases. That is a matter which, as realists, we must take into account. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to give me a little more time for consideration. Of course, I stand by the undertaking that I gave before the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment on the previous occasion.
  I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one further word. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was a little severe to me on a personal matter, that of taking a matter into consideration in regard to Clause 1. I ask him to believe that when I say a matter will be considered, it is considered; I ask him to accept that. I also ask the noble Lord to remember his own ministerial experience, and to realise that, while consideration is one thing, to get a result to consideration sometimes takes rather longer than one expects. Without saying anything more, I would ask him to take that into account. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will accept my words

  191
  in regard to the Amendment now before the House.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt for lending his powerful support to my suggestion, and naturally I am fortified to think that he does not find any particular fault with me on a legal point. I fully appreciate the fact that consultation with other Departments on this matter will require a good deal of time. As the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to say that my proposals will receive consideration—in fact, sympathetic consideration—I am happy to accept that, and to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.26 p.m.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of s. 8 of Act of 1934
  " .—(1) At the end of subsection (1) of section eight of the Act of 1934 (which prohibits the sale or supply of vehicles for delivery in a condition in which their use on a road would be unlawful by virtue of section three of the Act of 1930) there shall be added the words 'or by virtue of any provision made as respects brakes, steering gear or tyres by regulations under section thirty of that Act'.
  (2) At the end of the said section eight there shall be added the following subsection—
  '(5) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of any contract or any rights arising under a contract'."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is in the same form as it was submitted to your Lordships on the Report stage. I do not think I need weary the House with all the long rigmarole that I had to sumbit to your Lordships in support of the Amendment. On Report stage a somewhat similar Amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I agreed to withdraw my Amendment in order that we might have consultation. That consultation has taken place, and the upshot of it is that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and myself have agreed that this Amendment, in its present form, may be resubmitted to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving
  192
  that explanation, so long as your Lordships fully recognise that this Amendment is no substitution for the Amendment that I put down. The reason why I have not put down that Amendment and do not intend to oppose this one, is because all this Amendment does is to cure an anomaly of the existing law; it will add nothing to the cause we seek to serve, which is road safety. By this Amendment, the position will be that what everybody thought, until a High Court case a few weeks ago, was the law, will, in fact, be law. The reason why I have not put my Amendment down again is because I am of opinion—as I was of opinion when I discussed the matter with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the other day—that Clause 1 is so bad that no Amendment that I could put down would make it any better. Therefore, I have left with the Government the case that I made for the proper examination and certification of used motor cars. I have left it with the Government to see what they propose to do when Clause 1 is considered in another place. I am sorry that the Lord Chancellor has had to go but, with reference to his words, may I say this: that such is the high regard in which I hold the noble and learned Viscount that any assurance he gives me I readily and whole-heartedly accept.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I very much hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would not for one moment claim a monopoly of good ideas. I would say that what he has said, in effect, is that this clause is necessary.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will not estimate its relevant importance, but I am sure the clause will be a potential danger to anyone who sells a car which is unfit, whether or not there is a prosecution. I do not think that the value of this clause could ever be measured only by the number of prosecutions which might take place under it. I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [S. 1 of Act of 1934 to be permanent]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, these Amendments to Clause 11 are really for purposes of clarification. All they

  193
  do is to make it clear that, if a completely new system of lighting is installed, it does not necessarily thereby make the road a restricted area. It is a pure technicality. These Amendments can be taken together. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 18, leave out ("the system was provided after") and insert ("no relevant system of street lighting was provided thereon before").—(The Earl ,of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("no") to ("is") in line 26 and insert ("relevant system of street lighting").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 37, leave out from ("whether") to end of line 38 and insert ("a relevant system of street lighting was provided on any length of that road before").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 4, at end insert ("and the expression 'relevant system of street lighting' means a system of street lighting furnished by lamps placed two hundred yards or less apart.") —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Operation of driving disqualifications]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is an Amendment that I ought to have moved at the Report stage when we omitted the clause about limited disqualification. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 3, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 4.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Meaning of "public service vehicle," "stage carriage," "express carriage," and "contract carriage"]:
  THE EAFL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("any of").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Short title, commencement, repeals, savings and extent]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 26, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 29.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Privilege Amendment be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Amendment (privilege) be agreed to.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM BILL
  5.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Furness.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be reported to the House, without amendment.
  Moved, That the Bill be reported to the House, without amendment.—(Lord Terrington.)
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this Bill, because in my speech last Tuesday I put forward some suggestions for the consideration of the Government.

  195
  Furthermore, I indicated that I would propose an Amendment at the Committee stage to exclude the more important pictures at the Imperial War Museum from the provisions of Clause 2, except as temporary loans to special exhibitions. However, since the Second Reading I have received certain assurances which do not, I think, make necessary an Amendment to this clause. It appears that the Trustees of the Museum had already anticipated my suggestion and had excluded from loan, except for short-time periods for public exhibition in other galleries and museums, about 1,500 pictures of particular artistic or historical importance. I understand that, in addition, a somewhat larger number of pictures is reserved for display and reference purposes, either to provide adequate representation of a particular artist's work, or to show a particular aspect of war history.
  So far as the pictures to be loaned are concerned, it appears that not more than four pictures will be lent at a time to any one institution to which the public are not generally admitted, and that the maximum period of a loan will be two years. I am most grateful to the noble
  196
  Lord, Lord Glyn (who, I am sorry to say, cannot be here to-day), and also to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for kindly taking up these points with the Museum authorities. I am also grateful to the Director of the Museum, Mr. Bradley, for his courtesy and helpful information. It is most gratifying to know that my few small suggestions have met with such a ready response.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill reported without amendment accordingly.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock.