Sitting of 14 December 1960

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

    Soldiers (Deaths Overseas)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his policy not to pay the cost of transporting back to their homes the bodies of soldiers killed outside the United Kingdom during peace time.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on 10th February, 1960.
    Mr. Fitch: That reply was very unsatisfactory. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is feeling among people of all political opinions that his policy in this respect is lacking in humanity? Will he consult his Service colleagues with a view to revising it?
    Mr. Profumo: I recognise that there is very wide feeling in this matter, but the policy is one which has been followed by all the Services since the First World War, and I do not consider that a change at this moment would be justified.
    Mr. Mason: That does not necessarily mean that it is right or humane. Why cannot the War Office soften up to this demand? Scores of requests have been made by parents who have lost their boys abroad. This has been raised dozens of times in the House. Both sides of the House agree that the War Office ought to recognise these cases. The cost will not cripple the country.
    380
    Why cannot the War Office recognise this genuine and sincere demand?
    Mr. Profumo: I have said that I recognise the sincerity of feeling on all sides about this matter. I merely called the House's attention to the fact that this is a policy which has been in being for a very long time.
    Mr. Mason: It is not necessarily right.
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the War Office would soften its heart. This is a matter which can be dealt with only on an inter-Service basis, all the Services included. It would then be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Fitch: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Pensions
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many widows of Army officers and other ranks are drawing pre-1958 pensions; and when it is proposed to increase them;
    (2) how many retired Army officers and other ranks are drawing pre-1958 pensions; and when it is proposed to increase them.
    Mr. Profumo: I will, with permission—
    Dame Irene Ward: No, not at all.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is under some illusion. The words "with permission" do not mean that she may deny the Minister permission.
    Mr. Profumo: I will, with or without permission, answer this Question and Question No. 3 together.
    The number drawing pensions awarded before 4th November, 1958, the date to which pensions increases for other ranks and for widows apply, are approximately: officers, 19,500; ORs, 69,500; Widows, 5,200. No further increase is proposed at present.
    Dame Irene Ward: As many of the old widows are drawing pensions which are less than the National Assistance scales and are "grandmums", will my right hon. Friend agree that it is not

    381
    a very good example for recruiting to treat old widows badly and hope to get their grandsons into the Services?
    With regard to my second Question, will my right hon. Friend tell me why Lord Montgomery can draw an increased pension under the National Insurance Act and share in the general prosperity of the country when old retired officers who are not entitled to the benefits of the National Insurance Act are left on small pensions which are quite out of tune with modern life?
    Mr. Profumo: As my hon. Friend knows, I am not responsible for the National Insurance Act. Widow's pensions were raised by 10 per cent. only last year.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's first supplementary question, pressure on pensions comes from inflation which, as she knows, Her Majesty's Government are dedicated to fight. We try to make fair and reasonable provision—
    Dame Irene Ward: On the widows.

    —

    August

    September

    October

    Total

    Medical grounds

    …

    …

    …

    …

    561

    453

    424

    1,438

    Compassionate grounds:

    Under 16 weeks

    …

    …

    …

    …

    34

    47

    30

    481

    16 weeks and over

    …

    …

    …

    118

    125

    127

    Disciplinary grounds

    …

    …

    …

    …

    18

    15

    13

    46

    Services no longer required

    …

    …

    …

    4

    6

    7

    17

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    735

    646

    601

    1,982

    No. 2 Dress
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War the estimated cost of providing men in the Service, other than officers, with walking-out dress, and confining the use of khaki to training and barrack duties.
    Mr. Profumo: The estimated cost of the new Service dress—the No. 2 dress—for other ranks in the Army is £3 million.
    Mr. Shinwell: That seems a very large sum and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has to conserve his resources. In view, however, of the need for further recruitment of conventional troops, is it not desirable to spend part of the money progressively?
    Mr. Profumo: I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is not entirely
    Mr. Profumo: —for pensions in the terms of service on the best evidence available to us at the time.
    Dame Irene Ward: A monstrous answer.

    National Service Men (Discharges)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service meal were discharged before completing their two years' service in the months of August, September, and October, 1960; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: With permission, I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The totals, however, for the three months are as follows:

    Discharged on medical grounds

    1,438

    Discharged on compassionate grounds

    481

    Discharged on disciplinary grounds

    46

    Discharged, their services no longer required

    17

    Following are the figures:
    a question of money. It is a question of the capacity of cloth-making and, indeed, of the tailors, because we require a very large capacity to produce all the clothes—something like half a million suits—and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are particular what we give to the Army. One of the troubles is that the rather small capacity for making this specialised uniform is at present very fully employed in meeting the ordinary demands of the home market. I am, however, doing everything I can to try to speed up matters and I think—I am speaking without notes—that by the end of the next financial year we shall have half the Army in the new clothes.
    Mr. C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend saying that clothing manufacturers have said that they cannot fulfil these orders?
    Mr. Profumo: I did not say that; my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I said that, as I understand it, the clothing trade cannot speed up the orders any further than is at present arranged, but I am having a meeting with representatives of the trade in the very near future to see what can be done.

    Pontefract Barracks (Television Programme)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War why watching the television programme called "The Army Game" was banned in Pontefract Barracks.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the television programme, "The Army Game," has been banned at the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry depot at Pontefract; and whether this was done with his authority.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the action of the commanding officer at Pontefract barracks in banning a television programme known as "The Army Game" so far as television sets are available within the barracks; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the ban imposed by the commanding officer of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry depot at Pontefract, Yorkshire, upon men under his command from viewing the television series "The Army Game" in barrack rooms; and if he will have the ban lifted.
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for War what instructions are given to officers of Her Majesty's forces to guide them in their choice of entertainment for troops under their command; whether special instructions have been issued in respect of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: Barrack rooms in which recruits live in this depot have metered television sets, and a notice was attached to them saying that this programme
    "should not be viewed on these sets".
    384
    The notice was not put on ordinary sets installed in the junior ranks club, sergeants' mess or married quarters. I understand the notice has now been withdrawn. This sort of action does not and should not require my authority. A commanding officer must be a man of independent judgment. If he is to make up his mind about the big things, he must be able, and be allowed, to do the same about everyday matters. The effect on the discipline and morale of the Army of circumscribing this discretion of the commanding officer would, I am convinced, outweigh any administrative convenience it might bring.
    Mr. Lipton: Even though this programme is the most stupid and corny in television—and that is saying something—was it not unwise for the commanding officer to put up a notice that the men should not watch it? If people want tripe outside their working hours, why not let them have it?
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman calls it tripe. I am glad he has at least suggested that the programme has no bearing on the modern Army. It has just about as little bearing on it as the Wild West films have. In my view, the action of this officer was an error of judgment.
    Mr. Craddock: Whilst I appreciate the lifting of the ban, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a number of serving soldiers consider that there are too many bosses, too much "bull" and too much interference in the private time of men in the Army, all of which militates against further recruitment?
    Mr. Profumo: I am aware of that. I am equally aware, however, that if we were to take a poll in the Army, most people would say that this programme was extremely undesirable. We all realise that it must not be taken seriously. I am sure that the Army can afford to be laughed at as much as anybody else. Concerning the action of the officer, these errors of judgment occur in all walks of life and, perhaps, many of us are fortunate not to have the spotlight turned on them quite so much.
    Mr. Mason: In view of this officer's stupidity, which the right hon. Gentleman terms an error of judgment, which resulted in "The Army Game" getting thousands of £s worth of free publicity,

    385
    plus probably an extra viewing audience of half a million, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this does not portray the general level of intelligence of officers of Her Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. Profumo: That is, to say the least, an unkind accusation by the hon. Member. I have gone as far as I am prepared to go. It is unfair to try to lampoon officers who are unable to answer back. This officer has had a good military record. I think we had better leave it at that.

    Household Brigade (Full Dress)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the extra cost of allowing other ranks of the Household Brigade, already in possession of full dress, to walk out in scarlet in London.
    Mr. Profumo: The extra cost might be anything up to £100,000 a year.
    Mr. Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend think that they will pour coffee over their uniforms every time they go out? Why should they cost anything at all? They are only using the uniforms they already have to go out for a walk. Will my right hon. Friend look into this again?
    Mr. Profumo: I have told my hon. Friend that I will certainly look at it again. I do not suggest that they will pour coffee over the uniform every time they go out, but the special material from which this is made is more than usually liable to wear and its use thus would entail something like doubling our consumption.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the material is made in Stroud and wears very well?

    Foreign Legion
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for War if he will specify all his reasons for not forming a British Foreign Legion.
    Mr. Profumo: The need is not for more units, but for more men to fill those we already have; hence, a foreign legion, unless it were substituted for another unit, would be an additional burden on
    386
    the Army Vote and a drain on experienced officers and N.C.O.s.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is this not a rather strange doctrine that the more soldiers there are in the Army, the more they cost and the less we can afford them? Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has gone into the matter? He should not be browbeaten by the generals.
    Mr. Profumo: I know that my hon. Friend is not trying to browbeat me. I did not say that the more soldiers we had, the greater the cost. I said that we are trying to get more soldiers, not just more units. I am anxious that with the ending of National Service, which will free a large number of soldiers from training in which they are now engaged, they should become active soldiers and not have to train a foreign legion.
    Mr. Kershaw: In view of the nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise the matter again.

    German Troops (Training Facilities, United Kingdom)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities will be provided by his Department for the training of German troops in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War his latest arrangements for training German troops in Great Britain; and what expenditure he proposes to incur for this purpose.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the training of German troops in Great Britain: and when they will arrive.
    Mr. Profumo: There are six German officers on Army training courses in this country. The cost of the training is borne by the Federal German Government. Apart from individual training of this sort, no arrangements have been made for the training of German troops in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Warbey: What new facilities have been offered? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British people will welcome the Germans here as civilians but not in uniform? Further, will he oppose the highly provocative

    387
    appointment of the organiser of Hitler's campaign against Russia to the highest post in N.A.T.O.?
    Mr. Profumo: The last part of that supplementary question goes so wide of the Question that I cannot answer it. In any event, it would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us whether he has received a telegram from Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison warmly congratulating him on his decision to have German officers here and offering to become commander-in-chief?
    Mr. Profumo: No. I should point out to the hon. Member that it is not only German officers whom we have here. Other officers and other ranks of foreign countries belonging to N.A.T.O. are being trained in this country. We must regard the N.A.T.O. alliance as an alliance and not as individual people.
    Mr. Allaun: Has this step been discussed? Since the Minister of Defence evaded the point in a Written Answer which he gave to me on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman now give the House an assurance that these troops will not be trained, even if it is requested, with missiles or nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Profumo: The best way I can cover the hon. Member's supplementary question is to say that this problem would arise only after a recommendation of the N.A.T.O. Military Committee, and after that being endorsed by the N.A.T.O. Council.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those supplementary questions give a quite misleading impression of public opinion in this country, and that experience has shown that soldiers, sailors and airmen make very good ambassadors and are a very good influence for improving relations between countries?
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one has any imputation to make whatsoever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—no one is suggesting that these young German trainees, the oldest of whom would have been at school during the war, share any blame whatever for Hitler's crimes? But is he also
    388
    aware that there are many people in this country who are reminded by the new German Army, rationally or otherwise, of the old German Army, and for that reason there should be very strong practical reasons before bringing those people for training in this way?
    Mr. Profumo: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on his promotion and say that at least he will have the respect of our side of the House, and, I hope, of his side, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that it is traditional to say that. Even if hon. Members opposite do not wish to do that, I certainly want to do so. I accept what the hon. Member says and I hope that I have made it perfectly plain that these are our allies. There are safeguards and no question arises at the moment.

    Recruiting Publicity
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for War what is the current cost of recruiting publicity per recruit; what were the comparable figures for 1959 and 1958; and if he will make a report on his television recruiting campaign.
    Mr. Profumo: The current cost of recruiting publicity per recruit based on the first six months of this financial year is £22. Costs for 1959 and 1958 were £19 and £13 respectively. I propose to launch a television recruiting campaign early in the next financial year, and I will certainly consider giving the House a report on its results in due course.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures suggest that his present publicity methods are increasingly ineffective in securing recruits? Is he aware that it would be a welcome change to have some socially useful commercials on I.T.V.? Will he say how much he is planning to spend on this campaign and when he intends to begin it?
    Mr. Profumo: I regard advertisements of this sort—trying to get recruits for the all-Regular Army—as a socially important matter of its own and I am glad that the hon. Member does not disapprove. It would be improper for me to anticipate my Estimates speech when I shall announce what we shall be spending,

    389
    but I can say that, although the figure sounds rather high, it includes the cost of all publicity and not just television. Once we get the campaign going and the recruits come in, overheads will remain the same but the cost per recruit will become lower. I hope that that is what will happen.
    Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence yet to indicate whether his recent appearance on "Panorama" had any appreciable impact on the viewers?
    Mr. Profumo: I have not had anything other than a large number of letters, most of which said that the characters appearing on the programme were appealing, but that the programme was loaded against us.
    Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered having commercials appearing in the natural break in "The Army Game"?

    Service Men, Berlin (Rations and Allowances)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that in respect of rations, domestic help and all other allowances and services British Service men in Berlin enjoy status and treatment equal to those of equivalent status at home or in West Germany.
    Mr. Profumo: I am satisfied that in general, soldiers in Berlin are at least as well treated in these respects as their fellows in Western Germany or at home.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain Army personnel, but particularly R.A.F. personnel, married officers and other ranks under Army command in West Berlin, feel that they are suffering under quite inexcusable disadvantages and even financial loss in matters of the local overseas allowances, lack of fresh milk, free travel arrangements and even free ration arrangements, which the French receive but which R.A.F. men in West Berlin do not? Will he undertake to have a thorough inquiry into the matter, not just an inspection when everything is laid on and the best food is available which, I assure him, is not the case most of the time, at least for the R.A.F.?
    Mr. Profumo: We carried out a complete review—not just an inspection al which everything was laid on—in which living costs in Berlin were examined, and it was concluded that they were less than those in the United Kingdom and that therefore there was no case for a change in the present arrangement; but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will gladly examine it.
    Mr. MacMillan: I cannot give a particular case, for reasons which must be obvious to the Minister with his experience. This is a much more general matter. It has been established by independent accountants in the R.A.F. that the cost of living in West Berlin is higher than in West Germany in the main. Will he undertake to have a further inquiry in a general sense?
    Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member need not have any worry about submitting a special case to me on behalf of any constituent or friend of his. He can leave out the name if he so wishes. I cannot speak for the Royal Air Force, but the Army has undertaken an examination. However, I shall be happy to look at any point which the hon. Member puts to me.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    High Wycombe and Bourne End
    Mr. John Hallasked the Postmaster-General the number of applicants awaiting connection to the High Wycombe and Bourne End telephone exchanges, respectively; and what is the waiting list percentage of total sub scribers in each case.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The figures at 30th September last were 563 at High Wycombe and 107 at Bourne End. The percentages were 13·8 and 5·9 respectively.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the slight but acceptable decrease in the waiting list at Bourne End, the last time I asked about High Wycombe the figure was 3·3 per cent. and it has now gone up to 13 per cent.? Is he further aware that the use of the existing service by present subscribers is so great that his present plans for dealing with the waiting list

    391
    are grossly inadequate? Will he do something to speed up and improve the service in High Wycombe?
    Mr. Bevins: As a matter of urgency, I am installing an additional number of operating positions at High Wycombe, and both there and at Bourne End there are to be additional cables. I think that within six months practically all the existing waiting lists will have been mopped up.

    Oxford Area
    Mr. John Hallasked the Postmaster-General the present waiting list percentage in the Oxford telephone area; and if it is still the highest percentage in the country.
    Mr. Bevins: The present figure of 5 per cent. is still the highest in the country. I am doing all I can to meet the very high demand for telephones in the Oxford area. The percentage increase in the number of telephones installed in 1959–60 was higher in the Oxford area than in any other part of the country.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation appears to be getting worse, because twelve months ago the figure was 3·5 per cent.? What is the national average?
    Mr. Bevins: The national average is a good deal lower than in the case of Oxford, but the present waiting list in the Oxford area is about 2,600 and I hope to install about 6,000 telephones in the district in the next year.

    Continental Telephone Exchange
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Postmaster-General what steps he will now take to speed up service on the Continental telephone exchange; and what representations he has received in this connection from the Foreign Press Association, from other bodies, and from individual members of the public.
    Mr. Bevins: I have received representations from a number of interests. The delays are due to a shortage of French-speaking operators and to an unexpectedly rapid increase in traffic. I have announced increases in the language allowance and also in the standard
    392
    rates of pay. I am pressing forward with the mechanisation of our services with the Continent. I am glad to say there has recently been some improvement in the service.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many people, including journalists and people with business reasons for telephoning, as well as private citizens, think that London has much the slowest Continental service of any big capital city in Europe? Is he aware that although the speed of being put through when one gets the Continental exchange may have improved, one may have to wait up to fifteen minutes before getting the Continental exchange? Does he appreciate that that is having a disastrous effect on foreign correspondents in this country, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that something effective will be done?
    Mr. Bevins: I am very well aware of these criticisms and I have met a number of people about them in the last three months, during which time I have taken a number of active steps to improve the position. The time of answering has been halved at this exchange, but even so I admit that at present it is not satisfactory and I intend to push on until we have it right.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any contact with education authorities, as the main recruiting difficulty appears to be on the grounds of linguistic qualifications, so that it might be a good idea to get in touch with education authorities about the matter?
    Mr. Bevins: That has been done.

    Shared Lines
    Mr. Farrasked the Postmaster-General the number of private telephone subscribers sharing lines at the latest available date, and at 31st December in each of the past five years.
    Mr. Bevins: As at 30th September last, about 1 million subscribers were sharing telephone lines. The numbers have not varied much since 1955 when the figure was 902,000.
    Mr. Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for publicity designed to

    393
    attract new subscribers to be discontinued if it means that those new subscribers will be brought into the service at the expense of existing subscribers who will have to go on to party lines?
    Mr. Bevins: I am prepared to examine that point, but at the same time we must bear in mind that the first priority is to give telephone service to people who are waiting for it.

    Breakdowns
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General to what extent breakdowns in telephone services have increased during the past year; to what extent commercial and business firms have priority over private householders for repairs; why rebates on accounts are not granted to telephone users where breakdowns continue for a week; and whether he will arrange for users suffering from telephone breakdowns for more than a day to be notified about the probable length of time before service is restored.
    Mr. Bevins: There has been widespread damage to telephone plant in the floods and storms of recent weeks, and I regret the inconvenience caused to our customers, although I am not responsible for the weather.
    Priority is given to emergency services, but otherwise repairs are carried out as quickly as possible in the order which makes the best use of our engineering resources. Customers are not entitled to an abatement of rental for service interruptions but individual cases are sympathetically considered. I am currently examining the possibilities suggested by the last part of the Question.
    Mr. Sorensen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I ask him whether this practice obtains in any other part of the country? In view of his promise that he would examine the matter, could he give some encouragement to me and others that some courtesy of this kind will be extended to users?
    Mr. Bevins: As I say, we will look at the suggestion embodied in the last phrase of the Question. As regards rebates from rentals, these are, and will
    394
    continue to be, considered very sympathetically.

    International Calls
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Postmaster-General why it takes fifteen minutes to obtain a reply when one dials INT for an international call on a Sunday morning.
    Mr. Bevins: A delay of fifteen minutes is quite exceptional, and I regret it. I am making inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the real reason why the Postmaster-General has not an adequate staff that he does not pay them properly? Will he please take steps to remedy this so that the public may have an adequate service?
    Mr. Bevins: No. The hon. Gentleman is rather off the beam. In that particular exchange on that particular morning we had redundant staff. As regards pay and conditions, I have already referred in an earlier Answer to improvements which we have recently given.

  POST OFFICE

    Morning Deliveries, Central London
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the delivery of the morning mail in Central London, in view of the delays taking place, details of which have been given to him.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I very much regret that shortage of postmen and staffing difficulties have caused some delay in the morning delivery of letters in parts of Central London. I am hopeful that the recent announcement of a pay increase will help with recruitment and that this will lead to an improvement in the situation.
    Sir W. Wakefield: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if she is aware that delays of the mails, which have been going on for a long time, are very serious for those firms in Central London which have large post-bags? They have numbers of their staff doing nothing.
    Miss Pike: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the difficulties caused by these delays in the mails and are doing our best to overcome them.

    Railways (Theft of Mails)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange, in consultation with the British Transport Commission, for the provision of additional safety measures for the conveying of mail bags on British Railways, such as padlocks on the door of the grill and a lock on the grill itself.
    Mr. Compton Carrasked the Postmaster-General what further steps are being taken to protect the mails on trains from thieves.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking to prevent mail thefts on trains.
    Mr. Bevins: Bolts and chains have already been fitted on certain trains to protect the guards and the mails. In collaboration with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and the British Transport Commission we are working urgently on a number of other security measures, including some on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones).
    Mr. Jones: The guards of British Railways will welcome that reply if the action is expedited without delay. At the moment they are under grave misgiving because these recommendations are not in effect.
    Mr. Bevins: I am sure that that is appreciated by my right hon. Friend and by the British Transport Commission.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that which is not a question.
    Mr. Lipton: If the various measures now under contemplation prove inadequate, will the right hon. Gentleman propose, as a temporary measure, the use of troops to guard mails on the trains when they are not watching "The Army Game" on television?
    Mr. Carr: Will my right hon. Friend see that as great as possible an amount of attention is paid to the safeguarding of mail on passenger corridor trains, which seem especially vulnerable?
    Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and we have certain measures under way at the moment to deal with the situation.

    Letter and Parcel Deliveries (Delays)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will state the minimum and maximum time taken for delivering a small parcel between London and Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, respectively; whether he is aware that some parcels take as long as eight days, and that in one case a parcel took four days to travel seven miles; and whether, in view of the bad service, he will either reduce the cost or effect an immediate improvement in the service;
    (2) if he will consult with the British Transport Commission about delays to letters and parcels between London, Manchester, and Cheshire, during the past six months.
    Miss Pike: Dependent on the time of posting, the parcels to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers should normally be delivered the next day or the day after, but if a weekend intervenes delivery may take a little longer. I am aware that some parcels and also letters are not getting through as quickly as they should and I very much regret this. Staff shortages and rail delays both make their contribution to this situation. In collaboration with the British Transport Commission, we are doing our best to overcome these difficulties.
    I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall not relax in our efforts to remedy these shortcomings.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Supplementary to Question No. 29. Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfair these days for the public to blame the Post Office for the disgraceful service that we all have to suffer and far the long time that it takes to deliver parcels which in some cases is worse than in the days of the Pony Express? Would she consider issuing a statement pointing out that this bad service is entirely due to the greatest money-wasters of all our nationalised industries, British Railways, with their dirty, late, draughty and dangerous trains?
    Mr. Speaker: The use of unnecessary epithets in a question is out of order.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. I am terribly sorry but I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker, because of the noise made by hon. Members opposite. I am sorry if I did anything wrong, but what did I do wrong?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member asked a supplementary question which was out of order, and if he will be so good as to look in HANSARD at what I said, he will see why.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: While not wishing to associate myself in any way with the exaggerated statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), but recognising that he has some virtue in the Question that he has put about the delays that are taking place, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that a high proportion of the delays, in parcel mails in particular, must be attributed to the reorganisation schemes that are going on now on the railways, the hon. Lady will not consider a temporary alternative whereby the Post Office itself will undertake some of the responsibilities now borne by the railways, especially in reducing the number of transfer points on the railway system?
    Miss Pike: We would not wish to dodge any of our own responsibilities or the responsibility of keeping our own house in order. It is perfectly true that many of our difficulties arise from delays on the railway. We are in constant touch with British Railways about this and we are constantly getting them to improve their service. We are looking into every way in which we can improve the service that we give to the public and we are looking for alternative methods of speeding up mail delivery.
    Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.
    Mr. Lipton: Apologise.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Go and play "Animal Grab".
    Supplementary to Question No. 42. Is my hon. Friend aware that before the war letters posted in the Knutsford division by the morning post were delivered in London the same evening? Would not she agree that it now takes,
    398
    in some cases, eight times longer at twice the cost? Is not this typical of nationalised industries and of British Railways which give the public a worse service at increased cost?
    Miss Pike: My hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that we have been looking into the possibility of improving the service. One thing that we have been able to do is to put on a new train between Crewe and Manchester which helps to speed up the delivery of mail in Manchester. In this way we think we can help with the delivery of mail between Manchester and London.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. Lady being a little less than fair in not telling the House quite distinctly that there are contributory causes to delays in mail and parcel deliveries by the railways, such as fog-bound conditions holding up trains and addresses not correctly written, which is a very big complaint? Does not she agree that this ought to be referred back to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport)? Knutsford can be very "nutty" sometimes.
    Mr. Speaker: My impression is that all that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has done in the form of a question is to give information, and that is out of order.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. The gist of the supplementary question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) refers to the efficiency of Macclesfield Post Office. May I make it clear that the post office there is highly efficient?
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport rose—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The efficiency or inefficiency of the Macclesfield or any other post office does not raise a point of order for the Chair.

    Letters, London Area (Sorting Staff)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the delays to letters posted in the London area, particularly those posted on

    399
    Fridays, he will engage more sorting staff to deal with peak loads.
    Miss Pike: There is at present a shortage of postmen for sorting in the London area. Every effort is being made to improve the position and the recently announced pay increase for civil servants should help. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any delays which have come to his notice I shall be glad to look into the matter to see whether some improvement can be effected.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when the present difficulties are mastered it should be possible to get back to the practice of posting a letter in London at 5.30 on a Friday evening to reach suburbs such as Twickenham by first post on Saturday morning?
    Miss Pike: We accept that, whatever steps we take to make ourselves as efficient as possible, we must be eternally vigilant.

    Land, Buildings and Accommodation Plant
    Mr. Emeryasked the Postmaster-General (1) the total value of all land and buildings owned by his Department; and how much of this is fully utilised;
    (2) what percentage of his Department's property is scheduled for improvement, modernisation, and expansion.
    Miss Pike: The Commercial Accounts show that the net book value of Post Office land, buildings and accommodation plant as £133·5 million at 31st March, 1960. In virtually all cases this is fully utilised or earmarked for future use. I cannot say what percentage of Post Office property is scheduled for improvement, modernisation and extension, but capital expenditure last year in connection with buildings was equal to about 10 per cent. of the book value of the property.
    Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask whether she would consider, and get her right hon. Friend to consider, the point that in the expansion of Post Office property all sites should be used to the full? In connection with certain expansions throughout the country, will she bear in mind that
    400
    greater economic use might be made of certain sites which, even if the Post Office cannot use them, might well be leased to bring further income to the Post Office account?
    Miss Pike: I can assure my hon. Friend that we take all those considerations into account.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that the first consideration of herself and her right hon. Friend will be to see that the Post Office as a service has adequate accommodation for its work?
    Miss Pike: I can gladly give that assurance.

    North Berwick (Deliveries from London)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions during September, October and November, respectively, letters posted in Central London before 6 p.m. were not included in the first delivery at North Berwick on the following morning.
    Miss Pike: The main mails containing correspondence posted in Central London for first delivery in North Berwick failed to connect once in October and three times in November. The connections were maintained throughout September. As we do not keep records of the passage of unregistered letters through the post, I cannot say on how many occasions individual items due to connect with the first delivery failed to do so. But I assure my hon. Friend that we will do all we can to keep delays to a minimum.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of the fact that those of us who use the East Coast route find that the train service to Scotland runs reasonably well on time, will my hon. Friend say whether there is a very tight connection involved between the sorting of letters in Central London, and their catching the mail?
    Miss Pike: Yes. The connection is rather tight, because the last collection from street boxes is at 5.30 p.m. and from the head post office at 6 o'clock, and the train goes from King's Cross at 8.20 p.m. There is certain building development work going on at King's Cross Station which will help us to get mails on to the trains faster.

    Edinburgh (Deliveries from London)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Postmaster-General why letters which are posted in Central London before 6 p.m. are frequently not delivered in Edinburgh before 9 o'clock the next morning.
    Miss Pike: Letters posted up to 5.30 p.m. in the street boxes in Central London and up to 6 p.m. at head district offices should get first delivery in Edinburgh next weekday. Unfortunately, due to late running of the trains which carry the letters the connection is not always made. In collaboration with the British Transport Commission I am seeing what can be done to improve matters and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of my hon. Friend's reply to my supplementary question on Question No. 37, about the tightness of the connection, may I ask whether she has given consideration to the possibility of sending letters north by air mail in future? If so, and perhaps until that comes about, would it be a proposition perhaps to have posting done in Central London at 5 o'clock instead of 5.30 and thereby reduce the tightness of the connection?
    Miss Pike: There is some difficulty with what we call the "down special" from Euston because of the modernisation work on that line. We are considering the possibility of sending mails by air. I would not wish to bring forward the latest time of posting. A Committee is sitting at present to consider the distribution of mails to see how we can give the best possible service to the public.

    Charitable Organisations (Journals)
    Mr. Collardasked the Postmaster-General if he will extend to two months the minimum interval at which journals of charitable organisations must be published in order to qualify for registration as newspapers, and so enjoy reduced postal rates.
    Miss Pike: No, Sir. The newspaper post is already running at a heavy loss and I am sorry that I should not be justified in adding to this by doing as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Collard: Is my hon. Friend aware that such an extension would be a great boon to such charitable organisations as the Royal Air Force Association, whose journal is published every other month, though in every other respect it complies with the regulations for registration as a newspaper?
    Miss Pike: I recognise the good grounds on which my hon. Friend asks for this concession. But the great difficulty is that if we give a concession in this respect there are very many other educational and charitable journals which would wish to have it. In view of the great loss on these mails, we do not feel justified in doing it at the present time.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Industry (B.B.C. Programmes)
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions he has required the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting plays or films containing inaccurate presentations of British industrial operations.
    Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.
    Mr. Pentland: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when such serious types of programme are televised, it should be the duty of the B.B.C. to see that they are factual productions? Is he aware that a recent production called "Pay Day" was an insult to both management and men in the mining industry, and that it presented an entirely inaccurate account of how a pit is worked under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act and of the miners' conduct of trade union business at pit level? Is it not time that this industry's operations, and the lives of its communities, were properly dealt with by the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Bevins: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, in reply to an earlier Question, that this was intended to be a purely fictional work. It was a play, and as such it was not intended to be factual. But having said that, I do appreciate the feelings of the hon. Gentleman and of all people who work in the mining industry, and I am quite

    403
    sure that what he has said today will have a good effect.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are now reaching a stage in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to get men into the pits, and that programmes of this kind, casting slurs on the miners, are of no help? If we have a crisis in the industry, which we might well have, it will have a serious effect on the country as a whole.
    Mr. Bevins: I have tried to be fair and to put this matter in its proper balance. This play was seen by many people, and most people would regard it as a work of drama and not think of it as a reflection upon the mining community.

    Colour Television
    Captain Orrasked the Postmaster-General what communication he has had from the British Broadcasting Corporation on the subject of colour television; and what has been his reply.
    Mr. Hirstasked the Postmaster-General what representations the British Broadcasting Corporation has made to him with a view to commencing coloured television on 405 lines without waiting for the South and Television Broadcasting Committee report; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Clarkasked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to provide guidance for the public and the radio industry, he will state his policy on colour television.
    Sir H. Kerrasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the concern caused to the radio industry by the proposal of the British Broadcasting Corporation to introduce colour television on the present line standards; and whether he will give an assurance that he will not permit such broadcasts before a decision on line standards is taken.
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General if, when replying to the British Broadcasting Corporation's application for permission to introduce colour television, he will make it clear that no such permission can be given before the Pilkington Committee reports.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General when it is now anticipated, approximately, that colour television will be provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what consideration has been given to the need for an increase in the cost of licences to meet increased expenditure on this account.
    Mr. Bevins: On 9th December the B.B.C. sought my approval to the start of an experimental public colour television service in November, 1961. I shall shortly be replying to its request.
    My Television Advisory Committee, however, has advised me against the introduction of colour television in the near future for reasons which seam to me to be convincing. This falls within the terms of reference of the Pilkington Committee, which will not doubt report.
    Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that decision will be welcomed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members wait until I have finished they may find out why. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the Television Advisory Committee's Report was signed by the B.B.C., and, for good reasons, it said that we should not start colour on obsolete line standards?
    Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly true.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Despite what the Postmaster-General's hon. Friends are saying behind him, is this not a very unimaginative and unfair policy? If the B.B.C. is sufficiently advanced scientifically and technically, why should he force it to mark time simply because other interested bodies are either unwilling or unable to make the necessary researches? Will not this unfortunate decision of his mean, in effect, that this country will shortly be lagging behind other countries in the development of colour television?
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Nothing that I have said in my reply in any way detracts from my appreciation of what the B.B.C. has already done for colour television. At the same time, however, it would be a profound mistake for any British Government to make a decision on colour television in advance of a decision on line standards. That would be putting the cart before the horse, and it would encourage a public demand for television

    405
    sets of the existing kind—405 lines—with colour, which might well be completely obsolete and out of date within a few years.
    Sir H. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if his Department finally decides on the new lineage, we may enjoy the possibility of a big export market in Europe?
    Mr. Bevins: Indeed that is quite possible.
    Mr. Darling: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point made in his Answer? I have not seen the Advisory Committee's Report, but he said that the B.B.C. had asked for permission to operate an experimental system. Did the Advisory Committee report on an experimental or a commercial system being introduced?
    Mr. Bevins: The Advisory Committee reported on the question of whether we should embark on colour television in the near future. The advice of the Committee was against that idea. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Report to study
    Mr. Darling: That does not answer the question.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Nor did the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question. In view of the delay which must inevitably occur in receiving the report of the Pilkington Committee, does not he think that we shall lag seriously behind other nations if we procastinate in this way?
    Mr. Bevins: There is a good deal of misapprehension about what is happening in other countries. In the United States, for instance, I am told that at present there is a very small number of sets capable of taking colour compared with the vast number of monochrome sets. In Japan the cost of a colour television set is £500. I am sure that at present this thing is just not a "starter".
    Sir R. Grimston: Is it not the case that the B.B.C. signed the Advisory Committee's Report recommending the opposite of what it is now asking for? Is the B.B.C. not behaving like the Labour Party—voting different ways on the same resolution?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. The representative of the B.B.C. on the Advisory Committee signed the Report.
    Mr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the uncertainty created by the B.B.C.'s announcement is deterring a number of people from buying conventional sets, to the detriment of the trade?
    Mr. Bevins: In view of what I have said today, that should not happen any longer.

    Local Sound Broadcasting
    Mr. Darlingasked the Postmaster-General what requests he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation for permission to operate local sound broadcasting services.
    Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. has asked me to approve plans for the introduction, in stages, of local sound broadcasting. I have told the Chairman that the Government does not feel able to authorise an important innovation of this kind at a time when the committee of inquiry is reviewing the whole field.
    Mr. Darling: Does this mean that all normal developments in broadcasting in this country must now be held up for four or five years until the Pilkington Committee has reported and the House has dealt with its Report? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for very good reasons we in Sheffield want a local sound broadcasting service, and that the B.B.C., I understand, is prepared to go ahead with that development? Why should the citizens of Sheffield have to wait five years for a development that can take place pretty soon if only the Government behave properly?
    Mr. Bevins: It simply means that all major innovations in television broadcasting will not be permitted until such time as the Pilkington Committee has reported—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it would be entirely unreasonable for the Government, having set up that Committee, to take over its responsibilities from it.
    Mr. Mulley: Would it not be better for the Pilkington Committee to have some experience of such a station and would not a pilot scheme in Sheffield help rather than hinder the Committee in

    407
    its consideration? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no commercial consideration behind this blank refusal?
    Mr. Bevins: There are no commercial considerations at all.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should look behind him.
    Mr. J. T. Price: The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are grinning all over their faces.
    Mr. Bevins: If it would help the Pilkington Committee to have an experiment in local sound broadcasting in Sheffield, I have no doubt that the Committee will ask for it.
    Mr. Callaghan: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of Commons, what everybody knows to be the case, that some back-benchers opposite and those who have commercial interests in this are determined to prevent the B.B.C. from going in for local sound broadcasting so that they can make fat profits in the future?
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. I think that is entirely untrue. The hon. Member's approach to this question is completely warped. The position is that to start local sound broadcasting in this country at present, whether by the B.B.C., the I.T.A., or by commercial interests, would be wrong when we have asked the Pilkington Committee to consider it.
    Mr. Darling: In view of the Postmaster-General's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Advertising
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority under subsection (4) of Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, regarding the amount of advertising which may be broadcast each hour.
    Mr. Bevins: None, Sir.
    Mr. Mayhew: What is the maximum amount of advertising now permitted per hour, and when will six minutes be laid down as was promised when the Act was passed?
    Mr. Bevins: The I.T.A. rule is that the limit per hour should be six minutes on average. It has, as I think the House knows, already announced that the maximum amount in any one clock hour has been progressively reduced from eight minutes in 1959 to seven and a half minutes in September of this year, and that it will be reduced to seven minutes as from 24th December.

    Outer Hebrides (Television and High Frequency Broadcasting)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Postmaster-General when he intends to authorise the necessary expenditure by the British Broadcasting Corporation for the extension of television and very high frequency broadcasting services to the islands of Barra, Benbecula, and North and South Uist.
    Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. says that the possibility of further stations in the Outer Hebrides will be considered when the stations I have approved for Lewis and Skye are working, and their effective range established.
    Mr. MacMillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman go a little further and give us some sort of idea about the time-table? I am grateful for his reply.
    Mr. Bevins: All I can say is that at present I am awaiting the B.B.C.'s Stage III proposals. I do not know when we shall get them, but as soon as I do I will give them urgent consideration.

    Pilkington Committee (Report)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Postmaster-General whether he expects to receive the report of the Pilkington Committee by 1st August, 1961.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir; but, as I told my hon. Friend last week, I am sure that the Committee will report to me just as soon as it can.
    Mr. Goodhart: If the Pilkington Committee is not likely to report soon, will my right hon. Friend consider asking it for an interim report on the basic question of lineage? Surely the technical experts have thrashed out this matter thoroughly. The delay is holding up technical developments in the whole television field.
    Mr. Bevins: I am loth to ask the Pilkington Committee for interim reports on any phase of the field into which it is looking, but I am equally sure that if the Committee felt it right to make an interim report on its own initiative, say, on line definition, it would not hesitate to do so.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the Postmaster-General estimate when the Committee is likely to make its report, in view of the serious Questions which have appeared on the Order Paper today?
    Mr. Bevins: I hope it will be either by the end of 1961 or the early part of 1962. The Committee is getting down to its job in the most remarkable manner.

BILL PRESENTED
  POST OFFICE
  Bill to reorganise the financial arrangements of the Post Office; to amend the Post Office Act, 1953, and the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Bevins; supported by Sir E. Boyle and Miss Pike; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (TROLLEY VEHICLES)
3.31 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the duty of trolley vehicles to stop and furnish particulars in case of accident; and for purposes connected therewith.
My proposed Bill is very short and has a very simple objective. It seeks to provide that the obligation to report accidents to the police shall be the same in respect of trolleybus drivers as it is in respect of the drivers of motor vehicles. The regulations governing the reporting of accidents to the police may not be perfect, but there is no reason why trolleybus drivers should not be governed by the same regulations as the drivers of motor vehicles.
In Newcastle recently, a trolleybus driver knocked down an old lady. It may not have been the trolleybus driver's fault—he quite correctly reported the accident to the depot—but the old lady went home and nothing more was heard of her until a few days later, when the police were called and she was found dead in her house. When the inquest was held the Newcastle coroner announced that he had looked up the law and had found that trolleybus drivers were exempt from reporting accidents to the police, under the terms of a very old Act, passed in 1871. The police supported the coroner's view and the chairman of the Transport Committee of the Newcastle Corporation also referred to the difficulties under which it operated its service owing to this differentiation in the law.
The people of Newcastle felt very sad and worried that this old lady had died in such sad circumstances. An investigation was immediately made into the legal position, and it transpired that the duties of trolleybus drivers were governed by the Act to which I have referred, which provides that in the case of an accident a report lies to the President of the Board of Trade, who, in turn, has to report to the railway inspectorate, after which an inquiry into the accident can be ordered.
Somehow or other this old law had been gathered up by my right hon.

411
Friend the Minister of Transport, and the fact that trolleybus drivers are under no obligation to take the action which drivers of motor vehicles have to take can have unfortunate consequences, as in the case of the old lady to whom I have referred. To the people on the North-East Coast it seemed right that trolleybus drivers should be under the same obligation as the drivers of motor vehicles.
In the case of motor vehicles, insurance companies are concerned, but it has been pointed out to me very strongly by the legal profession in the North of England that if, subsequent to a trolley-bus driver reporting the circumstances of an accident to his depot, legal action is taken, no evidence is available. When a trolleybus driver reports an accident it is quite possible that he will merely state his own point of view, and no examination or investigation is carried out into the circumstances of the accident.
Section 259 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, explicitly provides that trolleybus drivers are exempt from certain portions of the Act, and the people of Newcastle feel strongly that they ought not to be. That is why I am asking permission to introduce this Bill. It may be that I shall not have to proceed to any further stages with the Bill if I am given permission to introduce it. If I understand the position correctly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be introducing a new Road Safety Bill next year, in which it may be possible for him to insert a provision putting trolleybus drivers in the same position as the drivers of other motor vehicles.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Elliott, Mr. McKay, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Popplewell, and Mr. Short.

ROAD TRAFFIC (TROLLEY VEHICLES)
  ROAD TRAFFIC (TROLLEY VEHICLES)
  Bill to amend the law relating to the duty of trolley vehicles to stop and furnish particulars in case of accident; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 27th January and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BETTING LEVY BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  BETTING LEVY BILL

    Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BOARD.)
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen McAdden: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "assessing and".
    The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if the following Amendments, in the name of the hon. Member, were discussed with this Amendment.
    In Clause 3, page 4, line 12, leave out "Levy Board" and insert:
    "Bookmakers' Committee established in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section".
    In line 15, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "Bookmakers' Committee".
    In Clause 4, page 5, line 20, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 21.
    In line 22, leave out "for" and insert "shall state".
    In line 26, leave out from "may" to "scrutinise" in line 28.
    In line 38, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "Bookmakers' Committee".
    In line 42, after second "the", insert "Levy".
    In Clause 5, page 7, line 18, after "Board", insert "and the Bookmakers' Committee".
    Mr. McAdden: I readily agree to your suggestion, which, I think, is admirable, Sir Gordon, that we should discuss with this Amendment the other Amendments which are essential to the one that I have moved. I am sure that it is the wish of the Committee to expedite, so far as possible, the passage of this very worthy Measure. I should be the last to detain the Committee longer than is necessary on the principle of this Amendment.
    As the Committee will be aware, last Session we passed the Betting and Gaming Act. Deliberations on that Measure were closely connected with the work of the Peppiatt Committee and I am interested to discover from my hon.

    413
    and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department why it is that the Home Secretary, having appointed the Peppiatt Committee, which was charged with the responsibility of investigating how best the betting levy should be organised, raised, and so on, seems—I do not wish to put it higher—to have ignored the advice which the Committee gave.
    If my hon. and learned Friend will turn to the Report of the Peppiatt Committee, he will find that in paragraph 33 it states what I am attempting to move by these series of Amendments which the Chair has been kind enough to select:
    "Those best able to run the scheme are the bookmakers themselves. Attempts made to collect a levy from bookmakers by any other body would involve the establishment of a large and expensive administrative machine. We accordingly suggest the setting up of a Bookmakers' Levy Board to collect the levy and to transmit the proceeds to a Central Board referred to in paragraphs 45 and 46."
    So here we have a perfectly clear and definite recommendation by the Peppiatt Committee. In the view of that Committee the job of assessing and collecting the levy is something which should be done not by the Levy Board, but by the Bookmakers' Committee.
    In paragraph 34 of its Report the Committee goes further and says that the Bookmakers' Committee should be the body responsible for collecting and assessing the levy. In paragraph 35, the Committee states:
    "If the Bookmakers' Levy Board is to collect a levy, it must maintain a comprehensive list of bookmakers holding permits. To enable this to be done, the Levy Board must be notified by the licensing authorities of the grant for renewal of bookmakers' permits."
    It seems to me clear that this independent and representative body, the Peppiatt Committee, devoted considerable time to investigating this question, and recommended to the Government that it should be the duty of the Bookmakers' Committee to assess and collect the levy. We ought to hear from my hon. and learned Friend why it is that in the Bill the Government seem to have departed from that recommendation and placed the responsibility for assessing the levy not on the Bookmakers' Committee, but on the Levy Board as a whole.
    It may be argued that it is purely a nominal difference between the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee
    414
    and the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that if the Levy Board is to have at its disposal a staff of people prepared to work not only for the Levy Board, but for various constituent bodies which make up the Levy Board, it would be more sensible and reasonable to allow the bookmakers to get on with a job which they understand better than anybody else, the job of assessing and collecting the levy.
    I do not think that it is a job which can properly be undertaken by the other members of the Levy Board, the representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee and the independent representatives nominated by the Home Secretary. It would be better left in the hands of the people who, in the view of the Peppiatt Committee, are most capable of doing the work satisfactorily.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to accept the Amendment, and the series of Amendments which go with it, which seek to transfer the position back to that recommended by the Peppiatt Committee, or, alternatively, that he can put forward a reasonable argument to show why the Government have seen fit not to accept the clear recommendations outlined in paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report and again in paragraphs 45 and 46. If my hon. and learned Friend turns to paragraphs 45 and 46 he will find a clear definition of what should be done.
    In paragraph 46, the Peppiatt Committee recommend:
    "The bookmakers' Levy Board would be responsible for the processes of assessment and collection of the levy and it should hand over the net proceeds of the levy to the Central Board."
    There is no doubt about the clear and explicit language used by the Peppiatt Committee on this point. Although we are not always in agreement, I call in aid the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who made an interesting contribution to the Second Reading debate when he started that in his view, as a member of the Jockey Club, it is the duty of the Levy Board to consider how the money should be distributed. It is not part of the duty of the Board to decide

    415
    how it should be assessed or collected. Clearly, that is a duty placed on the Bookmakers' Committee by the Peppiatt Committee's Report.
    While I recognise that the Government are not bound to accept in detail all the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, this so far departs from those recommendations that I hope my hon. and learned Friend can give a satisfactory explanation of why the Government thought fit to depart from a Report which was Douched in such clear and explicit terms as I have quoted this afternoon.
    3.45 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has given me the alternative of accepting his Amendment or explaining why we have departed from the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I propose to choose the latter of those two alternatives. The changes which we have made from the recommendations in the Peppiatt Committee's Report are not the only departures from the advice given by that Committee. In the main, we have followed its advice, but we have made several departures, including this one regarding the exact task of the Bookmakers' Committee.
    The change we have made is one for administrative reasons. We have not made any change which creates any real difference in the relationship between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee compared with what was recommended by the Peppiatt Committee. Under the provisions of the Bill the bookmakers will be responsible for two important tasks: first, for taking the initiative in drawing up the scheme for assessment and collection of the levy and, secondly, for scrutinising individual assessments. It can use its initiative or it can scrutinise those assessments referred to it by the Levy Board.
    Mr. James McInnes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point that there is no maximum laid down of the amount to be assessed?
    Mr. Renton: That is quite a different point. There is a separate Amendment
    416
    on the Notice Paper which will be discussed later and I do not think that it would be appropriate to discuss that on this Amendment which deals only with the machinery.
    If the Bookmakers' Committee is to carry out the duties I have mentioned effectively, it must, and under the Bill it will, have access not only to the declarations made by bookmakers, but also to the list of names of bookmakers sent to the Levy Board by the licensing authorities. The only part of the procedural responsibility not given to the Bookmakers' Committee under the Bill is that part which is purely manipulative and clerical, connected with the collection of the levy, and which, for administrative convenience, we feel is best made the responsibility of the Levy Board.
    Obviously, a large clerical staff will be needed for this administrative work. It will have to compile and keep lists of bookmakers, receive declarations made by them, issue notices of assessment, collect and account for the money sent out as levy payments and issue certificates showing that the bookmakers have discharged their levy liabilities. Therefore, a considerable staff will be needed.
    The question is which is most suitable for employing and controlling that staff, the Levy Board, as the Bill suggests, or the Bookmakers' Committee, as my hon. Friend has suggested. We say it is desirable that the Bookmakers' Committee should consist of working bookmakers representative of the bookmakers of the country. Those bookmakers, for the very reason that they are working bookmakers, will be able to give only a limited amount of time to the work of the committee. We do not think that it would be proper that they should have to deal with establishment problems of engagement and control of staff. We say it is better that the Levy Board should be responsible for paying the staff to undertake work on its behalf.
    I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friend will feel assured that the Bookmakers' Committee has an important task to perform and that the Bill places upon it exactly that responsibility which it is suited to bear. I hope that he will feel that we are keeping away from it the purely clerical and sometimes invidious responsibility concerned with

    417
    the actual collection of the levy. For those reasons, I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end to insert "relating to horses;".
    This Amendment is, I think, fairly obvious. It relates to the way in which the levy is to be distributed. I imagine that the form of words used in the Bill has been borrowed from a form in use before the Bill was introduced. Never-the less, I think it important that we should state correctly in the Bill the exact purpose for which the levy is to be used. I take no exception to subsection (1, a), which refers to
    "the improvement of breeds of horses"
    although I notice that in the past some of the money has actually been going to the purpose of breeding ponies as well.
    Paragraph (c) "the improvement of horse racing", is, I think, unexceptionable, but the point was made on Second Reading and elsewhere that paragraph (b) says:
    "the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education;".
    That provision is very wide indeed. I should have thought that under it funds could be applied to research into myxamatosis, foot-and mouth disease and other purposes quite unconnected with horse racing. If the money is to be distributed so widely, there is also the question of whether the present Levy Board is properly constituted to advise on the question.
    I imagine that the actual purpose is one of the specified purposes set out in the Explanatory Memorandum:
    "purposes connected with the advancement of horse racing"
    and that it is not intended that the veterinary purposes mentioned here should be unconnected with horses. That is why I am putting forward this Amendment.
    It may be that the wording which I have chosen is not the best, but it seems that if this money is to be well used it should be applied with some relation to the benefit it can bring to horses. In that connection, we think particularly
    418
    of the Animal Health Trust at New-market, which, so far as I know, is engaged on work exclusively for horses.
    Mr. John Morrison: The Animal Health Trust is not engaged entirely in dealing with horses.
    Mr. Digby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I thought that it was. I was under a misconception, but I do not think that alters my argument that this money should be spent on something which has a direct relation to horses and not merely distributed to various veterinary centres regardless of the particular work they might be doing. I should be grateful if the Government would explain their intentions and whether they intend that this money should go to the whole of veterinary science and education—in which case it would not go very far—or be confined to forms which would be of use to horses.
    Mr. George Wigg: I think that this Amendment is one of those kindly gestures with which the Committee will agree, but I urge the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) not to press it, because veterinary science knows no frontiers and, if we establish sharp lines of demarcation, the result is bound to be the opposite from that which he has in mind.
    We cannot ask the Government to commit the new Levy Board on what its policy should be. It is quite clear that the intention would be that this matter should be looked at by the veterinary authorities from the point of view of the care of horses. The hon. Member referred to some grants made in the past in respect of ponies, but such grants are tending to diminish and they were limited to a policy adopted long ago.
    If the Government were kind enough to do as they have done on previous occasions—to draw the attention of the Levy Board to what the hon. Member desires—I think that he could be satisfied because the Board will look at the policies of the past and apply them in the sense he desires.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made my speech for me. I do not suppose that this is the first time that will happen in this debate.

    419
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was quite right in saying that these words follows a precedent. They were used in the 1934 Betting and Lotteries Act and re-enacted earlier this year in the Betting and Gaming Act. In practice, what he desires is, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, followed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board, which, as far as possible, has restricted its grants to the advancement of equine science. He mentioned the Animal Health Trust, whose grant in 1959 was related entirely to an equine research project and not to the purposes of the Trust as a whole.
    In addition, a grant made to the Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies at Cambridge, in 1959, was qualified by the requirement that it should be devoted to a project connected with horses. Therefore, as far as possible, the Racecourse Betting Control Board has restricted these grants to equine projects. I believe that it has worked well in the past and that there is no reason to make a change. The difficulty about making the change suggested by my hon. Friend, either in his words or in others, is that the hands of the Board would be tied to too great a degree.
    For instance, if the Board wished to make grants for a veterinary scholarship it would have to inquire whether the scholarship was devoted to equine purposes or not. I think it better for the matter to be left as it has been in the past. If my hon. Friend is still worried that the Board might not follow this practice in future, there is always the discretionary power left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has to approve these grants. Equine bodies which felt that they had not had a proper share could make representations to him. There is that safeguard. In view of that assurance, I ask my hon. Friend not to press this change on the Government.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, which I was glad to hear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "two other members" and to insert "one other member".
    The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if this Amendment could be discussed with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
    "and one other member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland".
    and the following Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), in line 22, at the end to insert:
    (b) one member shall be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
    Mr. Arbuthnot: In the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) and myself, this is a paving Amendment which seeks to associate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer more closely with the operation of the Bill. I also understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) wishes to associate with it the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    My hon. Friend and I wish to associate the Chancellor of the Exchequer more closely with the operation of this Bill for a number of reasons. The first one is that, whatever the Government may say about the Bill, it imposes a tax. It is, in effect, using the authority of Parliament to extract moneys from bookmakers and apply those moneys to horse racing. These are moneys which the industry itself cannot raise voluntarily, and there is, therefore, only one way in which one can regard this, and that is as a tax.
    I see a very close parallel between the intentions of the Bill and the motor vehicles licensing duty. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that it was not very long after the Road Fund was established that it was "raided", as it was termed, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer for general taxation purposes. It may well be that the same may apply when this Bill becomes an Act, as by the Bill it is sought to raise about £1¼ million a year.
    Mr. McAdden: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to say where in the Bill it is proposed to raise £1¼ million?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That was indicated on Second Reading.
    Mr. McAdden: No.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: If my hon. Friend will read the Second Reading debate, he will find that the indication was given there. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his Second Reading speech, said:
    "Hon. Members should realise that perhaps one of the greatest problems of all, when the money has been raised, is how to spend it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 907.]
    The hon. Member also foresaw what he regarded as a natural increment and he felt that the amount of the turnover increase every year would be about 3 per cent. On the assumption that £1¼ million a year may be raised—
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is going down a cul-de-sac, and before he gets to the end let me tell him what is happening. The £1¼ million to which he referred comes from the Peppiatt Committee's Report, and refers to a levy on bookmakers. The natural increment of 3 per cent., of which I was speaking on Second Reading, was the increase in the Tote turnover.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but the point that I was making was that this was likely to be an increasing amount, rather than a decreasing one.
    Let us suppose that we were to spend about £1 million a year on the improvement of race courses. After five years, we shall have spent about £5 million, and it may well be that it will be even more difficult, within the terms and the purposes of the Bill, to find the proper things on which to spend the money. It might very well be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this case, might do exactly the same as the former Chancellor of the Exchequer did with the Road Fund. I think that it would be best if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more closely associated in this taxing Bill from the beginning, rather than possibly trying to bring himself into it at a later stage.
    Mr. McInnes: The reason for my allowing my name to be associated with this Amendment is entirely different from that expressed by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot).
    My sole concern here is that Scottish interests shall be adequately represented, and I hope that at a later stage, and in
    422
    another Amendment, to expand that point. Meantime, to achieve my objective, I am associating myself with this Amendment in an attempt to prevent the Home Secretary, who is associated with the Bill, from appointing the three members in order to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint one with whom I shall deal in a later Amendment.
    Mr. McAdden: In discussing this Amendment, we are also discussing the Amendment to line 22, to provide for the appointment of one member by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    This worries me a little. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) correctly, he seems to have formed the conclusion that there is something in the Bill restricting the amount levied on bookmakers to £1¼ million, but no such figure is to be found in the Bill. It was in a recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee, which the Government, in their wisdom, have seen fit to ignore, along with some other recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. It may well be that the Levy Board may well see fit to ignore the recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee in this respect, and indeed, ignore the advice given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which I greatly appreciate, that the Levy Board might find itself in difficulty in getting rid of the money which it collects in future years.
    If that be so, to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer waiting to get in on the act as well, to try to get money from Her Majesty's citizens who are running businesses which, under the law, are recognised as lawful, and are paying taxes and a levy on top, seems to me an unreasonable proposition. If the Chancellor wants to levy a tax on businesses, let him levy it on all businesses, and not pick out bookmakers to be particularly victimised. Under the Bill, they are subjected to a levy. There is no case for my hon. Friend the Member for Dover wishing to add a watchdog of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to discover whether the money raised cannot be distributed among the various charitable interests named, and, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get in on the act also.

    423
    We had an example of this on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) tried to get a cut for the dogs. I do not doubt that somebody else will try to get a cut for football, as well. I do not see why the Treasury should get away with this. If the Treasury wants to levy a tax, then let it do so in a proper way, and not as suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) would like to have one of the independent members of the Levy Board appointed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) would like to have one appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. With respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I suggest that their Amendments are out of keeping with the conception which we have, which I think the Committee understands, of the position and functions of the independent members of the Levy Board.
    Their main duty, besides offering their advice in the counsels of the Levy Board, will be to arbitrate when there are disagreements between the Board as a whole and the Bookmakers' Committee, or between the Board and the Totalisator Board. These disputes will be concerned either with the levy scheme, either the total of it or the character and method of it, or with the totalisator contribution. If there are any such disputes, they would be on broad issues of policy, indeed, of justice. I do not think that either any special expertise or geographical responsibility will help them as independent members of the Levy Board, exercising their impartial judgment to reach the sort of conclusion that would be expected of them.
    If, by any chance, either any additional expertise in financial matters, for example, or any special geographical knowledge of Scotland, Wales or anywhere else is required, it will always be open to the Board or to the independent members of it to seek such advice, professional or otherwise, as may be necessary. We feel, therefore, that there is no case for having either of the members of the Board appointed for the representation of special interests or special anxieties.
    424
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover repeated his argument, which we do not believe to be a valid one in the context of the Bill, that the levy is a hypothecated tax. My hon. Friend referred to something which happened many years ago when the motor vehicle licensing duty was imposed in a Budget. I endeavoured to explain on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, how this is not a hypothecated tax, but a method of enabling an industry to raise funds from within its own confines to help another section of that same industry.
    The idea that this is a hypothecated tax is completely contrary to the purpose of the levy. We feel that it would be alien to the purpose of the Bill if we were to introduce the idea of control by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have sympathy with the point that was made in this context by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden).
    Mr. Ede: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman yet converted the Minister of Health to that point of view?
    Mr. Renton: I do not think that I should be deflected in that kind of way from the limited purpose which I am now trying to achieve.
    I should like to say a word about the Scottish position which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to make clear. Before making any appointments, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there is any fear that Scotland may not receive a proper share of the distributed money, there is a safeguard—at least, there will be when a Government Amendment is accepted, as, I hope, it will be, later in our proceedings—that a scheme submitted for distribution and later submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval can be modified, if necessary, by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    If any modification is necessary to meet a particular Scottish point, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will gladly do that. For example, if any representations are made that a greater proportion of the moneys available should go to Scotland, we would, of

    425
    course, consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before reaching a decision and do our best to meet him.
    I hope that, with these explanations, the two hon. Gentlemen will feel that the points of view which they have sincerely expressed are not necessary to convert into statutory terms and that when choosing independent members who must exercise a broad, impartial judgment in the matters on which they have to arbitrate, it would not be right that they should be appointed specially for the representation of particular points of view.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We are in a slight procedural difficulty, because to support one Amendment we must vote for a different one. I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). His seems to me to be a quite different case from the one about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be representing a special interest, if one might put it that way.
    There is a great case for the Secretary of State for Scotland nominating one of the members of the Levy Board. There is a great Scottish interest in this matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland is Home Secretary for Scotland. There is a parallel here. I notice that he has his name on the back of the Bill. It seems to me to be treating him in a rather shabby fashion to have him associated with a Bill in this way and not to be mentioned in it, although, in Scotland, he is an equal person with the Home Secretary in this country.
    4.15 p.m.
    I was sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department implied in his closing words that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not be able to appoint people who gave a broad and impartial judgment; he said that this was an argument for limiting the nominations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is just as capable as the Home Secretary of appointing people who exercise a broad and impartial judgment. It is because we support what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central wants, and not because we support what the hon. Member for Dover
    426
    (Mr. Arbuthnot) wants, that we feel that we should make this clear when the Question is put.
    Mr. McInnes: I am not altogether satisfied with the explanation given by the Under-Secretary. We must bear in mind that in Scotland we have over 1,000 bookmakers, who will make their contribution to the Levy Board's fund or whatever arrangements are introduced. It is undesirable to suggest, as the Bill does, that this Measure is supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland when nowhere in the Bill, right from Clause 1 to the Second Schedule, has he any powers. He has no functions. He is not even mentioned in the Bill. He cannot undertake to appoint the appeal tribunal that may be set up for Scotland. He will have nothing to do with the proposed Bookmakers' Committee and nothing to do with the appointments to the Levy Board.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has said, that is somewhat shabby treatment. It should have been recognised that Scotland has to play its part in the Bill. If it has to do so, surely it is reasonable to ask that in the main body which is being established under the Bill, there should be a Scottish representative who will have knowledge and understanding of the situation in Scotland. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to attempt to fob us off, if there is any dispute about allocation, that professional men can be brought in. I do not want to resort to that method. It could be avoided if the Secretary of State for Scotland were enabled to appoint somebody to the Levy Board.
    I will only be satisfied by the procedure of enabling the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an appointment to the Levy Board so that either in the disbursement of the levy fund or any other aspect that may arise within the operations of the Levy Board, Scotland will be adequately represented. I hope that the Home Secretary will have another look at this proposition and give us fair treatment.
    Sir James Duncan: The proposal by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) probably is not the right way to tackle the matter. As my hon. and learned Friend

    427
    the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said, the purpose of the three members of the Levy Board is mainly to resolve disputes, and the chairman of the Board will have to look at matters from a Great Britain viewpoint.
    I suggest, however, to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there might be another way of achieving what I should like done. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland in some way to be brought into all consultations concerning duties, appointments and that sort of thing which occur in the Bill, which are at present the duties of the Secretary of State, Which, in Parliamentary language, means the Home Secretary.
    There are precedents for what I suggest. I cannot remember them in detail offhand, because I have not had time to look them up, but in most agricultural legislation, for example, which is United Kingdom legislation, the Minister of Agriculture nearly always has to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that it will be found in other United Kingdom legislation that there is statutory consultation which he has to take first.
    Mr. McInnes: Not in this Bill.
    Sir J. Duncan: In other legislation there is provision for statutory consultation between the two Ministers. There is the theory that the Government is one and that if one Minister is mentioned that covers the lot, but for quite a number of occasions that constitutional idea has been overridden. Perhaps, at a later stage, maybe in the form of a new Clause, the Under Secretary might consider, in all the duties and appointments, and so on, in the Bill, wherever the Home Secretary has to do anything, to say anything or to appoint anybody, that there should be statutory consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Wigg: As the Committee knows, traditionally I have great sympathy with Scottish nationalism, which I have expressed from time to time. The Committee would be well advised to look at the principles upon which this and previous Governments have operated, up till now. Under the Racecourse Betting
    428
    Act, 1928, under which the Totalisator operates, there is a representative board appointed by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a number of outside bodies. The Government, for better or for worse, have deliberately turned their back on that board and have gone for another kind of board on which there shall be representatives of the bookmaking profession, representatives of the Jockey Club and outside bodies, as in the 1928 Act.
    Then, so that the Home Secretary, should discharge his responsibilities to this House of Commons, he adds a chairman and independent members. They are there because they are independent and impartial and not because they wear a kilt or play the bagpipes. It is their independence and impartiality that is the test. The Committee will get itself into a terrible tangle if it starts to look at this on a geographical basis. Where will it stop?
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) that in the past there have been very important branches of the bookmaking industry operating in Scotland—for the most part, down the century, utterly and completely illegally. I hope that these will now return over the Border, and that, now that it is legal, they will come to England and that Scotland will take its rightful place in the forefront of that part of the community that obeys the law and does not transgress it. Because Scotland has been breaking the law flagrantly for fifty years it does not give it any special rights of representation. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to appoint someone merely because he is a Scot, to look after Scotland, is to traverse the principle on which the Bill is based.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): Perhaps I may make a brief reply to the Scottish point. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made my speech as well as the English Minister's speech on this occasion. As an honorary Scot he might join the deliberations of the Scottish Grand Committee and make some of our speeches there for us.

    429
    The point made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), when he said the Secretary of State should be equally capable of appointing somebody with broad judgment, is valid. Broad judgment must be the criterion, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, and as everybody has said. We do not want to get into the position where somebody is exercising impartiality of judgment from the Scottish point of view and somebody else is exercising impartiality of judgment from the English point of view.
    I hope that the hon. Member will accept that there is no reason why both the members Ministerially appointed should not be Scottish, English or Welsh. They are not there to represent the difficulties of any particular area; they are there to hold the balance in any disputes between the functional interests of the bookmakers or the racing fraternity.
    Mr. McInnes: Why is he there if he is not there to represent Scottish interests?
    Mr. Brooman-White: He is there because the Bill applies to Scotland and because he will be consulted and will share joint responsibility. I believe that that is the position under the constitution. His responsibilities are constitutionally indivisible with those of the Home Secretary in matters of United Kingdom administration of this kind.
    I think that that also meets the point of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) about statutory consultation. It is normally assumed in legislation that there will be consultation between Ministers, who share collective responsibility, and particularly close consultation in a case such as this, where the interests of the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, are identical in obtaining objective judgment and fair administration of these Measures over the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Question put, that the words "two other Members" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 222. Noes 180.

    Division No. 23.]

    AYES

    [4.26 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cordle, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Allason, James

    Costain, A. P.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Coulson, J. M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hastings, Stephen

    Balniel, Lord

    Critchley, Julian

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Barber, Anthony

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hendry, Forbes

    Barter, John

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Batsford, Brian

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Dance, James

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Holland, Philip

    Bidgood, John C.

    Doughty, Charles

    Hollingworth, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hornby, R. P.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Eden, John

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Bishop, F. P.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Bossom, Clive

    Emery, Peter

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Brewis, John

    Farr, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bullard, Denys

    Gammans, Lady

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Gardner, Edward

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Burden, F. A.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Johnson, Eric (Biackley)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Godber, J. B.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Kitson, Timothy

    Chataway, Christopher

    Gough, Frederick

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gower, Raymond

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Green, Alan

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Cole, Norman

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Collard, Richard

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Longbottom, Charles

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Temple, John M.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Peel, John

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Percival, Ian

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Thornton, Ernest

    Maddan, Martin

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Maginnis, John E.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Pott, Percivall

    Turner, Colin

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Marten, Neil

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Rees, Hugh

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Ridley, Hon. Nlcholas

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Mawby, Ray

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Wall, Patrick

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

    Roots, William

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Mills, Stratton

    Russell, Ronald

    Webster, David

    Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Whitelaw, William

    Morrison, John

    Sharples, Richard

    Wigg, George

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Shaw, M.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Simon, Sir Jooelyn

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Neave, Airey

    Sheet, T. H. H.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrte

    Stodart, J. A.

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Talbot, John E.

    Woollam, John

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Worsley, Marcus

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Partridge, E.

    Teeling, William

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Noble.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Manuel, A. C.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mapp, Charles

    Awbery, Stan

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mason, Roy

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Beaney, Alan

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Grimond, J.

    Millan, Bruce

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hannan, William

    Monslow, Walter

    Blyton, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moody, A. s.

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Morris, John

    Bowles, Frank

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mort, D. L.

    Boyden, James

    Holman, Percy

    Moyle, Arthur

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Holt, Arthur

    Mulley, Frederick

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Houghton, Dougias

    Neal, Harold

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Howell, Charles A.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Owen, Will

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Padley, W. E.

    Chetwynd, George

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Collick, Percy

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Janner, Barnett

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Peart, Frederick

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jeger, George

    Pentland, Norman

    Darling, George

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Prentlce, R. E.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Probert, Arthur

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrextham)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Deer, George

    Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

    Randall, Harry

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kelley, Richard

    Rankin, John

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Redhead, E. C.

    Dodds, Norman

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Reid, William

    Driberg, Tom

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Ross, William

    Evans, Albert

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Fitch, Alan

    McCann, John

    Short, Edward

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacColl, James

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    McInnes, James

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Siater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mackie, John

    Small, William

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    McLeavy, Frank

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Snow, Julian

    432

    433

    Sorensen, R. w.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Steele, Thomas

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Tomney, Frank

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Stones, William

    Wade, Donald

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Zilliacus, K.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Weitzman, David

    Sylvester, George

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Symonds, J. B.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Whitlock, William

    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end to insert:
    "and shall be persons who the Secretary of State is satisfied have no interests connected with horse racing which might hinder them from discharging their functions as members of the Board in an impartial manner".
    This Amendment relates to the chairman and two members of the Levy Board to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The scheme depends upon the chairman and the two nominees of the Home Secretary being independent members. During the Second Reading debate hon. Members on both sides stressed this need.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has tabled an Amendment stressing that the members appointed by the Home Secretary should be independent. The word "independent", in his Amendment, would be meaningless in the context of the Bill, but because of the desire expressed on Second Reading, and because of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, we have thought it right to table our Amendment, which will express in the Bill what my right hon. Friend would do in selecting the chairman and two members to be appointed by him. The Amendment makes clear that they must be independent of racing interests.
    I assure those hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who may be apprehensive about this that it is simply to appoint nominees who will be independent in the sense that their interests will not impede their activities as members of the Board. This phraseology will express in the Bill what all members of the Committee desire.
    Mr. McInnes: I am glad that the Minister has agreed to the proposition contained in the Amendment. Having regard to the proposed constitution of the Levy Board as provided for in the Bill, I felt justified in taking steps to ensure that the three members of the
    434
    Board—the chairman and two other members—to be appointed by the Home Secretary should be entirely free from any interest—vested interest, if you like—in horse racing.
    I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the hint following my Amendment. I give him credit for the fact that his Amendment is perhaps more explicit than mine, and I very gladly accept his Amendment.
    Mr. Eric Johnson: In my view, this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. I have every faith in the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will select and appoint completely impartial members. He has made things more difficult by his attempt to define "independent". I do not know precisely what he means by
    "interests connected with horse racing".
    I do not suggest that I am a suitable candidate for the Levy Board. In any case, I am excluded by another part of the Bill. I have been an owner, a breeder and a trainer. I have had a licence to ride. I have had an interest in a bookmaking business. I am none of these things now. Have I interests "connected with horse racing"? I have not any at present.
    I wonder who is covered by this proposal. I have particularly in mind those people, eminently suitable for membership of the Levy Board, who often act as stewards at race meetings and who have a very extensive knowledge of everything to do with racing, but who are not owners or breeders of horses.
    I hope that the meaning of "independent" will not lead to the usual sort of triumvirate—barrister, retired civil servant and trade union official without particular qualifications. It is essential that these members should have an extensive knowledge of racing, and I hope

    435
    that my right hon. Friend will be content to leave things as they are, which, I would have thought, was perfectly satisfactory.
    Sir Hendrie Oakshott: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he was thinking of "independent" in the sense that these nominees should not be connected with racing. If that is so, there is great force in the argument of my hon. Friend, because such a situation would deny us the sevices of people who could be of the greatest possible use to the Board. If my right hon. Friend thinks that the question of independence must be clarified in the Bill, I hope that he will ensure that people who could be of value, but who are not interested parties in racing at present, are not excluded from serving on the Board.
    Mr. James Dance: I support the views advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). When I first saw the Amendment I was worried about the words:
    "… satisfied have no interests connected with horse racing …"
    I was then told that the word "hinder", which appears a little later, made that expression less dangerous. In other words, these members could be interested in horse racing provided that their interest did not hinder them from making a fair judgment.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether the word "hinder" is the operative word or not.
    Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment. Somewhat to my surprise, yesterday evening I received what was called some notes on the Amendments. I did not ask for them, but I received them—and they did not come from the Government. I rather gathered that this afternoon we were to be treated more or less as a branch office of Messrs. Wetherbys.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Amendment, because there are so many suspicions about how this Measure is to be worked, and the Amendment will do something to
    436
    reassure those who believe that it will not be easy to work. There is supposed to be a levy on bookmakers. Even when a horse comes past the post first, it is sometimes difficult to make a levy on bookmakers, even when one holds a ticket. I am certain that this will be a levy on the punters. I am sure that in some form or other the bookmakers will pass the tax on to the consumers. The consumer always pays and the consumer in this case is the punter, who will be consumed by the bookmaker in the long run. I hope that the Government will insist on the Amendment.
    Mr. McAdden: I would not wish to miss an opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend. The Amendment is perfectly sound. If those who have doubts about it will look at the Bill they will see that the Levy Board is to consist of two members appointed by the Jockey Club, one member appointed by the National Hunt Committee, one by the Bookmakers' Committee and one by the Totalisator Board. Racing interests are fully represented and the only point of having a chairman and two independent members is to try to give impartial and unbiased judgment on subjects on which the other members of the Board are unable to reach agreement.
    In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend is pursuing the right course. I am the more fortified in that belief in that the Amendment arose from some remarks which I made on Second Reading, when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary undertook that these members would be independent. He has translated that undertaking into the Amendment. Horse racing interests are well represented and the Amendment will provide for some people of independent judgment who are not connected with horse racing who will be able to hold the balance between those interests when there are disputes.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: As we discuss subsequent Amendments, the importance of these three memibers of the Board being independent will become even more obvious. It was always my right hon. Friend's intention that the chairman and two members appointed by him should be independent of racing interests, and the Amendment has been moved to meet that end.

    437
    I would not like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) to think that "hinder" is the most important word in the Amendment. AU the words must be taken together. They serve to meet the need that the chairman and the two independent members should be independent of racing interests so that they are not impeded in their work. If we are to stand by the proposals in the Bill, as opposed to the Peppiatt recommendation, that is essential. The words make my right hon. Friend's intention more obvious to those who are to be concerned with the operation of the levy, and I hope that hon. Members will not press me to reconsider the words which, I believe, meet the occasion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "two members" and to insert "one member".
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): I should say that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this the Amendment in page 2, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "and
    (f) one member shall be appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."
    Mr. Gordon Walker: It would be very much to our convenience if we discussed them separately, Sir Samuel. We regard them as raising completely separate issues and, unless we can get satisfaction, we shall want to divide the Committee on both. If it is only a matter of convenience, and not of the Chair deciding what to call, we would like to take them separately.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that we had better discuss them together, because I think it unlikely that the second will be called if it is not discussed with the first.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: "Unlikely" is a very odd expression in this connection. Would it be improper to ask how likely or unlikely it is that it will be called?
    The Temporary Chairman: If the Amendments raise entirely separate issues, then we can call the second.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: They are separate, because even if we do not get the second we shall still want the Jockey
    438
    Club to have only one member on the Board.
    This is an Amendment to which we attach much importance. The Peppiatt Committee proposed that the Board should consist of a number of people, including one representative of the Jockey Club. When the Bill was issued we discovered, to our surprise, that the Jockey Club was to have two representatives on the Board, although all the other interests which were represented were to have only one each. There has been no defence or explanation of that extraordinary change from the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee.
    The Temporary Chairman: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes any further I should call attention to the fact that his second Amendment would be out of order if this Amendment should fail, because the size of the Board is limited by the Bill and it will not be possible to move to add to it.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am obliged, Sir Samuel. I understand the point.
    As the Bill refers to
    "a chairman and seven other members"
    we shall have to do the best we can. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will have something to say on the substance of the second Amendment.
    It has been suggested in some quarters that the Jockey Club and, I think, the National Hunt Committee are treated as if they were impartial bodies before whom other interests would appear, and, as they represented racing as a whole, they would be impartial in deciding between the claims of various interests which came before them. In practice, however, we think that the Jockey Club, although it represents racing as a whole, has very clear views about what the Levy Board should do which may well be controversial, and, therefore, it cannot be held to be impartial.
    The Jockey Club has made it clear that it wants the highest levy possible, whereas other people, including the bookmakers, do not.
    Mr. Wigg: Can my right hon. Friend tell me his authority for the statement that the Jockey Club want the highest possible levy? The Jockey Club has said, over and over again, not that it wanted any money, but that if there was a

    439
    scheme of reorganisation it would ask for a levy. It has never asked for it in the sense to which my right hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: If my hon. Friend reads the Peppiatt Report, again, he will see that the Jockey Club was asking for a levy of £3 million, whereas other people were asking for about £500,000. The Peppiatt Committee said that the figure should be about £1¼ million.
    Mr. Wigg: This is the main misconception. It has persisted all through these negotiations. Once the Peppiatt Committee was set up it obviously followed that all the bodies connected with racing would submit evidence. The figure of £3 million arose in this way. Mr. Astor, when he was a Member of this House, did some homework and wrote a memorandum. He did a sum based on the total number of stakes which could be won in a season. He took the number of horses and estimated what it would cost to race them, taking into account travelling expenses, jockeys fees, and the like. There was a gap between what could be won and the outgoings of £3 million. This £3 million entered into the concurrency and was bandied about in the Peppiatt Committee, but it was never put forward officially by the Jockey Club, or, as far as I know, by anybody else.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I can only go by what I find in the Peppiatt Report, not all the information that may be known about what was said when the Committee met. The Report clearly says that the Jockey Club gave certain opinions and that, in the Jockey Club's view, the figure of £3 million was not an over-estimate. The clear impression given by the Peppiatt Report is that the Jockey Club wanted the highest figure of all those mentioned and other interests wanted a lower figure. I did not think that that was disputed. It is perfectly clear from the Peppiatt Report. It therefore seems to me that I am justified in saying that the Jockey Club has an interest. It is not an impartial body in this matter and, therefore, it should not be over-represented on the Board.
    There is, I think, another connection in which the Jockey Club has an interest, and that is that as little as possible of
    440
    the levy should be spent for public purposes, like veterinary science and education. On Second Reading I quoted a statement made by the Duke of Roxburgh to The Times on 6th April, saying that he was strongly against the proceeds of the levy being frittered away on a diversity of objects. I conclude that what he meant was that it should be concentrated on a few simple things directly connected with racing and that to spend it on veterinary science, and other things, would be regarded as frittering the money away unless the sums so spent are small. Such issues as these will be in dispute on the Board. In no way can the Jockey Club be said to be an impartial body representing racing as such.
    It seems to me wrong that, as the Bill stands, those interests which want a high levy—the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee—will comprise three out of the eight members of this Board, three out of seven if the chairman is excluded. This is a gross over-weighting of what is a clear interest. There is a good deal of evidence that the Jockey Club has a great deal of influence which it can bring to bear, not only through its representation on this Committee, but in other ways. For instance, suddenly the figure of "two" members has appeared in the Bill, when the Peppiatt Committee wanted only one.
    Somebody must have got at somebody to get this considerable change from the Peppiatt Report made in the Bill. It is a considerable change that this one interest should have its membership doubled. It is not mentioned at any point in the Peppiatt Report as having been put forward. Someone has been able to bring about this change, and it seems to me that the Jockey Club must have had something to do with the figure in the Bill, which is in its favour.
    It therefore seems to me necessary that we should bring the composition of the Board back to what the Peppiatt Committee recommended. That is all that our Amendment intends. We think that there are very powerful arguments against making this very striking change from the Peppiatt Report, and we have heard no arguments in favour of it.
    Mr. W. T. Aitken: I support the Amendment, and if it

    441
    comes to a choice between two members of the Jockey Club and one in order to get a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on the Board, I am in favour of the surgeons, although I do not share the jaundiced view of the Jockey Club of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). There is an overwhelming case to be made out for the inclusion of veterinary surgeons on the Board. A small board is obviously desirable, but it is notable that no one so far has suggested that there should be direct representation of other racing interests. For example, no one has suggested that the Racecourse Association, the Trainers' Federation and the Owners' Association should be represented on the Board.
    Mr. Richard Stanley: I do not think my hon. Friend is making a fair case. What they said was that if one was to be represented then they all should be represented, but they agreed that if all sections of the industry were represented the Board would become so big that the independent members would be completely swamped. The racehorse owners, the breeders and others got together and said that they did not want a representative on the Board as long as the other interests did not. The first that was heard about the veterinary surgeons wanting to be on the Board was when the Amendment appeared on the Amendment Paper. If the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is represented, then other interests will also want to be represented.
    Mr. Aitken: It is possible to make out a very good case for the veterinary surgeons, indeed an exceptional case, because their position is quite different from that of other interests in racing. Other interests in racing understand each other's intentions and point of view very well. The profession of the veterinary scientist is a highly technical one. Veterinary science represents the one interest which ought to be on the Board, partly because it is a highly technical profession and, for that reason, should be represented. I shall try to show why this is so.
    5.0 p.m.
    There will be a lot of hungry mouths to feed when all this money is available. The increase of prize money, rebuilding programmes, the improvement of
    442
    amenities and many other causes will be pressed very vigorously by those who think that they will derive some advantage. But this one interest which is specifically included in the Bill but which is not included on the Board has a very special case to be considered, namely, the case for the advancement of equine research, veterinary science and education.
    Like others in so many forms of scientific research in this country, veterinary research has had a rather thin time. It has had to limp along for many years with very little money, but if has done very fine work. When all the "tough guys" my right hon. Friend proposes to put on the Board start scrapping about who is to get what out of all this lovely money, at the end of a year or two, I fear, the second of the major objects of the levy, veterinary research and education, will be left very much at the post.
    Recently, I visited the Equine Research Station at Balaton Lodge. There is nothing like it anywhere else. It is known all over the world as a centre for equine research. Every owner of bloodstock and every breeder in this country knows and values its clinical and consultative services. I am not sure that many people realise how much patient and fruitful research has gone on at that station during the last twenty years, and I am not sure either that everyone realises in how many fields those dedicated men have reached a point of near break-through which, if it were really massively supported now, could lead to enormous benefits not only for horses and other ungulates but in the whole field of animal research, and, indeed, in human medical research as well. The scientists at Balaton Lodge and Lanwades Park know more about haemotology and haemolytic diseases than anyone else in the world, and, because of certain characteristics of the horse's blood, the research they have done has a bearing on inflammation and allergies—especially as these are not only in horses but in human beings as well as in other animals.
    In the virological research laboratory in Newmarket there is a tantalising background of knowledge of many virus diseases, and, with more staff and equipment, the researches could certainly produce cures and new treatments for a good

    443
    many diseases which affect horses and other ungulates as well. The station needs at least two metabolism chambers to follow up its new knowledge obtained in recent years in nutritional research. There are new techniques in dealing with bone fractures, bone diseases and bone healing problems which also should be developed. There is a need to expand the biochemical laboratory, which is hardly adequate even for present needs.
    The station has performed autopsies on nearly every foal which died in the Newmarket area during the last ten years. Here again, in pathology and bacteriology as well ase in parasitology, any acceleration of the present progress could undoubtedly open up new areas of knowledge and treatment for young animals particularly. Hand in hand, of course, with pure research must go the development and improvement of the station's clinical facilities and consultative arrangements.
    The station badly needs a good library. A good library with publication and indexing services and that kind of thing is just as important in animal research as it is in medical research. The people at this station receive inquiries and requests for advice from all over the world, but with their present facilities they simply cannot cope with them.
    The budget of the Equine Research Station was about £40,000 last year, about half of that coming from the Tote. The rest came from voluntary contributions. It is really quite astonishing to see what has been done with so little money and to see how much work in different fields of equine research has been tackled and tackled successfully. If ever there was a winner on its record worth backing it is this station at Newmarket.
    We have here an opportunity not just to put Britain in the lead in equine research. By stepping up its existing programmes and developing all the new leads the researchers at the station have found in relation to horses and other animals as well as human beings, coupled with a vigorous development of veterinary education, we could certainly make this country the dominant world centre in equine research and veterinary science.
    444
    There would be several beneficiaries from such a really massive development of equine research now. Exports, tourism, Commonwealth development, agricultural productivity at home, and international prestige are only a few of the long-term beneficiaries from the sort of programme I have in mind, to say nothing of the long-term advantage to breeding and racing in the years to come.
    We all realise perfectly well that, irrespective of whether my right hon. Friend decides to accept the Amendment or not, equine research and veterinary scientists will benefit under the Bill, but I feel certain that, in order to have their fair share of what will be available to them, these people really must be represented on the Board. They are the ones who can do far more for the British bloodstock industry than the Jockey Club and all the other racing associations put together.
    There is another factor which is very important. This Bill should command support from a circle far wider than just that of racing and betting if it were made clear that by accepting the Amendment that Britain was determined to keep and extend her lead and dominance in this very great branch of science.
    Mr. Wigg: I do not know how it came about that the Government changed their mind. It is certainly no part of my job to act as a public relations officer for the Jockey Club, but there are certain things which need to be said arising from the points which have been made about the Amendment It should be recognised that racing is not only a business. It is also a sport. The overwhelming majority of people who are interested in racing are not in it because they will make money out of it. If they do think so, they very soon find out they are mistaken. They go racing for fun.
    It is true, also, that there is some easy money about, and wherever there is easy money there will always be someone looking for it. Therefore, it is of absolutely paramount importance that the government of racing should be carried on by a body of men, whatever we may think about them, whose integrity and authority are beyond dispute. It is quite plain that the main function of the

    445
    Jockey Club, through its stewards and representatives, is to exercise its authority with an absolutely firm hand. There are many young men in racing who may not have had all the advantages of a very wide education and who may suddenly face high incomes and great temptations. Unless the hand of the Jockey Club is firm and is recognised as being firm, we shall run into trouble.
    The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mt Aitken) spoke about the pre-eminence of British racing. Of course, we all want that, but the preeminence of British racing is recognised throughout the world by the performance of our bloodstock. We need to recognise, also, that the Jockey Club has an international reputation.
    In a very humble position on the Racecourse Betting Control Board, I have from time to time had letters from people from far afield—for instance, letters from friends in Ghana who were concerned about the state of racing in Ghana and wanted to go to the Jockey Club for advice. People have come to me from out of the blue, wanting to be put in touch with the Jockey Club. There were people in Brazil who asked me to put them in touch with Wetherby's. Perhaps it is interesting to note that so conscious of public relation are Wetherby's and the Jockey Club that if one wants to find their telephone number one cannot find it in the telephone directory.
    Of course, this institution has been going on since the eighteenth century; and, of course, one can criticise it, and indeed, the more one knows about it the more one can criticise it; but so far I have never heard anyone attack the Jockey Club's integrity. Therefore, in a Bill of this kind it is of paramount importance that its position and its authority should be recognised.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) is a much better and a much wiser and a much nobler person than I am. Of course, he does not go racing. If he did he would have recognised that the Jockey Club occupies a quite different position from that of the National Hunt Committee. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is not suggesting for a moment that the National Hunt Committee should be represented on the Horserace Betting Levy Board. It is to be represented by
    446
    one, and it cannot be left out, but the Jockey Club speaks for many times as many people. The value of the racing controlled by the Jockey Club, the number of races, the extent of its activities, all these are many times greater than the number or value of the races or activities represented by the National Hunt Committee, and the pre-eminence of British racing rests chiefly upon flat racing. Therefore, if we give one place to the National Hunt Committee it would seem to me to follow that we must give more to the Jockey Club. I would have thought the Jockey Club could have two places. I would have thought so. I would have thought there was a cast-iron case that, because of the authority of the Jockey Club throughout the world, it should be given special recognition.
    But that is not all the story. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) knows as well as I do that a very considerable amount of work has been done on this Bill over a very long period. There are some who have had the good fortune to have come into our deliberations only at this late stage, but those deliberations and a great deal of hard work have been going on for several years, and so far this has been an agreed Bill. Of course, even though it is agreed, that does not mean that all the Members of the House of Commons necessarily have to agree with it, but I would have thought that they would at least take some trouble to find out the principles on which the Bill was based.
    One of the fundamental principles, as the hon. Member for North Fylde said, was that beneficiaries should be excluded. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the old 1928 Act they will find a number of beneficiaries were left out; the then Home Secretary and others who hammered out the scheme left them off. Perhaps that is the reason why the Jockey Club went to the Home Secretary and asked for two representatives now.
    I have no doubt at all that the Jockey Club is too modest to make the points which I have made on its behalf about its disciplinary work and the peculiar position which it occupies in the world of racing, but I imagine that it would have said, "We speak for thousands of employers in this industry. We speak for the interests of owners, breeders, jockeys, trainers. Therefore, we ask for recognition to be given to them through

    447
    us. For that reason we hope you will breach the principle of no direct beneficiaries being on the Board."
    Let me deal now with the question of veterinary science. So far veterinary science has had help from the Racecourse Betting Control Board through the work of the charity trust of which by chance I happen to be a member. I am sure that those whose knowledge of this is much greater than my own and covers a much longer period will agree when I say that everything it has asked for has in fact been granted. Therefore, if it wants more it must come along and ask for more. The idea that it is being starved for money, if I may say so politely, is a piece of nonsense.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: No.
    Mr. Wigg: It is nonsense. Does my hon. Friend want to interrupt?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend challenges me. I was going to deal with that in discussing the second of the two Amendments, which I was going to move. Then I will answer my hon. Friend.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: That Amendment is not to be moved, I understand. If my hon. Friend says "No" to what I am saying, let me tell him that as recently as last week a grant for next year was approved, and it was exactly what was asked for—and last year and the year before that. Inside the limits of the money which is available all that veterinary science has asked for has in fact been given.
    Mr. Aitken: I think that that is a little misleading, because very often people ask for what they hope to get and not what they would like to get. I could quite easily have given the hon. Member a list of projects at Newmarket at Balaton Lodge costing from £40,000 to £50,000, very good and very practical ones. I do not think it is quite fair to say that they get everything they need or that they are not starved of money. It is just not so.
    Mr. Wigg: They are responsible people and would not ask for more than in fact there is, and within the sum total of the money available, as responsible people they have asked for what they wanted and have got it. They cannot get more than there is. If they want some
    448
    of the £1¼ million I have no doubt that the Horserace Betting Levy Board will look with a kindly eye in this direction. What I am controverting is the very unfair point that they have been starved of money by the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend is haranguing me, but I will answer his point later.
    Mr. Wigg: Does my hon. Friend want to interrupt me? Do not mutter.
    Mr. Peart: Oh, no.
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was suggesting that a great deal more can be given. I am quite sure that it can; but it does have to be related to the amount of money which is available, and inside the sum total which is available the veterinary service has been given adequate treatment. The point I want to controvert is the suggestion, implied in what he said, that representation on the Levy Board is essential in order to get more money. That, I think, is an unfair reflection upon the work over the last twenty or thirty years of people on the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Member seems to me to be illogical about this. The whole object of getting a representative of the veterinary service on the Board is that more money will be available if it gets a fair chance of getting it.
    Mr. Wigg: That is exactly the point I am making, that it is said that an increased sum of money for veterinary purposes depends upon representation on the Levy Board of the veterinary service, but does the hon. Gentleman not see that it follows that as soon as that happens breeders, jockeys, everybody else will do exactly the same?
    Therefore, it is absolutely essential that there should be somebody on the Board directly representing racing interests who will act not as the representative of special interests however laudable they may be but will remember that in racing as in politics statesmen are essential. The essential need here is for a turf statesman who will have the wisdom and the detachment to take a synoptic view and balance one interest against another.
    I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for admitting this. Out of his own mouth

    449
    he has admitted the case because he has suggested that the amount which the various interests will get will be related to their membership of the Board. I put exactly the other point of view. I hold the view that the well-being of British racing needs to be related to the position of racing on the world plane, and therefore I say it is the duty of the Government, bearing in mind its undoubtedly authentic voice in racing, to give the Jockey Club a place in deciding not only upon the disbursement of money but in the framing of policies in the interests of racing, of clean racing, of racing of which we are all proud.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: I rise to support the Amendment to the effect that a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be included on the Board. I do so because I think that such a man would serve a very useful purpose there. I have recently had experience of the knowledge and the services given by members of the British Veterinary Association, and I have no doubt that not only do veterinary surgeons hope that in some way they would influence certain sums of money into the veterinary profession, but also that they would be able to carry out investigations as a result of their knowledge and further, by their membership of the Board which would be of inestimable value to the British bloodstock industry.
    When we read about the intentions for which the money shall be allotted, we find that it shall be allotted for
    "the improvement of the breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education."
    It seems to me, therefore, to be quite logical that, if that is one of the declared intentions of the use of the money, a nominee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be on the Board.
    I certainly do not go all the way—although I can understand his point of view—with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who stated that because the greatest preponderance of interest is in flat racing the Board should include two members of the Jockey Club as of right. Certainly I believe that one member of the Jockey Club, if he were a strong member—and I am sure that he would be—would be quite capable of putting forward the views of the Board
    450
    with force and that it would not suffer by having only one such member, especially when it is realised that in any case, whether there were one member or two members, the Jockey Club would be in a minority overall on the Board.
    In the first place, of course, this money is raised from members of the public. It is not the prerogative of the Jockey Club or of any persons on the Board at all. The racing industry in this country is only pursued because of the interests of the general publice. Therefore, one finally comes down to what is best in the public interest concerning representation on the Board and the manner in which the money is raised.
    Furthermore, we must realise—and this has already been stated—that the money cannot be raised voluntarily. It has to be raised by levy and, again, it has to come in the first instance from the public purse. If we are dealing with the public interest, I believe that the general public would be much more happy about the general circumstances if they knew that the veterinary profession was represented on the Board.
    There is certainly an awakening interest in this country in general animal welfare. People not only think of the racing of the horses or of the bookmakers and others connected with racing. A great many people consider the welfare of the animals. In that connection, they consider that a highly qualified and highly skilled professional man on the Board might be able to exercise certain influences there.
    Indeed, when we come down to the question of professional know-how, I am fortified by the rather indignant—if I may so put it—intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott), who objected when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced an Amendment specifying what was meant by "independent" and which would make it perfectly clear.
    Sir H. Oakshott: If my hon. Friend looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will realise that I was not objecting to the principle but to the method.
    Mr. Burden: What my hon. Friend said—and I took it down very carefully—was that the definition of independence "would exclude people with special knowledge of horse racing. I

    451
    suggest that in this context veterinary surgeons have special knowledge of the animals used in horse racing, which is very important. One of my hon. Friends shakes his head in disagreement. Are we to assume that veterinary surgeons have no knowledge of horses?
    Mr. Stanley: I think that my hon. Friend is getting terribly muddled. Of course veterinary surgeons know horses. That is why they have their jobs. But they know very little about the practical side of racing. I thought that that was the whole point at issue.
    Mr. Burden: The Bill lays down perfectly clearly what is the intention with regard to the money. It states that it shall be used for
    "the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education."
    Therefore, my non Friend has made the case even better. If veterinary surgeons have no knowledge of horse racing, then I suggest that a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons sitting alongside members of the Jockey Club when disposal of the money was being considered might be a very good thing because all the members of the Board would then come much closer together than they are apparently at the moment, according to my hon. Friend, who, I understand, is a member of the Jockey Club. I suggest that that in itself is another reason for the inclusion of a veterinary surgeon.
    There is no doubt that the veterinary profession and those engaged in the production of bloodstock and of improving its quality have much work to do together. I personally can see no valid reason why there should be such strong opposition from some quarters to the introduction on to the Levy Board of a member of the veterinary profession who must, according to the Bill itself, have a particular interest not only in the way in which the money is disposed of but, indeed, in the whole science of the production of high quality bloodstock and British racing generally. I trust that my hon. Friend will find it possible to include on the Board a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
    Mr. Peart: An Amendment was down in my name, but there was a procedural difficulty. However, I assume that that
    452
    Amendment has been taken with the Amendment moved and that we are discussing the position of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
    Before I deal with the Amendment, I wish to say something to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He has praised the Jockey Club and has inferred that we who seek to restrict it are seeking to criticise it.
    Mr. Wigg indicated dissent.
    Mr. Peart: Well, I got that impression.
    I am not as experienced as my hon. Friend concerning the Jockey Club. I am only a humble racegoer. I hope that he will not be pompous because he has this added experience. After all, on Second Reading, he said:
    "Since I have been on the Racecourse Betting Control Board I have learned that the Jockey Club does not provide the leadership which one expects. If the Home Secretary has a complaint against this important body, it is not that it is faulty but that it is diffident and incapable in this modern age, because of the way it works, of acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to give the lead which racing unquestionably requires at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 900.]
    5.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley criticised the Jockey Club. I did not make that criticism. He seemed to argue that it now has great authority and that it is responsible for keeping a firm hand on racing. I hope it does. But that would in no way be affected by the composition of this Board, and it would in no way affect the running of the Jockey Club if it had only one member on the Levy Board. I hope it will continue to exert its authority, and that if there are any grounds for criticism of its work such as was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley it will certainly bring itself up to date. However, I must point out that I am not experienced in the workings of the Jockey Club.
    I think it was rather unfair to chide my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for saying that he did not go racing. The inference was that he did not know anything about the subject whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley did know. I only wish my hon. Friend would show a little modesty in these matters. I wish

    453
    to deal with the Amendment affecting the Royal College. I am a member of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and have been for nine years. I rely on the experience of experts, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley when he talks about the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
    Mr. Wigg: So we are all square.
    Mr. Peart: We are all square. The purpose of this Bill is to improve breeding and the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and veterinary education. The purpose of the levy is to improve breeds of horses and, of course, to improve horse-racing. But, as I think has been established by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), we cannot improve horse-racing or the breeding of horses without proper veterinary practice and the development of veterinary science and veterinary education. I submit that the latter purpose is fundamental to this Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), who raised the question of the state of veterinary education, would agree. Whether or not we are muddled about the purpose of this Bill, I think he will agree from his experience that if we have good veterinary practice, research and development, horse-racing will inevitably improve and that there will also be an improvement in breeding. There cannot be any separation of the two.
    The success of this Bill and the use of the levy will depend very much upon how much money is allocated to veterinary research and education. I am glad that the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds and Gillingham stressed this fact in their two admirable speeches. Incidentally, we on these benches raised this point in the Second Reading debate.
    There has been some argument on how the Board shall be composed. I do not want to get involved in an argument about the Jockey Club, and that is why I am sorry that these Amendments are being discussed together, for the Amendment that I wished to move relates specifically to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I know it is argued that no beneficiary should be included among the membership of the
    454
    Board. That is why breed societies, racehorse owners and other similar people have been excluded. I understand the point. But I assure those who make this criticism that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons will not be a beneficiary. Certainly there will be institutes of research, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, which will benefit from the financial provisions of the Bill, but the Royal College will not be a beneficiary. If my hon. Friend for Dudley wishes to dispute that assertion, I will gladly give way.
    I think it is accepted that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in respect of veterinary problems, veterinary science and education, is equivalent to the Jockey Club in respect of horse racing. Indeed, it is a statutory supervisory body. The Privy Council is in control, four Privy Council representatives being on the Council of the College. Many of my hon. Friends will remember the 1948 Act which was sponsored by the right hon. Tom Williams who was Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That Act imposed statutory obligations on the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It will therefore not be a beneficiary in any way. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would, like the Jockey Club, be able to give advice on the use of the levy for veterinary science and education. I should have thought that that was logical and reasonable.
    Emphasis has been laid on the question of beneficiaries, and I hope that I have refuted any suggestion that the Royal College will be a beneficiary. On its council are representatives of the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and London, as well as the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin. There is also a member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for the Republic of Ireland. This body, which has on it elected members, is held in high esteem all over the Commonwealth and throughout the world. This statutory body would be in no sense a beneficiary, but would be able to give its expert advice on matters affected by the Bill. I am sure that horse racing in general and horse breeding would benefit from its advice.

    455
    I assure the hon. Member for North Fylde that I am in no way criticising the Jockey Club, and that I merely ask him to remember that this body would be able to give expert opinion on how best the levy could be used for horse racing—
    Mr. John Peyton: I am a little confused. Could the hon. Member explain whether, in his opinion, there is anything in the Bill to prevent the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons giving its advice? I should have thought that it most certainly could and would give its advice.
    Mr. Peart: I agree that even if the Amendment standing in my name were not accepted, the Minister could probably set up an advisory committee to the Levy Board. But I would hope—indeed, I think it is important—that where we have the conflict of interests which have been mentioned, a body like the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, dealing specifically with the use of the levy for veterinary purposes, which is one of the main purposes of the Bill, should be able to give impartial advice to the Board.
    Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend is anxious to establish that if his Amendment were incorporated in the Bill there would be no breach of the principle that no beneficiary should be on the Board. If he looks at the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, he will see that there were representatives of the Racecourse Association, Tattersalls Committee and of a number of other bodies which are not directly beneficiaries, in exactly the same way as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They would be as disinterested as the Royal College. They would have special points of view to put. But does not my hon. Friend see that if we put one such body on the Board, the demands of all the others to be on it would be almost impossible to resist? That is the very principle on which the Government are trying to establish the Bill.
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has missed the point. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is in no way in that relationship. I know that I could explain this all night and that my hon. Friend would not accept it. I understand his point of view. But I am arguing
    456
    that the College is in no way a beneficiary. It could well be argued that the Jockey Club is much more a beneficiary and that the members of it are, too. Most of the members of the Jockey Club are connected with racing. How we are to find a representative who has no special interest in or will not benefit from the levy, I do not know.
    Many members of the Jockey Club are owners and are interested in horse breeding. They are honourable people; I am not criticising them. But they will probably have a sectional interest, and I am merely arguing that for the purposes of Clause 1 (1, b), which deals with
    "the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education,"
    there should be a member, dealing with this main purpose, who has an impartial view as to how these funds should be used.
    Mr. E. Johnson: is not the hon. Member aware that many members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have a direct interest, because they are trainers?
    Mr. Peart: There may be an individual veterinary surgeon who has a special interest, but the College has no interest. In the same way one could argue along those lines about the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, or even say that the hon. Member for Workington and others, who are ordinary punters, have a direct interest in the racing industry. Let us not pursue that too far.
    I merely argue that the representative of the College would be able to give general guidance on the use of grants to ensure that some of the levy money were put into important research projects which would provide fundamental information on animal breeding and diseases and on veterinary science. In the end, all this will benefit the horse. I argue strongly that specialist advice wil be needed on the use of the levy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley spoke of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. Figures were given on Second Reading. I assert from all the expert advice which I have had—which is just as expert as that given to my hon. Friend—that veterinary schools and institutes, which are responsible for 99 per cent. of veterinary education and a

    457
    large part of veterinary research, have received in the past only a fraction of the money from those sources. I could tell my hon. Friend of a specific case affecting a university in which a grant was turned down.
    I admit, however, that much has been done and that it is not the fault of the Racecourse Betting Control Board that it has been limited. We are to have a new board, however, with the creation of a large levy, and I hope that larger sums will be given to such organisations. I could quote figure after figure of the type of research which is needed. I have here a statement from the President of the British Veterinary Association, which is a separate body from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In a letter the President tells me that
    "The British Veterinary Association contends that the dispersal of funds to veterinary science and veterinary education can only be effected satisfactorily by a body which has a detailed knowledge of veterinary research as carried out by various universities and other organisations, and of veterinary education with its undergraduate and post-graduate problems."
    I think that that is accepted
    5.45 p.m.
    I have details, similar to those given by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, of the vast amount of urgent veterinary work and research which is required. I have a list which covers, first, science and the research which is needed into many problems of the horse, heart problems being one example; secondly, microbiology and the importance of work affecting contagious diseases, which has an important connection with racehorses and their transportation; and thirdly, the need for a quick investigation and development of research into parasitological problems, again mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. A great deal of money and staff is required for urgent research work into diseases of the foal, and investigations are required into many other specialised sections of veterinary science.
    There is also a need, I am told, for important advances in the technique of veterinary surgery, particularly into bone and tendon surgery affecting the horse. Much of this work has been hampered through lack of finance. Much of it directly affects horse breeding and
    458
    racing. Veterinary education needs the award of scholarships, fellowships and assistantships for investigation into work on the projects which I have mentioned. In addition, it is argued by those who are specialists that we need more travelling scholarships.
    We can therefore make the case that there is an urgent need for work of this kind and that we should have on the Levy Board somebody who has this experience. It is not so much the amount of money involved; that could be decided amicably by members of the board. It is a question where the money will be directed, even within the purposes which I have mentioned, and what type of research and what type of veterinary education should be developed. All these are matters for an expert.
    I have argued that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is an admirable body for this purpose and that one member of the Levy Board should be sponsored by the College, not because the College consists of veterinary surgeons but because it is a statutory body and because the Levy Board will function more efficiently and effectively if this is done.
    Mr. Renton: I think that I can best deal with both the point made about the Jockey Club and that made about the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons by explaining to the Committee how the board will be composed of three elements, and what the functions of those three elements will be. We decided on having a small board. The first element is the chairman and two independent members, chosen, as has been said on an earlier Amendment, because they are impartial, in the sense that they have no vested interest whatever in racing, although one would expect them to be enthusiasts for racing. The second element consists of the representatives of the racing interests. The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that under the Bill the Jockey Club was to be an impartial body. That has never been our view.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I said that that had been argued in favour of the Jockey Club by those who spoke for it, but it is clearly not in the Bill.
    Mr. Renton: I am glad that we understand each other on that subject, because clearly under the Bill the Jockey Club

    459
    is to be representative of racing interests in the broadest sense. The third element consists of the chairman of the Tote Board and the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee.
    The function of the representatives of the racing interests will be to advise on the financial needs of the racing industry and of its various parts. The function of the chairmen of the Tote Board and the Bookmakers' Committee will obviously be to advise on the capacity of the Tote Board and the bookmakers respectively to contribute towards the levy scheme.
    The function of the chairman and independent members—and this is very important, because it has a bearing upon the position of the Jockey Club—will be in relation to the collection scheme, on which they will have the last word. In relation to the distribution scheme they will vote as other members of the Board vote, but the Board itself will not have the last word. The last word on the distribution scheme lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    If we get clearly in mind who is to have the last word we find that in regard to both the collection scheme and the distribution scheme, it does not matter a bit whether there are two Jockey Club members or one—
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Or any of the other bodies represented.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, or of any others. We are therefore faced with this alternative. We can either have three representatives altogether—which we consider a reasonably small number for keeping the Board compact and not to outweigh either the independent members or the chairmen of the Bookmakers' Committee and the Tote Board—or we can have, as was done under the 1928 Act with the Tote Boards, a very large board that represents the interests of veterinary science, the Race Course Association and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
    We decided on a compact Board, and hope that we have carried the Committee with us to that extent. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by the fact that under the procedure in the Bill it does not matter whether we have two Jockey Club members or one—
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Or any of the other bodies represented.
    Mr. Renton: I listened with great care to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has displayed his interest in the debate by being absent during practically the whole of it. I would wish that he would let me explain the position, because many hon. Members have spoken whom he did not hear.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this point, I must tell the Committee that I am very sorry to have been absent, but I had to go to a very important meeting, which I cut short as soon as I could. I interrupted only when the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to something in my speech.
    Mr. Renton: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that now he has come back he will do me the courtesy of listening, instead of interrupting from his seat.
    We have chosen two Jockey Club members rather than one for just the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He was in no sense a party to the consultations, but news naturally travels, and it has been felt by many of the various bodies inside the racing industry that as long as there was adequate representation of racing interests there was no need for individual representations of the many bodies concerned. It is on that assumption—and, indeed, on that understanding—that various bodies such as the Race Horse Breeders' Association, the Race Course Association and others have been content to have their interests represented by the Jockey Club, provided that the Jockey Club was represented by two members and not just one. We feel that it is not unreasonable.
    In dealing with the question of the interests of veterinary science, may I say that it gives me the first opportunity I have ever had in the House of Commons of paying my tribute to the veterinary profession, on whose services I have so often called; never more than two or three months goes by without my having to call on it to tend one or other of the animals in which I am interested. Theirs is indeed a dedicated profession and one which, especially in the context of horse

    461
    racing, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, needs to be encouraged.
    Under the 1928 Act the Racecourse Betting Control Board undoubtedly did its best within its limited resources. That Board's work resulted in the Equine Research Station at Newmarket, referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) receiving about £20,000 last year and, I understand, other sums in previous years. Quite clearly, once we get the levy scheme going there will be more money to distribute than there has been in the past, and it is clear that veterinary science should benefit from that to an increasing extent.
    What the Committee has now been considering for the last hour or two is how that can best be achieved. For the reasons I have given—namely, our desire to have a compact Board, our desire to have the interests of the racing industry represented in the broadest way and not by separate representation of interest that might directly benefit—we do not feel that it is necessary or wise to have a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on the Board, more especially because the interests of the Royal College extend far beyond the interests of the treatment of horses. The Royal College is concerned with all animals.
    What is to be done? If the organisations connected with veterinary science wish to obtain grants from the Levy Board their proper course, as for other beneficiaries, will be to make representations to that effect to the Board. It will then be for the Board to make the provision it considers appropriate in the distribution scheme.
    There is, however, a further safeguard and, I suggest, a very important one. If veterinary science interests consider that they are not receiving a sufficient grant from the Board they can make representation to the Secretary of State, and if the Government Amendment to Clause 2 is accepted, the Secretary of State will have power to approve the distribution scheme with modifications. Among the modifications that it will be open for him to make would be an increase in the amount suggested by the Levy Board for veterinary science. The interests of veterinary science will, therefore, be safeguarded
    462
    without a member of the Royal College being on the Levy Board.
    For those reasons, and after this interesting and helpful debate, I suggest that our best plan is to leave the Bill as it is, because if we start upsetting the rather careful balance, and the carefully worked out machinery by which these three elements on the Levy Board will co-operate with each other, we may be in a very great difficulty.
    Mr. Peart: The Under-Secretary has not responded to our case, and I asked him, if he did not intend to make a response, to say whether the Secretary of State had considered setting up an advisory committee. That is not a new thing. For example, the Agricultural Research Council has funds and is advised by the Anicals Standing Committee and the Soils Committee, both composed of experts. On the Animals Standing Committee there are representatives of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Chief Veterinary Adviser of the Ministry of Agriculture. If we are not to move in the direction I suggested, is there the possibility of an advisory committee being set up?
    Mr. Renton: I was not at all sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant a committee to advise the Levy Board or one to advise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or both.
    Mr. Peart: I was thinking of it in terms of advice to the Levy Board, but if it is knocked down by the Government, I hope that the Minister will be advised in other ways.
    Mr. Renton: I should have thought, with great respect, that an advisory committee would be superfluous. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which the hon. Gentleman is, and for many years has been a distinguished member, is a responsible body, and any representations that it might care to make to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or to the Levy Board will be accepted with great respect and given the most careful consideration.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Peyton: I shall be short with my remarks because the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has already, despite the sharp rebuke he got for immodesty from his Front Bench, deployed very

    463
    strongly the arguments that are relevant to this question. On the first Amendment, I follow him very largely for the reasons which he gave, though I cannot resist the temptation to add that I hope that some of the members of the Levy Board, including the Jockey Club representatives, will go racing from time to time as ordinary members of the public and that they will inflict upon themselves the misery of the meals offered at some race-courses, because that would be a valuable and chastening experience.
    It is proposed through these Amendments to include on the Board a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I see nothing in the Bill to preclude that body giving any advice which it likes to the Board. I cannot contemplate the Board being so asinine as to refuse to listen to that advice.
    The other point which I want to make strongly—I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not touch upon it as much as he could have done—is that if the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is to be admitted to representation on the Board, there will be a great many more demands than there have yet been for membership. The Race Course Association has a considerable interest and a heavy liability in this matter, but has been very restrained in not pressing what is at least a very strong case.
    The claims by all these bodies should be resisted. The argument was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) when he said that the danger was that the independent members would be swamped. I believe that the independent members in this scheme have an enormously important place. I go racing not as an owner but as a potential loser to the bookmaker, and I shall be delighted to feel that at long last there are independent people on such a Board who will have an opportunity of directing my losings to some profitable use from which the ordinary racegoing public may benefit.
    Mr. Ede: The Temporary Chairman who preceded you in the Chair, Sir William, pointed out that one of the difficulties that compelled us to take these two Amendments together was the fact that the membership of the Levy
    464
    Board is limited to a chairman and seven members, and therefore we have rather drifted into the unfortunate position of arguing either for the Jockey Club or for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, bath of which I believe to be, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State, respected institutions.
    I heartily support the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). The only meal I ever have at a race meeting is when I am invited by the stewards to lunch with them.
    Mr. Peyton: They have never asked me.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member should put his claim forward. I hope that the case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the special position of the Royal College will not fall on deaf ears in the Government. If the Government were to alter the word "seven" to "eight" in Clause 1 (2) and to bring in the Royal College, the situation would be well met, because I believe that the College is in a very different position from any of the other bodies that have been mentioned.
    The College represents an attitude to this problem quite different from that of the racecourse executives—though I am well aware of their difficulties—and of any other people concerned. The point that has been made is well worth further consideration, and it was unfortunate that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in framing their Amendments, did not spy the difficulty in which they would be ultimately involved—that if we are to have the College on the Levy Board, we must leave somebody else off. I hope that on Report that difficulty may be resolved.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that with these two Amendments we are dealing with two quite separate points. The first is whether it is necessary or desirable to have two members of the Jockey Club on the Levy Board, and the second is whether the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be represented on the Board.
    The Home Secretary, who has been with us during the latter part of this

    465
    debate, will have heard what has been said. I thought that the speech of the Under-Secretary of State was most disappointing and unsatisfactory. He gave no real reason why there was any necessity to have two members of the Jockey Club on the Levy Board.
    Mr. Ede: I suggest that it is because we have to have one to watch the other.
    Mr. Fletcher: That is probably the best reason yet given. The Under-Secretary of State said that it did not matter whether there were two members or one member of the Jockey Club on the Board.
    Mr. Renton: From the point of view of taking responsibility under the various schemes.
    Mr. Fletcher: Nor did he indicate any other reason why there was any merit in having two members on the Board. The Peppiatt Committee was careful to recommend that there should be only one member of the Club on the Board, and nothing has been said in this debate to indicate that it is necessary or desirable that the membership should be weighted in this way by having two Jockey Club representatives.
    Mr. E. Johnson: The Peppiatt Committee only recommended one independent member besides the chairman, but we now have representation of the Jockey Club in the ratio of two members to eight instead of the ratio of one to five. It does not make much difference.
    Mr. Fletcher: It is odd that in choosing an additional member from the Jockey Club to serve on the Board it was thought necessary to say that there should now be three independent members instead of one, as recommended by the Peppiatt Committee.
    I believe that we are all agreed that this should be a small compact body, and it is unnecessary that it should be weighted unduly by any one interest. Like the Under-Secretary of State, I do not much mind whether there are two members or one member of the Jockey Club on the Board, but I am insistent that, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have given, it is highly desirable that somebody should be on the Board to represent the special interests of veterinary science.
    466
    Representations to this effect have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) and for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I hope that the Government will now recognise that the claims of veterinary science stand in a special category. In the past, veterinary science has been neglected and starved. It was noticeable when he had a debate in May on a Motion moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that when the Home Secretary replied and adumbrated various ideas about the Levy Board in connection with collection and distribution, the right hon. Gentleman made no reference at all to the fact that one of the legitimate purposes of raising money in this unusual way should be to assist and encourage veterinary science. We were glad to find that the Peppiatt Committee dealt with this and that in the Bill it is a recognised object for which the Levy Board can distribute money. The fact has been mentioned over and over again in debate that there is a widespread feeling that much more should be done in this country than is being done at present for the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and research.
    This is an important national interest. The Bill and the machinery for raising money in the way provided for in the Bill gives an opportunity for ensuring that a branch of science which has long been neglected should now have abundant opportunities for having that leeway made up and rectified. We feel that this cannot be adequately done unless there is a representative on the Levy Board who on all occasions will be able to state with authority the special interests of veterinary science. The purely horse racing, horse breeding and racecourse interests are represented by the other members of the Levy Board, particularly those who will be appointed to represent the Jockey Club. Veterinary science calls for some special recognition.
    It is no good the Under-Secretary saying that when it comes to the distribution of the levy it will not be the Levy Board that will have the last word but the Home Secretary. I remind him that the Board will have to consider the total of the levy and that in considering that

    467
    total the claims of veterinary science and research are not unimportant. I do not want to pursue the matter further. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will register their sense of the importance of the Amendment by dividing the Committee, and that as a result of what has been said on both sides of
    the Committee the Government will have second thoughts and will give effect to what has been expressed by reconsidering the matter on Report.
    Question put, That "two members" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 171.

    Division No. 24.]

    AYES

    [6.13 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gammans, Lady

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Allason, James

    Gardner, Edward

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Arbuthnot, John

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Marten, Neil

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)>

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Balniel, Lord

    Godber, J. B.

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Barber, Anthony

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Barlow, Sir John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Barter, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Mills, Stratton

    Batsford, Brian

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Green, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Morrison, John

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Grimond, J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Bidgood, John C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Bingham, R. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Neave, Alrey

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gurden, Harold

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Noble, Michael

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Bossom, Clive

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Box, Donald

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Brewis, John

    Hastings, Stephen

    Partridge, E.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hay, John

    Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peel, John

    Bryan, Paul

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Percival, Ian

    Bullard, Denys

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pitman, I. J.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Pott, Percivall

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Holland, Philip

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hollingworth, John

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Holt, Arthur

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Cole, Norman

    Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

    Rees, Hugh

    Collard, Richard

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Renton, David

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Costain, A. P.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Rippon, Geoffrey

    Coulson, J. M.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roots, William

    Critchley, Julian

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Russell, Ronald

    Crowder, F. P.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Seymour, Leslie

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Shaw, M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Simon, Sir Jooelyn

    Dance, James

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stodart, J. A.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Doughty, Charles

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Eden, John

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Teeling, William

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Longbottom, Charles

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Farr, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Turner, Colin

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maddan, Martin

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maginnls, John E.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Wade, Donald

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Woollam, John

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Wall, Patrick

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Webster, David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mr. Gibson-Watt and

    Whitelaw, William

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Mr. Sharples.

    Wigg, George

    Woodnutt, Mark

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oliver, G. H

    Aitken, W. T.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oram, A. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, Percy

    Owen, Will

    Awbery, Stan

    Houghton, Douglas

    Padley, W. E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Howell, Charles A.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Beaney, Alan

    Hughes, Enrys (s. Ayrshire)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Peart, Frederick

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pentland, Norman

    Benson, Sir George

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Blyton, William

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Janner, Barnett

    Randall, Harry

    Bowles, Frank

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Boyden, James

    Jeger, George

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Ross, William

    Burden, F. A.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Short, Edward

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Chetwynd, George

    Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Kelley, Richard

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Collick, Percy

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Snow, Julian

    Cronin, John

    Ledger, Ron

    Sorensen, R. w.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Steele, Thomas

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Stones, William

    Deer, George

    Loughlin, Charles

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Diamond, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Dodds, Norman

    McAdden, Stephen

    Swain, Thomas

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McCann, John

    Sylvester, George

    Driberg, Tom

    MacColl, James

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    McInnes, James

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Mackie, John

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Evans, Albert

    McLeavy, Frank

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fitch, Alan

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Warbey, William

    Fletcher, Eric

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Forman, J. C.

    Mapp, Charles

    Weitzman, David

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marsh, Richard

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mason, Roy

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Wilkins, W. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Meillsh, R. J.

    Willey, Frederick

    Ginsburg, David

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Milne, Edward J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grey, Charles

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Monslow, Walter

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Gunter, Ray

    Morris, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Moyle, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hannan, William

    Neal, Harold

    Dr. Broughton and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Mr. Redhead.

    Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "Act", to insert "or his deputy".
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time we discussed the Amendment in page 2, line 8, after "Board", insert "or his deputy".
    Mr. McAdden: The fact that I move the Amendment briefly does not mean that I do not feel strongly about it. I will be brief because I believe that the Committee wants to make progress as rapidly as possible.
    We had a fairly extensive debate on the last Amendment. This Amendment is transparently clear in its intent. The

    471
    chairman for the time being of the Bookmakers' Committee or his deputy should be entitled to attend meetings of the Levy Board, and similar provision should be made for the chairman of the Tote Board, or his deputy, to attend meetings of the Board.
    It might be argued that if one allows a deputy for the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee and the chairman of the Tote Board it might be desirable for other people to have deputies as well. That is a matter which, if we felt strongly about it, could probably be put right on Report.
    I think that the two things are different. It is the Bookmakers' Committee and the Tote Board which will provide the cash. The others will decide how it is to be spent. It seems to me reasonable that those who pay the piper should be reasonably certain of having a chance of cheeping a little of the tune when the time comes. If it is limited to the chairman of each of the contributing bodies without allowance for illness or for a deputy to attend, it seems that the strong views they might have on these questions would be unrepresented.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will think the Amendment reasonable, that he will recognise that there is a distinction between these two contributing members of the Board and the recipient members of the Board, and will see fit exceptionally to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: We have some sympathy with the Amendment, but there are certain difficulties about it which I think the Committee should bear in mind. First, we are very anxious that this Levy Board should be considered of the greatest importance by its members. It will have most important functions to perform. It will deal with very large sums of money. We hope that every member of the Board will do his utmost to attend every meeting of the Board and that it will not easily be thought that a deputy will do instead. On the other hand, if the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee or the chairman of the Tote Board were to be afflicted by illness, it would certainly be unfortunate if a meeting of the Board had to be postponed, perhaps for some time, to ensure their attendance.
    472
    There is a further point about the Amendment. By implication it rather suggests that a member of the Board is there merely to represent the interests of the Tote or the bookmakers as the case may be, whereas we hope that, whatever the final responsibility for the decisions of the Board may be, as I explained to the Committee on the previous Amendment, all members of the Board will feel it their duty to take part in the discussion on all matters both as to collection and distribution of money which will fall within the responsibility of the Board.
    It might be felt that if deputies could be sent they would not be fully empowered. However, subject to what other views may be expressed, my advice to the Committee would be not to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment but to give us the opportunity of considering the matter further in the light of what my hon. Friend has said and in the light of any views which may be expressed by other hon. Members.
    Sir H. Oakshott: My hon. and learned Friend has asked for views on the Amendment. In one sentence, I ask him to consider this most seriously. I recognise that this Board should be regarded as extremely important and influential and that membership of it should be taken seriously.
    None the less, one can visualise the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee—or the chairman of the Tote Board—being incapacitated perhaps through falling over his umbrella at Newmarket and breaking his leg and therefore being unable to attend the meeting. Some provision should be made for a deputy to represent him.
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look into this question to see whether he could not put down something on Report to cover the point.
    Mr. Ede: I support the request made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), but I hope that if a provision for this is put into the Bill the Bookmakers' Committee, or the Tote Board, as the case may be, will designate the person who is to attend as a deputy. It will not do to have the chairman ringing somebody up on the telephone and saying: "I am sorry old boy but I want to go to the Leger. If you turn up tomorrow you will oblige me very much". It should be understood that it

    473
    is A.B. who is the chairman and that it is C.D. who has been appointed by the body concerned to be his deputy for the kind of contingency envisaged in the Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: I can hardly imagine the Levy Board deciding to meet on the day of the Leger. Nevertheless, I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. As I said earlier, if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment I undertake to consider the matter further before the Report stage.
    Mr. McAdden: In view of the undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend, I willingly seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, having drawn to his attention the fact that not only might the chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee break his leg, but if the impost was too high he might have his leg broken and be unable to attend the meeting. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear this contingency in mind when we consider the Bill on Report.
    Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: No.
    Amendment negatived
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert:
    ", but the Chairman and other two members appointed by the Home Secretary shall be appointed for a definite term of years".
    This brings us back to the appointment by the Home Secretary of the chairman and two independent members, about which we have had a certain amount of debate this afternoon, although we know very little more than we did as to the intentions of the Government in the matter of the persons to be appointed. It is a little confusing to find that they are to be removable at pleasure, and apparently they are not to be appointed for a fixed term of years. The subsection says:
    "any person appointed to be a member of the Levy Board under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection may be removed from the Board at any time by the person by whom he was appointed."
    That is understandable as it relates to the two representatives of the Jockey
    474
    Club and the representative of the National Hunt Committee, but it is difficult to understand why it should apply to the representatives appointed by the Home Secretary.
    If this were a Bill of constitutional importance it would be very queer to find such a provision. On the face of it, it would appear that in the event of disagreement these three gentlemen can receive a moment's notice. That will not provide continuity, and it has been the criticism of some members of the Racecourse Betting Control Board that there has been a lack of continuity in the past. I suggest that continuity will be needed in respect of the appointments of these three gentlemen.
    Secondly, I suggest that unless my right hon. Friend can offer the people who are regarded as possibilities for these jobs a definite term of office it is very unlikely that he will get the best sort of people to carry out this work. I therefore hope that he will agree to write into the Bill a provision laying down a definite term of office for the three key members of the Levy Board.
    Mr. E. Johnson: I support what my hon. Friend has said, and not only for the reasons that he gave. I believe that the converse argument also has some bearing on the matter. These members of the Levy Board will have a great deal of power, and it is not desirable that they should hold office indefinitely. That is one reason why their term should be limited. At the same time, they should have security of tenure for a specified time. I support the Amendment.
    Mr. Vosper: The wording of the subsection follows that of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, in providing that members of the Levy Board shall hold office at pleasure. When I saw the Amendment I went into the matter in rather greater detail and found that in the statutes where this problem arises it has been dealt with in three different ways. The first way is that provided in the Bill; where the appointment is at pleasure. Some statutes fix a definite term of office, and there is the third alternative of fixing a term of office with power to extend it.
    After considering the matter I came to the conclusion that there are arguments in favour of all three courses. The point in favour of the course proposed

    475
    in the Bill at present is that it enables my right hon. Friend to review the position from time to time, according to the conditions of the job and the commitments of the office holders. He would not be committed to confirming in office someone who was unlikely to be able to give sufficient time to it. On the other hand, the present procedure leads to some feeling of insecurity on the part of the members concerned. It also makes it more difficult for my right hon. Friend to persuade a member to relinquish office if no term is stated.
    My present advice to the Committee is that we should reconsider the matter. My right hon. Friend's inclination is to write into the Bill the third of the courses to which I have referred. The appointment would then be for a specified period, with power for my right hon. Friend to extend it annually if he thinks fit. I commend that course to the Committee, and if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment we will consider the point and, probably, on Report move an Amendment on the lines I have suggested.
    Mr. Wingfield Dighy: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me in this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. Oakshott: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out subsection (9).
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): It would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment in Clause 7, page 9, line 15, leave out subsection (8).
    Sir H. Oakshott: My hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment to explore the possibility of reducing the scope of disqualification at present written into the Bill. We believe that it goes too far. In regard to the existing Racecourse Betting Control Board disqualification attaches only to the office of chairman. During the Second Reading debate several hon. Members said that it was widely acknowledged that the effective working of the Board has gained strength from the presence on it of persons such as Lord MacAndrew—formerly Sir Charles MacAndrew—the
    476
    hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is on the Board now. Their counsel has been extremely helpful in the Board's deliberations and has advanced its work.
    I do not suggest that it should be laid down that a Member of Parliament must be included on the Boards, but it would be a great pity if we deliberately excluded the possibility of their membership of both these Boards in respect of any office other than that of chairman, which I agree should be ineligible for Members of Parliament to hold. I imagine that it might be necessary to make some consequential provisions that Members of Parliament occupying these offices should not be allowed to draw any remuneration, although I think that it would be proper for them to receive travelling and subsistence allowances.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend can indicate that he will meet the views of my hon. Friend and myself by reducing the scope of disqualification. I understand that it cannot be removed altogether.
    Mr. Wigg: As the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) has mentioned that I am a member of the Board I need not declare my interest. I rise to point out one effect of the Bill as it stands. The Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee are required to make nominations to the Board, and some Members of the House are also members of the Jockey Club. If the Jockey Club, in its wisdom, chose an hon. Member as its representative on the Board, it seems to me that as the Bill is now drafted that Member would be disqualified from membership of the House. Although there may be a case for putting a prohibition upon Members being nominated by the Home Secretary there seems to be no case for such a prohibition in respect of Members nominated by an outside body.
    I hope, therefore, that the Government will at least be able to give some attention to that detail. I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Bebington said. It seems clear that if any part of the disqualification is removed it should be on the understanding that no remuneration attaches to the job.
    Mr. Ede: I mentioned this matter during the Second Reading debate and

    477
    I tried to draft an Amendment which would meet the detailed points involved were the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) accepted. We all know the problems of a few years back regarding the question of disqualification. An hon. Member would suddenly discover that he held some comparatively honorary office which disqualified him from membership of the House of Commons. One hon. Member, I recall, was an auditor and he audited the funds of his local branch of the British Legion. In order to do that he had to acquire some minor technical qualification and it was found, after he had done this work for several years, that by so doing he had accepted an office under the Crown and was disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. We had to pass an indemnity Measure to relieve him of that disqualification.
    We were determined, when the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act was passed that in the future we did not intend people to be caught out in that silly sort of way. I am also sure that we were convinced that hon. Members ought not to be holding office in the gift of a member of the Government which carried a salary. That goes back to the original trouble in the days of the placemen.
    I wonder whether the draftsmen could submit a Clause to the effect that when a man is offered an appointment, if he undertook not to draw remuneration, he should not be disqualified, but that if he did not want to give such an undertaking he would be disqualified. Then, of course, he would have the right, under the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act, to refuse the appointment. I am quite sure that the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is important, but I am also sure that if there are people—as we know there are hon. Members of the House—willing to perform some unremunerated public service for which they are thought to be qualified, they ought to have the opportunity to do it, if for no other reason than that if they got some employment like that they would not be such a nuisance to the Whips by wandering about with nothing else to do but make trouble.
    Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment. I was a member of the sub-committee which examined in great detail the legislation which became the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), we all agreed that it was most desirable that in future we should remove the anomalous position resulting from the fact that it depended on a purely hazardous interpretation of the Act of Queen Anne whether in certain circumstances an hon. Member was disqualified from membership of this House.
    When the 1957 Act was passed a great deal of thought was given to the question of what kind of offices should in future disqualify from membership of the House of Commons. My own recollection is that as the Act went through its various stages it was not only a question of remuneration which was regarded as a chief criterion for deciding whether a particular office should disqualify or not. I think it was in accordance with the spirit of the 1957 Act that on the setting up of this Levy Board it was agreed that membership should involve disqualification from Membership of the House.
    The Committee will remember that the First Schedule to the 1957 Act contains a great many offices which previously had not involved disqualification from membership of the House of Commons. I recollect that one was the Public Works Loan Board. There was a time when a member of that Board, which is an entirely unremunerative office, could be a Member of the House of Commons. That was one of several offices which disqualified that were added in the 1957 Act. I feel certain that if this Levy Board had been set up before the 1957 Act was passed, membership of it would have been included in that First Schedule.
    It seems to me that disqualification is particularly important when we are setting up a board of this character which has such very wide powers of taxation. We shall have something to say later about the powers given to the Board to impose taxation without any limit on a particular class of the community. That is one reason why I should have thought membership of the Board was inconsistent with membership of the House

    479
    of Commons and so I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The Government welcome this Amendment which provides an opportunity further to ascertain the views of the Committee. Some views were expressed on this issue during the Second Reading debate. I join in the tributes paid by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and to his predecessor the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who have done yeoman service on the Racecourse Betting Control Board for many years.
    As was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—I admire his expertise on this subject—we were, in spirit at any rate, influenced by the House of Commons Disqualification of Members Act. I think I am right in saying that what we put in this Bill was influenced by that procedure, although not governed by it. It would have been open to us to accept almost entirely the Amendment which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). It is true, as was said by the hon. Member for Dudley, that any representative of the Jockey Club nominated for membership of this Board by the Jockey Club, were he a Member of this House, would be disqualified from membership of this House. Similarly, if my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. MacAdden) were nominated as chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee he would be disqualified from membership of the House.
    Sir H. Oakshott: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means would be excluded because of his membership of the National Hunt Committee?
    Mr. Vosper: The reasons for doing this are, first, the general question of patronage under which a Member of Parliament cannot be nominated to fill a position when the nomination is made by a Minister of the Crown, and, secondly, the extent to which on a board of this nature he can relate his activities as a Member with those of being a member of the Board. On balance, we decided that at least we should
    480
    introduce the Bill as strictly as possible and disqualify all members of both Boards. I should have thought that at any rate the chairmen and the two independent members of the Levy Board should remain disqualified. I should have thought, too, that just as the Chairman of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is disqualified under present procedure, so should the Chairman of the Totalisator Board be disqualified under this Bill. But I think that different circumstances arise in respect of the functional members of the Levy Board and the three remaining members of the Totalisator Board. I do not think that the reasons for their disqualification are anything like so great.
    The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) advanced an interesting point which we have considered, that this in some way should be associated with remuneration. We should like to consider that further. We have considered the issue, but we were anxious to obtain further views from the Committee. My present advice to the Committee would be that while the chairman and independent members of the Levy Board should be disqualified and the Chairman of the Totalisator Board, we should not disqualify the functional members of the Levy Board and the three other members of the Totalisator Board. That is subject to what has been said today and anything else which may be said in this debate. I ask my hon. Friend in due course to withdraw his Amendment because I think that in its entirety it would be unacceptable.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Member did not mention the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), namely, that all members of this Board will in effect be sharing in levying taxation on a section of the community. That is a very important consideration, which is quite different from the point about remuneration. It should at least be borne in mind when the Government are considering this matter.
    Mr. Vosper: That is one of the reasons why the Bill was introduced in its present form. We shall certainly bear that in mind.
    Sir H. Oakshott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said.

    481
    In view of the undertakings given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF LEVY BOARD.)
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end to insert
    "with or without modifications".
    The Committee will see in Clause 2 (2, d) that a distribution scheme is to be submitted by the Levy Board to the Secretary of State for approval. That follows the wording in the 1920 Act in respect of the Tote Board. It was suggested on Second Reading that, particularly in order to meet the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education, the Home Secretary should be able to correct—if that is the word—the distribution scheme so as to make sure, if necessary, that the needs of veterinary science and veterinary education are properly attended to. With the aid of this Amendment, that would be possible, because the Home Secretary would be able to make modifications to the scheme. In the natural course of events he would of course consult the Board about any modification he proposed to make.
    I should add that it would be open to him to make modifications about any other matter, not merely in respect of veterinary science and veterinary education. When representations are made to him about what the distribution scheme should contain he will consider whether or not a modification should be made. I think that this is an Amendment which will be generally acceptable to the Committee.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends welcome this Amendment, but it is worth pointing out that its effect will probably be wider than the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated. It seems that it would enable the Secretary of State, if he so wanted, to turn inside out any scheme proposed by the Levy Board. I do not suppose that he would go to that length, but the words,
    "with or without modifications"
    482
    are capable of very wide application. The Secretary of State could reject a great deal of the substance of any proposed distribution and insert his own wishes about how the levy should be distributed. It would enable him to disregard the wishes of the Levy Board and substitute his own ideas on distribution, because that is what modification involves. I do not dissent from that. I point it out because I think that it has a bearing on the subject we shall be discussing later in regard to Parliamentary control.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has made a valid point. It is true that, strictly speaking, on the wording I have proposed the Secretary of State would have a wide power of making modifications. In the nature of things, however, it is the Levy Board which has the necessary expert advice at its disposal through the various representatives on it. That would enable the right decisions to be taken about how the money should be distributed. It is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would make nonsense of a scheme originally submitted by the Levy Board, but he might make quite substantial modifications after consulting it.
    We are in the difficulty from a drafting point of view that we are dealing with a variety of possible circumstances. We cannot start detailing exactly the modifications which the Secretary of State might reasonably make and those which he ought not to make. We therefore ask the Committee to say that he should have power to make modifications, knowing that that power will be used wisely and that the Home Secretary can be questioned in the House about it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Peart: I beg to move in, page 3, line 35, at the end to edd:
    Provided that any such scheme shall make provision for not less than seven per cent. of the moneys available to be applied for the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.
    In moving this Amendment I am reinforced by what the Under-Secretary said a moment or two ago when he referred to expert advice being given on the preparation of a scheme and about how the money should be used. I stress that

    483
    in view of the attitude of the Government on the previous Amendment referring to the composition of the Board, when they rejected the idea of a representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons being on the Board. I feel that we should write into the Bill what we have put in the Amendment.
    I shall not make a long speech on this matter, for previously we have discussed the importance of veterinary education and the importance of advancing and encouraging it in every way. We suggest that this should be written into the Bill, especially in relation to Clause 2, as it is one of the main purposes of Clause 1 (1). We are seeking to create a limit so that the amount of money spent by the Board is not less than the amount stated in the Amendment. We think that is reasonable. It is a safeguard to ensure that the Levy Board acts in this direction and conforms to the spirit of Clause 1.
    Mr. Renton: Our advice to the Committee is to reject this Amendment for the following reasons. First, it would fetter the Board in an arbitrary way. The amount of money which veterinary science will get, whether as a percentage or as a total, will depend, first, on the needs of veterinary science as ascertained by the Board. That will be quite easily ascertained, perhaps with the help of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who, I am sure, will not be hesitant in the matter.
    Secondly, it will have to bear some relation to the total number of bookmakers and the amounts which it is felt by the Bookmakers' Committee advising the Levy Board—and perhaps, in the event of dispute, decided by the chairman and independent members—that bookmakers can pay. Then the global amount and the amount of the levy will have to be worked out. In the light of that, the amount allocated finally to veterinary science will be ascertained.
    7.0 p.m.
    If we tie the Board to giving a minimum of 7 per cent., it could in some future years, when the levy scheme is perhaps producing quite a large amount of money, lead to an even greater sum being allocated to veterinary science than might seem to be appropriate in the circumstances.
    484
    I must confess that I am looking some time ahead, and that is not the most material point which it is necessary to make.
    The point which it is necessary to make is that we should not attempt to fetter the Board in its discretion in this matter. It will be a carefully chosen Board of men of knowledge and judgment, who will be able to obtain all the expert knowledge that is required. It will have to weigh the relative merits of the various proposals put before it. There is the further point that if we lay down a minimum percentage for one of the various interests which, under the Bill, it will be expected to foster in the distribution scheme, it would seem logical to lay down percentages for the other interests as well. Surely, that is a thing which we ought not to do when giving this opportunity to the industry to improve its own affairs.
    For these reasons, my advice is that the Committee should reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: I was tempted at one stage to put down an Amendment regarding the payment of money by the Levy Board, because there are one or two aspects of racing which I think require special attention. While I have not put down such an Amendment, I hope I may be forgiven for using this occasion to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to it, not only because it buttons his argument about what happens if we try to preserve these special interests. There is one aspect of racing which is particularly dangerous, but which gets little or no public recognition.
    I refer to the boys, and many of them are anything but boys, who school National Hunt horses in training. This is a job that requires cold courage, if ever any job required it, and the Racecourse Betting Control Board has tried to deal with this problem, as it tried to deal with making a contribution to veterinary science on common-sense lines. It seems to me, however, impracticable to write into the Bill that a specific amount ought to be given for a specific object. I share the views of my hon. Friend that it would be desirable if it could be achieved, but I believe that in the end it would thwart the objective we have in mind.
    I think that one of the very first claims on any money that comes in should be on behalf of the humbler members in

    485
    racing, who should get more recognition from the fund. I am not posing the problem of the need to help veterinary science, but I think we should better serve the object which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Pearl) has in mind by not trying to write it into the Bill, but by pressing the more fruitful line of trying to tie up all the various forces at work in the world of veterinary science to make joint representations to the new Levy Board to get as much as they can. I am not posing the problem of the horse versus the man, but obviously in the case of the horse there are some highly developed methods of approach. In the case of the man there is none. This is not an occupation which lends itself to organisation in trade unions and the like, and I hope very much that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of what has been said in the debate. Obviously, the Government will resist the Amendment, but I hope that the Under-Secretary
    will draw the attention of the Levy Board to what has been said by my hon. Friend, and will perhaps do me the honour of drawing attention to what I am saying about the need for generous treatment through the National Hunt Benevolent Fund.
    Mr. Peart: I was nearly tempted by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) not to press this Amendment, but I still intend to press it, because of the Government's attitude on the previous Clause. Clearly, we must press this point, because we feel that there must be some provision of this kind. Although there may be practical difficulties, on principle I must still press this Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 163. Noes 201.

    Division No. 25.]

    AYES

    [7.6 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mapp, Charles

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marsh, Richard

    Awbery, Stan

    Grey, Charles

    Mason, Roy

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Meillsh, R. J.

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Beaney, Alan

    Gunter, Ray

    Millan, Bruce

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Milne, Edward J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hannan, William

    Monslow, Walter

    Blyton, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Herblson, Miss Margaret

    Morris, John

    Bowles, Frank

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mort, D. L.

    Boyden, James

    Holman, Percy

    Moyle, Arthur

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Neal, Harold

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Owen, Will

    Callaghan, James

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Padley, W. E.

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Chetwynd, George

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Cliffe, Michael

    Janner, Barnett

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Collick, Percy

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Peart, Frederick

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George

    Pentland, Norman

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Cronin, John

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Probert, Arthur

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Randall, Harry

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dodds, Norman

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lawson, George

    Ross, William

    Driberg, Tom

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Short, Edward

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Evans, Albert

    Loughlin, Charles

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fitch, Alan

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McCann, John

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    MacColl, James

    Snow, Julian

    Forman, J. c.

    McInnes, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mackie, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McLeavy, Frank

    Steele, Thomas

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Stones, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Manuel, A. C.

    Strachey, Rt. Hn. John

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Swain, Thomas

    Warbey, William

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Sylvester, George

    Watkins, Tudor

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Willey, Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grimond, J.

    Nugent, Sir Richard

    Arbuthnot, John

    Grimston, Sir Robert

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gurden, Harold

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Barter, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Batsford, Brian

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Partridge, E.

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Percival, Ian

    Bidgood, John C.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Bishop, F. P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bossom, Clive

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Pott, Percivall

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Box, Donald

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hiley, Joseph

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Brewis, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bryan, Paul

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bullard, Denys

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Rees, Hugh

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Holland, Philip

    Renton, David

    Burden, F. A.

    Hollingworth, John

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Holt, Arthur

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Roots, William

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Russell, Ronald

    Clark, William (Nottingham, s.)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Cole, Norman

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sharples, Richard

    Collard, Richard

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Shaw, M.

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shepherd, William

    Corfield, F. V.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Costain, A P.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Coulson, J. M.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Critchley, Julian

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stodart, J. A.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cunningham, Knox

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Teeling, William

    Dance, James

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Deedes, W. F.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    McAdden, Stephen

    Turner, Colin

    Eden, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Maitland, Sir John

    Wade, Donald

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Wall, Patrick

    Farr, John

    Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

    Webster, David

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marten, Neil

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Mawby, Ray

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gardner, Edward

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. G.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Stratton

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Godber, J. B.

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Woollam, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morrison, John

    Worsley, Marcus

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Gower, Raymond

    Neave, Airey

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Mr. Peel and Mr. Noble.

    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, at the end to add:
    (3) Every scheme prepared by the Levy Board and approved by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    I will not speak on the Amendment at great length, but it is a matter to which we attach considerable importance. It concerns the expenditure of money, not the raising of money, for that arises later. This is a question of the disbursement of the funds which the Levy Board receives. In our view, the distribution of the funds between one interest and another raises a number of matters of public policy and in the last resort should be discussable by Parliament at the will of Parliament.
    The whole question of the share of expenditure between one interest and another is in itself of very great public concern. There are such issues as whether the Board is thought to be propping up uneconomic and unnecessary courses, which is a matter of considerable public policy, and there is still the question, which we have not been able to deal with by Amendment so far, of how much of the Levy Board's money should go to veterinary science, for example. It may be right that we ought not to tie that down too tightly in the Bill, but it remains of great concern whether enough is being provided year by year from the disbursement of the Board to these public services. It would undoubtedly have an effect upon policy if it knew that its actions and decisions in these matters could be discussed by the House—although, of course, they need not necessarily be discussed. Previous experience shows that a very tiny proportion of the sums available have gone to public services.
    Since the Bill was before us in its original form, we have made an Amendment that the Secretary of State shall approve the expenditure policy of the Levy Board with or without modifications. He can therefore use, or refrain from using, his power as a Minister. It is therefore important that he should be answerable to us, because he has taken a new power to himself in the Amendment which provides that he can modify
    490
    the Levy Board's proposals or fail to modify them. This is a power which should be watched by the House of Commons.
    In the Bill we are giving very great power to vested interests to do things which, one way or another, affect a large section of the public—all those members of the public concerned with race-going and betting. The hon. and learned Member will no doubt say that the Secretary of State has to approve this levy, and we certainly want that, but it is not enough. We also want him to be answerable to the House and to any hon. Member who wishes to raise any questions, particularly now that he has taken to himself this power to modify the board's proposals
    In this Amendment we are not just asking that the Levy Board proposals, as amended or otherwise by the Secretary of State, should be laid before Parliament in its annual report, but that they can be prayed against by negative Resolution. We are not asking that there should be regular or constant debates on this matter. Had we been doing so we should have asked for the affirmative Resolution procedure. What we are asking for is the right to raise the question whether the Levy Board is distributing its money broadly in accordance with what the House regards as public policy and the right to question the Home Secretary about his failure or action in modifying the Levy Board's proposals.
    Our Amendment gives hon. Members the right to raise the matter from time to time. Without the Amendment the matter could not be raised at all. The Secretary of State could act in some ways secretly. After looking at the Levy Board's proposals, he could modify them and, without the Amendment, we should not know how far they had been amended or otherwise. This would not lead to regular or frequent debates, but would give the House the right to raise these matters of public policy. It is because we think that this right should exist, even if only rarely used, that we ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: The Amendment has a purpose which every hon. Member must approve. We must accept that there are

    491
    certain difficulties. At the moment the system of control exercised by the Home Secretary is that schemes will have to go to him for approval. This was under Section 3 (6) of the 1928 Act. Even after this Bill has been amended along the lines introduced by the Government this afternoon, exactly the same procedure will be followed. Schemes will be put forward by racecourses or in connection with the travelling of horses and the like. They will then be discussed and become approved schemes after discussions and very close consultation with the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee. I do not think my right hon. Friend understands that these schemes are going on all the time. Discussions are going on all the time.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I quite understand that.
    Mr. Wigg: Then we have made the point.
    As regards travelling allowances, a bout of coughing or a change in the weather from soft to hard going can affect greatly the amount of money which has to be allocated for those specific purposes. Therefore, if the Home Secretary is to come to the House of Commons with schemes drafted in such precise terms as to be responsive to the negative procedure he will either have to have a date after which no alterations may be made, or open a special department in the Home Office to consider the thousand and one amendments which will be coming in all the time. Some of these are tiny schemes, some are big schemes involving the erection of new stands, and some are schemes involving the reorganisation of racecourses.
    Racecourses themselves want the maximum amount of flexibility. At the moment it seems to me that there is complete and effective control inasmuch as the schemes are hammered out on the ground by those who know most about them. They then go to the governing bodies, come back to the Racecourse Betting Control Board and then to the Home Secretary who can object to them if he wishes. The only argument is whether after the Home Secretary has approved them he shall then table a prayer which is responsive
    492
    to the negative procedure. It may well be that the Home Secretary has some administrative use up his sleeve which he can utilise for this purpose, but there is no doubt that those concerned with the preparation of these things at the level of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will view this with alarm.
    It is not binding on the Committee, but it may be of interest for hon. Members to know that the Board has considered this proposal with very great care. It believes that the present method, which has been hammered out on the anvil of experience, should be changed only after the most careful and thoughtful consideration.
    Mr. Renton: I think it is common ground between us that so far as the distribution scheme is concerned there needs to be a measure of Parliamentary control, even if it is of an indirect kind. Some measure of Ministerial responsibility should be engaged. The view which the Government takes is that the only effective control that can be exercised is through my right hon. Friend having the power to approve the scheme and to modify it if, in the light of any representation, he thinks it should be modified. As I said earlier, he can be questioned in the House about any scheme he has approved and about any modifications he has made.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: How does the House come into possession of the scheme? How does it know and therefore come into possession of it?
    Mr. Renton: The House can come into possession of the matter in two ways. First, any potential beneficiary which feels that it should have its interests properly safeguarded in the scheme and given a certain amount of money, and which feels things are not going quite as well as it should, can undoubtedly approach any hon. Member of this House and a Question can be put to my right hon. Friend about it. The more formal way in which my right hon. Friend's responsibility can be engaged, is through the laying of the report before Parliament, as can be done at the moment under the 1928 Act, with the report of the Totalisator Board. Such reports, either under the 1928 Act or the reports of the Levy Board under the Bill, can be debated in this House.

    493
    It so happens that during the thirty-one years of the existence of the Totalisator Board, so far as I am advised, there has never been a debate, nor do I know of a demand for a debate. That is naturally a matter which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind.
    I think the difference between us is that the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman would render the making of a Statutory Instrument the condition of approval of the scheme. In other words, as I understand him, he does not wish any money to be spent under the scheme until a Statutory Instrument has been made and has lain on the Table of this House for forty days and either no action has been taken or, the forty days having expired, no action can be taken. That is his view. There should be that hold-up in the sanction of the scheme. We say that that is impracticable. We rely on the experience that has been gained in getting the Secretary of State's approval of schemes under the 1928 Act. What do we find there? As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out, schemes and grants under that Act are the subject of pretty frequent correspondence and so on, between the Home Office and the Board. It is not as though a scheme can be got out before the beginning of a financial year about which it can be said, "That is the final scheme. Please approve it in one go."
    7.30 p.m.
    It cannot be done. Experience has shown that that is so. As the year goes on modifications have to be made to it at the instigation of the Totalisator Board. Sometimes racecourse executives, having been given authority by the Totalisator Board and that authority having been approved by the Secretary of State, find that it is not just what they need. It may be found that one racecourse has slightly overestimated its requirements and another racecourse underestimated its requirements. In other words, this is a running operation to a great extent, although naturally some provisional budget is always worked out.
    The Amendment would give rise to a further difficulty, which I think is conclusive. The amount which can be distributed each year must depend on the amount available. Incidentally, I hope
    494
    that it is not out of order for me to mention that the right hon. Gentleman also wants the amount available to be subject to prior Parliamentary sanction.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Even more so.
    Mr. Renton: It would be a quite impossible position if both the amount available and the amount to be distributed were in detail to be finally subject to Parliamentary sanction as written into a Statutory Instrument, subject to negative Resolution—or, indeed, affirmative Resolution—but we are not discussing that.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a degree of Ministerial responsibility, but in the nature of things it cannot take the form of a priori approval. It has to take the form of ex post facto control. I hope that the Commitee will forgive the Latin terms, but they are so compendious to explain the position.
    Bearing these considerations in mind and the practical difficulties based on thirty years' experience, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the Amendment was moved I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press it.
    Mr. McInnes: I am anything but satisfied with the observations of the Under-Secretary. I have never known such a controversial Bill where there has been so little Ministerial responsibility and, indeed, so little Parliamentary control generally. I rather gathered that the hon. Gentleman said that Parliament would get to know when such schemes were prepared and when such distributions would be made. He did not say how Parliament would learn that. That is what concerns me.
    A scheme may be approved in March. Distribution may take place in April. It may be October before it comes to my knowledge, because no documentary evidence will be submitted to Parliament to indicate that the Home Secretary has approved the scheme and the distribution. If I tabled a Question as late as October, it would be a fait accompli. I should only learn what had been done. I could not make any condemnation of the type of scheme which had been approved, the amount of money which had been allocated, or the body to which it had been allocated.

    495
    The only extent of Ministerial control in the Bill appears to be that the Home Secretary shall approve schemes of distribution. He shall appoint certain members to the Levy Board and to the tribunal. He shall approve the remuneration and allowances to the members he appoints. He shall be responsible, in a way, for the appointment of the Bookmakers' Committee. Apart from that, there is no Ministerial responsibility and no measure of Parliamentary control. There is no avenue in the Bill which will enable Members of Parliament to learn what the schemes are, the total amount of money distributed, the bodies to which it has been distributed, and so on. That is most unsatisfactory. To that extent, I wholeheartedly support the observations of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. McAdden: I fully appreciate the force of the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend. I quite understand that it would be very difficult for schemes to go forward at the right time if they had to wait until the whole thing had been tabled before Parliament and discussed.
    Nevertheless, I do not think that it meets the situation to say that accounts could be placed before Parliament in due time and discussed then. It will be familiar to hon. Members on both sides that accounts are notable not only for what they reveal but, even more so, for what they conceal.
    I make no criticism of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and I hope that it will not take my remarks as a criticism. I sought to find information as to how figures were broken down. Twelve months ago my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would write to the Board and try to find out. I have not had an answer yet.
    It is desirable that we should have more information about the schemes and the break-up of the schemes into various sections than is so far provided. While I recognise that the Amendment is not perhaps the form of words in which it should be done, I hope that my hon. and learned friend will look at the matter again between now and Report.
    Mr. Fletcher: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the
    496
    hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) have said, the Amendment raises an issue of primary constitutional importance. The Under-Secretary's approach was deplorable. He failed to answer the criticisms which have been made of this part of the Bill in its present form.
    What is at issue is this. In the Bill we deviate from the recognised control by the House of Commons over financial administration. The matter was succinctly put in a debate last May by the present Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the whole basis of this method of raising money as being contrary to the fundamental principle that money extracted from the taxpayer should be paid into the Consolidated Fund and paid out of the Consolidated Fund only on a Vote of the House of Commons.
    The Under-Secretary has not attempted to challenge the validity of the principle which is at stake. He merely said that it was impracticable to lay these schemes in the form of a Statutory Instrument. That argument, if extended, could be applied logically to defeat all the processes by which Parliament at present exercises financial control over the expenditure of the Government.
    It is no more difficult to provide in a Statutory Instrument a scheme for the proposed expenditure of money raised from the public than it is to prepare Votes which have to be passed, year by year, whether in the ordinary Estimates or in the Supplementary Estimates, before the Government of the day can expend any part of the public funds raised from the taxpayer and paid into the Consolidated Fund.
    It is arrant nonsense to try to resist the Amendment on the ground that it is impracticable. Over the centuries we in this country have established a method of financial control over the Executive which is very rigid, and rightly so. There may be difficulties, owing to our Parliamentary procedure, in scrutinising all the items of expenditure by the Government. The Leader of the House has been engaged recently in devising methods whereby the House can spend more time examining and criticising Government

    497
    expenditure. If that is important in relation to ordinary Government expenditure, a fortiori it is necessary when money is raised, not by the ordinary process of taxation—through the Budget—but by this independent Levy Board which will be able to raise without any limit money by way of taxation from a special section of the community.
    The Under-Secretary said that it would be too cumbersome to put this into Statutory Instruments. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said the same. I wonder if my hon. Friend has ever read any Statutory Instruments. They are laid before the House of Commons regularly.
    In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments I know that hundreds of them are laid every year. The Minister served for a long time on that Committee and will be as familiar with that as I am, and as are other hon. Members. He will know that every Department—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Transporti—is regularly dealing by way of Statutory Instruments with matters of far greater complexity than this.
    He knows perfectly well that no great difficulty arises from the complicated nature of a subject in putting something in a Statutory Instrument for the approval of the House or, alternatively, giving the House an opportunity of rejection by means of a Prayer. That happens frequently. It has become our established method of dealing with delegated legislation. It is therefore absurd for the Minister to say that it is impracticable in this case.
    With what are we dealing? We are dealing with schemes whereby this public money will be expended, and what we want to know within the scheme are the proportions in which that public money will be expended by the various bodies set out in Clause 1, in order that we may have an opportunity to criticise. The Minister has conceded the necessity for some Parliamentary control over the Executive of the day, but his argument was that that control is adequately safeguarded by other means.
    He said that we shall be able to put questions to the Home Secretary and have an opportunity to debate the annual report. When my right hon. Friend asked
    498
    how we shall know what is in the schemes there was no satisfactory answer. The Minister said that any potential beneficiaries can complain. How, when a scheme has been made, is a potential beneficiary to know whether he is in the scheme or out of it? The Minister spoke of an obligation to lay a report, but there is nothing in the Statute that requires the report to set out the details of the scheme.
    Let it be further observed that these reports are only to be made annually, and only at the end of the levy period. There is no time limit within which they must be laid, and even when they are laid it will be too late for the House to comment on them or to criticise them. The Minister, referring to the existing procedure for the Betting Levy Board by which it makes reports, said none of those reports has come up for criticism. In other words, it has been found that that machinery to give Parliamentary control is ineffective and valueless. Opportunities for criticism by Parliamentary Question will not arise here, and it will be even worse if, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley the details may be changed day by day or month by month—for which I myself can see no necessity.
    I assume that at some stage with these schemes the Government will decide how much will be appropriated to the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and veterinary education. That is one of the statutory objects of dispensing the benefits under the levy. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shown a great interest in trying to tighten the provisions of the Bill so as to ensure that adequate appropriation is made for these purposes, but how shall we know that it is made? If the Minister has his way, we shall not know until, perhaps, a year after the scheme has been made how the allocations to the other purposes of the Bill have been spent. That will not be adequate. It will not enable Parliament to exercise its duty of challenging, correcting, and criticising Ministers.
    We feel very strongly about this. We feel that the Bill violates a large number of cherished fundamental principles, and that it will be tolerable only if adequate safeguards are written into it to ensure that at all times there is full and effective

    499
    Parliamentary control over the Secretary of State who is ultimately to be responsible because he is to have the power to modify to any degree he likes schemes laid before him by the Levy Board.
    I believe that the only way in which this Parliamentary control can be achieved is by requiring the scheme to be laid as a Statutory Instrument so that anyone who so desires can pray against it. That has not only proved to be an effective method of enabling the House to criticise when it wishes to, but the fact that Prayers are raised against only a small minority of the hundreds of Statutory Instruments that are laid every year shows that the obligation to lay them has, in itself, a salutary effect in making the Government put into their schemes the precise measures they want.
    It was either the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who said that it would not be possible to produce all these schemes with the degree of precision required. Why not? A degree of precision is required in the expenditure and application of public money, and this is one of the means by which Parliament can see that it is done. I hope that the Committee will insist on the Amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I am sorry to weary the committee again, but some of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) puzzle me very greatly. I said on Second Reading that I understood from the Minister of Health that he was a purist—a Gladstonian Liberal—but that I did not expect it from these benches.
    I have been in this House for fifteen years, and remember the great debates that took place when we were nationalising certain industries. What were we then seeking to do? We were seeking to make those commercial undertakings responsible to Parliament, but the one thing that we on this side sought was to avoid, at all costs, interference in the day-to-day workings of those industries—
    Mr. McInnes: We are not seeking to interfere with the day-to-day working, but are only seeking the opportunity of
    500
    reviewing the scheme as originally submitted.
    Mr. Wigg: No, on the contrary. My hon. Friend cannot have listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said. He said that we had no opportunity of debating the work of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, but that Board's report for 1959 was available early in 1960. Its reports are similar in character, and just as comprehensible and lucid as the reports of any nationalised industry. All the details are there, and if hon. Members were not satisfied they could have sought enlightenment by putting down Parliamentary Questions.
    This, too, is a great commercial undertaking, and if the Home Secretary or anyone else thinks that he will get any hon. Member to serve on these Boards if for every action they take they must first go to Newbury, and then wait for forty days, he is mistaken. They will not work on that basis.
    As I said on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends seem to be in the great tradition of John Stuart Mill. I am not—I am a Socialist. That is why I support the Bill. This is an excellent Measure. It uses the power of the State to regulate an industry, to give it an opportunity to govern itself, and to be answerable to Parliament in the public interest. I should have thought that hon. Members would have supported that with enthusiasm—
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is my hon. Friend now telling us that it is a habit of this Government to introduce Socialist Measures?
    Mr. Wigg: Occasionally, yes. Occasionally, by the logic of events, the Government are forced to do so, as, perhaps, my right hon. Friend may one day be forced by the logic of events to change his thinking on defence. There is an irrefutable logic in these things. One cannot argue about the ultimate. Incidentally, the Home Secretary has always been an under-the-counter Socialist, because the major part of his life has been given up to good works. He is always recognised—
    Mr. McAdden: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that we could resolve

    501
    some of our present difficulties by allowing the Jockey Club to take the place of the National Executive of the Labour Party?
    Mr. Wigg: That is a very interesting thought, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can exchange views on it on some other occasion. What I am asserting is that it is quite impracticable for my hon. Friends to ask the Government to do as they ask. With great indignation, my hon. Friend says, "Of course, the Government have to know." How? Are they to create a vast bureaucracy that will go to every racecourse? Has every scheme to wait for the last jot and comma before it is put forward and
    action taken, or is the Home Secretary going to have a starting date by which all the schemes must be in, and nothing can be altered? We want accountability to the public and that is done through the tabling of the annual report. I hope that the Levy Board will produce reports as good and as comprehensive as the Racecourse Betting Control Board has produced. I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there added:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 200.

    Division No. 26.]

    AYES

    [7.51 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Owen, Will

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Padley, W. E.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Holman, Percy

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Benson, Sir George

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Peart, Frederick

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Blyton, William

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Probert, Arthur

    Boyden, James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Janner, Barnett

    Rankin, John

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, George

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

    Chetwynd, George

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ross, William

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Short, Edward

    Collick, Percy

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Cronin, John

    Kelley, Richard

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Key Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lawson, George

    Snow, Julian

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Deer, George

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Diamond, John

    Loughlin, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dodds, Norman

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Steele, Thomas

    Driberg, Tom

    MacColl, James

    Stones, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    McInnes, James

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Swain, Thomas

    Fitch, Alan

    McLeavy, Frank

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mapp, Charles

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Marsh, Richard

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mason, Roy

    Warbey, William

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Millan, Bruce

    Watkins, Tudor

    Ginsburg, David

    Milne, Edward J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Gourlay, Harry

    Monslow, Walter

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Grey, Charles

    Moody, A. S.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morris, John

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mort, D. L.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Hannan, William

    Oram, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bidgood, John C.

    Bullard, Denys

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bishop, F. P.

    Burden, F. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Bossom, Clive

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Barter, John

    Box, Donald

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Batsford, Brian

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Bryan, Paul

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Holland, Philip

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hollingworth, John

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hopkins, Alan

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Cole, Norman

    Hornby, R. P.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Collard, Richard

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Rees, Hugh

    Costain, A. P.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Renton, David

    Coulson, J. M.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roots, William

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Curran, Charles

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Russell, Ronald

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kitson, Timothy

    Seymour, Leslie

    Dance, James

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shaw, M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shepherd, William

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Duncan, Sir James

    Longbottom, Charles

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stodart, J. A.

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Talbot, John E.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Farr, John

    Maopherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Teeling, William

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maddan, Martin

    Temple, John M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maginnis, John E.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maitland, Sir John

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Marten, Neil

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Gardner, Edward

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Turner, Colin

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mawby, Ray

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Godber, J. B.

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. G.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Goodhew, Victor

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Gower, Raymond

    Morrison, John

    Wade, Donald

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wall, Patrick

    Green, Alan

    Neave, Airey

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Webster, David

    Gurden, Harold

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

    Whitelaw, William

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wigg, George

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Partridge, E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peel, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Hendry, Forbes

    Percival, Ian

    Woollam, John

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Pott, Percivall

    Mr. Edward Wakefield and

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Mr. Sharples.

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(BOOKMAKERS' LEVY SCHEMES.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    (2) The total amount of contributions payable by bookmakers by way of a levy in accordance with a scheme having effect for any levy period under this section shall not exceed in respect of that period the sum of one million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
    It is possible for me to speak to this Amendment with, I hope, commendable brevity because I advanced some of the arguments on Second Reading. I wish
    504
    to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that there have been very many occasions during the preparation and passage of the Bill so far when the advice of the Peppiatt Committee has been utterly ignored. It seems to me that the Government really must justify in some way their attempt to disregard the advice which has been given to them by the Peppiatt Committee, a very excellent and responsible body of people who might be expected to know something about the problem, especially since their number included the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who was known to many of us in the House of Commons as Sir Thomas Dugdale and who served the House both as back bench Member and

    505
    as Minister. Lord Crathorne is himself a distinguished member of the Jockey Club.
    After having considered the question of how much should be contributed through a levy for the general benefit of racing, the Peppiatt Committee came to certain definite conclusions. In paragraph 61 the Committee said:
    "We are unable to accent the suggestion of the Jockey Club that a yearly levy of £3 million represents a realistic assessment of the requirements of the industry of horse racing."
    This was, as I say, the view of an independent body having in its membership a prominent member of the Jockey Club. The Committee went on to say:
    "We recommend a levy of £1m.-£¼m. for the first year of full operation. This sum would provide approximately £100,000 for breeding and veterinary science; approximately £250,000 for increased prize money; and approximately £500,000-£750,000 for the improvement of amenities on racecourses."
    This, again, was the view of a body of people independent in their judgment who unanimously came to those conclusions.
    Her Majesty's Government have in the Bill sought to give power to a body outside Parliament, without even the approval of the Home Secretary, to fix a sum of money which shall be taken from private citizens in this country carrying on a business recognised by the Government as legitimate, and, further, they have done that without providing for any ceiling figure to be imposed upon the amount of money which may be taken in that way.
    In my view, this is quite wrong. It is wrong for the House of Commons to delegate responsibility for taxation to an outside body without any limit on the amount to which it can go. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State suggested to me on Second Reading that perhaps I should be wiser not to insist upon a ceiling because, if I remember aright, to insist upon a ceiling would mean that we should set a target figure to which the Levy Board might continually aspire—or words to that effect. Speaking for myself, I would sooner take the chance of the Levy Board having a target of £1¼ million as the amount to which it should go rather than give it free and unfettered control to go as high as it liked.
    506
    All the views which I hold upon this matter have been fostered and encouraged by speeches which have been made from both sides of the Chamber emphasising the need of this or that supplicant for assistance from the bookmakers. I suggest that this Committee ought seriously to consider whether it is wise to give such wide discretion to an outside body to levy taxation. I have put down the Amendment in order to suggest that we should be guided by the views of the independent body which examined the matter and unanimously recommended in a certain sense. As I say, this body, having among its members a distinguished and prominent member of the Jockey Club, came to the conclusion that the figures advanced by the Jockey Club itself were completely unrealistic and suggested that £1¼ million was about the right figure to aim at. This being so, there is no reason why Parliament should not profit from that advice. We set up the Committee in order to have its advice.
    I am fortified in my view by the experience of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who himself said that one of the problems which will confront the Levy Board in the near future will be an embarrassment of riches. The Board will have so much money coming into its coffers, so the hon. Gentleman says, not only from the Tote Board but from the bookmakers as well, that it will be a little puzzled about what to do with it all. This may or may not be true. I have never myself found it to be true that, when there is money available and to be had for the asking, one has difficulty in getting rid of it.
    In the circumstances, I urge the Committee to take the wise course and be guided by the Peppiatt Committee. Let us accept the figure of £1¼ million suggested in the Report. At any rate, let us see how things go. Let us say to the Levy Board, "We give you authority to levy taxation upon private citizens without Parliamentary control up to a maximum of £1¼ million. If you want more, come back and say so". To give wide discretionary powers to such a Board to raise whatever sum it likes from a limited number of Her Majesty's citizens conducting a legitimate business is, in my view, a negation of responsibility

    507
    on the part of this Committee and I say that we should refuse to accept it.
    I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) bases his case upon a recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee, but I must point out that that Peppiatt recommendation is quite different from his Amendment. The Peppiatt recommendation was that there should be an amount of between £1 million and £1¼ million as the sum to be aimed at in the first year of full operation of the Levy. My hon. Friend's Amendment is to the effect that the total amount, the maximum amount, for any levy period, that is to say, for the rest of the time that the Bill is in operation, shall not exceed £1¼ million.
    Mr. McAdden May I invite my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the Peppiatt Report? In paragraph 62, the Committee does not say anything about the figure of £1 million to £1¼ million being the figure to be aimed at. It says in precise terms:
    "We recommend a levy of £1m.-£1¼m. for the first year of full operation."
    On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend said that I should be wise not to press this point, because my figure, the figure which the Peppiatt recommended, might be accepted as a target. One would normally be led to assume that such a target would go down, not up. Therefore, I think I am justified in putting into the Amendment the figure of £1¼ million not as a figure to be aimed at but as the figure specifically recommended by the Peppiatt Committee.
    Mr. Renton: I do not wish to cross swords on a false premise with my hon. Friend. He is referring to the conclusions of the Peppiatt Committee which are summarised in paragraph 62. Paragraph 62 refers one back to paragraph 31, which is the one I quoted.
    However, the point really is that the Peppiatt Committee's recommendation referred to the first year of operation. My hon. Friend's Amendment would fix a limit for the rest of the time that the Bill was in operation; it would refer to
    508
    all future years, unless, of course, the Bill were somehow amended. No provision at all has been made in the Bill as to how large the levy should be. This is left to be agreed between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee, or, if there is a dispute between them, it is to be settled by the three independent members.
    The amount of the levy—and the three independent members would have to bear this in mind—would depend in any year upon three factors: first, the needs of horse racing; second, the capacity of the bookmakers to pay; third, the need to balance the amounts taken from the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board and to do so in an equitable manner. Those are not matters which can be determined in advance in such a way as to say that any particular sum should necessarily be the maximum.
    These factors depend not only on the needs of racing but on such things as the number of registered bookmakers, and that cannot be known till we have the list from the licensing authorities which we hope to have next May; it also depends on the individual capacities of bookmakers to pay, as advised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and that cannot be known till the first declarations under the Bill are made.
    To set out an irrevocable limit for the rest of time would, I suggest, be most unwise in a Bill of this character. We want this Bill to stand the test of time and not to break down, because of some restrictive provision in it, after the first year or two or even the first few years. I feel obliged, if only for the sake of the record, to emphasise the point which I made on Second Reading and to which my hon. Friend has referred again today, that if a ceiling to the levy is written into the Bill there is a serious danger that it could become a target rather than a maximum and that if that happened the effect would be not to protect bookmakers but to preserve the levy payment at an artificially high or, one may almost say in view of future possibilities, even an unnecessarily slightly low figure.
    Mr. McAdden: My hon. and learned Friend knows that I hesitate to interrupt and I do so with great apologies, but let me say this. He is noted for being one learned in the law and trained in logic.

    509
    How on earth can he reconcile his argument that it is wrong to suggest a maximum figure because it might possibly become a target, with his argument that the figure might become much less? If his argument is that we should place no limit because it is likely to be reduced, surely there is no harm in putting in a maximum figure, especially as that has been recommended by an independent body?
    Mr. Renton: I quite appreciate the motives which my hon. Friend has for putting in a maximum figure, but at the same time, for the reasons I am giving to the Committee, I do not think it would be a wise thing to do. He has chosen a maximum figure which even the Peppiatt Committee considered would be a probable maximum only for the first year. That Committee may have been wrong in thinking that £1¼ million was the right amount as the maximum for the first year, or it may have been right; it may have overestimated it, it may have under-estimated it. For the reasons I have given, nobody can say at this stage.
    We feel that it would be very much better to name no particular figure in the Bill. Whatever figure we name, whether it is too high or too low, is bound to be misconstrued in one way or another. It is far better to leave the matter flexible. After all, it will be for the representatives of the industry, subject to the arbitration of the independent members, to work this matter out for themselves.
    My hon. Friend is entitled to consider whether there is any kind of safeguard to ensure that the bookmakers are not asked to pay an excessive amount, and we say that there is a safeguard, because in the first place subsections (4) and (5) of this Clause provide that the Bookmakers' Committee shall have the initiative in proposing the first draft of the levy scheme, and the Committee is, therefore, in a very strong position. The Levy Board itself has no initiative to consider any other scheme. It must wait till the Bookmakers' Committee puts a scheme before it. That, as I say, is a safeguard. The second safeguard is that, in the event of disagreement, the racing interests, the representatives of the beneficiaries in the broadest sense as we discussed them earlier, cannot override
    510
    the views of the bookmakers, because if there is a dispute it will have to be decided by the independent members. So there are safeguards, and those independent members will have enjoined upon them, by the Amendment moved earlier by my right hon. Friend, to act in an impartial manner.
    8.15 p.m.
    For these reasons, and in the kindest way possible, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would do well not to press this Amendment. We have given the matter very great thought. Naturally, we gave it thought in the preparation of the Bill, in view of what the Peppiatt Committee said about the possible results of the first year of the levy, and we have given it still further thought since Second Reading and as a result of my hon. Friend's putting down this Amendment, but with the best will in the world we do not think that it would be an advisable thing to do in any sense at all.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) is satisfied with the reply which he has just heard from the Under-Secretary of State, but I certainly am not. I did not intervene after the hon. Member for Southend, East had spoken because I personally do not support the Amendment as it stands, but, in view of the observations we have just heard from the Government, I think that the Committee must look once more at what is being proposed in this part of the Bill. I think it is most unsatisfactory that as the Bill is at present there should be no limit at all on the amount which the Levy Board may raise.
    It was recognised on Second Reacting that the Bill is a departure from the recognised and well-established methods by which money is raised in this country through ordinary Budgetary channels, but then it was said that there were precedents for it and paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report was quoted in support of the observation that there were precedents for raising money in this totally unorthodox way. Attention was drawn to that paragraph 22 and the fact that we have a levy on cinema takings for the benefit of British film production, the sugar surcharge mechanism, the levy in the cotton industry, and the two levy payments under agricultural marketing schemes.

    511
    I think I am right in saying that in none of those cases is there power for any non-Parliamentary body to raise money without limit. That, however, is what is being proposed in the Bill. I have always taken the view that if the Government seek to do something which is unorthodox and contrary to recognised principles which permit of the ordinary machinery of democratic control, it must be justified.
    The Under-Secretary of State said the hon. Member's motives were not questioned. I am not interested in his motives, as to whether he wants to protect bookmakers or not. The Under-Secretary of State said that he recognised the motives of the hon. Member, but I am not concerned with motives. I am concerned only with the purity of Parliamentary control over legislation introduced into Parliament by the Government, and it offends me that in this Bill power should be given to a non-Parliamentary body to raise money from the taxpayers without limit. Although this Amendment may not be the right Amendment to cure that defect in the Bill it does touch the heart of the problem.
    I do not know whether £1¼ million is right. Therefore, I am not very interested in the Under-Secretary of State's purely technical arguments upon the Amendment precisely as it is proposed by the hon. Member. I should have thought that it would have been more rational to have fixed an upper limit and if, for example, the hon. Member for Southend, East had said that the limit should be £3 million I should have wanted to support it. I do not accept that if we have a maximum in the Bill it necessarily becomes a minimum or a target or something else. I should have hoped that members of the Levy Board could have been given credit for having more intelligence than to adopt that view.
    As it is, they are given a completely free hand, and I think that is objectionable, and I hope, whatever the fate of the Amendment may be, that as a result of this discussion upon it the Government will take note of the considerable objections which have been raised on Second
    512
    Reading and in the Committee to the absence from the Bill of any maximum figure.
    Mr. E. Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), in bringing forward the Peppiatt Report to support his argument, seems to have overlooked paragraph 55, which says:
    "The requirements of the horse racing industry will change as will bookmakers' capacity to pay and … the Levy Board should accordingly review these factors yearly. …"
    He would prevent that from taking place by inserting a figure which must not be exceeded in any levy period. He says that the Levy Board may review the bookmakers' capacity to pay on the assumption that it will never exceed £¼ million.
    Mr. McAdden: I tried to make this point—and I believe that my hon. Friend was present—on Second Reading, but I only hinted at it today because I do not like repeating my Second Reading speeches. If the industry gets this injection of a supply of funds to help build up amenities, the need for these funds will decrease in the future, and that is why there should be a maximum fixed beyond which the Board should not go because it will not need so much in future.
    Mr. Johnson: I have never been able to accept the suggestion that £¼ million is the maximum the industry is ever likely to need when we reflect, for instance, on the cost of building the stand at Ascot. The stand at Liverpool might also very well be rebuilt, and, indeed, practically every stand in the country. There is a great demand for a vast expenditure of money. I do not think that my hon. Friend would seriously suggest that this is all that bookmakers are capable of paying. With all respect to the Peppiatt Committee, I have never accepted that for a moment. I base my argument for not accepting it not on assumptions or inquiries that the Committee has made but on essential facts.
    What is happening in Ireland? If our bookmakers think they are to be hardly used by paying this levy, they should reflect on the fact that if they were in

    513
    Ireland—taking the Peppiatt Committee's figures on turnover as accurate—on-the-course bookmakers would be contributing £1¼ million to the Racing Board for on-the-course betting only, but on top of that would be contributing £15 million to the Exchequer. On that basis, in Ireland, with a turnover of only about ¤14 million, they contribute over £1 million to racing.
    If an upper limit is to be fixed I suggest that something like £16¼ million might be reasonably accepted. To say that £1¼ million should be the limit is quite absurd, and I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I cannot vote for this Amendment. I have admired the way in which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has fought the battle for the cause he upholds, but I do not think that he can expect much support.
    We do not know how many bookmakers there will be. That is the first thing. I saw in a Midlands newspaper the other day an estimate of the number of bookmakers' offices there are to be in Birmingham. I am beginning to wonder whether any other industry but bookmaking will be carried on in Birmingham if that prophecy is fulfilled. I understand that it was based on the applications that have been received. I read yesterday that in Manchester planning permission has been asked for 111 such offices.
    Mr. E. Johnson: I had a deputation from bookmakers, and there are about 1,000 of them in Manchester.
    Mr. Ede: I always believe in understating a case. I was giving a figure which I had seen. These may be the people who got caught up in the problem which those of us who served on the Betting and Gaming Bill Committee know very well—the interests of the town planning authorities in this matter. There may be many people applying for licences who will find that town planning requirements will not allow them to get the licences. At any rate, figures are now being given about the possible number of bookmakers which, I think, go far beyond anything that we anticipated when we were considering the Betting and Gaming Bill last year.
    514
    Neither do we know what the programme of the Levy Board will be in the contribution it is to make. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) indicated that considerable sums are required to bring grandstands and minor stands up to a reasonable standard of comfort. I was discussing the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) the very considerable scheme, of which I am aware from contemplation, at Epsom. I do not think we should assume that at the end of, say, two years, we shall know what the number of bookmakers is, what the needs of the various beneficiaries—as they are called by this Bill—will be, what sum will be available, and what the requirements will be.
    After all, the bookmakers, as the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, have the initiative in this matter. They will prepare the scheme. By the time they come to that, some of the statistical matters I have alluded to may be available. They might find that the forecasts made by the Peppiatt Committee, both about income and needs, have not been justified by the facts that then confront them. I am not concerned now with the fact that we are preceding on non-orthodox lines. I am not orthodox, and I welcome any opportunity to see whether orthodoxy cannot be proved to be wrong.
    I hope that the Committee will leave the Clause in this particular as it stands, because it will leave the Bookmakers' Committee when it meets completely free to face the facts of the situation which then will have been revealed, and it will leave the Levy Board in any negotiations free to deal with any situation that might by that time have arisen. I very much doubt whether even as well-informed an individual as the hon. Member for Southend would like to make a firm guess about the number of bookmakers that will be revealed and the amount of business they will do when bookmaking has been made respectable by operating under the Betting and Gaming Act.
    We have no definite answer at the moment to any of these problems. I hope that we shall leave the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board with the freedom the Bill as drafted gives them, because I am certain that any attempt to forecast the amount of money that will

    515
    be at the disposal of those who will then have to consider the matter is completely futile at present.
    Mr. McAdden: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has invited me to make a firm guess about some things. One firm guess that I can make is that the Amendment is not likely to be carried. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that he must not confuse what we are discussing on the Amendment, which is taxation without Parliamentary control, with sums of money raised in Eire which are legislated for and controlled by the Dail. I hope that by withdrawing the Amendment now I shall not prejudice my chance to put a suitable figure forward when we come to the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. McAdden: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:
    (b) for securing that the levy shall not be payable by a bookmaker who carries on business as a bookmaker only on a racecourse.
    This Amendment also is in accordance with the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am still hoping that some of these recommendations of the Committee, which was set up to advise and has spent a great deal of time on advising my right hon. Friend on this matter, will be accepted. Here is one for a start. The Committee recommended that the on-course bookmaker who conducts his business purely on-course, by reason of the fact that he already contributes to racing by the considerable fee that he has to pay to practise his trade on the racecourse, should not be subject to the levy as well.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Only as part of what he would have to pay for entering, I think it was suggested.
    Mr. McAdden: In paragraph 44 the Committee seems to recommend that the bookmaker should be excluded from paying a further levy at all. At any rate, I hope that when my right hon. Friend has looked at the Amendment he will recognise that these people have been contributing to racing for a long while and that, in the circumstances, they
    516
    might be excluded from further contributions as long as their business is purely on-course.
    Mr. Vosper: We had better get this straight. What the Peppiatt Committee recommended in paragraph 44 was, first, in respect of bookmakers practising both on and off-course that half their on-course practice might be taken into account in the Peppiatt levy, but it went on—and this is relevant to the Amendment—to deal with those who practised only on the course, which the Report said numbered only about one thousand. It is not true to say that the Committee made this as a positive recommendation. At the conclusion of paragraph 44 the Committee said:
    "It might be better, therefore, to exclude these small bookmakers from the scheme in order to avoid unnecessary administrative costs."
    The Committee says "It might be". This is not like the former point that the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. McAdden) made, which was a definite recommendation.
    We have not followed this suggestion, because the whole of the proposals in the scheme are less rigid than is envisaged by the Peppiatt Committee. In many respeots more discretion and responsibility to the Bookmakers' Committee is given under the Bill than was suggested in the Report. There are several occasions where this happens and we have not sought at this stage to tie the bookmakers' hands firmly. Whether they wish to follow Peppiatt is a matter entirely for themselves, and if they wish to exclude small bookmakers who practise on-course I cannot think that the Levy Board would wish to disagree with them.
    Whether the charge which the bookmaker on-course pays is a contribution to racing or a payment for facilities, the Committee might think that the small on-course bookmaker should contribute to racing. It also may be that charges for racing may be reduced and also that the contribution which the small on-course bookmaker pays will be less than it is today. The Bookmakers' Committee may then think that he should make the contribution by levy.
    It does not seem, therefore, in the interest of bookmakers themselves to tie their hands at this stage and to say that

    517
    in no circumstances for ever more shall on-course bookmakers make a contribution. If the Bookmakers' Committee in recommending its scheme to the Levy Board decides to exclude them, I am certain that the Board would wish to endorse that, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East should press this Amendment at the moment and tie the Bookmakers' Committee to something which years hence it might regret.
    Although I appreciate his interest, I should like him to reconsider his position and not press the Amendment but allow the Bookmakers' Committee the wider discretion it has under the Bill.
    Mr. McAdden: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert:
    "according to the profits of their business."
    The Committee will remember that the Peppiatt Committee considered a number of alternative methods by which the bookmakers might be divided into different categories. The Bill is completely silent about the directions that are to be given to the Levy Board as to how these categories should be fixed. It is unsatisfactory to draft a Bill in this way, merely giving directions that bookmakers should be divided into different categories. Surely there must be some principle on which the Levy Board should act, otherwise it could divide bookmakers into all kinds of different categories. It could, for example, divide them alphabetically. It could divide them geographically. Any such classification would be ridiculous.
    It has always been assumed that they should be divided into categories according to the size of their business. Clearly bookmakers have to be divided into categories according to some principle, and the obvious principle to select is the size of their respective businesses. That is to ensure that justice is done as between the large bookmakers, the medium-sized bookmakers and the small bookmakers. Unless one is careful, even then there may be injustice.
    There are various methods by which one could assess the size of a bookmaker's business. For example, the
    518
    Peppiatt Committee drew attention to four or five different criteria which might be selected. It said that one could categorise bookmakers according to the number of telephones they used, or according to the rateable value of the premises they occupied, or according to their turnover, or the number of their employees. Finally, it suggested that perhaps the most suitable method to adopt would be a categorisation—I apologise for that rather uncouth word—based on profits.
    It seems to me that it is desirable that, as far as possible, effect should be given to the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) will agree with me in that observation, and it seems to us that, to ensure that as far as possible justice is done in this rather new field on which we are embarking, we should provide in the Bill that bookmakers should be divided into categories in accordance with the profits of their respective businesses.
    Mr. Wigg: I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment, because it is far better to leave this to the bookmakers. They are intelligent men. They are used to dealing with figures, and they obviously have a common interest in seeing that the scheme that is produced is equitable and is one that will not involve vast administrative costs.
    If one talks to bookmakers, one finds that the bulk of them come down on the side of some simple device of dividing them into categories by the number of telephones, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the number of employees, and the like.
    Although the Peppiatt Committee recommended profits, I think it is perhaps necessary to bear in mind that there are very few bookmakers who, if driven to it, could not show that they had no profits at all. There is the business of laying off, and it is possible to ensure that the accounts are presented in the most favourable light. In any case, the Government have chosen to leave it to the Bookmakers' Committee to work out the basis upon which the division shall take place, and I think that that is wise, bearing in mind that the bookmakers are keen on having some

    519
    simple, recognisable and checkable device. That is the trouble about profits. They will not be easy to check, whereas the number of telephones or the number of employees is very easy, and on current form it makes a very considerable appeal. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. David Griffiths: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should say that bookmakers are used to figures. They are, and they are also used to handling money. They can do it very intelligently. My hon. Friend says that his suggestion is a simple device, but there is no such thing as a simple device for dealing with this matter. In the part of the world that I come from we call the practice to which he referred "edging". If I were a commission agent and I had a £500 bet struck with me and I fancied that I had insufficient money to stand losing the bet, I would get on the telephone and put £100 on the same horse with A, B, C and D. We cannot say that such a man ought to be taxed on £500 when he has not had £500 worth of business.
    My hon. Friend says that bookmakers are quite competent to deal with this problem. I have had a little experience of them, and I know that they are an honest set of people. In fact, they are so honest, like many other people—including Members of Parliament—that they cannot trust each other. We cannot deal with this problem in a more equitable or favourable way than by making use of the profit motive.
    Mr. Vosper: My colleagues and I are probably at fault for not making it sufficiently clear that the outline of the Bill is definitely less rigid than were the
    Peppiatt proposals. The last Amendment illustrated that point. Here again, we are not asking the authorities to be set up under the Bill to tie themselves to one form of approach. Although the Peppiatt Committee, having considered the various forms under which the Levy could be made, came down in favour of the profits approach, at this stage—and we are looking some years ahead—we feel that it would be inadvisable for the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee to tie themselves irrevocably to that approach.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) that the profits approach commends itself as being apparently the most suitable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has on many occasions advocated alternatives, and anyone who reads Sporting Life knows that there are many variations of the profits approach. Although I am sure that in the initial proceedings the Bookmakers' Committee is likely to recommend to the Levy Board that the Levy should be based on profits, after a year's experience it may find it possible to pursue an alternative approach, and my right hon. Friend does not wish to prevent the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board, during the course of the years, from trying an alternative if they believe one is available. For that reason we have made the scheme in the Bill more flexible than were the Peppiatt recommendations. On the whale, the Committee would be wise to allow the Bookmakers' Committee to have this power to adopt an alternative approach if it wishes.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 190.

    Division No. 27.]

    AYES

    [8.45 p.m.

    Ainsley, William

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Fitch, Alan

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Chetwynd, George

    Fletcher, Eric

    Awbery, Stan

    Cliffe, Michael

    Forman, J. C.

    Beaney, Alan

    Collick, Percy

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Benson, Sir George

    Cronin, John

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Blackburn, F.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Blyton, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Boyden, James

    Deer, George

    Gourlay, Harry

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Diamond, John

    Grey, Charles

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Dodds, Norman

    Griffiths, David (Rother valley)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Callaghan, James

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Hannan, William

    McInnes, James

    Rankin, John

    Hayman, F. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mackie, John

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Holman, Percy

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Manuel, A. C.

    Ross, William

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mapp, Charles

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Marsh, Richard

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Mason, Roy

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Millan, Bruce

    Soronsen, R. W.

    Janner, Barnett

    Milne, Edward J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Monslow, Walter

    Steele, Thomas

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Morris, John

    Stones, William

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Mort, D. L.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Neal, Harold

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Warbey, William

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Oram, A. E.

    Watkins, Tudor

    Kelley, Richard

    Padley, W. E.

    Witkins, W. A.

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Willey, Frederick

    Lawson, George

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Ledger, Ron

    Peart, Frederick

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Pentland, Norman

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Probert, Arthur

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Proctor, W. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McCann, John

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton

    MacColl, James

    Randall, Harry

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Farr, John

    Lilley, F. J. p.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Finlay, Graeme

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Atkins Humphrey

    Fisher, Nigel

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Balniel, Lord

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Longbottom, Charles

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Barter, John

    Gammans, Lady

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Batsford, Brian

    Gardner, Edward

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    McAdden, Stephen

    Bidgood, John C.

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Godber, J. B.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maddan, Martin

    Bossom, Clive

    Goodhew, victor

    Maitland, Sir John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Box, Donald

    Green, Alan

    Marten, Neil

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

    Brewis, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mawby, Ray

    Bullard, Denys

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

    Burden, F. A.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mills, Stratton

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclcsf'd)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morrison, John

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Partridge, E.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Cole, Norman

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Peel, John

    Collard, Richard

    Hooking, Philip N.

    Percival, Ian

    Corfield, F V.

    Holland, Philip

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Coulson, J. M.

    Hollingworth, John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pott, Percivall

    Critchley, Julian

    Hornby, R. P.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Curran, Charles

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Quenneil, Miss J. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Dance, James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rees, Hugh

    Deedes, W. F.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, David

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Roots, William

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Russell, Ronald

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kitson, Timothy

    Seymour, Leslie

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Shaw, M.

    522

    523

    Shepherd, William

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Whitelaw, William

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Turner, Colin

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Stodart, J. A.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Woollam, John

    Talbot, John E.

    Wade, Donald

    Worsley, Marcus

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Temple, John M.

    Wall, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Webster, David

    Mr. Noble.

    Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Mr. D. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "declaration", to insert "under oath".
    I move this Amendment not without an element of timidity because I realise the difficulty confronting this huge industry and I realise that it will have a lot of teething troubles in dealing with this problem. Ultimately, I think, it will sort itself out and the provision will be helpful to the industry. I have no objection to that and give it my wholehearted support. On the other hand, there are some things which cannot be left entirely to bookmakers to deal with in a haphazard manner. We have to attempt to create and maintain a degree of honesty in these matters. I am not suggesting for a moment that bookmakers, any more than any other section of the general public, are dishonest, but we want to maintain that degree of honesty. For that reason, I think that these declarations ought to be made under oath.
    Mr. Renton: I rather doubt whether the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) would have moved his Amendment if he had realised the dire consequences that it might bring upon bookmakers by doing so. Adding the words "under oath" would attract the provisions of Section 2 of the Perjury Act, 1911, so that if the declaration under oath happened to be a false one, it would attract a maximum sentence of not less than seven years' imprisonment. I feel that that would be a most swingeing penalty even for making a false declaration.
    It may be of some interest and consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that the terms of the Bill as they stand attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Perjury Act, so that if a false declaration is made, the maximum penalty would be two years' imprisonment, which we feel is quite enough. For this reason, I would
    524
    advise the Committee not to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    Mr. D. Griffiths: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that the Government are prepared to allow this element of dishonesty and are making the punishment less rigid, only two years instead of seven? What is the difference? Surely it is only five years, and what is five years? It is not much in the span of one's life, particularly from the age of 15 to 20, but it is from 65 to 70. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman quite seriously that regardless of the implications which he may have indicated concerning the Perjury Act, all we are attempting to do here is to retain that element of honesty.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. McAdden: I beg to move in page 4, line 23, to leave out "Levy Board" and to insert:
    "three persons for the time being appointed to be members of the Board by the Secretary of State (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'the independent members')."
    The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments:
    In page 4, line 29, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".
    In line 32, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".
    In line 35, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".
    In line 38, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".
    In line 39, leave out from "committee" to "shall" in line 40 and insert "they".
    Mr. McAdden: That is an anticipation of what I would have suggested myself, but you, Sir Gordon, have put it much more clearly than I could have

    525
    done. It would certainly be convenient to the Committee if we could take this series of Amendments together.
    The object is that if the Bookmakers' Committee prepares a scheme, that scheme should be considered by the chairman and the independent members of the Committee, rather than those with the begging bowls who are waiting to receive some benefit from the fund when it is collected. It is suggested in these Amendments that the right thing to do is to enable the independent members to express their opinion upon the scheme prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, rather than have the other members brought in at that stage, especially the recipient members, the two members of the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee and so on, who are all possible recipients under the scheme.
    It may come as a surprise to many people to realise that the Jockey Club itself could be a recipient, but hon. Members on this side of the Committee who are familiar with the activities of the Jockey Club will know that it is, for instance, the owner of the racecourse at Newmarket. If there were the possibility of improved facilities at Newmarket, the Jockey Club would be a recipient of sums which might be raised. In these circumstances, it is desirable, and is in accordance with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend on a previous Amendment on recommendations made by the Bookmakers' Committee, that consideration should be confined to the independent members of the Levy Board. Again I am fortified, as I am so often, by the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), and I should like to quote what he said on Second Reading. My hon. Friend is a distinguished Member of the House and also a member of the Jockey Club and he therefore speaks with authority on this subject. My hon. Friend said,
    "If the Bookmakers' Committee cannot make up its mind how to get the levy and therefore it is to be done by the chairman and the Home Secretary's two nominees, it is equally right that representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should not take part in that, because if they did they would be saying how much money they wanted. It is their duty to consider
    526
    how the money should be distributed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 916.]
    I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support, in view of the fact that he adds such weight throughout our proceedings in so many ways. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) suggests that the levy scheme for assessing and collecting the levy from the bookmakers should, when prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, be submitted direct to the independent members of the Levy Board, thus by-passing the two members of the Jockey Club and the members of the National Hunt Committee. We do not think that that would be quite right. We feel that the members of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee may have useful suggestions to make in connection with the scheme for the collection of the levy, just as the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee may have useful suggestions to make on the distribution scheme as to how the money is to be spent.
    As I explained earlier, there are three distinct elements on the Levy Board, but it is one board, and until it comes to a dispute we feel that all the members of the board should have the right to express their views upon any matter which arises. My hon. Friend has nothing to fear, because it is abundantly plain from the terms of the Bill that in the event of a dispute it will not be the turf representatives but the independent members who will arbitrate in that dispute.
    Having given that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend and those for whom he justifiably speaks feel that no great jurpose would be served in by-passing the turf representatives, as the Amendment would.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 34, and to insert
    "if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
    The Chairman: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 5, line 11, to leave out from "shall" to the end of the Clause and to add:
    "if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We attach considerable importance to this Amendment, which seeks to import an element of Parliamentary control over taxation. Indeed, we attach much more importance to the need for Parliamentary control here than in the earlier Amendment which we discussed about Parliamentary control over the expenditure of the Levy Board.
    As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is no longer in the Committee, said on an earlier Amendment, this is a tax which we are allowing to be levied in our name by the Bill. It is compulsory. It is a statutory levy. It could not be raised but for a Statute of the Realm. By virtue of the Bill it will be enforceable by law, certainly by civil process.
    This is a compulsory charge laid upon bookmakers by Act of Parliament and enforceable by the law of the land. From an individual bookmaker's point of view, there is no question but that this is a tax laid upon him by Parliament. Bookmakers have just as many rights in these matters as any other citizen or class of citizens. In my view, it is wrong that where Parliament is, in effect, imposing a tax, it should part with any control over that tax. This is a very extraordinary tax power which we are conferring upon the Levy Board. It can discriminate between bookmaker and bookmaker. By drawing its categories differently it can vary its discrimination from year to year. It can, therefore, have a very great effect upon the incidence of this tax upon one bookmaker, or class of bookmakers, and another.
    Further, there is absolutely no limit to the amount of levy which can be raised. We, therefore, find that we are conferring upon a Board set up by Parliament the right, on the face of it, to levy any amount it likes, to vary this from year to year and to discriminate from year to year as between one bookmaker and another, one taxpayer and another. That is very gravely wrong in the light
    528
    of all the principles in which we believe. We should not allow any body to have these great powers of taxation, with no residue of Parliamentary control whatsoever over its exercise of these taxing powers.
    Even if there are precedents for this, as the Peppiatt Committee alleged, I very much doubt if these precedents are really relevant. They relate to different sorts of bodies from the one set up under the Bill. Even if a relevant precedent can be found I would still say that it was a bad precedent and should not be followed. The mere fact that Parliament, in its unwisdom, may have done one bad thing is no reason why it should do another. If there is a precedent for this I would rather get rid of it: I do not want to follow it. It does not seem to me that the argument of there having been a precedent—even if a relevant one can be found, which I doubt—is an argument that could be prayed in aid by anyone who believes in the principles on which our legislation in these matters is based.
    The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag on Second Reading when he told us that the reason he was doing all this was that he wanted to get rid of responsibility himself. He did not want the responsibility of having to decide all these things. Of course, in getting rid of his responsibility he got rid of our responsibility and our rights, too. We cannot get any residual right of control unless a Secretary of State will exercise it himself.
    The purpose of our Amendment is twofold. First, it is to make sure that the Secretary of State himself shall exercise a proper control over these taxing powers and, secondly, that he shall then be answerable to us. Once again, we are not asking for regular, sustained, continuous debates year after year. We are asking for the right of Parliament in a matter of taxation to assert its rights if it should so wish. Whatever people may feel about the details of Bills, the clash of interests and so forth, this is a matter of profound principle on which I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of this Committee will be united.
    Major Sir Frank Markham: The speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was very brief, and mine will

    529
    be brief, too. His speech was to the point, and I hope that mine will be, too. But surely the right hon. Gentleman has ignored a point of considerable importance—I do not say that he has done so deliberately, but he has ignored all the precedents quoted in the Peppiatt Report, and, above all, the most signal thing Parliament has ever done, and that is passing over the rights of levy or taxation to a host of local government bodies, port authorities, and so on. There is not only full precedent for the line being taken here, but adequate, warranted and workable precedent.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The Peppiatt Committee did not claim that there were any true precedents. It is clear from a careful reading of the Report that there were things which were more or less like this, but they were not true precedents. All local authorities are under some form of public control and are answerable to the public. The Levy Board would not be in any way answerable to the public.
    Mr. Renton: There are, broadly, two arguments in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the nature of the levy scheme is that it is a matter for the industry itself. As has been said so often, this is an opportunity for the industry to help itself. The second argument is that the proposal to make the levy scheme subject to approval through Statutory Instrument procedure is just not workable.
    I will develop both themes. The concept of the Peppiatt Report was that the scheme was domestic to the racing industry. We felt that it was both unsuitable and undesirable that a Minister or either House of Parliament should become involved. The Peppiatt Report envisaged that the collecting scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. Instead of following that advice, we have made provision for arbitration by the three independent members of the Levy Board.
    I will explain why the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be quite impracticable and would cause delay. The scheme will have to be drawn up by people with detailed knowledge of betting and the manner in which bookmakers work and make their living. Account will have to be taken of the matters set out in Clause 3 (6).
    530
    If there is a dispute, but only if there is a dispute, the independent members will have to balance the needs of racing and the capacity of bookmakers and the Totalisator Board to pay. When they are arbitrating, the independent members will have the advantage of having participated in the investigation by the Levy Board of the needs of racing, and they will have discussed with the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee the detailed problems of bookmakers.
    Therefore, the independent members will have an intimate knowledge of the problems involved. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor the House of Commons would have those advantages. My right hon. Friend would not have independent sources of expert information on which to call. If the Secretary of State were required to approve a scheme for assessment and collection of the levy, particularly when there had been disagreement, he would in effect be made into an appellate authority, but the difficulty is that he would not have the detailed knowledge of the machinery for exercising the function of an appellate authority.
    If there is to be arbitration by the three independent members, which we say is correct, it would be superfluous to require the Secretary of State to draft a Statutory Instrument, approve the scheme in that manner, and lay it before the House as well. If we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's procedure, we should entirely scrap the system of arbitration by the independent members. We do not think that it would be right to do that.
    If we kept both procedures, the Secretary of State would either be a mere rubber stamp for the decision of the independent members or he would have to do their work afresh without the advantages of the full information which they would have.
    9.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned precedents. There are, of course, other levy schemes but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, none is subject to yearly approval by Parliament. In the case of each of them a framework scheme has been approved by Parliament, just as we have put the framework of the scheme into this Bill. It has generally been done by affirmative Resolution but, once that has been done, the

    531
    statutory authorities have been left to determine the details themselves, and to make annual adjustments. That is what we have done in this Bill.
    Quite candidly, I am not sure that it is useful to follow all the precedents in detail. If we did, we might find some precedents among the nationalised boards that would not be entirely welcome to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This is, as we have accepted, an unusual scheme. It breaks entirely fresh ground, and surely it is right that we should draft into the Bill a scheme that appears best to fit the particular circumstances of this industry.
    I think that one can summarise the issue between the official Opposition and the Government on this Amendment by saying that the broad choice lies between trying to treat the levy scheme as something strictly domestic to the industry—subject to independent arbitration in the event of dispute—and full Parliamentary control, which would mean that the levy would be regarded as a tax raised by the State, the needs of the industry being met by a voted subsidy.
    Fundamentally, that is the broad choice lying before the Committee, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal goes to either of those things. What he has suggested is a hybrid between those two broad alternatives that are at our disposal. A hybrid or compromise is sometimes workable, but I do not think that it would be in this case. Without labouring the matter, I should also point to the dangers of delay, because there would undoubtedly be delay.
    One could enter into all sorts of discussions as to what the nature of the Statutory Instrument would be like, and whether hon. Members, who do not possess the expert knowledge of the bookmaking business that the Bookmakers' Committee will have, and which the independent members will learn, could deal adequately with special arrangements designed to meet the special circumstances of the bookmaking business. It is hard to envisage how the terms of the Statutory Instrument would be worked out.
    We also have to face the possibility that if hon. Gentlemen did not understand
    532
    something and demanded that it should be clarified we should get even longer delay. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to understand that we fully appreciate the importance of this matter. The Home Secretary has been into it very closely indeed, but, for the reasons I have given, we do not think that this provision would be appropriate—or, indeed, practical.
    Mr. McInnes: Apart from the question of Parliamentary control raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I am disturbed by the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He recognises—he has indicated—that a very important factor here is the Bookmakers' Committee. We do not know and I do not suppose that we ever shall know the way in which that Committee will be constituted. According to the Bill, that is a matter for the Home Secretary. We do not even know how many bookmakers will be appointed.
    Here I want to make a number of references to the provisions of the First Schedule. According to that Schedule not a single bookmaker need be on the Bookmakers' Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman, replying to my right hon. Friend, talked of the expert knowledge of the Bookmakers' Committee. What expert knowledge will its members possess? Who will they be? There is no assurance that even one bookmaker shall serve on this committee. This is very important because, as the Peppiatt Committee indicated, bookmakers are the people who are best suited for the purposes for which the Levy Board is to be established. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with that point because it is vital to this discussion, quite apart from the important point of Parliamentary control.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not want to traverse the whole of our case again, but the Joint Under-Secretary used one argument which is somewhat dangerous doctrine, namely, that if there is a little delay this is an argument against Parliamentary control of taxation and expenditure. This is surely a dangerous suggestion. We have always realised that Parliamentary control of taxation involves delay in the business of the

    533
    Government and we have all been prepared to pay that price.
    I hope that on consideration the hon. and learned Gentleman will not use this argument of delay against the rights of Parliament to control taxation. We on these benches feel very strongly on this point, and we feel that we must divide on the Amendment.
    Mr. Renton: I should just like to point out that I used that argument in the particular context of what we were discussing. I certainly would not have pressed it as a general argument.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 129.

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES

    [9.22 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gurden, Harold

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdaie)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Partridge, E.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Barter, John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Peel, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Percival, Ian

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Bidgood, John C.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pott, percivall

    Bingham, R. M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Bishop, F. P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bossom, Clive

    Hendry, Forbes

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Box, Donald

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rawlinson, peter

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Brewis, John

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Rees, Hugh

    Bullard, Denys

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Renton, David

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Holland, Philip

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Burden, F. A.

    Hollingworth, John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hopkins, Alan

    Roots, William

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricla

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Russell, Ronald

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Seymour, Leslle

    Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Shaw, M.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Shepherd, William

    Cole, Norman

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Simon, Sir Jocelyn

    Collard, Richard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Corfield F. V.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Coulson, J. M.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. s.

    Stodart, J. A.

    Critchley, Julian

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Talbot, John E.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

    Curran, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lilley, F. J. P.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Dance, James

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Deedes, W. F.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Longden, Gilbert

    Turner, Colin

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wade, Donald

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Maddan, Martin

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Farey-Jones. F. W.

    Maltland, Sir John

    Webster, David

    Farr, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marten, Neil

    Whitelaw, William

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Wigg, George

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Mawby, Ray

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gammans, Lady

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gardner, Edward

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Stratton

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

    Morrison, John

    Woollam, John

    Godber, J. B.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Worsley, Marcus

    Goodhart, Philip

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Goodhew, Victor

    Noble, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrle

    Mr. Bryan and

    Mr. Chichester-Clark.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Allen, scholefield (Crewe)

    Beaney, Alan

    Blyton, William

    Awbery, Stan

    Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

    Boyden, James

    Houghton, Douglas

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oram, A. E.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Padley, w. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Peart, Frederick

    Callaghan, James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Pentland, Norman

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Janner, Barnett

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Chetwynd, George

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Probert, Arthur

    Cliffe, Michael

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Collick, Percy

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Randall, Harry

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rankin, John

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Ross, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Lawson, George

    Sketfington, Arthur

    Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

    Ledger, Ron

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Small, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Loughlin, Charles

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Forman, J. C.

    McCann, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    MacColl, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    McInnes, James

    Stones, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Swain, Thomas

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Mackie, John

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Ginsburg, David

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Gourlay, Harry

    Manuel, A. C.

    Warbey, William

    Grey, Charles

    Mapp, Charles

    Watkins, Tudor

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Marsh, Richard

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

    Mason, Roy

    Willey, Frederick

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hannan, William

    Milne, Edward J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hayrhan, F. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Morris, John

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Moyle, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Holman, Percy

    Neal, Harold

    Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(ASSESSMENT OF OR EXEMPTION FROM BOOKMAKERS' LEVY.)
    The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Fletcher. The Amendment to page 5, line 29.
    Mr. McAdden: On a point of order, Sir William. I did take the precaution of checking with the learned Clerk at the Table about my three Amendments, in page 5, line 20, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 21 in line 22, leave out "for" and insert "shall state"; and in line 26, leave out from "may" to "scrutinise" in line 28. I understood that they were to be taken together. I should like an opportunity to move them.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I had thought that they were considered on Clause 1. That was my understanding.
    Mr. McAdden: With respect, Sir William, they raise rather different points from those raised in the Amendments moved to Clause 1, and I took the precaution of making sure that this was so. May I move them very briefly?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I could not allow that, but the hon.
    536
    Member will have an opportunity on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not propose to move the Amendment we have down to page 5, line 29.
    I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, at the end to insert "and rejected".
    I move the Amendment because it seems necessary that we should clear up some ambiguities in this subsection. This subsection uses some very odd language. I am sure the Home Secretary was not responsible for it. It would introduce into our Statute Book what I think is a new word to it—"scrutinise". I cannot recollect having seen that word in an Act of Parliament. I hope that the Home Secretary or one of his assistants will tell us what it is intended to mean.
    As I understand the concept of the Clause, it is that first of all the bookmaker should make a declaration, either under oath or not as the Committee may decide, and then if the Bookmakers' Committee is not satisfied with the declaration it should scrutinise it. I

    537
    assume that that means that that Committee will look at it and examine it. Then it is proposed that in the case of any bookmaker whose declaration has been scrutinised certain things happen. Contrary to what one might have thought, one finds that it is provided that in every such case the bookmaker in question is then assessed in some different way.
    There does not seem to be any provision as to what is to happen if a bookmaker makes a declaration, has if scrutinised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and then finds that that Committee is satisfied with it. It looks to me as though the draftsman of this Clause has meant to provide that the Clause should operate only adversely to a bookmaker after his declaration has been scrutinised and if, for some reason or another, it is rejected by the Bookmakers' Committee.
    There must, of course, be cases in which the Bookmakers' Committee will be suspicious about a declaration, but, having examined it, and, presumably, having taken such other steps as are open to it, will then be satisfied with it. But it will still have to scrutinise it. Something is necessary in the drafting of this subsection to make it intelligible.
    Mr. Renton: This is a matter more of drafting than of substance. Perhaps the extreme economy of words used by the draftsman may justify the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, but at any rate I undertake to consider the matter and will get in touch with him between now and Report stage, if he will, meanwhile, withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: On that satisfactory assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, at end to insert:
    "If a bookmaker is of opinion that he has been put in the wrong category, the Bookmakers' Committee shall be required to tell him in writing the reasons for their decision".
    The object of this Amendment is to try to overcome the difficulty about the onus of proof, as I see it. As the Bill stands, it appears that the onus, if a bookmaker feels that he has been put in the wrong category, lies with the bookmaker
    538
    himself to prove that he is innocent and to prove his own case that the category in which he said he belonged was the right one.
    I tried to find a way in which the onus of proof could be changed to the Bookmakers' Committee, so that it would have to prove the case, rather than the bookmaker having to prove it himself. I did not find that that was possible, so I thought that the simplest way of trying to shift the onus was to put down an Amendment in these terms. It would mean that the Bookmakers' Committee, if it felt that the bookmaker had said that he was in a category to which he did not belong, would then have to give its reasons in writing, and would not then be able to depart from those reasons, and the bookmaker would have something to shoot at in trying to prove his own case.
    Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) but I do not think that the Amendment is acceptable. He perhaps does not understand the procedure which will operate here. The bookmaker will declare the category into which his profits fall, and therefore the initiative, as my hon. Friend suggested, will rest with him.
    It is then open to the Bookmakers' Committee to decide, from its general knowledge of that bookmaker, that he should be placed in a higher category, and it will, therefore, re-assess him. It will not do that on any factual knowledge supplied by him in the form of accounts, because they will not be made available to it, and it will not find it possible to justify that reassessment in a letter or an explanation in writing.
    My hon. Friend says that that is unfair to the bookmaker who is reassessed into a higher category, but it is open to him to go to an appeals tribunal to state his case. At that stage information in the form of accounts can be made available. To write into the Bill—desirable though it may seem in theory—that he should be given in writing the reasons for his being reassessed into a higher category would not work in practice, because the Bookmakers' Committee would not have available to it factual knowledge by which to make that reply.

    539
    The bookmaker may rest upon the appeal to the appeals tribunal, when the facts will be made fully available. I do not think that the words proposed in the Amendment offer any particular safeguard.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has used an extraordinary argument. He is telling us that the Bookmakers' Committee will do things for which it cannot give any reasons in writing because it will not have any reasons it can state. I did not think that under the Bill we were giving people powers to exercise to the detriment of the bookmakers without giving reasons. I think that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) is on a very good point and that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to him is really extraordinary.
    Mr. Vosper: I said that the Bookmakers' Committee could re-assess him in the light of its general knowledge of his affairs, but not of detailed accounts, because those would not be available. And because it would not then be possible for the Bookmakers' Committee's re-assessment to be explained in detail, he has a right of appeal to an appeals tribunal, which can require him, if necessary and if he is willing, to produce accounts. That is his safeguard.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: One of the difficulties I see the bookmaker in is that he will be re-assessed in a different category on grounds which he does not know, and of which he has not the full details because they are not available to him in writing. It seems to me that this goes against the principles of British law and justice which require that a man is assumed innocent in any proceedings that may take place. In this case the bookmaker is being assumed guilty on the say-so of the Bookmakers' Committee, and that Committee is not required to give its reasons in writing. I find that a little difficult to understand and against the principles of general British law.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "one hundred".
    This is the subsection which is designed to protect bookmakers against the improper disclosure by the Bookmakers'
    540
    Committee or the Levy Board, or anybody else, of information coming to their knowledge confidentially about his affairs. It will be appreciated that bookmakers, like other members of the community, are sometimes sensitive about their earnings, their profits and the quantity of their business, and they will not be very pleased to make declarations of the kind required by the Bill or to submit those declarations to the Bookmakers' Committee unless they are assured that such communications shall be completely privileged and not subject to improper disclosure to any third party.
    The sanction suggested in the Bill is a fine of £50. It seems to us that it would be a very serious thing if bookmakers, having made confidential disclosure of their figures, were then to find that information had been passed on improperly to some third party. We think that there should be a really adequate deterrent to prevent any such disclosure. We therefore propose that the fine should be increased from £50 to £100. Speaking for myself, since I tabled the Amendment I have had some doubts whether we might not have been wiser to have suggested an even higher figure.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the maximum of £100 is not inappropriate to cover the worst type of offence that might arise. I think he can rest assured that it need not be very much higher, because an examination of similar penalties shows that £100 rather than £50 that was originally in the Bill is broadly in line with what we have been carrying into other Statutes for similar offences. For these reasons my advice to the Committee would be to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(RECONSTITUTION OF TOTALISATOR BOARD.)
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, after "state" to insert:
    "and one of whom at least shall be qualified either in accountancy or law".

    541
    In view of the late hour, I shall try to be brief. The Amendment deals with the constitution of the new Totalisator Board, which will be composed of five members. I wish to draw attention to the importance of ensuring that the right members are selected. I have therefore suggested that one at least of them should be either an accountant or a lawyer, because I believe that the task facing the new Board will be a very serious one if it is to take advantage of the new conditions in which it will operate.
    I hope also that one or more members of the Board will be drawn from people who have experience of modern totalisator practice, perhaps in other countries as well as in this country.
    Mr. Wigg: I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment, because it is unreasonably restrictive. If a lawyer or an accountant were appointed, he would have a special status in relation to the Board's legal advisers or its accountants. To that extent it seems to be restrictive.
    Also, the Amendment seems slightly deficient in logic. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is necessary to have an accountant or a lawyer, why choose one or the other? Why not both? If he has an accountant he is short of a lawyer, and if he has a lawyer he is short of an accountant. What he is seeking to get here he cannot get in one person, so he suggests one or the other. If he thinks one or the other is important, there is a deficiency in the one which is not covered.
    The Government, in seeking to have on the Board a representative with an interest in racing or experience in business are on the right lines. In the thirty years during which the Racecourse Betting Control Board has operated it has never found any difficulty in getting competent advice on both legal and accountancy matters, and I would have thought that it would be better to rely on that approach rather than to restrict ourselves to a rather narrow field.
    Mr. Vosper: I think that I ought to put my hon. Friend right about the size of the Board. It will consist of a chairman and three members. It is my right hon. Friend's intention that they shall be men of business ability. It would be wrong to fetter my right hon. Friend to
    542
    limit him at any rate in one appointment to a lawyer or accountant. It may be that a lawyer or an accountant might fit the bill in some respects, but it is more important that one should have an unfettered discretion to appoint men of business ability to this very small and compact Board.
    As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, it will have available the services of lawyers and accountants, and I do not think that it would be wise to insist that one of the members should be from those professions. Having aired his point of view, I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to "and" in line 43 and to insert:
    (6) Paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section eleven of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960 (which confers on the Totalisator Board like powers to those conferred on the Levy Board by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act) shall cease to have effect; and for paragraph (d) of the said subsection (3) (which confers on the Totalisator Board powers of investment similar to those conferred on the Levy Board by paragraph (d) of the said subsection (1)) there shall be substituted the following, that is to say—
    "(d) to invest money in any body corporate which is carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of activities authorised by the Board under subsection (1) of this section, to lend money to any body corporate or other person for the purposes of the carrying on of such a business by that body or other person, and to make such other loans or investments as they judge desirable for the proper conduct of their affairs"
    The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think it would also be convenient for the Committee to discuss the Amendment in page 8, line 42, leave out from "other" to end of line 45.
    Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir William. Under subsection (6) as drafted the Totalisator Board's power to invest money is limited to trustee securities. That is a departure from the powers given to the Board under the 1928 Act, as amended by the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. There was no such limitation in the previous legislation, and it is right that I should make that clear. The reason why it was

    543
    inserted in the Bill is that, under postwar Statutes, a limitation has generally been imposed on the power of public bodies and statutory boards to invest their money by requiring them to conform with the same restrictions as are applied to the trustees of trust funds under the enactments for the time being in force.
    The Totalisator Board's powers of investment should be considerably widened if the Trustee Investments Bill, which is now in another place, were to go through Parliament. That is a factor to bear in mind in considering both Amendments. When the Racecourse Betting Control Board received the Bill it represented to us that the limitation to trustee securities might unduly fetter it if, at some future date, it desired to invest money in a concern carrying on business of the same kind as that which the Board is empowered to carry on. It should be remembered that under Section 11 of the 1960 Act the Board has an exclusive right to conduct pool betting on horseracing and betting at tote odds, but it has power to give permission to other people to do this, and it may be that in the future it would want to give such permission to somebody else, and in that way to invest money.
    We feel that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), on behalf of the Board, which proposes entirely to omit that part of subsection (6) which imposes the limitation, goes rather too wide. It would permit the Board to make any kind of investment and would give much wider powers of investment even than those of the Levy Board. But it seems reasonable that the Board should have discretion to invest money in any business which is wholly or mainly engaged in the same kind of operation as that of the Totalisator Board itself.
    That is what the Government Amendment does. With respect to the hon. Member for Dudley, who has no doubt considered the matter carefully and has probably also consulted the Board about it, I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government Amendment goes far enough.
    Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for going
    544
    some way to meet me—but he does not go quite far enough. The Government overlook the fact that under Section 11 (1, a) of the 1960 Act the Board is now required to carry on a pool betting business. It is a statutory body and also a commercial concern. It is carrying on a business by Statute and therefore, if it is a business, I do not see why it should be required to invest its money only in trustee securities. That is an unreasonable restriction.
    The Committee has had a long day, and I should be wearying it if I attempted to explain all the implications of this matter. The negotiations and discussions that have gone on have, in the nature of things, been rather hurried, and I should be entirely satisfied at this stage if the hon. and learned Gentleman would spend some part of his Christmas holidays seeing whether he could extend the good work that he has started.
    I have expressed my regret that the Government feel it necessary that this trustee investment restriction should still continue to apply. I regret that we cannot take the brake off completely. But, having done so much, I hope that the Government will have another look at it and perhaps even undertake, through the usual channels in this matter, to have further consultations with the Board to see whether agreement cannot be reached.
    I must make clear that I am not voicing my own opinion in these matters. I am here putting forward a point of view about which the Board is very concerned, not for itself but for the freedom of the new Board to be able to operate as it is required by Statute as a business concern in the interests of racing.
    Sir Eric Errington: This is a matter of some importance. The powers of the Board were under examination during the Committee stage discussions of the 1960 Act and in my opinion the position now is worse than it was then. The Explanatory Memorandum states that
    "… the composition of the Board is changed and its functions limited to those connected with the operation of totalisators and the effecting of betting transactions."
    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the matter from an entirely different point of view from that

    545
    suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). In my submission, what has happened here is that power is given
    "to invest money in any body corporate which is carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of activities authorised by the Board under subsection (I) of this section …"
    That means, if we look at the case of Tote Investors Limited which works with the Board, that it would be open for the Board to pay the necessary money and make a take-over bid for Tote Investors Limited, and there would be no protection, so far as I know, for Tote Investors Limited.
    The second part of the Amendment states:
    "… to lend money to any body corporate or other person for the purposes of the carrying on of such a business by that body or other person …"
    It would seem that there is nothing to prevent money being lent to any body which is carrying on a considerable business in Tote pool betting. That does not seem to me to be the situation in which a new Tote Board ought to be placed.
    The existing Tote Board consists of a chairman and a considerable number of members, the hon. Member for Dudley being one. Under this legislation we shall have only four members and they are being put in a position where, by reason of the powers given to them under the Amendment proposed by the Government, they can go into the pool business in a big way. I do not think that was the intention of the Government. If it were, the words I referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum would have no meaning at all.
    In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider this matter, as it is of considerable concern to some people.
    Mr. Renton: I willingly give an undertaking to think about this matter further, so long as the Committee will be so good meanwhile to accept the Government Amendment because I think it right that we should do that.
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the Betting Levy Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Renton.]

  BETTING LEVY BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Renton: I was saying that I am quite willing to give an undertaking to consider this matter further so long as meanwhile the Government Amendment is accepted. I hope that I do not sound to be forcing the issue in saying that, but I think it right that those concerned should see the Government Amendment added to the Bill and in any fresh thoughts they may have on the matter they will be able to take stock of the position in the light of it. I hope that will be acceptable.
  Mr. Wigg: That course of action is entirely agreeable to me. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear when asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to go a little further, that I would withdraw my Amendment in favour of the Government Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  BETTING LEVY BILL

    Clause 8.—(ACCOUNTS OF, AND REPORTS BY, LEVY BOARD AND TOTALISATOR BOARD.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Clause 8 provides that the accounts shall be audited by qualified auditors and that the report and accounts shall be laid before Parliament. On Second Reading I asked my hon. and learned Friend whether those accounts would be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and he answered
    "No, because these are not public funds in the true sense of the word."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 968.]
    I wonder if my hon. and learned Friend would like to amend that answer, because I think he will find that Standing Order No. 90 provides that any accounts

    547
    laid before Parliament can be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee, in which case I should feel very much happier about the provisions in the Bill that the accounts should be audited by qualified auditors rather than by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend, with great ingenuity, has sprung upon me a point of which I had precisely two minutes notice. I must confess that it is a point which takes me by surprise. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. It is contrary to the advice I gave the House on Second Reading, but I shall be very interested to look into it. I am sorry I cannot go further at this moment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, to leave out from "has" to "without" in line 43 and to insert:
    "at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with that date ceased to be in, or been given notice of termination of, that employment"
    This Amendment will not, I think, affect a considerable number of people, but it is designed as a gesture. If there are any whose employment will be terminated as a result of the introduction of the Bill, they should be looked after and dealt with generously. The Government's original proposal was for a period of one month after the coming into operation of the Levy Board. I have proposed the substitution of six months for one month. I do not think anyone will be affected. I hope not, because I believe that the new Levy Board will want people rather than want to dispense with their services. In order that those already employed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board should have a feeling of confidence in the desire of the Board to look after employees, I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Vosper: The Government accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    First Schedule.—(BOOKMAKERS' COMMITTEE.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this be the First Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) repeated the point that I made on Second Reading that there is no requirement in this Schedule that any member of the Bookmakers' Committee shall be a bookmaker. I do not imagine that anything so foolish would be done by the Secretary of State as to set up a Bookmakers' Committee with no bookmakers on it, but the question arises exactly how the members of the Committee are to be chosen.
    I was told by someone whom I regard as very knowledgeable in these matters that there are eighteen bookmakers' associations which are held in some high esteem. I had confirmation of that, after I said it on Second Reading, from somebody who came to me and said" I can tell you that the Government have been in touch with exactly eighteen associations." I do not make that assertion myself, but that information was conveyed to me, and I only hope that there is some glimmering of truth in it.
    I am a little perturbed by the wording of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, which says:
    "… the Secretary of State may, after consultation with any body appearing to him to be representative of the interests of bookmakers generally …"
    That seems to be a somewhat vague statement to put into the paragraph. The Bookmakers' Committee, presumably, will be representative of England, Scotland and Wales, and I should like some assurance that an effort will be made to consult people who know this calling and the members of it in the various parts of the country, because there is a considerable difference between a north-country bookmaker and a south-country bookmaker. I have never had any consultation with a Scottish bookmaker, but I can imagine that he is a different sort of person from

    549
    either of the other two I have mentioned. I have had some transactions with Welsh bookmakers, and I am quite certain that they are of so peculiar a make-up, that they must have separate representation on this committee if the committee is to have any knowledge at all of the way in which this provision operates in the valleys of Monmouthshire.
    Can the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary of State give any indication of the sources from which information will be sought as this committee is being set up, and can either of them give me any indication of the probable number of people who will sit on this committee when it is constituted?
    Mr. McInnes: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I should like some further information about the provisions in the First Schedule. It is true, as my right hon. Friend indicated, that the Bookmakers' Protection Association has said, as pointed out in the Peppiatt Report, that there are some eighteen regional organisations of bookmakers throughout the country, but that relates only to the Bookmakers' Protection Association and, as the Minister of State is aware, there are other bookmakers' associations.
    I wonder which one or how many of these bookmakers' associations the right hon. Gentleman intends to consult. The first paragraph of the First Schedule states that the Committee
    "shall be constituted in such manner as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with any body appearing to him to be representative of the interests of bookmakers … prescribe."
    I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to consult the many bookmakers' organisations. I hope, as my right hon. Friend said, that he will do so on a regional basis, so that we have adequate representation because, for example, the Scottish Bookmakers' Association is an entirely different body from that down South, even in referring to the Bookmakers' Protection Association. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position,
    550
    because the provisions of the First Schedule are very ambiguous.
    Mr. Vosper: May I give the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) an assurance that there will be bookmakers on the Bookmakers' Committee, even though the Schedule does not specifically state that. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). painted out, the figure 18 occurs in the Peppiatt Report as being the number of regional organisations of the National Bookmakers' Protection Association. My right hon. Friend's intention, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, is to consult the bookmakers' organisations. That must obviously extend to the regional organisations of the N.B.P.A., and the Peppiatt Report suggested that possibly all those regions might be represented, although it was not a specific recommendation.
    As I think the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central had in min,. there are other organisations. He probably had in mind the Starting Price Bookmakers' Association, which is strongly represented in the North of England, Scotland and the North of Ireland. There is a new organisation which has come into being since the Betting aid Gaming Act earlier this year. It is right that we should have regard to these organisations and consult them. Because of that, no number is in mini at the moment or specified in the Bill. It is right that we should first consult and see the extent of the representation necessary before deciding a number.
    The two points which are important to the committee are, first, that bookmakers will be on the committee and, secondly, that there will be consultations with all the bodies, regional and national, of bookmakers throughout the United Kingdom.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Second Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN)
  10.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move,
  That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  These Regulations make a technical amendment to the National Insurance (Married Women) Regulations, 1948. The amendment is necessary to implement the intention of the National Insurance Act, 1959, that married women earning over £9 should be required to pay graduated contributions under the new graduated pension scheme, on the same basis as other people.
  Married women will still have the option not to pay flat rate contributions and rely on their husbands' insurance, or to pay such contributions and establish their own individual insurance right. But where they earn over £9 a week they will, as outlined in the White Paper "Provision for Old Age", be equally liable as other employees for graduated contribution, unless they are in a scheme which is accepted as "contracted out".
  In a country where so many women are in employment, and where the rights of the married woman are so actively championed, there is no justifiable reason for differentiating between married and single women in relation to their obligations and their rights under the graduated scheme.
  Thus, Section 14 (4) of the National Insurance Act, 1959, provided that Section 59 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, which requires the Minister to make regulations providing for the exception of married women from liability to pay contributions, should not require him to make provision for excepting them from liability to pay graduated contributions.
  To implement the intention of the 1959 Act fully, however, it is necessary for the Minister not merely to refrain from making new Regulations excepting married
  552
  women from liability to pay graduated contributions, but also to ensure that the Regulations already made, before the passing of the 1959 Act, do not have that effect—since it might be argued that they apply automatically to graduated contributions as well as to flat-rate contributions. The proposed amending Regulations are accordingly designed to secure that the existing Regulations are not interpreted as conferring upon married women a right to elect not to pay graduated contributions under the 1959 Act. In terms they provide that the word "contributions" in the existing Regulations does not include graduated contributions under the 1959 Act.
  It is, I know, appreciated that under the graduated scheme a wife cannot receive any graduated pension on the graduated contributions paid by her husband, so long as he is alive. Therefore, these amending Regulations also take into account the right of a married woman to build up a graduated pension in her own right.
  The amending Regulations also secure that various other minor references to "contributions" in the existing Regulations, which are inappropriate to graduated contributions under the 1959 Act, are not construed as including such con tributions. For example the existing Regulations provide that certain women who have at one time chosen not to pay, or have been precluded from paying, flat-rate contributions cannot thereafter pay such contributions at the non-employed rate, or cannot have their contributions taken into account for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit purposes, until they have paid, or have been credited with, 52 contributions as an employed or self-employed person. It would be clearly inappropriate for graduated contributions to be taken into account for this purpose in the case of women who were not otherwise insured under the flat rate scheme in their own right, first, because they are designed to count, for graduated pension purposes only, and second, because they can be paid by women who are not paying flat rate contributions.
  I know all this sounds rather technical, but I am sure the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), is very well aware of this point. Certainly the intention was agreed during discussion of the

  553
  Bill and in Committee, and these Regulations are to make clear beyond doubt the obligation of married women earning over £9 a week to pay contributions towards a graduated pension.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: As the right hon. Lady has explained, the Regulations do nothing new. They only carry out the Intentions of the 1959 Act, intentions which were written into the White Paper published earlier to explain the new graduated scheme. It appears that the Regulations are necessary for technical reasons.
  With the constant flow of Regulations coming before the House, it is becoming abundantly necessary for serious thought to be given to publicity of the new scheme which will be coming into operation in less than three months after we return from the Christmas Recess. My experience is that there is an enormous amount of ignorance still prevalent about what the new scheme is, what it will do, who will come into it, and what for.
  As regards the draft Regulations, many married women still wonder why they retain the option of not paying flat-rate contributions under the original scheme, but have no such option in regard to the graduated contributions under the new scheme. Without some explanation, many married women will think that they are being deprived of some right under the graduated scheme which they have had under the flat-rate scheme ever since 1948.
  There is a very good reason why they should pay their graduated contributions. The right hon. Lady has explained that the married woman will have no benefit from her husband's graduated contributions so long as he is alive. If she is left a widow, under the graduated scheme she can enjoy a proportion of the additional benefits that her husband had earned in the graduated scheme at the time of his death.
  A married woman exercising her option not to pay contributions is, nevertheless, still eligible for benefits in her awn right under the flat-rate scheme. If her husband dies, subject to specified conditions, she may have a widow's pension. If she does not qualify for a widow's pension, she will be able to draw on her husband's contribution record for the purpose
  554
  of qualifying in due course, on a combination of her own contributions and those of her late husband, for retirement pension in her own right. If both husband and wife live to pass the retirement age of the husband, she enjoys a wife's pension by virtue of her husband's contributions.
  Therefore, it is important for married women to realise that by remaining in the graduated scheme they are qualifying for benefits in addition to those which they will enjoy under the flat-rate scheme, whether they remain contributors or exercise their option not to pay contributions under the flat-rate scheme.
  This is most important. Otherwise, a great many married women will think that all that has happened here is that they are being compelled to pay a graduated contribution when they do not want to pay it, and that it will be tucked away and held in trust by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for an unduly long period, and will then get about 4d. in pension paid to them many years after. But, however small the graduated benefit may be, it will be in addition to the benefits that she will enjoy under the flat-rate scheme, and, therefore, will not in total be negligible.
  Married women must also appreciate, as probably all hon. Members do, that this new graduated scheme may not be the last word—that it may be extended. The Minister or his successor may feel bolder and introduce a scheme providing bigger benefits, albeit on higher contribution. It is, therefore, very wise to get the foundations right and, in the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself, these Regulations should be accepted by the House.
  I must again appeal for a really serious approach to the promotion of public understanding of all this. The proliferation of Regulations and the jumble and jargon now being built up around the new scheme will bewilder the whole nation in three or four months' time unless a really bold attempt is made to get this across to the public.
  I hope that the trade unions will play their part, because the graduated scheme relates only to employed persons, and all the trade unions and all those bodies representative of salaried staffs, and wage earners as well, will have an opportunity of explaining to their members all

  555
  about the new scheme, especially where—as we come in a moment to the next Order—the trade unions themselves have been brought into consultation on Regulations that are laid before the House from time to time. I find that even in such cases there is a signal lack of understanding of what is being done—and why.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady will convey to her right hon. Friends this very earnest message: "For goodness' sake, let us have the fullest possible publicity of the new scheme and all that it entails. Let us explain to the various categories of insured persons why they are being treated in this way." The Act that we passed last year is too far away for any publicity that the long Committee stage received to be of much value for current purposes. It therefore has to be done afresh.
  As I think the right hon. Lady realises, much of the publicity that has lately gone out is already out of date because the new Bill that has gone through this House, is now in another place, and will shortly be passed into law will alter nearly all the figures of contributions that appeared previously. This is a serious matter. If it is not attended to, the time of the House will be taken up at the beginning of April—when we may have other things to think about—in trying to dispose of misunderstandings and grievances that people may have and feel but which, with advance publicity, may be avoided.
  10.29 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will not mind if I put what is, perhaps, another point of view. If the superannuation to which these married women could look forward when they came to pensionable age were worth while, then, like him, I would be more ready to support these Regulations. As he has suggested, we may in some
  556
  years' time have a worth-while scheme, and perhaps that will be the only reason why some of us on this side of the House could accept these Regulations; so that the married women during the few years until we have a worth-while scheme are part of the original scheme.
  My hon Friend said that we needed much more explanation. I agree with him. He said that without a proper explanation married women would be wondering why they were deprived of the right, which they have under the flat-rate scheme, of opting out. My fear is that when an explanation is given to the married women, when they are told what contributions they will have to pay under the scheme and what they will receive, they will object far more to the scheme than they would if they had no explanation at all.
  I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary knows how many married women earning over £9 a week will come into the scheme. They must not be in a recognised occupational scheme. Are there many? Have the Government any idea? Is there going to be a proper explanation to those married women, who are going to be deprived of a right, that under this graded contribution arrangement they will have to pay far more than they have to pay to any outside commercial institution to get the same miserable pension when they attain retirement age?
  I have the greatest hesitation in accepting these Regulations. I accept them only in the hope that before many years we shall have a Government which is determined to give value for money paid, instead of milching ordinary working people of money to support a burden which ought to be borne by the Exchequer.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS)
  10.33 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move,
  That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
  The House will be aware that individual arrangements exist in relation to the payment of seamen. Generally speaking, their wages are assessed and paid at the end of the voyage, whether it be two weeks or two years. These Regulations deal with two quite separate subjects—first, the payment of flat-rate contributions by shipowners and seamen for paid leave at the end of a voyage; and second, the payment of graduated contributions by shipowners and seamen.
  The justification for making Regulations about the first subject is that seamen generally take their holidays at the end of their employment and not in the course of it. The Regulations will ensure that seamen have a complete record of Class 1 flat-rate contributions covering weeks of paid leave as well as weeks of employment.
  The justification for making Regulations about the second subject is that, as I said, seamen are generally paid by the voyage and not by the week or by the month; and that there are other special features of their employment which require special treatment in connection with the payment of graduated contributions. It is true that a seaman's wage is generally expressed as so much a month, but he is rarely paid by the month. He is generally paid by the voyage. He may receive advances of wages during the voyage, but there is no general settlement until the end of the voyage. For this reason, the Regulations treat the voyage as the pay period for seamen who are paid in that way. Ships' masters will have tables which will show what graduated contributions the seamen should pay for any given wage for any given number of weeks from one to one hundred.
  These new Regulations have been fully discussed with the shipping industry and have the full support of both sides of the industry in view of the special circumstances
  558
  relating to the payment of seamen. When the Regulations were before the National Insurance Advisory Committee, there was only one representation received. That was from the London County Council, which urged that the new liability to pay flat rate contributions for paid leave should not apply to its sludge vessels. The Advisory Committee recommended that it should not apply, and the Minister has accepted that. The Regulations are drafted accordingly.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: If these draft Regulations are not explained in simpler language, the mariners will be all at sea about how they stand under the graduated pension scheme. I should be inclined to suggest that, if the Regulations go out as they are, our sailors will have something to occupy their time in the long watches of the night. But, since both sides of the industry have agreed to the Regulations, I hope that those concerned will feel that it rests upon them to a very large extent to explain to the men affected just how the arrangements will work.
  I suppose that I was not on the London County Council long enough to realise that one could be a mariner under the L.C.C. but, apparently, only on a sludge vessel. I notice that the right hon. Lady said that the only representations which the National Insurance Advisory Committee had came from the London County Council, which said that its sailors were not as other sailors are: they are paid on conditions very similar to those found among people employed on land, and so the Minister has accepted the suggestion that, in defining what is a mariner, we shall exclude ships or vessels used wholly or mainly for the disposal of sludge.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that when we received the recommendations we consulted the Transport and General Workers' Union before we excluded the sludge vessels, so what we have done has the agreement of the London County Council as employers and of the appropriate trade union.
  Mr. Houghton: That only goes to show how carefully everything is tied up before the question comes to the House, at least in matters of this kind.

  559
  These Regulations deal with a special type of employment, and, clearly, they have to be looked at in relation to the peculiarities of seafaring work, in just the same way as there have to be special arrangements about P.A.Y.E. deductions for people similarly employed. We must bear in mind in this connection that this close tie between the P.A.Y.E. procedure for Income Tax purposes and the deduction of graduated contributions means that there must be some harmony in administration between the two; otherwise we shall be led into difficulty.
  I have no further observations to make. More clearly in this case, perhaps, than in the case of the Regulations we have just passed, having regard to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), these Regulations implement the intention of the Act of last year and adjust the deduction arrangements to the special conditions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1960 [draft laid before the House, 21st November], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, fo the Borough of Kendal [copy laid before the House, 8th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Nelson, [copy laid before the House, 8th December], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

  CRIMINAL ASSAULTS ON CHILDREN (PRESS REPORTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Home Office has been on the Government Front Bench throughout the afternoon, and if it were in my power to provide him with overtime I would gladly do so. I want to say how grateful I am to him for attending this debate at this late hour after a busy day, because I particularly want his help.
  The matter I raise has some relation to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the facts of the particular case from which I propose to generalise are as follows: a 15 year old—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, but the title of the subject of which he has given notice does not help me to decide that there is Ministerial responsibility. He will understand my difficulties. He knows tie limitations of discussing legislation in these circumstances. I should be grateful for his help.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am obliged. I do not propose to call on anybody to produce legislation on this subject. I want guidance from the Home Office, which has some responsibility for young persons in various capacities and has accepted responsibility, in some capacities, for the Press. I wonder if I might outline to you, Mr. Speaker, the details of a case for which I think the Home Office may be able to accept some degree of responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Gentleman first of all tell me what he alleges is the Ministerial responsibility in relation to this matter? That is my difficulty. After that, he can flow on.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I shall not merely allege but assert that under the 1933 Act the Home Office has a broad responsibility in cases which are somewhat analogous to the one I propose to raise.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt again. The difficulty is that I must know about Ministerial responsibility before I am able to allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the case.
  Mr. Mallalieu: The Ministerial responsibility, as I understand it, is that under the Act magistrates are given power to request that the names of minors who appear in court shall not be published in the Press, and it is a case analogous to that, though not wholly in line with it, that I want to raise tonight and generalise from.
  Mr. Speaker: I am being tiresome only in relation to my duties. At present I do not know that any Minister has any power to direct magistrates to exercise their power to request the Press not to publish names.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am not sure what the technical phrase is, but the 1933 Act was one for which the Home Office was responsible in the House, and one of its provisions was that magistrates should have that power. No doubt, as the Home Office carried the Act through the House in 1933 it would accept responsibility for its working.
  Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Member think of another device, because I cannot be convinced by that one?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I would give anything I could to think of another device, but I am not sure that I can. Would it help if I outlined the case? You could then decide, on the outline of the case, whether there was Ministerial responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. My duty obliges me to confine the hon. Member to some matter for which Ministerial responsibility exists. If by way of recital he could talk about the thing first, the object of the rules imposed on me would be defeated. I am afraid that I must persist in the matter.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Perhaps I might suggest another point on which the Home Office has direct responsibility. This case arises from matter which was given by the police to the Press. The Home Office has a responsibility for the police in the Metropolitan area. I wonder whether by that device I might now introduce my subject.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is talking about some activity of the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am generalising about police activities, but it could be a particular case in the Metropolitan area, because I understand that, though I have been alerted by a particular issue that has arisen elsewhere than in the Metropolitan area, it is police practice to do that about which I am complaining.
  Mr. Speaker: Metropolitan Police practice is one matter, but if it is other police practice, that does not help me.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I will confine it to the Metropolitan Police.
  There have been occasions when schoolgirls—I am thinking of one particular one—in the Metropolitan area have been criminally assaulted. Reports of these assaults have been given to the Press. In those reports the name and address of the child concerned has been given by the police to the Press, and the information has then been published.
  The result of this publication has been that additional distress has been caused to the victim, to the parents, and to the relatives. I have in mind one instance where, as a result of such publication, people whom I can only describe as ghouls went to the house and made excuses for gaining entry, but were concerned only with staring at the victim.
  Also, the name of the victim being published in the Press might lead to intimidation. Once the person who has committed the assault knows the name and address of his victim, he might very well go to that victim and say: "If you lay evidence against me I shall bash you", or words to that effect.
  I believe that it is not normal Press practice to publish these names, even if the police afford the information. As a professional journalist I should certainly condemn the practice of publishing the information, and I hope that the House and the Home Secretary will also condemn it, but I am compelled to ask the Minister if he will give some guidance, or if possible some instruction, to those police forces, or that police force for which he has some responsibility, that in no circumstances will the Press
  564
  divulge the name and address of minors who are victims of these assaults.
  That publication cannot possibly do any good. I know that in certain instances it has caused immense distress, and if the Minister of State were to state his view now, before the House, to the police force for which he has some responsibility, that it is not public policy that these names should be published, he would be doing a service if not to the victims of the past at least to those who may be victims in the future.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I am glad of the opportunity to add a few words to the observations made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). I can well understand the distress caused by criminal assaults both to the person assaulted and to the parents, where the assaulted person is a young child. I also appreciate the concern felt by other parents in the district where these incidents occur. I was going to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Home Secretary had some responsibility for making recommendations to the police outside the Metropolitan area, but if it is your Ruling that we must confine ourselves to the Metropolitan area, I will deal with the matter in general terms.
  The practice of reporting the name and address of a person assaulted varies. I would say that, generally speaking, the standard of local and provincial newspapers is a high one. I know of one newspaper in which it is the general rule not to publish the name and address of a young person who has been assaulted, although it may be of help to the police and to the public to publish the general circumstances. That may be of some advantage to the police in trying to find the person who committed the act. In one case I have in mind, by error the name and address was inadvertently mentioned, but in all subsequent editions of the newspaper it was deleted, and that is a practice which can be commended.
  Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, does not apply to cases to which I am now referring. That Section applies to hearings in court. I have in mind the reporting of an incident of which the Press have been

  565
  made aware by the police. It is in those circumstances that it is inadvisable for the name and address of the person assaulted to be mentioned, because it causes unnecessary distress. It would be helpful if some way could be found whereby the Home Secretary could make a recommendation of a general nature to deal with cases such as this, and so lessen the publicity and distress caused thereby.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in their representations to the Minister of State on this matter.
  Although there are occasions when Press publicity is vital in the discovery of the criminal, as we have seen in recent cases, nevertheless there is a considerable danger in pandering excessively to the apparently inexhaustible hunger for news of sexual perversion, especially affecting the young, and such excessive pandering in the Press tends to clothe the sordid with normality. I hope that careful steps will be taken to see that when a break is made in the normal practice against disclosure of names it is made only in the most exceptional circumstances, and in the gravest type of case.
  10.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for his generous opening remarks and I am sorry that, because of difficulties which he will understand, I am not able fully to respond to this debate. I think I can say that the whole House will sympathise with the unfortunate people whom the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have in mind. He did not mention any specific case, but I think he knows that the case which I think he has in mind is not one in which the Home Secretary would have any power of intervention. Nor, as you would rule, Mr. Speaker—indeed, you have already ruled—would it be appropriate for me to discuss on an Adjournment Motion any suggestion implying that legislation covering, for example, Press censorship, should be considered to deal with a case like that. I am, therefore, able to deal
  566
  in only a limited way with the point which the hon. Member has made.
  The hon. Gentleman related his argument to the activities of the Metropolitan Police for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, and he dealt with this matter in a hypothetical manner. He asked, if a case came to the attention of my right hon. Friend in which the police had divulged to the Press the name of the victim, what would be the attitude of my right hon. Friend. It is very difficult for me to reply to what is a hypothetical case and to generalise about what is an individual or personal matter. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and only for them and in such a case the matter is left to their discretion. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, though it is difficult to generalise, that in general the names of the victims should not be disclosed.
  I understood the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) to say that there could be cases where, in the interests of tracing the offender, it would be necessary to disclose the name of the victim. I have in mind a recent case which falls into that category. But I should have thought that it would be only in those cases where the Metropolitan Police, acting within the discretion allowed to them, would be able to disclose the name of the victim, and confine disclosure to those cases.
  The responsibility of my right hon. Friend does not extend beyond the Metropolitan Police, but I suppose that in general most police forces would adopt the same sort of procedure.
  The other point which arises out of this debate, which was touched on both by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), is related to cases which come before the courts. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. This is a Section designed to prevent from exposure to harmful publicity children who come before the courts as a result of court proceedings. Both Section 39 and Section 49 of the Act are applicable in these sorts of cases, and I think it is worth my while to say a word about them.

  567
  Section 49 requires that newspapers shall not report the name, address, school, photograph or other identifying particulars of any child or young person concerned in proceedings in a juvenile court. There is in fact a proviso—one which is rarely used—whereby the court or the Secretary of State can allow the publication of identifying particulars if satisfied in any case that it is in the interests of justice to do so. That would be to some extent analogous with the powers of the Metropolitan Police in a case which has not come before the courts. Children are brought before juvenile courts under the 1933 Act not only as offenders but also as being in need of care and protection within the meaning of the Act, and some of those in the latter category have been the victims of offences, including sexual offences. This is an important provision and one that, according to my information, is generally well observed by the newspapers.
  Then there is the earlier Section, Section 39, which provides that in any proceedings in any court adult or otherwise—Section 49 refers to juvenile courts only—
  "… in any proceedings which arise out of any offence against, or any conduct contrary to, decency or morality, the court may direct …"
  no newspaper shall reveal the name or other identifying particulars of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings. This Section is widely drawn. It appears to apply to proceedings in a civil court as well as in a criminal court.
  In 1955 the Press Council told the Home Secretary of the day that this provision was not protecting young witnesses effectively, because the attention of the court was not expressly drawn to its powers at the outset of every such case in which a child or young person was concerned; and that, in consequence, the court either did not consider giving a direction that would prevent publication of identifying particulars, or gave the direction too late to prevent publication in the first reports of the proceedings.
  568
  As a result of these representations five years ago, the Home Office sent circular letters to clerks to justices, clerks of peace and clerks of assize and to the chief constables suggesting that arrangements should be made for the courts to be informed at the outset of any case in which the Section applied that a child was to be concerned in the proceedings. Since the issue of those circulars, I have not heard of any criticism that this safeguard was failing to achieve its objective. This whole matter in respect of proceedings before the court was considered by the Ingleby Committee, whose Report was published a few weeks ago. In general the Committee considered that the safeguards were adequate, but it was considering the matter only where proceedings had been instituted. It considered them adequate but recommended slight extensions which the Home Secretary is at present considering. None of these extensions would go far enough to afford protection in the kind of case the hon. Member has in mind, because in that particular case no proceedings had been commenced.
  It is the general experience, however, that even when no statutory restriction applies, the newspapers exercise a reasonable discretion in reporting cases in which children and young persons are involved and the Press will nearly always respond well to an appeal by the court, or indeed, by any other responsible authority. As I have said, these provisions do not cover the cases which the hon. Member has in mind where no proceedings have been instituted. All I can say in respect of them relates to the powers and discretion of the Metropolitan Police.
  The issue of tonight's debate is of a very wide nature, but I think I can say that the hon. Member has done a service this evening in drawing attention to the harm which may flow from inconsiderate newspaper reports, and I hope that his remarks will be widely noticed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Sub-Office, Dagenham
  Sub-Office, Dagenham
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Ceremonial Unit
  Ceremonial Unit
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  Lasham Airfield
  Lasham Airfield
  Strength
  Strength
ROADS
  Traffic Segregation
  Traffic Segregation
  Motorways (Anti-Dazzle Fences)
  Motorways (Anti-Dazzle Fences)
  Hopton-Battyeford Road
  Hopton-Battyeford Road
  Road Signs, London
  Road Signs, London
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  Redbridge, Swanley (Traffic Congestion)
  Redbridge, Swanley (Traffic Congestion)
  A.1 (Hertfordshire)
  A.1 (Hertfordshire)
  Boothferry Bridge
  Boothferry Bridge
  North Circular Road
  North Circular Road
  Ross Spur Motorway (Signs)
  Ross Spur Motorway (Signs)
  Road, Sheffield (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Road, Sheffield (Pedestrian Crossing)
  Worcester Northern Link Road
  Worcester Northern Link Road
  A.20 (Farningham)
  A.20 (Farningham)
  One-way Traffic Scheme, London
  One-way Traffic Scheme, London
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  50 m.p.h. Speed Limit
SHIPPING
  Pontoon Docks, Aberdeen
  Pontoon Docks, Aberdeen
  Merchant Navy Officers
  Merchant Navy Officers
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  United States Maritime Board (Order)
  United States Maritime Board (Order)
  Safety of Life at Sea (Convention)
  Safety of Life at Sea (Convention)
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety (Children)
  Road Safety (Children)
  A-Licence (Member's Letter)
  A-Licence (Member's Letter)
  Inland Waterways (Tolls)
  Inland Waterways (Tolls)
RAILWAYS
  London Airport
  London Airport
  Euston-Crewe Line (Electrification)
  Euston-Crewe Line (Electrification)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Colonial Forces
  Colonial Forces
  Polaris Missiles
  Polaris Missiles
  German Forces (Training Facilities)
  German Forces (Training Facilities)
  Waste Food (Disposal)
  Waste Food (Disposal)
  LAOS (SITUATION)
  LAOS (SITUATION)
  VISAS (UNITED STATES)
  VISAS (UNITED STATES)
  NUCLEAR TESTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  NUCLEAR TESTS (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
ROYAL NAVY
  Polaris Missile
  Polaris Missile
  Assault Ships
  Assault Ships
  Eaglescliffe Depot Employees (Pay)
  Eaglescliffe Depot Employees (Pay)
  Cadetships
  Cadetships
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Wages
  Wages
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Inspectors of Police (Africans)
  Inspectors of Police (Africans)
SCOTLAND
  Housing (Revenue Accounts)
  Housing (Revenue Accounts)
  Coast Protection
  Coast Protection
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Coast Protection
  Coast Protection
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Malt and Grain Spirits
  Malt and Grain Spirits
BRITISH ARMY
  Fijians
  Fijians
  Tank Training Areas
  Tank Training Areas

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

HIRE-PURCHASE TERMS
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will introduce legislation to fix the "down payment" and the length of time over which instalments may be paid in respect of all hire-purchase agreements.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the existing legislation, the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959, provides for the introduction of controls on hire-purchase transactions as part of the measures for restricting excessive credit. This legislation expires in 1964. Her Majesty's Government consider it adequate for the purpose for which it is intended and see no present reason for extending it for other purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord really think that such a vital matter, affecting the whole of the British commercial economy, should be subject to alteration and annulment by a Defence Regulation of 1939? Would he not agree with me that it would be far better that this vital matter should be controlled by an Act of Parliament, on a basis that is economic, after discussion by Parliament, and altered only by the will of Parliament? At the present time it can be altered by an order made one day and coming into force the next and subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I understand what the noble Lord has in mind. Permanent legislation to control hire-purchase agreements in the
464
sense apparently desired by the noble Lord would, of course, prevent in future the removal of hire-purchase restrictions as a means of stimulating the economy. It would be difficult to fix permanent percentages for deposit and permanent periods of repayment which would not either be so high as to impose an unnecessary burden upon consumers or be so low as to require augmentation in times of emergency. The former alternative would invite continuous evasion, which could be kept in check only at considerable expense, and the latter would upset forward planning.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord noticed the look of horror that went over my face when he said that this could be used to "stimulate the economy"—I think I heard him correctly. Is the noble Lord aware that the last time the Government tried to stimulate the economy by removing all hire-purchase restrictions, in October, 1958, it was a tragic thing for many trades and industries in this country? Does he appreciate—and I would ask him if he would put this point of view to his right honourable friend—that the Government are powerless to stimulate the economy by lowering hire-purchase terms or the initial deposit, unless they have the acquiescence and support of the hire purchase houses? The Government could remove all hire-purchase controls to-morrow, and the change would be ineffective if the Hire Purchase Association, the big operators in the hire-purchase field, refused to carry it out.
May I ask the noble Lord one last question? Does he think it feasible for the Government to pass any regulation or enactment that forces private enterprise to lose money? That is the only way they can stimulate the economy—by removing hire-purchase controls.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that it I were to attempt to answer all the questions contained in that supplementary, it would take more time than the House would willingly allow me. I will say this. The noble Lord referred to the pant that the big finance houses play in all this and, as I understood it, expressed some anxiety about what might take their place if they would not

465
"play". Quite clearly, the dislike of the established concern for the parvenue is understandable and understood, but we think that that does not mean that when credit is not excessive the newcomer should not be allowed to compete in his own way and on his own terms. Those who use his services will balance the advantages of dealing with a newcomer against what may be the higher costs of dealing with an old-established firm, just as there is enough room for either Harrod's or the barrow boy for those who want to buy apples. I will willingly take the noble Lord's point of view to my right honourable friend, who will, I am sure, treat it with the seriousness and consideration which one would expect.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord? As he quite rightly said, this is a most difficult question to be dealt with by question and answer across the Floor of the House. If he will convey to his right honourable friend what I have said, I am quite certain that he will give it his due consideration.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of the first reply the noble Lord made, am I to understand that, when he referred in his last few words to planning, that was Government planning or planning in industry? If it is planning by Government, I think we on this side of the House should take note that the Government are changing their policy.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, although I am quite sure that the noble Lord, as usual, spoke with great clarity, I am not quite able to follow him in that question. It is general planning—economic and industrial planning.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will also take into consideration the sometimes serious social effects of hire-purchase arrangements?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, when he refers this matter to his right honourable friend, whether he would speak about what is really the crux of the matter; that is, that since December, 1952, in the motor industry there have been eight changes in hire-purchase deposits, and
466
in the furniture industry six changes, ranging from nothing to 50 per cent.? No one in those industries objects to hire-purchase deposits. What they do object to is these drastic changes, which are merely an outlet for the Government's policy which they have to bear. That is the importance of my noble friend's Question. Let us have a settled deposit.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I will certainly bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the Minister kindly ask his right honourable friend especially to have a consultation with the big banks who are now substantial shareholders in the hire-purchase finance firms? Perhaps they could give a real guidance as to the minimum deposit they require.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am quite certain my right honourable friend will call upon any advisers he feels necessary.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT OF ROAD CASUALTIES
2.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will abolish the obligation which rests on hospitals to collect an emergency treatment fee of 12s. 6d. in respect of persons who require treatment as the result of a road traffic accident.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, hospital authorities are entitled to these fees and they therefore have a duty to claim them. Any changes in the obligation imposed on vehicle users by the Road Traffic Act to pay these fees on a claim being made would require legislation, and this is a matter which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will bear in mind at the appropriate time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst I welcome the information that this matter is being borne in mind, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the cost to hospitals of collecting this fee

467
is very considerably more than 12s. 6d; that it involves a great deal of work for the police and that the motorist, who has to pay it, thinks it grossly unfair, because often he is not responsible for the accident. This imposition is unfair; it costs more than we receive, and it would be in the interests of the Treasury to abolish it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, perhaps I should be summarising the views of the noble Lord if I were to say that he regards this fee as anomalous in a great many ways. If that is so it has been anomalous for a long time, because this provision for payment of a fee dates from 1934. There was an opportunity to abolish it, as the noble Lord would like, during the passage of the National Health Service Act in 1946, but it was not abolished; and in fact the provision was actually continued in the Tenth Schedule to that Act. I am not promising that, when the appropriate time comes, my right honourable friend will do what the noble Lord wants; on the other hand, I am not shutting the door on that.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us how long an anomaly has to endure before the time comes to remove it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that appears to be a point of very general application.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord have regard to the even more concrete point, that it often costs hospitals, in time, at least £5 or £10 to try to collect the 12s. 6d.; and very often they cannot recover it at all. It is a sheer waste of the nation's money.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think I can undertake that that is one of the points my right honourable friend will bear in mind at the right moment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the great amount of work falling on hospital staffs from the present system of collecting from insurance companies treatment charges
468
in respect of persons injured in road accidents, they will negotiate an agreement with the companies whereby they pay to Her Majesty's Treasury a lump sum based on premium income, which would be the estimated equivalent of the present sums they pay for the treatment of injured persons in hospital.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, as the Road Traffic Act, 1960, specifies who should make, and who should receive, these payments it would be necessary to amend the Act to make legal any other method of collection. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will bear in mind, at the appropriate time, the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. I hope that "the appropriate time" will be very soon. When it is being considered, will the noble Lord have regard to the fact that the average recovered in any one year from all these charges is about one-third of a million pounds—it was £350,000 last year—and that, in view of the great cost to hospitals, and the tremendous time it takes to agree these claims with the insurance companies, we should be making a great bargain if we got a quarter of £1 million from them?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend will bear that point in mind also.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) Library
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, V. Esher. V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soul-bury, L. Birkett, L. Burden. L. Chorley, L. Merthyr, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain. with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) Refreshment Department
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Killearn, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Shepherd, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee was given power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(3) Windows of the House
The Sub-Committee on the Windows of the House was appointed as follows: D. Wellington (Chairman), M. Salisbury, E. Crawford, E. Munster, L. Burden, L. Kenilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower
The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: M. Salisbury (Chairman), E. Harrowby, E. Home, E. Lucan, E. Munster, L. Amulree, L. Rea, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(5) House of Lords' Estimates
The Sub-Committee on the House of Lords' Estimates was appointed as follows: E. St. Aldwyn, E. Lucan, L. Amulree and L. Merthyr (Chairman).
2.—TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF PEERS
The Committee considered the Report of the Sub-Committee's meeting on November 22, 1960, which was agreed to.
3.—READING CLERK AND CLERK OF THE JOURNALS
The Committee approved the salary payable to Mr. Henry Montagu Burrows, C.B.E., the Reading Clerk, on his appointment as Clerk of the Journals from April 1, 1960.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—
(a) No. 41/60 Pay of the Higher Civil Service,
(b) No. 22/60 Principals, Assistant Principals etc, Revised scales of pay,
(c) No. 17/60 Messenger, Paperkeeper etc. Revised scales of pay,
(d) No. 45/60 Pay of Women Cleaners,
to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
5.—HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee sanctioned revisions in the scales of salary of the Hansard Reporting Staff and the appointment of an additional Reporter with effect; from October 1, 1960.
The Committee also sanctioned the application to temporary Reporters of the revised attendance fee as set out in the Appendix to Establishments Circular No. 37/60 with effect from June 1, 1960.
6.—MEAL ALLOWANCE
The Committee approved an increase in the rate of meal allowance payable to certain officials working late in the evening after a normal day's duty.
7.—RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL DOORKEEPER
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Herbert John Wootton, M.M., Principal Doorkeeper, with effect from December 9, 1960, after a short extension of service.
The Committee were informed of the re-employment of Mr. Wootton as an unestablished Doorkeeper.
8.—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR CUSTODIAN
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Acts to Mr. Arthur Cecil Keightley, who reached 65 years of age on October 14, 1960.
9.—RESIGNATION OF HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to Miss Julie Fetter, who resigned on July 16, 1960.
10.—RESIGNATION OF CUSTODIAN
The Committee authorised the payment of a transfer value under the Superannuation (Transfers between Civil Service and Local Government) Rules, to the London County Council in respect of the services of Mr. William Cooper as Custodian in the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department.
11.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1961-62 were laid before the Committee and approved.
12.—NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1959
The Committee were informed of the application of the regulations enabling eligible members of the staff of The House of Lords to be contracted out of the State graduated pension scheme.
13.—LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee and agreed to.
14.—VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER
The Committee considered the question of the ventilation of the Chamber and approved arrangements for the installation of thermometers.
15.—FIRST AID
The Committee considered the existing arrangements for medical aid and agreed that a wheel-chair should be provided.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords. I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. I do not think there are any matters to which I need draw the special attention of your Lordships; but, needless

471
to say, if there are any questions which any noble Lord would like to put to me I will do my best to answer them, either now or at a later stage.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to. —(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RELATIONSHIP WITH REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
2.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the present relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and to the desirability of closer economic and cultural associations between the two countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few months ago it occurred to my noble Leader and to others of us on these Benches that it was a very long time since any matters connected with the Republic of Ireland or with the relationship between this country and the Republic of Ireland had been either debated or even mentioned. My noble Leader therefore suggested that since I am, for the time being at any rate, resident in that country, perhaps I should be a suitable person to pat down a Motion on the subject. Those of you who have read the wording of the Motion carefully will see that it has been drawn in broad and general terms in the hope that it will be treated in the same way and that matters of controversy may perhaps be left out.
In my Motion I am urging the Government to think about improving relations in a field where, happily, they are already good. But nothing is so good that it cannot be better, and I hope—indeed, noble Lords on these Benches who have encouraged me in this Motion agree with me—that what I say to-day will perhaps start up certain thoughts which may be helpful in time. It is in no way our idea to put forward criticisms of Government policy at the moment, or to make any dramatic or far-reaching suggestions as to what they should do. We do not intend to do that. My speech will resemble, to some extent, those admirable periodic surveys of foreign affairs to which we always
472
look forward from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He speaks with enormous knowledge of the subject—much more than I have of this subject—and at the end of it all one has heard good speeches, and much good comes there-from. That is our object, and I hope that what I have to say will be treated in that light; also in the hope that the speakers—I am gratified to observe that in the list of speakers there are two former Cabinet Ministers—will confine themselves, so far as they can, to the terms of the Motion.
I have referred in my Motion to economic relations and cultural relations. I greatly hope, as we all do, that political aspects, which can get a "bad Press" and cause trouble, may be left out of this debate to-day. I feel that if economic and cultural ties are encouraged, political differences and the old antipathies will gradually die a natural and overdue death. It is not so long ago that the Oxford Union was addressed by the 'present Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Lemass. He was well received, and I think he found it enjoyable and instructive. Not so very long ago, such a debate would not have been possible. That it is possible now shows progress in the right direction. Then we have Embassies both here and in Dublin. There is the Irish Embassy in London, with a popular and able Ambassador. In Dublin we have Sir Ian MacLennan, a young and very capable man, extremely popular with the Irish, who does a good job of work there. I think that, in passing, I should also mention Mr. Boland, who was well known in London when he was Ambassador here, and who is now the Chairman of the United Nations in New York, where his personality has also made an immediate and satisfactory impact on the delegates.
To pass from the general to the particular, I have divided my remarks into two—economic relations first. I do not pose as an expert in any way, shape, or form. Admittedly, I am involved in industry in a small and rather modest way, but I do not look upon myself as an expert, and what I have to put forward to-day are points which I have tabulated and discussed with people both here and in Dublin. I hope that perhaps they may form the basis for a discussion

473
among your Lordships and that when the noble Duke comes to reply he may find that something I have said may be helpful in the future.
As many of your Lordships will appreciate, the Trade Agreement of 1938 between this country and the Republic of Ireland virtually gave duty-free entry into this country to all Irish manufactured goods. Of course, it was a two-way traffic. This Trade Agreement was confirmed in 1948 and again in the spring of this year, though on the latter occasion a review of certain items took place and a different rate of duty has in fact been agreed on certain items. I believe that the discussions which took place at the time were most amicable, and I think I am right in saying (though I should have checked this) that the noble Earl who until recently led us, was in the chair on that occasion. My Irish friends tell me that the negotiations were very friendly and, to a point, satisfactory. I know that as things stand at the moment, the terms of the Agreement, so far as industrial products are concerned, were acceptable and well received in Dublin—though a little less so where agriculture is concerned. As your Lordships appreciate, Ireland is primarily an agricultural country.
Instead of airing my own views on the subject, which are of comparatively little value, perhaps I may quote a few lines from a speech made in the Dail by Mr. Lemass on April 26, 1960, on his return from London. He said:
"…the proposals which we made to the British involved action by us, in consideration of their accepting the principle of a general linking of farm produce prices and of concerted agricultural production and marketing policies, to secure for British exporters to the Irish market trade advantages of at least equal magnitude by alternative methods which we suggested."
In other words, Mr. Lemass tried to put up various proposals on the industrial side in order to obtain certain concessions on the agricultural side. However, he went on to say:
" It was stated then, clearly and definitely, the British Ministers present at the negotiations that no trade advantages that we could offer them of this character"—
that is to say, in the industrial field—
"could in their judgment overcome the practical difficulties involved for them in our proposals."
474
What those difficulties were are not stated, but no doubt there were cogent reasons.
A little later in his speech Mr. Lemass said:
"I have always tried to make it clear in the various discussions I have had with British Ministers that we would not seek, nor indeed would we wish to receive, any trade advantages from Britain which could possibly be regarded as being at the expense of Six County interests. Neither would we desire that measures taken to promote economic development in this part of Ireland"—
that is to say, the Republic of Ireland—
"should prove substantially detrimental to those interests. We must, however, be realistic and recognise that some adverse consequences may, while circumstances remain as at present, be unavoidable. Our wish would be to reduce the effect so far as practicable."
My Lords, I think one can say that that is a reasonable statement—in fact, I would say that it was an unexceptionable statement on the part of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland; and I hope that when the noble Duke comes to reply he will be able to tell us whether a little more can be done in that direction. I will revert to this; matter a little later in my speech.
Commonwealth preferential rates where duty is concerned are, of course, enjoyed by enterprises other than Irish enterprises —those situated in Ireland, of which there are quite a number—and one wonders whether perhaps in 1938, when the Trade Agreement was made, such a state of affairs was at that time visualised. Probably not. But, of course, this is no criticism. If foreign capital has started up various industries in Ireland and those people thereby gain the benefit of Commonwealth preferential rates, there is no reason why they should not do so. In arty case, it is two-way; one has only to look at the negotiations going on at Dagenham, with Fords. The Irish could equally say that industrial production from this country to Ireland gets preferential treatment, though in the case I mention, based on American capital. It is quite an interesting thought to consider whether, when the signatories drew up the Agreement in 1938. they had in mind the way in which this particular matter would develop; and that industries which were based on capital other than Irish would, in fact, profit.
Lately, Mr. Aiken, the Minister for External Affairs, was in Bonn, where he spent quite a long time and made a series of speeches in which he encouraged German industrialists to come to Ireland, and to invest capital and start up industries there. I understand that there were discussions of a most amicable nature. I am given to understand (and I shall refer to this at greater length later on) that at the moment surplus capital in West Germany for investment is so great that they are looking for outlets everywhere; and Ireland seems to be a suitable one. Perhaps this comes strangely from a country which finds difficulty in paying the Occupation costs of N.A.T.O. troops in her territory.
There are now operating in the Shannon "duty-free area" eight foreign firms, of which only two are British. In view of our geographical propinquity that seems to me a very small proportion. One of those firms is Japanese-owned and is making transistors. There are a Dutch firm and an American firm; but, as I have said, only two out of the eight are British enterprises. Considerable concessions are given in regard to income tax and corporation profits tax on exported goods—that is, goods manufactured in that duty-free area of Shannon—and there are also Government grants to these enterprises. I wonder whether British industrialists have not been a little slow to appreciate these rather obvious advantages. Perhaps I am accusing them of not noticing something which in fact they have noticed. But in view of what I have said about the geographical propinquity of the two countries the proportion—two out of eight—seems to me very small.
There are many other firms starting in the area. The Germans, needless to say, have not been slow in coming forward; and at Killarney, on the shores of that marvellous lake where the scenery is really fabulous (and, in passing, I would urge those who have not seen it to see it before they die, for it is certainly the finest I ever saw) there is a considerable German development, with shops, houses, hotels—an entire colony. I am reliably informed that that is a subsidiary of Krupps, of Essen.
Before I leave that point—and I hope it may be of some interest to your Lordships, even though I am not urging Her
476
Majesty's Government to do anything, for it is plainly outside their power—I wonder if noble Lords have heard (doubtless some of them will have done) of a project to make a deep sea port in the Shannon Estuary, to take tankers of 100,000 tons or more into a "duty-free area" of about 20 miles square for transhipment, no duty being payable, on the same lines at that at Europort at the mouth of the Rhine. This project has not yet developed very far—perhaps it may never develop; but there again, the Sunday Times, in June, I believe, stated on their front page that Krupps, of Essen, had offered £22 million for the project. This was later denied by an official spokesman of the Irish Government, but it seems that the possibility of very great development with surplus capital from Western Germany is toward in that part of the world; and that may or may not be of some interest to your Lordships' House.
To turn to another aspect of the economic scene, lately it was suddenly announced that there would be an increase of 7½ per cent. in freight rates between the two countries. We were told of that increase in freight rates overnight. This increase, as your Lordships can imagine, was very ill-received by a number of industrialists who were working on a rather fine margin. At this point, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, speaking in Northern Ireland (though I did not hear him say it), was reported as saying, when tackled on the matter, that in any major concern freight rates were a minimal consideration. I thought that that was a most extraordinary remark. I can assure the noble Viscount that if he were in my business he would look on freight rates as very important indeed. I would ask the noble Duke whether he will take note of and consider the possibility of having an ad hoc committee of experts (not necessarily Government experts) who could perhaps sit and consider some of these 'points and report. I do not suggest a Standing Committee at present, for I do not think that is called for; but perhaps an ad hoc committee of experts, who could look at some of the points I am mentioning now, might in time find aspects on which they could oil the wheels here and there, and help things along a little. That is the first point I wish to raise.
Secondly, the air and sea communications between the two countries are poor,

477
especially at peak periods. Here we have a major problem. The number of Irish subjects now working in England is tremendous, and they all want to go home for Christmas, at August Bank holiday time and, many of them, at Whitsun also; and the means of communication just do not exist. One cannot extend shipping lines or airways: they do their best, and in fact they do a wonderful job; but the situation is chaotic—there are no other words for it. One wonders whether the British Transport Commission could not find some means of transferring shipping at peak periods for this traffic? Perhaps that is impossible, but if something could be done it would be helpful.
There are only two airports in Ireland, Shannon and Dublin, apart from Cork, which is building. The sea routes are Dublin-Liverpool, Dun Laoghaire Holyhead, Rosslare-Fishguard and Cork-Fishguard. There is one day every year when it is impossible to get in or out of Ireland; there is simply no means of doing so. That could be a serious state of affairs in the case of very serious illness or other emergency. That happens on Christmas Day, and for twenty-four hours one cannot get in or out by any means, other than chartering an aircraft. There again, perhaps the noble Duke, if he has nothing else to do one day, could have a word with the British Transport Commission or British European Airways to see if something could be done in that direction.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so good as to tell us his ideas on what might be done about passenger communications between Great Britain and the Irish Republic.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I rather thought I had done so. The British Transport Commission—British Railways—might be able at peak periods to divert a ship or two from some other line on which the load is not so heavy at Christmas time, for instance. That is my suggestion if it is practicable.
Finally, before I leave the first part of my speech concerning the economic side I should like to mention the question of bloodstock breeding, since it is, of course, a major industry where the Irish are concerned. It runs at a little
478
over £2 million per annum, from Ireland to England, and that is quite a lot of money. In fact, the breeding stock sent from Ireland to England is about four-fifths or five-sixths of the total bloodstock export from Ireland. I am told by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor (whom I tried to get into this debate; but unfortunately failed), since he breeds bloodstock in both countries, that he finds the existing arrangements are satisfactory.
While we are on the subject of that noble animal the horse, some of your Lordships will be pleased to have noted in the Press that control of the live horse-meat trade has been tightened up recently by the Irish Government, in consequence of protests about the inhumanity and brutality of shipping old horses abroad for slaughter. The Irish Government have subsidised a slaughter house not far from Dublin, and stringent regulations have been introduced to cover the export of horses for slaughter. In fact, no horse of over seven years of age may be exported for slaughter now, and there are other regulations into which it would take too long to go. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear that, in consequence of the representations, the Irish Government took that action.
That concludes the first half of my remarks and the second half will be rather shorter. I wish very much that my noble friend Lord Esher were here to-day, because he has forgotten more about the cultural side than I shall ever know. But ill health unfortunately prevents his attendance, and I know that your Lordships will join with me in expressing sympathy for him in his present condition. Here, again, I do not profess to any special knowledge at all on any of these cultural matters and put them forward alter some research merely in the hope of doing a little good here and there.
First, in the world of literature your Lordships will be very glad and interested to hear that the Book of Kells, dating from the eighth century—a fabulous work, I would say, to those who have not seen it—is to be on view in Burlington House from mid-January, with other tart treasures, including the Lindisfarne Gospels which are even older and date from about 700 A.D. The proceeds are

479
going towards building a library at New Trinity College, Dublin. I hope that some of your Lordships will be able to go and see these two extraordinary works of art side by side; this is the first time, so far as I know, that it has been possible to see them like that. It is a gesture—my noble friend Lord Moyne may be involved—and I hope that your Lordships will be able to see them in this helpful and entirely worthwhile activity. I should like to mention the subject of Trinity College, about which more may be said later by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. There is an increase in British students there, of whom quite a number are coloured students from Jamaica and West Africa. One sees a great many there. In fact, they probably run the cricket side! I can assure your Lordships that in Ireland racial discrimination is, luckily, non-existent.
In the world of art there was, on the subject of the Lane pictures, a long and rather bitter controversy which was very unfortunate. One side stood rather on the letter of the law and the other, perhaps, on the spirit of the law. In any case, the difference has now been resolved; and here again Lord Moyne had quite a lot to do with it. As a result, it has been agreed that alternately for five-year periods for the next twenty years half these pictures will be shown in Dublin and half in London. In fact, the first half is ready to be shown in Dublin now and it includes some extremely valuable and important masterpieces, including a Renoir, Les Parapluies, valued at £200,000 currently, and a Manet, valued at a little less—I think £150,000. Here is a matter eventually settled, not without some acrimony. If anything I can say can make a matter of that sort settled more quickly and easily in future, it will be to the general good.
In the theatre, the days of Sean O'Casey, and Synge are perhaps over, and no one has come up to replace them in the Irish theatre. It seems a pity. We do not get quite the plays we used to like to see or should like to have. We are always pleased to see a première of a play by Mr. Noel Coward—no one enjoys it more than I do—but perhaps it is not quite the same thing, even though in the last play we had the enormous pleasure of hearing Dame Sybil Thorn
480
dike there. The Dublin Theatre Festival, which takes place every year, is not tremendously encouraged by the British theatre, and one would like to see a little more done in that way. The Italians and Germans both have opera seasons in Dublin; there have been Spanish dancing companies there quite often. Admittedly, the Royal Ballet came once, though rather a long time ago—three years ago. But if anything I say this afternoon reaches them, perhaps it will encourage them to come again.
In the world of the cinema, there is the Cork Film Festival which, I am told by those qualified to speak about these things, is a great success and ranks very well with the Festival at Venice. I can say no more about that than to give it a passing reference.
In the world of music, the Festival of Wexford, which has taken place over several years, is a most praiseworthy endeavour, in my view, in a small city. It goes on for a week and is very well worth while. The President is Sir Compton Mackenzie and one of the leading sponsors is a former Member of another place, Sir Alfred Beit. I hope that the Arts Councils of both countries and other interested bodies will co-operate in promoting cultural ties between the two countries. I know that the Arts Councils are permanently short of money. That is so in the case of the Irish Arts Council quite certainly, and the British Arts Council's annual grant, I am told, would build four miles of a motorway! I am all for motorways being built, my Lords, but I wonder whether we have it quite in proportion when a sum of money of that size only can be devoted to these much more far-reaching projects.
Finally, I revert to another form of culture—physical culture or, as it is more shortly called, sport. Here the situation is very much better. In the world of international Rugby, for instance, and soccer, international matches take place, are very well attended, are always popular and do a lot of good. The Marylebone Cricket Club come to Ireland alternate years, and Ireland plays the M.C.C. at Lord's. This year we had Sir Leonard Hutton playing in Dublin and he must have signed thousands of autographs. In fact, he hardly had time to do any batting because he was continually surrounded by a mob of small

481
boys taking his autograph. That is a very good thing, most popular; and that is the type of thing one wants to see. In the world of golf, the Canada Cup was played in Ireland this year for the first time, at Portmarnock's magnificent links. It attracted a daily crowd of 20,000 people; and I might remind those of your Lordships who are golfers (and I can see at least one or two) that three times in the last ten years the British Open Champion was that agreeable figure, Joe Carr of Dublin.
There are a few other activities—athletics, boxing, tennis and the rest. The A.A.A., the L.T.A., et cetera, can all help by sending teams, by encouraging people to go, and by not saying, "Go to Paris and Brussels but do not bother much about Dublin; there is nothing much there". There is, my Lords; and there is plenty of competition. I am very glad to say that not very long ago a charity in which I am interested, with a view to building a rehabilitation centre, organised an athletic meeting in Ireland, with people coming from all over Europe. It was going to attract a very big crowd for this excellent charity. At the last minute, the British team withdrew and was said not to be coming. That sort of thing creates a very bad impression, though we probably had good reason for it. I got on to the telephone to my old friend the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter (whom I should very much have liked to see here to-day, but who is not well at the moment), the Chairman of -the three A's, and I said, "You must do something". He said, "I will", and a team (admittedly a smaller team, but a team) was flown over and took part. I was very grateful to the noble Marquess for that, and I wish he were here to hear those few words.
My Lords, that is really all I have to say, and I am sorry to have kept you so long. It is nothing more, really, than a survey of points which occurred to me and which I thought your Lordships might like to think about, if no more. I have tried to draw attention to various matters which have not been mentioned here for years; and it seems a little odd. really, that that should be so, since the Republic of Ireland is our closest neighbour except for France. There is an old French saying—and there is no truer one
—which says, Se comprendre, c'est la paix: if you understand the other man's
482
point of view, the more you see of it and the more you understand the little difficulties that arise, the longer you will have peace and good relations, advantageous to everyone. But there is in this country at the moment an extraordinary ignorance about Irish affairs. It is not wilful, but it exists; and if anything I have been able to say to-day has helped to fill what is, in my view, a little vacuum, then it will have been worth while. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we have listened with great interest to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made; and I must express my own apologies that, if I intervene for a short time now, I shall not be able to stay long afterwards because I have an appointment that I cannot avoid. But everybody else whose name is on the list will take part in the debate and will, of course, express his own point of view.
I must say that I was rather disappointed by the noble Lord's speech, because what was lacking seemed to me to be any concrete conclusions as to what he wanted done. I do not think any of us can quarrel in principle with what the noble Lord has said as to the desirability of encouraging good economic and cultural relations between Great Britain and the Irish Republic, but there was in his speech a lack of definition as to what he wants done and as to whether Government economic aid to the Irish Republic is desired—in short, to bring the points to which he drew the attention of the House to positive, concrete conclusions that one could get hold of and examine, let us hope, upon their merits. I share with the noble Lord the pleasure that Mr. Boland has attained the high position of President of the United Nations Assembly. I know Mr. Boland and his wife very well. I have met them on social occasions, and they are very likeable people—and, II think, good friends of our country.
The noble Lord referred to tariffs, as to which there were discussions between the two countries and upon which there was, apparently, some conflict of interest between Irish agriculture and British agriculture. That is not surprising, because it is one of the difficulties which, unfortunately, exist about the Common

483
Market arrangements, with the principle of which I am in favour. But these are negotiations between one foreign country and another foreign country. One must not underestimate that factor in the situation. They are negotiations with a foreign country just as much as they would be if they were with a foreign country on the Continent of Europe or elsewhere. I do not know whether the noble Lord was seeking tariff concessions to Southern Ireland beyond what would be conceded to other foreign countries: it was not too clear from what he said. But I do mot think it follows that because Krupp's, which played a considerable part in preparing the Nazi war material before the last war, have been welcomed to Ireland and have opened up a place there, we have to do the same, although I am perfectly sure that many British firms will open up factories in Ireland, probably because of the tariffs which exist between the two countries and because it pays them to, particularly from the point of view of their export trade.
As to passenger communication, I do not think any of us objects to an improvement in that direction, especially at Christmas-time and in August, so long as it does not involve our subsidising that traffic between the two countries. If, as the noble Lord suggested, the shipping companies or air companies can, without economic detriment, divert some of their transportation to British-Irish communications, that is quite all right, and I fully sympathise with the desire of the many Irish citizens of our own country who, very naturally, want to get back to the Irish Republic to see their relations and friends at these times.
The Lane pictures have also been mentioned. I remember that complex, difficult argument which took place. and which involved the Government of which I was a member. It was exceedingly difficult to come to a clear-cut conclusion about it, but, in the end, a compromise was reached whereby the pictures are sometimes in Dublin and sometimes in England. Then, the Arts Council was mentioned, and I think that, here again, there is uncertainty as to whether it was desired that the Arts Council should make any grant towards the arts in the Irish Republic, which I think would be a little difficult to defend.
484
My Lords, I personally am in favour of the principle of good economic and cultural relations between our country and the Irish Republic; but, although I do not wish to introduce needless controversy, I am bound to mention one or two points that may be controversial. I should not like those improvements in economic and cultural relations to be in any way to the detriment of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is another matter. It is part of the United Kingdom. It is very loyal to the United Kingdom. I once said that it was aggressively loyal to the United Kingdom. When the ports of Southern Ireland were denied to our use after we had handed them back (no doubt because the Government of that day were under the impression that it would clear up all the trouble between us and Ireland), it meant that many British sailors and merchant seamen lost their lives who otherwise would not have lost them. We would not quarrel with the Irish about it, because they had their rights and they exercised them; but if we had not had Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish ports and the Northern Irish air bases, no doubt we should have lost many more lives in the Battle of the Atlantic and might, indeed, have lost the Battle of the Atlantic altogether.
If it had been the general wish of the Irish people as a whole that there should be unity in their country, and if that country had remained part of the United Kingdom and part of the British Commonwealth, sharing with us defence, so that we took care of the whole of Ireland, then history might have been different. And I admit that history has a lot to do with this awkward problem. British actions in Ireland years and years ago were bad. I think British policy in Ireland as regards Home Rule proved that it was a great pity that Mr. Gladstone did not have his way. It would have made a great deal of difference to subsequent history. I think the Conservatives and Unionists of that time have been proved to be wrong—and those in this House took an active part in the matter —in their resistance to Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule proposals. In the result, the time came when Southern Ireland did not get Home Rule in the Gladstonian sense but got independence, or virtual independence, in the Free State, although they were still to be part of the British

485
Commonwealth; and there were the Black and Tans, and other incidents, which preceded that.
But, my Lords, it must be remembered that the violence and murders were not all on the one side. I remember standing on the roof of Cork Town Hall and being advised and informed by the Lord Mayor's charming private secretary. She pointed out places where she said the brutal British had shot down the Irish, set fire to their houses, and so on. I expressed my deep regret, of course, that this should have been so. But she went on in a pretty aggressive, aggrieved manner, which I understood. Then I said: "I would venture to remind you that there were some British policemen, or policemen employed by the British Government, who were shot in the back as well, and they had a lot of troubles." Well, she did not have any room for that kind of consideration; and that is the spirit which existed, understandably but regrettably, of a willingness to see one's own country's point of view but not the other's.
I can understand the views of the people in the present Irish Republic. In the Free State the tie with the Commonwealth remained. It is true that it was reduced merely to the point that His Majesty signed the credentials of ambassadors. That is the only tie which remained under Mr. de Valera, but he did leave it. He did want some connection. Then there came into power a more moderate—on the face of it—Southern Irish Government, and this more moderate Government removed that link—a most curious thing—until Southern Ireland became an absolutely and completely foreign country. It is curious, nevertheless, that the Irish Republic still remains within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Relations Office. That is a peculiar thing. One would have thought that it would come under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Office, who are experienced in the handling of foreign countries and have all the diplomatic expertise, but it is still within the Commonwealth Relations Office. It may be that there is a psychological factor in the minds of the Government and the Commonwealth Relations Office that somehow persuades them that the Irish Republic is still within the Commonwealth.
486
The only point I am worried about is whether there is any motive behind this Motion—I am not asserting that there is—whereby our economic and cultural ties should remain strong with the Irish Republic, and be improved (with which principle I do not disagree), but that that might be at the expense of the relationship which exists between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. If there were a desire to weaken that relationship, I should not be in favour of it. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and I think there are a good many Nationalists in Northern lreland who, under the counter, so to speak, still favour that association, because it undoubtedly brings great benefits economically to the people of Northern Ireland and to their social services. If Southern -Ireland had remained within the United Kingdom, it is possible that some arrangements of that kind might also have been made with the Government of the Irish Republic; but that was not to be.
I have dealt with Northern Ireland, and it is one of the reasons why I am speaking. When I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, that was one of the areas which came within the purview of Home Office influence, and I had a lot to do with its Ministers. I found them very co-operative with our Government, and I had occasion to visit Northern Ireland on a number of occasions. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the only thing I should like them to do, if they would do it, is to include three Labour Members among the twelve Northern Ireland Members in the other House. I say that not merely for partisan, political reasons—of which I know even the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would not suspect me for a moment—but because I think it would help to remove some of the prejudice against Northern Ireland which exists in some Labour circles. It is a great pity. I tried to encourage them to do that, and indeed I spoke there in the last Election. The vote was a bit better, but my ambition did not succeed, and I think it is a pity.
I have visited Southern Ireland and the Irish there are charming people, good hosts and good friends. I met Mr. de Valera and had an hour and a half's private discussion with him about

487
British-Irish relations. I have always found Mr. de Valera, both there and in Strasbourg, an exceedingly charming man. He would have made a first-class British Cabinet Minister; but that was not to be. I like him very much. He has great ability and I think he has been a considerable Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, as he is now a considerable President. He knows his way about. He is a good negotiator, a good persuader, and you need to have your wits about you when you deal with him. His Government was good enough to give me a dinner party, and we had a very good time. I have been to Trinity College (the College which has been mentioned) and I had a good time there. The only trouble about going to Trinity College debates is that you have a job to get to bed afterwards. The boys are very anxious to keep you up all night and make you less and less capable of remaining mentally alert. But they are very hospitable, and that is the danger. Therefore I have no bias against Southern Ireland.
However, I must say I have an affection for Northern Ireland and I like the way they have stuck to their British connections. They played a great and loyal part in the last war. Therefore, while I do not object to the noble Lord's Motion in principle, I should not like it to be interpreted in a way which would weaken either the economy or the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
3.39 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, when I saw that this Motion was to be moved by the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, I felt that possibly it might be a good thing if someone whose home is in Northern Ireland, and who has had a good deal to do with Irish affairs over a considerable number of years, said a word during the debate. After all, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has a land frontier with the Republic of Ireland. I was a little surprised—though very grateful to him—at some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just said about Northern Ireland. I thought that this debate was to be mainly, in fact, entirely, confined to economic and cultural matters; and
488
the noble Lord, much though I agreed with everything that he said, has undoubtedly put a political slant upon his speech, which I hope I shall definitely not do.
When I was speaking a few days ago to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, he told me that it was nine years since Ireland had been discussed in any way in your Lordships' House. I have been a Member of this House for nearly eight years, and certainly I remember no debate on Ireland. It is a remarkable thing that that should be so, when one thinks how much the Irish scene occupied the political life of this country in years past, and how some of the most dramatic events in the history of this House took place in the old days over the Home Rule controversies.
I have always found that few people realise that in about 1845—that is to say, 115 years ago—the population of Ireland was about 8 million, when the population of England was 16 million. In other words, 115 years ago, the population of Ireland was half the population of England. To-day, the population of Ireland is about 4 million, or even less, whereas that of England is over 50 million.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to be pedantic, but it is over 4 million.
LORD RATHCAVAN: It may be just over 4 million. In other words, in a little more than 100 years, the population of Ireland is half what it was, and the population of England is three time what it was.
This trend still continues. In the Irish Republic, between 1951 and 1959, the population declined by 3·8 per cent., whereas in Northern Ireland it rose by 2·7 per cent. Of course, the population of Ireland in 1845, when it was 8 million, was far too great for the country's resources. Ireland was an agricultural country, as it is to-day. They had no manufacturing industries of any consequence. The peasant population had very large families living on land which was quite unable to support them. Consequently, there was great poverty and great distress. Then, in 1845, came the great potato famine, with all its terrible consequences, one of the principal consequences being the mass

489
emigration of the Irish people to the United States of America, and to a lesser extent to Australia, causing a decline of population in a way to which I think it would be very difficult to find a parallel in any other part of the world.
It seems to me that probably it would be true to say that there has been no great change in the economic set-up of Southern Ireland in the last 100 years. She is still mainly an agricultural country. She still has no really great industries or enterprises, in spite of the few in the Shannon area, to which the noble Lord referred. She still has people leaving the country, though now they do not go to the United States or to Australia—they come here to Great Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said, thousands of people from the Irish Republic come over here to take up work and are now living in Great Britain. I think that it would not be an exaggeration to say that at this time a large section of the population in the Irish Republic is living on remittances received from workers in this country who are earning good wages.
Northern Ireland is also mainly an agricultural country—that is to say, agriculture is still its largest industry—but within the last 100 years it has developed great industrial enterprises. There is shipbuilding. The great yard of Harland and Wolff in Belfast has built some of the finest passenger vessels which sail the seas to-clay. They built most of the great ships for the P. & O. Line and the Royal Mail Line. There is the great linen industry, originally introduced into Northern Ireland by Huguenot immigrants from France in the days of the persecution of Protestants there. There is also a large number of new industries which have been established within the last ten or fifteen years, including several industries with American capital and controlled by citizens of the United States.
The interesting thing about the industries of Northern Ireland, which applies both to shipbuilding and to linen, is that they have been built up without any what I might call natural help from the country itself. In shipbuilding, all the raw materials—steel and so on—must come from over the sea, mostly from this
490
country. In the linen industry, the raw flax comes mainly from Europe, from Belgium. It used to come from the Baltic States and Russia; and I believe that a certain amount still comes from there. My point is that the industries which the Ulster people have built up over the last 100 years have been built up in spite of the fact that the raw materials for those industries have all had to be imported from abroad. The same is true of the cotton industry in Lancashire.
I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said about the recent alarming increase in the freight rates between Great Britain and Ireland, whether North or South. There is one other point, to which I should like to refer, on the economic side. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he comes to speak, is going to refer to a suggestion recently made by Mr. Lemass, the Prime Minister of the Republic, for economic talks between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with a view to reducing duties on certain Northern Irish goods entering the Republic.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not know why he is so firm in his opinion of what I might say. I have not published my intentions. I might say something of the sort, or I might not, but I cannot help wondering why the noble Lord is so certain that I intend to deal with that topic.
LORD RATHCAVAN: I can give the noble Lord a complete answer. I was yesterday in the Northern Ireland Office, in Regent Street, in London, asking for some statistics, and they told me that the noble Lord had been telephoning to them and had asked them for particulars about the very matters I am going to mention.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was anxious that any statements made by Lord Brookeborough which have already been published should be made available to me so that I should not misrepresent him. I was not asking for any private information, and I am bound to say that I was not under the impression, when I spoke to those excellent officials, that they would want to convey what my intentions were to the noble Lord. But that is a matter of taste.
LORD RATHCAVAN: Whether the noble Lord will refer to the matter or not, I intend to say a few words about it; that is to say, about the economic talks which Mr. Lemass, the Prime Minister of the Republic, wished to have with the Government of Northern Ireland, with a view to reducing the duties on certain Northern Ireland goods entering the Republic. The Northern Ireland Government have not made a very favourable response, and I should like to explain to the House the reason why.
In the first place, the Government of Northern Ireland have no power to conclude any tariff agreement with the Republic, because Customs and Excise are entirely within the purview of the United Kingdom Government. But let us suppose that this difficulty could be overcome and that a joint request was made to the British Government to implement any arrangement which might have been made. What then would the position be? It would mean that certain Northern Ireland goods entering the market in the Irish Republic would have been granted privileges not available to goods from other parts of the United Kingdom. In other words, it would mean treating Northern Ireland's industry as something separate from British industry; and that might be the thin end of the wedge towards undermining Ulster's present position as part of the United Kingdom, with complete equality as regards trade and industry within the United Kingdom economic unit. That is a situation which Ulster could never contemplate, because her membership of the United Kingdom is her economic sheet anchor.
I was looking the other day at some figures, which have just been published by the Ministry of Commerce in Belfast, as regards exports from Northern Ireland in the year 1959. The value of exports from Northern Ireland in 1959 was £321,686,000—a record figure. Of those exports 93 per cent. went to Great Britain or to other countries via Great Britain, and only just over 4 per cent. went across the land frontier to the Irish Republic. So that, in any event, the amount of exports which might be affected by any agreement between Northern Ireland and the Republic on tariffs is so infinitesimal that it is really hardly worth considering.
492
Here are some more figures that I have, illustrating in detail what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to just now—namely, the economic advantages which Northern Ireland has through being an integral part of the United Kingdom, as compared with the situation in the Irish Republic. Wage rates in Northern Ireland are universally higher. The wage of agricultural labourers is nearly 50 per cent. more than in the Republic. In the Irish Republic unemployment benefit is 40 per cent. less than it is in Northern Ireland; sickness benefit is 40 per cent. less; widows' pensions are 40 per cent. less; family allowances 50 per cent. less, and maternity grant 84 per cent. less. In agriculture, Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, receives the full benefit of all guaranteed prices and subsidies. And on a population basis, as regards trade, the trade of Northern Ireland is four times as great as corresponding values in the Irish Republic. I mention those figures merely to show what was so well said just now by the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth: that the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom is for her, from the economic point of view, of such tremendous importance that she could not possibly consider any discussions with Southern Ireland which might tend in any way to diminish that great advantage.
3.57 p.m.
LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, as has been said earlier, it is, I think, eleven years since Ireland was mentioned in this House; and I, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who lives in the Republic of Ireland, have not been here since then, because the few things I know about have not been discussed. It was some 25 years ago that I rose to make my maiden speech here, at the time of the discussion on the return of the ports. Soon after that the 1938 Act was passed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who moved the Motion, referred. All our economic developments date from that period.
I came here this afternoon rather 'under the impression that we were to confine ourselves largely to cultural and economic matters, and I was a little surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, getting up and making a speech part of which might have

493
been made from the Unionist Front Benches in the last century, and the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, getting up and making a speech about Northern Ireland when the Motion is on the Republic of Ireland. But in many ways I am delighted about the latter. The first remark I was going to make was that I thought it a pity that this Motion did not cover all Ireland, because, whatever differences we may have, our economic and cultural problems are the same. We dive in a day when some people in Ireland feel that when the words "unity" and "union" are discussed in other spheres, at least we can find our common denominators. One thing the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, did was to explain that the economic problems of Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Great Britain and the world are exactly the same as those in the 26 counties of the Irish Republic. The sooner we can sit down and face those realities, and not make, for example, a customs barrier an official excuse for not discussing mutual problems, the better it will be, not only for Ireland, but also for the British Isles and Western Europe, in which we in Ireland, both North and South, feel we mast play our part.
I always find it difficult, because like so many Members of your Lordships' House I have a foot on either side of the Irish Sea. I hope no one minds my saying that, just as naturally a Scotsman's first loyalty is to Scotland, so my first loyalty must be to Ireland. Therefore, if I make a slight mistake when I say "we" or "I", I am thinking purely of a personal point of view. Personally, I think it is sad, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has frequently mentioned at Stormont, that the customs barrier between the North of Ireland and the Republic is a great stumbling block. But the moment a suggestion is made in Dublin that it could be removed, wonderful excuses are found in Belfast to place the responsibility on Britain. It would be very easy to remove that small barrier. It is a matter of adjustment and negotiation, and at this moment officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office are having discussions in Dublin—one of the regular discussions arising out of the 1960 Agreement. I hope that this question of the possibility of Northern Ireland being able to trade with the Republic without paying customs duty will
494
be reviewed. I am in touch with Unionists and Republicans of all extremes, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, is not representing all Northern Irish businessmen when he says there is no desire to have that tariff removed. I did not come here to talk politics, but I find myself having been led on, and I apologise for doing it.
There are certain spheres where I think the interests of Great Britain and Ireland are closely associated. If we want to have close relations between Ireland and England, the one thing we must make easier is travel between the two countries. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised that point. Aer Lingus, the Irish Airlines, in which B.E.A. originally had a minority holding and has now, I am glad to say, alternating British directors, both Members of your Lordships' House, runs in conjunction with B.E.A. an extremely good service, not only between London and Dublin, but between Dublin and the greater cities of England. Not only that, but Ireland also links us with America, and I am glad to say that the Lord Mayors of Belfast, Dublin and Cork, and several British Mayors, only last week went through Dublin on the first Boeing flight to the United States.
Air transport, I think naturally, is hard pushed at Christmas-time, like everything else; but it has moved with the times, whereas it would appear that the rail and sea transport has really not. progressed. If you want to go by sea you go either from Liverpool to Dublin or from Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire. The Liverpool service, which goes under the Irish flag, is in paint of fact a subsidiary of Coast Lines, and is controlled from this side of the Irish Sea. It grew out of the cattle trade, and I find that it has not improved as might have with the competition with air since the war. The many visitors who wish to go to Ireland, and especially if they wish to take their cars to travel there, have facilities which do not compare with my personal experience on similar types of journeys in the Mediterranean or between Scandinavian countries.
Far worse is the British Railways route. We want to encourage tourists to Ireland, and the best tourists we have are the British. They come over with great regularity and are extremely popular.

495
But at the peak season the Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire (Kingstown) service is far from adequate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, asked for concrete suggestions about this. There is one ship called the "Princess Maud." I must say that her days must be nearly numbered, and she needs replacing. If she is replaced, I would suggest that a completely new look should be taken at the communication's and the approach to communication. Whereas the Liverpool-Dublin service was based on cattle, the Holyhead-Kingstown service was chiefly based on the day of the emigrant traffic. To-day, many of our emigrants coming over here, as the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, said, earn a lot of money and are not used to travelling in bad conditions.
It needs a completely new approach, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make capital available to British Railways and the British Transport Commission, Who control this service, so that we can have a ship which can make a quick turn-round, take 150 cars, and have seats like buses—the journey takes only three hours—a modern concept, instead of the extremely uncomfortable accommodation for the general public and a limited number of cabins, which I imagine must date from the days when people like my grandfather and predecessors had the special privilege of travelling first-class in the few luxurious cabins.
As regards the tourist trade, there is no doubt at all, as I mentioned just now, that our best visitors and those who create the best relations between Ireland and England are the English. Our people come here to work and English people visit Ireland for holidays. Also, a large number of Americans come into Europe each year, and I think it would be in the common interest of the North of Ireland, of the Republic of Ireland and the British, that there should be more concentrated and co-operative work between the various tourist organisations. Many tourists come to Ireland who might well be channelled to visit Britain but who, instead, go on to Europe. In the same way, many people come direct to England who might well spend some of their time in Ireland.
496
On the question of culture, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned the Dublin Theatre Festival over which I preside. He also mentioned the fact that the Royal Ballet has visited Ireland. I should like to inform your Lordships that through the Dublin Theatre Festival —which is now purely a theatre festival, although originally we had ballet—we brought to Dublin the Royal Ballet and the Festival Ballet and, this year, the Old Vic and the Belgrade Company from Coventry. That had to be done purely by means of Irish subsidies—from the money we were able to raise to support our Theatre Festival. The reason why I think we do not get assistance for British companies to come to Ireland, as do the French and Italian companies, is because we are in a strange position. Sometimes people say that we get the best of both worlds, but that in culture we fall between the Arts Council and the British Council.
I would ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind that it should be possible, when the Old Vic is going abroad, as it is in the case of Russia, and comes to Dublin as its first place, for the British Council to extend their facilities so that some of the grant might be used for that purpose. I must mention that the British Council are taking three plays to Russia, two of them written by men born in Dublin, one of them Shaw and the other Wilde. Also, I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who said that since O'Casey and Synge there have been no great playwrights. It is very hard to judge playwrights of the present time. I must remind him of Beckett and Brendan Behan. Although they may make the headlines in rather odd ways, they are people with considerable impact. I remember Peter Ustinov coming to Dublin to an International P.E.N. Conference of which the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, is now Chairman. Peter Ustinov opened his speech by saying:
"Gentlemen, I think I am the only English playwright who is not Irish, and I am Russian."
But that theatre tradition continues. I sincerely hope that we shall continue to bring important English companies to Dublin. But we shall not be able to do that unless we receive some further financial assistance such as we get from the French or the Italians.

497
One last thing. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned sport—and again I must apologise for mentioning my own position, because I happen to be President of the Olympic Council of Ireland and, with the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, I sit on the International Olympic Committee. I am glad to say there is no doubt at all that the relationship which exists in sport is one of the healthiest and best for Anglo-Irish relations. There used to be a time when the games of Rugby football and soccer were called garrison games by some. The Gaelic Athletic Association has done a great deal to promote sport in Ireland. Recently in South. London, on Mitcham Common or some other Common, I saw what I at first thought was hockey being played, but which I found was the Irish national game of hurling. I feel that this exchange of games, and the very fact that Irishmen can fill Wembley Stadium with hurlers and their supporters in the same way as crowds at Lansdowne Road watch Rugby football could not he healthier. Most sport, like practically everything cultural in Ireland, such as the Royal Irish Academy, Hibernian Academy, and so on, is organised on an all-Ireland basis and free from politics. Field and track is the only exception. We seem to have innumerable organisations running this branch of athletics, which unfortunately is due to politics.
I can assure your Lordships that there is a great change in Ireland, and those of us who know the North well, know the Republic well and know England well realise that to-day there is more practical thought on the question of unity and co-operation. I disagree with the two noble Lords who have spoken; I am one who believes strongly in the eventual future of a united Ireland: whether it is within the Commonwealth or what its relation is to this country is not for us to discuss to-day. I do know that in Ireland we have one people and one culture, whatever our differences in politics and religion are at the moment.
4.12.p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I admire the courage of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in bringing his Motion, but my doubts, before he brought it, as to the wisdom of doing so have, in fact, been confirmed by most of
498
what has been said. I admire the self-control of the noble Lord who has just spoken, who seems to me to have done his best to bring us back to the subject Lord Windlesham wished us to talk about. The fact is, as he himself said, the Motion is cast in very wide terms, and although we have in fact succeeded in keeping off the Border, except by implication, it was bound to arise at some lime during this debate. I think I shall have little to say that is political—indeed I have little to say at all.
I am certain of one thing, arid that is that, so far as anybody wishes to see better relationships, and possibly a united Ireland, the less he should say about it. It seems to me to be a danger that whenever Irish affairs are discussed, and particularly if they are discussed in this country, it can only give rise to discussion of the history of the past, about which we in this country have little to be proud and on which the Irish also have something to be ashamed. But I do not wish to go into the past in any detail, beyond saying that every time the Border is mentioned or, equally, every time a bomb is thrown, the further a united Ireland—and I admit that I am emotionally in favour of a united Ireland —is put off; because the people of this country (and I am quite sure my noble friend who spoke on the Front Bench would agree) are not willing to be party to the weakening of the Northern Irish position.
I should like to concentrate on the points which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, tried to bring out—namely, cultural relations and, indeed, economic relations. Here I think there was a certain unreality about some of the debate. Conditions may be very difficult for people going to Ireland in the peak season. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, should try going to the Isle of Wight in the peak season. He would find that he would be packed like cattle on that journey. Whether it is a criticism of British Railways or of our habits as holiday-makers I do not know; but the fact remains that some of those things cannot be put right easily. Nor can we alter the fact that the Republic of Ireland is now outside the Commonwealth, and the encouraging thing is the limitation of the damage that might have arisen from that particular move. Undoubtedly the personal relations between

499
the Irish and the English as individuals have never been better. Certainly the general exchange of people has never been larger. The largest exports of the Irish at the moment—or the most important, so far as this country are concerned—are, of course, in manpower, and I think it is true that many of the essential services of this country would break down without them. I doubt whether, if the Irish were removed, enough of the lifts would continue running in London to get us up to the top floors of many buildings.
The other exchange, which is one on which I think we have not acknowledged our debt to Ireland, is in the matter of education, and particularly university education. The university population of Ireland is somewhere around 6,000 at any one time, and a very high proportion of British students go to Trinity College, Dublin, while a certain number of other Commonwealth students, and a few British, too, go to the National University. On this Ireland is paying for what we get, because we are in a privileged position in our access to those universities. We in this country have a special responsibility for Trinity College, Dublin. It is the old Elizabethan University, which was founded by Archbishop Loftus, who was an ancestor of mine, and I do not doubt was an ancestor of many of your Lordships. Trinity College, Dublin, contains some of the most beautiful 18th century buildings to be found anywhere. It provides an education for many British students, whether they be from this country or from the Commonwealth, and they are freely accepted there. Some of the great treasures which the noble Lord mentioned, like the Book of Kells, are housed there. It is one of the copyright libraries. But we must recognise that the Republic of Ireland is a poor country. They do need support for carrying out their responsibilities, which are part of our general cultural heritage, whether British, Irish, European or of the world. I hope there will be support for the exhibition which is shortly to take place at Burlington House.
I have nothing more to add, beyond this: that I hope there will be a continued recognition that it is not wholly to the disadvantage of this country that the Irish Republic is to-day a Republic.
500
The part that Irish statesmen have played in world affairs is something which certainly has been to the advantage of this country and, indeed, of the West as a whole. The part that Ireland, as a neutral country, is playing in those appalling conditions in the Congo is something we can recognise. At least, Ireland is one country we have not heard (unless I have missed it) that threaten to withdraw her troops: practically every other country has. To that extent we have gained. I am sure that all noble Lords, however much they may be divided on certain issues like the Border, will be at one in wishing to see closer cultural relations and, if I may say so, a wise, and at times silent, approach to their improvement.
4.20 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has rendered a valuable service in raising this debate to-day. So often Ireland is regarded as a kind of backwoods country of uneducated people. Those who come over here are frequently blamed for crimes such as drunkenness, allegations which in my submission are completely unfair. My only qualification for taking part in this debate is that the first Baron Auckland was in the latter half of the 18th century Chief Secretary of Ireland. I myself have spent two very pleasant and memorable holidays in that delightful country. Two of the few times in my life when I have been near to tears were on occasions on which I had to leave Ireland and return home. That is not said by way of disparagement of my own country, but to show my intense love and affection for that country during my visits.
On that point, may I say that the last time I was in Ireland was at the time of the tragic Harrow rail disaster. In the small town of Mallow, where I was holiday-making, almost every shopkeeper expressed the sincerest sympathy with both myself and other English and British people of that community on this tragic disaster. The pro-British feeling in Eire is far more considerable than many people may think. The Irish are essentially most charming and sincere people. They are often regarded as perhaps dreamy and of a not sufficient-unto-the-day mentality; but sincerity is one of their great virtues.

501
I am not going to say anything on the economic side of this Motion; I wish to concentrate my few remarks on the tourist and the cultural side. Several noble Lords have expressed their opinions as to the inadequacy of travel between this country and Southern Ireland, and I would wholeheartedly agree with them. I myself travel between Fishguard and Rosslare and Cork during the off-tourist season in October, and even those conditions have been most inadequate. I am not going to apportion any particular blame for this, but I would urge Her Majesty's Government to contact the British Transport Commission to see whether anything can be done to alleviate the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rightly said, a number of Irish people in this country wish to get home at holiday Time, and the services afforded to them are., I submit, in many cases very poor indeed.
Figures of the tourist trade between this country and Eire are most encouraging. Only a short time ago I contacted the Irish Tourist Travel Board, and they told me that in the year 1959–60 there was an increase of 8 per cent. on the number in the previous year of people travelling to Eire on holiday. That is most encouraging, and I should like to see that figure exceeded. This has come about despite what, in my opinion, was most insidious propaganda put forward last year regarding the Irish horse trade. I think a lot of it was misinformed. The fault was not primarily with Eire. It is at least encouraging to see that this did not have a great deal of effect on people travelling to Ireland. At least one well-known tourist agency boycotted bookings to Ireland. I think that was an unfortunate course of action to take.
Many people think that Killarney alone is a place of beauty in Southern Ireland. I would immediately dispel that illusion. I should say that Lismore, Connemara and Donegal have equal, if not more, beauty, and excellent hotel facilities. So far as culture is concerned, last year the London Symphony Orchestra had an extremely successful tour of Southern Ireland. They visited Limerick, Wexford, Cork and, I believe, Dublin. I should like to add this rider. They arrived at Limerick at 3 o'clock in the morning, and at quite a small hotel where they were staying they were
502
served, without any complaint, with hot bacon and eggs and coffee. That is something of which certain four or five-star British hotels might take note so far as foreign travellers are concerned. I know that that is not directly within the range of the debate, but certainly my experience of Irish hotels has been one of cleanliness, efficiency and courtesy. The same applies to Irish railways. Admittedly, schedules are not entirely punctual; but on the occasions on which I have had breakfast on the Irish railways the meal has been hot, cooked to order and served with absolutely clean white tablecloths.
I would reinforce the plea for closer liaison between the Arts Council, the British Council and their counterparts in Southern Ireland. I was most happy to hear from the noble Lord. Lord Killanin, that the Old Vic company has been to Ireland. I should like to see this occur regularly, perhaps with the Abbey Theatre company coming over here. Recently Synge's great play, The Playboy of the Western World, had a season in London. I did not see it, but I read the comments on it and, apart from the criticism that some of the actors talked rather too quickly, the play was most favourably received. I have seen a number of Irish plays by Synge on television, and they have been beautifully acted, with such actors as Michael MacLiamóir, Harry Hutchinson and Donal Donnelly. There are some fine actors and musicians in Ireland There was, of course, the late Count. John McCormack, and singers such as Veronica Dunne. There is the excellent Radio-Eirean symphony orchestra, and orchestras of which we hear all too little but which have great talent. One wishes that they would come over here more often. There are such novelists as Liam O'Flaherty. One of his greatest books, The Informer, was filmed some years ago, with that great actor Victor McLaghlan. I think this was one of the greatest films of all time. Admittedly, it presented a controversial picture of Ireland, but it was done with tremendous realism.
Then there are the Irish nurses. I should like to see a scheme whereby there might be some interchange of nurses between the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is, of course, a shortage

503
of nurses in this country which may make such an arrangement difficult at the present time, but certainly I would say that in my experience Irish nurses are some of the finest and kindest in the world. So far as recreations are concerned, that of shooting is one which encourages much of the tourist industry. Snipe in Ireland is almost a form of currency, and snipe shooting is a sport indulged in by all classes of society, from the richest to the poorest; and a number of tourists, too, take part. I feel that this has been a very worthwhile debate, and I should like to see Her Majesty's Government taking some positive action in seeking and striving for a much greater cultural, tourist and economic relationship between these two neighbouring countries.
4.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am always happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and certainly what he has said will be appreciated when it is, read in Ireland. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for raising this subject and doing it in so charming a way. He gave very firm instructions to those who were to follow regarding the speeches they were to make; and indeed more or less wrote them for us at one time. But his directive seemed to be aimed particularly at the two Cabinet Ministers who were to come later. Clearly, the noble Lord was not referring to me; although I had the great honour of being First Lord of the Admiralty I was never a member of the Cabinet. The noble Lord must have been referring to the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Rathcavan—who, I take it, was a member of the Cabinet of Northern Ireland. He shakes his head but surely he deserved that position.
Certainly if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was hoping they would follow his instructions, he was disappointed, because no one could have said that either of those mighty noble Lords confined themselves to questions of economic and cultural relations with Southern Ireland. Nevertheless, I will try to restrain myself, though it may not be altogether possible. For many years I have held strong views on Irish questions and have expressed them freely in
504
speech and in writing, even on one occasion inflicting 100,000 words at a time on the public. My position to-day is rather like that of a young man who wrote a letter to a counsellor on a woman's paper. His letter ran roughly as follows:
"Dear friend, for some time I have been trying to please my fiancée by making myself as much like Adam Faith as possible. I have had my hair nibbled in front."—
that, of course, would be beyond some of us in these later days—
"Now she tells me she fancies someone more mature, like the Duke of Bedford. Will you please tell me how I am to set about imitating him? "
Your Lordships will see me in the capacity of someone trying to be as mature as possible, as much like the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, as possible, or indeed any other noble Duke —say, the noble Duke who I am so glad is to answer this debate. If I am duller than I should wish, it may come partly from nature and also because it has been imposed upon me.
I shall say little about cultural questions, but I hope that if I pass them over rather rapidly that will not be put down to lack of interest. I am greatly honoured to belong to a Committee which is appealing in this country, and is responsible for the British part of the appeal, on behalf of Trinity College. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has left us for the moment, but what he said on that was of the utmost value. My elder brother, who I hasten to point out is a staunch Irish Protestant and was at one time a senator, has run a theatre in Dublin and in other parts of Ireland for many years; so I am not lacking in interest in Irish culture.
I pass over the religious field, inseparable though it is from any discussion of Irish culture, except just to say that nothing could do more in the long run to bring our two people together than greater understanding and sympathy between the main Christian communions. And I cannot refrain from paying my respectful and very sincere tribute to a certain memorable visit which will be in the minds of many of us here. But perhaps the House would rather hear from me, if at all, on the economic side. I am chairman of a clearing bank founded by Daniel O'Connell, with branches in all parts of

505
Ireland. I must not engage in what is called a "plug", but I cannot help mentioning that part of my credentials. We are represented in Northern Ireland but not as strongly as I could wish. We are engaged on a policy of expansion there, so if the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, wonders whether I am blind and deaf to the charms of his part of Ireland, let me assure him that I am well aware of the old saying:
"Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also."
And so I am full of good will and keen interest in Northern Ireland—which I hope will be reciprocated.
Banking and Rugby football—and, I should add, a common aversion to Lady Chatterley's Lover— are attributes which overrun the Border in Northern Ireland. It would be tempting for me (though not pleasant for your Lordships) to unload a mass of statistics about the development of the Irish economy and Anglo-Irish trade. I will resist that temptation except to point out that British exports to Ireland—and when I say "Ireland" the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, will forgive me if I use the expression as meaning the Irish Republic, because, in fact, I am anxious to use the right word—are running at a rate of about £1 00 million a year, and in return we in this country are buying from Southern Ireland—leaving out the North for the moment—something between £80 million and £90 million a year.
Professor Jewkes the Oxford Professor of Economic Organisation, recently pointed out the importance of the trade of each country to the other. No doubt it is true that the smaller country—the Irish Republic—is not as likely to be as important in a trade sense to the larger one—Britain—as Britain is to the smaller. I should point out, however—and this point has not come up in the debate, though it is fundamental for those who are concerned with running the economic life of Ireland —that the presence of a wealthy country like Britain so close to the shores of Ireland is not an unmixed blessing. It brings advantages and disadvantages, as well. It virtually imposes upon Ireland the effort to maintain the standard of life which the Irish Republic must maintain if her population is not to disappear or very greatly diminish.
I am sure that, on balance, both countries benefit, and benefit greatly, from
506
the free movement of population between the two; but the really grave long-term problem facing Ireland's economic planners is how to maintain the population. For good or ill, it would be much easier (I am not saying on balance it would be a pleasanter situation), though it would mean a low standard of life, if Ireland were several hundred miles away. That is an absolutely basic condition of all Irish planning.
In spite of all her problems—and we in this country have plenty at the moment —things are going pretty well on Ireland's economic front. I do not want to embark on an invidious comparison between the situation in the South and that in the North. I am hopeful that both will do well, and equally well. Per head of the population, the North is a richer community—I would not deny that. But while her wealth is greater it would seem that just at this particular moment the North is confronted with more acute difficulties than the South. I do not take any pleasure in that and I hope those difficulties will he overcome. I can never remember, in my lifetime, a time when the economic prospects of the Irish Republic were so bright.
If I may quote Professor Jewkes again —and he has no Irish connections I know of, except that I think he advises at least one great firm which operates there; but he is an excellent professor and is quite dispassionate—he says that in the case of Ireland:
"We are discussing a country which is instinctively and stubbornly disposed to put first things first. The great debate within Ireland About major economic strategy is being conducted at the high level which befits a country possessing first-class economists, an admirable array of economic statistics and a set of basic economic documents, both public and private…which have set out the issues with a rare combination of analytical power and business acumen."
So Professor Jewkes considers the problems there are being faced in a most sensible fashion.
I have no Irish Party politics, and there are good men on all sides there, but, by general consent, the country possesses in Mr. Lemass a Minister of good will and much realistic statesmanship. And I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth paid a tribute which I thought, if I may say so, came very much from the heart to Mr. de Valera Mr. de Valera has been the

507
centre of many disputes in the course of forty years of public controversy, but to-day he surely is regarded all the world over as a man of unexampled or, at any rate, unsurpassed integrity and idealism.
Those of us who are explaining the Irish problem (though I hope I am not putting matters from one point of view only) are not to-day coming to the House to plead the cause of an oppressed victim, as it was pleaded with incomparable eloquence by Mr. Gladstone in 1886. The noble Viscount will remember those words because he is, I am quite sure, soaked in great orators. Mr. Gladstone said,
"Ireland stands at your Bar expectant, hopeful, almost suppliant."
Well, that was true at that time. There is a picture in a passage here of this House throwing out, a few years later, the second Home Rule Bill, by, I think, 419 votes to 41—a terrible error, as I think most of us would regard it now. But that, in a sense, belongs to the past.
I myself, in my own book on the Irish Treaty, fifty years after Mr. Gladstone and after his great speech, 25 years ago ended as follows:
"Whatever England's policy, it remains for Ireland to do herself justice as a nation. For that she has not yet done. Whatever Ireland's policy, it remains for England to make atonement. For that she has not yet made."
I wrote those words 25 years ago and I have no desire to unsay them. But we are not coming down to this House this afternoon to talk that particular language. We are discussing these matters to-day not in terms of supplication or recrimination, but in an effort to see where good relations can be further improved by any methods that are of mutual advantage.
I am anxious to say as little as humanly possible about Irish partition and Irish unity this afternoon, but I feel that I have been given perhaps some slight excuse in what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan. So far as I am concerned, I hope he will intervene far more often in our debates and return to these subjects. However, if I said absolutely nothing about the unity of Ireland I think there would be thought to be something positively sinister about it, so may I say these few sentences? I take it for granted that no solution can ever be arrived at which is not accepted voluntarily by Northern Ireland. That is the
508
beginning of all wisdom in the matter. A great British Government servant—I hesitate to indicate him more precisely, but he is a Member of the House, a man to whom Ireland has much reason to be grateful—said to me many years ago that the only rational solution was the political unity of Ireland and the strategic unity of the British Isles. And certainly one would think so if one looked at the map.
Since he said that to me we have seen many developments. The Commonwealth has assumed new and ever more liberal forms of partnership. Ireland has left it. I have often wondered whether that would have occurred if the question of Ireland's leaving the Commonwealth had arisen just after the Indian solution was reached instead of just before. I think it was one of the tragic accidents of history that the problem became so acute in the Irish case before the Indian solution was arrived at. But certainly the Commonwealth to-day is very different from the old Empire against which Irish nationalists struggled for so long. Ireland has gained (as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said) new prestige through her Presidency of the United Nations Assembly; and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth for what be said about Mr. Boland, an old son of Trinity College, as Lord Shackleton will be aware. Ireland has played a part in the Congo which has brought much admiration, and she has responded to her losses in a spirit which every Member of this House would applaud. At this moment I think that a Bill is being passed through the Irish Parliament which will enable her to replace her troops in the Congo when the time comes; and I hope and believe that she is setting an example which other parts of the world will follow.
Some of us felt a little while ago that the real danger to Ireland—a danger arising through circumstances which were not a fault of hers, and which would become really serious if it continued—was a kind of mental isolationism which one found inclined to grow up. In the last few years, particularly under the impact of recent events, there are unmistakable signs of Ireland's breaking out of any isolationism in thought and rededicating herself to an historic international mission.

509
Is it possible, my Lords, to visualise a lasting political solution? Of all the proposals put forward, that which came some little while ago from Cardinal D'Alton seemed to me far the best. This is not the time to try to lay down precise arrangements in any dogmatic fashion, but the conditions of settlement seem to me to be crystal clear. Whatever the rights and wrongs, it is in my eyes inconceivable that Irish unity will ever be achieved while Ireland remains outside the Commonwealth. On the other hand, if she comes inside I am convinced that all the forces of nature and good sense will lead the men of the North to see their destiny in a 'united country. If that is the right answer, Ireland, a country as proud as England, with a people as ancient as England's, cannot be expected to come forward cap in hand. It should be made publicly clear to her in advance that she would be truly welcome.
I appreciate that it is difficult for anybody of real consequence in the South of Ireland, or in the North of Ireland or in this country, to give a lead in this matter. Everybody, it seems to me, is waiting for everybody else. No one can tell what response would be evoked. But I am passionately convinced that what I have just said had to be said by someone, and I can only hope that your Lordships will forgive me for introducing it into this very rare discussion on Ireland
To be candid—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, greatly —it is very difficult, one might say almost impossible, to discuss the economics of either part of Ireland without some reference to the political framework, for reasons which must have come out this afternoon and are bound to conic out still more plainly as we proceed. The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, signed in April this year, made provision—one of its most valuable features—for regular consultations between British and Irish officials. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has suggested, if I understood him aright, an ad hoc inquiry which would sharpen and focus those discussions. I cannot help quoting in that connection a dispassionate judge, Professor Jewkes again, when he concluded this recent essay from which I have quoted. He said:
510
"It still seems irrefutable that the obstacles to commerce between Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, do not make sense"
I do not know what Professor Jewkes's politics are, if he has any, but he is still speaking as an economist. He continues:
"Could there be anything but advantage in the three Governments setting up a joint expert committee instructed to find ways of removing the obstacles?"
That would be a tripartite expert committee. One would certainly think not. In all humility, I cannot help hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, would not regard this proposal —the one of Professor Jewkes—with quite the same suspicion that has been aroused in his mind by various suggestions for talks which Mr. Lemass has recently been putting forward.
There is, of course, plenty of cooperation in various economic matters between the North and the South of Ireland on the official level. Lord Brookeborough said recently at the Queen's University—and I am quoting from the Belfast Telegraph, with which I was supplied, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear, by the office which he quoted earlier—
"that he was not against the principle of cooperation with Eire, but what his Government was opposed to was any move which would weaken Northern ties with or detach the North from Great Britain. And Mr. Lemass's offers on trade concessions clearly have this object in mind."
Whether Lord Brookeborough is right in his interpretation of Mr. Lemass's intentions—and I have no grounds for saying that he is—he is clearly, if I may say so without impertinence, entitled, as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, to hold his view, and is not unlikely to go on holding it. That is a situation which we must probably regard as a fact.
Let us assume—though, of course, I do not myself assume it—that it is in Northern Ireland's best interests that the Border should remain. Let us assume that for the purposes of this debate and for the purposes of any subsequent discussions concerning mutual economic benefit. If the Border has to stay, cannot all concerned at least make the best of the status quo without the fear that trade arrangements of mutual advantage would be a first step towards political obliteration? I raise the question: it is not for

511
me to answer it. I hope that what I have said on this point, though not on the wider issue, will perhaps draw some comment from the noble Duke, though I appreciate that I am really asking a question, part of the answer to which must come from the Northern Ireland Government. Therefore, there is a limit to what the noble Duke could say about the matter.
If bilateral talks on trade arrangements between North and South are felt in the North to be too dangerous, then why not these tripartite talks; or, if you prefer, a tripartite expert inquiry? No one, I suppose, would seriously expect the leaders of the South, of the Irish Republic, to renounce all hope of Irish unity for all time. One could not expect them to say, "We will never try to bring about unification". But I myself—though I am not speaking in any sense as some sort of mouthpiece for leaders in the South of Ireland; I am speaking simply from what would be common sense, and from my knowledge of the land—feel confident that, if there were any triparte inquiry of that kind, and if the Southern leaders would agree to enter it, they would enter it without prejudice to the ultimate arrangements concerning the unity. They would enter it simply as a way of improving the economic position of all parts of Ireland.
My Lords, I said earlier that I could never remember a time when the economic future of Ireland was so bright, and I would add that I can never remember a time when the feeling between the two peoples was so good. I was brought up partly in Ireland and partly in England. In those days no one could pretend that there was not a great deal of anti-British feeling in Ireland and a certain amount of contemptuous feeling towards Ireland in this country, but I would say that there has been a marvellous improvement in the past 40 years or so. That abstraction England—behaved abominably to the Irish people for hundreds of years. That is the lesson of history, of which many of us are aware. But I believe that, in their hearts, most Irish people not only admire the British for the part they played in the war, but are grateful for the British attitude of restraint towards Ireland during that time. It may be said that that gratitude is not often expressed. I do
512
not think proud nations express gratitude very much to each other; but I believe that the restraint exercised by this country during the war won us a new place in the esteem of Ireland. Be that as it may, I believe that the possibilities of friendship between our two peoples, these two democratic, Christian peoples, are unlimited in an age when Christianity and democracy are struggling alike for their existence. I hope and pray that this debate will have served that end, and I am sure that no other purpose than that will be in the mind of the noble Duke when he comes to reply.
4.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Windlesham for putting down this Motion to-day, and for giving us the opportunity of a very interesting debate. I think it is high time we had such a debate in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, has said, it is many years since Ireland was mentioned. She is almost our nearest neighbour, and I, for one, do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that a subject like this should not be discussed here. I consider that your Lordships' House, which can deal with these matters objectively and without rancour, and with a certain amount of imagination, too, is the best possible forum for debates of this kind. I hope that we shall have many such debates, not only on this subject but also on many other subjects which may be thought to be rather delicate, because very often a great deal of good can be done, in spite of the possibility of some harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said during the course of his speech that there was a danger at one time of Ireland becoming somewhat, as it were, inbred. Perhaps that is not the expression he used, but he meant that they were looking inwards rather than outwards. That was not by any means their fault. For many years they were not a member of the United Nations, and they were not admitted to many of the international organisations. That situation has now gone; and, with other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to congratulate both the Republic of Ireland and Mr. Boland upon the great honour which has fallen to him as President of the United Nations Assembly,

513
and on the way in which he has conducted a most difficult task. No previous President has had to grapple with Mr. Khrushchev, or anyone like him, or has had to deal, in those circumstances, with people of such great world calibre (or, anyway, such world figures) as Mr. Khrushchev and others; and the way he carried out his task is a great tribute to the capacity of Mr. Boland, and reflects credit upon his country. I should also like to pay tribute to the Irish Government for the way in which they have sent troops to the Congo. This is the first time that any Irish troops have ever left the country—officially, anyway—and I think it is a matter upon which they deserve our thanks and our congratulations. It will be a great experience to the troops, and also to the Irish Government.
I must say that I was inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, in that I thought that both the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and the noble Lord. Lord Morrison of Lambeth, were rather negative. I am quite certain that my noble friend did not put this Motion down merely to discuss the question whether Northern Ireland was better off than Southern Ireland. We know that it is; largely because, as Lord Rathcavan said, it gets a very great deal of help from this country. Of course it is better off; but my noble friend did not put this Motion down from that point of view at all. It is rather surprising to me that none of the speakers in this debate has touched on a point which is very much in the minds of the Irish. I went over to Ireland last year and did a tour. I met a very large number of people—Ministers, publicans, poets and pugilists. I met all sorts of characters in the course of that tour, and one thing they all mentioned was that they were Celts, and they welcomed me as a fellow Celt. They might have been Czechoslovakian for all that has been said by noble Lords speaking in this debate. Not even the noble Lord from Northern Ireland has mentioned that this is a Celtic nation. They feel very proud of the fact that they are a great part of the Celtic heritage. Not a word has been said about that, and I should like to rectify the omission.
Your Lordships will have noticed that all the time we have been talking about Ireland discussion has centred upon Eng-
514
land and Ireland, or Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What about Wales and Ireland? What about the Highlands of Scotland and Ireland? What about the other Celtic countries and Ireland? We have many things in common. I was particularly glad to see that last week the Minister of State for Wales, Lord Brecon, visited Scotland. It was the first time in history that any Welsh Minister (not that there has been a Welsh Minister for very long in history, I may say, but even during the period when there has been one) has ever visited another Celtic country. He went there with Lord Craigton, who, unfortunately (I am sure not because of this incident) was immediately taken ill.
Lord Brecon and Lord Craigton went round the country and saw conditions in Scotland, and they came to the conclusion that there were many things in common between Wales and Scotland, as indeed there are. And now officials from Wales are going to Scotland to study the conditions further. Had Lord Brecon been here, and I regret to see that he is not, I should have liked to ask him whether he would now carry on the work which he started and visit the Republic of Ireland, so that he may study there questions affecting the two countries; because they are very similar.
For example, take the situation in the rural areas. There is a declining population; there is a culture which is always being impinged upon by great forces from outside; there is infertility of the soil. There are many problems in common. So far as the West of Ireland is concerned, they are very much in a quandary as to what to do about their cattle population. Nothing has been mentioned about that, but when I was over there that was the thing they talked to me about most. Because unless they can clear bovine tuberculosis from Ireland, it will be very difficult to sell their stock over here. Indeed, in County Clare, the proposition was suggested to me that they might be able to make the whole area west of the River Shannon a tuberculosis-free area, and ship their cattle from Galway to the Welsh ports. In the old days, of course, we in Wales took an enormous number of Irish cattle, but that is more difficult now with the existence of this bovine tuberculosis. That is the sort of problem that I should

515
like Lord Brecon to study on the spot. How can we in Wales help them with their cattle problems, having regard to the fact that they have not yet cleared bovine tuberculosis? We have been able to help them, and this shows that what I am saying is not just "hot air" but has a basis of fact. One of our great plant and grassland specialists—and we in Wales have a great deal of experience with that sort of thing—Mr. Moses Griffith, has been to Ireland, and has done a tremendous amount of work to help them with their grassland.
Now I come to the tourist trade. The Tourist Board spend £500,000 a year in Ireland. It is a well-established industry there, and is very well run indeed. In fact, they can teach us in Wales a good deal about running a tourist industry. We know a good deal about it, but we have not the finance. The Government gives us very little, if any, finance, and therefore, we cannot put into practice many of the excellent projects which the Irish Tourist Board adopt. Furthermore, we are handicapped by the fact that the United Kingdom has never been prepared to establish the links between Wales and Ireland. We were pressing for years for an air car-ferry from the Island of Anglesey to Dublin. That was put off from year to year, and finally one was started from Speke in Liverpool. I myself pressed in your Lordships' House a year or two ago for an air-ferry from Cork to Pembrokeshire. I am glad to say that there is now a possibility of a passenger service, though not an air car-ferry, between those two places. But at least, they have gone some way, and this will be of some consequence.
Finally, culture. When people talk of culture in Ireland, what they mean is Celtic culture. It is very nice, of course, to have things like the Old Vic and Sadler's Wells, and so on; and I am all for that sort of thing. But to my mind culture, to a large extent, is international, and we are very glad to see various products of national culture coming from one country to another. However, in order to make a contribution to the international school of culture, it is essential to have a national culture; and in Ireland that means Celtic culture. Again, I am surprised that the noble Lords from Ireland who have spoken did not mention
516
this enormous flowering of dramatic play-writing which there is in Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned it: he mentioned a number of artists who are of great promise in Ireland. Some of them, indeed, are of more than promise—they are mature artists. Cyril Cusack was one; and there are others. At the present time in Wales and Ireland, for some peculiar reason (I do not know why), we have a marvellous school of playwrights growing up. We have a great burst of genius, as it were, among a number of young actors and actresses in both countries. We have great things in common between us, and I am sure that we can help each other a great deal.
I would only wish that I could persuade my compatriots in Wales (I regret to say that as yet I have met with no success, though one may still hope) to broaden out the Royal National Eisteddfod—a cultural occupation of ours—so that it would cater for the six Celtic nations, of which the three main are, of course, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the three others, Brittany, Cornwall and Man. They all come together at the Celtic Congress, which this year was held at Aberystwyth, the President being the Chief Justice of Ireland. I hope that we in Wales will be able to broaden out our own cultural institutions and allow these other Celtic nations to take advantage of this to help us in our own Celtic cultural association.
My Lords, that is almost all I have to say. Once more I thank my noble friend for putting down this Motion. I am sure that it has been a very useful debate, and that it will be looked at with great interest, and heard with great interest, in Ireland. Perhaps there is one circumstance which might be interesting to your Lordships, which I should mention. That is that the radio programmes received in Ireland, particularly on the Eastern side but also on the Western, include, apart from their own programmes, programmes from Wales. Therefore I dare say that the Welsh programmes will carry something of this debate, and the people in Ireland will hear something of this debate. Their papers, I imagine, will also carry part of our debate, and I am sure that they will be interested in it. I only hope that the Dail will have a similar debate, because it is all to the good. I believe

517
that we, should do everything we can to draw closer to the Irish. The old wrongs will then be forgotten and new friendships forged.
5.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in replying to this most useful and interesting debate, I must begin by declaring an interest in the subject, because my family have had, and I am very happy to say still have, property in the Republic of Ireland. Furthermore, there is no part of the year to which my family and I look fprward more than that part which we spend in County Waterford.
Much has been said in to-day's debate of what the Republic has to offer to this country, and indeed to the world. To these would add that she provides salmon fishing and, at any rate in my part of the country, a superb climate for gardening. As I have said in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion, I consider myself something of an expert on leisure and I know of no two better ways of spending one's leisure than in fishing and in gardening. And for the many happy hours I have spent in these two activities within the shores of the Republic, I am much in debt to that lovely country. Therefore I most warmly welcome what has been said to further the good relations between the two countries, and in saying this, I say it not only on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but also as one who is happy to have such close personal relations with both countries. I am most grateful, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for instigating to-day's debate, and I feel sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel that we have had a useful afternoon. Since the debate was instigated by a member of a family whose name, I suppose, one might say is a household word in the world of drink, perhaps we may describe the debate as "heady stuff."
Broadly speaking, noble Lords who have spoken have divided their remarks into three categories—political, economic and cultural—and I should like to follow them in this. I will deal with the first heading, which will be by far the shortest—that is, the poli-
518
tical aspects of to-day's debate. Some reference, though not a great deal, has been made to the question of partition. It is not my intention to touch upon this subject, because I am most anxious, like other noble Lords, to stick to the terms of the Motion, though I would say that the House listened with great interest to, and I am sure was deeply moved by, what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenhann, had to say on the Republic and the Commonwealth. I would only add that of course membership of the Commonwealth is not a matter for only the two countries; there are others to be considered. I would also say in general on the question of partition that the policy of the United Kingdom is well known and is embodied in legislation which safeguards the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that I should not be furthering the aim of closer economic and cultural association between the two countries were I to say more on this subject, and it is certainly not my intention to rake over the past—a most unrewarding pastime—because, after all, it is with the happy future relations between the two countries that we are concerned this afternoon.
As to the economic relations between the two countries, as your Lordships will know, and as was pointed out this afternoon, they are governed by three Trade Agreements. The first of these, which may be said to be the main Agreement, was signed in April, 1938, and under it each country extends special preferential treatment to the other's goods. Nearly all the Republic's agricultural and industrial products are allowed into the United Kingdom free of duty or quantitative restrictions. In return, we enjoy in the Republic tariff preference over a wide range of our exports
The Agreement signed on July 3l. 1948, made certain modifications to the main Agreement, particularly with reference to the balance of payments difficulties of both countries and to the United Kingdom bulk purchasing of agricultural products. It left undisturbed the provisions relating to preferential treatment to which I have just referred. In these circumstances, and having regard to the obligations of the United Kingdom under G.A.T.T., our membership of the European Free Trade Association and to the importance of safeguarding the special

519
position of the members of the Commonwealth as trading partners of the United Kingdom, the scope for still closer economic association with the Republic of Ireland is limited. Nevertheless, our economic relations with the Republic are kept under review. In fact, the latest of the three Trade Agreements, which was signed in April of this year, contains provisions under which representatives of the two Governments meet at least once a year, and at any other time at the request of either Government, to discuss the trading relations between the two countries and, in particular, to exchange information and views on agricultural policies and production trends. A meeting took place in London in September in accordance with this arrangement and a further meeting took place only yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, mentioned.
Of the other provisions contained in the most recent Agreement, perhaps the most important are those referring to livestock imports to this country from the Republic. The Agreement states that:
"On and after 13th April, 1960, attested cattle imported from the Irish Republic and fattened in the United Kingdom for not less than three months qualify for payments under the fatstock guarantee scheme at the same rates as cattle bred in the United Kingdom."
A further article provides for the Government of the Irish Republic to initiate a further review of protective duties and other import restrictions applied in the Republic of Ireland on goods produced and manufactured in the United Kingdom. Steps have already been taken to initiate a review of duties on certain United Kingdom exports to the Republic. Further reviews will follow on items to be agreed between the two Governments. Thus, the conclusion of this 1960 Agreement is evidence of the cordial way in which we are able on both sides to adapt our trade arrangements in our common interests.
It is understandable that some industries may complain about the disparity between the duty free entry accorded to Irish manufacturers exporting to the United Kingdom and the comparatively high rate of duty applied to their products entering the Republic. We can sympathise with these industries for feel-
520
ing aggrieved at this disparity. Its existence is justified, however, when one considers the overall exchange of advantages contained in the Trade Agreements, which are conducive to a high level of trade in each direction, figures of which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. Any industry adversely affected by this disparity is recommended to consider consulting the Board of Trade with the purpose of obtaining a review of the particular duty thaw is affecting it.
Before leaving this aspect of trade between the two countries, may I say a word on what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had to say on the proposal for linking farm prices in the two countries, together with concerted agricultural marketing policies in return for certain unspecified trade concessions to the United Kingdom. As I have already said, there was a thorough joint examination of the whole field of economic relations between the two countries prior to the drawing up and signing of the Trade Agreement of April of this year. During these consultations a proposal of the kind to which the noble Lord has alluded was then scrutinised. The pros and cons of it are thus already known to the United Kingdom Government and, in any case, since the machinery for close consultation in trade matters between the two countries is firmly established, should either country wish to re-examine the setting up of something of this kind, a meeting could always be called for the purpose.
As to the matter of freight rates, which two noble Lords have complained of as being too high, I would just say this. It is Her Majesty's Government's firm and long standing view that freight rates and other such aspects of sea transportation can best be left for commercial negotiations between shippers and shipping companies. I have learned with interest that recently a Shippers' Council has been set up in the Irish Republic, and we regard this as a development of considerable value. Since this Council has now been set up, I wonder whether there might be referred to it not only the question of freight rates but also the matter of inadequacy of travel arrangements between the two countries, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, particularly in regard to travel by the

521
sea routes. I hope that when this Council has found its feet it will perhaps be able to deal with those two matters.
We in the United Kingdom understand the difficulties that have prompted the Government of the Republic to put into effect its current programme of economic expansion, with its emphasis on increasing productivity, on improving marketing in agricultural production and on concentrating industrial investment on those products that can, in the long run, hold their own in a world of increasing free trade. We are glad to note that a considerable measure of success has attended the programme so far. It is, of course, natural that in order to lessen the country's dependance on agriculture as its main source of export earnings, the Government of the Irish Republic wish to do what they can to diversify their country's economy. The establishment of industries which would contribute to these earnings, however, requires the investment of capital on a much greater scale than is available from the internal sources alone. The Government of the Republic, therefore, wish to attract the overseas investor. With this in view they enacted lams in 1959 with the object of encouraging the setting up of new industries in places, including the Shannon Free Airport area, outside existing development areas.
The financial inducements provided under this legislation, which include exemption, under certain conditions, from taxation on profits for a period of years, attracted foreign capital from a number of countries. But—and I should like to stress this point—no advantages are offered by the Irish Government to any other country which are not equally available to United Kingdom investors. While there are indications that the United Kingdom's share in new investment in the Republic was less than that of some other foreign countries in 1959 and in the early part of 1960, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in this connection to look at this matter in a broader sphere. The picture over the past 21½years shows that the United Kingdom are still an important source of external capital investment in the Republic. Out of 88 new factory projects which materialised in the Republic during that 21½ years period, 25 were sponsored by Irish groups in association with foreign groups, 16 by British, 14 by
522
German, 12 by the United States and 5 by Netherlands firms. The remaining 16 new projects were shared among 6 other European countries, South Africa and Japan with one alluded to by a noble Lord.
Arising from this, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, raised the question of foreign manufacturers' obtaining duty-free entry for their goods into the United Kingdom by having them manufactured by their subsidiaries in the Republic. I think this is a point of some importance, and I should like to explain to the House the conditions under which this duty-free entry can be obtained. For imports to qualify for duty-free entry into the United Kingdom, importers must satisfy our Customs that the goods conform to the statutory requirements as to Commonwealth origin and content. These involve the addition off a substantial element of value in the Republic or elsewhere in the preference area. For almost all the goods which we import from the Republic the addition is 50 per cent. The Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Irish Republic stated in the Dail on June 2 of this year:
"I should like to take the opportunity of warning any industrialists who may be tempted to get around the 50 per cent, requirement that my Department will co-operate in dealing with them … certainly we shall have no hesitation in asking the Revenue Commissioners to make a full disclosure to the Revenue Officers of Britain of any of these activities."
He then made reference to the degree of trust and confidence obtaining between officers on both sides to ensure
"that Ireland will not be used as a back door for the entry of certain types of goods to the British market."
Moreover, we have agreed in our latest trade agreement to consult together to find equitable solutions for any cases of special difficulty that may arise in our trade.
Before I leave the economic side of the debate I should like to say a word or two about the tripartite trade talks mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rathcavan, and also by the noble Lord opposite. I can only endorse what my noble friend Lord Rathcavan had to say on this subject. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Her trade interests are covered by United Kingdom trade interests and by

523
the existing machinery of consultation, to which I have already alluded. To show how well covered Northern Ireland interests are, Northern Irish officials take part in these consultations and in the drawing up of the Trade Agreements. That, I think, shows that there is really no room for tripartite trade talks. Northern Ireland's interests are fully covered by the existing talks that do take place and will take place in the future.
To turn to the cultural side, as noble Lords in all parts of the House have said, the cultural contacts between the two countries are many and wide. As has been said, British theatrical companies visit Dublin regularly. This year the Old Vic took part in the Dublin Festival, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, said, they presented the plays they are to take to Russia next year. Thus we may say that it gives a new twist to the old saying, for what is news in Dublin to-day will be news in Moscow to-morrow. I am only sorry that they did not mingle together with the approval of the noble Lord. The Sadler's Wells and the Royal Ballet go to Dublin, as do the Hallé Orchestra and the B.B.C. Orchestra. I am sure that the more these splendid cultural organisations can cross the Irish sea, the better it will be. Reference was made to the musical festivals at Wexford and at Cork. Here again there are invariably British performers at these festivals, as there are when musical festivals take place in Dublin. They do not take place there every year, but they do from time to time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, there are many students from the United Kingdom in Ireland and from other parts of the Commonwealth. I understand that about one-third of the students at Trinity College, Dublin, come from the United Kingdom. In this connection, it is perhaps of interest to note that Trinity College still retains its statutory right to a copy of every work published in the United Kingdom. Whether or not the College has seen, or will see, fit to exert this right in so far as to acquire a copy of the volume which is to be discussed in this House at the close of this debate is a matter upon which I can only speculate. I might
524
add that, in return for the right to which I have referred, five British libraries retain statutory rights to a copy of every work published in the Irish Republic.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made reference to the forthcoming exhibition of the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels, which are to be shown side by side. I join with him and other noble Lords in hoping that this country will support this exhibition, as the money from it will go towards Trinity College; and as we in the United Kingdom have a large interest in the welfare of Trinity College, I hope that we shall see fit to support the exhibition in the strongest possible way.
While Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the recent agreement for the Lane pictures (it was entirely a matter for the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Commissioners of Public Works in Dublin) Her Majesty's Government naturally most warmly welcome the agreement that has at last been found to this very thorny problem. The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, made reference Ito the benefits we in this country have had in the past from Irish plays and Irish actors and actresses. I would warmly endorse the words of the noble Lord, who said that this benefit was still continuing. The English stage is fortunate to have an injection of Irish culture and Irish acting ability; and indeed, the performance of Siohban McKenna in The Playboy of the Western World, which is still running, is a fine current example.
One word, if I might, on the professions. Because of its former position as part of the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic retains for its professional people many advantages in the United Kingdom. Medical, dental, veterinary and other degrees given in the Republic receive virtually the same recognition as those of the United Kingdom, and membership of many United Kingdom professional bodies is open to Irish citizens. Reciprocal arrangements apply in the Irish Republic, where doctors and dentists with United Kingdom qualifications are permitted to practice without formalities.
The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, made some allusion to the Arts Council. I

525
think it true to say that the Arts Council does operate in certain ways which benefit the relations between the two countries. For example, it has given help and advice to its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Arts Council. In 1948, it arranged for the showing in London of the Jack B. Yeats Exhibition, and only last year under similar arrangements London was able to see and benefit from the Evie Hone Memorial Exhibition of Stained Glass. Some reference was made to the British Council. The British Council has an adviser in Dublin. His main duties are to look after the interests of, and to help and assist, Commonwealth students who are resident there As this debate has shown, the normal exchanges of all kinds between the United Kingdom and the Republic are very considerable. I feel that noble Lords will agree with me when I say that the Council's resources, which naturally have to be limited, should be deployed in countries with special needs and where this cultural exchange does not normally operate.
I have talked for long enough and, with all your Lordships here, it is my earnest hope that the result of this debate will be an added impetus towards establishing a lastingly happy relationship between the two countries. The past history of the two countries and the happy, close but, perhaps, unusual relationship which exists might surprise those who have read only their history books. I do not want to end on a discordant note, but the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, made an inaccurate statement. I believe that he aid, alluding to the Republic, "It is just another foreign country—as foreign as any on the Continent of Europe." That is not the case. The Ireland Act, 1949, lays down that:
…notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom…"
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Duke that it is also not a foreign country in feeling or, indeed in any other respect?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would readily endorse what the noble Lord has said. To my mind, how-
526
ever, this unique relationship can be viewed with great satisfaction. And the fact that I, as a member of the Commonwealth Relations Office, am replying to the debate, rather than a representative of the Foreign Office, shows how very Irish the relationship is. My Lords, what could be happier or more suitable than that?
5.36 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the time is getting on, and you have another debate before you. But before asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Motion I should like to thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to come and take part in the debate. If I might keep your Lordships for, at the outside, three or four minutes, to mention one or two things that have been said, I should be grateful for the indulgence.
At the beginning of the debate, I was a little worried, as I think several of your Lordships may have been, that the first two speakers confined themselves almost entirely to reaffirming the position of Northern Ireland—a position of which I am well aware, and which I did not intend to query in any way. Nor would I wish to do so. I think the position is quite clear where the Government of Northern Ireland is concerned. I am aware that economic matters cannot be separated in any way. I think the quotation I made from Mr. Lemass's speech, in which he said that the Government of the Republic have no wish to enter into any arrangements with the British Government which were to the detriment of Northern Ireland, should clear up that point. He made that statement quite clearly and unequivocally.
The noble Lord, Lord Killanin, who I am sure your Lordships' will agree we should like to hear more often (he has taken eleven years to address us, and I hope that it will not be another eleven years before he does so again), put up a virtuoso performance which I enjoyed very much indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a little depressing at first. He seemed to deplore the debate at all. He thought it was better to leave tricky problems alone. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, later said—and I agree with him—that thorny problems are not solved by being kept in a drawer. It is the ostrich system, and personally I do

527
not believe in it. I believe that if problems can be pulled out into the open, and discussed in a reasonable way by reasonable people they will be solved. That was the basis of our Motion, and we kept it, so far as we could, on the economic and cultural level which in time we hope may come to solve all differences.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, made a most agreeable speech, for which I was most grateful. He said a lot of nice things. He talked about the charm of the Irish, and if I might keep your Lordships for one moment I should like to tell you this. When I first went to Ireland, the house I was going to move into was full of workmen. Weeks and months went past, and I could not get rid of them; and eventually we had to move in, too, which I believe is the classic remedy. It had no effect. We all settled down in a happy family, and the frequency of cups of tea became absolutely extraordinary. After a week I had to go to London, and on returning I sent for the foreman and addressed him in a peremptory and military way, and said, "How did you get on while I was away?" He said, "Ah, we missed you". My Lords, what can you do with people like that?
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that I had almost written his speech for him. I am quite incapable of doing such a thing. The noble Lord addressed us with great brilliance and eloquence, and he brought up "the 64,000-dollar question". It is too late in the evening to pursue it. He put it, I thought, clearly and sincerely. I think we can leave it on the record for your Lordships to read again to-morrow. I think the feeling in some people's minds that closer economic ties between the Government of this country and that of the Republic will loosen the ties with the North, is quite wrong. Rather is it the other way round: it will strengthen them rather than loosen them, and that has been one of my objects to-day. Lord Ogmore, in his speech, confined himself mainly to the importance of being a Celt. I am sure that it is important. He is one himself, and there is no doubt that the Irish culture is a culture of which they are very proud.
The noble Duke gave us a very comprehensive and reassuring reply, for
528
which I am most grateful. He spoke about certain machinery which was recently set up for the review and discussion, at the request of the Government at any time, of any economic matters that may perhaps (though I am not sure that it will) make the ad hoc committee of experts I advocated unnecessary. I say I am not sure that it will, because there is a difference between having experts from outside, as opposed to civil servants who are concerned in the matter all the time and may perhaps at some stage fail to see the wood for the trees. Nevertheless he made a reassuring reply and I am grateful for it. When I put this Motion down several people came to me and said, "What is behind this Motion of yours?" My Lords, there is nothing behind it, but I very much hope that there may be something before it I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE "LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER" CASE
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the verdict of the court in regard to the book entitled Lady Chatterley's Lover; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take such steps as are possible to ban for all time writings of this nature, particularly those of the author of this book; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to make one or two preliminary remarks before I get down to my Motion. My Lords, what are we coming to? This is a very serious matter. We have the verdict of a British jury which many of us, certainly I myself, deplore. We also have certain recommendations in the Wolfenden Report to which I equally take the greatest exception. What are we coming to? It is all very well for one noble Lord to laugh. This is not a laughing matter; it is a very serious issue that we are facing to-day.
It appears that we can think, we can write, we can print, we can publish, we can act and we can recommend whatever we like. Talk about liberty! This is not a question where liberty comes in at all; it is a question of licence. Have we

529
the licence to do anything we like in any direction? I hold a very strong view on giving unbridled licence to everybody in the country, and I am very anxious lest our world become depraved and indecent, to put it mildly. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us the other day that there is no appeal from the verdict of the jury. Surely, if the British Government and the Ministers concerned wish to bring in legislation to alter this state of affairs they can do so, if they put their hands to the plough.
Let me get to something rather different. Love—and I mean the word in every sense—is one of the strongest influences in the world for good, but if it abused it seems to me that it becomes the work of Satan, indecent and quite dreadful. This question of the true love of one man to another, of one people to another, of one society to another, is being, in my view, undermined by the sort of thing that is going on. It is an affront to the public mind, an insult to our social and moral standards, on which we, my Lords, used to be the leaders. There is nothing finer than the devotion of man to woman, in fact the emotion of devotion between the sexes. What do we have? We have the well-known saying at the time of tragedy, at the time of ships sinking, "Women and children first". That is a sentiment which is the strongest thing in our nature, and I believe that we are now faced with the threat that all those fine feelings that I have tried to describe will he undermined.
The policy of the Government, as was so admirably set out in the gracious Speech, is to encourage and advance the social welfare of our people. Is this sort of thing going to do that? It is said that there will be encouragement and expansion of youth services: is this sort of thing going to do that? They say there should be physical recreation for the young: is this sort of thing going to help towards that end, that splendid end, that the Government are aiming at? What I have referred to in my Motion cannot help the minds of young people. No good can come of it. As I see it, only evil can come of it. What object can possibly be gained by advertising and exploiting private intimacy of the nature described in these
530
writings? And I will come presently to another book which I have not even now made up my mind I am going to quote, because it is perfectly appalling. These writings are quite terrible, in my view, and I am sure in the minds of your Lordships. I have had letters from all parts of the country, and another one this morning, with splendid ideas in it. The public generally are horrified at what has taken place.
There is in the House of Commons a Bill which has just been initiated there —it has only received, I am afraid, the First Reading; I do not know where it will get to—but which is a very proper Bill to carry out the ideas I, and I am sure many others, have. It was introduced by Sir Charles Taylor, and. as I understand it, there are many Members of Parliament—quite a number, of different Parties—who are supporting it.
Let us get down to the realities and the origin of this deplorable book. It emanates from the warped mind of the author. The story he tells is pure invention; it never actually happened. I believe that at one time this book was banned, and then it was freed. I wonder why, and by whom? It is evident to me that the Director of Public Prosecutions must have considered it obscene, otherwise this court action, with its resultant verdict, would never have taken place. Having put down the Motion following the verdict, I found that I had not read the book, so I immediately tried to get a copy, and eventually managed to borrow one. In a way, I wish I had never read it. It was far worse than anything that I could possibly have thought could be published in this country. It was supported, of course, by the jury and by the witnesses, including, I regret to say, the Bishop of Woolwich. I am in entire agreement and align myself most strongly with what the Archbishop of Canterbury said on that subject. All the letters I have received view the whole of this question as obscene, immoral and, in fact, shocking in every way. All express a deep sense of shock at this disgusting, filthy affront to ordinary decencies. Those are expressions that I have had mentioned in the correspondence which has been sent to me.
Now I come to something that I am not at all sure is not worse than the book mentioned in my Motion. Only this morning I had a magazine sent to me which referred to this book, the title of which is The Man Who Died. I am doubtful whether I can really give your Lordships the theme of that book, but I want to make my case as strong as possible because I want something to be done about this matter. The theme of the book is this—I have made up my mind, and I am going to give it to your Lordships now—that Jesus Christ came down from the Cross alive, that he wandered into the Temple of Isis where he seduced a priestess and she eventually became pregnant. Could there be anything more profane, more blasphemous, than that? Yet this same author wrote that book. It is difficult for me, or for anybody speaking on this subject, to go into the details of the book. We have heard a lot about words with four letters, but that is nothing compared to what one can read in this book; the language of it, the sentences in it, are perfectly dreadful. Then to bring religion into it! The Bishop of Woolwich approved of it; he said it was Holy Communion. It is all very well, but we ought to take this matter very seriously.
I am glad to see that the Lord Archbishop of York has come here to-day to this debate, and I am also glad to see the Lord Bishop of St. Albans, whose name appears on the list of speakers. I had a letter this morning from my friend the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, who says that the Lord Lieutenant of the County within his Diocese has died and he has to attend the funeral. He expresses regret that he cannot be here, and I know that he feels strongly on this subject. Everyone who ms written or spoken to me takes the strongest possible view about this situation, and disapproves of allowing this book to be accessible to family or respectable society. To-day I am an old man. In the earlier days of my life as a miner. I mixed with tough fellows on the frontiers of the Empire, and also through the war; but there is nothing that has been said during my life, nothing that has been brought to my notice, that touches the horrible state of affairs which I see in this situation to-day. We must do something about it.
Some of my friends have said, "You know, Charles, you are late. This thing will die; it will be a nine days' wonder." Let me give your Lordships my experience of the last few days. There was an article in the Sunday Express and another article in the Evening Standard of last week; and yesterday, I think, in the Daily Telegraph yet another article appeared. They are going now to make gramophone discs on the subject. This thing is not dead. We must do everything we can to stop any furtherance of its publication. I cannot believe that the Obscene Publications Act can permit it to be called a classic or that it is a thing of literary merit. It cannot possibly have anything of that sort in it.
Then there is the question, where is the law now? It seemed to me that when divorce proceedings were brought, the question of adultery was the final question. What about that now? In view of the verdict of the court is adultery wrong? Is it something that can be put forward as a reason for divorce? I should like to know about that. I have a letter which asks me to do everything I can to have a new administration of the law. I have spoken longer than I usually do but I feel very strongly about this question, and from what some noble Lords have said to me in the last few weeks on this subject I am sure they feel the same way that I do. I beg my noble and learned friend who is going to reply to do everything he can to try to persuade the Ministers concerned and Her Majesty's Government to do everything possible to prevent the furtherance of what is going on now. I beg to move for Papers.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must apologise for addressing your Lordships twice to-day, and I must say straight away that I do not find this subject, on which feelings run so strongly, the easiest to speak to. I fully acknowledge the strength and sincerity of feeling of the noble Lord who raised this matter to-day. But one of the things he said was: How does it come about that this book, Lady Chatterley's Lover, is published now and was not published in the past? The noble Lord asked, by implication, who was responsible. I will say to him that he, and all of us in the House who passed

533
the Obscene Publications Act in the last Session—passed it without a Division, and freely adopted it—are responsible.
This is an Act which is now on the Statute Book. A case has been brought under it by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not agree with the noble Lord that because the Director of Public Prosecutions brings a case under this Act that case is automatically proven. It is no: proven until a British court of law has passed judgment on it. I believe that in bringing this matter forward—and if it is appropriate and proper for us to do that so soon after passing legislation—we must again look at what we did when we passed the Obscene Publications Act. I have already mentioned that it went through this House without a Division; and, so far as I know, the noble Lord himself made no protest on that occasion. Any noble Lord who feels inclined to-day to protest ought, I think, to give his reasons as to why he did not object to an Act of Parliament which we so freely passed into law.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, surely, the Obscene Publications Act is the very Act which now is being abused and broken by all this. Surely that is so. I do not think it is the fault of the Act itself.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to try to trap the noble Lord in a discussion of this kind, but to say that the Act is being broken when a British jury in a court of law has come to a verdict, is, I think, to suggest that justice is being frustrated. I believe that it might perhaps help if at this moment I were to refer to the provisions of the Act and to the particular points that were made which were adopted at the time we passed the Act so that it became law. The important change—perhaps the most important—was that in the first section it was laid down that:
" An article shall be deemed to he obscene if its effect… is…"
and I assure noble Lords that any words I leave out do not affect the sense—
"taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave: aid corrupt persons…"
This is the test that was applied. Then there were other changes that were brought into effect. It was possible to
534
plead that the publication of an article (in this case a book) was
"in the interests of science, literature, art or learning,"
or indeed of general concern. It was also made possible under the Act to call experts to give evidence purely on the literary or other merits of the book. We cannot re-try this case, but the course envisaged in the words I have read out is precisely that which was followed. And after a pretty full discussion, and after a large number of witnesses had gone into the witness box, twelve British people came to the conclusion that the publishers of this book were not guilty under the Act.
Whether or not the Judge could have asked the jury to give a split opinion, and whether they could have answered other questions, I am not lawyer enough to say. It is possible that they might have regarded the book as tending to corrupt while at the same time regarding it as in the public interest that it should be published. We do not know this, but the book has survived the ordeal of a trial in which there is no suggestion that the prosecution, the Director of Prosecutions or the Judge were in any way soft" to the publishers and to those responsible for publishing the book.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting, because I do not do so wantonly? May I point out to him that in the discussion on the measure to which he refers these technical points were raised by quite a number of noble Lords. They were found to be very difficult, and I believe that a majority of Members of this House can be forgiven for having been unable, at that stage, completely to understand the technical possibilities in the working of the Act. I feel that that fact ought to be mentioned and understood, for it was brought up to a very large extent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure we should all be willing to forgive our fellow-Peers if they failed to understand a technical matter of law. But this was a matter of great importance, and the potentialities were, I believe, as clear as they could be. It seems lo me that the Act was very fully debated. It was the subject of repeated

535
discussions in another place and reached the Statute Book only after a number of attempts.
I want now to turn briefly to the book itself. I do not wish to argue its merits very strongly, beyond pointing out that a large number of people, for some of whose opinions I have certainly a high regard, held this to be a good book and one which, taken as a whole, did not tend to corrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will disagree with them. He is entitled to disagree with them, but they are equally entitled, in a free country where censorship does not exist, to their opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has suggested that the writings of D. H. Lawrence, in particular (he refers especially to this book, but no doubt includes many others) ought to be banned. I am happy to say that the Government have no power to ban books in this country, and this is one of the freedoms which we should be very careful to preserve. But if we are to take this book and go again to what the Act requires and look at particular parts of it, which I believe is what the noble Lord has done, then he exposes a very wide range of literature to the same processes as those to which he would subject Lady Chatterlev's Lover.
The noble Lord may know that Mr. Partridge wrote a book on the bawdy in Shakespeare; that there are many scenes in Shakespeare and in many other writings —indeed, there are parts of the Bible—which are of a kind which, taken out of context, might be held by some to have a tendency to corrupt and deprave. When I look at the books that schoolboys are given to read at school, those of us who have done the classics, whether it be The Golden Ass of Apuleius, the plays of Terence, or, indeed, the performances of many of the gods and goddesses of mythology, I should have thought there were plenty of other matters which the noble Lord would wish to remove from our view.
My Lords, the book we are discussing to-night is certainly about an adulterous relationship. But many other books are also about that. I have not yet heard the noble Lord speak out against a book called Forever Amber, and others. But there is one thing this book is not about. The noble Lord said at the beginning (though it is not relevant to this Motion),
536
that he was opposed to the Wolfenden proposals; and I take it he was referring to the proposals with regard to the reform of the law in the matter of homosexuality. But the one thing this book does not do is to advocate perversion or sadism or violence: and there are many such books which are continually available and which are peddled by the pedlars of pornography, which, among other things, this Act has sought to control. It is an Act, among other things, designed to strengthen the law concerning pornography. And I can tell the noble Lord that if there is one book which is not likely to be peddled by the pedlars of pornography it is Lady Chatterley's Lover, because the books they sell are essentially those which are concerned with sadism, violence and perversion. This book is not, as those many people who have read it, know; and the people who look for that type of thrill will very quickly get bored with Lady Chatterley's Lover.
I would say only a word or two more. Psychologists—and they may be right or they may be wrong—have said that, generally speaking, no single book has been responsible for corrupting an individual: that it is an atmosphere of corruption; an atmosphere of perversion, and particularly an atmosphere of violence; and indeed the type of atmosphere to which I know the noble Lord objects and which may be generally spread throughout society. I should like to know whether the noble Lord would now wish to turn his attention to attacking some of the newspapers, some of the Sunday newspapers, some of the violence that goes on on television. For these are matters which must be taken into account as part of the broad picture in the same way as this Act requires us to look at an article as a whole.
LORD AMWELL: And the cinema.
LORD SHACKLETON: Is this not, in fact, a good test: that we should look at an article as a whole, or a book as a whole, and judge whether it has a tendency to corrupt? Or are we to take little pieces out of life and say that life itself is obscene?—because this is, with the greatest respect, the conclusion that one must come to if one follows the arguments of the noble Lord.
I do not wish to be too personal, but it is not long since the noble Lord

537
advocated in this House another form of censorship. We know he favoured that only the Government should be allowed to make statements on the radio and in other places in regard to matters of foreign affairs. On that occasion most noble Lords, including the Government spokesmen in particular, dealt very effectively with that argument. Does the noble Lord now wish to introduce a form of censorship of a kind that we are proud does not exist in this country? Would he, in fact, ban a book like Dr. Zhivago, which has certainly been a subject of considerable comment in the West because it is not available freely behind the Iron Curtain? In Dr. Zhivago there are certainly incidents of a kind and tendencies of a kind to which the noble Lord would take exception.
I would only say, conclusion, that any noble Lords who support this Motion must disagree, and show that they disagree, with the principles contained in an Act of Parliament which we in this House passed freely through, without a Division. They must also show in the process that they distrust their fellow men in regard to this matter, and they must be prepared to accept a curtailment of cultural freedom; and that, whatever evil there may or may not be in one hook, would, in my opinion, be a far greater evil and far more damaging to the ideals and principles under which we live. I would end on only one point: that there are sins, and though adultery may be a sin, it is also a sin to revile your fellow men.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a definite question in regard to, I think, a Motion I put down —it is some time ago. I still adhere to my view that matters of international and national importance which are the responsibility of Ministers and the Government should not be exploited and advertised by the British Broadcasting Corporation, particularly in "Panorama", without the permission of the Government and those responsible. I adhere to my original opinion on that. I know that my noble friend Lord Boothby, whom I see here, will not agree with me.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY: No; certainly not.
LORD TEVIOT: But that is my opinion.
6.15 p.m
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I was prepared to speak to the unamended Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, drawing attention to this subject, and it was only this morning that I saw his amendment. I have not had time to reconsider what I was going to say, and certainly there has been no time to read D. H. Lawrence's other books, which I should have to do before discussing any ban on them. I am not, therefore, in a position to support this Motion. But I hope in the brief speech that I propose to make that I may give reasons for this statement.
I am reluctant to add more words to the great number that have been spoken on the subject of Lady Chatterley's Lover. It is widely held that too much has already been said. But a tradition of reticence has been broken and this may be a necessary moment to take stock. My Lords, I read the book. I first turned to the second half and understood as I went along the praise that was given to the beauty of certain passages. I then read the whole book and found myself increasingly bored with conversation and description which I should have found disquieting at an earlier age. I do not question that much of the hook is written with tenderness and compassion; nor that censorship may be harmful. In fact, I accept the argument that, after so much publicity, it may be better that the book should be published and openly read rather than smuggled into this country from overseas and passed surreptitiously from hand to hand. This is the sort of thing that surely would happen if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, received sufficient support.
But, my Lords, this book deals with an adulterous relationship; and Christian teaching is that adultery, whether in fact or in lustful longing, is always a sin. I recognise that hundreds of books on this subject are published each year, but the fact that a million and a half copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover have been sold makes my comments necessary. I have no intention of referring here to certain evidence given in the trial by Christian ministers of religion. Rather, I want just to do two things: first, to consider the effect of this book on young people and on adolescents of all ages; and, secondly,

539
to consider what advice should be offered to parents. Now that it is published, where do we go from here? I quote from a priest with 32 years' experience in Oxford:
"I am convinced"—
he has written—
"that purple passages such as occur in this book stimulate the imagination in an undesirable way and often lead to the sort of sins which young people themselves eagerly desire to overcome."
What advice, my Lords, can be offered to some youngster who has read it and been disturbed by it; who has been roused by it and finds himself thinking too much about it? I answer: let him talk about it with some wise adult, a parent or someone accustomed to dealing with people—a priest, a doctor, a teacher, a probation officer, a youth leader. If he is thinking of reading it but has not begun to do so, my further advice would be that he should postpone reading it until he is about to marry, until he is on the threshold of marriage. Then I would recommend him to buy a booklet, the sales of which are approaching the million mark, called, The Threshold of Marriage. It costs 8d., and it is published by the Church Information Board. Here, in the brief compass of some 32 pages, will be found advice on the three-fold aspect of marriage.
Here is a sentence from a Report of one of the Lambeth Conference Committees:
"Sexual intercourse is not by any means the only language of earthly love but it is, in its full and right use, the most intimate and the most revealing."
That sentence, my Lords may well be in tune with a man's mind after reading Lawrence. But there is in this booklet complementary teaching making three points: that it would be wrong to exaggerate the importance of intercourse—it is not the be all and end all of married life; that married couples differ greatly in the value they place upon it, for some find it increasingly precious as they grow through bodily union to one-ness of heart and mind; that others, on the other hand, find it becoming less and less important. But in either case—and here I am indebted to a note from a wise vicar—
"the understanding to be reached is surely that of the physical relationship as neither a
540
supreme end in itself, nor an enjoyable triviality, but as a deeply spiritual experience and vocation within marriage. A relationship whose exercise calls forth all those gentle, sincere. thoughtful, tender and compassionate qualities which, flowing throughout the life of the home and the family, make matrimony truly holy and life long. When this is understood, the many practical questions that remain can more easily be answered."
Is there any advice that may be offered to parents?—and many parents must be wondering what is their best course to follow. The publication of this book underlines the responsibility carried by parents and by others concerned with the upbringing and education of children, particularly all who profess to be Christians, to see that the right attitude to sex and marriage is presented to the minds of young people before they are of an age to read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Headmasters and headmistresses whom I know are throwing the responsibility back on the parents; they are refusing to have the book in their school libraries. If parents want their children to read it, let opportunity be given in the holidays; and then, if they know it is being read in their families, parents can encourage their children to talk about it.
Young people growing up in 1960 have, besides novels, a choice of many stimulants, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton has mentioned—magazines and comics, strip-tease, dance fever, violence shown on the cinema and T.V. This book must be seen and considered in that wide context. It has passages of greatness, and reading it is not necessarily damaging but can be used constructively. The publicity may soon be forgotten. Then, we hope, a decent reticence will be restored, and sexual discussion will chiefly be kept within the context to which it belongs—that is to say, the private affairs of husband, wife and family. In passing, it is good to note that many booksellers refuse to exhibit this book or even to stock it, and to hear that librarians decline to put it on public shelves. As has already been said, we must not forget the quantity of printed matter already on sale of which the effect is clearly pornographic. Let no one doubt the menace of such literature to our national life.
To sum up, my Lords, I consider the most important question to be faced

541
to-day is not whether the book is to be banned, but, rather, how those responsible for the welfare of young people can be encouraged and helped to make the best use of the opportunity which is now open to them. A point of contact with many puzzled adolescents has been created. We all know how advertising and the Press, as well as the factors already mentioned, help to keep sex in the foreground of the minds of those still at school. The younger age of puberty, the freedom from conventions, for many the lack of religious ties—these, as your Lordships know, are some of the elements that make young people more vulnerable to-day, and more in need of clear guidance about physical relationships. It is the responsibility of all parents—or, failing them, of leaders and teachers—to try to pass on a view of the sex relationship as neither passing nor selfish, but deep and enduring; a lifelong link, and the true background of the happy, married home from which a new generation of wise parents can again come forward. My Lords, the Church has resources of books and literature and trained personnel who are helping to give this teaching, and who are willing to train others who wish to fit themselves to give it.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, we are told that this is the century of the common man, but I often wonder how true that is, because so many experts are rising on so many different subjects that I sometimes feel that there is some danger of the common man, or even the common Peer, feeling guilty of effrontery in having opinions of his own. In this particular case, we have had evidence from experts on the interpretation of the law, experts on Christian ethics, experts on public morals and experts on art and literature, and the jury have given a verdict that this book is no menace to public morals—a verdict which has been hailed in some quarters as a vindication of some great principle, though I am not quite certain what that principle is.
My Lords, I am quite ready to leave it at that. I do not agree with my noble friend that the law should be changed. I am quite ready to leave the question of public morals to those who are experts and who understand those things. But there is also the question—a much
542
less important question, no doubt—of public taste, and this is a matter very difficult to define. It is still more difficult to reduce to a statutory code. It varies from age to age, and it varies from country to country. It is in some ways most illogical, for we seem much more easily shocked by our eyes than by our ears. We have just passed laws to keep prostitutes off the streets, largely because the spectacle of prostitution was held to be distasteful; and I think that even the strongest champion of liberty would have some hesitation in suggesting that this book, in all its detail, should be translated into a film for a public exhibition.
But, in spite of all these inconsistencies, there is, I think, a general consensus of opinion at any given point in history as to what is seemly and what is not. At the present moment, if any of us started introducing some of the language of this book into our speeches, I do not suppose that any of us would feel corrupted or depraved. As has been stated, most of us know these expressions, probably—Her Majesty's judges included. Nor do I think that we should be searching diligently to discover whether there had been some breach of Standing Orders. I am sure your Lordships would resent that kind of language simply because you would not think it a very becoming way to talk in your Lordships' House.
Really, that is the way I feel about this book. I do not think it is a very becoming book to find on our bookstalls, and that is why I am glad that at least one of the largest firms of book distributors do not display it. But if you take that very mild, modest view, that it is a book in had taste, I must say that some of the evidence we have been reading does sound a trifle portentous. When I read about the expert on Christian ethics dwelling on the sacramental aspects of the book, and when I read the long and elaborate explanation of the publisher, giving the reasons why he published the book, I feel no sense of hostility or criticism, only a considerable sense of the ridiculous. It is about as ridiculous as if 'one Member of your Lordships' House seriously proposed an Amendment to the Standing Orders of this House to enable four-letter words to be used in speeches in the interests of complete freedom of debate.

543
In fact, my Lords, the comment I appreciated the most was that attributed to a Member of your Lordships' House who, on being asked whether he did not object to his daughter reading the book, replied that he had no such objection, but that he had the strongest objection to the book being read by his gamekeeper. Perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for that. There has been a feeling of solemnity to this debate and I am anxious not to displease my noble friend in front of me; but when I think of all the earnest endeavour which has gone into defending what, in my humble estimation, is just a rather bad book in very bad taste, I do not think an element of levity is entirely out of place.
6.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, speaking in such learned company I should like to express my feelings as a very ordinary witness, not liable to be depraved and open to immoral influences. I should like briefly to deal first with the case, and secondly with the existing law. As for the case, possibly under the existing law it was a correct verdict; but for myself I find it wholly unacceptable. I find it difficult to accept many of the expert witnesses evidence. Of certain passages in the book, learned counsel—and I am not ashamed to quote the learned counsel for the prosecution—said this:
"You would have to go some way along the Charing Cross Road, the back streets of Paris, and even Port Said, to find a description of sexual intercourse that was perhaps as lewd as that."
Was the ordinary girl working in the factory going to view the book as a treatment of sex on a holy basis, or was the right reverend Bishop, who regarded it as such, wholly out of touch with the people? Whether one judges the book as a whole or in parts. in my humble opinion I regard it as quite unfit for the young.
As was so rightly pointed out, there are standards which must be maintained in morality, in conversation and in conduct, in respect for the conventions of society. It is these standards which I feel so strongly the law must protect for the young. My Lords, who to-day are the persons the law has tried to protect for so long? It is the youth. No one
544
can suggest that adults will come to much harm from reading a so-called "sex novel"; but the law may be in grave doubt when uninformed minds of children can easily be led astray. The law gives certain protection with regard to licensing laws for public houses, and for films, and I would suggest that similar protection should be given for literature.
The law, as it stands now, invites a jury or a court to consider whether a book should be published on grounds of its literary or artistic merit, in balance with its obscenity. I would ask whether a further distinction could not be made between an adult and a juvenile book? As a result of the verdict of the court, the book in question can be purchased by any child now for 3s. 6d. It might be a great book by a great writer, or a thoroughly boring book. But whichever the answer is, the writer surely never wrote it for any other purpose than as an adult book. There are many books, important and unimportant, which are in the same category as Lady Chatterley's Lover. If some censorship based on age were introduced, no doubt it would be open to abuse. On the other hand, no one would think that, just because the licensing laws can be abused by youths drinking at home rather than in a public house, this law should be repealed. Why could not certain books be listed as not available to those under 17 to 18 years of age? At least it would act as a deterrent.
In announcing last week, as has already been stated, that 1½ million copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover have so far been sold, the managing director of Penguin Books, who gave evidence for the defence at the Old Bailey, said that he was not so happy about the sales of the book as about the result of the case, and that, to quote him—
"A lot of people are buying it for the wrong reasons".
If it is accepted that, in a free society, adults should be allowed, broadly speaking, to read what they like, surely that statement by the managing director makes out the best possible case for a degree of censorship based on age discrimination.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords. I am no plaster saint. Neither am I

545
a plaster philosopher—I hope! But, all things considered, I have the greatest understanding for youth; and I can say, along with a great many other noble Lords, that I have lived and done things that perhaps I would wish to undo now if I possibly could. I feel that there will be a very considerable degree of support for the new Bill which Sir Charles Taylor is introducing. It is not my purpose to anticipate it, but I will pay him the tribute which he deserves for his courage, and I am convinced that many of your Lordships will be with me.
I was a little worried, when listening to your Lordships, because I found that I was in agreement with many remarks made by each and every one of you. I realise that this problem is an extremely difficult one; it is not simple by any manner of means. But to-day I wish to support the noble Lord who is the instigator of this debate, Lord Teviot, to the greatest and fullest extent that I can. Parents are in fear of the inferior laws we are making in this country, which are dividing and destroying families, while offering no protection when it is most needed. We hasten to listen to, and legislate for, a vociferous minority who desire unlimited liberty to live immoral lives. We cast out the cries for justice of those members of society who, by the very orderly quietness of their citizenship, are not by nature vocal. Furthermore, so much that we make the law seems to be so hastily flung together, and rushed into operation, that we are unable to construct our Acts of Parliament in such a way that they take care of all contingencies
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Is he aware that, in fact, the book we are discussing is fully available in practically every country in the world, and is not on the Papal Index?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I have not looked up the Papal Index to find out whether this book is in it. In fact, I do not know where to get hold of it; but I would hardly dispute what the noble Lord says. The Papal Index is mostly what our consciences tell us and has little to do with what is actually written down on a piece of paper, but I will bring this out a little later.
546
To resume, the excuse for what I have been describing lies in the pressure of business. As a result, we form a legal box into which anything can be tossed, and thus anything can be twisted in its interpretation in any direction which suits the mind blowing in a particular Ministry at that moment—and, I may add, in other minds—provided that it does not jump outside the box. Government by statutory instrument, and as often as not by no more than a directive, is what we have to-day in place of the carefully worded Acts of the past, which preserved and protected the fundamentals of our social code and which kept society in reasonable stability for well over 1,000 years. The Lady Chatterley's Lover case, in my opinion is nothing more nor less than an extension of this principle. One bad law deserves another. I will repeat that, my Lords: one bad law deserves another.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: One bad Lord?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: A little bit of both, if you like it that way. We try to set the base of moral security on the shoulders of man alone, so that he is left to decide, in his unenlightened loneliness, wherein lies the foundations of society. We leave our justice to personal interpretation. And this is patently absurd. There are two people in every human being—a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde. Of course, this is a simplification of something that every psychologist, philosopher or theologian will recognise and tabulate according to his level of intellectual activity.
Our desire for good may always be constant, but our capacity to achieve it is very much regulated by our understanding of the principles involved. What appears to one person to be good may appear to another to be desirable but unlawful. Most of us have received the promises of Eve's apple, and many of us have fallen to its temptations. There are many sorts of failure in life. Spiritual failure is far more harmful than material failure. The problems and suffering of those who are chained by their bad habits are of a magnitude which can bring about self-destruction. This world is a battleground in which many go under. The cowardly do not try to fight. They just go with the stream and find

547
excuses for their lack of personal discipline. Others, with courage, struggle all their lives to conquer self. I am not speaking "without the book" when I say this, because I have at least tried to fight this battle myself and I know how profoundly difficult it is and how often one is tripped up. The aged who have failed or never try at all look down cynically as they sneer at attempts of others to know the beauties of truth and purity.
These are the very real problems we are setting before youth when we relax our laws governing social obligations and standards of moral behaviour. Let me illustrate it further. I made a trip up the M.1 the other day, on my way to Manchester, and stopped at Forte's restaurant, which spans the motorway. It was the day that Lady Chatterley's Lover was on sale to the public and there, at every serving counter, sat a snigger of youths. Every one of them had a copy of this book held up to his face with one hand while he forked nourishment into his open mouth with the other. They held the seeds of suggestive lust, which was expressed quite blatantly, by glance and remark, to the girls serving them. That I saw with my own eyes.
The truth points to a book with a filthy reputation known to every schoolboy troubled by desire. We all know that lust starts in the mind and not in the actual reading of this or any book. Yet there is nothing to prevent these children from purchasing a copy of Lady Chatterley's Lover, as so many noble Lords have told us, with intent to indulge in a feast of mental, and probably physical, impurity. Do not let us fool ourselves that youth with a mind bent on experiment and feeling the first flush of these desires will buy this book for the sake of art. This book exemplifies adultery and fornication, and I find it impossible to understand how anyone can discover in such licensed rubbish the beauty of a sacrament with the cleanliness of mind and the honour of God-fearing ideals. Contrary to some predictions, may I say categorically that we have opened the gate to any book which presents lust and unfaithfulness in what some concupiscent minds will call art. We have given a shove to the ball of social promiscuity which is, in any case, rolling downhill at an alarming rate.
548
The Christian virtues of our ancestors are being violated in order to fill the ever-bulging pockets of unscrupulous publishers with gold filched from the virtues of our children. Such men do not give a button—I could say "damn", which is a four-letter word—for virtue or the health of social morals. And as for love, charity and self-sacrifice, such so-called naive doctrines become completely unintelligible to their earthy and materialistic philosophy of personal gratification.
Let me repeat words of wisdom uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham (if he will forgive me), in his speech of inauguration as Rector of Glasgow University on Friday, October 21, of this year. I am not going to quote it all; it is much too long. He said:
"When I survey the emotional, the intellectual, the moral, the political, even the physical litter and chaos of the world to-day, when truth has almost ceased to be regarded as objective, when kindness is made to depend on the political, class or racial affiliations, when only the obvious stands in need of publicity; when I look at popular idols with the bodies of gods and goddesses and with the morals of ferrets, lurching from one demoralising emotional crisis to another and never guessing the reason,…"
I will stop there, my Lords. I think I have read enough already. I cannot help feeling that the noble Viscount's words are also applicable to the kind of moral disorder we are bent on creating in this country. I believe that his original intention was to show the buffoonery that is set on the world's stage.
What is the result? Purity is sacrificed on the altar of promiscuity as woolly-headed intellectuals pour their vociferous sewage into the ears of the public. The god of progress takes up the cloak of a shabby but sensuous Bacchus washed by science and narcotics, while things of the spirit are relegated to the inferior position of discredited fairy tales. I added this in the train coming up. If Omo adds brightness to material whiteness, we surely need a spiritual detergent for the mind. What is the good of our implementing all the social justice contained in such publications as the Albemarle Report, on the one hand, and commencing a process of complete destruction, on the other, through the corruption of the very nature of youth? Why do we talk about giving parents greater responsibilities, only to deny

549
them the powers and protection which in any case is a natural God-given right through the Marriage Act and the miracle of birth? Such complete and abysmal lack of understanding of the social forces can spring only from a deeply morbid interpretation of right and wrong.
I hope that the noble Viscount who replies will not wave all this aside with the plea that I am romancing, because if he does I shall refer him to something which he has easily to hand—the means lo compare the present and the past in the pattern of social delinquency, whether adult or adolescent. Some will say that other Western countries have the liberties that we seek, but let me point out that these nations have accustomed themselves to their problems, and the social matrix has taken on a pattern which can absorb much of the harm over long periods of time In this respect I do not include Sweden as an example, because here we see the course that we ourselves are starting to develop to an even greater extent; and the harvest they are reaping—including, I believe, the problem of the suicide rate, which is higher than in any other country, and is a certain mark of despair—is well known to all thoughtful men. Also, please note the desire in many nations to clean up these running sores of society. For instance, France is at this moment trying hard to clean up her house and put it in order; and she is not alone.
In the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health for 1959, which was published in mid-November, we find that the number of new cases of the more common form of venereal disease diagnosed at clinics in 1959 was 31,344—not a very pleasant thought—
LORD BOOTHBY: May I ask the noble Earl one question? What has all this to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: Corruption of youth has quite a lot to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so. This figure of 31,344 is the highest reached since 1947, when the situation was still affected by war-time disturbance. This Report specifically mentions young people, and another Report notes that among patients attending 147 centres the largest increase
550
was in the age group between 18 and 19, the increase being 27 per cent. for females and over 36 per cent. for males.
There was a letter sent to Sir Charles Taylor, about which I heard only secondhand—and I am going to bring the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, into this, if he does not mind.
LORD BOOTHBY: Not at all.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: The letter says:
"I read your article… also I saw a T.V. programme about free speech with Lord Boothby on the same Sunday. Much to my regret I am an authority on pornographic literature"—
that is not myself; I am only quoting the letter.
"Scotland Yard and some of your M.P. colleagues will vouch for this statement. I do not know when obscenity starts or when it stops, but I do know when a person comes to my shop for pornographic books for the first time I would start them off with 'Lady C.', and then they would ask for something more bold; and when they read that they would come back and ask for something even more pornographic —teenagers and these juveniles.
"It was like taking dope, and now that the four-letter words are no longer obscene you will have much more filth sold openly in the shops.
"Most of the pornographic books are written by the best authors in Britain and France under a nom de plume. In the area in 1947 there were eight book shops selling pornographic books. To-day in the same area you have forty and in each shop the weekly takings are no less than £500."
I conclude the quotation, and also what I have to say.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would he give some examples of the leading authors who write these works under noms de plume? Otherwise, I think he should withdraw such a statement.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: If the noble Lord went to plenty of these little bookshops he may know about, I am sure he would find them there. I do not read them. I am quoting from a letter.
LORD STRABOLGI: But the noble Earl has made a statement which I think he should withdraw. He has said that the leading authors of this country write pornographic books under noms de plume. Will he please give some examples or withdraw that statement?
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I certainly will not withdraw the statement, for the simple reason that I was quoting from a letter.
6.55 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, with every respect to, but in complete defiance of, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I intend to have something to say about matters that do not directly apply to the particular book, Lady Chatterley's Lover. I shall attempt to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot: "Where are we going?"—because the issue is a much bigger one than this particular trial and its outcome. I must say that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans that it is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, should have found it necessary at the last moment to change the terminology of his Motion. The result in both our cases, I think (certainly in mine), will be that if this Motion does happen to reach the Division Lobby we shall not be able to vote for it.
I am a libertarian—one of the few libertarian Socialists that are left—and I do not like banning books. I do not like censorship. I do not think it is necessary to talk about banning books at all, because, after all, the question really is: should we have made this book easier to be obtained by youth, or age, for that matter—it does not matter so much as all that—or made it more difficult? This one makes it easier rather than more difficult. I would not ban the book. I would let the libraries, both private and public, have the book in its unexpurgated form. But I would apply this condition to it: that anyone who wants to read the book should produce his bona fides that he is not pornographically minded, and that he has some consideration for the future of literature and the interests of art. And he can best do that by asking for the book. Possibly a certain amount of courage will be needed in doing that, on the part of the majority of people. I think that would meet the case. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not press on any other occasion for interfering with the freedom of the printed word and the expression of views and opinions.
552
But do we understand, or have we grasped, what this argument is really about? I am perfectly sure that by any standard of decency you like to put up you cannot avoid saying that this book is an indecent book. Whether you like it or not, whether you defend it or whether you do not, it is an indecent book. The point about it is that it is indecent in a certain way that is very offensive, I think, to the majority of the people of this country, and certainly to the majority of people who think about matters of this kind and are at all sensitive in considering such matters. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made a speech in which, if he will allow me to say so, I thought his logic was about as full of holes as a Henry Moore statue. He used long analogies and false applications. He spoke, for instance, about boys acting Shakespeare or acting the plays of the Elizabethan era in their schools.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to correct the noble Lord—I have had an exchange like this with him before—Ibut I never mentioned boys or acting at any time.
LORD BOOTHBY: It was another speech.
LORD AMWELL: It was another speech? That is the second time I have done that. The noble Lord will remember it. Whoever said it, the point is that that particular kind of argument is still as "holey" as ever. Last night I saw a play acted by the boys of a London grammar school, and acted very well. The play was Ben Jonson's The Alchemist as full of bawdy stuff as you can find in any play of the period. But I do not think much harm was done to the boys, who, since they have been given lectures upon the dramatists of that time, probably did not lack an understanding of what the words meant. I doubt whether the audience understood much of it. They did not express themselves, at any rate. The point, surely, is this: the bawdy expressions in that play were not rolled round the tongue; they were not sensuous or passionate; they were not repeated.
There may be an argument for being frank and open, using Anglo-Saxon words, and all the rest of it. There may

553
be a case for saying that an author ought to he allowed to face facts, and to describe things that are factual. That is not the point. In this book not only is the sexual act described, but it is described in intimate detail and in passionate terms—a very sensuous thing in every case. It is not a matter of just a passage here arid there, purple or otherwise. That is repeated in that book thirteen times. Why? The four letter words we have heard so much about are repeated over seventy times. Why? If it is not intended to be pornographic in its effect, what purpose is served by it? What is meant by it?
It is rather a delicate thing to refer to, but we are discussing a very important matter. I will come to the levity in a few minutes—I think this deserves a little levity on occasions. But there is one rather delicate point here. Everyone who is knowledgeable on tie subject knows that D. H. Lawrence was a sufferer, and every doctor knows that the kind of thing he was suffering from is an encouragement to an obsession. That is a fact which is generally known. He had had it on the brain from boyhood. I want to know why his obsession should be spewed out upon the laps of the rest of humanity quite so easily as is allowed at the present time.
My grandchildren can go to the end of my road and can spend 3s. 6d. of their pocket money upon a book that everybody is talking about, arousing their curiosity; and, without going into the shop, they can find it displayed and advertised in big letters in order to obtain trade for that particular book. I do not think that is necessary. I do not think that is desirable. All this talk about the interests of science and the interests of art and literature is so much poppycock. Nobody interferes with the interests of literature and the historical side of British literature. The British Museum still exists, and it has always been possible to get Lady Chatterley's Lover in the unexpurgated edition. That is a lot of nonsense, and not the only nonsense in the discussion which is taking place and has been taking place—I hope it will finish soon—upon this particular book. There is a lot of cant, and we have been told—I forget who it was who said it—to clear our minds of cant. I
554
remember there was a phrase used by the late Lord Morley, in which he said:
"Of all cant, the worst possible kind of cant is the cant of anti-cant."
I think that is very true. We have had quite a lot of it.
I must not say anything about the jury. I do not know what kind of considerations came before their minds. But I do know what this pew of eminent authors, parsons, and all the rest of it, have said upon the matter. We had authors like Dame Rebecca West, and we had Dr. John Robinson, the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, Sarah Beryl Jones, who is Senior Catholic Mistress at the Keighley Grammar School, Mr. G. Hough of Cambridge University, and other people, including Sir Richard Compton, and the author who retired so frequently—I wish he would come back and correct some of the impressions that he has lately made—Somerset Maugham. People of that kind have defended—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MIN ISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not want to state anything which is inaccurate. I have looked through the transcript of this trial. I think the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying that Mr. Somerset Maugham was a witness for the defence. I have read the transcript of the trial, and I may he mistaken, but I think it is not I but the noble Lord who is mistaken.
LORD AMWELL: The noble Viscount is not mistaken. The reason why I hesitated was that it is not upon my list of witnesses. But he has had a lot to say about it, and supports the attitude of these people who, after all, were just out for a joy ride. They were out in order to "cock a snook"—if that is the expression—at their ancient opponent, the censor. There is nothing more to it than that. Of course, there is a great deal in being in the swim. I do not know about the Labour Party—
LORD DALTON: We would not accuse the noble Lord of that!
LORD AMWELL: I know. But I cannot understand why the Left Wing, who can find nothing at all good in capitalism, and find everything associated with the capitalist society so bad, are always

555
ready to rush to the defence of the nastiest aspects of capitalism. I wonder why the Labour Party should forget its ancient pride and its Nonconformist roots. I also wonder what would have happened to Mr. Michael Foot if he had run the recent election upon the basis of Lady Chatterley's Lover.
I do not understand the moderns—these people who call themselves modern and whose standards of value seem to be governed by clocks and railway timetables. To paraphrase Mr. G. K. Chesterton, ten-past-five on a Friday afternoon is so much better than five-to-ten on a Monday morning, simply and solely because of the passage of time. These modernists are the people who talk about Anglo-Saxon literature and Anglo-Saxon words. In my youth I did some study of English literature, and I do not remember those words. I dare say there were some words equally bad, but I certainly do not remember those particular words in any Anglo-Saxon literature that I read. But it is easy to say things like that. Anyhow, why go back to the Anglo-Saxons? Why not go back to the ancient Britons or to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? It would not make any difference to the argument. But that is the kind of argument which is put forward.
We have Dame Rebecca West, who says:
"The baronet and his impotence is a symbol of the impotent culture of his time. The love affair was a calling for the return of the soul to the more intense life that he felt people had in a different culture."
That I call just humbug and poppycock, and Dame Rebecca West ought to know that it is poppycock. The idea of a story like that—it is not a story at all—the idea of a book like Lady Chatterley's Lover being a question of the soul, and impotence, and all the rest of it, reminds me of Bunthorne's song in Patience:
"If you're anxious for to shine
in the high æsthetic line
as a man of culture rare,
You must get up all the germs
of the transcendental terms.
and plant them everywhere.
You must lie upon the daisies
and discourse in novel phrases
of your complicated state of mind,
The meaning doesn't matter
if it's only idle chatter
of a transcendental kind.
And every one will say,
556
As you walk your mystic way,
'If this young man expresses himself
in terms too deep for me,
Why, what a very singularly deep young man
this deep young man must be!'"
And that is the kind of basis of this modern advertising business. It is the same kind of thing that puts "pop" records up to sales of over a million. It is the racket that is called art and literature at the present time; and that is the direction in which we are going.
Somerset Maugham, who defends all this, writes about infidelity in some of his writings—and very fine they are. But he does so with reticence. Why does he take it at second-hand? If these things are so cultural and valuable, why does he not use them? The same with Dame Rebecca West. I challenge that lady to repeat the words she defends at a Foyle's luncheon, and I will undertake to arrange the luncheon for her. She will not do anything of the kind. The Bishop of Woolwich, who talks literary bunk when he ought to be looking after his own business, talks like this:
"Lawrence's description cannot be taken out of his whole quite astonishing sensitivity to the beauty and value of all organic relations".
We know about people who are sensitive to the beauty and value of certain organic relations—the police are looking for a couple of them at the present time. That is the kind of cant and humbug that is being spread about at the present time, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is justified in asking where we are going.
Does the Bishop of Woolwich think that these words that he praises, that he defends and recommends as the basis of our literature, are so soulful and useful and necessary, repeated 70 times, if you please?—that is one point. If he does, why does he not use them in his own pulpit? You cannot undertake a campaign in favour of youth clubs upon the basis of the language of the urinal, because that is what it amount to. You can find all these things in lunatic asylums written upon walls. Why should they be defended by people of the calibre of these eminent authors and the rest of them who, as I have said, were out for a joy-ride on this particular occasion? We are going far away from the normal, and I doubt if this is not a question of history, repeating itself.
If the Bishop of Woolwich wants crusading material, I will undertake to

557
find him some on his own side of the water. There was a case only this year of a girl of fifteen who taunted her parents at the juvenile court with being old-fashioned and confessed to being the call-girl of 100 men of all ages and colours. Let the Bishop of Woolwich deal with a cesspool of that kind. Take our cinemas. I will take him, if he wishes, to one of the plushiest cinemas in North-West London. There he will find boys and girls, of any age from thirteen upwards, chain-smoking, shrieking and wolf-whistling whenever any near-fornication bit comes upon the screen in front of them. Only a few days ago I was at a cinema and I saw a film which, as a joke for the pleasure, if you please, of the juvenile members of the cast in the picture, spotlighted and brought to the surface the actual copulation of animals. That was in a London cinema only a few days ago, and the film is still running, I believe, at that particular cinema. Would anybody say that any purpose is served by showing that kind of stuff. Yet it was done—not a word said against it; it was done in the name of liberty, this freedom and frankness and openness, and the rest of it.
I have heard it said in this and other debates of a similar kind that there is nothing wrong with the human body. Who said there was? That is not the point. The fact that there is nothing wrong with the human body is no excuse for indecent exposure. It is the same with these animals on the screen. It could easily be said that there is nothing wrong with the animal body. I suppose that a Christian would say there is nothing wrong with creation, but there is a lot to be put right within creation. That is the kind of cant we hear at the present time. It is wrong to spread an atmosphere such as D. H. Lawrence does by such a book as Lady Chatterley's Lover, and then we are told this is such a wonderful piece of writing, such a beautiful piece of sonorous or fine literature, that we ought not to interfere with the prevalence of its distribution. We ought not to touch it. No one is touching it. Anyone who wants it can get it. I would allow him to have it. That is not the subject of the trial we are discussing at the present time
I am not a literary expert, although writing was my trade for quite a num-
558
ber of years and I do know something of the technique of writing. I do not put myself up as a pillar of judgment on literary matters, but in my own view this book is not a patch upon Sons and Lovers. That is a matter of opinion; whether it is agreed with or not is not the point. Here we have a book which would not exist but for the kind of thing we are talking about now. It is not just a few purple patches; it is the whole atmosphere of the book, the whole background of the book, and it is due to the obsession which everyone knows D. H. Lawrence had. We can, of course, be fair about that: we know; we can forgive and understand. But that is no reason, as Whistler said about certain painters, for flinging a pot of paint in the faces of the multitude.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was Ruskin.
LORD AMWELL: Ruskin said that about Whistler. It is very refreshing to be corrected on matters of detail so freely. I do not mind in the least. Please correct me if I am wrong. That bit of cant about the Anglo-Saxons I have referred to. Then there were Sir Compton Mackenzie and Stephen Potter. Take this idea of the human body being something that is not to be regarded as indecent or wrong. Of course that is perfectly correct. No one does. The Venus de Milo in the Louvre is a very beautiful thing. But put a pair of nylon stockings and suspender and a picture hat on the Venus de Milo and it becomes something else. That is what has happened with Lady Chatterley's Lover. It is a definite and purposeful attempt to corrupt because it comes from a corrupt mind.
I realise that it is a delicate matter, but everyone knows that on these particular issues the mind of D. H. Lawrence was corrupted. Why should we defend it? I do say, though, that Lord Teviot's idea of banning must be driven from our minds. We do not want that. We do not want a one-Party State. We do not want that kind of thing. We want to be as free as possible. I would have it all as free as possible, except when it comes to a question of obscenity. Then we should not make it easy, but should make it more difficult for the book to have a general and broad circulation, open to youth as well as to age. That

559
is all that I want to say, my Lords, I apologise for having been perhaps as blunt as some of those old Anglo-Saxon people were, but I wanted to emphasise what I consider to be the fact: that there is a tremendous amount of cant talked about the whole thing from all sides.
7.21 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies to the debate I hope the House will forgive me if I return to the Motion on the Order Paper. I should not intervene in this debate but for two things. I think it is desirable that some mention should be made of the Act of Parliament under which the prosecution took place, particularly by one like myself who supported my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett when he was piloting the measure through this House. The second ground on which I venture to intervene is that I should hate it to be thought that I agreed with most of the speeches that have been made, or, indeed, that most of the Back Benchers agreed with them. Although an attack has been made upon the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, I must say that I thought he put many cogent considerations before the House; and I also agree with a good deal of what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. Of course, when we are discussing this question of obscenity we are dealing with a notoriously difficult matter, because the problem that every sane person wishes to solve is how to reconcile two desirable things—not to interfere with literature, but to discourage and to prevent pornography.
Nobody supposes that that is a simple matter. But in my opinion, if the House will study the matter, they will certainly come to the conclusion that the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, is a great improvement on the law as it previously existed, and that nothing that has happened since that Act came on the Statute Book gives us any reason to revise that opinion. Of course, that does not mean that this Statute is perfect. There are many matters in the construction of that Statute which will not be finally clear until they have been considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in an appropriate case. If I may mention one of
560
those matters, I think it is by no means clear precisely what is meant by an "expert" in Section 4 of that measure, or how some of the witnesses who gave evidence in the recent case came to be considered experts.
What is the general principle of that Act? It is this. When a book is prosecuted under the Act the questions to be considered are, quite briefly, these two: first, is the book obscene? That means, is the book, taken as a whole, such as to deprave and corrupt the reader? Secondly, even if it is, is publication justified as being for the public good, on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of public concern? It is on this last point, whether publication is justified as being for the public good, that the opinions of experts are admissible in evidence.
In the case that is mentioned in the Motion on the Order Paper the jury decided in favour of the defence. This may have meant either of two things. It may have meant that they did not think the book, taken as a whole, was such as to deprave and corrupt, or it may have meant that they thought that publication was justified as being for the public good. Nor is it at all certain that each member of the jury decided the case on the same ground. Provided that each member of the jury thought that one or other of those conditions was satisfied, the jury was rightly unanimous in deciding against the prosecution and in favour of the defence. Neither of those two questions is easy to determine. What I strongly suggest to the House is this: that a jury is a much better body for their determination than any single man, who may be prejudiced. I believe that the better the Judge the more he will think that a jury is the appropriate body to decide these questions. Of course, it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot to say that, if he had been on the jury, he would have decided differently. I dare say he would. But that does not mean to the rest of us that he would necessarily have decided more wisely. The fact is that if you think that the general principles of this Act are right, as I do, and that a jury is the right body to decide the matter, it seems to me that it would be mischievous if every decision of a jury were to be questioned in either House of Parliament.

561
Having said that, let me go on to say that I am not going to discuss the merits of this book, which have, I think, been fantastically exaggerated. It is not, in my opinion, at any rate—here I agree with the last speaker—anything like the best book of this author. But although every one of us is fully entitled to disapprove of this book, or to dislike it, what really appals me is that some noble Lords should apparently advocate the suppression or barring of a book because they dislike or disapprove of it. At this late hour I do not wish to weary the House, but I wish to give one final assurance and recommendation to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I would assure him that, if he finds Lady Chatterley's Lover shocking, I find his Motion on the Order Paper more shocking. May I conclude with a word of friendly advice to the noble Lord? Let him stop reading the works of Mr. D. H. Lawrence. They obviously do him no good and seem to give him very little pleasure. Instead let him read, or re-read, John Milton's Areopagitica. It will do him all the good in the world.
7.30 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, after this prolonged, heated and rather fœted debate I will not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes, but my name, for some reason which escapes me, has been dragged in on one or two occasions. I should just like to say that no one doubts the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, less than I do. I have the highest regard for him. Indeed, my regard for him can be measured only in terms of my total disagreement with him on every single topic of to-day. But my high regard for him remains very great. The noble Lord knows that we disagree about things like television and censorship and, I am afraid, about Lady Chatterley's Lover. But he is perfectly entitled to hold his opinions, and I respect them.
The noble Lord, however, made a rather astonishing statement at the beginning of his speech, when he said that this book not only deals with adultery but deals with adultery that did not happen. That is the thing about fiction; it does not happen. That is something we have to bear very much in mind. And if the noble Lord and
562
the noble Earl, Lord Craven, who rather fortified him on this point, believes that all books or works of fiction which deal with adultery should be banned, that covers a large number of most interesting books. Anna Karenina, held by some to be a very good novel, would be entirely "out" as far as the noble Lord was concerned; and Madame Bovary, too. I could go on with the list indefinitely. I believe that if the noble Lord's thoughts were carried to their logical conclusion the whole fiction of the world would be almost quartered.
The noble Earl, Lord Craven, in his deeply morbid speech, advocated a dogmatic absolutism with a fervour such as I had never yet heard in public life. I only want to ask him: who is going to do all this to us? He said we must all be subjected to this tremendous disciplining The noble Earl thought it would be quite a good thing if we disciplined ourselves, but that because very few of us are able to do so, therefore we should have to be disciplined; and I want to know who is going to do the disciplining. I suggest that we might have a good try at doing a little self-disciplining. I am sure I carry the right reverend Prelate on that point.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord backs me up in the view that we ought to do a little self-disciplining; but I did not mean to direct the expression at him personally.
LORD BOOTHBY: No, but the noble Earl seemed to imply that most of us are unable to discipline ourselves, and that someone else would have to do it in a big way; and I was only mildly curious to know who was to do it. I am bound to say that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans came as a refreshing stream of delightful cold water in the middle of an otherwise rather heated debate. I should only like to say on the subject of this particular book that I agree with noble Lords who have said that a great deal of the evidence at the trial seemed to be pretty fair nonsense. I agree with everybody who says that this is not, by any means, the best book of the author. I think it is pretty boring.
I am happy to report to noble Lords that the only two children of 15 that I

563
know myself to have taken up the book to read, both stuck in it at a quite early stage, because they were so bored, and could not finish it. I do not think it is deliberately pornographic, nor do I think it is deliberately cynical, as undoubtedly were a great many Restoration works which are in free circulation and can be purchased at any library. And I think cynicism is a far more dangerous thing, from the point of view of youth, than the kind of lunatic sincerity, though passionate sincerity, that D. H. Lawrence undoubtedly had.
Speaking in broken tones, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked the rhetorical question: where are we all going? I would suggest to him that we are all getting along pretty well, and going fairly well in the right direction. He suddenly dragged in, for no reason that I can see, the Wolfenden Report—I do not know why, or what that has to do with Lady Chatterley's Lover, or why it should indicate that we are going anywhere in particular. But I want, if I can, to cheer him up a little, because he sounded so frightfully depressed at that point. I see no reason at all for his pessimism. I hate censorship. There has been a healthy distaste of censorship expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon. I am absolutely in agreement with my noble friend who preceded me that the jury is the best judge in all these matters. I think this is an excellent Act. I think this is not a very good Motion. I shall certainly vote against it if it comes to a Division.
The only thing I should like to suggest to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government is that if anything is going to be done, then this Act might be extended a little to cover the Press and horror comics, because while I am not in the least concerned about Lady Chatterley's Lover, I am concerned about the stuff we have been having to read in recent months, particularly about things that have happened or are alleged to have happened, in some Sunday newspapers, some of which are a real disgrace to any civilised country. I am concerned, too, at some of the horror comics which are on sale to children everywhere and which encourage sadism in any shape or form. I am inclined to think that it might be a good idea to widen the scope of this
564
Bill to such a point that juries might be given the opportunity of considering whether a particularly vicious article or horror comic was not having a really bad effect on the younger generation, because I believe that these things are far worse than Lady Chatterley's Lover.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, why does the noble Lord imagine that such things are not already within the scope of the Act?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I understand that newspaper articles are not within its scope.
7.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to assure my noble friend Lord Boothby that the articles and things to which he was referring in his more recent discussion are most certainly within the Act, without amendment. There is no question about that, and my noble friend Lord Cones-ford was perfectly right. As my noble friend has reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked at the beginning of his speech: "Where are we going to?" This is a question I have asked myself, I am afraid, rather more than once during the course of this rather wide discussion. I feel that if I do take a little longer to answer than perhaps I might, I ought really to do so for the sake of clarifying one or two issues. Before I do so I have two confessions to make.
The first is that Penguin Books, who were the firm of publishers involved in the case, published two of my books in 1947 and 1959. I do not think that that is a circumstance which has influenced my mind in any way, nor do I think, strictly speaking, it is an interest, in a sense, that one is bound to declare. But, lest others should take a different point of view, I hasten to disclose the facts myself. Both books sold rather well. Neither of them sold quite as many as 1½ million copies, nor was any second printing of this scale contemplated by Sir Allen Lane. But we all know that, thanks to the eminent but somewhat humourless crowd of experts who gave evidence at the trial, the 1½ million copies of this book are, of course, entirely distributed among those whose sole regard is for its literary merit.

565
The other confession I have to make is that, like some other speakers, when this book was first published between hard covers some 30 years ago I was just in the intermediate stage between "Mods" and "Greats" and tried to read it, but utterly failed. It was not because it was disgusting but I am bound to say I found it dull. I was in some doubt in my mind whether I ought to read the book in order to qualify myself for this debate. I thought that perhaps it would be more fun to be unprejudiced; but in the end I succumbed to whatever temptation my noble friend Lord Teviot had placed before me, and perhaps I am now thoroughly depraved and corrupted. But having read, I suppose, every word of it, I am bound to add that my opinion of my literary judgment as a young man of 21 is considerably fortified by my experience of reading the entire book. But this is a personal judgment and I do not propose to rely on it for the purpose of my answer. I may also add that I have read the transcript of the trial for the same purpose, in order to qualify myself to reply to the debate.
I cannot forbear to ask your Lordships whether we really ought to have held a debate like this at all. I am of the opinion, very strongly, that this House ought not to be very lightly made a Court of Appeal from a verdict of a jury in a criminal case. What would people say if, for instance, we substituted in the words of the Motion "Dr. Bodkin Adams" for Lady Clzatterlev's Lover? What kind of precedent is it that my noble friend has set for us this afternoon? Where are we going to, when a trial in a criminal case, properly conducted by one of the most distinguished and experienced criminal Judges, has resulted in an acquittal? Other noble Lords have disagreed with him, but my noble friend, especially in an interruption of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not pretend that he complains of the law. What he is complaining of is the verdict,
Of course, in Parliament it must be, as a residual function of the Constitution, open to everybody to discuss everything on a substantive Motion. I am bound to say I am not sure, having read the re-amended version several times,
566
whether this is a Motion or an Unstarred Question. But it must be open to anybody in Parliament to discuss anything, including the verdict of a jury or judgment of a judge, on a substantive Motion. I give my noble friend the credit for having drafted a substantive Motion. But I think it is a right in relation to criminal trials, especially when these result in acquittals, which should be exercised with the greatest caution; and I very much doubt whether some of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon exercised that caution.
I believe myself that public opinion generally would say that, whatever the merits or demerits of any particular case, once a defendant has been put in peril on an indictment in a criminal cause and acquitted, he should be allowed to go free without further interference, except in so far as the general law can be stated to be at fault. And if the general law is to be held in question. then it is my own opinion that it is far better discussed in principle as a general question of policy than in relation to a particular verdict. Having said that, I must say that it was not plain from the Motion whether what my noble friend was complaining of was the general law, but it is now plain from what he has said that he is not doing so; he is complaining of the particular verdict. Whatever may be the desirability of the House discussing particular verdicts, I am quite sure of one thing; it would not be tolerable for a Minister to express an opinion, and I do not propose for a moment to say whether I approve or disapprove of the verdict of the jury, who were seized of the matter and heard the evidence and saw the witnesses.
But I should like to endorse one or two general questions of policy which I think arise out of this debate, and I may, if I feel I have not imposed too far on the House, make one or two general observations about the book. But I would start at the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, began his speech. That is, we passed less than two years ago an Act of Parliament, the Obscene Publications Act. This was not, if I may venture to correct the noble Earl, Lord Craven, a statutory instrument /his was a most carefully drafted

567
Act of Parliament, passed after prolonged discussion in both Houses, hardly, in the end, with dispute. It succeeded a prolonged discussion in the Press and in the country. There were at least two sessions of a Select Committee of another place which preceded and recommended it. It was supported by the Government. It was introduced into this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, in one of the most splendid speeches which he has given us, and it was passed with general approval.
My Lords, the principles of that Act I do not understand my noble friend to dispute. They are that something is obscene if, taken as a whole, it tends to deprave and corrupt. What could be better expressed than that? If there is a better definition no one has suggested it this evening. There was then further provision: it being recognised that there are a number of works which contain obscene matters and which might come within the definition but which ought, none the less, to be printed, it was decided that expert evidence should be given and that it should be open to a jury to find—the burden of proof resting, unusual in criminal trials, upon the defence—that it was for the public good. notwithstanding the obscene character of a particular work. I have yet to know that there is anything wrong with that Act of Parliament. I have yet to see any particular criticism of it which has been made in this House or outside it which would justify the general jeremiads which have emerged from the noble Lord. Lord Amwell, or the noble Earl, Lord Craven.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I must correct the Minister there. I made no attack upon the Act. I am not a lawyer, and I thought it would be out of place to do anything of the kind. My attack was on the book and upon the possibility of that book having sanction and recommendation from a body of people who, in my opinion, ought to know better.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I repeat, where are we going? It was under this Act, which I now have it directly from the noble Lord he accepts, and which contains the provisions which I have described, that the book was tried properly before a jury: and the jury decided either that it was not obscene at
568
all or that, notwithstanding that it was of an obscene character, it was in the public interest and for the public good that the book should be printed.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, the point is that I did not raise that issue. I do not think the subject should have been discussed as it has been discussed this afternoon. Once having it upon the Order Paper, surely I am entitled to say what I think of the issue at large and of the book we are discussing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords nobody is in the least objecting to the noble Lord's saying what he thinks; and the noble Lord should not object to my saying that I do not agree with him. That is the first point I would make. It is to my mind utterly unthinkable that, so soon after an Act has been deliberately passed by Parliament, after so much discussion and with such a degree of unanimity, we should be asked, as a result of a single verdict, to amend it in a material respect. I think it would be utterly unthinkable that we should.
The point is this. My noble friend Lord Teviot did not ask us in terms to amend the general law. I should like to know what he really is asking us to do. He has asked us specifically to take steps to ban—merciful word!; what does it mean?—or to prevent further publication of works of a particular but, none the less, not specified kind—
LORD BOOTHBY: And for ever.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —especially those of a particular named author. This we have no power to do, unless we are to contemplate legislation against individual authors or works, which I should have thought was utterly out of the question. But if that is not what we are being asked to do, I really do not know what my noble friend is asking for.
The other point I would make while discussing the question of law is this. The test of obscenity, whether under the old law or the new, is not whether we agree with the matter or like the matter; it is not even whether the matter is shocking or disgusting. The question, since the new Act, is whether the tendency of the work, taken as a whole, is to deprave or corrupt. And the jury's verdict, in my submission, ought to be

569
accepted on its face value: that either the book does not come within the definition or, if it does, there are substantial reasons of the public good justifying its publication. I hope I shall not be wearying the House—
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD AMWELL: Why not? You interrupt enough, and it is an important point here. The question has now gone from my mind and I shall have to leave it now. I am sorry.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I never mind the noble Lord interrupting me: I am always glad to answer his questions, and nothing would stop me from doing so if it had not slipped his mind.
My Lords, this brings me to the book itself, because, if I am not wearying the House at this late hour, there are one or two issues of general policy which (if I might forget for the moment the fact that I am officially answering for the Government) I should like to put before the House on the general issues which have been raised. The book does raise one or two quite separate issues—and I am afraid I am going to be fairly outspoken about this, for a reason which wilt emerge. The first is the issue of the so-called four-letter words. My Lords, I must say at once that I do not like these words. They do not exalt, although Lawrence undoubtedly did intend them to exalt, the seriousness, and certainly not the spirituality, of the sexual relationship; still less do, they exalt, as Lawrence certainly did intend to exalt, the tenderness which should subsist between sexual partners.
I find that this view is very generally shared. Incidentally, it was shared by one of the witnesses for the defence, Mr. Graham Hough, who wrote a book about Lawrence in which he said this about the four-letter words:
"There are arcana in nature as well as religion, and nothing that affects the emotional life as intimately and individually as sex can or ought to be fully' in the open'."
He goes on:
"The passages we have just discussed, describing the sexual act more fully than has ever been done before, can be justified by the whole intention of the book. But when we
570
come to the obscene words and Lawrence's campaign for their revival, I think we encounter an excessive reaction to censorship and prudery. Lawrence uses in Lady Chatterley live four-letter words not commonly seen in print, and uses them probably not more than a hundred times in the course of a longish novel…Of course, it is true that we have no proper vocabulary to discuss sex … Lawrence's remedy is to use the obscene words, familiarly and seriously, so that the tabooed acts and parts of the body can be talked about in natural and native words. An admirable intention, no doubt, but doing no great credit to his literary sense. Writers are masters of language, but they can only become so by respecting its nature. No writer can alter the connotations of a whole section of the vocabulary by mere fiat, and the fact remains hat the connotations of the obscene physical words are either facetious or vulgar. And very useful they are in these contexts. But in any context where dignity, tenderness, respect for one's own person or that of another, is concerned they are impossible. The effect of putting them into Mellor's mouth as they are is either to create the impression that he is, as one of Lawrence's acquaintances described him, a crude sexual moron, or that whole passages of his discourse are disastrously out of character."
My Lords, I entirely endorse that view. But, to come back to the Motion, I would add that I cannot think that your Lordships should waste much lime in discussing the four-letter words. They are generally known to everybody above a certain age, and I cannot believe that there are many people who will take much harm by seeing them in print, although I personally regard such printing as an act of had taste. In certain contexts they might be extremely offensive and obscene; and in such contexts they would certainly be prosecuted; and, if they were, would quite certainly be convicted by juries. I would tell my noble friend, if it comforts him, that, since the Act of Parliament was passed, there have been quite a number of prosecutions which have been successful. There is only one, I believe, which has been unsuccessful, and that is this one which we are discussing to-night.
Now, my Lords, I believe that one's attitude to the book must in the end be determined by one's attitude to the repeated, detailed and colourful descriptions which occur in it of the sexual act. I should like to say that in my belief some of these are exceedingly tasteless, and some others are vulgar and absurd. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to arouse the sniggering and offensive attitude to sex, which Lawrence particularly disliked, than Mellors'

571
lengthy, and to my mind ridiculous and offensive, apostrophe to a portion of his own anatomy in a local dialect. Again, I am exteremly glad to see that this view was supported by at least one witness for the defence in his evidence in the case. I could also refer to the long and, to my mind, highly ludicrous passage in which the lovers entwined wild flowers in each other's bodies. I do not myself believe that this is the stuff of which great literature is made. I do not believe that it achieves the purpose Lawrence undoubtedly had in mind. In the mind of the average adult or adolescent, I can only think that it would excite derision at the author and want of respect for the very thing the author is asking them to hold in reverence.
My Lords, I come now to the more difficult and fundamental question. No one criticises Hamlet because it is a play about murder no one criticises Phedre because it is a play about incest; and no one criticises Antony and Cleopatra because it is a play about adultery. Why, then, should they criticise Lady Chatterley's Lover because it is a novel about sex?—moreover a novel about sex which preaches mutuality and tenderness between lovers, and reverence, and not levity, about the subject? Surely the answer is because, unlike the authors of the plays I have mentioned, who allowed the dramatic quality of the situations they described to stimulate reflexion in their hearers, Lawrence consciously, deliberately, and even stridently, preaches at his readers. Other authors can complain if their works are criticised for their subject matter as distinct from their words: Lawrence cannot.
But, my Lords, the real question underlying this debate (which is, at least in my view, irrelevant to the jury's verdict. but highly relevant to our attitude towards public affairs) is whether it is really legitimate, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said, to seek to prevent the publication of books simply because they embody a philosophy with which one does not happen to agree. My Lords, I am one of those who do not agree with that philosophy. Unlike some of the eminent but, to my mind, as I have said, somewhat humourless witnesses for the defence, I would not recommend the book as reading material
572
for the young and impressionable. It is, I think, essentially a book for those with sexual experience rather than for those without it. But is it to be said that such books cannot be published at all for fear of harming the innocent? It is possible that this view exaggerates the extent to which the innocent are likely to be harmed by works of this nature. Although, frankly, I should have preferred to see it between boards and priced at 30s. than in a paper back and priced at 3s. 6d., I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that I personally know of no principle of jurisprudence which can differentiate between 30s. and 3s. 6d. or between boards and a paper back.
My Lords, I do not myself value very highly even the artistic integrity of the work. Its whole purpose is to describe a relationship as valid and about to become permanent. But, to me at least, the mise en scène is unlikely and the principal characters improbable; and the story ends just when a writer of real artistic integrity ought to have begun answering some of the questions he has raised. Before I accepted as valid or valuable, or even excusable, the relationship between Lady Chatterley and Mellors, I should have liked to know what sort of parents they became to the child, as yet unborn, that they were made to hunch rather irresponsibly into the world; I should have liked to see the kind of house they proposed to set up together; I should have liked to know how Mellors would have survived living on Connie's rentier income of £600, introduced, it seemed to me, solely for the purpose of avoiding the question, which other lovers, adulterous and otherwise, have to face, of how they are going to earn their living; and I should have liked to know whether they acquired a circle of friends, or, if not, how their relationship survived social isolation. It is not, I believe, hard to accept that a physical relationship can become absolutely delightful in the first transports of sexual encounter. But if Lawrence was going to discuss the sexual act at all, I should have been interested if he had gone on to tell us what Mellors and Connie did about it after fifteen years of cohabitation.
Of course, the Bishop of Woolwich made an ass of himself. I wish Bishops would sometimes consult their educated laity before humiliating them in this way.

573
But the true Christian criticism of Lawrence's book is not that it is too realistic, but that it is not realistic enough; not that it is too outspoken, but that it is not outspoken enough. If he had been a story-teller, he would have been entitled to leave the story unfinished as he did. But he was not content to be a storyteller: he set himself up as the prophet and preacher of a new religion in opposition to Jesus Christ. In such circumstances, to have left unanswered the questions which I have indicated was to stigmatise himself. whatever his literary skill, not only as irresponsible but, by the standards upon which he chose to be judged. as a charlatan and a fake.
My Lords, I end with a word to my noble friend, and to other people who, like myself, share the Christian faith. It may well be that we should like to preserve the innocence of our children and of society from the disasters which we believe will follow from the adoption of false creeds, false prophets and false Christs. We cannot do so by prohibiting their works by an act of law. We have to gird our loins and fight, and the battle must involve a willingness on our part to meet our enemies in the open; to defeat them in argument armed with the like weapons of tongue and pen which they themselves have selected, prepared to show that our own beliefs are more realistic and more rational than theirs. We shall not succeed in this day and age by prohibiting their works merely because we regard their opinions as destestable.
8.2 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very gratified by the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. There is an enormous amount in it, which makes me feel justified in putting down this Motion. I should just like to say this to the noble Viscount. He mentioned, I think at the beginning of his speech, that there was some doubt in his mind, or that I ought to have had some doubt, about the legality or advisability, in the eyes of the law, of this Motion being put down at all. But I would remind the noble Viscount that I had a little talk with him, quite privately in his room, about the terms of the Motion, and I went away quite satisfied that I was not out of order in any sense of the word.
574
There are just one or two things that I should like to say with regard to this word "expert". Who is an expert? Simply because someone or other has an opinion, is he or she to be called an expert? If your Lordships remember, the note of the cross-examination of one of these experts at the trial by learned counsel, Mr. Griffith-Jones, included this passage:
Q. "That is your opinion? A. Yes, it is.
Q. "You would not mind if it was put on the television, would you? A. Oh no, that must not be done.
Q. "But why not? If there is nothing wrong about this and it is not obscene, why not put it anywhere?"
Actually, I think that now, if anything of that sort were put on to a gramophone record—and I understand they are now being manufactured—or shown in a cinema, there is no penalty.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not anxious, of course, to interrupt my noble friend, but it might do a great deal of harm if that remark went unchallenged. The fact that a novel in print has been acquitted by a jury should offer no encouragement to anyone to offer it in any other medium, illustrated by pictures or recorded in sound. They would be different works, and there has been no verdict of a court in relation to them. Nor would I give an expression of opinion as to whether there is a penalty.
LORD TEVIOT: In that case, am I to understand that the manufacture of these discs, as reported in the Daily Telegraph. would be illegal?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Only a jury can say whether a particular work is illegal, but obviously they would have no kind of protection from the verdict in relation to the novel.
LORD TEVIOT: Then, my Lords, there it is. I wish to inform the House that in no circumstances am I going to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I therefore beg to press the Motion standing in my name.
On Question. Motion negatived.
House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.