Sitting of 19 December 1966

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Alexander Garrow, esquire, Member for Glasgow, Pollok, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
  PETITION

    Shrewsbury (Road)
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a Petition signed by 3,400 of my constituents asking that the Corporation of the Borough of Shrews-bury he restrained from proceeding with the building of a road between Meole Brace and Abbey Foregate, both places being within the borough.
    The six reasons for their objection are clearly laid out in the Petition. The petitioners feel that this is, above all, a matter on which they should have been consulted and have not been so consulted. I am aware that a plan exists for a future road system in the Borough of Shrewsbury, though no one knows at present what its contents are. I hope that when this road plan is published it will show that my constituents' worst fears have not been realised. The Petition ends with the words:
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION)
  Mrs. McKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will now announce their decision on ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Political Rights of Women.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): Her Majesty's Government have decided that, with certain reservations, the United Kingdom can accede to this Convention. They aim to arrange accession early next year.
  Mrs. McKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that her announcement will give great pleasure to this House and to all women's organisations in particular? Will she please give this matter the widest possible publicity?
  Mrs. White: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

  UNITED NATIONS YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
  Mrs. McKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what preparations have been made in his Department to assure full United Kingdom participation in the United Nations Year for Human Rights, in 1968.
  Mrs. White: In addition to the details given in my reply to the hon. Lady on 9th May, Her Majesty's Government have now offered an initial contribution of £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year which has been set up under the Chairmanship of Bishop Joost de Blank. A further contribution may be considered at a later stage. [Vol. 728, c. 16.]
  Mrs. McKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of nations look to Britain as an historic champion of human rights? Will she ensure that our contribution to Human Rights Year is commensurate with this traditional rôle?
  Mrs. White: Yes, I certainly hope it will be, and various appropriate actions are now under consideration.

  MR. GERALD BROOKE
  Sir R. Caryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke.
  Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he made to the Soviet authorities, during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, about their treatment of Mr. Gerald Brooke.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): On my discussions in Moscow I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 5th December. The British Consul in Moscow saw Mr. Brooke on 9th December and reported that his morale was good. We are continuing to discuss with the Soviet Government various questions relating to Mr. Brooke's imprisonment.—[Vol. 737, c. 206.]
  Sir R. Cary: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his efforts in obtaining a modification of Russian policy in regard to Mr. Gerald Brooke? Will he also convey, on behalf of a number of hon. Members of this House, our thanks to the British Consul, Miss Agnes Wood, for her intelligent concern in the matter of this detention, concern which reflects great credit on the mission that she serves?
  Dare I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say a word about the receipt of parcels? I know that this collides with prison regulations and may be beyond the powers of anybody even as powerful as Mr. Kosygin, but the receipt of even the smallest parcel is an unimaginable blessing to a lonely man in a Russian prison camp——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This supplementary is getting rather long.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about our Consul, and I shall be delighted to convey his remarks to her. She has a very difficult job to do and it is a pleasure to hear that sort of remark.
  968
  On the question of parcels, Mr. Brooke told Miss Wood that he had received two parcels from his wife and one parcel of books from the embassy. I have a suspicion that this does, in fact, exceed what the regulations, strictly interpreted, might have allowed. But there are other things we want to do, if we can, with the Russians to get Mr. Brooke's position improved, quite apart, of course, from trying to get him released. This we shall go on doing.
  Mr. Blaker: Is not the recent visit by the British Consul the first that has been allowed for eight months or more? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not good enough? Do not the accepted international conventions require that the Consul should be allowed to visit Mr. Brooke regularly and frequently, and will the right hon. Gentleman press for that?
  Mr. Brown: The Consular Convention has not as yet been ratified. The Labour Camp Regulations, I understand, as they stand at the moment, allow only one meeting a year. I do not think it would do us any harm—it might do Mr. Brooke some good—if we were to recognise that the Russians relented in order to allow the visit to take place.

  ADEN
  Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has had from Middle Eastern countries about Great Britain's proposed withdrawal from Aden; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on 10th November.—[Vol. 735, c. 350.]
  Mr. Marten: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the proposal to withdraw from Aden is an act of real bad faith which lets down our friends and creates a very dangerous situation in that area? If the Foreign Secretary cannot himself get there, can he give an undertaking that no British troops will be withdrawn from Aden until the last of the 60,000 Egyptians are withdrawn from the Yemen?
  Mr. Brown: I do not accept the first part of the supplementary question and I am certainly against the third.
  Lord Balniel: Can the Foreign Secretary say what consideration he has given to the views repeatedly put forward from these benches that some form of air defence must be provided until the South Arabian Federation can maintain its independence by its own efforts?
  Mr. Brown: I believe that there are Questions later on that very point. But, as I made clear the other day to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), our proposal for helping the Federation after 1968 includes provision for an air component.
  Mr. Whitaker: In regard to that area, would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is best to encourage the spending of money on social progress rather than on an arms race; secondly, that we support democratically elected States and not feudal sheikhdoms; and, thirdly, that we work for the United Nations to be responsible for getting peace in that area rather than our own arms?
  Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that it is quite impossible to provide what he calls an air component which would be able to provide air defence against the Egyptians between now and 1968, and does he not realise that he is creating a power vacuum in South Arabia which will merely invite Egyptian military intervention and subversion?
  Mr. Brown: I also know that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister he was very much against our undertaking to provide forces for any conceivable military operations all over the world.

  AFRICAN STATES (MAINTENANCE OF PEACE)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange for the raising in the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace the existence of training camps and military and para-military missions in certain African States for the subversion of, and
  970
  armed aggression against, other African States and territories, contrary to the United Nations Charter.
  Mrs. White: It is primarily for any country which considers itself threatened to raise the matter in the Security Council.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged for that Answer, but will the right hon. Lady agree that those camps and missions exist not merely for the overthrow of régimes in Southern Africa but also the overthrow of régimes in black Africa? Is that not a real threat to peace, which Rhodesia is not?
  Mrs. White: Her Majesty's Government of course subscribe to the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States. We consider, as I said in my original Answer, that if any country considers itself to be threatened it is for it to take up the matter with the Security Council, and not for us to interfere.
  Mr. Goodhew: Since the Government still insist that this country is still responsible for Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia is not a sovereign State, will the right hon. Lady now call upon the Government to move in the United Nations on this line?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Goodhew: If the right hon. Lady is not certain what I am saying, I am asking her—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Archer, Question No. 6.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  SOUTH ARABIA (BOWEN REPORT)
  Mr. Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now intends to publish the report of Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., relating to detention procedures in Aden.
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will no publish Mr. Roderic Bowen's Report on Aden.
  Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking as a result of the report supplied to him by Mr. Bowen on the treatment of detainees in Aden.
  Mr. George Brown: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.
  Mr. Roseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which persons were interviewed by Mr. Bowen during his recent investigations into the treatment of prisoners and detainees in Aden.
  Mr. George Brown: I have arranged for the list, which is rather long to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Rose: What has happened to the five interrogators who were removed from Aden shortly after these allegations?
  Mr. Brown: I ask my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.
  Mr. Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the Arab professional organisations declined to give evidence before Mr. Bowen on the grounds that my right hon. Friend's Department had committed itself in advance to a denial of the allegations and, secondly, that certain wives of detainees were prevented from seeing Mr. Bowen? Is he still open to receive evidence on this?
  Mr. Brown: I do not think that that will be supported by the list which has been made available, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads it. I suggest that he waits until he has read the list.
  Following is the information—
  LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY MR. RODERIC BOWEN, Q.C., DURING HIS ENQUIRY INTO DETENTION PROCEDURES IN ADEN.

  The High Commissioner.

  Deputy High Commissioner. R. H. J. Thorne.

  A Deputation of relatives of detainees.

  S. N. Iyer, Q.C. Member of Review Tribunal.

  R. H. Hickling. Legal Adviser.

  Dr. C. R. Jones. Permanent Secretary and Director of Health Services.

  A. L. Asnag. Member of Review Tribunal.

  —Duqmi and others. President and Members of the Civil Aviation Workers Union.

  972

  —Suqi and others. President and Members of the General Union of Petroleum Workers.

  C. G. Doyle. Chief Magistrate and Chairman of Review Tribunal.

  R. J. Holmes, Q.C. Advocate General.

  J. V. Prendergast. Director of Intelligence.

  Dr. Rochat. International Committee of the Red Cross.

  M. J. Maloney, Q.C. Attorney General, Aden State.

  A. C. W. Lee. Senior Adviser (Security).

  Lt. Colonel Odell. Director, Army Legal Services.

  Brigadier Kyte. Brigadier A/Q.

  A. J. Ashworth. Information Adviser.

  F. Russell. Commandant, Interrogation Centre.

  Adil Khalifa. Detainee.

  During his visit to the Interrogation Centre he spoke to the Staff, the visiting Medical Officer, and each one of the inmates in his cell. During one visit to the Detention Centre he spoke to members of the staff. He was informed that the detainees had dealt with all the matters they wished to raise in the detailed Memorandum they had submitted and that none of them wished to see him personally. He requested to see the detainee who he understood had drawn up the Memorandum and who spoke English fluently (Mr. Khalifa). He interviewed Mr. Khalifa who confirmed that none of the detainees wished to be interviewed personally and were satisfied that all the matters they wished to raise were covered in the Memorandum.
  Mr. Bowen would like to make it clear that he made it known on his arrival in Aden that he was willing and anxious to see anyone who considered he could be of help to him in performing his task. A number of organizations* and individuals indicated that they preferred to submit a Memorandum and did so.
  In addition to the above Mr. Bowen had many informal discussions with a number of residents in Aden, both Adenis and others.
  *The Arab Jurists' Union.
  The Graduates' Congress.
  The Arab Economists' Union.
  Arab Doctors' Union.
  The Civil Service Association of South Arabia.

  FOREIGN OFFICE DOCUMENTS (SECURITY)
  Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what investigation he made in Moscow of methods of handling files at the British Embassy.
  Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is

  973
  satisfied with the standard of security in Her Majesty's diplomatic missions overseas; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Michael Footasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether authentic copies of the following treaties are still in possession of the Foreign Office, namely the Treaty of Utrecht, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the Treaty of Versailles, and the Treaty of Sevres.
  Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the disappearance of certain documents relating to the Zinoviev Affair, the Hoare-Laval Pact and the Munich Agreement.
  Mr. George Brown: In answering the four Questions together, I apologise for the fact that my Answer must therefore be a little longer than I normally like to give.
  I have been concerned about the method of handling files in the Foreign Office and in missions abroad. Following a review which has been in progress for some time, I have instituted certain changes in procedure which will I think offer an improvement.
  All the documents referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) are in the Public Record Office.
  The file relating to the Zinoviev affair contains our original copy of the Zinoviev letter itself together with the texts of the final versions of the communications arising out of it which passed with M. Rakowski. It is in respect of the letter to M. Rakowski of 24th October that the file is deficient. Two copies of the letter existed, differing only in their signature. This was made plain in 1927 in the corrigendum slip to the White Paper Command 2895. We have the copy with the incorrect signature; the other, and the, operative draft, are both missing.
  The Hoare Laval Agreement was never concluded but the Foreign Office working papers are in the Public Record Office. The authenticated copy of the English text of the Munich Agreement is also in the Public Record Office.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Foreign Secretary for answering a Question that I for one did not ask him. May I revert to the Question that was on the Order
  974
  Paper about his investigation of a security file in Moscow during his visit to Moscow? While I accept that it is right for the Foreign Secretary to check up on sloppiness and security lapses, can he say how this matter was made public in Moscow? Is it not very much better if one is checking up on security matters to keep quiet about it?
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member would like to read his Question again. It says nothing about security in Moscow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it does."] The Question is what investigation the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made in Moscow of methods of handling files. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the British Embassy."] What else could it be in Moscow but the British Embassy? I answered the Question in the form in which the hon. Gentleman put it down. I am quite willing to believe that he intended to put down a different Question, but I answered the one he asked and I I said that I was not satisfied. I was concerned. Having been concerned, apparently unlike my predecessors I made an investigation. I have therefore now also taken action to improve the situation.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question? Would he not agree that in cases of this kind no useful purpose is served if the matter becomes public knowledge?
  Mr. Brown: Anybody who is responsible for an organisation of this size, whether it is business, trade union or Government, knows that at any stage if one is to get one's views carried all the way down one must make them clear all the way down. That is what I am doing.
  Mr. Foot: While we are all very concerned that there should be proper handling of the files at the British Embassy in Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that we are even more concerned about interference by the Central Office of the Conservative Party with the files in this country of the Foreign Office? While we appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the loss of these documents and are very grateful that he is carrying out an investigation at long last, may we ask him

  975
  to take into account that we are very much concerned about what happened on the Zinoviev letter and the fact that Foreign Office officials may have been operating against the interests of the Government at that time? Will he make a full investigation into that matter and report to the House?
  Mr. Brown: I thought that I had answered it clearly in my reply, but let me again make one thing clear. The Zinoviev letter, the copy of which came to the Foreign Office in 1924, is still there. It has never been missing, and some very fanciful stories which I read over the weekend could never have been written if the facts had been checked.
  Mr. Dickens: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend undertake to carry out an investigation into allegations that the Zinoviev letter itself was a forgery, and will he extend the investigation to include the possibility of collusion in October, 1924, between the Foreign Office and members of the party opposite during that critical General Election? Secondly—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a lot of important Questions on the Order Paper. We must be brief.
  Mr. Brown: Authenticity of the Zinoviev letter does not really arise on these Questions. On the other hand, without attributing any wrong motives to anybody present today, I am not at all surprised that the Conservative Central Office thought it worth paying £5,000 for a document in 1924.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that this record of absolute unscrupulous villainy on the part of the Central Office of the Conservative Party, when £5,000 was paid for a forgery—these are grave disclosures—does not rest there?
  Mr. Brown: One of the reasons why I have taken pains to look carefully into the way in which we handle our affairs is to see that we, unlike our predecessors, do not lose interesting documents.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Whatever may be the history of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary acquit the Foreign Office of any collusion with any political party?
  Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the authenticity of the letter and about what happened in those days—it is not on the Order Paper today—I shall be very happy to give him an Answer.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE ON NON-REPRESENTED NATIONS)
  Mr. John Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to his deputy at the Council of Ministers at Strasbourg about continuing support for the Committee on Non-Represented Nations.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): This is a Committee of the Consultative Assembly and it is for the Assembly itself to decide whether the Committee is still needed.
  Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dodge out of any obligations which they have to the smaller oppressed countries of Eastern Europe?
  Mr. Padley: I should not wish to intervene in a matter which is the concern of the Assembly and not of the Council of Ministers.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Gentleman and his deputy at Strasbourg, if necessary, that what the Assembly of the Council of Europe does about these matters has nothing whatever to do with the Ministers?

  JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER (CONVERSATIONS)
  Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Japanese Foreign Minister.
  Mr. George Brown: The Japanese Foreign Minister visited this country from 28th October to 2nd November. I had two most useful talks with Mr. Shiina, who also called on the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. The joint communiqué records the very friendly relations existing between Britain and Japan and our growing co-operation in the fields of diplomacy and commerce.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Foreign Secretary keep up the regular series of visits which have done so much in the last five years to improve relations between our two countries, and, if he does, could he co-ordinate our efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement in the Vietnam dispute?
  Mr. Brown: There are Questions about Vietnam later, and perhaps that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question could wait until then. On the first part, yes, most certainly. The next meeting is due to take place in Japan, and I look forward to it very much indeed.

  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what study he has made of the letter from the Eastern Regional Officer of the United Nations Association on the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations; and what reply he has sent.
  Mr. George Brown: I have carefully studied the points raised in this letter. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the very full reply which I have sent.
  Mr. Roberts: Would it not be a major contribution to world harmony if America supported China's admission to the United Nations, and will my right hon. Friend undertake to make yet another appeal to the Americans to wake up to the fact that it is now 1966 and not 1946?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend must recognise from what happened at the meeting this year that the thing goes a good deal wider now than just the United States. The vote this year was altogether different from last year, which suggests that a lot of other people need to have this explained to them, too.
  Following is the reply:
  Foreign Office,
  30 November, 1966.
  Thank you for your letter of 22 November about Chinese representation at the United Nations.
  I hope that the speeches I made in Brighton and New York will leave no doubt in any-
  978
  body's mind that Her Majesty's Government believe it to be a matter of great importance that the Chinese People's Republic should be seated in the United Nations, and that I am doing everything I can to bring this about. I am firmly convinced that the United Nations cannot be truly effective without universal membership. This means that Peking too must be represented, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement with her policies and know perfectly well that she will be hard to live with. It is not of course certain that she would take the seat even if voted in.
  We have voted in favour of Peking since the question was first put in its present form in 1961: and we shall continue to do so. I can see the arguments for saying that this is only a procedural matter, as your Committee believe. On the other hand, the balance of argument seems to me to lead to the conclusion that it is hard to say that this is not an important question. I am strengthened in this view by the evidence from the last vote that opinions in the United Nations are sharply divided on this matter. The best solution, I am sure, would be to convince the large majority of members of the United Nations of the wisdom of voting in favour of seating Peking. There would then be a decisive vote and no one could later challenge it. This must be our objective and this is what we are working for during the present debate.
  (Signed) (GEORGE BROWN.)
  B. Hembry, Esq.,
  Regional Officer,
  U.N. Association,
  Eastern Regional Council,
  15 Bridge Street,
  Cambridge.

  BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the proposals of the United States mediator, Mr. Webster, with regard to the future relationship of British Honduras and Guatemala.
  Mr. Padley: No, Sir.
  Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm the undertaking previously given by the former Foreign Secretary that, as soon as these proposals are complete, they will be announced to the House and debated in Belize, and can he give an idea when this is likely to be?
  Mr. Padley: I reaffirm the assurance given by my right hon. Friend some months ago, but it will be for the mediator to make his own report in his own time.

  GIBRALTAR
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Spanish Government to his proposal to refer the legal issues in the Gibraltar dispute to the International Court.
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of direct Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar and current discussions at the United Nations.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the Spanish Government a reply to his proposal to refer British sovereignty over Gibraltar to The Hague Court.
  Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has now received from the Spanish Government about the reference of the Gibraltar question to the International Court.
  Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the proposal to refer the Gibraltar question to the International Court.
  Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the Spanish Government has notified Her Majesty's Government of their refusal to allow Gibraltar's sovereignty and related issues to be submitted to the Hague Court, he will make a statement with particular reference to continuing Anglo-Spanish talks while present frontier restrictions continue.
  Mr. George Brown: On 14th December, the Spanish Government informed us that they were unable to accept our proposal. Her Majesty's Government regret this negative reaction.
  The Spanish documents, which also made suggestions for further negotiations, are under study in the light of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and a reply will be made as soon as possible.
  Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after the somewhat discourteous delay of over two months in
  980
  replying to our offer, the Spanish Government have now publicly admitted the weakness of their legal case, and that this should encourage us to continue to sustain the people of Gibraltar as far as we possibly can?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, most certainly; and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he has, in view of the attacks which were made on me by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends a little while ago.
  Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend inform the United Nations and the Spanish Government that we are ready to resume talks with Spain on any subject as soon as they withdraw their barbaric restrictions from the Spain-Gibraltar frontier?
  Mr. Brown: I think that the right thing for me to do now is to say that we are considering the Spanish reply. My hon. Friend will have noted the interesting and significant resolution which was voted by the United Nations last night.
  Mr. Wall: Now that Gibraltar has been undergoing a blockade for two years, what action does the Foreign Secretary intend to take to prevent this blockade being continued for another two years?
  Mr. Brown: I have said that we shall support the Gibraltarians through it all, and we are doing that.
  Mr. Digby: Why did the British delegate on the Trusteeship Committee vote on Saturday in favour of continuing negotiations regardless of duress?
  Mr. Brown: Because the resolution, for the first time at the United Nations, so far as I recall, made clear that the interest of the inhabitants was paramount.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the best way to get the restrictions on the Gibraltar border lifted to make clear to the Spanish Government that there will be no negotiations of any sort until they are lifted?
  Mr. Brown: I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Now that the Spanish Government have refused, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the

  981
  advisability of cancelling the validity of passports to Spain?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir; I do not think that retaliation in this field will help.

  NORTH AMERICA, COMMON- WEALTH COUNTRIES AND EUROPE (FREE TRADE AREA)
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to explore the possibilities of establishing a Free Trade Area between the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and other European Free Trade Association and Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. George Brown: No, Sir. The Government's policy is to work for entry into the European Economic Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the Foreign Secretary knows, I wish him every success in that venture, but would it not be as well to have some alternative ready in case the negotiations, unhappily, fail, and would not his hand be strengthened in the negotiations by the existence of this alternative?
  Mr. Brown: As I said when I spoke in the debate on 16th November, there are other ways in which we could organise the future of Great Britain. I do not believe that any of them would be as good as this, but the hon. Gentleman may assume that we have taken account of them.
  Mr. A. Royle: Was the right hon. Gentleman encouraged by his talks with General de Gaulle recently in view of the British application to start talks for joining the European Economic Community?
  Mr. Brown: That is another question.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent progress to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what attempts have been made recently to negotiate a just and peaceful settlement in Vietnam.
  Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.
  Mr. Michael Footasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent progress towards a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, particularly in view of the recent intensification of the bombing of Hanoi.
  Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on 12th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 11.]
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could the Foreign Secretary give the House a more detailed indication of what response his suggestions for a negotiated settlement received in Vietnam, and could he not use his influence to get the Russians to make a public statement—I emphasise the word "public"—on the issue as that might well transform the situation?
  Mr. Brown: I am continuing the explorations which I undertook with both the American and the Russian Governments and, of course, elsewhere. In view of the delicacy of these talks, I hope that the House will excuse me from going any further.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that progress towards peace or even towards a temporary truce is assisted by the bombing of Hanoi, and, if it is not the Government's view, will he make that clear to the Americans?
  Mr. Brown: I have other Questions on the subject of bombing later today.
  Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with the proposal made by Senator Mansfield for a 47-day moratorium of the bombing and truce in Vietnam? Would he not agree that this would help to obtain the type of settlement that he is after?
  Mr. Brown: I believe that I am inhibited by the rules of order from answering on Question No. 18 points which will arise on Question No. 31.
  Mr. Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say, strictly on the question of the form of negotiations, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to give unqualified support to the proposals of U Thant for the settlement of the Vietnam dispute?
  Mr. Brown: I still think that, since I am engaged very closely and very much, and was indeed even last week in Paris, in talks about this, the House would really help me to achieve what it and my hon. Friend want to achieve if it excused me from public statements here today.
  Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country find it difficult to understand how it is that Rhodesia, which has made no threat to peace anywhere in the world, has action taken against it in the form of sanctions whereas, in the case of North Vietnam, which has been not merely a threat to peace but guilty of aggression, no such action is taken by the British Government?
  Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed that question and so it must, therefore, be in order. But I find it very difficult to understand how a Question which asks me about what I am doing to get a settlement in Vietnam raises the question of a rebellion in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, following his talks in Moscow, he will seek to arrange an early conference with the United States, Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese Foreign Ministers in a new attempt to stop hostilities in Vietnam and make the Christmas truce permanent.
  Mr. George Brown: No, Sir. I am engaged in continuous efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam but, in present circumstances, I see no prospect of convening a conference of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the size of this problem and the fact that tens of millions of people all over the world are praying and hoping that this Christmas will see an end to a war, something could he gained by this? Would my right hon. Friend not further agree that Britain's rôle as a gunboat Power is now over but that she has a major contribution to make
  984
  to mankind as an intermediary and peace-maker?
  Mr. Brown: I am sure that we have the latter rôle. I understand that the South Vietnamese Government and their allies have already agreed to a truce not only over Christmas but also over the New Year, including the Vietnamese New Year holiday. I regret to say that there has so far been no response to this offer from the other side.
  Mr. Onslow: We are encouraged to hear of the part the South Vietnamese Government are playing. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if ever there was a conference of the sort called for in this Question, the South Vietnamese Government would be one of the most important parties to be represented?
  Mr. Brown: That is the sort of question which would fall to be decided whenever we got a conference.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had, in the course of his recent visit to the United States of America, with United States Defence Secretary Macnamara regarding his official statement on the monthly average of bombs dropped in Vietnam in the second half-year of 1966; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. George Brown: I have had no such discussions with Mr. McNamara.
  Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend know that while he was in the United States Mr. McNamara claimed that the monthly average of bombs dropped by United States aircraft on Vietnam in the second half of 1966 surpassed the quantity of bombs dropped all over Europe and Africa during the Second World War? Will my right hon. Friend associate Her Majesty's Government with the rising volume of protest at this mass murder of civilians?
  Mr. Brown: I regret and resent the continuance of this war. However, my hon. Friend makes a very big mistake in picking out one side or the other for comment in this way. In any case, I have answered his Question by saying that I have not had any such discussions.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the phrase "mass murder"? Is it not

  985
  a fact that the United States Air Force engaged in this war does its utmost to avoid mass murder?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making exactly the same mistake. The reason I want to do what I can to get this war halted, and ultimately solved, as quickly as I can is that at least I know that no war can go on without mass murder.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, from the International Control Commission regarding the facts about the bombing by United States forces in Vietnam of schools, hospitals and churches in North Vietnam.
  Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received from the International Control Commission on the United States bombing of schools, hospitals and the urban population of North Vietnam.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Control Commission set up under the 1954 Geneva Agreements, what information he has received from the Commission about the bombing by United States and South Vietnamese forces of schools, hospitals, temples, and homes in North Vietnam, including residential quarters in Hanoi.
  Mr. George Brown: None, Sir.
  Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that North Vietnam's sources say that United States bombing has destroyed 294 schools, 74 hospitals and 80 churches? Does he not agree that Pentagon sources say that in this respect North Vietnamese sources, when checkable, are generally found to be correct? Will he ask the United States Government to stop bombing until the International Control Commission has investigated and reported?
  Mr. Brown: Of course I deplore the loss of life and I deplore it all the more if there have been civilian casualties. But the responsibility for this must rest with those who are prolonging the fighting, just as all opportunities for a just and reasonable settlement rest with them. The
  986
  United States assures us, and, I am certain, properly assures us, that it is attacking only military targets. However, so long as this war goes on, this kind of thing will happen. That is why I wish that Hanoi and those who might be able to influence Hanoi would respond to the kind of initiative which I have recently made myself to both sides.
  Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend this afternoon make a clear public statement dissociating the British Government from the American bombing of the civilian population of Hanoi?
  Mr. Brown: I do not believe that the American Government has done any such thing. I dissociate myself from those who will not use such influence as they might have to get the authorities in Hanoi to respond to the approach which I have already made.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Do my right hon. Friend's replies mean that the Government have gone back on their undertaking to dissociate themselves from the bombing of Hanoi? Is it the position that the Americans are entitled to the mass murder of civilians by their bombing in order to force them into unconditional surrender or unconditional negotiations, which would be contrary to the Charter?
  Mr. Brown: If the North Vietnamese and their allies continue to infiltrate vast numbers of troops and supplies and to breach the demilitarised zone, it would be wrong to attack those trying to arrest that. But I deplore both, and I would welcome the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to bring it to an end as the most sensible thing to do.
  Mr. Goodhart: As we have a small diplomatic mission in Hanoi, can the Foreign Secretary say whether our representative there has been allowed to inspect the site and submit a report? If American planes have done extensive damage in Hanoi, would not one have expected our representative to send a report?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may assume that I have had reports from not only that, but other quarters. I prefer to stand on what I have said.
  Mr. Marten: Returning to the main issue, why does not the Foreign Secretary

  987
  as co-Chairman receive reports on just this sort of thing, and how can he act as co-Chairman without all this information?
  Mr. Brown: Nothing I have said would lend any support to the idea that I do not receive reports on these things.
  Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in an earlier statement the Prime Minister assured the House that the position of Her Majesty's Government was that it should not be the policy of the United States Air Force to bomb installations near population centres? While everybody would agree that there is an obligation on the Government of Hanoi, as on any other Government, to make peace, would he not now say that in the period at the beginning of negotiations the American Government should not bomb installations near Hanoi or Haiphong?
  Mr. Brown: Not only privately as I have, but in public, the American Government has committed itself much further than anybody else on either side about what it would do to halt military action, provided that it had some idea that a reasonable response would be forthcoming. My answer to my hon. Friend is that we should all use our influence to get some reasonable response from the other side.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ridsdale. Question No. 33.
  Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. When I asked a supplementary question on Question No. 18, which was answered together with my own Question No. 83, my right hon. Friend would not answer it because, he said, it would be out of order to do so as he had Questions on bombing coming. May I ask—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Driberg.
  Mr. Driberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend speaks of the war effort of both sides as being roughly equal, is not that a little unrealistic? Is it not only one side which is bombing with napalm and other horrors?
  Mr. Brown: Others are doing things which are horrible in their own way.
  Mr. Jenkins:In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (COST)
  Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the West German and United States Governments about the requirement for British and United States forces on the continent of Europe and the offsetting of the foreign Exchange costs of such forces.
  Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on 12th of December.—[Col. 44; Vol. 738.]
  Mr. Blaker: When assessing how much of the foreign exchange costs of B.A.O.R. is being offset, is it the intention of the Government to take into account the foreign exchange which comes to this country as a result of the presence of American forces here?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I believe these two things to be quite separate. As I have told the Americans, and so have my right hon. Friends, we have a deficit all over the world arising out of the share of the burden—in some ways one might say a disproportionate share of the burden—of defending world peace that we bear. Therefore, I think that anything else that happens we are entitled to set against that. The question of the offsetting of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany falls to be dealt with by itself.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of us on these benches regard the offsetting agreement as utterly unacceptable as this is against the real determination that we have considered, as have others in the Government, would follow from securing an immediate reduction in these costs?
  Mr. Brown: In that case, I can only think that my hon. Friend has not really looked at what has been achieved here. If one looks at the time scale in which the savings would come by any unilateral withdrawal of troops, it would not be as

  989
  advantageous to us as the present agreement. Secondly, if it is, as I believe it is, my hon. Friend's desire to maintain the cohesion of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to maintain our influence in that and on the Continent, I am sure he would agree that it would be far better to do it by agreement than to do it unnecessarily unilaterally.
  Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 9th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if there was not an offsetting of the total costs of British troops, they would be withdrawn? While we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations, may I ask whether he would not agree that a unilateral withdrawal of British troops, especially following the withdrawal of France from N.A.T.O., would considerably increase tension in Central Europe?
  Mr. Brown: Whether that is true or not, it has to be understood, and I hope that it is—I explained it again last week to all our allies—that we cannot be expected to go on paying foreign exchange to meet a burden which is by no means wholly ours and is of great value to others. I should like to do this, of course, by agreement, and I hope that we can, but it must be very clear that what we have said has been that the offsetting for our foreign costs must be met. When the new German Government came into being a very short time ago, that, of course, made it inevitable that there was a certain slip in the time scale. I am hoping that the arrangement to which the Question refers has helped us over that.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Why have the Government broken undertakings given to Parliament on three occasions since 3rd May about British troop withdrawals, and, indeed, the promise that negotiations would be completed by this August? Is it because Washington regards the arrangements as a considerable diplomatic success for America?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has got it completely wrong. We have never given that assurance to Parliament on any occasion. What we have said is that if we are to maintain this level of forces, then the foreign exchange costs must be offset. We have deferred the date by
  990
  which that must be done in consideration of having received a series of orders from the Americans which, I repeat, more than meets—certainly they represent as much as—the savings that we could have got over the same period.

  DIPLOMATIC CORPS
  Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he takes to keep himself informed of personnel changes in the Diplomatic Corps in London.
  Mr. George Brown: I am kept informed by Diplomatic Representatives in London in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
  Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if in future these arrangements should break down, as they appear to have done in the case of the Iranian Ambassador, it is in no one's interest that he should make a public scene about it?
  Mr. Brown: There seem to be two different views among the Press. If I say nothing I am thought to be keeping silent unwarrantably. If I say anything, it disturbs the Press. The hon. Gentleman, a long way after the event, is really wasting the time of the House on a mere detail taken out of context and, like so many others, totally distorted.

  EAST GERMAN CITIZENS (VISAS)
  Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will review the present arrangements for East German citizens to obtain visas to enter Great Britain as visitors.
  Mr. George Brown: Visa regulations are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The rules governing the issue of temporary travel documents for East Germans are regularly reviewed in the North Atlantic Council.
  Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for reviewing the arrangements whereby East German citizens have to come over to the western part of Britain?

  991
  Is he aware that people like myself, who hate the Berlin Wall and have told East German Communists so, believe that there is a case for reviewing the present arrangements?
  Mr. Brown: As I said, the arrangements are regularly reviewed. I think it is time that the East Germans also reviewed some of the restrictions which they put on the West.

  ARAB STATES AND ISRAEL (BORDER CLASHES)
  Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action Great Britain intends to take at the United Nations and elsewhere over the border clashes between Arab countries and Israel.
  Mr. Waltersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for reducing tension in the Middle East.
  Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to help avoid further clashes between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not altered their policy towards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 and that they still regard themselves bound by it.
  Mr. Henigasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government still considers itself bound by the terms of the tri-partite declaration to guarantee the frontiers of Israel and her neighbours; and if he will now approach the Governments of France and the United States of America with a view to a further joint declaration that no resort to force to alter in either direction the present frontiers between the State of Israel and the neighbouring Arab States will be tolerated.
  Mr. George Brown: Again I apologise for the inevitable length of the Answers.
  992
  We regard the United Nations as being primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. It is our policy to support the United Nations in fulfilling this task and to support every effort made to improve its peacekeeping machinery. As regards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, it was, mainly, as its official title said, about the supply of arms to Israel and the Arab States. The situation in the area has radically altered since then; several years later, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of arms to the area. But today, as in 1950, we are opposed to an arms race in the Middle East and concerned that there should be peace and stability there. We deplore the use or the threat of force in the area, and subversion, hostile propaganda and terrorism, which have been condemned by many resolutions of the United Nations.
  Mr. Winnick: While I appreciate in full the Answer that has been given, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what possibilites there are of reaching real agreement to control the supply of arms to the Middle East and especially the politically explosive places? Can he say whether we are still sending arms to both sides?
  Mr. Brown: We are exercising all the influence we can in the United Nations to bring about a limitation not only of the arms race in that area but also of the tension there. As to the sale of arms, we are keeping them all under control and do nothing which will add to the tension.
  Mr. Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are considering the possibility of extending the United Nations Observer Corps along the Syrian-Israeli frontier? Surely that is one way of keeping down tension.
  Mr. Brown: That is a point worth bearing in mind, but it was not along that frontier that the recent trouble occurred.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about the 1950 Declaration. Do Her Majesty's Government still regard themselves as being bound by it?
  Mr. Brown: The comments I have made were not only in accord with

  993
  what we have said but with what Mr. Harold Macmillan said in, I believe, 1963.
  Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say categorically whether Britain will stand by her undertaking, given in concert with her allies, to guarantee the frontiers of Israel?
  Mr. Brown: The situation has changed a good deal since the Tripartite Declaration was made and I repeat that Mr. Macmillan made a statement which superseded it. We have not gone beyond that.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Since the present arms race and the declaration of the Syrian Government that they will pay no regard to the United Nations are creating a most dangerous situation in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend try to promote a meeting at the highest level of the Security Council to secure radical arrangements for bringing this dangerous situation to an end?
  Mr. Brown: Whether that is the appropriate forum, I do not know, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that I will do everything I can. As he knows, in the Security Council recently we played a very prominent part on this subject.
  Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are trying at the United Nations to assist in the reduction of tension. What specific initiative have the Government taken with the Soviet Union and the United States so as to secure a balanced limitation of arms in this area?
  Mr. Brown: I am not sure that such a possibility exists. There are other causes of the difficulties in the area and we are taking initiatives with them all.

  EASTERN EUROPE
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the need to reassess British policy towards Eastern European countries.
  Mr. George Brown: None specifically. We talked a great deal about Europe. It is generally recognised that this country has been among the leaders in developing relations with the countries of Eastern
  994
  Europe, and I know I have my hon. Friend's support in that.
  Mrs. Short: I assure my right hon. Friend that he certainly has. Does not he think that the time has come for the normalisation of our relations with East Germany, for example? Should not the policy he put forward at the Labour Party Conference in 1961 now be implemented? Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is something wrong with a policy which prevents peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here, when the leader of the West German Nationalists is allowed to come, apparently, to lecture to university students?
  Mr. Brown: I do not know what inhibits peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here more than the existence of the Wall for which they are responsible.
  Mr. Doughty: Will the right hon. Gentleman collaborate with the right hon. Lady in trying to persuade Eastern European countries to have some form of democracy?
  Mr. James Davidson: Is it intended to make any official reaction to the Bucharest Declaration of the Warsaw Pact countries last July proposing a conference on European security?
  Mr. Brown: I am rather against, as I have often said, the bloc-to-bloc approach. We have initiated, as my predecessor announced, a proposal for a declaration which countries both east and west of the so-called Curtain may join in and we are pursuing that initiative.

  WEST GERMANY
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now seek to initiate discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and the United States of America about the situation in West Germany.
  Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on both sides of this House and in the country generally, there has been great concern at the break-through of the N.P.D. in West Germany? Does not he think that he should put forward some

  995
  proposals to see that history does not repeat itself? Britain cannot stand aside.
  Mr. Brown: The way to avoid history repeating itself is for us not to make the mistakes we made in the 1920s and 1930s. Let us keep the thing in perspective. No one will under-estimate the N.P.D. vote but the democratic vote was over 89 per cent. in Bavaria, for example. The present democratic leaders of Germany are worthy of and should receive all our support.

  SOUTH AFRICA (SANCTIONS AGAINST RHODESIA)
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances have been given to the South African Government about the proposed mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.
  Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this question during the debate on Rhodesia and in answer to Questions following his statement to the House on 5th December.—[Vol. 737, c. 1070–1.]
  Mr. Wall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that South Africa will continue to adhere to its policy of trading with its neighbours so that sanctions will either be ineffective or will have to be enforced, if that is possible? Are not the Government putting themselves in a dangerously exposed position?
  Mr. Brown: It is the hon. Gentleman who is doing that. The United Nations has now made an historic mandatory call upon all member States. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that it would be presumption to start by assuming that certain countries will not honour their obligations as members of the United Nations.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: But do we not know that South Africa has said that she will not honour this United Nations instruction? That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman again make it clear that South Africa is, in the Government's mind, excluded from any attempt to enforce sanctions? This he himself has said and I hope that he will repeat it.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of not being very much in favour of the United
  996
  Nations. I am not willing, as he is, to assume that any member State is willing to dishonour its obligations.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do nothing to condone the ill-faith of any member of the United Nations which may repudiate its plain obligation under the Charter?
  Mr. Brown: I will go further. I do not believe that it is a good thing to start by assuming that some member States are willing to dishonour their obligations.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Foreign Secretary face the facts? Have not the South African Government said already that they will not honour this instruction? Have not Her Majesty's Government said that they will not allow these sanctions to be applied to South Africa?
  Mr. Brown: I see now how the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong so often. What he has described as fact is pure hypothesis.
  Mr. Longden: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the report, dated March, 1965, by an expert committee appointed by the Security Council to investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of mandatory sanctions? Is he aware that the report stated that their effectiveness must depend wholly on their universality, which must necessarily mean unequal hardship? Is he further aware that the report advocated an international effort to mitigate this hardship, particularly by the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect and I will have a look at it.

  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION)
  Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to control nuclear tests and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. George Brown: While I was in Moscow I pressed Mr. Gromyko to agree to the long-standing Western proposal for scientific talks to explore the possibility of progress on a comprehensive test ban.

  997
  Unfortunately this was rejected. On non-proliferation, however, as I told the House on 6th December, there is now a new prospect of agreement. This is delicately balanced, but we and our allies are doing our best to get a treaty.—[Vol. 737, c. 1173.]
  Mr. Ridsdale: Will such a non-proliferation treaty contain a clause affecting the transfer of nuclear weapons to and through alliances? What is the Government's view towards keeping open such an option for European defence?
  Mr. Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being very much on the ball. However, in view of what I said about the delicate balance, we ought to let it rest there.
  Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is full agreement between the United States and this country about the text of a non-proliferation agreement?
  Mr. Brown: I repeat that we and our allies are doing our best to get a treaty. There is not much to be gained by my making too specific statements today.

  INDONESIA (PARIS TALKS)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Paris talks, in relation to British-Indonesian relations.
  Mr. Padley: The discussions to which my hon. Friend refers are still in progress.
  Mr. Dalyell: What is the attitude towards the re-scheduling of debt which Her Majesty's Government have taken up?
  Mr. Padley: We are, of course, only one creditor among several taking part in the Paris talks and by no means the largest, but we are using our influence to achieve a speedy and realistic settlement of the problem. The talks in Paris are due to end on 22nd December.
  Mr. Colin Jackson: Would not one helpful factor be the dispatch of British technicians to Indonesia to help get going again such industries as the sugar and rubber plantations?
  Mr. Padley: Of course we welcome the recent action of the Indonesian Government in restoring British property to British owners and lessees, and the point which my hon. Friend makes can be considered after that.

  PAYMASTER GENERAL

    No. 10 Downing Street (Facilities)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. ROBERT COOKE: To ask the Paymaster General what official facilities he has in No. 10 Downing Street.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cooke.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    The Paymaster General (Mr. George Wigg): On a point of order. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order in connection with this Question. I now seek your guidance whether to do so now, or at 3.30.
    Mr. Speaker: After Questions.

  DISARMAMENT
  Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new initiative the Government have taken in international negotiations on disarmament since 16th October, 1964.
  Mr. George Brown: The Government have done all in their power to forward progress in disarmament, particularly on the urgent issue of a non-proliferation treaty, and our continuous initiative has contributed largely to the progress that has been made. What is needed is determined negotiation on the proposals already on the table rather than the addition of new ones.
  Mr. Campbell: I agree about what is needed, but why has no initiative from the British Government been visible? Why is it that the new drafts which have become public have emanated from the United States, the Soviet Union and else-where?
  Mr. Brown: I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman obviously cannot be kept informed of what we are doing all the time, but the drafts owe a very great deal to our work.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Having regard to the very disappointing results of disarmament negotiations over the last 45 years, is it not apparent that sovereign States will not disarm until they are presented with an alternative system of security, and will not Her Majesty's Government now propose a package deal, consisting of phased, general and simultaneous disarmament, coupled with the establishment of such a world authority keeping world peace, through world law?
  Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that I have done as much as I can, and am still doing so, to increase the authority of the United Nations as a step on the road to what he and I both accept—the need for a world authority with real peace-keeping forces at its disposal. I do not think that should lead us to the depressing view that no measures of disarmament can be obtained in the meantime. That is contrary to the facts.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that Lord Chalfont said 18 months ago that the British Government had a master plan for disarmament which would shake the Russians and Americans out of their complacency? Would he put a copy of it in the Library so that we can study it? [Laughter.]
  Mr. Brown: That is the kind of remark that goes down well in this House but leaves the essentials of the situation totally untouched. It is good for the Oxford Union but not too good for real needs. This is the work of my noble Friend Lord Chalfont, the Minister of State with responsibility for this matter, and the proposals that we have put forward would, I expect, receive even grudging commendations from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that when the ex-Leader of the Opposition was at the opening meetings of the Committee of Eighteen in Geneva he said that a master plan should be made from the proposals put forward in the United States and Russian plans, but when he became Prime Minister he dropped his master plan and took an interest in an independent nuclear deterrent instead?
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consult the records. Is he aware that they will show a joint United Kingdom-American plan—that is if it has not been lost at the Foreign Office. If it has one can probably be found in the State Department. I am asking for the right hon. Gentleman's plan. We should like to know what it is.
  Mr. Brown: The only documents ever lost in the Foreign Office were lost in the days of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors. Nothing like that happened in our time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Wigg: I rise on a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. I have also given notice to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). It relates to a Question on the Order Paper, which was down for answer on Monday, 28th November. It was deferred until 5th December, and deferred again on 12th December and has been deferred again today. This meant that on 28th November and again today I have been here for the whole of Question Time, waiting to answer a Question which had been deferred, obviously as part of a prearranged plan—[Interruption.]—the sole object of which was presumably to cause me inconvenience, and I presume, judging by the titters, annoyance, which has met with the approval of some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I do not complain of a lack of courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman in not informing me of the deferment of his Question, but in my submission the hon. Member for Bristol, West has abused the procedure of the House quite irresponsibly and in so doing has raised a point of order which requires a Ruling by you as to whether the hon. Member, having invoked the procedure of the House and thus placing servants of the House in the same position as myself, is not guilty of disorderly conduct in using this procedure for no purpose, except the adolescent enjoyment of causing me inconvenience.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the simple answer to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman is that the

1001
putting down of Questions and the failing to be in one's place to ask the Question at the appropriate time is not a matter for the Chair. Any dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred is a matter of courtesy.
Mr. Kershaw: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had given you notice of this question. As the question turns out not to be a point of order, should the House have been troubled with it?
Mr. Speaker: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Lipton: Since this matter has been raised by my right hon. Friend, would you ask the appropriate authority concerned to consider for how long a Question can be deferred? There ought to be a limit, three, four or five or six weeks, imposed on the extent to which a Question can be deferred from week to week. At present the procedure permits a Question to be deferred from week to week for the whole of the Session. This is surely an abuse.
Mr. Speaker: The question of deferring Questions and how many times they should he deferred would be a very difficult matter for the Chair to make any rule on. If there were any really serious abuse of Question Time the House would have to look into it.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. It will have been within your notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary has tacked on to a number of early Questions on the Order Paper some of the later Questions up to and including the last one put down. This has allowed more supplementary questions on points of public interest than would normally be the case. May I ask for your guidance as to whether this is a practice which you might wish to encourage in the case of other Departments with long lists of Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I have been asked the same thing previously from exactly the opposite point of view, namely, to discourage the taking of a very late Questions with early ones. I have to watch this matter of late Questions to see if there is any shade of abuse. On this occasion, the reason why the Questions
1002
had high numbers made sense. Some incidents referred to happened only last week, which meant that by the time the Questions got on the Order Paper they were quite late. If there was any abuse I would seek to stop it, but if there was an advantage to be gained by taking late Questions on the grounds that they were topical and could be tacked on to earlier Questions, then it seems to me that they might be allowed. One must leave this to the Chair.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Before any more points of order are raised, I would remind hon. Members that we have a lot of business before us.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not always possible for a Minister to ask your permission to answer a question at the end of Question Time or to make a statement, if he so desires?
Mr. Speaker: It is always possible for a Minister to answer a Question at the end of the Question Time or to make a statement, if he asks permission of the Chair.
Mr. Winnick: Is it not an abuse of the time of the House for an hon. Member to put down a Question with the obvious intention of not being in his place, as is the case with the Question to the Paymaster General?
Mr. Speaker: The point was put a little more eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman who raised it.

SCOTLAND (FLOODS)
Mr. Tam Dalyell(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government are taking to bring relief to those affected by the recent flooding in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The House will wish to know that, according to the latest information I have, the position everywhere has improved and is well under control. Local agencies are coping well with the practical difficulties. My Departments are keeping closely in touch with the situation: the effects are still being assessed, but I have no evidence to suggest that special Government help is called for.
Mr. Dalyell: If the situation gets worse, may we count on further Government help?
Mr. Ross: I have stated that my Departments are keeping closely in touch with the situation, which I hope will continue to improve.
Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, for many farms in the North of Scotland, this will have been an especially bitter blow, as it follows the very difficult period through which agriculture in that area has been passing recently? Has he noted that the latest reports indicate that there may be flooding again in the near future in the Glasgow area? Will he do his best to take all precautions there?
Mr. Ross: We are watching the situation. It is not confined purely to Ross and Cromarty and Inverness, although in those cases it is not the hill lands which are being flooded but the parts very much lower down.
Mr. Younger: Has the Secretary of State yet had time to consider whether it would be worth while putting an inquiry in hand to discover whether there is some means whereby floods such as these are prevented from happening in future?
Mr. Ross: We have had some discussions on this in the House before. If the hon. Gentleman had followed them—they took place before he was a Member—he would realise that there are obvious weaknesses. It will be worth while to see how we can improve the position.
Mr. Buchan: This is not the first time that the River Cart has caused difficulties in Renfrewshire and Glasgow and has overflowed. If we have had discussions about this before, it is time that they were resuscitated and improvements made for the future.
Mr. Ross: The discussions were related not to particular areas but to the way in which the whole question of flood prevention is dealt with in Scotland. I shall be getting reports from the local authorities on what can be done to pre-
1004
vent this from happening in this area in future.
Mr. Noble: While we are all delighted that the right hon. Gentleman's reports this morning were better, if there is anything in the reports he gets which indicates that we are likely to have recurrences of this problem when we have heavy rain in future, would he report to the House?
Mr. Ross: Yes, I will gladly do that. I am anxiously awaiting the return of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, because of the flooding, has not been able to get back here. We hope to see him either later tonight or first thing tomorrow morning with a first hand report.
Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent communications—roads and railways—have been disrupted by these floods and whether this disruption has been tackled?
Mr. Ross: They are all being tackled. In Ross and Cromarty two roads were still blocked by landslide, but they are expected to be clear today. In Inverness, there is a bridge down on the Newton-more and Laggan Bridge road. It may be reopened today. In the meantime, an alternative route is available via Dalwhinnie. I shall be getting further reports later this afternoon.
Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the only cure for recurring flooding in the same areas whenever we get heavy rain is the better use of flood prevention legislation and possibly better legislation put on the Statute Book to counter the floods?
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are two flood prevention schemes in Scotland. First, there is a scheme for flood prevention in country areas which depends entirely on the initiative of local landowners. Secondly, there is prevention within the burghs. Unless we get comprehensive legislation, we cannot deal with the matter properly. This is the thing for which we should all work.

SOUTH ARABIA (BOWEN REPORT)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on South Arabia, and in particular on the Bowen Report.
The House will recall that towards the end of October I appointed Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., a distinguished former Member and Deputy Speaker of this House, to go to Aden as my personal representative to examine the procedures for the arrest, interrogation and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities there. Mr. Bowen was in Aden from 27th October to 8th November and submitted his Report to me on 14th November. I have arranged for the Report to be published in full as a White Paper and for copies to be placed today in the Library of the House.
Hon. Members will see that I have included in the White Paper an Introduction describing the sombre background of the security situation in Aden. It was against this background that I decided I should reassure myself directly that the necessary special procedures in Aden were being carried out in the best way and that those responsible for them would be protected as well as is possible from uninformed or malicious criticism. I have also added a note on the action already taken to carry out Mr. Bowen's recommendations.
As I have already told the House, Mr. Bowen has submitted a most valuable Report and I take this occasion to thank him publicly for having carried out his task so expeditiously and so thoroughly. I am happy to say that, after receiving the High Commissioner's comments on Mr. Bowen's recommendations, I have been able to accept them almost in their entirety and the High Commissioner is now putting them into effect.
Among Mr. Bowen's recommendations are a number for dealing with complaints by detainees in the future, and these recommendations have generally been accepted. Mr. Bowen did not investigate specific allegations of cruelty to prisoners, but he has criticised the handling by the Aden Administration of some such
1006
allegations in the past. I must emphasise here that his criticism relates to a short period in the past and centres on the activities of three interrogators at that time employed in the Interrogation Centre and the control exercised over their activities. Investigations into these allegations will now be pursued to a conclusion. While these investigations take place, I think it right that nothing should be said publicly to prejudice the position of any persons who may be implicated, before they have had an opportunity of giving their own account of what took place to the appropriate authorities.
We must remember that in Aden today, as Mr. Bowen says in his Report,
"the life and limb of the population as a whole are in constant danger from the indiscriminate throwing of hand-grenades and other activities."
I was therefore glad to see that Mr. Bowen gained the general impression that the military personnel and the police, upon whom falls the main strain of protecting the population and dealing with the terrorists, were discharging their onerous duties with great restraint. I well understand the difficulties to which they are subjected in doing this and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration for the way in which all those concerned in the preservation of order in Aden, both civil and military, are carrying out their duties.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the White Paper. Obviously it would be a mistake to prejudge its findings, but we will study it with care. At present I am content to join with him in underlining the great strain under which our Service men serve in Aden. While discipline must obviously be enforced, this must be understood.
Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of this Report will be widely welcomed and that it is a vindication of the genuine concern expressed by the organisation Amnesty International? Would he not agree that the way to avoid this sort of allegation being made in future is to allow prisoners access to lawyers, to inform their relatives where they have been detained and, if possible, to substitute for the military police civil police seconded from this country.
Mr. Brown: I do not accept that this is endorsement of the somewhat wild allegations made in the name of Amnesty International which I deeply regret. Indeed, the Rastgeldi Report, which reached my hands only after much preliminary publicity this weekend, does not bear out what was said.
On the other matters which my hon. Friend raises, may I suggest that he reads the Report and sees whether we have met what he has in mind.
Mr. Archer: Without wishing to raise further issues at this stage, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the Report of Amnesty International made only allegations as to what transpired at two specific centres—at Fort Morbut and al-Mansura? If further evidence has become available since Mr. Bowen reported, is my right hon. Friend open to receive it?
Mr. Brown: Yes, but I think that before we start trying to raise new problems my hon. Friend had better look at what the Report deals with. Almost the first thing which worried me when I came into this job was whether our procedures were right. If the procedures are right, one can avoid the excesses. If we have put the procedures right, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we have done what is required.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the Amnesty charges were used by Moscow radio and Cairo radio and were held unfairly against British troops as a whole, will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity of acquitting the British soldiers, sailors and airmen in Aden at this moment of any intention to perpetrate cruelties? Will he also say that against the background of spasmodic murder and terror, our troops there have behaved with forbearance and restraint?
Mr. Brown: I thought that was exactly what I said. I wanted to publish the Report in full in any event, but one of the arguments very much in favour of doing so was that it narrowed the area of justifiable criticism to such a very small one and, by so doing, of itself acquitted the vast area of our military, police and civilians in those very difficult conditions. I hope also that the fact that we are willing to publish such a Report in full,
1008
even where it includes criticism of ourselves, will commend itself to those whom the hon. Member has mentioned.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will be extremely grateful to Mr. Bowen for his Report and, in particular, for his recommendation in regard to future procedure to be adopted?
I should like to ask two questions. First, are the three interrogators against whom allegations are to be investigated either suspended or, alternatively, no longer in the employment of the interrogation centre? Secondly, since the Foreign Secretary has said that Mr. Bowen was precluded from investigating the specific allegations of torture, is it not important that this country should deal with the allegations made by Amnesty and say that they are either true or false, but quite clearly go into them and have them investigated, which, on the Foreign Secretary's own statement, he accepts was outside Mr. Bowen's terms of reference?
Mr. Brown: I did not quite say that. Pretty well all, if not all, of the allegations by Amnesty have been investigated in the past. The Red Cross representative has made something like five visits to the centres in the quite recent past, and one should not conclude or deduce from Mr. Bowen's Report that it thereby increases anybody's suspicions that the exaggerated accounts before Mr. Rastgeldi's Report was published were true. Quite the contrary. It limits the area over which there might be reasonable ground for doubt.
The question of establishing whether, over that area and in relation to those interrogators, there should be a further examination is clearly one that must be answered affirmatively, and this is now going on.
We must, of course, be fair to the men concerned. They have been identified, if not named. The Ministry of Defence is, therefore, making the appropriate inquiries to see whether there is a prima facie case for court-martial or disciplinary proceedings against these men. Those inquiries are going on at this moment. One of the three men is out of the Army. The other two are still in the Services but are out of that Command. All three are available and the investigations will go on.

EARNINGS RULE
3.54 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that the application of the earnings rule to retirement pensions is producing undesirable anomalies between different classes of pensioners, depriving the nation of potentially valuable contributions to the economy and having adverse effects upon the mental and physical well-being of individual pensioners by encouraging an undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement, urges Her Majesty's Government to seek an early opportunity to abolish the rule.
It came as something of a surprise to me to have this valuable opportunity to ventilate this subject, since I entered my name in the Ballot only 30 seconds before closing time, which only goes to show that it is always wise to buy the last ticket in a raffle.
From the number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who have raised the matter of the earnings rule—and it has been raised frequently, from all sides of the House—I venture to hope that I am batting on a fairly easy wicket. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the bowling of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, which I have not yet seen.
We have come a long way in our attitudes to social security provisions generally, and there have been great changes, particularly in recent years. Certainly, we are moving away from the situation in which we tended to regard all social security provisions as a kind of necessary charity to be directed solely at those who were in urgent need. Indeed, in the past people tended to look on pensions as necessary for those who were unable to save for their old age, either because of the nature of their employment or, perhaps, because of their total lack of employment.
We also looked on pensions as necessary for those who escaped what was in the past a common provision—capital grants of one kind or another, legacies from rich relatives to maintain a spinster or old people. There were also those whose families were not in a sufficient state of affluence to support them. For all those people, there was a general feeling that pensions were necessary for the needy poor, the pious hope at the same
1010
time being expressed that the underserving poor would not quite get through the net.
Now we have changed almost totally in our attitudes and we tend to regard pensions—certainly I and my hon. Friends regard them—not so much merely as something for a special need, but as an entitlement and as part of the remuneration and reward to every citizen for the contribution which he or she has made to society in his more active years, either in work or in bringing up families, or in one or another acting as householders, housekeepers, housewives and so on. This is the final instalment, as it were, of payment to the citizen for the efforts which he has made. It is a very commendable transition, moving from a position of charity to the present position, which is clearly one of entitlement.
Perhaps we have not quite moved far enough. From my own point of view at least, I would like us to have moved to a situation in which retirement pensions were automatically linked to current wages so that pensioners automatically shared in any increases in the nation's prosperity, to which their earlier efforts had clearly contributed. We have not quite got to that stage yet, but we are nevertheless moving that way.
I am quite ready to give credit to the Government for the steps which they have taken. Some of them, perhaps, have been a little bit tardy. I regret, for example, that they have not proceeded as rapidly as they might have done in replacing what the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Minister without Portfolio, referred to when he said:
"We intend to replace the existing discredited graduated scheme".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 426.]
There has been some delay in carrying those words into practice. Nevertheless, the Government have made progress and I welcome it. We welcome in particular the fact that relatively recently they abolished the earnings rule for widows. At that time, the Government were urged from many parts of the House to extend the abolition of the earnings rule to other fields, particularly for retirement pensioners.
In that regard, the answer which the House got was not exactly forthcoming.

1011
Once again, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, at the end of his answer:
"I hope that the Committee will feel that it is a sufficiently plausible case for doing nothing with the earnings rule at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol.703, c. 844.]
One hopes that whatever answer we get on this occasion, it will not merely be a matter of stonewalling and doing nothing. I should not have thought that this Government would like to be remembered as one which could always find difficulties for any solution. However, they have abolished the earnings rule, and we thank them for that.
At the same time, in abolishing the earnings rule, they have created certain anomalies between different classes of pensioners whose needs in many cases are identical. If one proceeds to remove anomalies piecemeal in a field of activity like social security, it is inevitable that, from time to time, further anomalies will be produced, merely by having removed one. All the time we have to look forward to when we have abolished them all, and that cannot be done all at once.
I am concerned with this particular anomaly relating to the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. I have no doubt that there is a substantial demand from the public for the rule to be abolished, because it is a constant cause of frustration and irritation, and many individual citizens are aware that the provisions operate differently between themselves and their neighbours, which leads to social disharmony and discontent. It is an anomalous position about which many hon. Members receive letters with great frequency and regularity.
I do not want to take a purely negative point of view and look merely at reasons why we cannot abolish the earnings rule. There are three compelling reasons favouring its abolition in relation to retirement pensions which ought to make the House feel that it is time that we looked at it.
Firstly, its existence creates anomalies as between one group of pensioners and another. I will come back to that in a little more detail later, but there is always a case for removing anomalies which exist.
1012
Secondly, there is no doubt that the presence of the earnings rule and its application to retirement pensions tends to deprive the economy of potentially valuable contributions which many pensioners could make. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of it, and I do not say that all pensioners could go back immediately to full-time work, but it is the case that many retired people could make quite a valuable contribution to our economy in one way or another, and they are discouraged from doing so by the presence of the earnings rule.
The third and final reason, which I believe to be the most compelling of all, is the social one. The existence of the earnings rule tends to encourage an undesirably abrupt transition from a position of full-time work to sudden and complete retirement. The social consequences of that are considerable, and I will come back to those in due course as well.
I wish to proceed as expeditiously as I can, because I am sure that there are other hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate. I revert to my first reason, the anomalies, and I shall take one example which will illustrate the position and enable hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
With assistance from people who have helped me in this matter, I have discovered three ladies, two sisters and their sister-in-law. Perhaps I may call them "the three sisters". They are not my constituents, and I am not entitled to divulge their identities at this stage. They live together, sharing a flat. So far as I have been able to discover, they have virtually identical requirements in that they live the same sort of life and share the rent, rates and general outgoings of the premises which they occupy jointly.
It so happens that these three ladies work in the same department store, two in one department and the third in another. All are on comparable rates of income and in comparable positions. One sister is a widow, and one is a spinster. Their sister-in-law is a deserted wife. If one assumes that they are each earning rather more than £10 a week in their work, one finds rapidly that their positions are entirely different. They are all between 60 and 65. By virtue of the abolition of the earnings rule, the widow

1013
is in receipt of her pay of a little more than £10 a week and, in addition, has a pension of £4 a week which is untouched. She grosses round about £14 a week.
Her sister, the spinster, who eats exactly the same amount, does not wear twice as many clothes and has no additional outgoings, earns precisely the same amount. The whole of her pension is disqualified because she has reached that stage of earnings which results in the deduction of the total pension. One sister gets £4 a week more than the other, although her contribution to society is no greater. I cannot see how that position can be maintained or how the Government can justify it.
The sister-in-law is in a curious position as a deserted wife. If I were to follow the intricacies of the various anomalies arising from her position, we would be here for hours and I might not be able to disentangle myself from the net. She, too, would be receiving retirement pension were the earnings rule not operating. Her husband lives abroad and has had no contact with her for years. If he died, she would be become £4 a week better off overnight. I do not say that that exists as a constant incentive to the lady to encompass that event, but it points to an extraordinary anomaly whereby a lady's total income will escalate suddenly in that way owing to an event which has no personal impact upon her in terms of her dependence and which has no real relevance, having occurred to someone living a long way away.
I am quite sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept that the presence of anomalies of that kind is socially disadvantageous. It makes for disharmony, for invidious comparisons and for frustration and resentment. Surely there are good positive reasons for getting rid of such anomalies if it should prove possible.
I do not wish to say too much about the contribution to the economy which pensioners could make. Clearly it is a matter which is within the common knowledge of all hon. Members. I do not suggest that pensioners should be encouraged to do more than they are capable of, but there are many pensioners who could be fulfilling valuable rôles. I know that in various parts of the country there is an unemployment problem, but there are many firms who have difficulty in
1014
recruiting employees for employment of the large part-time variety for which pensioners would be peculiarly suitable. From time to time, I have seen such jobs filled to the advantage of the firm concerned and to the ultimate benefit of the people filling them.
I know that it may be argued that there is nothing in the present regulations preventing a person carrying on working after retirement age or stopping a person getting a job. The fact remains that the presence of the earnings rule acts as a continuing disincentive at a time when the incentive should be in the other direction.
Old people—though perhaps I should not call them old when I am talking about women of 60 to 65, and men of 65 to 70—often resent discrimination of this kind. They sometimes suffer from a feeling of inadequacy because they are no longer able to make a contribution to society, and when they find themselves penalised in this way it tends to make them rather resentful and to take the attitude that they will not carry on working if every shilling they earn is to be deducted from their pension. I am not saying that it is reasonable, but I am saying that it does happen in every constituency.
Whatever temporary steps the Government take to deal with the economy, the fact remains that if Britain is to make progress we cannot afford to neglect, or to discard, or to disregard, any contribution which any citizen, of whatever age, can make to it. I believe that we have to move to a situation in which everybody is making the maximum contribution possible, and I believe, further, that at the moment we have a pension system which is tending to militate against that, and tending to act as a disincentive.
I come now to the last of the three reasons, the social considerations. I regard these as the most compelling of all. It is now generally accepted that the process of retirement should be one of gradual adjustment, rather than a sudden, sharp, and often traumatic single step. Doctors, medical officers of health, welfare workers, sociologists and people who are in touch with the problem of retirement take the view that it should be a gradual process, and that we should not continue measures which tend to make it a sudden step.

1015
It is interesting to note in that connection that at a recent conference held under the auspices of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, at which the Government were well represented, there was a good deal of discussion on this question of the process of retirement, how it should be encompassed, and how it should be phased. Indeed, the following Resolution was passed:
"Noting the increasingly clear need to distinguish between the fully active population, those very elderly and fully retired, and an intermediate group neither fully active nor fully retired;
Recommends to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to invite the Governments of the member countries"—
of which we are one—
"to: reconsider traditional ages and financial provisions for retirement in the light of this."
"In the light of this" is relevant to the previous discussion.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Did the hon. Gentleman say "for retirement"?
Dr. Winstanley: Yes, and it is interesting to see what the Report says about a Paper delivered by the French delegate. It says:
"We need to distinguish more sharply than we have done between different classes of old, to encourage those who can still work to do so, and discourage premature retirement … There is a good deal of evidence, for example from earning curves in the independent professions, that older men and women, even if still nominally in full employment, become in practice part-time workers as they move towards retirement age. Conversely, the psychologists as well as the economists remind us that sudden retirement is damaging: it is expensive to the economy and damaging to the pensioner's personality".
It was in the light of comments of that kind that the Conference of the Council of Europe took its decision, which appears to have been enthusiastically supported by Government representatives, by the Chief Medical Statistician from the Central Registry, and also by the Chief Actuary in the Government's Actuary Department. It is was possible for the Government enthusiastically to support that sort of view in Strasbourg, it seems that I am not being too optimistic in expecting them to support the same sort of view here at home.
1016
In many ways that Resolution and that Report say very much what my Motion says. I do not want to elaborate on this point of the social necessity of employing older people, but in my many years in general medical practice I have spent a great deal of time dealing with problems arising purely and simply from retirement, how to manage retirement, how to cope with it, and how to phase one's activities in a period when one begins to go into a decline. In many people I have seen the catastrophic effect which can result from sudden idleness following an extremely busy life.
Among the Members in this House there are quite a few of advanced years but who are far from idle. I hate to think of what would happen to somebody like the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is at present keeping us out of Europe single-handed, if he were suddenly forced to retire. I think he would burst if he were suddenly stopped from leading an active life. We therefore have to look at this problem and decide what is the most desirable phasing for the individual concerned.
The present Regulations act as an incentive to people to stop working suddenly. By bringing in different regulations and by abolishing the earnings rule, we could allow people to phase off their work more gradually in the period of retirement. I am sure that this would be socially advantageous in many ways.
The hon. Gentleman may argue that a person is encouraged to remain at work in many cases because of the increased pension which he may thereby earn. If the hon. Gentleman does the necessary arithmetic—in fact I am sure that he has done it already—he will see that this argument is largely bogus. because a person who elects to continue in full employment—I am not necessarily recommending that people should continue in full work; it should be phased—automatically gives up a pension which amounts to £208 a year for five years, and, also automatically, continues to pay a considerable contribution towards his National Insurance stamp. The forfeiture of pension for five years amounts to £1,040, and his additional contributions amount to £175. Thus, one way or another, he pays £1,215. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that

1017
someone who earns a pension which is increased by £1 a week, which he starts collecting at the age of 70, must be a person of extreme longevity in order to benefit arithmetically. I therefore do not accept the argument that the present provisions, which allow for an increase in the pension to be earned, act as an encouragement to people to remain at work.
Those, generally, are the reasons why I think the House should consider very carefully whether the earnings rule should be maintained—the importance of removing anomalies, the importance of seeing that we do not deprive ourselves of the important contribution to the economy which could be made by more fit and old people continuing to work, even though they may continue to work to a limited extent, and, finally, the extremely important social considerations.
With regard to the social considerations, it must be remembered that a great part of the social services are occupied dealing almost exclusively with the problems caused by sudden retirement. Whenever this proposal has come forward in the past, there has been a tendency for the Government to make sympathetic noises, and to produce terrifying sums of what it would cost, in order to explain that it cannot be done. I accept that one has to do the arithmetic to see what this proposal would cost, although my right hon. and my hon. Friends and I would prefer to see this money collected in a different way, and based on a graduated payroll tax to replace the present S.E.T.
We accept that, in whatever way we collect it, it will cost money. But the calculation is incomplete if it merely consists of a computation of one side of the account—the side showing how much it would cost. The Minister ought to endeavour at the same time to calculate the other side of the account and discover how much it would earn—how much it would save in terms of an additional contribution to the economy, and how much it would save the welfare services generally if they were not perpetually involved in sorting out the sometimes quite serious social problems arising from retirement. I do not say that we can say that £X or £Y will be saved; nevertheless, the amount saved must he considerable.
1018
There are appealing reasons for getting rid of the earnings rule finally and, therefore, getting rid of the anomalies and so assisting this limited group of people—women between the ages of 60 and 65 and men between the ages of 65 and 70. If we could do this it would bring conspicuous advantages. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised this question on many occasions, and I hope that at the end of the day those hon. Members opposite who have frequently expressed this point of view will support my Motion. If they decide not to support it, I hope that they will stop stumping round the country telling people that they do not agree with the earnings rule, and want to see it abolished.
The Motion does not call for abolition tomorrow or the day after; it merely seeks an expression of opinion by the Government that they finally recognise that the earnings rule is anomalous and unfair and that it is having certain undesirable social effects, and it calls upon the House to take a firm decision to seize an early opportunity to abolish it. I hope that the House will support my Motion.
4.22 p.m.
Mr. Philip Holland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on his choice of subject, but I cannot help feeling that, in spite of the long list of reasons he gave for urging the abolition of the earnings rule, he has missed the nub of the argument in favour of his proposal. His arguments are valid only to a degree which varies with each reason he gives, and therefore they are to this extent arguable and partly answerable. I want to support his proposal with an argument which I believe goes to the heart of the matter, and which in my opinion is unanswerable. I am sure that he will not complain about that.
The earnings rule can be justified only so long as our National Insurance Scheme is based upon the Beveridge principle of providing benefits against the interruption and loss of earning power. If the reason for benefits is a loss of earning power, a person whose earning power is not impaired cannot receive benefit. This is the basic argument against abolishing the earnings rule. But, as we know, the reason for basing the National Insurance Scheme on this principle was that the Beveridge Committee's deliberations were

1019
carried out against a background of the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Today, massive unemployment can occur only if the Government grossly mismanage our economy. There is no excuse for it, with the "know-how" that we have today. The Government today think they have all the international brains they need to help them avoid this catastrophe in the future.
Last summer the Prime Minister told us that he expected little more than a seasonal rise in unemployment in the autumn and winter. No matter what we might think, if the Government believe that we are not going to return to the massive unemployment of the 1930s they must work on the assumption that massive unemployment is no longer the raison d'être for a National Insurance Scheme. In that case, the Beveridge principle is no longer relevant.
We have an idea of the Government's attitude to the Beveridge principle from what was said on 13th June this year in the Committee on the Social Security Bill. The Minister of Social Security then said:
"In these last months we have breached Beveridge principle time and time again. I do not think it is a sacred principle."
She then went on to cast doubts on her own words by giving as examples of breaches of the Beveridge principle improvements in the benefits that are still being paid against the interruption and loss of earning power. She gave an example of strengthening the principle and called it an example of a breach of principle. In fact, the only breach of this basic principle during the years since Beveridge was the one last year—the abolition of the earnings rule for widows who are widowed over the age of 50. The Minister did not mention this in the examples that she gave last June, so I assume that it was a purely accidental breach of principle and not a deliberate act of policy.
The hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out that by taking this one abolition in isolation some of the anomalies about which he has been talking were created. Nevertheless, in the same debate on 13th June, the right hon. Lady said, categorically:
"I am not in the least worried about the principles of Beveridge. The Beveridge Report was a wonderful job and all right for its time,
1020
but we are in a very different time today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1160.]
I agree wholeheartedly with her words. I hope that when she made that statement she was doing more than using a mere platitudinous form of words, but unhappily her attitude as revealed by her actions since is not very encouraging.
It is important that the House should know whether the Minister now renounces the interruption and loss of earning power as the basis for paying National Insurance benefit. It would also be helpful to know what new principle she suggests putting in its place. As an Opposition back bench member it is not incumbent upon me to spell out the details or make proposals or suggestions to the Government about what should be done, but because I am anxious to see improvements in social security—and I do not care who gets the credit so long as we get the improvements—I would like to make a suggestion to the Government.
I suggest that the criterion for paying benefits should not be the interruption and loss of earning power, as it is today, but simply the criterion of poverty. This is more in keeping with present times and the problems of today. If the loss of earning power is no longer the criterion for paying benefits the earnings rule becomes irrelevant. If poverty becomes the criterion for paying benefits, other than a straight return on contributions paid, much of the saving on subsidies now being paid to people who do not need them should offset some of the costs of abolishing the earnings rule for those who do. But it is not a simple arithmetical sum, because with the change of the whole basis of the National Insurance Scheme as the reason for paying benefits the whole thing goes into the melting pot and everything is altered, with repercussions right across the board.
A decision would have to be taken, first, on where to draw the line between "poverty" and "adequate means". Until that line is drawn, it is impossible to do the sums. Nevertheless, this does not affect the argument. Any Government who have the will to do something can always find the means. If the Minister is determined enough, and if the Minister without Portfolio can achieve the backing of the Cabinet, the sop of sympathetic words can readily be

1021
translated into constructive action. I hope that this will be so, but past experience persuades me that such a hope may join the long list of pious hopes expressed by back benchers on both sides during the series of social security debates in 1966. But if firm Government action, early in 1967, proves my fear to be groundless, with the hon. Member for Cheadle and certainly with a large number of National Insurance beneficiaries, I shall have a very happy New Year.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: The subject of the Motion is not a new one. The earnings rule for retired pensioners has been with us for some time. I clearly remember the early debates on this subject. One of the great opponents of any abolition of the earnings rule was the trade union movement, which was very conscious that the retired pensioner might be used as cheap labour. Circumstances have changed remarkably. The trade union movement today is no longer afraid of that happening and feels itself strong enough to prevent this kind of pressure being brought on old age pensioners.
Nevertheless, we must consider the earnings rule as applied to pensioners with great care. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) talked about Beveridge. In the early stages, many possible changes were not made because we were too conscious of Beveridge and too anxious to stand by the six ideas which he put forward. We have left behind that idea. Particularly with regard to widows with children, we departed from it a long time ago. I was happy that we did.
The hon. Gentleman propounded a new conception today, which he himself will, on consideration, recognise is far removed from Beveridge. The idea that all benefits should be paid because of loss of earnings or earning capacity got us into a great deal of trouble with the 10s. widows and others, but this principle still applies for pensioners and it would be dangerous to get too far away from it—
Mr. Holland: The distinction which I was trying to make was between loss of earning power and poverty. We might find, if we recast the whole thing on the
1022
basis of poverty, that some pensioners who were retired from work were not in such need as other pensioners. The line must be drawn somewhere, even for pensioners and I would not exclude them.
Mr. Steele: I was coming to the subject of poverty. I understand the hon. Gentleman's approach. He might think that mine is rather illogical, but the House has determined the line which he mentions, that under the new system—it was called National Assistance but now has some other name, although its basis is still the same—there is a line below which people will not fall. The unfortunate thing is that we also have the wages stop. People who are working are sometimes denied the full rate which this House laid down as the minimum because they are unable to earn the amount of money which we said that they should earn.
My criticism has never been of the Government, but of the trade union movement, because it has never been able to obtain for people in industry the minimum that this House laid down. There may be problems about children. In future, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security and the other Members of the Government may be thinking of a new approach to family allowances to overcome that problem. What the hon. Member for Carlton said about poverty interested me and I was also interested in what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said about this subject being something which ought to be weighed in the balance.
Let us consider the two propositions. The hon. Member for Carlton says poverty should be measured; the hon. Member for Cheadle says that we must weigh in the balance the advantage of having these men at work and what it costs the nation the other way. I have another consideration, which falls between these two. A number of Questions on this point answered by my right hon. Friend show that to wipe out altogether the earnings rule would cost £110 million a year; perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that figure.
This is a fairly large sum, but the hon. Member for Cheadle seems to be unaware of who will get it. It is not the 20,000 people who are at the moment caught up by the earnings rule, because if

1023
we abolish it altogether, all those people who are at present working because they deferred their retirement would all be treated as retired and have to get this money. How will the people who are working and deferred their retirement be considered by the hon. Member? He talked about the poverty line. The person who is able to work and continues to work will get his wages and retirement pension and is bound to be above the poverty line—
Mr. Holland: Whether the man will get his benefit for working will depend on his earnings. This would determine whether he was below the line and would get the benefit or above the line and would not get it. This is the point of having another criterion.
Mr. Steele: The criterion which the hon. Gentleman now mentions smells very like the means test to me. How can we make a decision? Either the man will get his retirement pension plus the wages he has earned, which I imagine would be well above the poverty line or, the hon. Member now says, the matter must be decided by some other criteria—and how can it be decided unless by a means test, which I should not like at all. I believe that if we have £110 million to add to the purchasing power of the people, then we ought to consider carefully where to give it. I am not sure that we ought to give it to the pensioner who is over 65 but is still working.
Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Member, I am sure inadvertently, is distorting my argument. I was not so concerned with the immediate recipients of the £110 million, or whatever the sum is, as with the effect of the change of the rule on those already receiving the pension and not working. I argued strongly that it was a social necessity, not purely the necessity of those people who would get the additional money.
Mr. Steele: I understand the hon. Member, and I hope to come to my own solution, but I feel that the first candidate for the £110 million ought not to be the man between 65 and 70 who is still working. There are other people who would be the first candidates.
It seems to me that one problem which has arisen is that the amount paid to a
1024
man for delaying his retirement is not sufficient. We must give a greater incentive to the men who stay at work. The incentive given at present to the man between 65 and 70 is not sufficient. May I give an example? One old-age pensioner worked from 65 to 70 and earned all the increments to which he was entitled and then retired at 70; and he complained very bitterly to me that he was no better off, in that people who had not worked from 65 to 70 but who had drawn the retirement pension, were now getting more money per week than he got because of the assistance to which they were entitled. This is wrong. We all must agree that it is wrong. This is why I am delighted that the National Insurance Advisory Committee is at present looking at the whole question of this type of benefit and what ought to be done. I strongly urge that we should look very carefully at the question of the increments, which are now out of balance with the other part of the scheme.
We now have graduated benefits for sickness and graduated benefits for unemployment, and we also have the redundancy scheme. I heard an interesting criticism recently of the redundancy scheme at one of my own Labour Party meetings. I said that it was a helpful criticism for it was the first time that a group of Labour people had ever criticised a Labour Government for being too generous, and that was the kind of criticism to which I did not object.
While I agree that we must have a good hard look at many aspects of our social benefits, I believe that we should be wrong to take the abolition of the earnings rule for the retired pensioner as our first priority. The £110 million which I mentioned could be put to far better use. I strongly urge that the Government in their reconsideration of this matter should think very hard about increasing the increments for men who work between 65 and 70, because these are the people we want to encourage to go on working.
When I gave lectures on social security in the early days I used to say that the difference between a man and a woman in retirement is very simple: the woman never retires. She goes on from day to day doing the same kind of thing as she has always done. But the man who

1025
retires completely changes, for he has to find some other new outlet. I beg your pardon, in advance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I go on to say that such a man only becomes a damned nuisance about the house. We ought to encourage these people to go on working, and the best way to do that is to give attractive increments to enable them to do so.
Dr. Winstanley: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put a question to him? Much of his argument has been about which group is in the greatest need. Would he at least accept that the excellent investigation by the Ministry, published under the title "Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners", shows that the plight of spinsters between 60 and 65 is every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the plight of widows between 60 and 65 for whom the earnings rule has already been abolished?
Mr. Steele: I am always hesitant to talk about spinsters. I remember very well the passage of the Act in 1946 when my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport was very active in the Committee. One day she argued about equality for women in respect of contributions, benefits and so on, and the next week she argued for special consideration for spinsters. The trouble about women is that they always want to have it both ways. Either they must have equality in respect of contributions and benefits or they must decide that they are women, that they are the weaker sex and that they are entitled to more advantages, They must make up their minds.
If one looks at the longevity tables one finds that women live longer than men. They will, therefore, be a greater burden on the insurance scheme, if I may use that unfortunate phrase. But I am very conscious of this problem, which was very much in my mind when I was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, when we received a deputation from spinsters. In their plea this deputation indicated the effect of World War I and World War II on their circumstances. When they told us that their situation arose because of what had happened in those wars and that but for those wars they might have been in a far happier situation, there was no answer to that plea. All I can say is that we are con-
1026
scious of that situation, but I am not so sure that spinsters want to be treated in a special way, although they are so treated at present.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I am surprised by one statement in this Motion, namely, that the application of the earnings rule to retirement pensioners produces
"undesirable anomalies between different classes of pensioners, depriving the nation of potentially valuable contributions to the economy and having adverse effects upon the mental and physical well-being of individual pensioners by encouraging an undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement …"
Obviously, there are psychological difficulties for someone who has been engaged in manual work all his life and who is suddenly deprived of that manual work, staying at home with his wife who, after a few weeks, regards him as a bit of a nuisance around the place.
I suggest, however, to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) who, like myself, is reaching the age of retirement—though I believe I am a little in advance of him—that one can always find work to do at home. I remember visiting a retired friend of mine. He lived in a semi-detached villa. When I visited him he was coming out of the gate with a shopping bag. He had been retired for about 12 months. I said, "How are you enjoying it?" He said, "Terrible. My missus is the worst employer I have ever had." She had him cleaning windows and shopping. The man was always busy. In fact, he lost weight after he retired. He was working harder than he had ever worked in his life. This is a situation for which one must prepare oneself. When one retires, there are many jobs that can be done at home and if one does those jobs one will not be a nuisance.
This abrupt change from retirement is not due to an inability to function, the change is felt because of the abrupt loss of income.
Dr. Winstanley: No, it is a sudden transition of the rôle of the individual in society. I have seen old men, and not so old men, weep after a relatively short time in retirement merely because

1027
of their feelings of inadequacy, the feeling that they were no longer part of society and making a contribution. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that there are many people in this position.
Mr. Bence: My experience is that the immediate reaction is this terrific feeling of loss of income.
Mr. Brian O'Malley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right when he says that one thing which immediately worries many people when they retire is the loss of income, but at the same time my hon. Friend ought to give some weight to what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said. One thing that is noticeable is the number of men who, having had a long working life, suddenly begin to crack up when they retire. I wish my hon. Friend would consider how important it is when men suddenly find themselves apparently not wanted in society. The hon. Member for Cheadle is quite right.
Mr. Bence: I have been forestalled of course. The first reaction is to this severe loss of income. However, it is not long before—I have seen this so many times—notwithstanding the fact that people get used to a drop in their income after a time, they feel that they have no rôle to play in society. I believe that the drop in income contributes to this feeling. One does not have this feeling immediately after retirement. The first sense of loss relates to one's diminished income. After a time—I have many friends in this situation—people get this awful feeling that society does not want them, that they have no rôle to play and they have nothing to do.
Quite apart from ill health, I think this is a problem with which we are all faced eventually. Most of us are aware of the possibility. Men leave Parliament and they find other things to do, though I agree that it is not everyone who can find another occupation. I recognise this fact, but that happens whether we have an earnings-related rule or not. Instead of it happening at 65, it happens at 70 years of age. The fact is that it happens. I know a man who will be 88 in February. He has been retired since he was
1028
65 years of age. He is absolutely bored to tears. His income is all right—
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, when he says that the social attitude to retirement is wrong, I believe he is drawing the right conclusion from the wrong facts. He is approaching the problem from the wrong end. We have to start planning for retirement much earlier in our working life and come to terms with what is involved in it, from the point of view of work and the social conditions and stresses.
Mr. Bence: Yes, there is no doubt that because of centuries of working and toiling until one drops, we have never considered preparing ourselves for retirement. Very few men and women prepare themselves five or six years before retirement. I agree with my hon. Friend that because of a long historical background of working until one collapses, because people could not retire and did not have the means to do so, we have never considered—in fact, we do not consider today—preparing elderly people for the leisure that will come to them later in life. We do this with children. We talk about educating our young people for leisure. We talk of widening the scope of education so that young people can enjoy greater leisure in a society where probably the working week will be one of four or five days. But we do not do anything of the sort for old people.
Mr. Holland: There are courses for retirement run by a large number of companies in industry during the last five years of the working lives of their employees.
Mr. Bence: This, I think, makes my point. One of our priorities in the use of funds, if there are funds at our disposal for old people, is to create the conditions in which they can spend their retirement using their faculties and capacities. But to do it in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Cheadle would only create more anomalies.
Reference has been made to anomalies between retirement pensions and widows' pensions. But there are other anomalies. Policemen retire at 55 with good pensions, and they take other employment, still drawing their pensions. Teachers retire, and as long as they are not employed in education they can take on other work

1029
and still draw their pensions. Civil servants can retire after 40 years' service and work in other fields, and they do not lose any of their pension.
The proposal before the House would not change those anomalies. A widow's pension must not be confused with what is called the retirement pension. A widow's pension is not based on retirement; it arises from the loss of a partner who was the sole source of income of the family. Therefore, the abolition of the earnings rule for the widow is different from abolishing the earnings rule in respect of retirement pensions. If we abolish the earnings rule, the pension is not a retirement pension; it is a pension at 65 years of age. With the introduction of the earnings rule the designation "retirement pension" can be abolished and one is left with a pension at 65.
There are many institutions that give pensions at 65 years of age. One can take out annuities with insurance companies. One gets an annuity at 65 years of age, whether one is working or not. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the State should do that?
Dr. Winstanley indicated assent.
Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should run it in exactly the same way. If we did that on an actuarial basis right across the whole of our society, including widows' pensions and retirement pensions, I do not know whether it would be viable. I doubt very much whether the cost would justify the benefits that it would bring to people about to retire.
Dr. Winstanley: I said that the important object was the abolition of the earnings rule relating to retirement pensions for men between 65 and 70 and women between 60 and 65. In so far as that was my object, I nodded assent. I go no further.
Mr. Bence: It would be far better if we enlarged the concept of pensions related to earnings. A man could work until he was 70 and then earn a higher related pension. With a higher pension related to his earnings, the abruptness of retirement of which I have spoken would not be so bad as it is now, especially for a man earning £18, £20 or £25 a week. That initial abrupt break being less
1030
severe, the problem of the other break, the feeling of not having a rôle to perform, or of not being able to function in a useful way in society, could be solved.
I therefore believe that the best way to solve the problem is progressively to raise income-related retirement pensions as far as we can, not in the very trivial way provided by the graduated pension but in a better income-related retirement pension, whether paid at 65 or 70. One could make it progressive between 65 and 70.
I cannot speak for all the professions—I was in the engineering industry. But I believe that the time will come, even in my lifetime, when the task of executives at some of the top levels will be too much for them when they have passed the age of 55. The pressure in industry and management is great, and, even on the factory floor, with high-speed machines it is often such that when a man is 65 he may not longer be able to perform his particular function.
For men to continue then in many forms of industry in machine shops and on some of the automated processes involving conveyor belts would not he desirable. This is not an argument in support of my case; I am trying to be fair to all the cases. It would very often be better if a man were retired from such a process at, perhaps, 55 and he should have an opportunity to enter some other activity.
I used to say that it seemed to me that I was born to be a tool-maker and would be a tool-maker all my life. Fortunately, I was not. But when I look back over my life I think that it would have been a good thing if I could have moved through many different occupations.
Miss Mervyn Pike: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the pattern of employment in the future will probably be that people have two or three different jobs during their working life?
Mr. Bence: That is my point, that people could move through various functions in life. We talk about redeployment of labour, and we now have the training boards. There are many ways in which a man who has retired from industry at 55, 60, 65, or whatever the retirement age is, could well be employed in the training centres. With a little

1031
training in the techniques of teaching and conveying his skills, arts or understanding of a particular organisation, he could be usefully employed in all sorts of institutions and organisations that may be created in the future because of the need in our scientific and technological age to move people from one form of employment to another.
But I do not think that the abolition of the earnings rule on retirement pensions would help that in any way. If the earnings rule were abolished there would be a tendency for men to stay in a job which it would be better for them to leave. If they were retired and could be brought into institutions where—
Mr. John Pardoe: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very carefully. Can he tell me why his arguments do not apply to the widows' earnings rule, and why all the disadvantages of abolishing the earnings rule for men are not applicable to widows?
Mr. Bence: There are schemes under which a wife with children who becomes a widow can undergo training for all sorts of jobs. She may have been a housewife for 15 or 20 years and not have been in employment since she married. She can get training in all sorts of skills and then go into other occupations. I say that this could also be done with people who are retired. It would be better to use the taxpayers' resources to do that sort of thing than in abolishing the earnings rule. If one abolishes the earnings rule, employers in general will keep on people who the hon. Gentleman says in his Motion perform a useful function. But, speaking as an industrial worker, I know many men working in industry on machines at the age of 60 who could do other work on retirement, especially in view of the new training boards and all sorts of new social institutions that may be created.
Miss Pike: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is saying that the £110 million that would be spent if the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) got his way would be better spent on training people to do other jobs like lecturing in training colleges and so on. But I do not see how those men will be encouraged to go on to use that training if the earnings rule is still applicable.
Mr. Bence: If a person is retired at 55 or 60 from a particular industry—
Miss Pike: I am sorry—after the age of 60. I probably misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I was not considering it at 55.
Mr. Bence: I think that in 20 years' time the retirement age will be reduced in many branches of industry, and in some cases where it is now 60 it will be 55. I believe that many of the middle and senior executives could do very useful work outside an industrial unit in industrial training boards and various institutions that may well be created as a result of changes in our social structure and changes in the techniques of management and administration in modern industry.
It seems to me that to recognise this and at the same time to abolish the earnings rule, looking upon its abolition as an instrument to avoid abrupt retirement from a man's function, is an anomaly in itself. I do not see how that can be possible.
I take the example of a designer in an engineering plant retired at 60—he would probably not retire at 55—who was then kept on. If the earnings rule were applied, the probability would be a tendency, certainly if it were a smaller company, to take into account that he would still pick up his retirement pension. I do not say that the large organisations would do this, but I have no doubt that in many industries in which competition was very strong there would be pressure to depress incomes or salaries at that level in those circumstances.
Dr. Winstanley: This is relevant to the point which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) made about the attitude of the unions. Will not the hon. Gentleman agreed that this is happening at present in a slightly different way? With the application of the earnings rule, there is a tendency now for incomes to be depressed because the people on retirement pensions have an incentive to keep their incomes below levels at which the rule would apply. What the hon. Gentleman fears is already happening as a result of the earnings rule, therefore, and people are prepared to accept low wages because they know that any more would go back to the Exchequer.
Mr. Bence: I accept that that may be so in certain cases, but a general abolition of the earnings rule would mean that many employers would tend to think of people between, say, 55 and 70 years of age in terms of a deflated income scale at the particular level of function. Over the years, if the earnings rule were abolished for people between 65 and 70 years of age, there might well be a depressing effect on the rewards and general income level of people working at certain functions in an industry.
Although I have a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Cheadle has suggested, I feel that, if one looks at pensions and retirement right across the board, it is clear that the better way is to concentrate our priorities on an improved relationship between retirement pension and average earnings for the individual during, say, the last three or five years of his working life. I regard this as of more importance.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Brian O'Malley: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) for raising this subject today. We are all conscious of the problems confronting the whole range of citizens who reach retirement age, including the wives of men who retire from work. Before coming to the Motion itself—I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives and I have every sympathy with them—I think it right to sketch in the background to the situation which we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Cheadle will be the first to recognise the efforts which this Government have made, in very difficult economic circumstances, to ameliorate the conditions of the people about whom he is concerned. In his Motion, the hon. Gentleman speaks of the nation being deprived of
"potentially valuable contributions to the economy"
by retired people who are not working. Before the House can come to a decision on a matter of this kind, it should understand what the situation is and what the balance between people over 65 and the rest of the working population is. It is fundamental to the argument that the trend in the post-war period has been, and it will in future increasingly be, that the working part of the population aged under 65 will become a smaller propor-
1034
tion of the population as the total increases. There is now an increasing number of men and women over 65 in relation to the total population, and this increase will continue, so far as we can foresee, for the rest of the century.
Looking at the economic realities, therefore, one must ask how we can encourage men and women over retirement age to carry on and make a contribution to the economy. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we must do what we can as a nation to encourage them to do so. Hon. Members opposite have had a lot of things to say in the past few months about the National Plan. In spite of present difficulties, it is undeniable that, once the present phase of the economic cycle is over—over for the last time, I hope—we are likely to have a chronic manpower gap in British industry. For this reason, all of us on both sides must support the hon. Member for Cheadle in his general proposition that the Government, any Government, must do what they can, within the possibilities open to them and considering the economic circumstances at any time, to encourage these people to play a larger part in the nation's economy.
In his Motion, the hon. Gentleman speaks of the
"undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement".
In my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), I said that I agreed with that. All of us will know from personal experience of many individuals who have retired at 65, apparently fit and well both mentally and physically, but who, within a few weeks or months, have completely changed not only in their mental but in their physical well being. I am sometimes surprised by what I see of this in my home town and in my constituency. Men who have been working in the coal mines and who retire apparently fit at 65 years of age sometimes, quite quickly after retirement, find themselves going downhill physically.
There is one qualification which should be made here, however, when we speak of the desirability of encouraging people to work longer and contribute to the economy. There are some industries and occupations in which I would not want people to work any longer, once they

1035
have served their lives there. I say this as a Member whose father worked the whole of his working life in the coal mines. I am entirely at one with those who suggest that, for example, people who have worked in the coal industry or in the heavy end of the steel industry might well be given opportunities to work in more congenial jobs. This would be helpful.
When I see—this is really going against the hon. Member for Cheadle; however, I think that he perhaps agrees with me because I see him nodding—the work put in in some of our heavy industries, not only would I say that the people concerned should not work after 65, but I would like to see them, as is done in some other countries, finishing work of that type before they are 65. I am pleased that the hon. Member is in agreement with me on that.
Therefore, with this background and with sympathies of this kind—I do not think that there is anything between me and the hon. Member on this—we look at the position of retirement pensioners after 65 and say "How do we encourage them to work, and how do we prevent difficulties of the transition?" As the hon. Member said, some firms do something by providing training courses for retirement. I understand that a large firm in my constituency which is soon to be publicly owned does this, and I regard it as a very valuable kind of course to be run.
But when one attempts to answer those questions one immediately runs into an enormous number of difficulties. It was suggested, for example, when there was a discussion on the abolition of the earnings rule for widows, that anomalies were created or that if one does one thing, then certain other things follow. This is always the problem. If one is involved in legislation on social security or, particularly, taxation, and does something for a desirable reason, other things flow which are less desirable. This is one of the problems that the Government—any Government—and the House of Commons must face up to, that as soon as one implements something desirable, something less desirable flows from it. One has to consider how to get round the problem.
Therefore, while I am agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the two objects that
1036
he is trying to achieve—that people should be encouraged to work so that they can make a contribution to the economy after they would normally have retired, and that the abrupt transition, which I think is a fact in many cases, should be prevented—one comes to the point: What can a Government do about it? Obviously, any Government must consider the matter in the light of the economic circumstances of the time and also the general philosophy which must underly the social policy of the Government.
One of the major difficulties is as follows. The hon. Member said that the cost to the Exchequer would be in the region of £110 million. If the Exchequer can afford to spend from within its budget £110 million on this purpose, I would agree with him wholeheartedly. But there is a difficulty, and it is the difficulty in a democracy. There are a large number of spending Ministries within a Government, all of which require funds. We have all said on election platforms and in this House that we want better schools for our children. The hon. Gentleman spoke about primary schools the other day. Governments are under pressure from organisations and individuals who want an increased amount of money spent on the roads.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: One of the problems in education is where we are to find the teachers. Many retired teachers would be encouraged to go back to work by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley).
Mr. O'Malley: I am completely in agreement with the hon. Member. I believe that he imagines that there is a difference between us; it does not exist. I am posing the question which his hon. Friend posed: how do we deal with this? I was a teacher for a time and I know the difficulties, particularly in industrial areas like mine, where schools have a chronic shortage of teachers. Throughout a whole period of years a staff may be three or four short and supply teachers will be coming in all the time. There is always the difficulty of maintaining reasonable class levels. So I am certainly in agreement with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).
Mr. Will Griffiths: I appreciate the argument

1037
that my hon. Friend is advancing. Has he considered that if the earnings rule were abolished the Revenue would be considerably fortified by the increased spending power of the pensioners? Therefore, a great deal would accrue to the Chancery through spending by pensioners on objects which carry indirect taxation as well as direct taxation.
Mr. O'Malley: Yes, indeed. This was what I wanted to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. We were told that the proposal would cost £110 million. Would it be as much as that? I hope that the Government will do something about this in the full-scale review which they are carrying out in which these problems and facts must inevitably he dealt with. I hope that the Minister will say something about this.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the problem of a democracy, particularly with a Government like the present one, where a whole range of problems has to be dealt with and vast amounts of money are needed, partly because of neglect in the past, but partly because of the problems that one will always have in a democracy which is a humane one. It is really the problem that the demands of the democracy and the citizens within it will always tend to outrun the economic and financial resources. I should not be surprised if that was not one of the problems which the Chancellor and the Government are having to contend with at this time. All I say is that in terms of expenditure, whatever the amount of that expenditure—whether it is £110 million or a very much reduced sum in view of what has just been said—there would he some financial cost to the Treasury, and that has to be fitted into the priorities.
I am hoping that the Government will soon be able to announce that they will be able to give some kind of increase generally to retirement pensioners. I am very much aware that it was the present Government which gave the largest increase for very many years when they took office in October, 1964. I am hoping that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that in order to assist precisely the people about whom the hon. Member for Cheadle has been talking. I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman about this, and I hope that he will recognise that this genuinely is a problem, that while between him and
1038
me there is nothing because I should like to see the earnings rule for retirement pensioners abolished, I appreciate that it would create some difficulties and anomalies. I can also understand the attitude of the Government; they are subjected to pressures from spending Departments, and some kind of priorities obviously have to be determined in this regard.
Dr. Winstanley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that I put this precise point to the Minister, saying that it was no good his coming along with one side of the sum and saying what it would cost unless at the same time he came along with a computation of how much it would save in a variety of ways apart from those which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Member for Cheadle is raising a similar point to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths). It is important that we should have some information about that—I see that the hon. Member is nodding, and I am glad that he is with me on this—bearing in mind that there genuinely is a problem arising from the pressure on the Government.
The second aspect is how to keep people at work. A great deal could be done by employers to make part time work available for many people who would like a job but cannot get it. In my area, there are large numbers of such men and women, some of whom I see in my surgery on Saturday mornings. They want a part time job but cannot find one.
This is not just a question of the earnings rule. Other factors are involved, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this. I know that it is not strictly speaking the concern of his Department, but I hope that he can tell us what kind of advice or encouragement the Ministry of Labour is giving or what advice or encouragement it could give to employers to provide part time work for retirement pensioners.
Miss Pike: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Selective Employment Tax has made it more difficult than ever

1039
for these people to get the part time work he is talking about?
Mr. O'Malley: Everyone recognised the need for some deflation when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. At the time I would have preferred another fiscal weapon to the S.E.T. in order to achieve the objective. But I want to know the evidence on this matter. Some months ago I asked a supplementary question of my hon. Friend concerning the barriers to part time employment. In my area—and I have made some inquiries—I can find no evidence at the moment of the effect mentioned by the hon. Lady. To help the economy and to spread the transition into retirement, part-time employment could be very helpful, and I hope that we shall hear what the Ministry of Labour is doing or can do to encourage it.
Financial inducements are the nub of the Motion. While we can do a number of things to get people to take on part-time employment after retirement, none is more important than financial inducement. The question, therefore, becomes what kind of financial inducement should be offered. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman speaks of abolishing the earnings rule, but we must consider this within the context of Government spending generally. There is probably a case in terms of manpower for raising quite sharply the benefits which would accrue to anyone who carried on work after the age of 65. There is some such inducement at the moment but perhaps the Government could consider—they may be already considering it in their full-scale inquiry—what it would cost to increase quite sharply the benefits which would accrue to anyone who worked for a year or two or several years after the normal retiring age. I have the impression that, if there were quite a substantial inducement here, it would go a long way to help the situation.
5.35 p.m.
Miss Mervyn Pike: I am sure that we have all enjoyed this debate, which has been useful and interesting and gives an opportunity to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give, as I hope he will, the conclusions that have been reached by the National Insurance
1040
Advisory Council on this point. In February, the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security referred this question to the Council and said that she hoped that it would report very soon. She stressed that she considered the matter of some urgency.
Although I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, I am not asking today for the complete abolition of the earnings rule, largely because we recognise that there are two important arguments against such total abolition. The first must be the financial considerations. Any Government faced with a bill for £110 million or £120 million extra must think hard and deep about the priorities at this time of financial stringency. Then there are the theological considerations, as I call them, of the retirement principle itself.
First, then, the financial implications. We have not yet heard what the Minister has to say, and he may tell us that the Government have decided to abolish the earnings rule. But even if the Government have decided that it is right to abolish the earnings rule in principle, he will no doubt claim that, in the present economic and financial difficulties, it would be irresponsible to press for complete abolition now. That is why it is important to have answers to the questions that several hon. Members have put.
It is important to re-examine the estimates which have been made of the cost of abolishing the earnings rule completely. In 1964, the Minister without Portfolio said that it would cost £120 million. Today we have heard the figure of £110 million. It may be nearer £130 million. We would likes to hear the latest estimate, and also to be told how it has been calculated.
As the hon. Member for Cheadle and others have said, this figure could rest on the unrealistic assumption that all the 400,000 men and women now at work beyond retirement age would immediately stop work and collect their pensions. This would not be the case. Surely, in the expanding economy which we hope to resume once again, the work done by a number of people working past retirement age would add considerably to the gross national product, quite apart from

1041
the money brought in by extra spending capacity and the savings that would be made in the social services. All this would have an impact on the economy as a whole. Quite apart from all this, there would be added wealth from the extra earning power at a time when we were trying to extend the economy as fast as possible.
If we are not asking for complete abolition now, surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the time is well overdue for a relaxation of the rule. During the Committee stage of the National Insurance Act, 1964, when rejecting an Opposition Amendment to raise the earnings rule by 20s., the Minister without Portfolio said:
"The normal reason for relaxing the earnings rule is to keep the condition of the rule in harmony with the rise in wages, to keep the two things on some sort of relationship. The Committee will appreciate that wages have not risen since March of this year by an amount which would justify relaxing the rule by 20s. at this moment. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 843.]
Since May, 1963, when the earnings rule was last relaxed, male industrial earnings have risen by 25 per cent, to £20 a week on average and, therefore, the case for relaxing the earnings rule is, on the Government's own argument, very strong indeed. If the Government still feel that, in view of the very difficult financial consideration, a 20s. rise in the rule would be too big, why should we not have something less, 15s. or 10s., because surely some relaxation of the rule is now overdue? It has been relaxed on three different occasions, but the present rule limit of £5 is quite unrealistic in view of the different increases in costs and the fall in the value of money.
The most powerful argument in this respect is surely for an increase in the deferment increments. This is a subject first mentioned today by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who was followed by others. Surely the time is now well overdue for an increase in the increments which are earned by continuing to work after pensionable age has been reached. I will not go into the arithmetic—hon. Members have already done that, although I do not know whether it was accurate—for the Parliamentary Secretary has all the re-
1042
sources of the Ministry to deal with the arithmetic.
The theory of the increments has always been that they should be related to the amount of pension forgone, and there has been no increase in the increment since 1959, although there have been three increases in pension, two under the Tory Government and one under the present Government. An increase in the increment is not only overdue, but would go a long way to meeting the case which was argued today. So much for the powerful arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt be able to bring forward on the subject of cost. We all recognise these arguments, but we feel that what we have said would go some way towards meeting them.
There are no doubt many hon. Members who bring forward the argument of principle, what I call the theological argument on this subject. It is a principle which we ought to consider again. Surely the time has come for a realistic appraisal of the whole problem of retirement. Most of the debate today has concentrated on the human and social problems of retirement rather than the economic consequences which flow from it.
Beveridge based his philosophy on two main assumptions—that the retirement pension would be enough to live on, which is never has been and presumably for some time will not be, and, secondly, that there might be a recurrence of mass unemployment so that it was desirable to encourage people to retire. That point of view is now wholly out of date and is accepted by nobody. In the present economic and social climate we want people to stay in work.
Mr. Will Griffiths: The hon. Lady is reminding us of a situation which has continued since the war. Why did not she and her associates in office do something about the earnings rule for widows and widowed mothers? I introduced a Private Members' Bill twice, and they blocked it.
Miss Pike: I am saying that I think that the time has now come to look at that principle. My right hon. Friends argued at that time, as no doubt many hon. Members opposite will now argue, that we could not have any more anomalies, because once an anomaly crept in

1043
there was increased pressure to permit others. For a long time people held to this principle. I am saying that it is now time to look at the whole principle of the retirement pension.
We must encourage people to stay at work if we are to have an expanding economy. This we all accept on purely economic grounds. We must have an expanded labour force, and even in the technological revolution, which we hope will gain momentum, we shall need not fewer people—there might be a different pattern of employment—but more people actively employed in the community as a whole, not necessarily so many on production lines, but more people in all sorts of different kinds of employment as our society moves forward.
There will be this change in the pattern of employment and I believe that there will be increasing demands for people in the social services. All the proposals which all of us have made and all of the plans which all of us wish to make and all of the policy proposals which we all wish to put forward require not only large sums of money, but the services of many people in fairly skilled capacities.
Society is getting more humane and the social conscience is becoming more and more active and there are new ways in which we can help people in society, and many more people will be needed in the different facets of our social security services and the social services as a whole. This provides tremendous scope for people approaching retirement age. Older people can often go into this work and undertake, for example, much of the administration and the day-to-day work, thus freeing others for the more active jobs.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said, fairly dramatic changes in the age structure of our society are taking place. Statistics show that in England and Wales there are about 7·3 million people of pensionable age and more, which is 15·2 per cent. of the total population. Those figures are expected to rise by 1976 to 18·5 million, or 16·2 per cent. of the population, and the figures are rising all the time. In 1964, the expectation of life of a male at birth was 68·6 years and for a female 74·7 years. We now know that the expectation of life
1044
is increasing all the time. I will not bore the House with all the statistics available to us, but they give some idea of the shape of the future age structure. Even so, we cannot make a realistic assessment of what the age structure will be, because there are constantly break-throughs in medicine and in other ways which enable people to live longer and have more active lives longer.
The belief that we have to keep people active is not new. I was asked why we had not done something about it when we were in office. As long ago as 1953, the need to encourage the employment of older people was recognised in the Report of the National Advisory Committee and extracts from that report clearly ran through the views expressed at the United Nations to which the hon. Member for Cheadle referred and had been expressed in the House for many years.
We must recognise the psychological and sociological dangers of abrupt retirement. For instance, the suicide figures go up remarkably steeply, particularly for men, at retirement age. I think that this is because of the feeling of not being wanted, the feeling of being useless in society. It does not happen so much with women, because to some extent they never retire. They always have the responsibilities of their homes and do not have the same break with society once they leave active employment. Nevertheless, there are these dangers in an abrupt break in the pattern and this creates difficult psychological and sociological problems.
Most people who are interested in this subject will have read the very valuable survey carried out by the Yorkshire Council for Social Service and Retirement, one of the most valuable surveys which we have had. No doubt plenty of information is coming to hand all the time.
The present situation is disliked also because it leads to a lot of fiddling and tale carrying. We all know—many of us from personal experience or from constituency experience—that many white lies are told about people allegedly working after retirement, that we get anonymous letters written to Members of Parliament—I occasionally get them—

1045
telling tales of people said to be fiddling or bending the law in one way or another.
This is always a bad thing, and it is disliked, particularly by those who try to keep on the right side of the law and who are penalised by it. The abolition of the earnings rule for widows has led to several anomalies. I was interested in the tale told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle of three sisters. I have one about two sisters, and it is almost a sadder tale than the first. In this case there are two sisters, both over 60, both working in the same concern and earning more or less the same. One is a widow and the other a spinster The widow has all the added security resulting from her husband's savings and resources, meagre though they were; she has grown-up children, able to look after her if need be, whereas her spinster sister has none of these resources yet she is considerably worse off.
I have never been one of those who said that it was a reason for not doing a thing because it brought up difficult and dangerous anomalies. But these anomalies are very real. What is the solution? I said that I did not agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle. I want to see a relaxation of the earnings rule, an increase in the deferment increments and I also want an intensive examination of the whole retirement principle, against the background of what we are trying to do.
The occupational pensions scheme put forward by my party at the last election is one of the best ways of getting round this difficulty. It fulfils the essential requirements of retirement in a society which should be able to achieve very high earnings in the years ahead, if things go as we hope. The scheme would be flexible and could take account of ill-health and early retirement. Under the scheme people could take a part-time job, even if they are drawing their pension. I pay into an occupational pension scheme and when I leave this House I shall be able to draw my pension and do some other job. I am one of those, I hope, who will always do something and be actively employed, even though it is only gardening. One feels that one
1046
is more useful in society if one is doing this. This is the way that we must go. This can bring about gradual retirement without any of the anomalies so rife in this matter.
There is nothing more to say except to reiterate the arguments made. We do not know what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to say. This is my first time back in the House, I am slowly emerging from an attack of jaundice. I hope that I am not taking a jaundiced view of what I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say, but I hope that he will not tell us once again that he is still awaiting the results of the review of his right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. He has had plenty of time now. I do not know what he was doing in 13 years of opposition. Surely he was thinking about this and trying to plan his policy. Beveridge managed to produce his report in 12 months—he has had two years and greater help from outside experts, because the subject has expanded enormously. In addition he has had the benefit of international experience.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Douglas Houghton): The hon. Lady has overlooked the fact that when we came into office the cupboard was bare.
Miss Pike: The cupboard might have been bare from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I would remind him that he has given no idea of what he would like to do. All that we have had is the excuse that he has had no money. When he was in Opposition he would never accept the excuse that money was short, and said that where there was a will there was a way. I say the same thing to him now. There are resources. I know that he has to get his priorities right, and I assure him that in opposition we have no intention of being irresponsible and asking for things that we do not believe are possible.
At the same time we would like to know some of the guidelines that he has marked out. I hope that we will get from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not just another delaying move but some positive ideas of what is to be done. We all want to help those retirement pensioners who can be actively employed and who can lead a useful life. We want

1047
them to be able to work, for their sakes and for the sake of the community.
5.55 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): It may be convenient if I reply now to what has been a most interesting debate. It has certainly ranged far and wide, much wider than the terms of the Motion on the Notice Paper, and I have been bombarded with questions which are really the responsibility, not of my Department, or of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, but which should more accurately be put to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was at one time asked to take part in the debate.
I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), and I recognise that, like him, many hon. Members on my own side of the House have strong views about the earnings rule and the effect, or the so-called effect that it has upon the retirement pensioners. I shall start my remarks, therefore, by reminding the House of the details of the rule, because some misconceptions have grown up about it and its effects. I am not saying that these have been developed here but outside, even in my own constituency, there are two common misunderstandings about the earnings rule.
The first misunderstanding is that it concerns old-age pensioners and the second is that it somehow operates to stop pensioners working. The best way for me to deal with the first point is to remind the House that old age pensions generally were superseded in 1948. What we now pay to the very great majority of elderly people are retirement pensions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) pointed out, retirement pensions are a very different matter to old-age pensions. Old-age pensions were either accompanied by a means test or else they were pensions of only 10s. a week—and we can all remember that—paid from the age of 65, whatever the pensioner might be doing. Retirement pensions began at £1 6s. a week in 1946 and are now £4 a week for a single person. They are paid to people over the minimum pension ages
1048
who have retired from regular work. In other words they are subject to a retirement condition. It is this which mainly distinguishes them from old age pensions and I shall refer to this fundamental distinction later.
Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that this same pension which he correctly calls a retirement pension is paid to people over 70, even though they have not retired and are in full employment?
Mr. Pentland: I will come to that shortly. The second misconception which has been developed today, is that the earnings rule operates to stop people working, or to limit the work that they can do.
Again I should like to make the position clear. The earnings rule is emphatically not a rule which says to a pensioner, "You must not work and earn more than £5 a week". The rule at present works like this. It applies only for the first five years after minium pension age—that is, between 65 and 70 for men and between 60 and 65 for women. Pensioners over those ages—and they are the majority—are not affected by the rule at all. That is the rule which has been decided by successive Governments and which the country has accepted must be applicable to the retirement pension.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Is it not correct to say that, while the earnings rule applies to spinsters between the ages of 60 and 65, it does not apply to widows between 60 and 65?
Mr. Pentland: I am advised that it does not apply to widows. I shall take up that point later.
If the pensioner is subject to the rule, no adjustment is made to his pension unless he earns more than £5 net in a calendar week. If he earns more than £5 his pension is adjusted. I emphasise the word "adjusted". The pension does not immediately stop altogether, as some people imply. The adjustment is at the rate of 6d. taken off the pension for each 1s., of whatever earnings there are up to the first £1 in excess of £5 in the week, and at the rate of 1s. for each 1s. of earnings above £6 a week. For example, a pensioner who earns £5 10s. a week net has his £4 pension reduced by 5s. A

1049
pensioner who earns £6 a week net has 10s. taken off his pension. It is not until a pensioner has earned £9 10s. a week net that the whole of the pension of £4 ceases to be payable.
I readily admit that neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I are entirely satisfied with all the aspects of the operation of the earnings rule.
There is nothing in the earnings rule which says that a pensioner shall not earn more than £5 or which puts a limit on his earnings. I emphasise that we have this rule, not to make things more difficult for retirement pensioners, to save a little bit of money, to tax a pensioner's earnings, or anything like that, but because it is necessary to have a rule about earnings as long as we have a retirement pension.
We could have an old-age pension without a retirement condition and an earnings rule, but a retirement pension is what we have chosen, quite deliberately, because it enables us, and has enabled other Governments, to pay more money to those pensioners not working or not working, substantially.
Some people may say, "Do away with the retirement condition and earnings rule, but pay the present rate of pension just the same, and not a lower rate of old-age pension." But I must remind the House of the considerable cost which would be involved. It would mean paying a pension to all those over minimum pensionable age, including those men and women who are continuing in full-time work and not drawing their pensions, and we should have to find another £110 million a year to do it—over £2 million a week.
There has been reference to the question of looking at the other side of the picture and considering how much would be saved by the benefits which would accrue to the economy as a consequence of abolishing the earnings rule. I think that everyone would agree that to do this would be to make a hypothetical assessment; we just do not know. How much would be saved is a matter of speculation. But what we know for certain is that if we abolished the earnings rule we would need immediately £110 million.
The hon. Lady inquired about how this figure was made up. My information is that the payment of pensions to people at present deferring retirement would
1050
cost the country £104 million. The earnings deductions which would no longer be made would be £2 million. The loss of contributions now paid would be £11 million. That gives a gross cost of £117 million. The saving on unemployment and sickness benefit paid to people over pensionable age would be £7 million. That leaves a net cost of £110 million.
Mr. Will Griffiths: The figures which my hon. Friend has given are extraordinarily interesting. I think that he has indicated that the figure of £104 million applies to pensioners still at work—in other words, pensioners whose entitlement to pension is wholly extinguished by the amount of work that they do. Is my interpretation correct?
Mr. Pentland: In the main, people who have deferred their pension or had it wholly extinguished. I shall refer later to the figures involved. We are now concerned with cost. Whether we like it or not, this is the cost involved and the amount of money which would have to be found if we were immediately to abolish the earnings rule. The House must also remember that the bulk of this extra money would be paid not to the retired people but to people who are at present in full-time work.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has said on more than one occasion in the House and to officials of the old-age pensioners' associations who have been to see us that if she were in the happy position of having an additional £110 million a year to spend, this would hardly be the first priority to which she would wish to devote it. I entirely agree. I think that we must all accept that if the Minister had £110 million to devote to what we would term the correct priorities, the abolition of the earnings rule would not have first priority.
Much has been said today about the desirability of encouraging older people to work. Indeed, that is one of the points to which the hon. Member for Cheadle refers in his Motion. Certainly we wish to encourage older people to work when they can and to the extent that they can. The present arrangements under the National Insurance Scheme provide a very flexible way of securing this. A pension is provided which is payable on retirement. But "retirement" does not mean that the person concerned must

1051
give up work altogether; the National Insurance Act provides that he can be treated as having retired from regular employment if he does not propose to work regularly or to any considerable extent. If a person works regularly in his normal work, he does not get his pension right away. He gets, however, a bigger pension when he does retire. It is not for me in the context of this afternoon's Motion, to go into the why and the wherefore of the fact that the increased pension is not bigger when that person reaches the age of 70. As I have said, once a man reaches the age of 70, or a woman 65, the pension is payable without any further condition about retirement or earnings.
Therefore, a person really has ample choice. He can stop work and take a pension as soon as he reaches the minimum pensionable age. From my experience as a miner, and now as a miner's representative and representing an industrial area in the County of Durham, I know full well that retirement at the pension age appeals to many miners and I am sure, industrial workers of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) spoke, who would wish to retire at 65.
Indeed, in my part of the country, we are in the sad and unfortunate position that although they would like to continue working, many miners now have to be retired between the ages of 60 and 65 because of the declining manpower demand in the coal industry. This applies to Durham and, I am quite sure, to Wales, as it does also to Scotland.
Therefore, we must face the fact that there are many industrial workers who, even if they wanted to, are not fully able to carry on after retirement age at the job at which they may have worked for as long as 50 years. On the other hand, the pensioner may choose not to give up work completely at that age. We accept that he may want to continue to do some work. The retirement condition and the earnings rule together do not prevent that. If, however, such a person's earnings become substantial, an adjustment is made to the pension which is payable. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop a pensioner making a token retirement and then resuming work and drawing his pension together with full wages. We must
1052
face these facts when we talk about abolishing the earnings rule.
Incidentally, although the question raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle of the pension scheme which the present Government were expected to introduce is outside the terms of the Motion, I repeat, as we have said many times recently in the House, that we have given a pledge that before the end of this Parliament we will eliminate the present graduated pension scheme and introduce a real earnings-related pension scheme of our own. I cannot develop that further at this stage, but it is something that we have said time and time again.
I have referred to the person who could make a token retirement and, possibly, continue to draw full wages. These are the dangers which I would like the hon. Member for Cheadle to ponder when he considers the abolition of the earnings rule.
Mr. Will Griffiths: But the pensioner can earn only, at maximum, another £5. In other words, he extinguishes the pension completely at £9 a week. That is not a very princely sum.
Mr. Pentland: I accept that. We are not talking about how much would be gained one way or the other. It is the principle that we must have, and which the country and successive Governments have accepted, of having an earnings rule for a retirement pension. The principal thing involved is that we have a retirement pension.
Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Mr. Pentland: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The other main choice for a man is to carry on working as long as he feels fit to do so because, by postponing taking a pension, he can get a better pension when ultimately he retires. As hon. Members have said, this is the increment system, which, again, is outside the scope of today's debate.
If a man continues in his employment but is prevented temporarily at any time from working because he is sick, he is entitled to get sickness benefit at the same rate as his pension would have been payable for those weeks. If he falls out of work for a time, he can get unemployment benefit in the same way.

1053
The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the rule deprived the economy of useful labour. Perhaps I can give the House a few figures based on inquiries we made last year to see whether we were successful in our aim of providing a flexible set of arrangements. In June, 1965, there were 370,000 persons who had not retired and were not drawing their pensions although they were over the minimum pension age of 65 for men or 60 for women. They were working and paying contributions. Of the larger number—between 1¼million and 1½million people—who had retired and were subject to the earnings rule., more than 200,000 were known to be working to some extent. Only about 20,000 of them, however, were working to such an extent that their pension was either reduced or wholly extinguished under the earnings rule. Therefore, over one-third of the people in the age group theoretically subject to the earnings rule were working to some extent. This certainly does not suggest to the Government that there is any discouragement here. Rather do we seem to have essentially the very sort of flexible arrangement for gradual retirement which the hon. Member for Cheadle wants.
I come now to what, for the purposes of this debate, is probably the most important point, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) has referred. I said earlier that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself were entirely satisfied with all aspects of the existing earnings rule. It was for this reason that in February this year my right hon. Friend referred the earnings rule to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. That committee was asked to examine the subject as a question—not merely the level at which the earnings rule should start to operate, but also all the associated matters including, in particular, some rather technical matters which attach to the earnings rule.
I understand that the Advisory Committee has not yet completed its Report but that it is likely to be completed and presented to my right hon. Friend quite soon. It will, of course, be published and I am sure that it will be an important
1054
contribution to our thinking on this subject. I am afraid this means that I must refrain from taking up many of the points that have been made this afternoon. It is obviously right and desirable that the independent Advisory Committee should make its report without prejudice from either myself or anyone else. We will have to wait and see exactly what recommendations it brings forward.
I think that I have dealt, though not in the order in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned them, with two of the three aspects which he developed in his speech. The third one can be disposed of very quickly.
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of three sisters. The hon. Member for Melton gave another example, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) raised the matter of spinsters. In the hon. Member for Cheadle's example, two of the sisters were, respectively, a widow and a spinster. The third sister was a deserted wife, but I am afraid that we cannot deal with her case. We are not concerned with deserted wives in this debate.
The answer is quite simple. A single woman aged between 60 and 65, in full-time work in a department store earning £10 or more a week, in all probability would not have a retirement pension subject to the earnings rule. She would not be accepted as retired at all, in the first place. She would be paying contributions and earning increments for her pension when she eventually retired.
I have not disguised from the House our view that the details of the earnings rule have got out of date, and that there may well be some other imperfections. We have asked the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look into the matter. That being so, I am sure that we must give it a clear field in which to make its recommendations. In view of this, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion. If he is not willing to do so, I must ask the House to reject it.
Question put and negatived.

EDUCATION (DEAF CHILDREN)
6.22 p.m.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to provide increased facilities in secondary education for the deaf child, and to ensure that adequate places are available in universities, teacher training colleges, and other colleges of higher education.
I should like to thank the House for the opportunity to debate this subject, because, although it is one which perhaps applies only to a very small section of the community, I feel we should concern ourselves about it.
When I was elected to this House, I committed the first of what will undoubtedly be a series of practical tactical errors in what I hope will be a reasonably long career when I agreed to take a party of very large and energetic boy scouts to the top of Big Ben. Having accomplished that feat in 3-inch heels and a tight skirt, I decided that I needed in future to have more information before taking decisions of that nature. It taught me not one but two lessons. The boy scouts involved in that great feat of climbing were from the Royal School of the Deaf in Exeter, and their liveliness, intelligence and great interest in everything that they saw, and my own difficulty in communicating with them impressed me very much. Therefore, I made it one of my first jobs to visit the School of the Deaf.
As a doctor's wife, I have seen something of the medical problems involved in a family when a deaf child is born. Very special social stresses are placed on a family with a handicapped child. It is extremely invidious to draw comparisons between one sort of handicap and another, but it is interesting that members of the public do not perhaps feel as emotionally involved in the problems of the deaf child as in the problems of some other handicapped children.
It is very difficult to imagine oneself in the situation of someone who is born deaf or who becomes deaf at an early age. The only slight comparison which I can call to mind is the situation where one is dropped, as people are sometimes in modern teaching, into a new country to learn a language, knowing nothing of
1056
the language being spoken around one. It is amazing how, at the end of a few days, one is emotionally and physically exhausted with the strain of trying to communicate with others in a language one does not understand and in sounds one cannot translate into something acceptable.
I should like the House to try to imagine the enormous difficulties which the deaf child faces. First of all, he has to learn his own language, in circumstances of extreme difficulty. He has not just to acquire an education, but a vocabulary of even a simple sort. Members of his family require guidance before they can understand the problems involved and help the child to face, each day, a day full of minor battles which could overwhelm him.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for undertaking to reply to the debate, because I know of his great interest in the work of the special schools and what is being done by the Government to assist them. Like all mothers, I am greedy for my children and would like more money to be spent on the special schools. I am delighted to say that we are to have a new building in Exeter which I hope will be of great use to the staff of the Royal School of the Deaf.
The deeper that I went into the problems of the deaf child, the more obvious it became to me that some difficulty arises from the fact that we do not have enough information about them. There are many special schools dealing with the deaf child. They are largely under different local authorities. They do not differentiate between one child and another. They endeavour to provide places and teach the child to the age of 16 as well as they are able, and they are doing magnificent work. That is a tribute which we should pay to them gladly.
However, there are only two grammar schools for the deaf. They are the Mary Hare Mixed Boys' and Girls' Grammar School and the Burwood Park School for Deaf Boys. Those two schools are endeavouring to provide a grammar-school type education for children who are found to have the necessary standards, and, as one inquiries deeper into the problems, it seems that

1057
we may be wasting a great deal of talent amoung our deaf children. No statistics are available to tell us the numbers of school leavers who go on from the special schools or from the grammar schools to higher education of any sort. I should ask the Minister if he will consider making inquiries to find whether we may obtain that sort of statistics to be able to plan for the future.
We know that we have deaf children who are able to surmount the enormous difficulties with which they are faced and go on to higher education, but we have no idea how many there are. We know from a survey which was taken at one grammar school that these children are able to go into many varied professions. We know that they are capable of receiving higher education in special skills, yet we still do not know how many drop along the wayside who would be capable of fulfilling complex and useful tasks in our highly mechanised world. I should like the Minister to consider this very carefully indeed.
Education generally is in very much of a state of flux at the moment. We are searching for new ways of increasing our powers and of increasing the general standards of our school children. Can we now begin to plan to include the deaf child in the special needs of higher education? There is in America one specific college for the deaf, the Gallaudet College for the Deaf in Washington. It takes in an increasing number of pupils every year, and spends its time providing as far as possible the sort of academic training which, at the end, will produce graduates who approximate as closely as possible to their normal American colleagues. Yet in this country, which for a long time has had a tradition of university education, there is no specific provision for the deaf to enter university.
Many of the pupils take university degrees, but this is really doing is very much the hard way. A deaf pupil who enters an ordinary tutorial has not only to lip-read, but has to try to follow the thread of a very involved argument. In many cases such students accept other people's notes of lectures, which means that they get them second-hand. They have then to try to catch up with their hearing colleagues, without really having the basis of fact on which to work. Will
1058
the Minister consider whether, at some point in the future, it will be possible to set up even a very small unit attached to one of our universities where the deaf undergraduate can take a course or a degree course which will enable him to go into the world better equipped not just from a financial point of view but from a social point of view to fulfil a greater rôle in modern-day affairs?
Gallaudet College in Washington found that its first year was spent largely in bridging a gap which was bound to exist between the special schools for the deaf and ordinary college work, but in their second year the students' general standards were almost as good as those in other colleges. They found difficulties with the languages and arts, but in mathematics and contemporary affairs they were up to the standard of the others. This seems to be a lesson for us. As our society becomes more mechanised, we will need all the trained people we can get, and there may even be professions in which it might be an advantage to be profoundly deaf.
I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the House today, because I realise that we have very little time left for this debate, and I should like to hear the Minister's view. Although this is a very small and specialised part of the community, these people very much deserve our understanding and our help, not our charity, because I believe that the deaf child is perfectly capable of surmounting enormous barriers given the right sort of assistance.
These children have already surmounted the barrier of learning a language. When they leave the special schools, they are learning how to cope with a hearing world. They do not live in a special world. There is just one hearing world, and they must learn to deal with it, and to live with it. For that reason I ask the Minister tonight not to promise to do all the things that we want him to do, but just to say, "We will hold out a helping hand. We will consider your problems. But, more than that, we will plan for your future and help you to join us in a modern world".
6.35 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: It is just over four years since the House

1059
last discussed this subject, and I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) for having provided us with even this limited opportunity to discuss the matter once again. I know that time is limited, and I know that the Minister wishes to reply in some detail to what the hon. Lady has said. I do not, therefore, intend to take up much of the time of the House, but there are one or two points which I should like to raise. Before doing so, however, may I say that I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will give us some information on the point raised by the hon. Lady about university education, because this is a matter of great importance.
If children with impaired hearing are to get the full advantages of modern knowledge of how to deal with their problems, it is essential that they should be identified at an early age. Is the Minister satisfied with the present services provided by local authorities for ascertainment? I ask this because I note from a study of the statistics of education, and a comparison of deaf and partially-hearing pupils, that the figures for 1961 and 1965, if added together for each year, produce a very similar total—4,851 in 1961, and 4,727 in 1965—but there is a difference in that the proportion of partially-hearing pupils increased in 1965. It might be concluded from this that methods of identification have become more accurate, but, at the same time, since the total figures for the two years are roughly similar, I am forced to wonder whether there has been any overall improvement in the cover of local authority ascertainment services.
Dealing next with teachers, I am glad to see that there has been a steady increase in the overall number of full-time and part-time teachers in special schools, and I have no doubt that the supply of teachers of deaf or partially-hearing children will be further improved with the opening of the University of London Institute of Education Courses which began in October, 1965, with 20 pupils. This will help, but in view of the 1964 Review of the Department of Education and Science, which revealed an increased long-term demand, I should be grateful if the Minister were able to
1060
give a progress report on his discussions with the Universities of London and Manchester about the expansion of training places.
This must be of great importance, particularly as I note that the number of over-sized classes in 1965—and in the previous debate an hon. Gentleman drew attention to this—shows a close similarity to the 1961 figures. In 1965 there were 41 over-sized classes for the deaf, 28 for the partially hearing, and 11 for the deaf and partially hearing. In 1965, the equivalent figures were 40, 33 and 22 It is most disappointing that there should have been virtually no improvement in these figures, and I hope that the Minister will refer to these disturbing statistics, for the House will wish to know what he intends to do about them.
In the late 'fifties and early 'sixties there was an encouraging growth in the provision of special classes attached to ordinary schools. This was a significant development, and demonstrated a more enlightened attitude towards the partially hearing. The objective was to prepare them, wherever possible, for full integration into the schools, and afterwards into a normal life.
Doubtless the Minister will say something about the progress made more recently. At the same time, it would be interesting to know whether any sort of information has been obtained, or is available, on how successfully these children, when grown up, have managed to lead normal lives after leaving school, for such information could be useful to those concerned with teaching methods and the organisation of education for the partially hearing.
We have some information on children up to the further education stage, for since the last debate a Report has been published of a survey on deaf children who have been transferred from special schools or units to ordinary schools. This Report is most valuable, although it is concerned with a relatively small number of children. I wonder whether the Minister could give some information—if he has the time—on what thinking has been given by his Department to the Report, and whether any changes are proposed or envisaged in the light of it.
I have asked the Minister several questions, and I do not propose to take up

1061
any more time of the House. I say again that we are most grateful to the hon. Lady for having introduced this short debate.
6.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): I join the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) in expressing appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) for having taken this opportunity to raise a matter which is not only compelling upon our attention but which justifiably demands our sympathy and understanding. My only regret—and I think that other hon. Members will share it—is that the time is so limited in which to discuss a matter of so much importance.
It is true that the numbers involved are relatively few, when one has regard to the sum total of our school population, but they are certainly among the most deserving of our consideration. I endorse emphatically what my hon. Friend has said, that the deaf and partially-hearing children with whom we are concerned in the Motion demand not our charity but our understanding and help. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall bring myself to the consideration of this topic and what has been said in this short debate with every possible sympathy and understanding.
We are dealing with two categories, which we are defining as the deaf and the partially-hearing the latter category being now expressed, perhaps, in more positive and welcome terminology than the former negative description of partially deaf.
The separation of these two categories has been deliberately based upon considerations of experience and the realisation that their problems are somewhat different. It may serve if I put the figures before the House in order to give an idea of the area that we are covering. At the moment we have about 3,300 deaf children in special schools and 3,100 partially-hearing children in special schools and special classes attached to normal schools. About 5,200 other children have been identified as in need of some assistance with hearing aids in the normal classes of normal schools, so that we are considering a total of about 11,600, or about 1·5 per 1,000 of our total school population, excluding the population of independent schools.
1062
This is one of the problems; these children are spread all over the country, and therefore appear in ones and twos. It is extremely difficult to make adequate provision for them, especially having regard to the understandable concern of many parents that their children should not be too far distant from home.
The hon. Member for Devizes referred to a matter of tremendous importance, namely, the fact that the difficulties of children in this category should be diagnosed and detected at the earliest possible age. This matter is the subject of co-operation between local health authorities, hospitals and local education authorities, the latter becoming responsible for these children, when detected, at the age of two. There have been considerable improvements in detection, but I freely acknowledge, on my own survey of the position—having only recently become responsible for this field of special education—that I am not satisfied with the degree of efficacy of detection methods in all areas. This is a matter to which we must give increasing attention.
This is vital, for a child who has a defect of hearing in infancy, if permitted to go undetected for a considerable period, presents an even greater problem of education and help at a later stage. In the course of my inquiries I have personally visited the Department of Audiology and Education at Manchester, which is outside the normal range of services but nevertheless is co-operating with existing authorities. I do not want to go into details, but I was tremendously impressed with the research work which is now taking place in that unit, and also by the team work that is being undertaken by specialists of various kinds joining together and undertaking positive research work, from which I hope for good and helpful results in the not-too-distant future.
I now turn to the question of special classes. The hon. Member for Devizes asked whether the development in this regard—special classes attached to ordinary schools—was satisfactory from my point of view. I confess again that expansion has not been very rapid. For that reason Her Majesty's inspectors and medical officers of my Department have been jointly undertaking a survey of a very large sample of the special classes

1063
that exist. That field has now been covered, and the report of the survey is being prepared. I hope that it will be available to the House very shortly. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will study it with great care and, based upon the results of the findings, will seek to issue such appropriate advice as may be necessary and desirable for the guidance of local education authorities.
Reference was also made to the question of teachers for the deaf. Here again, more are obviously needed at every level. We are under very anxious concern that the numbers of qualified teachers of the deaf should be expanded as rapidly as possible. There has been an increase from 585 fully-qualified teachers of the deaf in 1959 to 749 in 1965, but the whole of this increase has been absorbed by services which are outside the schools. Therefore, we are obviously concerned to consider measures to increase the supply.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that there had been discussions on this subject with the University of Manchester Department of Audiology, to which I have referred, and the University of London Institute of Education. I am not yet in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman the result of these discussions. They are not complete, but I am anxious that they should be completed at not too distant a date. I regard this as a tremendously important aspect of the problem, for, whatever other provision we may make for these children, in the last resort everything depends upon an adequate supply of fully-trained and qualified teachers.
There has been some expansion in the use of peripatetic teachers, and 49 local education authorities are now using such teachers. This may be of considerable assistance in many schools. Here again, we want to survey the present results of the employment of such teachers. That survey will be undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectors in the next year.
My hon. Friend referred to problems with which she is particularly concerned, those of secondary education and of higher education for deaf and partially-hearing children. These two aspects represent a very serious problem and concern, one which has been pressed upon me recently, particularly by parents who feel the need for more adequate provision.
1064
My hon. Friend asked me a Question on this subject on 21st July and I said in reply:
"A total of 200 boarding places in a grammar school for the deaf and partially hearing in Berkshire and a technical school for the deaf in Surrey; 60 day places and 80 boarding places in secondary modern schools in London and Surrey respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 116.]
But the grammar and secondary schools to which I referred are non-maintained special schools, admitting pupils selected by means of a common entrance examination from special schools and classes in all parts of the country.
The grammar school to which my hon. Friend referred, the Mary Hare School, caters for deaf and partially-hearing children and admits the occasional child who suffers an impairment of hearing at a late stage and is unable to continue in or transfer to an ordinary grammar school. The technical school at Burwood Park caters for deaf boys only. The Secondary Modern School, in Surrey maintained by the Surrey Local Education authority serves a regional need. The four schools to which I have referred are the only ones where, at present, secondary education is provided in a separate school, but a reorganisation of classes was approved in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest and Newham, which will result in the provision of a secondary school in Newham. A secondary school in the North Midlands is under preparation as well.
There are many views about the best way of providing secondary education for deaf and partially hearing pupils and there are, because of the wide spread of these children, a variety of arrangements. Probably the greatest pressures at present are those in favour of practical measures to reorganise special schools for the deaf and partially hearing generally, and provide special education in secondary schools. These are most strongly advocated by the more articulate parents and the head teachers of a number of special schools for children with impaired hearing. The parents are naturally anxious that the schools should be reasonably near their children's homes.
These two aspects are difficult to reconcile. The view of my Department on this question is that any practicable provision for such a scheme in secondary schools

1065
may be considered, but the process is bound to be gradual, taking into account local circumstances and wishes. Wholesale reorganisation is not likely to be practicable in view of the substantial capital investments needed for rebuilding in many areas.
My hon. Friend referred to the fine institution in her constituency, the Royal West of England Residential School at Exeter which, itself is the subject of new plans for rebuilding, upon which I hope that a start will be made shortly and which will enable that school to develop further its provision for the education of its children.
The question of higher education has been raised. It must be appreciated that a very small proportion of deaf and partially-hearing pupils qualify for university entrance or courses of degree standard elsewhere. Having regard to their linguistic handicap and difficulty of communication, it is greatly to the credit of those young people who attain these standards. These are admitted to universities and, I am sure, receive sympathetic consideration and support during their studies.
However, another problem in higher education is that many of the traditional occupations of the deaf, which used to be conceived of as based upon individual craftsmanship, were obviously rendered out of date in an economy based upon mass production. Further education needs to be related to modern needs and organised to meet the requirements of an inevitably scattered student population.
This almost compels us to the conclusion that the future of further education for the deaf must lie in a closer association with the provision of further education for normal children. I can assure the House that these are the lines upon which developments are taking place and I shall certainly want to study what has been said in the debate to see how we may develop further opportunities for the young people.
The problems of universities and higher education, of course, must take into account the fact that the number of leavers each year from special schools for the deaf and partially hearing is not more than about 400 or 450. It seems to us, therefore, that it would be impracticable to provide a satisfactory establishment of
1066
higher education exclusively for children with impaired hearing, and to concentrate those taking degree courses by other suggestion of my hon. Friend, that of a special unit at one university, would similarly, of course, have the disadvantage of limiting the choice of subject.
It is for these reasons that the main trend has been for special schools with links with ordinary establishments of further education. I should like this trend to expand and we will certainly give our attention to it. Among developments of this kind are the developments under discussion in Exeter, where the new headmaster of the Royal West of England Residential School for the Deaf is exploring the possibility of building upon the foundations laid by his predecessor.
I cannot speak too highly of the work being done at this school and other similar institutions, which not only commands the maximum support for those engaged in it, but demands that we should undertake further research into all aspects of the problem.
I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Department is sharing in the cost of two projects at present and meeting the cost of yet a third. Although I have not time to go into the details of the particular research projects, my reference to these will at least establish to the satisfaction of the House that we are considering the need to continue research.
I have not had time to refer to more than a few examples of the work going on, but, through developments of this work, we may have a situation in which the deaf and partially-hearing pupils will be able to follow vocational courses leading to employment prospects more nearly comparable with those of young people with normal hearing. Already, the numbers of opportunities have been greatly enlarged, but much still remains to be done.
For many, the continued help of teachers of the deaf will be required, particularly in the theoretical aspects of courses. But the fundamental task for the schools is to improve educational attainment generally and linguistic skills in particular. As my hon. Friend said, with inadequate language the deaf suffer a lifelong handicap, but I assure her and the House that these are the problems of which we are mindful and I shall lend

1067
not only a sympathetic ear but my efforts towards meeting the claims on behalf of the section of our school population who are deserving of our fullest understanding and compassion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to provide increased facilities in secondary education for the deaf child, and to ensure that adequate places are available in universities, teacher training colleges, and other colleges of higher education.

INDUSTRIAL TOWNS (CENTRAL AREAS)
6.59 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House believes that neither national nor local government adequately provides for the special needs of residents in the decaying central areas of industrial towns: that in particular their housing requirements are neither met by the usual terms of local authority tenancy schemes nor by the provisions of those Acts which seek to limit the overcrowding of property in multi occupation; and that they are often denied the physical amenities that are provided in other urban areas and that they lack the high level of health, welfare and education facilities that are of especial importance to the elderly, the immigrant and the low income worker who make up much of the population of these areas.
In 90 seconds it is hardly possible to propose a Motion encompassing one of the great social problems of our time, but it is possible to put on record that the problems of the decaying central areas do exist; problems which the House hardly ever has debated and which it should debate. They are largely unknown to the nation and unrecorded in HANSARD, usually ignored by local authorities, for whom they pose special difficulties and on whom they impose special responsibilities—

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to open the debate, I should announce that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and other hon. Members. This selection does not narrow the debate in any way. The Amendment is:
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It would be as well, perhaps, to remind the House of other occasions on which legislation which impinges upon human relationships has come before the House. There was a Bill, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, which finally became law in 1907, which it may be recalled, ended the prohibition on a man marrying the sister of his dead wife. Before that Bill became law it came to the House on scores of occasions. Indeed, on Second Reading it was passed by the House on at least 19 occasions and it was rejected in the House of Lords on at least 13 occasions.
  No one reading the debates of that period can but wonder at the Jeremiahs and the moralists of those days of yesteryear in both Commons and Lords. That arose only because a slight change in the marriage laws was desired. If we read those debates, the passions that were aroused seem almost droll, and the threats to family stability and the institution of marriage which were then uttered now seem historical curiosities.

  1069
  Yet I believe that there are lessons to be learned. We are prone in this country to extend our national debates on legislation touching on human relations to the point at which they sometimes verge almost on farce, and sometimes they are taken to the point of morbidity. We should remind ourselves that it is now well over twelve years since the Wolfenden Committee was appointed and it is almost a decade since it reported. From the time that the present Minister of Health first brought the issues before the House shortly after the Wolfenden Committee had reported, down to the occasion on which the House gave a Bill similar to this a Second Reading when it was introduced by Mr. Humphrey Berkeley, the House has repeatedly and exhaustively tested the Wolfenden recommendations. This, alas, I almost apologise to the House, is certainly by no means the first occasion on which I have brought such a Bill to the House.
  It is not surprising, therefore, in my view, that when Lord Attlee supported a Bill similar to this Bill in another place, one of the reasons that he gave for supporting the Bill and for trying to bring this debate to an end was that he feared that more was being said about homosexuality than need be said, a point of view with which I am certainly in full accord.
  I am not suggesting that this Bill is as marginal as the Bill which I mentioned, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill, but it is well neither to exaggerate the effect which the law made here can have upon human conduct outside—a tendency almost to megalomania, a tendency to which we as legislators are prone—nor, when we are dealing with the problem, to exaggerate the size of the problem which we have to face.
  It is true that no one knows the number of homosexuals that exist in this country. It was suggested in some evidence submitted to the Wolfenden Committee that there were some 750,000 in the land. The Home Office spokesman in another place indicated a figure of perhaps 500,000. These figures are sometimes blown up. They are blown up, on the one hand, by self-acclaimed moralists who always seem to be searching for immorality and, on the other hand, by homosexuals themselves, who in the case
  1070
  certainly of some of them are so oppressed with guilt, a guilt reinforced, I believe by our laws, that when they wish to spread and to share their guilt, and to rid themselves of it, they sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate the numbers who are prone to this failure.
  But whatever the precise numbers may be, all of us could agree that such is the unreality of our present laws that we can say as a descriptive fact that, apart from motorists, we are dealing with the largest number of those to be declared criminals in the land. To these men, what does the law say? It does not give them the choice of saying that they may live out their lives in discretion. It does not give them the choice that they may live out their lives away from public view provided that they do not flaunt their conduct. The law as it stands does not give them the choice to live out their lives provided that they never corrupt a young person.
  In fact, the law gives them a brutal choice. It offers them either celibacy or criminality, and nothing in between. And since homosexual behaviour, it is to be assumed, is no less compulsive, though lamentably different in direction, than heterosexuality, we are demanding a code of behaviour from them which the heterosexualists among us know that we could not possibly sustain. I ask those of us who are blessed with the emotional security of a heterosexual life, those who are blessed with a good wife and with a family, those who have the blessing of children, have we the right to demand this code of behaviour from those whose terrible fate it is to be a homosexual? I do not think that we have, and in any event it is an unreal demand, and it is impossible for it to be met.
  May I give the number of convictions of adults who commit homosexual acts in private? According to the survey of the Wolfenden Committee at that time, it was about 100 convictions a year, and, judging by the number of custodial offences revealed in the statistics, it is probably less now. Even to state these figures is to show how derisory is the conviction rate and how utterly unenforceable is the law. As Wolfenden said, there is an almost astronomical disparity between the number of illicit sexual acts which occur and those which are detected by the guardians of the law. If we

  1071
  assume that we have as many homosexuals as the Kinsey Report revealed were in existence in the United States—if we are in this unfortunate position—it means that in the 21 to 30 age group alone, judging by the rate of convictions that are taking place, there would be a 30,000-to-one chance of an illicit act leading to conviction in this country.
  Therefore, we have an unenforceable Act, and it would require a massive recruitment of police and an invasion of privacy which all of us would find quite intolerable before the law could begin to be enforced. It is bad law because it is unenforceable law, and it is bad law because it is utterly random in its application. It is totally lacking in certainty and perforce inequitable. The prurient curiosity of one chief constable may activate a whole spate of prosecutions in one county. On the other hand, the squeamishness, the diffidence, the robustness, the common sense, perhaps, of a chief constable in another county may mean that there are never any convictions at all in that county. Law of this nature applied in this way must be inequitable.
  It is bad law, too, because the penalties that attach to it are utterly senseless. It is true that society knows no other way of dealing with the man who is a compulsive pederast, interfering with little boys, than to remove him from the community. Our knowledge is inadequate. But when we are talking of all these men whose relationships, in private, are with adults who give their consent, we know that to talk of sending these men to prison is, as has been said again and again, as therapeutically useless as incarcerating a sex maniac in a harem. This is the position, and we all know it. There is no rehabilitative element at all in the punishment that is meted out. It must be repugnant to us. It must be repugnant to the least bold penologist to realise that we have these penalties in which we can take no pride, that the penalties for adults committing homosexual offences in private are the most severe.
  Although there are no rehabilitative effects flowing from the existing law, we know that there are other effects. One effect, so far as it is positive at all, is clearly to stigmatise thousands of our
  1072
  citizens as being outlaws and pariahs. We have to face the fact that we are dealing with large numbers of people—many of them, apart from this particular aberation, who are totally law-abiding. In many cases, it means that the homosexual feels that he is almost a selected minority specially chosen and persecuted, and he sees within the wider community, for good or evil, more permissive attitudes. He knows that fornication and adultery, although disapproved of, are not crimes. He sees that in almost the remainder of the Western world discreet homosexuals have been granted legal immunity, whereas in this country the homosexual lives in a land that persists in this eccentric doctrine that such behaviour should attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
  I do not regard it, therefore, as surprising that in such a climate of opinion there are not a few homosexuals who almost lapse into near paranoia. It is not surprising, when the law puts them outside the community, that they behave as many do, that they should react as some of them do in an anti-social manner, with all their original feelings of guilt reinforced by repressive laws. I do not think it is suprising that sometimes they protect their self-esteem by absurdly proclaiming their superiority intellectually and artistically to those of us who are mere heterosexuals. This is the reaction which we as a community almost provoke. Is it suprising that when we place them in this position they resort to one of the few means open to them by which they can still regard themselves as having an identity as human beings within society? Then when they make such statements we accuse them of being proselytisers.
  I think it is because of the clinical experience that arises from the pastoral care that the churches are so aware of the problems of which I am speaking, that they are aware of the alienation and of the estrangement of the homosexual from the wider community. Thus it is that the Church Assembly, the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, the Roman Catholic Welfare Committee, the Methodist Conference and the Unitarians have all at one time or another called for the implementation of the Wolfenden Report.
  Then there is another effect, a dastardly effect, of the present law which cannot

  1073
  be under-estimated. It is the fact that blackmail is the ambience which wraps itself around the existing law. On the last occasion when we had a debate, it was said that a former Attorney-General, Sir William Jowitt, had estimated that 90 per cent of the cases of blackmail which came to his attention contained an element of homosexual conduct. We know, too, that in the more recent review which the Wolfenden Committee conducted when it took a fixed period of time, it asserted that within that time there were 71 cases reported to the police of which 32 were connected with homosexual offences. We know that this can only be the tip of the iceberg, for any man who reports that he is being blackmailed as a consequence of a homosexual act knows that he is placing himself in jeopardy with the possibility of a prosecution. There are too many documented cases in recent years of hoodlums who, taking advantage of the existing position, have come to believe that they can rob a homosexual with immunity.
  It is because of these sorts of reasons, rather than those which I was citing earlier, that the law is in disrepute with the general public. But whatever may have been the position 10 years ago, it cannot be gainsaid, in the light of the national opinion polls, the Gallup Poll and so on—however much we may discount them—that when we see the overwhelming majority of the public who, according to those polls, are in favour of changing the law in accordance with the Wolfenden recommendations, one cannot doubt that there is a severe public reaction to the law as it stands.
  I now turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 lays down the major principle that homosexual offences between consenting adults in private should no longer be an offence. However, I wish to dwell in particular on Clause 1(5), which qualifies subsection (1) of that Clause. The Wolfenden Report recognises that for the preservation of discipline and the protection of those of subordinate rank, the Services may wish to retain Section 6 of the Army Act which provides for punishment of those guilty of disgraceful conduct of an indecent or an unnatural kind. Subsection (5) of the Bill goes much further.
  I should perhaps indicate that the Bill has had the benefit of going through another place, where it was introduced
  1074
  by the noble Lord, the indefatigable Earl of Arran, and therefore it has had the benefit of a prolonged review in the other place. Subsection (5) goes much further than was suggested in the Wolfenden Report in so far as the Navy, the Army and the Air Force may act under numerous Sections. It could be that in addition to Section 66 of the Army Act it would be possible in the Army for proceedings to be taken under Section 64 which refers to officers who behave in a scandalous manner; or, indeed, under Section 69 of the Air Force Act it would be possible, should the Service so wish it, to proceed under a provision which deals with conduct to the prejudice of Air Force discipline.
  I have dwelt on that because some very understandable apprehension about the position of the Merchant Navy has been expressed in the reasoned Amendment and elsewhere. It may help if I seek to explain to the House the present position. There is vested in the Master of a ship the common law power to arrest and confine in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time any seamen on a ship if the master has reasonable cause for believing, and in fact believes, that the arrest and confinement are necessary for the preservation of discipline. Nothing in the Bill removes any discretion on the part of the master should he wish to invoke his common law powers to deal with a seaman under his command who commits a homosexual act on his ship. That was explained at some length in the other place, and it no doubt explains why the Bill is in its present form.
  But it has been represented to me—and I understand the reasons—that that power of arrest and confinement may be insufficient. It has been suggested to me, for example, that it could be of grave inconvenience for a master to deal with a problem of this kind in this manner, that it could mean that if he put a foot wrong, despite his wide discretion, he might become liable for a civil action for false imprisonment. I do not dismiss those apprehensions; I realise that they are shared by some people and one cannot dismiss them.
  It has also been represented to me that ships should be totally excluded from the Bill, that the position should be left as

  1075
  it is, so that a seaman committing a homosexual act aboard ship can be dealt with just as at present, and that there should be a blanket and complete exemption from the provisions of the Bill of any ship at sea. I do not think that that is possible. It introduces, and must introduce, a large number of unacceptable anomalies. I do not refer only to the obvious anomaly that it could mean that two discreet adults could commit an offence on land with impunity but if they went on a ship and were cruising they could receive a heavy sentence.
  I and other hon. Members will be less concerned with that problem. I am concerned that if I or the other sponsors of the Bill yielded on this matter the result could be that a seaman committing an offence on board ship could be brought before the courts by a suing master and be liable to a sentence of life imprisonment, if the sentences remain as they are now, whereas a naval rating who committed the offence would be liable only to a disciplinary charge. That could no doubt lead to his discharge, if the authorities so wished, and possibly to a maximum sentence of two years' confinement.
  Once one begins to examine anomalies of that kind, that does not seem a tenable proposition that could commend itself to the House. There is, therefore, a third view which has been put by the hon. Members who sponsor the Amendment. I understand their apprehensions. I have had the benefit of two long meetings with the National Maritime Board, on which the shipowners and all the seafaring organisations are represented, including the seamen. I understand the concern expressed in the Amendment and I want to make it unequivocally clear that if the House is generous enough to send the Bill to Committee I would in no way resist an Amendment founded upon the principle that a merchant seaman should be in no worse or no better a position than a naval rating. I have said that in as clear terms as I can and I hope that it will be received with understanding by those who have sponsored the Amendment. I hope that with that assurance they may find it possible not to pursue it.
  Some of the hon. Members who sponsored the Amendment have a history of long contact with the seaman's organisa-
  1076
  tions, and I therefore know that they will not misunderstand what I now say. I hope that if the Bill goes to Committee I will have their aid and co-operation between now and the Committee stage, for it may be needed. Trade unionists will understand what I am talking about. I do not want to do anything which in any way affects the position of the seaman, who are at present renegotiating the whole position of the Merchant Shipping Act and who are rightly concerned about the disciplinary offences embedded in that Act.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: My hon. Friend has seen the National Maritime Board, and I believe that he has seen the unions and shipowners. Were they receptive to the proposal he has just made?
  Mr. Abse: Since my hon. Friend presses me—I hope that he will not over-press me—may I say that it is entirely in accord with what the shipowners wish. But when an Amendment comes before the Committee I hope that if it cannot have the active support of the National Union of Seamen the union will at least not feel compelled to resist it. I am sure that my hon. Friend, having understood what I am speaking about, will not press the matter. I hope to have the co-operation of him and other hon. Members in trying to reach a solution which will mean that we can have an Amendment which will not be regarded as a reflection upon the seamen, and at the same time can be regarded as dealing with a necessary disciplinary situation aboard a ship.
  Having said that, I move on to some other Clauses, Clause 2 provides for punishments in accordance with the Wolfenden recommendations. Buggery committed by a man over 21 with a consenting youth over 16 will attract a penalty of five years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for acts of gross indecency committed by a man over 21 with a partner below 21 will be increased from two to five years. More, it reaffirms that an act of buggery against a boy can attract life imprisonment, and increases the penalty for a man over 21 attempting to procure or procuring a man under 21 to commit an act of gross indecency. That, too, will now attract five years' imprisonment and not two years.

  1077
  I believe that those provisions make it abundantly clear that the penalties that will be visited upon those who attempt to corrupt youth will be stern and relentless. No one, except those who are wilfully blind to the nature of our proceedings, can possibly spell out of the Bill any condonation whatever of homosexual conduct which can affect young people in their formative years.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: As I understand it, it is no offence where buggery is committed by males over 21. But it is still an offence liable to 10 years' imprisonment if one of the parties be a female. Surely, that should be corrected? I have in mind a particular case of rather grave blackmail which arose out of those circumstances.
  Mr. Abse: I am aware that, in spite of the esoteric nature of the argument which my hon. and learned Friend has raised, the point seems to have escaped attention in the other place, but I have no doubt that it will not escape attention now if the Bill goes to Committee. In my view, there is a grave anomaly as between the two cases.
  Clause 4 introduces a new principle, namely, that the law relating to the earnings of prostitution be applied to the earnings of male as well as female prostitutes. Clause 5 makes it unequivocally clear that the term "brothel" includes premises for homosexual practices. Clause 6 ends the pursuit of stale offences It makes very sad reading in the Wolfenden Report to find how cases have been pursued after five, six or even more years.
  Clause 7 reserves to the Director of Public Prosecutions the right to decide whether a prosecution should be brought against two minors who have committed an act which is an offence and which would be bound to lead to a prosecution if it were committed by someone over 21 against a minor. It will be recalled that the view taken in the Wolfenden Report was that, where behaviour of this kind had been accompanied by vicious behaviour, criminal behaviour, where, for instance, there had been bullying in an institution, there should, perhaps, be a prosecution even though the young people were under the age of 21. Perhaps, on the other hand, there should not be a prosecution when behaviour of this kind
  1078
  is the physical expression of what is, fortunately, a transient phase. It is accordingly suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have a discretion to deal with cases of this kind in order to ensure uniformity of practice. I hope that this will commend itself to the House.
  So much for the Bill, If there are any Second Reading points with which I have not dealt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who hopes to catch the eye of the Chair to wind up the debate, will take the opportunity to deal with other points which are raised.
  The paramount reason for the introduction of this Bill is that it may at last move our community away from being riveted to the question of punishment of homosexuals which has hitherto prompted us to avoid the real challenge of preventing little boys from growing up to be adult homosexuals. Surely, what we should be preoccupied with is the question of how we can, if it is possible, reduce the number of faulty males in the community. How can we diminish the number of those who grow up to have men's bodies but feminine souls?
  It is clear from the number of homosexuals who are about that, unfortunately, little boys do not automatically grow up to be men. Manhood and fatherhood have to be taught. Manhood has to be learnt. The only way for it to be taught is by example. It is true that there are dangers to a boy—a sophisticated House knows it—if an over-possessive mother ties her son to her with a silver cord so that the boy is enveloped in a feminine aura out of which he is never able to break and assert his masculine indepenpendence. We know that this happens. But, equally, it is certain from all the research that has been done that there is particular vulnerability for those who have had jealous or loveless fathers, for those with inadequate fathers, and for those—these are in the greatest danger of all—who are fatherless either by death or desertion. These have no father substitute with whom they can learn to identify.
  We hear often about mothercraft. We do not hear a great deal about fathercraft. The children of part-time parents, the children of the ambitious executive returning home after the boy is abed, perhaps, too, the children of over-busy

  1079
  Members of Parliament who work very hard from early in the morning till late at night and who sometimes say their children grow up without their knowing them—all these young people who, in effect, become de facto fatherless children, are hostages to fortune. In order to become men they need fathers with whom they can identify, not shadowy fathers, not hostile fathers, but fathers with whom they can learn, play and discuss things, fathers from whom they can have proper attention. Boys need more than pocket-money fathers who send them out to the cinema. They need real fathers.
  If we pass this Bill, we can be more profitably engaged in discussing how to mobilise our social resources better so that, for example, we could have more male child care officers and far more male teachers. We could consider how we could have a legitimacy law such as the Church has been calling for recently to enable the putative father to give legal recognition to his son and so save the boy from the syndrome, of which we are learning so much, of the dangerously genealogically bewildered child. We could be considering how to do more to help widows with children and unmarried mothers. We could consider how to find ways and means of leading those fatherless children who, with no man about the house to lead them on their way through boyhood, become bewildered and, in the confusions of adolescence, lose their way to manhood.
  I believe that continuance of the existing law fosters the illusion that solely by punishment we can prevent homosexuality. In my view, the passage of this Bill would free society from much of its morbid preoccupation with punishment. It could release its energies to the more constructive task of fostering stable family relations, family relations in which children can grow up certain of their identity and confident of their own rôle.
  7.37 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow all his points. With most of them I disagreed, but I shall deal only with one, to which
  1080
  He did not, I thought, go into sufficient detail.
  As on the previous occasion, the hon. Gentleman's speech today was filled with compassion for these unfortunate people. I believe that he is filled with a sincere and passionate desire to help not only these people but others in unfortunate circumstances. I have heard him on several occasions speak thus.
  Many matters divide this side of the House from that, and there are many, indeed, which divide hon. Members on the same side, but some things we have in common. Compassion is one of them. I suppose that most hon. Members, if not all, have been through the fires of life. When we have done that and we see a person in trouble or difficulty, we do not condemn him but rather say "There but for the grace of God go I". But this is not enough. There is a deeper, richer, more enduring compassion, the compassion which steels a man to do his duty.
  Any man or woman who has been in authority over his fellow men, particularly if that authority has extended to control of their welfare as well as their work, knows that it is often necessary to act in a way which appears hard, harsh and perhaps even swinish at times. It is only later, perhaps years later, that those who have been under that control will say "Thank God that someone had the courage, the moral fibre, to say 'No' when it would have been so easy to say 'Yes'."
  I do not want to deal with the Bill with any degree of emotion. We are here to pass legislation. So I turn now to what seems to me to be a grotesque Bill. As the hon. Member said, Clause 1(5) does not apply to the fighting Services. We heard some of his arguments about the difficulties of the Merchant Navy. As far as the fighting Services are concerned, 500,000–600,000 men will be outside the provisions of the Bill and will remain under the old Acts. It is customary in the Navy—I speak about the Navy because I know it best, but it is probably the case in the other Services as well—that when the sailors go ashore, particularly the younger men, they are addressed by the officer of the watch and warned of the troubles and the difficulties that they may get into when they go ashore. Now we shall have to add to

  1081
  that. The officer of the watch will have to say to them, "When you go ashore you may indulge in homosexual practices as much as you like, but if you do so when you come back on board and are found out you will be put in prison."
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: On what possible grounds does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that any commanding officer in the Navy would say anything like that to the men?
  Captain Elliot: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the officer does not say it, he ought to say it.
  I will mention one side effect that may come from this. It is possible for an officer to go ashore and indulge in these practices and when he returns on board he may be called on to serve on a court martial and send a man to prison for indulging in them. I believe that there are the seeds of new corruption in the procedure. In peacetime there are 500,000–600,000 men concerned. In wartime there may be 5 million or 6 million. Is the hon. Member for Pontypool going to propose that in wartime this Bill should be suspended and men not prosecuted and sent to prison, or does he propose to leave the Bill as it is?
  Mr. Paget: Did not one frequently in the Navy have people up for gambling in the wrong place? But the fact that one gambled oneself did not prevent one from dealing with that disciplinary offence.
  Captain Elliot: The two cases are quite different. I believe that it would be most reprehensible if an officer indulging in these practices ashore was called upon to judge a man doing the same thing on board.
  Why should not this Bill be applied to the Services? The Wolfenden Committee said "not" in what seems to me to be rather woolly language. It said:
  "We recognise that within services and establishments whose members are subject to a disciplinary regime it may be necessary, for the sake of good management "—
  whatever he means by that—
  "and the preservation of discipline and for the protection of those of subordinate rank"—
  and so on. That was a very mild statement.
  I prefer the statement by Mr. Adair. It was not exactly a minority report; it
  1082
  was in his reservations, and there is a great deal in his reservations, which are well worth reading:
  "… as I assess the consequences, increase in the trend towards homosexual practices would be marked and intense, while the effect on the morale of members of the Services would be adverse and corrupting."
  That would be the case—I agree with him—in the Services.
  So, in spite of what seem to me to be grotesque anomalies, I certainly would not have this Bill applying to the Services. But why should there be this increase in the Services? We have been told by many people that homosexuals are born. Surely the removal of the deterrent in the form of punishment, such as imprisonment, cannot cause more of them to be born. The reason is, in my view, that the majority of homosexuals are made and not born.
  But in the Services there is a very tight control of the men. Their training is designed to stiffen their moral fibre and train their bodies and minds. Yet if we remove the deterrent we shall get, in the words of Mr. Adair, a "marked and intense" increase. But in civilian life ashore one has not that tight control, nor the discipline, and so I believe that one will get just as much marked and intense an increase, or even more, if the Bill is passed.
  In the words of Mr. Adair:
  "What this may mean by way of increase in the behaviour can only be matter for speculation, but one thing seems to stand out—homosexual, like most practices, propagate themselves."
  I believe that to be true.
  I think it is worth considering the side effects of the Bill. We should, I presume, get a succession of plays on television and on the stage on the subject. We should get more books on it. We should get more clubs. I believe that the vice would be looked upon as a normal and natural part of our daily life, and all checks would be gone.
  I sincerely believe that if the Bill is passed it will increase homosexual practices and not reduce them. It will not cleanse the national bloodstream; it will corrupt and poison it. It will not bring more happiness; it will bring greater misery. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject it.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service.
  I find myself in some difficulty over the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). I do not regard myself in any way as an expert on this subject, but I have been, as he has been, a member of the Services, I have also been in industry for a very long time, and I know the maritime world pretty well. He was categorical about the way a homosexual was born or made. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. From my observations I should say that some are made and some are born.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the very generous, lucid and eloquent way in which he moved the Second Reading and for his attitude towards our Amendment. He will appreciate that the Amendment has been signed by eight hon. Members with strong Liverpool and Merseyside connections and therefore with strong connections with the Merchant Navy. All of us who have signed the Amendment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and some hon. Members opposite, feel that it is a reasoned Amendment and not as described last week by Tribune.
  I was rather surprised that, because we oppose the Bill and have put down an Amendment, Tribune should have called us reactionary. Indeed, I have no doubt that, if I read the article to the House, it would cause some amusement to hear described as "reactionaries" Liverpool Labour Members who have spent their lifetime working among slum conditions and trying to get rid of the environment in which we were born and who have worked near the seafront all our lives. We have spent our adult
  1084
  lives in the Labour movement, as did our fathers and grandfathers before us. Yet Tribune says:
  "Surprisingly, the latest development has not come from that indefatigable bastion of reaction, Sir Cyril Osborne, but from a group of Labour M.P.s. …"
  We are all mentioned and I want to say to the person here who wrote that article that, if he had gone through with the Merchant Navy what I went through—I would have welcomed support at the time—when I led the whole of the Merchant Navy back to an honourable settlement under very great difficulties in the 1960 strike, as well as playing a not unimportant part in settling the last strike, he would appreciate that I am not a reactionary in any way. I am speaking as a Merseyside man. I put down this reasoned Amendment and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House by virtue of its very reasonableness.
  The Amendment states:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account'—
  and I regard this as the important part—
  "that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service."
  I think that that is a very reasonable Amendment and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool for the manner in which he has dealt with it, but he was unable, in answer to a question I put to him, to tell me that the conciliatory attitude which he promised for the Committee stage has been accepted by the National Union of Seamen.
  Mr. Abse: I have explained to the union that this appears to me to require an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act to implement what I want to implement and what my hon. Friend wants to implement. The union is therefore discussing the matter. This creates problems of which my hon. Friend will be fully aware.
  Mr. Mahon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation, which helps to some degree. But it does not quite

  1085
  satisfy me. I do not want to be difficult about the Amendment. I do not want to make it false or a vehicle for just voting against the Bill. I want it treated on its merits. The N.U.S. has been most explicit in requesting the aid of hon. Members who have signed the Amendment and I ask my hon. Friend to consider what I have said.
  The General Secretary of the N.U.S., Mr. Hogarth, has written me a letter. It might have been more profitable had an Amendment to the penal clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act been dealt with before this Bill, for this might have clarified the situation. But the letter from Mr. Hogarth states categorically that the representatives of the industry—both ship owners and seafarers' organisations—have already taken this matter up with the Board of Trade and the Home Office. He states, however:
  "… owing to the fact that it is a Private Members' Bill, whilst they are sympathetic, they are unable to do anything regarding amending this Bill at the present time, and we as an organisation would like to think that something could be done to amend it. In fact, what we would really like to see is entire exemption of the Merchant Service from the Bill."
  Thus, the British seamen are asking for entire exemption from the Bill and that is what we are asking. If we could have that assurance we should know where we stood.
  Dr. David Kerr: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, would he not agree that it is implicit that the letter calls not for the defeat of this Bill on Second Reading but for the inclusion of a Clause exempting the merchant seamen?
  Mr. Mahon: I would be very willing to give such an undertaking. There is no suggestion in Mr. Hogarth's letter that, because of this aspect, the whole Bill should be defeated. It is logical that, if this Amendment could not be included, the Bill would stand a chance of being defeated by those who believe that the Amendment is necessary. The letter from Mr. Hogarth goes on
  "I don't think there is much need at this juncture for me to stress the fact that seamen spend most of their lives in a very confined space, and nothing could happen aboard ship which could be considered private to the rest of a ship's company."
  It asks for the help of M.P.s in getting the Amendment accepted. I should like
  1086
  to know why the Bill refers to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force but forgets the Merchant Navy. I have one explanation but, with my background of the sea and the Merchant Service, I cannot understand why it was not included in the first place. A memorandum I have from seafaring organisations says that the Bill is dealing with
  "… homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. In the special circumstances of shipboard life there is little real privacy …"
  In any kind of ship, whether it be cargo or passenger, there is very little privacy indeed. Many of us have seen great improvements in seagoing conditions and hope to see more. There was a time, when my father was at sea, when there were 100 or 150 men in the fo'c'sle. Indeed, I can assure the House that my family has had such strong connections with the sea that ships involved in disasters like the "Lusitania", the "Titanic" and the "Gargarian" and others all had Mahons and relations of Mahons on board. I remember when I started work in 1929 or 1930, how horrible the conditions still were. There has been a tremendous improvement since then and I pay tribute to the Board of Trade and others responsible. But there is still great overcrowding and there is no possibility at sea of privacy. If an offence is committed at sea, it is not private. One knows at sea what happens in very quick time. It is rather like the House of Commons in one or two respects.
  Captain W. Elliot: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lot of privacy in the Merchant Navy, which would explain why the Mechant Navy has not been included? For example, on a passenger ship there are many cabins which are private, and, presumably, the passengers would be exempt from the punishment whereas merchant seamen might be sent to prison.
  Mr. Mahon: I take the point, but I do not agree that there is a great deal of privacy even on a great passenger liner. How news travels about, even news about what the passengers are doing, is amazing. Anyone who has lived close to the docks as I have, would know that news flows fast and free. I agree that there could be difficulties with a distinction between passengers and crew, but at this stage I want only to deal with the Merchant Navy.

  1087
  It may not be generally known that the average age in the merchant service is only 27, a very young average. It is certainly much lower than it was in the years which I mentioned earlier. It shows what a large proportion of young men the service has. The normal distractions of shore life do not exist on board ship. Men live and work together every hour of the day for long periods and in such circumstances overt forms of homosexuality could be a very corrupting influence.
  In merchant ports, such as that which I represent, the fathers and mothers who now encourage their sons—and their daughters—to go to sea would not be so keen to advise their children to take up the sea as a career if the Bill were to be passed without the Amendment. In this country, economically as in every other way, we need a Merchant Navy which has been and will be of the highest possible order in the world. If we do not get the right men, if, for one reason or another, the good men leave the sea or are not attracted to it, the effect on the service will be extremely deleterious.
  Mr. John Tilney: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of these sons are under 21?
  Mr. Mahon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have with me in the building the discharge book of a sailor who spent 53 years at sea, one of the members of my own family, starting at the age of 12. There are now boys in Liverpool who are most anxious to go to sea at the earliest possible opportunity and who, at the age of 15, are being trained in the catering and deck departments, waiting their time to go to sea, as boys of their age always have, with the great love of the sea and of the maritime service which we all share.
  Mr. Abse: As my hon. Friend says that his opposition is not fractious, will he allow me to interrupt to the extent of reading a letter which I sent on 7th November to the National Maritime Board—I do not know when my hon. Friend's letter was received.
  I said:
  "It will be recalled that I sought to explain to the deputation that my Bill as it stands has protected the position of the Armed
  1088
  Forces by making it unequivocally clear that any man, in the event of my Bill becoming law, could still be charged under the Army Act (or under the Navy or Air Force Acts) with disgraceful conduct of an indecent or unnatural kind. In view of the concern which you expressed to me, I offered to attempt to amend my Bill so that a Clause could be added amending the Merchant Shipping Acts so that the Merchant Navy could be given the same protection as the Bill accords to the Navy, Army and Air Force; and this would be done by making disgraceful and unnatural conduct a disciplinary offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  I made it abundantly clear, however, at our meeting that I was not prepared to attempt to do this without the full agreement of the Seamen's Union. The Representative of the Shipowners present appeared to agree in principle that such an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act should come about but the Seamen's Union representatives naturally wished to take instructions from their colleagues. I have today heard from the Seamen's Union, that they will not agree to any such Clause amending the Merchant Shipping Acts. In the circumstances, I thought it right to inform you that I am not pursuing this aspect of the matter; but if as a result of any further talks between the shipowners representatives and the seamen's representatives agreement of the Union is secured to my attempting to introduce such an amendment, then my offer of course remains open."
  Since this letter, I have seen the Maritime Board, including the union representatives, and I am waiting for them to come back to me. What more can I do to meet my hon. Friend's point?
  Mr. Mahon: I am in the same position as my hon. Friend is. I am sticking to my brief and he is sticking to his. This is not the first time that the shipping unions have disagreed with the shipowners. I have found myself in that position many times. I can understand some of the shipowners, but the seamen's union is not satisfied with the position as it is. In any event, my hon. Friend is asking for an Amendment to an Act of which he does not have control. If I could get a categorical undertaking tonight from the Government Front Bench, we could see precisely where we were. I am not being fractious, but we do not have that undertaking from the Board of Trade. I have been pressing for the whole of my life for an Amendment of the penal Clauses of the 1889 Act—doing so has become a family tradition. I have made more speeches on the Liverpool Dock Road about the penal Clauses of the Merchant Shipping Acts than I care to remember. If such an Amendment were

  1089
  made, we might be in a better position now and able to get along more easily and in a more conciliatory fashion. But until vie get that, we cannot and will not accept the very charitable and conciliatory offer which my hon. Friend has made.
  Unless we get what we are asking, unless the Merchant Navy is given special conditions and special considerations, then I have it on the highest possible authority that the service could become an attractive venue for homosexuals. Like hon. Members who have spoken earlier, I have a great deal of compassion—I have had it all my life—for people who have their particular difficulties in this respect. I must say that I cannot fully understand their difficulties. However, I do not want corruption to spread among seamen or in the industry itself. The presence of homosexuals could give rise to serious conflicts at sea and jealousies could even lead to violence.
  I put this seriously to the House. One often reads or hears about someone having disappeared at sea, but that is not always the case. We all know of cases when, deplorably enough, something like this has happened. It can happen at sea. There are no back doors at sea. It is an entirely different world. Once a ship leaves port, conditions are totally different. That is why we are asking for these guarantees. Being at sea is not like being in the Imperial Hotel, or any other hotel, or any other private place. I speak with great authority on this. Being at sea is an entirely different world. I understand the sea and I understand the seamen if I understand nothing else.
  There are tremendous difficulties about trying to discipline a crew. There is nothing wrong with discipline, and one has to have it at sea or in any other aspect of society, reasonable and good discipline. I did not find the Army irksome when I was in it. I was not half as well disclined in the Services as I was by industry and poverty. Poverty is the greatest disciplinary force in the world, and we were very well disciplined. I found the Army a piece of cake compared with industry. It is difficult for the master of a ship to maintain discipline, and this Bill will make it worse. The same applies to chief engineers or chief stewards.
  These unfortunate people are attracted to catering departments as a rule. Maybe
  1090
  there is something in this for those people who want to study such things. They are not so often found in the engine room or the deck service, but usually in the catering service, with great respect to that service. These are the difficulties with which the seamen's union have to contend. These are facts, and I know that they are true. If these people were attracted by the kind of protection they would have at sea, matters would become very difficult indeed. Determined efforts have been made in the past to avoid any growth of this difficulty for these unfortunate people. The Maritime Board, the owners and the unions have been watchful and reasonably successful. If the application of the Bill to shipping caused the work of which I am talking to be undone, there would undoubtedly he a tendency for the good men to leave the sea.
  Unless we can get this undertaking, then we will press this Amendment. This is where my great interest in the maritime service comes out. I want the best possible recruitment to this service, and I believe that every hon. Member of this House does too. It is important that we do the best that we can for young men and that we stop them from being corrupted if we can. It is important for the benefit of the country, for the economy of the country and for the high standards and traditions of this service, in peace and war, maintained through tremendous difficulties. If we cannot get this protection for the young boys and girls who will be recruited into this service, then we will press our Amendment and will vote against the Bill.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am sure that we all admire the Merchant Navy and the work which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has done in this connection, But it seems to be that he has erected what is essentially a Committee point into a Second Reading point. I did not follow all of his arguments exactly. I was quite unable to see why, if one legalises homosexuality on land, that should drive homosexuals to sea. It does not seem to be at all likely to happen, particularly as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who moved this Bill so admirably has pointed out, this is liable to be made illegal at sea. Whether or not that is so this is

  1091
  essentially a Committee point. Whatever our admiration may be of the National Union of Seamen we ought to keep a sense of proportion. It may or may not be right that the N.U.S. should be able to bring our economy more or less to a standstill but it should not have a veto on our social legislation as well.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: The National Union of Seamen has had one strike in 60 years—one strike in the whole of its history.
  Mr. Gilmour: I was not criticising, I was merely pointing out that this had happened. I think that we ought to preserve a suitable sense of proportion about the union's activities in connection with this Bill, because in spite of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and the hon. Member for Bootle have said, this Bill relates primarily to the land, where most people are situated, and not to the sea. I was quite unable to understand the directions which the officer of the watch would have to give according to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton.
  Surely it is the case that there are a number of other countries where homosexuality is legal? Do their navies find that this is an enormous difficulty? Surely it is the case that there are any number of things that are perfectly permissible on land and by those in the Armed Forces when on leave but which are totally impermissible when they are serving in the Forces, whether on sea or land. For one thing members of the Forces are encouraged to wear uniform, members of political parties are not. All sorts of matters of public decency are illegal in the Forces but are perfectly legal in civilian life.
  Captain W. Elliot: I do not know why my hon. Friend is making quite so much of this. It is quite a simple thing about warning the sailor or perhaps the soldier as well. Many of them are pretty young and inexperienced and one warns them about a lot of elementary things when they go ashore. Surely this anomaly of the practice being legal ashore but illegal on board is likely to lead them into trouble unless it is drummed into them.
  Mr. Gilmour: I do not follow that because if they are young it will not be legal on land and secondly the standards of behaviour on ship or in the Army or Air Force are quite different from those required in civilian life. This happens in other countries and I do not see that it is a great difficulty.
  I support this Bill because the present law seems to have almost everything possible wrong with it. It is unjust, unenforceable, hypocritical, illogical and an invitation to further crime. It is unjust because it singles out, quite arbitrarily a particular set of people for their particular habits. It is unenforceable because there are too many of these people to enable the law to be enforced. We do not know how many there are but, if there are half a million and we were able to catch them, we would not have any idea of what to do with them. But we are not able to catch them. There is this fantastic disparity, pointed out in the Wolfenden Report, between something like 100 prosecutions and 500,000 people at least engaged in this activity.
  The present law amounts to an annual ritual sacrifice with the victims selected purely by chance, at the rate of about one to 5,000 or one to 10,000.
  It is hypocritical because everyone knows homosexuals and everyone knows that there are homosexuals in all walks of life. People do not think much the worse of them, they certainly do not consider them criminals. But the law treats them as such and when one of them is caught he is sent to prison for doing what everyone knows he has been doing for a great many years and for doing what something like half a million or a million people are doing regularly. That seems to me to be taking the law beyond its normal level of acceptable hypocrisy.
  The law is illogical because it treats one form of sexual activity differently. There is no logical basis which I know for saying that male homosexuality is more damaging to the social fabric or the nation's bloodstream, as it has been called, than female homosexuality or adultery. Yet the law treats it as though it is uniquely anti-social. The blackmail point which has been shrugged off is important because the law is an invitation to crime. There are people who say that there will still be blackmail

  1093
  even if the Bill is passed, which, incidentally, is an admission that one of the arguments against the Bill is bad because it implicitly concedes that there would still be social condemnation even after it were passed.
  But the blackmail point is important because if somebody goes to the police he does not know that he will not end up in prison instead of the blackmailer. It is odd that this should happen, but police forces still act in this way, or if they do not they did until quite recently. If the Bill were passed, that situation could no longer occur. A man could go to the police and he would never have to pay up again. Blackmail would become for homosexuality, as it is for other things, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used to say when I was his pupil at the Bar, purely a voluntary tax. For homosexuality, blackmail is not a voluntary, but an involuntary tax. By passing this law, we should make it voluntary again and at least would be abolishing one tax.
  Coming to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton, it was thought by Albert the Great that homosexuality was as contagious as disease and by Justinian that homosexuality created earthquakes. I do not suppose that anybody believes that today, but the present incidence of homosexuality is irrelevant to the law.
  My hon. and gallant Friend talked about the incidence of homosexuality going up because of homosexuals propagating themselves, but he must consider the situation in other countries. Germany is the only other country in Western Europe which has such a law. Does he, and do the opponents of the Bill, think that English people are significantly more prone to this vice than people in other countries and that they are kept in check only by the law? Or does he think that there is very much less homosexuality in this country because of the law?
  Captain W. Elliot: I was quoting the words of Mr. Adair, one of the members of the Wolfenden Committee. But from my experience of controlling these practices in a large company of men, I am convinced that the deterrent of the present law—the action one takes to control it, to stamp it out—is very effective.
  Mr. Gilmour: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend's experience was, but if he had to stamp it out that is a fair indication that it was there, although it was forbidden. I do not quite follow the logic of his remark.
  There is a hidden assumption among some of the opponents of the Bill that homosexuality is inherently very attractive and more enjoyable than normal sexual relations. They seem to think that once the present law is abolished a lot of previously law-abiding heterosexuals will shout "hurrah" and become homosexuals. If they do not assume this, why are they worried by this Bill?
  I support the Bill because it brings the law on homosexuality into line with the law on the rest of sexual matters, because it brings it into line with that of most other countries in Europe, and, above all, because it brings it into line with common sense.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) put the case in favour of the Bill so admirably that I hesitated in rising to speak. However, having got up to speak, I shall address the House very briefly as the hon. Gentleman has put my points so well.
  I am well aware of the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) about seamen and life on board ship, and we paid great attention to what he said. But I think he was a bit illogical. He has not moved an Amendment suggesting a change in the Bill; he has moved an Amendment rejecting the Bill, which is quite different. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said on behalf of the sponsors that the principle embodied in the Amendment would be acceptable—in other words, to put the Merchant Navy in the same position as the Royal Navy. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, that principle will be embodied in the Bill on condition that the National Union of Seamen agrees with the Amendment. I do not know how much further we can go.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: And subject to the amending of another Bill over which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has no control.
  Mr. Strauss: One can put forward whatever new Clause one likes in the Bill. There is no reason I know of why, with the agreement of the Government, a Bill of this sort cannot amend another Bill. But my hon. Friend is advocating the rejection of the whole Bill. I understand his point of view, because he voted against a similar Bill previously. But we should be clear that the principle for which he is asking is accepted by the sponsors of the Bill who will do their utmost to incorporate it in the Bill.
  Captain W. Elliot: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how we would get over the question of civilians and passengers at sea in merchant vessels vis-à-vis the crews?
  Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle put forward a suggestion concerning merchant seamen. It had nothing to do with passengers or civilians on board ship.
  Captain ElliotI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood the point. What is the position concerning merchant seamen and passengers indulging in these practices? If the Bill covers the Merchant Navy, seamen can be sent to prison. Presumably for the civilian the act would be perfectly legal.
  Mr. Strauss: I do not think that we can go further than say that the man in the Merchant Marine would be in the same position as the naval rating in the Royal Navy. That is what we are providing.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) was convinced that if the Bill were passed the most terrible things would happen and that the moral fibre of the nation would be weakened, or something of that sort. I wish that people who speak like that would remember that until the 1866 Act was passed and, by an accident, an Amendment was included which made prosecution against homosexuality permissible, there was no law against homosexuals. During the great, vigorous Victorian age, with its great virile people, building up the Empire, increasing its industrial production and all the rest, there were no prosecutions for homosexuality.
  Mr. Charles Pannell1885, not 1866.
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, 1885. There were no prosecutions.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a point of accuracy. Although I am in agreement on the general premise, there was a Henrician Statute penalising buggery, although there was not an offence of gross indecency. That offence, however, was on the Statute Book.
  Mr. Strauss: I think I am right in saying that there was no Act which made it a criminal offence for consulting male adults to have intercourse together in private. There were certainly no prosecutions during that period. I know that in the Middle Ages there were certain ecclesiastical offences, but as regards the limited point which the hon. Member and others have made, no such Act was in operation in this country. There were no prosecutions, and the country flourished.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of accuracy and information. It is not fundamental to the argument, but am I not right in thinking that buggery was a common law felony?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We cannot have interventions on interventions.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I might attempt to help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the position was that it was a statutory felony under a Statute of Henry VIII.
  Mr. Strauss: Some of us want to go forward and not back.
  The Bill wants to do something quite simple: to remove from the criminal code an offence which is not enforced but which, nevertheless, brands about half a million of our citizens as criminals. It is a blackmailers' charter. Those were the words used about it by the Recorder of London when the former Bill was passed. The existing law has proved to be a blackmailers' charter and, so far from helping those who suffer the abnormality of homosexuality, it impedes the possibility of cure. That is the view not only of church workers who are familiar with the problem, but of the psychiatrists and psychologists who have had great experience of this problem.

  1097
  That this law is unenforceable is obvious. Everybody must agree with that, however much people may dislike its repeal. I suggest, however, that the present situation, because the law is unenforceable, is not tolerable for Parliament. Parliament would never pass a new law which it knew to be unenforceable or enforceable only at the whim of a chief constable who may or may not desire to operate it. If we are not prepared to bring in a new law of that sort, I suggest that for the same reason, if we find an existing law unenforceable, thereby bringing the legislature and criminal justice into disrepute, we must surely want to repeal it.
  It would have been done long ago, shortly after the Wolfenden Report was published, about ten years ago, but for the fact that, alas, it is much easier to pass a criminal Act than to repeal one. We know too that on a subject such as this, when the behaviour concerned arouses such powerful emotions in those who condemn it as to override rational argument, it is very difficult to make a change. We hope, however, that in view of public opinion and the fact that the Bill has been passed in another place and has already been passed by this House, the time has come when we will he able to take the final step in repealing this indefensible and unenforceable law.
  It has been said that the existing law gives rise to a great deal of blackmail. But we know only of those cases that come into court. We have been told that most blackmail cases are concerned in one way or another with homosexual behaviour. We do not know how many cases do not come into court, but many of us are aware from personal knowledge and experience how widespread this blackmail practice is. The existence of the present law gives blackmailers marvellous opportunities, on which they flourish.
  It is true that if we pass the Bill today, blackmail will not be entirely eliminated as homosexuality is condemned by the majority of people, but it will mitigate it. The fear of imprisonment, if a case is reported to the police, will disappear. Victims will be able to go to the police and expose those who are attempting to blackmail them without the risk of prosecution themselves.
  1098
  There is a further and very important aspect of this matter which has not yet been mentioned. It is the difficulty of helping homosexuals as long as the present law remains as it is. A previous Archbishop, when talking about homosexuals and the condition in which they live described it as,
  "… a nightmare world into which there can be no entrance of the forces of righteousness until the offences are made not criminal".
  It is largely for that reason that the leaders of all the churches have said that the law should be changed and that, whatever the morality aspect of the matter may be, it is wrong to make a matter of conscience such as this subject to the criminal code. The churches, too, are animated by a deep sense of compassion for homosexuals. It is a compassion which I should have thought every hon. Member must share. They are already suffering under a dire handicap through no fault of their own. They are handicapped through their inability to lead normal happy lives and have families, which the majority of the community are able to do. They are also frequently the subject of derision. The Bill obviously will not free them from these disadvantages, but at least it will relieve them from being criminals under the law and from the fear of blackmail which haunts them all their lives.
  It is unfortunately a characteristic of societies to persecute minorities who do not conform in colour, race, religion or habits with the majority members. The more civilised the society, the less the persecution, and the degree of tolerance of minorities is a measure of the civilised quality of a society. One section of society in Great Britain is still persecuted, but to a much less degree than it was previously owing to a remarkable change in public opinion, which has become more understanding and sympathetic, and because of the publicly expressed views of leaders of the churches, the moral guardians of the nation, and of the experts in these matters.
  The greater study of this abnormality made by most of the leaders of the professions in the departments of sociology, psychology and psychiatry of our universities and hospitals, has caused them to declare themselves strongly in favour of the repeal of the present law along the

  1099
  lines proposed by the Bill before us. I cannot doubt that this House will come to the same conclusion tonight.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Although I take a different view from that of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I thought that he addressed himself to the heart of the argument, and I hope that I shall be able to refer to some of the points that he has made.
  I want first to associate myself with those hon. Members who have praised the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of his Bill. I think that the House feels that he strikes the perfect balance between stolid normality and flamboyant eccentricity which has enabled him to do it so well. He assisted the House greatly by the way in which he put it forward, and I was particularly glad that in his speech we did not hear what we have had before from champions of this Measure—a lot of talk about how everyone recognises that homosexuality is, of course, a sin. I have always felt that that sort of humbug spoiled the case of those who were advocating this Measure. I was glad that it was absent today.
  I support the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber, but if he divides the House against giving the Bill a Second Reading, I shall vote for his Amendment, although I am primarily against the Bill lock, stock, and barrel, and root and branch. I am against it out of respect for the opinion, as I understand it, of what I believe to be the vast majority of the people whom I was elected to this House to represent, people who may not be long-haired intellectuals, but who are the men and women who make the world go round. Their case may be deficient in logic, but I believe that it ought to be supported, for the reasons, which I shall give.
  I should first like to criticise the Government, if the right hon. Lady will not think it too harsh of me, for giving time to this Bill in the first place, because I think that it represents a questionable order of priorities. I may be right, or I may be wrong about that, but it under-
  1100
  mines such little confidence as I have in the Government.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the two statements he has just made, first congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on introducing the Measure, and then criticising the Government for enabling him. to do so?
  Mr. Iremonger: I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in certain respects, but he is not doing justice to himself. He either did not listen, or he did not understand. I congratulated the hon. Member for Pontypool on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I thought that it was a first-class piece of advocacy for a case which I oppose. I oppose the Bill, but I think that the Second Reading was moved as well as it could be. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the distinction?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I still do not know what the hon. Gentleman is grumbling about.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am congratulating the hon. Member for Pontypool on the way in which he introduced a bad Measure. I am criticising the Government for giving time for a bad Measure. I think that it demonstrates a lamentable order of priorities.
  I think that the Government are susceptible to criticism on another ground, namely, that if they support the Measure, if they think it is important, they ought themselves to have taken the odium of introducing it by putting it into the Criminal Justice Bill, or of introducing it themselves in its present form. They should not do as they did with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nielson and Colne. They should not give time for something which they know the country opposes, and enable it to go through, but allow themselves a loophole electorally by not taking responsibility for it. I criticise and condemn them for that. I think that the Bill is bad, but it is worse of the Government to give time for it without taking full responsibility.
  Dr. Hugh Gray: What evidence is there for the hon. Gentleman'

  1101
  contention that the country is opposed to the Bill?
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman and I are in the same position. We neither of us know. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the country is in favour of the Bill, he ought to say to his right hon. Friend that it is a pity the Government did not adopt a popular and—as they thought—right Measure.
  Dr. Gray: I am congratulating the Government on allowing a free vote on the Bill, and I take it that that was their reason for giving time for the Bill and allowing us to discuss it.
  Mr. Iremonger: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use this rather disreputable phrase "a free vote", because it has implications which I and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would not care to accept. If the hon. Gentleman is congratulating the Government for allowing a "free vote", he is on another point. I am not criticising the Government for not putting the Whips on. I am criticising them for giving time to the Bill.
  Dr. Gray: I am congratulating them on both counts.
  Mr. Iremonger: We differ on that. I like to give way to hon. Members, but to give way does impede the progress of the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House. I hope that the House will not think that I am ungenerous if I say that I will proceed without taking further time over interruptions.
  I want to deal with the important point about blackmail. I notice that the proponents of the Bill want to have it both ways. They say that this will not entirely rule out blackmail and yet the argument that it will rule out blackmail is put forward as a prime one in favour of the Bill. My view is that the first point is correct. I am not convinced that blackmailers will be greatly discouraged by the passing of the Bill. A blackmailer blackmails his victim now in respect of homosexuality not because he is able to threaten him with the possibility of a conviction in court but because he knows that the practice is socially unacceptable and will disgrace the person in respect of whom he may give information.
  I do not believe that, if this Bill is passed, many men who are subject to
  1102
  blackmail by reason of their homosexuality will say that it does not matter now. Not many will say, "You can tell my boss. You can tell my family. You can tell my friends. I don't care. What's more, I'll run you in." In my opinion only a small minority of homosexuals threatened by blackmailers will he prepared to say that they do not mind. That being so, it seems to me that one of the strongest arguments put forward in favour of the Bill does not stand examination.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: If the Bill is passed, the man who is blackmailed has a counterattack by being able to threaten the man who is blackmailing him that he will go to the police.
  Mr. Iremonger: The blackmailer still holds the trump card, which is to give information to the people who are in a position to ruin the life of the victim.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: It will have to be proved.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) says that it will have to be proved. If blackmailers had to prove everything, nobody would be frightened of them. Therefore, the blackmailer argument is not as conclusive as it is supposed to be.
  I am less impressed than many who support the Bill by the argument that the present state of the law leaves a substantial minority with a burning grievance against society. This is an over-simplification of a social problem. The homosexual who feels that he is rejected by society does so not because of any laws but because, rightly or wrongly, he is rejected. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to compassion. That is something which is more prevalent in the House, perhaps, than in society at large outside. The grievance of the homosexual minority is that they are kept away from the mainstream of human relationships and are regarded by their fellow human beings—who understand their condition—as being somehow different and unacceptable. Whether that is right or wrong is another question, but to suggest that altering the law will remove from those people the blight on their lives and their grievance against society is to underrate the depth of their problem. That argument, therefore, does not commend itself to me, either.

  1103
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the present state of the law is the result of a purely fortuitous Amendment slipped in during a debate by Mr. Labouchere late at night, without debate or a consideration of the serious difficulties to which it would give rise. I concede this point to the proponents of the Bill. If we could have life and history all over again and could go back to that moment in the 1880s when the House was considering that Measure and Labouchere popped in that Amendment, there would be hon. Members here today who—if they could have been there—would have said, "Let us not do this. It won't work out. This Measure will give rise to greater evils than it will cure".
  I will concede that. But the trouble is that the law is the law and is accepted by the community, rightly or wrongly, as representing the moral standards and the strength of the social fabric. This House cannot right a wrong just by changing the law. It has to consider the psychological implications on society of this House coming forward, as the public will see it—[Interruption.]—With respect, many men and women whom I know will see this House coming forward as "Authority", as Parliament, as the legislature, and saying, "We are giving our blessing to sexual licence and to practice which you regard as abominable."—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must try to recognise the difference between saying that we approve of something, and, on the other hand, saying that we do not believe that it is criminal. The two things are quite different. To say that it is not criminal is not to have approval of it.
  Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman is too clever. He sees the distinction, but many of his constituents will not—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman should try.
  Mr. Iremonger: I accept the hon. Gentleman's reproof. I should try, and, in my humble way, I do try. I am prepared to go on trying, but this is a long and uphill battle. To do this—to pass the Bill—now would do more harm psychologically than it would do good legalistically.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a very large proportion of people who are homosexuals at present marry in order to erect a facade of normality, that this gives rise to terrible tragedies for the children of the marriages and for the wives and that this Measure could end that situation?
  Mr. Iremonger: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We all know of this: we have seen it happening. Where I differ from the hon. Lady is in her confidence that this Measure will cure that. I cannot be convinced in my own mind. Of course, one cannot have certainty about this, but must make up one's own mind, or there would be no necessity for debate. I am not convinced that the good that it would do in that respect and in the blackmail respect and the grievance respect and so on is as great as the evil I see it doing—this is purely my opinion—to the confidence of society in this House and in its institutions in upholding the fabric of society.
  That is my argument. I may be wrong, but I am not prepared to move from it in my present state of ignorance and opinion. I will therefore vote against the Bill and I wish that the House would also vote against it. I wish that the Labouchere Amendment had never been passed, but as it has been passed, I am afraid that all the evil it has done cannot be removed by simply repealing it.
  I do not accept, either, the reproof of the proponents of the Bill who say, "Oh, but how illogical! What about lesbians?" It may be illogical and if the Labouchere Amendment had included lesbians, I would present just the same argument about repealing it with respect to them. I am glad that it did not include lesbians, but my central objection to the Bill is not met by the recognition that lesbians are not at present victims of the law in the way that male homosexuals are.
  There is, in any case, a certain sociological logic in taking a different view of lesbianism. I would be prepared to accept the argument that the personality and nature of women are distinguishable from the personality and nature of men—because of the strength of their sexual initiatives and drives—and that the effect in

  1105
  society of lesbian women is not so potent as that of homosexual men. Nobody knows or hears of women being corrupted on a large scale by lesbian women, whereas I do not think that even the most doughty champion of the Bill would deny that many male homosexuals are of the proselytising type. Even they have very great misgivings—they talk about homosexuality as a tragedy, and they recognise the danger of the corruption of the young, for example—about the propensity of male homosexuals to try to spread their practice among others. I do not think that that can be denied. To make such a denial, the hon. Member for Pontypool would have to go back on the principle on which the Clauses increasing penalties for corruption of young people are based.
  I have always felt in arguments about the Bill that the intellectual case and the case in logic was overpoweringly strong. I have always felt that the case against the Bill was emotional and intellectually weak. To oppose the Bill, I feel, is considered intellectually a rather disreputable exercise. But as hon. Members often find when they are dealing with legislation. human nature is so complex that unfortunately these matters cannot be dealt with in the same way as that in which a mechanic can deal with the running of a motor car.
  I am afraid that it comes to this: we have a choice of evils and the House must decide whether it will remedy bad law by bad psychology. There must be a choice made between two evils and I opt, personally, for what I consider to be the lesser evil. I do not deny that this is far from an ideal solution. I do not think that the present practice of the law is satisfactory. I should like to see us get rid of it. But I would rather see it wither away through a general disinclination on the part of chief constables to prosecute—far from ideal but slightly less dangerous to society than the Bill. If I may be excused a rather disagreeable medical metaphor, I would rather leave the scab on the wound to wither and fall off than wrench it off prematurely and cause a haemorrhage at this stage. This seems to be the alternative with which the House is presented.
  Nor am I moved by a further argument used by the hon. Member for Pontypool
  1106
  about sending homosexuals to prison being such a bad thing. Of course it is a bad thing, but the Bill does not affect that situation. Under the new Criminal Justice Bill it is extremely unlikely that any homosexuals convicted as such will come in the category of persons who will go to prison anyway. So it is not as though without this Bill we shall have prisons teeming with homosexuals. Many people who go to prison may be homosexuals anyway; it is not only people who are convicted of homosexuality who cause homosexual problems in prisons. In any case, the Bill makes provision for pederasts to go to prison, and they will be in prison with young men of 20 to 21 who will be as much liable to their predatory inclinations as to those of other homosexuals who might theoretically be in prison if the Bill did not go through.
  A further argument against the Bill—which makes me pause more than does the argument about the merchant navy, even—is that about the universities. An anomalous and distressing situation will arise in universities where there are young men under 21 and young men over 21. There is bound to be a dividing line amongst the homosexuals at the university and a coming of age—"Now it's all right." I do not at all relish the thought of there being illegal homosexuals under 21 and legal ones over 21 and a crossing of the line ceremony being performed with pederastic celebrations in university colleges.
  I am afraid that we shall be saddled with the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal, whether or not the Bill is passed. The Bill will make the situation in the life of the homosexual neither better nor worse. The real help which the homosexual needs is not within the scope of this Bill or of any legislation. It is not within the scope of administrative action which Governments can take, answerable to this House. I do not think the present homosexual population are people for whom one can do a lot. People have talked about their going for help and so on. People to whom I have talked, who have most to do with homosexuals, are sceptical about the actual desire which homosexuals have for being helped. In any case, I am not sure that the lot of existing homosexuals is not a lost cause—water over the dam.

  1107
  What I am concerned with is the health and strength of society and the structure of life, the relationships between human beings that make society sane, healthy and beautiful. That is something which can only be ensured in respect of future generations. I do not think it can be ensured in respect of people who are already mature.
  What worries me is the point that the hon. Member for Pontypool made towards the end of his speech—the total lack of any social initiative to grapple with the root and mainspring of homosexual disabilities which I am sure—I think this is universally recognised—resides in the power and influence of the individual fathers and mothers in respect of their children.
  Although one hears a lot talked about sex education in schools, what I would like to see in schools, instead of sex education, is a little more education in the realities and the responsibilities of parenthood, for fathers and for mothers. Future fathers should be warned of the dangers of an all-too-prevalent attitude—in our society, at any rate—that there is something unmanly in men concerning themselves with their wives' and children's problems and taking their place in the home as the father who is seen there as the leader of the family. I should like girls at school to be warned specifically against the terrible danger of becoming too devoted to their sons. If one looks at the pattern of life of homosexuals known in history and known to oneself, it is an infallible concommitant of the condition that there has been an undue and unhealthy attachment to the mother and an absence of identification with the father. These are commonplaces of social psychology which everybody knows. The House would do better to concern itself with the initiatives which might be taken, through the Home Office or through the Department of Education and Science, with this kind of social education for future generations than in trying to remedy bad law by bad psychology.
  9.3 p.m.
  Dr. David Owen: This debate has been remarkable in that no one who either opposes or supports the Bill has claimed a monopoly of com-
  1108
  passion or sincerity. I think all of us realize—I support the Bill and I realise fully—that those who oppose the Bill do so from deeply-felt feelings, having thought about the matter a great deal.
  I wish to take up a number of points that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has mentioned. I understand that the main burden of his speech was that the time is not ripe and that he does not like the situation. He wished that it had never been brought about. He is worried that it would be psychologically damaging to the country at the present time to introduce such legislation. This is a fair argument and one which people who support the Bill have got to meet effectively.
  It has always been the argument that the time is not ripe on practically all forms of social legislation, whether it be abortion law reform or homosexual law reform. When the Wolfenden Report first came out this was put about, I think reasonably, at that time. There was a lot of evidence that the general public, and even enlightened general public, had not analysed the problems of homosexuality to the extent that they should have done.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North made a lot in his speech of public opinion. He said that the country does not want the Bill and that he is convinced that the majority of his constituents do not want it. There is that view, but I ask him to take note of what little scientific evidence we have on this matter. We may not like opinion polls, but an opinion poll in 1965 showed that two-thirds of the country wanted reform of the law as set out in the Bill. The climate of opinion has changed dramatically since the Wolfenden Report and I think that the time is ripe for the Bill.
  Let us deal with the suggestion that it would be psychologically damaging to the country to show that the House condones homosexuality. If that feeling comes out from the debate it will be the direct result of misreporting, because no hon. Member, whatever viewpoint he or she put forward, has condoned homosexual behaviour. The Bill lays down very clearly that under certain circumstances the House is increasing the penalties, that it is trying to stamp out corruption of youth and minors, which is

  1109
  possibly the most important element in the Bill. I hope that due emphasis is given in reports of the debate to Clause 2, because what we are legislating in Clause 1 is only one aspect of the problem. To a certain extent, that answers the hon. Gentleman's claim about psychological damage.
  A number of other points have been raised in the debate, and I wish to say a little about the merchant seaman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is well known for what he has done for the merchant seamen. and the respect in which he is held extends far further than Merseyside and goes all the way down to Plymouth. He put his case very reasonably, and anyone who comes from a port knows full well many of the problems that he mentioned.
  The question of the merchant seaman is a problem, but the remarkable point was that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has gone out of his way to meet the feeling that exists in the House that the merchant seaman is a special case. He has said, as far as he can at this stage, that he will meet this point in Committee. He will attempt, as far as possible, either to adapt the Merchant Shipping Act or the Bill. I suggest that in Committee we might well look at the Clause about privacy, because that could well enshrine some of the problems we face, where there is total lack of privacy at sea.
  We also heard a great deal from the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) about the problems of the Royal Navy. I strongly disagree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, and certainly with what he said about what the officer of the watch will tell his men. I think that that would be a very minority viewpoint.
  I was a member of the Select Committee which considered the Armed Forces Bill, and we examined the question of homosexuality as it applies to the Forces. The Committee's unanimous recommendation was that it should remain subject to the Naval Discipline Act and the Acts affecting the other Services. It was put to us forcibly that if this Bill became applicable to the Services it would undermine discipline. That is what we are arguing about, the effect on discipline in the Services and among
  1110
  Merchant Seamen at sea. I am certain that the problem could be met in Committee.
  But there is a far greater problem about the Bill to which I do not think enough attention has been given. It was said in the Wolfenden Report, which most of us feel to be one of the best Reports ever to come out on this subject, that, the decisive argument which made the Wolfenden Committee take the stand it did was:
  "… the importance which society and the law ought to give to individual freedom of choice and action in matters of private morality.
  The quotation goes on:
  "Unless a deliberate attempt is to be made by society, acting through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business. To say this is not to condone or to encourage private immorality".
  This, to me, is the nub of the problem, which this Bill tackles, and tackles most courageously. These people, suffering from what I would prefer to call a symptom of homosexuality, already suffer very deeply from social ostracism. They are to a great extent alone in the world. But, because of the present law, a law which the hon. Member for Ilford, North himself dislikes, they live in perpetual fear. Much has been made of the possibility of blackmail, and this is very important, but it is not the only fear. The real fear these people have is fear of prosecution. They know that they can be prosecuted. These are people who often, for other reasons, are mentally unstable in that they are anxious and nervous, and the threat of prosecution is very real.
  I do not wish to talk as a doctor because I know that my own profession is divided, though I should say that the vast majority support the Bill—certainly, the vast majority of psychiatrists support it—but I cannot but put before the House some of the feelings which I have had in working in a professional capacity, particularly when I have been called to a big London casualty department to see an attempted suicide case. One sees a man coming round after an attempted suicide. To face life again is very difficult in any circumstances. A person has made the decision to take his life, he

  1111
  finds it has been unsuccessful, and then follows the whole process of bitter and harsh readjustment. But so often the man is a homosexual, and he faces a doubly difficult readjustment. He faces the readjustment just to life and he faces the problem of readjusting again to the trouble which has so often driven him to thoughts of suicide.
  This debate has been remarkably unlike some of the debates we have had on the subject in that we have not today talked about what is irrelevant to the Bill. All of us condemn the homosexual who goes about importuning and soliciting, particularly the young, and we all condemn the fact that many homosexuals contract venereal diseases. But we are today concentrating on the real issue. We are thinking of the men who live a haunted existence, who are asking through this Bill only for the right to live within the privacy of their own houses as they wish to live. They are asking of this House only that they be allowed not to affect the morals of society, not to live flagrantly or openly, but to live in their private life as this sexual drive dictates to them to do.
  Those of us who have seen these people know how tortured they are. They come from all walks of life. We are not talking of the stage picture of the "queer", the "nancy boy". Often, these people go through life with those in closest contact with them not having the slightest knowledge that they live this tortured existence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) told us of the difficulties for them when they are forced by society's pressures to marry. These can be very severe, too. But so often they live in loneliness and fear. We cannot stop their loneliness. Society, I submit, will always condemn homosexual practice, and it would not be my wish that the House should be seen to condone it. But I ask the House to vote to remove the fear from those men who so order their lives that they do not inflict themselves and their ailment on society, and to allow them in the privacy of their own homes to pursue their lives as they are driven to do.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I hope that tonight we can get rid of this issue once and for all and that 19th
  1112
  December will mark the stage when the Bill got a Second Reading. I think that in the 10 years that I have been in the House I have voted four or five times on this issue, going back to the occasion when the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), the Minister of Health, brought forward a Motion at the time of the Wolfenden Report, which was nearly passed on that occasion. I noted last time the House had a vote on this issue that the figures were almost exactly the same as those that were produced by the Gallup Poll of the public at the same time. So the House seemed to be in tune with the public.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on having the courage to bring the Bill forward on this occasion. I have only two or three things to say. When I was a young man I learnt something about the law. One of the things I learnt was that there were two circles, the circle of law and the circle of morality. They intersected to a certain extent but not by any means the whole extent. There was a large field which was covered only by morality and not by law.
  To give an example, in the Ten Commandments we are told "Honour thy father and thy mother", but there is no legal sanction behind that. There is the Seventh Commandment, which is not written into the criminal law. In the New Testament one has such phrases such as, "Love thy enemies". Again, that is not written into the law of the land. So there is a large circle in which there is no force of the criminal law.
  Therefore, I think that if we were legislating afresh on this matter today without anything that happened through Labouchére, we would surely, the feeling of the country being as it is, say that homosexuality between adults in private was a private matter and not one for the criminal law. Secondly, obviously one was taught—and it is obviously true, and has been hammered today—that a law must be enforceable. One knows from the hundreds of thousands of cases in the country at the present time that, frankly, this law is not enforceable.
  Thirdly, one must show that the basis of the criminal law must be that it effects a public mischief and effects public order and decency. The way in which the Bill

  1113
  has been framed is such that it keeps the public part of it a criminal offence without bringing the private part into that part of the criminal law. It seems to me that there are plenty of safeguards in the Bill for everyone who has fears about it—safeguards regarding young people, safeguards regarding public places, safeguards with regard to living on immoral earnings and so on. There are plenty of safeguards for public decency and public order.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) made a point that should be properly answered. He said that the social castigation of homosexuality is so great that even if we were to take away the criminal part of it blackmail would still go on. I do not believe that to be true. I think that blackmail is essentially tied up with the fact that, at the moment, this is a criminal offence and that a man can be told by his partner that if he does not look out the blackmailer will go straight to the police and get him brought before the courts. I should have thought that this was at least three quarters of the basis of the blackmailing cases at the present time, the fear not so much of the social consequences, which of course are there, but of the consequences that might affect a man by his being taken to court. I should have thought that that was very genuine.
  So, in short, I would hope that tonight we should be able to make a decision which would clear out of our way a problem that has been plaguing the House for 10 years. It is over time that it was solved.
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made a very reasonable contribution, and did it in a very short time. I shall try to follow his example. I hope he will excuse me if at 9.20 p.m. I do not go into details even about the parts of his speech with which I did not agree.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) suggested that there was some reason why the Government had given Government time for the Bill. It may be that there are very good reasons why the Government have given time for
  1114
  it. It has been suggested that there is police pressure behind the move so that the law will be determined once and for all. It might be useful to have an indication of the Government's attitude in making this time available to the House.
  We have to decide whether the Bill will do more harm or more good than the law as it stands. I think that it will be a better law than the present law. On that basis, I gave my approval, limited as it was, to the introduction of the Bill and I now intend to support the Second Reading.
  There are, however, one or two points I wish to put and I hope some answer can be given by the Government. Clause l says that a homosexual offence in private
  "… shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto …"
  I am somewhat doubtful about the word "consent" being on its own. There may be some need for clarification so that it does not become a matter of consent under duress but remains consent freely given. However, this is a point to be considered in Committee.
  Clause 1(5) deals with the exclusion of the Armed Forces from the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) referred to the Navy. He should be reminded that the history of the Navy suggests that, for hundreds of years, from Raleigh to Nelson, seamen have been homosexual at sea and heterosexual on shore. I do not know the appropriate word for that. Perhaps it is "opportunist". But no one suggests that, because they had this adaptability in the past, our seamen were any the less men, or a less effective fighting force or that they undermined discipline. I do not say that the Navy of today is the same as it was in other days but this aspect should be kept under consideration.
  Captain W. Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House, in that case, why the Bill will not cover the Navy or the other fighting forces?
  Mr. Ogden: This is the only part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech with which I would agree. for I feel that there is still room for argument as to whether the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy would be better or worse off by

  1115
  inclusion or exclusion from the Bill. I have not heard a great deal of argument on this apart from the N.U.S. If the Bill is to provide safeguards for young men who may be influenced in the wrong direction, we might be doing a disservice by excluding the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy. However, this can be argued to a greater degree in Committee.
  The Amendment was put forward reasonably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), but at the same time that he received the letter he quoted from the N.U.S., on 16th November, other hon. Members, on both sides of the House and from all parts of the country, also received a letter from Mr. Hogarth suggesting that he and his members had some interest and concern. He asked for our support. I replied saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was a Labour M.P., was reasonably approachable and spoke to one as one went past. I suggested that there was no reason why he should not be asked what he thought of this.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak up a little. It is difficult to hear.
  Mr. Ogden: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out that, in my reply to Mr. Hogarth, I suggested that it might be practically useful to have a word with the sponsors of the Bill before anything was done. Mr. Hogarth wrote back to me that he was arranging a meeting with the sponsors to discuss the matter and that afterwards he would come back to individual Members if he thought their support was necessary. These meetings have taken place and there has been some discussion, but so far I have not been asked by the N.U.S. to support any Amendment.
  While awaiting this proposal from the N.U.S., my colleagues from Liverpool and Merseyside put down an Amendment in substantially the same terms as those suggested in the original N.U.S. letter. No one would deny that hon. Members from that part of the world have great experience and knowledge of ships and shipping, but I, too, am a Merseyside Member of Parliament. Merseyside Members on both sides of the House often work closely together, but on this
  1116
  occasion I was not asked to sponsor the Amendment, neither as a Merseyside Member of Parliament, nor as one of the only two ex-Merchant Navy Members. I would have thought that time was not particularly pressing and that it did not very much matter whether the Amendment was put down on the Friday, the Monday or the Tuesday, but it might have been useful to have had a sponsor who not only came from a seaport, but who had had some service in the Merchant Navy, admittedly limited war-time, emergency-only service, but at least some.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Was there anything to stop my hon. Friend from signing the Amendment? Several hon. Members from Scotland signed it.
  Mr. Ogden: I am discussing the way in which it was put down. If one seeks support for a proposition of this kind, surely it is useful to have one's own colleagues supporting it, especially if they have had some service in the Merchant Navy.
  As the debate has gone on, I have been tempted to the conclusion that this is a wrecking Amendment.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Nonsense.
  Mr. Ogden: I am drawing my own conclusions. My hon. Friends are entitled to disagree. If the seamen's union wants us to take this action, let us take it in conjunction with the union. Let the union tell us what it wants and let us work together. That has not happened.
  In view of the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that he will go as far as he possibly can to meet the objections of the seamen's union, I find his proposal acceptable and on that understanding I will give my support to the Second Reading. However, if the Bill is not amended to the satisfaction of the union and every seaman involved, when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, I will oppose it, but I do not see why we should reject the good in the Bill for the sake of this issue.
  I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends who have great knowledge of the Merchant Navy, but I have some knowledge of it, too. I have tried to support the proposal of the N.U.S. and I have had conversations with my hon. Friend

  1117
  the hon. Member for Pontypool and I am convinced that he intends that the Merchant Navy shall have the support for which Mr. Hogarth has asked. What more can I ask? On the perfectly clear understanding that the Committee will amend the Bill so that it has the safeguards which my hon. Friends and ex-colleagues in the Merchant Navy want, the Bill will have my support. If not, it will have my opposition.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the manner in which he has introduced the Bill. He made a speech which was not only full of humanity and compassion, of which there is no shortage on either side of the House, but which was full of that much rarer quality—common sense.
  I recall the speech of the distinguished previous sponsor of the Bill, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, whose integrity and pungency were such an asset to the House. Few people are missed in this House, but the former Member for Lancaster is missed. As it is at least arguable that his defeat a t the General Election was caused in part by his courageous sponsorship of the Bill, I hope that tonight his pioneer work will be not only remembered, but vindicated in the Lobbies.
  I want to reply to a number of points which have been raised during the debate. First of all I should like to refer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). One always listens to everything that he says with the greatest respect and I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) who said that this was a wrecking Amendment. If the hon. Member for Bootle wished to wreck this Bill, he would do it by a frontal assault, because he is not the sort of man to revert to subterfuges of any kind. I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment because his point has been accepted in substance by the sponsor of the Bill.
  I hope that he will be reassured on this very genuine point which he has raised. In passing I would also be rash enough to venture into this private vendetta between himself and the Tribune, which apparently called him a reactionary. He would
  1118
  have had much greater cause for complaint if he had been called a progressive by that newspaper.
  I now wish to turn to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), because there was some confusion as a result of his speech about the legal position before 1885. In 1885 gross indecency of any kind between men, either in private or in public was made a criminal offence. Before that the Statute law of England had a punishment for a limited form of homosexuality, namely, buggery or sodomy, which had been introduced by Statute of Henry VIII in 1533. That Statute was repealed by Queen Mary, reenacted again by Queen Elizabeth and carried the death penalty for this offence. It was not until 1861 that this was commuted to a term of imprisonment.
  This historical point has some relevance and validity today, because one of the points of this Bill is that it is going back to a tradition before the Henrician Statute of 1533, when this sort of offence was dealt with not by the criminal law but by the ecclesiastical courts. They dealt with it not as a crime but as a sin and so there is an older tradition of English jurisdiction which is vindicated by this Bill. I want to turn briefly to an important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford. North (Mr. Iremonger) who spoke about the effect of public opinion and the thoughts of the public in general upon this Bill. He said that the country was against it.
  Clearly, he is strongly against it, and if he will forgive me for saying so, I think that he has confused the strength of his own feelings with the strength of feeling outside the House. He said that he was against this Bill lock, stock and barrel; he added that he was against it root and branch. I suppose that in view of the nautical nature of the Amendment before the House he might have said that he was against it hook, line and sinker. But to say that the country shares those feelings is unintentionally misleading.
  We do not know for certain the opinion of the country. Such evidence as there is is that there has been quite a profound change of opinion over the last few years about this Bill and the measures it proposes. The last piece of evidence was the poll carried out by National Opinion Poll in December, 1965, when it

  1119
  showed that 63 per cent. of the people consulted in the poll were opposed to homosexual acts between consenting adults being criminal offences. I do not say for a moment that the result of opinion polls decides an issue, least of all in this House, but the poll is a piece of evidence of some value, and we can say that there has been a change in public opinion on this issue.
  The second source of evidence is our own post bags. My own experience is that the only correspondence that I have had on this Bill is from people asking me to support it. I now wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) who said that the Bill would create a condition in which those who sit in judgment on others might have committed the same offence themselves. That is a situation which happens in every branch of our public life. If one had to be impeccable before one was elected to this House then there would be no Members. The idea that sinfulness disqualifies one from sitting in judgment on others or from public office is an argument not put forward since the Hussite rebellion in Bohemia 500 years ago.
  I wish to address myself to the moral issue which lies at the heart of this debate. There are those who fear that the Bill will weaken morality. I understand that fear, although I do not share it. It is the present law which is weakening respect for morality, for a number of reasons. First, it constitutes a quite unwarrantable invasion of privacy. It is a fundamental principle of our law that sexual behaviour which does not violate the rights of other people and does not outrage public order and decency should not be subject to the criminal law. That is, presumably, why we do not punish fornication or adultery, although we do not approve of them. There is no valid distinction in this context between different forms of sexual behaviour. It is true that we may feel an emotional repugnance to homosexuality which is not felt in relation to other sexual activities, but that is not a firm basis on which to found the law. If emotions are strongly aroused by any subject, we should be on our guard to control them as much as possible by reasoned and rational argument.
  1120
  The second reason for reform is that the present law is fundamentally inequitable. First, it punishes those whom we know are not fully responsible for their actions and not at all responsible for their condition; and secondly, it operates capriciously and by chance. It can be made effectively and universally enforceable only at the price of a police state, of a degree of supervision of private life which this country, even in its most puritanical periods, has never been prepared to accept. Thirdly, the law does nothing for morality because it imposes an impossibly high standard. Of course, celibacy is a high ideal, but few are capable of achieving it, except perhaps the totally religiously dedicated.
  It is quite unreasonable to expect those who, through no fault of their own, are attracted exclusively to members of their own sex to live a life of celibate abstention. It simply cannot be done. One must accept that fact. Furthermore, the present law drives the whole issue completely underground. By its blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexuality, and by making no distinction between one action and another, it creates a homosexual underworld in which it is extremely difficult to maintain any acceptable standards.
  There are strong arguments in favour of the Bill on the ground that in fact it would promote public morality. By limiting itself to practical objectives, the law would provide homosexuals with standards of behaviour which there was some prospect of their keeping. By condemning and punishing effectively, as the Bill does, the corruption of minors, the exploitation of the weak, and those who abuse their positions of trust, far from weakening public morality, the Bill would strengthen it.
  There are those who oppose this change in the law because they fear that it would give approval to homosexuality. We have heard that argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North. But, of course, it does nothing of the kind. One has to repeat yet again that what the Bill says is that criminal sanctions are inappropriate for this branch of human activity. It says no more and no less than that. If the Bill were passed, homosexuality would remain unlawful, although not criminal. The Bill would

  1121
  create no recognised status of homosexuality. It would remain contrary to public policy. Homosexual relations would give rise neither to rights nor to duties.
  I want now to deal specifically with the position of Christian morality on this issue. We are a Christian country and, therefore, it is right to pay attention to the almost unanimous view of the leaders of the churches on the Bill. The Church of England, which has been referred to, the Advisory Committee of the Roman Catholic Church and the Representative Committee of the Free Churches have all come out in favour of the Bill. I am not saying that the churches should have a final view on this issue—certainly not. It is the consciences of individual Members which will decide this issue and, thank heaven, we are tonight being allowed a free vote. I do not regret that the Government have not made this a matter of policy. The evidence of the leaders of Christian opinion in this country should, however, be persuasive, particularly to those who have moral doubts about this matter.
  There are three further points which I would like to bring to the attention of the House in favour of a change in the law. First, there is the danger that homosexuality is becoming a public obsession. The constant discussion of the subject in this House and outside it is, I believe, morbid and harmful. One of the most powerful arguments for the Bill is that it would finally remove the whole issue from the sphere of the public domain to that of private minority interests, where it belongs. The temperature of this debate has fortunately been low, but that is partly because this subject, I regret to say, has become a bore, and the arguments for and against this Measure are by now extremely threadbare.
  My second point is that we are faced at this time with a crime wave of unparalleled gravity and it is essential that we should have a united public opinion in support of the criminal law. We cannot have that while offences such as this remain on the Statute Book. Today, the police should not be concerned with these peripheral moral issues but with the apprehension of the professional criminal.
  There is one point connected with the Bill although not directly raised by it
  1122
  which I would like to put before the Home Secretary. I hope that he can assure the House that the detestable practice of policemen acting as agents provocateurs in public lavatories and other places has been discontinued in those areas where the Home Secretary has responsibility for the administration of the police.
  My third argument for altering the law is that until we repeal this law, we cannot start tackling the problem at the level at which it should be tackled, which is on the psychological plane, the sociological plane and the spiritual plane. Until we get away from a legal solution which merely drives homosexuals into a ghetto and leaves them there, we cannot begin to approach this problem intelligently and constructively.
  I have tried to show that there is no inconsistency between concern with public morality, which I certainly have, and support for the Bill, but there is a wider consideration, which has certainly influenced me, that the effect of the existing law is undoubtedly to increase human suffering. There is, I suppose, hardly a Member of this House who has not a friend or acquaintance, or even, perhaps, a member of his or her family, who has had useful lives destroyed by the capricious incidence of this unjust law. It is because the Bill, in a minor fashion admittedly, but in a real one, reduces the incidence of avoidable human suffering that I shall vote for it tonight.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mahon: In the opinion of the Members of Parliament who have signed the Amendment, there has been a lamentable lack of imagination in excluding the Merchant Navy from the safeguard given to the Army and the Royal Air Force.
  An old saying and a true one, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has given voice earlier this evening, is that there are no back doors in the Navy. It is a well-known truism that seamen invariably are quiet men, but in the face of unnatural conduct and bad example they are tough indeed. Whether or not we care to admit it, the presence of known homosexuals gives cause for anxiety, particularly at sea. The Merchant Navy and the seamen'

  1123
  union in particular are viewing the passing of this legislation with the deepest possible anxiety. The seamen's union will not accept responsibility for the outcome of the Bill as it now stands; and who better to comprehend its pitfalls? As we know, strikes are detrimental to the wellbeing of the country. It would be salutary if future strikes were caused not because of bad social or industrial conditions but because of the moral turpitude of individual seagoers.
  In my opinion, the seamen's union is being statesmanlike in its forebodings. Seamen cannot always be relied upon to furnish academic reasons for walking off a ship. Understandably, the seamen's union is anxious, and it would be dangerous in the extreme to ignore its forebodings in this regard. The effect on recruitment could be quite catastrophic. Whether we like it or not, good parents invariably will take an interest in their children's careers and have a voice in their future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) knows a great deal about this subject; that is unmistakable. He asks plaintively what can be done to avoid faulty males. With my limited knowledge, I am afraid that I cannot be relied upon to give an answer to that question, but certainly it is not by taking the least line of resistance. One would imagine that the Ten Commandments did not exist, and I was surprised at his splendid eloquence in this mistaken cause.
  In this context, the plea for compassion can also be exageerated. It is because of the dangers of blackmail and violence which my hon. Friend enumerated that the seamen's union holds up its hands in horror at the prospect of the legislation as outlined. With the greatest possible concern, Members of Parliament must ask themselves how far the floodgates should be opened and for how long we can continue to condone wrong doing because of the frailty of human nature. The same compassion can be urged for the kleptomaniac or any other wrongdoer in any capacity. I reiterate, how far should the floodgates be opened?
  The call is for compassion, but not by any means for the sponsors of the Amendment. We are reactionaries.
  1124
  My hon. Friend laid great stress on human relations. Not with the widest stretch of imagination can it be said that Parliament has debated the issue today with any degree of morbidity, nor has there been a desire to whittle down the size of the problem. I believe that the House will be inclined to differ from my hon. Friend profoundly when he depicts the situation as being one of celibacy or criminality, with nothing in between. There is a great deal in between. There is chastity, prudence and manliness in the real sense of the word. His comparison between different chief constables was to my way of thinking rather odious and uncharitable. God knows that their responsibilities are heavy indeed.
  The Amendment has been tabled because this is a bad Bill, bad because of what it contains, worse because of what it omits. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) expressed the pious hope that it would not be felt that Members of this House favoured homosexuality. However charitably inclined some Members are to accept this point of view, I am afraid that there will be a great deal of dubiety about it among people outside.
  The Bill as it stands will be prejudicial to the high standards in the Merchant Navy. If this were not so the seamen's union would not be so up in arms against it.
  One hon. Gentleman opposite was not impressed with the intellectual content of the case for the Amendment. One can only say that what is intellectually splendid is very seldom morally right, and because of its morality the supporters of the Amendment are determined to divide the House.
  9.52 p.m.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson: May I express my apologies to the House, and particularly to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), for not having been here when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish that I had been, and I hope that the House and the hon. Member will accept my apologies.
  When moving a similar Bill in the last Parliament, Mr. Humphry Berkeley said how much he would like to be able to say that he was the father of six children. I can say that, and, as the

  1125
  father of six children, I can also say that I am a sponsor of the Bill.
  I spoke during the first debate on the Wolfenden proposals. That was eight or more years ago. I spoke then just having had some experience in the courts of appearing for a distinguished person who had been charged with these offences. I thought at the time what a terrible waste of a human being it was to have the processes of the law inflicted on him, and yet at the time of the Wolfenden proposals and the Wolfenden debate I thought that this offence was a matter of an abuse of a natural function, and that therefore the criminal law could and should pronounce that this was wrong.
  That was my view then, but even then I felt that it was wholly wrong that people should be sent to prison for this reason. When I was a Law Officer, and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir. G. Hobson) was the senior law officer, some changes were made in the practice. I am glad that they came about, because what offended me and many people of ordinary compassion was bringing forward, as l am sure the hon. Member for Pontypool and others have said, of stale offences. That seemed to be a wholly outrageous and barbarous form of proceedings, apart from the blackmail which could and did arise, and sometimes the wrong persons were proceeded against when there had been a threat of blackmail.
  But over the years, I have come to believe that the law does not work. Unlike the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), I like reactionaries. I think that they are much more enchanting, and sometimes much more intelligent, than so-called progressives, but in this matter it is my view that the law does not work. I do not resile from or abandon my distaste for this conduct. I do not abandon that belief. One of the things that I dislike is the possible proselytising which may follow a change in the law. Nevertheless, over the years I have decided that the law should be changed.
  I have seen so much of the effects of this in the courts. The hon. Member for Preston, South mentioned manliness. I must point out to him that it is often the outwardly manly person who suffers most from this disease. The law creates inequities. There are tragedies. I do not
  1126
  believe that the criminal law should go on pursuing these people. That is why I have sponsored the Bill. Very rarely does the hon. Member for Pontypool see eye to eye with me. Often we have faced each other across the Table in debate. I do not believe that the Bill will change the world, or that it will change the people with whom we are concerned, but it is right, and it is about time that we changed the law.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Moonman: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) pointed out that no intellectual case was being put. It is late in the debate to put forward sufficient material which may convince hon. Members that there is such a case that they may wish to consider.
  From this debate and the previous one it is clear that there is a lack of information on the subject. Theories have been put forward as to whether homosexuality is a disease, a weakness or a vice. There is no consistent view. Similarly, we are not even sure of the exact figures for this country. We do not know how many men are afflicted in this way. In the debate in another place Lord Arran put the figure between 500,000 and one million, and other figures have been given tonight. There is great uncertainty on the subject, running throughout our whole discussion, and that uncertainty makes it difficult to attempt any real understanding of a possible cure, or of a prevention of the problem.
  We are not even sure whether homosexuals are born or made. Lord Arran argued that they are born, but a distinguished doctor, Dr. West, said that this condition was the result of environment. It is vital to remove the criminal stigma if we are to obtain co-operation in research. It is legitimate to expect something worth while in terms of a possible cure or a prevention of the problem if we can channel the information—information which we do not have at the moment—but until we remove the criminal stigma it will not be possible to engage in worthwhile research.
  The second reason why I support the Bill is the pace of social change which has taken place in the last 25 years and

  1127
  which has caused a widening gap between the generations. The views put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North are those of a generation which has not taken account of this enormous social change. Those who argue that change is undesirable and will bring even greater problems are not attempting to face the underlying problems of the moment.
  The other feature of the subject which was well brought out in a first-class speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was that there is an important rôle to be played by the family. Here again we are up against an enormous difficulty—
  Mr. James Dance rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion at the moment.
  Mr. Moonman: The important point that came out of my hon. Friend's speech
  was that the family has an important rôle to play. My hon. Friend stressed the value of the father who was approachable—the father who understood the difficulties and who was able to engage in a really creative understanding with his children. Another hon. Member felt that there was not enough sensible sex education in schools and that this was a way of dealing with the problem. The difficulties of social change are reflected in the example of a London social worker, who was asked to inquire about—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That the Proceedings on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]
    The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 84.

    Division No. 229.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Ensor, David

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

    Judd, Frank

    Alldritt, Walter

    Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Faulds, Andrew

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lawson, George

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Barnes, Michael

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Barnett, Joel

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fowler, Gerry

    Loughlin, Charles

    Body, Richard

    Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

    Luard, Evan

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Bradley, Tom

    Garrett, W. E.

    McBride, Neil

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackie, John

    Brooks, Edwin

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Brown, R. W. (Shorediteh & F'bury)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Carlisle, Mark

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Maddan, Martin

    Carmichael, Neil

    Grieve, Percy

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Grimond, Rt Hn. J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Manuel, Archie

    Coleman, Donald

    Hamling, William

    Marquand, David

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Millan, Bruce

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Haseldine, Norman

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hattersley, Roy

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Moonman, Eric

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Horner, John

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Dell, Edmund

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Moyle, Roland

    Dewar, Donald

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Newens, Stan

    Dickens, James

    Howie, W.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Dobson, Ray

    Hoy, James

    Noe1-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Driberg, Tom

    Hunt, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Dunn, James A.

    Hynd, John

    O'Malley, Brian

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Orbach, Maurice

    Ellis, John

    Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

    Orme, Stanley

    English, Michael

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Paget, R. T.

    Rose, Paul

    Varley, Eric G.

    Palmer, Arthur

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Royle, Anthony

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Pardoe, John

    Ryan, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Weitzman, David

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'stle-u-Tyne)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

    Whitlock, William

    Pentland, Norman

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Slater, Joseph

    Winnick, David

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Small, William

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Redhead, Edward

    Smith, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Rees, Merlyn

    Snow, Julian

    Woof, Robert

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Yates, Victor

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    Taverne, Dick

    Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas and

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Dr. David Kerr.

    NOES

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Hannan, William

    Peel, John

    Baxter, William

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Percival, Ian

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Bence, Cyril

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Binns, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Blackburn, F.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Braine, Bernard

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Kitson, Timothy

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Burden, F. A.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

    Cooke, Robert

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Temple, John M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Tomney, Frank

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Urwin, T. W.

    Eadie, Alex

    MacArthur, Ian

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Eden, Sir John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mapp, Charles

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Marten, Neil

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Monro, Hector

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Murton, Oscar

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Gurden, Harold

    Norwood, Christopher

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Mr. Ray Mawby and

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. James Dance.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL
  Question again proposed.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Moonman: I suppose that elsewhere that Division would be regarded as a natural break in my speech. I should like to keep my remarks extremely brief, because I recognise, Mr. Speaker, that the voting suggests that you may wish to consider the Closure of this debate.
  I was stating the difficulty of explaining in a creative sense in education these social problems—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has just voted that the debate should continue.
  Mr. Moonman: The example I want to give concerns a London social worker who was asked to inquire about the bruises on a 13 year old boy's back who was told by the mother, "I asked his father to take the belt buckle to him. I cannot have him being dirty." The boy had merely repeated a word from an eminent text book that he had read in a biology lesson at school. We have this enormous gap in the generations arising from the pace of social change. Those who would question the correctness of our educational system ought to consider this point.
  I support the Bill because it seems to me that law reform on homosexuality is needed, which is not the same thing as saying that we approve of homosexual

  1131
  practices. Those who have opposed the Bill have often given this as their reason. It has been suggested that its adoption would mean an undisciplined sex life. In fact, the movers of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, have only suggested that there can be discipline by reason instead of by fear. Suggestions that "intellectual longhairs" are supporters of the Bill are not borne out by the number of people with whom I have worked in a university settlement some years ago and who have looked after men who were afflicted in this way. Indeed, many of these people were extremely devoted to their work and they covered a great cross-section of the social services.
  There has been a fair amount of special pleading on behalf of the Merchant Navy, and I think it is appropriate that I should participate in this debate as a Merseysider. The argument that has been put on these grounds could well be the basic argument against the Bill as a whole. I feel that those who have put this case—I respect their experience of the sea and of shipping—have not sufficiently distinguished between their Amendment and the Bill as a whole. Arguments that this sort of legislation will affect the parents of boys going to sea, that it will affect recruitment, that it will cause greater problems on the catering side and will affect youth as a whole are arguments which would destroy the whole of the Bill. While I am all in favour of special pleading for Merseyside, I am not in favour of special pleading on behalf of the Merchant Navy. I am a life member of the Old Kings Comrades Association. I have noticed that there has not been special pleading for the other Services.
  If the treatment and ultimate prevention of homosexuality is to be found in better social adjustment, we should not delay the passage of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, in your deliberations, to consider the vote that was taken a few moments ago.
  10.14 p.m.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: If I understand the position correctly, we have recently voted to continue our debate upon the Bill for a further two hours. If I further understand the situation correctly, we are now discussing whether the Bill should be
  1132
  given a Second Reading, and it is upon that point that I want to address the House.
  We have recently had a number of Bills which have been urged upon the House as being worthy of Second Reading and which have come forward as Private Members' Bills. But somehow or other the present Government seem to find particular satisfaction in providing extraordinary facilities for Bills which are supposed to be Private Members' Bills. I remember a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) which was alleged to be a Private Member's Bill—
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: It was a Private Member's Bill.
  Sir S. McAdden: —as a result of which Parliamentary procedure was so altered that for the first time in my 17 years' experience in the House we met on Wednesday mornings to consider the Report stage. If that is to be the proper treatment of a Private Member's Bill it arouses grave worries and doubts in my mind, as also in the case of this Bill.
  This Bill, which is alleged to be a Private Member's Bill, nevertheless has the support of Her Majesty's Government to such an extent that they are able to provide extraordinary privileges for it which they do not normally extend to a Private Member's Bill. Why on earth do the Government not have the guts to say that they favour the abolition of capital punishment, as in the case of the Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and, in the case of this Bill presented by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), that they favour the principles he has expounded?
  Why on earth do they want the camouflage of pretending that it is a Private Member's Bill when they know perfectly well that it has the Government's wholehearted support? The Division records will show that the members of the party opposite, with one or two exceptions—brave souls they may be expelled from the Labour Party next week—but with the exception of one or two—[An Hort. MEMBER: "Shame."]—the hon. Gentleman says that it may be a shame that they should be expelled from the Labour Party.
  Mr. John Pardoe: Disgraceful.
  Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that it is disgraceful. If he thinks that it is disgraceful that they should be expelled from the Labour Party that is a matter for him. I am saying that the Division records will show that be it a free vote or not the overwhelming majority of the party opposite and the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party—the one Member of the Liberal Party—behind me will vote for this Measure.
  Dr. David Kerr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he concede that whatever the Government's corporate view—I am in no position to speak for them—they have a responsibility to pay some heed to two votes in the other place and one vote here, every one of which has recorded the overwhelming support of Parliament for this Measure?
  Sir S. McAdden: I do not dissent from what is said by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), whom I regard an hon. Friend of mine. I do not dissent in any way from his views. But if it is right that the Government should take cognisance of the views expressed by votes in the other place and in this House, and should also take account of public opinion expressed in the only way available to us, through the public opinion polls then if the Government took cognisance of the public opinion polls they would never have given the facilities to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Member for Pontypool.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman rose—
  Sir S. McAdden: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, whose contemptuous arrogance towards other Members of the House is well known.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House, when an hon. Member is referred to several times, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has been, for the hon. Member making the references to give way?
  Mr. SpeakerWhether an hon. Member gives way is in the discretion of the hon. Member himself.
  Sir S. McAdden: I am always willing to give way, as hon. Members opposite will agree, and most hon. Members are ready to give way to others, but I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who displays such contemptuous arrogance towards other Members of the House.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member is telling lies.
  Sir S. McAdden: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member, who keeps on interrupting and who now says that I am telling lies. I should think that that is completely unparliamentary language, but, if the hon. Member wants to indulge in it, that is for him.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a very good debate so far. I hope that the hon. Member will get back to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Sir S. McAdden: I am most anxious to get back to the Second Reading and not to provoke any undue conflagration. I have told you before, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to accept, that I hope that I shall never throughout my Parliamentary life incur your displeasure, and I seek not to do so tonight. I am most anxious that the House should be clear on what is happening in the name of Parliamentary democracy. We have before us what is alleged to be a Private Member's Bill, but it is a Bill to which quite extraordinary privileges have been accorded. It is being given a Second Reading debate, which should normally finish at 10 o'clock but we have suspended our rule so that the debate shall run until midnight. This is a procedure which is not normal—
  Sir Myer Galpern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we discussing whether the Bill is or is not supported by the Government, or are we discussing whether the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill should be given a Second Reading? I have heard no reference to the Bill so far in what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to decide what is in order.
  Sir S. McAdden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I trust that, if I ever do stray

  1135
  out of order, I shall readily accept your reprimand, although I shall regret it for the rest of my days.
  In considering this Measure, we ought also to consider the circumstances in which it is being put before the House. Ostensibly, it is a Private Member's Bill, as other Bills have been ostensibly Private Members' Bills. I would much rather the Government had taken their courage in their hands and said, "We wholeheartedly support this Bill and we shall, therefore, provide extraordinary facilities so that it may have a Second Reading". If they had done that with the Bill to abolish capital punishment and if they had done it in this case, I should have said that at least they were men of vision, they were ambitious men prepared to take their courage in their hands. But I have no respect whatever for people who skulk on the Government Front Bench, unable to come forward openly and say that this is a Measure which they support, but hoping that private Members will be able to sneak Measures through the House, as they are seeking to do now.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back a few years? Did not a former Conservative Administration find time for the Private Member's Bill on homicide introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Conservative Administration then was wrong?
  Sir S. McAdden: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman drawing my attention to the weaknesses of a previous Conservative Administration which provided facilities which he thinks ought not to have been given. That is no justification for what the present Government are
  1136
  doing. Unfortunately, we are saddled with this Government for some years. As we are saddled with them, it is right that, from time to time, hon. Members on this side should draw attention to the fact that they espouse Bills which they have not the courage to support as a Government but for which they are ready, willing and able to provide special facilities.
  Had the Home Secretary, for whom I have very great regard, believing that he is a very respectable chap, come forward openly and said, "This is a Bill which the Government think ought to have a Second Reading", I should still have voted against the Bill, but I should have appreciated that he had been honest enough openly to espouse the Bill. To allow it to sneak through under the guise of a Private Member's Bill ought to be resented by the House.
  I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I might as well state my position frankly. What I am concerned with is the transformation of Parliamentary procedure to pass into law proposals which are enunciated by the hon. Member for Pontypool and afforded full Parliamentary privilege not provided even for Government Bills, and the pretence that this is a Private Member's Bill.
  For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Bill and send it back so that it may be introduced as a Government Bill. If a Government Bill is introduced, then we shall at least know that this is a Measure openly proposed by the Government and backed by the Government, a Bill on which they will go to the electors and say, "We as a political party are in favour of this Measure". If the Government are prepared to say that, then let them introduce the Measure. We shall vote against it just the same.
  10.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I think that immediately following that somewhat extraordinary effusion it might be a particularly appropriate moment and for the convenience of the House if I were to try to explain briefly the Government's attitude to the Bill.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) took a very surprising line in his speech. As I understood it, it was that if hon. Members were left free to vote unwhipped according to their conscience, this was sneaking a Bill through the House. I have certainly always taken the view that in many circumstances our traditional system of party whipping is necessary and desirable, but where the House of Commons can give its untrammelled attention to Bills of this sort, to describe such a procedure as sneaking Bills through the House seems to be a misuse of language almost beyond the bounds of imagination.
  Sir S. McAdden: I was suggesting that to provide extraordinary facilities for the Bill was objectionable.
  Mr. Jenkins: I will deal with that in two ways. First, although the hon. Member says that he is not interested in parallels, perhaps I may remind the House that the facilities being given to the Bill by the Government are almost exactly the same as those which were given to the Obscene Publications Bill, which I promoted in 1959, by the Government of the day and by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.
  Secondly, perhaps I may explain certain special circumstances regarding this Bill. When I spoke on the debate on Mr. Humphry Berkeley's Bill in February of the last Parliament, I said that the Government regarded that Measure, the same as this, as pre-eminently a subject for decision on a free vote of the House according to the individual consciences and views of hon. Members in all parts of the House. This is still the Government's view. There will be a free vote tonight, and that free vote will apply as much to members of the Government as to other hon. Members. However, should the House decide to give the Bill, as it did on a previous occasion, a Second Reading, we shall be ready to give such drafting
  1138
  assistance as we can during its remaining stages—for example, in particular, on questions affecting the shipping industry, to which reference has been made tonight.
  I am sure, from my acquaintance with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), going back over a number of years, that he would not have put forward this proposal in the form he has done unless he really wished to be met on the point he had in mind. He would not have put it forward merely to wreck the Bill while pretending to do something else. I also believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has indicated that he is seized of this problem. I believe that it is certainly not beyond the wit of the sponsors of the Bill, with drafting assistance, to deal with this problem in Committee. This is what we should endeavour to do.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, inside the Government and outside, are entitled to vote against the Bill if they do not like it, but it would be wrong to pretend that the Bill should be voted against because of this problem—which I agree is a problem, but which I also believe can be dealt with in Committee.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend giving a categorical undertaking that the whole view of and opinion of the N.U.S. will be met in Committee?
  Mr. Jenkins: No. It would be wrong for me to say that, in a Committee of this House or on the Floor of the House, without regard to any other considerations, the view of one body of men, however important and distinguished, should automatically prevail. What I am saying is that the point which has been made is valid. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool accepts it as valid and that, with good will, we can work out a solution to it in Committee.
  There are some differences between this debate and that which we had on a previous occasion. The first is that Mr. Humphry Berkeley, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in the last Parliament with such distinction and courage, is no longer here to do so on this occasion. I pay my tribute to the way he did it on that previous occasion. I should also like to say that I do not believe that the Bill could have been

  1139
  better moved than it was today by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool.
  The other difference is that, as the hon. Member for Southend, East pointed out several times, the debate is taking place in time provided by the Government. The fact that we have provided this time does not mean that the attitude collectively of the Government towards the Bill is other than one of neutrality. But we felt that, in a situation where this House had twice expressed, by decisive majorities, its approval of the principles embodied in the Bill, and where a similar Bill had twice been passed through all its stages by substantial majorities in another place, it was only right to give the House the opportunity to accept or reject the change in the law proposed.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that had this Bill not been brought forward as a Private Member's Bill, the Government certainly would not have introduced such a Bill themselves?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am not answering a hypothetical question which does not arise. This Bill, as I have said, is eminently suitable for the Private Member's Bill procedure, which is a valuable part of the procedure of this House, and for free, cross-party voting. I believe it desirable, in the circumstances which have gone before, that the Government should make it possible for the House not merely to give an expression of opinion but, if it wishes, to carry the Bill through.
  I believe that there is one special reason for this to which I shall now turn. Had we not taken this course, we should have found ourselves faced with the anomaly that the sanction of the criminal law continued to apply to acts which Parliament no longer considered to be criminal, and that solely because of the hazards of the Private Member's Bill procedure the law could not be changed. It would clearly have been an unsatisfactory position, in which the police authorities and the courts would have been required to go on applying a law which had twice been pronounced, by decisive majorities in both Houses, itself to be unsatisfactory.
  Sir S. McAdden rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I have given way enough. I would prefer to get on.
  1140
  Such a situation would be clearly unsatisfactory and that in itself is a thoroughly adequate reason—and I make no apology, that apart—for the Government providing time. I doubt whether the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members are against the Government providing time for private Member's legislation and free decisions by the House. On that ground alone, it is highly desirable that we should have given an opportunity for the House's opinion to be expressed.
  Having explained the Government's attitude, I would now like to explain my own, as I have done on a previous occasion. I say that I shall without hesitation support the Bill this evening and shall vote for it in the Division Lobby. I do not think that anyone would deny, not even the hon. Member for Southend, East and others who take his view, that over the nine years since the Wolfenden Committee reported there has been a steadily growing Parliamentary support for the view that homosexual acts between consenting adults in public should no longer be subject to the processes—[HON. MEMBERS: "In private."]—in private; let there be no doubt about this—that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be subject to the penalties and processes of the criminal law.
  We have had a fair number of debates since 1957. In the first, in November, 1958, there was no Division, but the then Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, spoke sympathetically in favour of a change, but said that time and the education of public opinion were necessary. Time has certainly gone by and I believe that to a large extent that education has taken place. In 1960, in a debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health and wound up by myself, the majority against us was the fairly decisive one of 114. As late as 1965 my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool failed by a very narrow majority to get leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule.
  As the House will recall, by February of this year the proposal to change the law had gained such increasing support that Mr. Berkeley's Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 57 and a few months ago my hon. Friend's Bill was given a First Reading by the much more decisive majority of 144.

  1141
  We have, therefore, seen over the last decade a massive and decisive shift in Parliamentary feeling on this subject. I believe that this is evidence of a growing recognition that, whatever our views about particular forms of conduct, there has to be a very clear social purpose served before it is right to subject private conduct to the rigours of the criminal law.
  There are a number of grounds for this view. First, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) pointed out in his very cogent speech, the present law is manifestly unsuccessful and capricious in its incidence. It certainly does not deal with homosexual behaviour, let alone stamp it out. Some of the opponents of the Bill argue—though I do not know on what statistical basis—that homosexuality is on the increase and that any relaxation of the law is dangerous because it would accelerate the increase. This is a fairly illogical argument. It amounts to saying that because the law has failed, it should be continued in force.
  The truth of the matter is that in all societies throughout history there has been a certain amount of homosexual behavour and probably, I suspect, a fairly constant amount regardless of whether that behaviour has been condemned, as it sometimes has been, or condoned, as it sometimes has been, or even positively encouraged, as it sometimes has been. I doubt very much whether what the law has had to say about it has had any substantial effect upon its incidence.
  There is certainly no evidence whatever that homosexuality has increased in those countries which have relaxed the law very much on the basis proposed by my hon. Friend, such as Sweden in 1944, or Austria in 1960.
  Such evidence as there is goes the other way, and suggests that the existence of largely unenforceable legal provisions tend to bring the law into discredit and to invest the behaviour it seeks to prohibit with a spurious and most undesirable glamour and attraction. The present law certainly does not discourage homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality cannot be described as a disease in the sense that it can be cured; it is a disability and a very real disability for those who suffer it, which greatly minimises their chances of finding ordinary stable emotional relationships.
  1142
  The question that we have to answer is whether on top of that disability, we should subject these people to the rigours of the criminal law. We would have to be very certain in our own minds that we were sustaining some clear social purpose by doing that. Unless we are doing that we do not discourage homosexuality, we do not reduce it to any extent. We merely, by the capricious way in which the law operates, ruin the lives of a relatively small number of homosexuals by subjecting them in a quite irrational and arbitrary way to the terrifying penalties of the law, terrifying not because of the criminal penalties, but because of the ruinous consequences, of which blackmail is one, but only one, which accompany this.
  Sir S. McAdden: If the right hon. Gentleman feels so strongly, why on earth does he not introduce a Bill to deal with it?
  Mr. Jenkins: I thought that I had dealt with the hon. Member's point. I may not have done so to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, but I doubt whether I shall succeed in dealing with any point raised in this House to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. I thought that I had deployed to the House a case and that most Members were prepared to accept, whatever their views—and there are deeply held views on this subject—that this was pre-eminently a subject for decision by individual conscience.
  Captain W. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that the law does not discourage homosexuality. I think that he will agree that in the Wolfenden Report it quite clearly says that if naval discipline and the Army Act and so forth were changed, it would lead to an increase in the Services. Service men are exactly the same as civilians, except that they wear uniform. Why does the right hon. Gentleman make this distinction between civilians and Service men?
  Mr. Jenkins: Because it is probably desirable in this law which we are considering to deal with the generality of the problem, as it applies to civilians. If there are special problems in relation to Servicemen, then let the Services stand aside and be dealt with under naval and military discipline Acts. Furthermore, the position is very much the same as

  1143
  for that raised by my hon. Friend. If hon. Members wish their arguments to be taken seriously, and I am sure that they do, they must not try to have it both ways. They must not first of all raise the claim that there is a special problem, and as soon as anyone makes an attempt to meet that special problem, turn round and say, "Ah, but the fact that it is admitted that there is a special problem proves that your case must be wrong."
  Captain W. Elliot: I certainly do not argue that there is a special problem. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a special problem. He is differentiating between the Services and the civilian.
  Mr. Jenkins: If this is so I do not know why the hon. Gentleman devoted a very large part of his speech, of some considerable length, to talking almost entirely about the Services, which is a tiny proportion of the total, and not to the general problems.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is wrong in saying that the Wolfenden Report said there would be an increase in the Services if this reform is brought in. Section 144 of the Report merely said that there might be problems of discipline and made no suggestion that there would be any increase in the Services.
  Mr. Jenkins: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was so busy dealing with what appeared to be the fallaciousness of the argument that I overlooked the fallaciousness of the fact. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment or so longer.
  The essential feature of the law, in so far as we need a law on this subject, should be to penalise public indecency and the corruption of minors. I believe that that is fully safeguarded by the Bill as it is put forward. On both these points, my hon. Friend's Bill is specific and unequivocal. Penalties for the corruption of minors are increased. So long as the House is satisfied on these points, and I can see no reason why it should not be, it is right to leave the difficult, often distasteful problem of homosexuality to private morals and to the judg-
  1144
  ment of individual conscience and not to the full rigours of the criminal law.
  This is a difficult issue and one which has perplexed the House for many years. It is right that the House should take a decision tonight on a free vote, and I do not think that it will have a better opportunity or a clearer Bill on which to do it.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wood: At one moment during his speech, I was afraid that the Home Secretary was taking a look at the far distant future and foreshadowing legislation of which not many of us would approve until I realised that he had merely made a slip of the tongue.
  The right hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have joined in the general praise for the moderation and restraint of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in introducing the Bill, and I should like to add my support to that proposition. I was also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his mention of the way in which my former hon. Friend, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, also introduced an identical Bill a very short time ago.
  I, I am sorry to admit, also spoke on that occasion and I wondered, because it was a very short time ago, whether I should inflict another speech on this subject on the House. I was strengthened by two thoughts. The first was that there are, I think, 92 hon. Members who were not hon. Members 10 months ago, and that is one-seventh of our total number. The other thought was that I hoped that the approach of the Christmas season would lead the other six-sevenths to be more than usually tolerant if, as is almost inevitable, I am guilty of tedious repetition.
  The terms of the hon. Member's Bill are the same as those of Mr. Humphry Berkeley's Bill. Although it deals with other matters and although a number of substantial points have arisen in the course of our debate tonight, the most important question that we have to decide is whether a homosexual act committed in private between two consenting men over the age of 21 should or should not continue to be an offence.

  1145
  The reasoned Amendment for rejection, which has been supported by a number of hon. Members, certainly deserves the close attention which the hon. Member for Pontypool promised to give it. I naturally cannot possibly improve on the undertaking that he gave, but I am confident, like him, that the omission referred to in the Motion can be repaired and I am wholeheartedly in support of his objective that merchant seamen should be brought into exactly the same position as—no worse and no better than—naval ratings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), in what, I am sure, he will forgive me for calling a courageous and honest speech, happened to level some criticism, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), that the Government have found time for discussion of the Bill. Contrary to my usual sentiments, I have some sympathy with the Government. When the Bill was last debated, it was considered, in the words of one hon. Member, to be too grave a social problem to be discussed on a Friday afternoon when most hon. Members were absent. In the debate in February, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in a characteristically forthright speech, deplored the absence because of their sensible retirement to Scotland for the week-end of
  "the good Scottish Socialist Calvinistic M.P.s".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 833.]
  He suggested on that occasion that if the debate were held on a weekday, and I imagine that in Parliamentary terms a Monday is more a weekday than is a Friday, the presence of those M.P.'s would make a difference. I have been looking around me during the debate and I see a number of Scottish Socialist Members present. I do not know them well enough to know their theological opinions or whether they are followers of Calvin or not. We will soon discover whether their presence makes a difference.
  Much attention has been paid tonight to what I believe is the most profound and important distinction between the homosexual condition and its manifestation through overt homosexual practices, and the incidence of a condition which we all agree is no more a crime than the incidence of any other propensity
  1146
  which we may have. The condition is not only not an offence against the law; it is normally neutral, properly attracting neither condemnation nor condonation.
  Whatever our natural propensities, sexual or otherwise, we are left with the choice, either to give them free rein or to bring them or keep them under partial or complete control. The degree of freedom which we allow them is a matter not only of moral significance. It is also, in some cases but by no means all—and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made this point clearly—a matter of concern to the law.
  In sex, so long as a man is fortunate enough to be attracted to women and not to men, he can go far beyond the code of morality preached by any church and the law will be almost completely silent. There is no penalty for adultery except, of course, divorce, which for many adulterers is more a reward than a punishment. Nor is there any legal penalty for fornication provided that neither participant is less than 16. Even more significant in this context, homosexual behaviour between women is not illegal. The law, although morality less so, allows wide freedom to the heterosexual and it allows this for two good reasons. The first, which has been mentioned frequently during the debate, is the impossibility of enforcing a law against sexual misbehaviour. The second, mentioned less frequently, but which is more important, is that the more misbehaviour we bring or keep within the ambit of the criminal law the more we diminish the total moral responsibility borne by each individual.
  This brings me at long last to the Wolfenden Report. In the debate in February I quoted paragraph 52 and I will do so again tonight. It says:
  "We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to he so contrary to the public good that the law ought to intervene in its function as the guardian of that public good."
  The question which we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a case that the law should deal with private homosexual acts between men so differently from those between women, and men and women who are not married to one another. There are two grounds on

  1147
  which such a case can possibly be offered. The first has been mentioned by several hon. Members and that is that homosexual practices menace the health of society and disrupt family life.
  I happen to believe that this simple proposition is generally true. I believe that all great moral lapses in a society—and this is certainly one—make that society less healthy than it would otherwise be, and many of us know from experience, and have quoted it tonight, of families which have been disrupted by homosexual behaviour, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central, I have for long been convinced that other sexual misbehaviour is a far more serious menace to the health of family life and to society.
  Nothing, for instance, is so menacing as the deliberate intention of a man or a woman to destroy the unity of another family which would otherwise have happily continued. Because of its disruptive consequences, there may be a strong case for introducing legal penalties for adultery, but I doubt whether many of us would think that a wise or practical course to take.
  If, therefore, we shrink from prohibiting sexual misbehaviour which is comparatively more disruptive of family life, this seems to be a very slender reason for maintaining the legal penalties for private homosexual behaviour whose power to destroy a family circle, although it exists, is comparatively small.
  I am potentially more impressed by the other main argument which has been powerfully advanced by one or two hon. Members this evening, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, because I know that this argument is based on the sincere conviction of a number of people whose views I greatly respect. The argument runs like this, that if Parliament were to remove the penalties which are at present attached to homosexual offences committed by men in private, this would be taken to imply the tacit approval of society for this practice. That is the argument, and, furthermore those who put it forward genuinely fear that society's implied approval will lead to an opening of the flood gates and to a wild orgy of vice.
  1148
  This clearly must be a matter of opinion. I believe that the argument is based on a false premise. I do not think that action by Parliament to treat these offences in the same way as other private sexual misbehaviour will be interpreted as approval for them. I believe that very few people hold what in the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) described as the
  "over-simplified view that those actions which the law … does not condemn and punish are right, or at any rate not very seriously wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 800.]
  I do not believe that many people take that view. Therefore, whether or not homosexual offences remain grounds for criminal action will not greatly affect public judgment on them.
  I do not know whether anyone knows, but I believe that the majority of public opinion would like to see a change in the law. I am equally certain that the majority of public opinion, whether or not the law is changed, will continue to disapprove of the acts themselves, and while this is so, while this disapproval continues, I believe that we are unlikely to see the orgy of vice which some fear as a result of the Bill.
  The debate tonight is not concerned with approval or disapproval of homosexual practices. If any hon. Member were to introduce a Bill on these lines I believe that for as far ahead as we can see he would be overwhelmingly defeated. But this is not the issue. The issue, as I put it in February, and perhaps the House will let me put it again, is whether or not homosexual behaviour in private between consenting men should be within the same area of private moral choice and judgment which a man or a woman exercises when he or she commits or refrains from committing adultery or fornication. I believe strongly that it should, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
    Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ACCIDENTS)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ACCIDENTS)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ACCIDENTS)
ADEN
  ADEN
  ADEN
EGYPT (AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS)
  EGYPT (AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS)
  EGYPT (AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS)
UNITED NATIONS (PEACEKEEPING)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACEKEEPING)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACEKEEPING)
MR. STUART CHRISTIE
  MR. STUART CHRISTIE
  MR. STUART CHRISTIE
FOREIGN SECRETARY (EASTERN EUROPEAN VISITS)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (EASTERN EUROPEAN VISITS)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (EASTERN EUROPEAN VISITS)
FOREIGN SECRETARY (MOSCOW VISIT)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (MOSCOW VISIT)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (MOSCOW VISIT)
TRUCIAL STATES (POLITICAL CO-OPERATION)
  TRUCIAL STATES (POLITICAL CO-OPERATION)
  TRUCIAL STATES (POLITICAL CO-OPERATION)
BURUNDI
  BURUNDI
  BURUNDI
BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW (SALARY SCALES)
  BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW (SALARY SCALES)
  BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW (SALARY SCALES)
DISARMAMENT (MINISTER OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY)
  DISARMAMENT (MINISTER OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY)
  DISARMAMENT (MINISTER OF STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY)
TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
  TREATY OF ROME
GERMANY
  GERMANY
  GERMANY
EAST-WEST RELATIONS
  EAST-WEST RELATIONS
  EAST-WEST RELATIONS
FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF)
EUROPEAN DEFENCE
  EUROPEAN DEFENCE
  EUROPEAN DEFENCE
VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
INDONESIA (WEST IRIAN PLEBISCITE)
  INDONESIA (WEST IRIAN PLEBISCITE)
  INDONESIA (WEST IRIAN PLEBISCITE)
FORMOSA
  FORMOSA
  FORMOSA
RUMANIA
  RUMANIA
  RUMANIA
CHINA (BRITISH GRAVES)
  CHINA (BRITISH GRAVES)
  CHINA (BRITISH GRAVES)
TREATIES
  TREATIES
  TREATIES
RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
MOROCCO (BRITISH PASSPORTS)
  MOROCCO (BRITISH PASSPORTS)
  MOROCCO (BRITISH PASSPORTS)
SOUTH AFRICA (SIMONSTOWN BASE)
  SOUTH AFRICA (SIMONSTOWN BASE)
  SOUTH AFRICA (SIMONSTOWN BASE)
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MINISTERIAL MEETING)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MINISTERIAL MEETING)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MINISTERIAL MEETING)
SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
LAOS (OVER-FLIGHTS)
  LAOS (OVER-FLIGHTS)
  LAOS (OVER-FLIGHTS)
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RECOMMENDATIONS)
MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
PAYMASTER-GENERAL (No. 10 DOWNING STREET FACILITIES)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (No. 10 DOWNING STREET FACILITIES)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (No. 10 DOWNING STREET FACILITIES)
PAYMASTER-GENERAL (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (NORTHERN IRELAND)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  National Parks Commission (Staff)
  National Parks Commission (Staff)
  Land Commission (Staff)
  Land Commission (Staff)
  Common Land (Ordnance Survey Maps)
  Common Land (Ordnance Survey Maps)
  Commons Registration (General) Regulations 1966 (Forms)
  Commons Registration (General) Regulations 1966 (Forms)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Industralised Building (Cost)
  Industralised Building (Cost)
  Construction Industry (Structure)
  Construction Industry (Structure)
HOSPITALS
  Dispensers (Pay)
  Dispensers (Pay)
  Withington Hospital, Manchester
  Withington Hospital, Manchester
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  General Nursing Council (Examinations)
  General Nursing Council (Examinations)
  Lodge Moor Hospital, Sheffield (Kidney Machine)
  Lodge Moor Hospital, Sheffield (Kidney Machine)
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberyswyth
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberyswyth
  The Wrekin Hospital, Wellington
  The Wrekin Hospital, Wellington
  Manchester Dental Hospital
  Manchester Dental Hospital
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Road Casualties (Numbers and Cost)
  Road Casualties (Numbers and Cost)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Welfare Foods (Free Provision)
  Welfare Foods (Free Provision)
  Food Hygiene Advisory Council
  Food Hygiene Advisory Council
  New Drug (Investigation)
  New Drug (Investigation)
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  Reciprocal Arrangements (Eastern Europe)
  Reciprocal Arrangements (Eastern Europe)
  Supplementary Ophthalmic Service
  Supplementary Ophthalmic Service
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Trade Disputes, Stockport (Vacancies)
  Trade Disputes, Stockport (Vacancies)
  Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board (Headquarters)
  Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board (Headquarters)
  Docks and Harbours Act
  Docks and Harbours Act
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Ports (Honeyman Report)
  Ports (Honeyman Report)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendation)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendation)
  Selective Employment Tax Registrations (Doncaster)
  Selective Employment Tax Registrations (Doncaster)
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  School-Leavers, Scotland
  School-Leavers, Scotland
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Building Regulations (Fire Precaution Provisions)
  Building Regulations (Fire Precaution Provisions)
  Land (Use Planning)
  Land (Use Planning)
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  North-West Economic Planning Council
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Paymaster-General's Office
  Paymaster-General's Office
  Capital Gains Tax (Collection Cost)
  Capital Gains Tax (Collection Cost)
  Corporation Tax (Collection Cost)
  Corporation Tax (Collection Cost)
  Income Tax (Repayments)
  Income Tax (Repayments)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Gas-Cooled Reactors (Sales)
  Gas-Cooled Reactors (Sales)
  Aldergrove Airport (Freight)
  Aldergrove Airport (Freight)
  Imports
  Imports
  Exports (After-Sales Servicing)
  Exports (After-Sales Servicing)
  Aldergrove Airport (Instrument Landing Systems)
  Aldergrove Airport (Instrument Landing Systems)
  Imported Birds
  Imported Birds
  Livestock (Imports)
  Livestock (Imports)
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  Iron and Steel Scrap (Open General Licence)
  Iron and Steel Scrap (Open General Licence)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Standards)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Standards)
  Traffic (Wolverhampton)
  Traffic (Wolverhampton)
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  North-West Economic Planning Council
  Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  Drink and Drugs (Driving Convictions)
  Drink and Drugs (Driving Convictions)
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossing, Queensbury
  Pedestrian Crossing, Queensbury
  Traffic Signals, Rochester
  Traffic Signals, Rochester
  A45
  A45
  Road Construction Unit
  Road Construction Unit
  Trunk and Classified Roads (Carriageways)
  Trunk and Classified Roads (Carriageways)
  Economic Commission for Europe
  Economic Commission for Europe
  Street Name Plates
  Street Name Plates
PORTS
  Cargo Tonnage
  Cargo Tonnage
  Employers' Licences (Applications)
  Employers' Licences (Applications)
RAILWAYS
  Freightliners
  Freightliners
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Employment (North-West Region)
  Employment (North-West Region)
  South Hampshire (Buchanan Report)
  South Hampshire (Buchanan Report)
  Economic Planning Councils (Private Investment)
  Economic Planning Councils (Private Investment)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
  National Economic Development Council (Members)
  National Economic Development Council (Members)
  Economic Development Committees
  Economic Development Committees
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
  Machine Tools (Imports)
  Machine Tools (Imports)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sports Organisations, Yorkshire (Grant)
  Sports Organisations, Yorkshire (Grant)
  Teachers (Subnormal Children)
  Teachers (Subnormal Children)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Comments)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Comments)
  Computer Education (Report)
  Computer Education (Report)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fatstock Prices (Wales)
  Fatstock Prices (Wales)
  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Carmarthen (Brucellosis)
  Veterinary Investigation Centre, Carmarthen (Brucellosis)
  Milk Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
  Milk Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
  Parrot-Like Birds (Import Ban)
  Parrot-Like Birds (Import Ban)
  Land (Reclamation Schemes)
  Land (Reclamation Schemes)
SEYCHELLES
  Legislative Council (Publication of Proceedings)
  Legislative Council (Publication of Proceedings)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  H.M.S.s 'Blake' and 'Lion '
  H.M.S.s 'Blake' and 'Lion '
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  V.H.F. Television Station, Ballachulish
  V.H.F. Television Station, Ballachulish
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Installation Costs
  Installation Costs
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Prisoners (Petitions)
  Accident (Durham Road)
  Accident (Durham Road)
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
  Probation Officers (Salaries)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nationalised Fuel Industries
  Nationalised Fuel Industries
  Coal Prices (Scotland and Wales)
  Coal Prices (Scotland and Wales)
  Electricity Rates
  Electricity Rates
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Graduated Pension Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh (Kidney Unit)
  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh (Kidney Unit)
  Day-Release Classes
  Day-Release Classes
  Teaching Profession (Recruitment of Graduates)
  Teaching Profession (Recruitment of Graduates)
TECHNOLOGY
  Technological Development (Sketch Maps)
  Technological Development (Sketch Maps)
  Shipbuilding Groups
  Shipbuilding Groups
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
  North-West Economic Planning Council (Recommendations)
  Shipbuilding and Shiprepair (Northern Region)
  Shipbuilding and Shiprepair (Northern Region)
WALES
  Monmouthshire
  Monmouthshire
  Employment
  Employment
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community

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

PUBLICATION OF COLLIERY ACCOUNTS
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given any general direction to the National Coal Board requiring them to publish the accounts of collieries which are being or have been closed as unprofitable; and in particular whether the accounts relating to one of these collieries—namely Duffryn Rhondda—are to be published.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the Government have given no general direction to the National Coal Board about publishing the accounts of collieries, and there is no intention of publishing those of Duffryn Rhondda. The closure of individual collieries is a matter for the National Coal Board, who consider all the relevant facts, of which finance is one.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not impossible for the public, who are the shareholders of the National Coal Board, to know whether the closures are justified if they do not see the accounts? Is not the sauce for the private enterprise goose also sauce for the nationalised gander?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am not quite sure what was meant by the last part of the noble Lord's question. The National Coal Board are, of course,
1828
under an obligation, under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, to publish its accounts
"in such form…as shall conform with the best commercial standards and which shall distinguish the colliery activities and each of the main ancillary activities of the Board."
The National Coal Board have been given a certain task and it will continue to do it to the best of its ability, but it will do it in accordance with the best commercial practice.
LORD OGMORE: But, my Lords, are not the Government in the Companies Bill to-day ensuring that the best commercial practice shall entail publishing. accounts? If the Coal Board do not publish these accounts, how can the people of South Wales know whether to close down these important collieries is just, and that there is no inefficiency in the management?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the National Coal Board do publish accounts to a considerable extent, as I am sure the noble Lord will know. They are laid before Parliament and, of course, are debatable by Parliament. So far as the comparison with commercial undertakings is concerned, the accounts of the Board do not deal with the 450 individual pits any more than the accounts of, say, Messrs. Woolworth deal with their thousand branches separately.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that the National Coal Board report annually on the divisional operations throughout the whole of the country?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. The results of their divisional workings are set out in the annual report which I have mentioned.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, with regard to the latter part of the Minister's last reply to my noble friend Lord Ogmore, is it not a fact that if one of the branches of Woolworth's does not make a profit it is not being subsidised by the taxpayer?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I should think the answer would be, Yes, my Lords.

GIBRALTAR
2.40 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, in view of the resolution of the United Nations Committee of 24 passed on November 17 last, that the two parties (Spain and the United Kingdom) should continue negotiations and report to the Special Committee before the 22nd Session of the General Assembly, and in view of Spain's rejection of the proposal to take the dispute over Gibraltar to the International Court, whether they would be prepared unequivocally to assure the House that the Sovereignty cannot be regarded as a matter for negotiation in view of their affirmation that the interests of the people of Gibraltar should be paramount.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government regret the Spanish Government's negative reaction to their proposal for a reference to the International Court. The Spanish reply is being studied in the light of the relevant United Nations resolutions and an answer will be given as soon as possible. Under Article 73 of the United Nations' Charter, Her Majesty's Government are obliged to recognise the principle that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are paramount, and we shall continue to hold to this in any further negotiations which may take place.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. But is it not a fact that last Saturday's resolution in the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations, which resolution was agreed to by both Britain and Spain, called upon both parties to continue negotiations, and also called upon Britain to speed the decolonisation of Gibraltar in consultation with the Government of Spain? In addition, was there not a statement, in another place on November 10 last, by the Foreign Secretary, when he said that Spain clearly wishes to grab Gibraltar against the
1830
wishes of those who live there, and that nobody could describe that as an act of decolonisation? In view of these facts, would the noble Lord not agree that there were certain grounds for my seeking the assurance which I sought in my original Question?
LORD BESWICK: Not quite on the basis on which the noble Lord put his Question. In fact, in the resolution to which he refers, which was adopted on Saturday night at the United Nations, there was an amendment which called upon the two parties to continue negotiations, I agree, but also to take into account the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I should have thought that that was something which would satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further question? As Spain voted for this resolution, and it included an expression of regret at the occurrence of certain acts which have prejudiced the smooth progress of the negotiations, and also in view of the proviso, to which the noble Lord referred, that the interests of the people of the territory should be taken into account, would the noble Lord not agree that there were strong reasons for which Her Majesty's Government could press strongly for an easing of the frontier restrictions?
LORD BESWICK: Certainly, my Lords. In the process of any negotiations we shall press for the removal of those restrictions.

THE COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
2.42 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is now their intention to integrate fully the Commonwealth Office with the Foreign Office under a single Secretary of State for External Affairs; and if so, when.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer given in another place on June 21 of this year by

1831
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for that reply—which does not surprise me—may I ask him two supplementaries? Would not the Government agree that there is a very real danger of an amalgamated portfolio becoming too great a responsibility for a single individual, however brilliant he maybe? And do they believe that such an integration, if it took place, would in the final event be in the best interests of the Commonwealth, bearing in mind the very special relationship that the Commonwealth holds with the United Kingdom?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very interested in the supplementaries which the noble Lord has put, especially in view of his experience. I am myself certain that, despite what has been said by other noble Lords in this House, this question of the work-load on one Secretary of State is a very important one. As for the noble Lord's second supplementary, I think the consideration he put there was in the minds of the Plowden Committee when they said that the time was not now opportune for the unifying of the two Departments.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, as there is no longer a Colonial Office, could the noble Lord tell us when there will cease to be a Secretary of State for the Colonies?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should not have thought, even with all the expertise of the noble Lord, that he could make that relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.

DECIMAL CURRENCY AND POST OFFICE ACCOUNTING
2.44 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed that under the £—cent—½ system of decimalisation the Post Office Savings Bank should disregard the half cent for accounting
1832
purposes; and in respect of what other services provided by the Post Office the same practice will be followed; and further, what will be the face value of the equivalent of the 4d. postage stamp under this system.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my right honourable friend has not yet decided whether the half new penny will be used for Post Office, including Savings Bank, accounting. It is too early for him to predict what postal charges will be in 1971. Their overall pattern will, as usual, be designed to meet the financial target applying at the time.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that the commercial world will watch with very great interest whether the Government inflict on the Post Office the same handicaps and anomalies which are going to be inflicted on private enterprise and on commerce in respect of the differences which are going to arise between cash accounting and banking accounts? The noble Lady says that it is too early for these decisions to be made, but will the Government realise that this decision must be made within the next two or three months if the necessary preparatory work is to be done? Unless the Government are, if I may say so, rather arrogantly assuming their decision to adopt the £1 unit to be the final decision that is going to be made—
NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD REDMAYNE: I think I have put one, my Lords. Secondly, may I ask this? If one is to assume, as one must, that the face value of the 4d. stamp will be two new pennies (which is going to put up the cost of a 4d. stamp by 20 per cent.), what is the sense in saying in paragraph 29 of Cmnd. 3164 that the Government and the Decimal Currency Board
"will make every effort to prevent this kind of exploitation"?
Or is one to expect that we shall have one law for the Government and another for private enterprise?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am afraid I have nothing to add to the statement I have made except one possible

1833
addition. The noble Lord will remember that by that time, in any case, the Post Office will of course be a separate corporation, which must influence some of the decisions taken. But I shall convey to the Minister the comments which the noble Lord has made on the need for work to begin as soon as possible.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I put this further question to the noble Lady? Is not the question of whether the Post Office is under the Government or is a private organisation quite irrelevant? Surely, if it becomes a private organisation it will suffer the same handicaps as private industry.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I think there were a number of Members of the House who were beginning to feel that the noble Lord was making a series of comments rather than putting questions. I am now quite sure that he has just passed over the line.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether there is not some evidence that, in valuing up the new currency, prices with inevitably rise? This is a very difficult point, but if a postage stamp is going to be much more expensive, this is one of the ways in which prices are hound to rise. Will the Government not reconsider this question of the 10s. versus the £1 unit?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am sure the noble Lady will appreciate that I can hardly make a statement of that kind, either agreeing or disagreeing. The financial factors operating when decimal currency finally comes into common use may be quite different from those of to-day. If the noble Baroness would like to put down a Question to Her Majesty's Government on those lines, she might get fuller details.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, in connection with our going over to decimal currency, can the noble Lady say whether the Government are keeping in close touch with the Government of Australia, which has recently gone over to decimal currency?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend is, of course,
1834
watching their experience because obviously this will be some pointer for our thinking in the future.

THE BOWEN REPORT
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a Statement on the Bowen Report.

CARRIAGE BY AIR ACTS (APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS) ORDER 1967
2.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a copy of which was laid before noble Lords on December 7, be approved. The Warsaw Convention of 1929 is, I believe, the most widely ratified of international conventions in the field of private law, 85 States being parties, including the United States and the U.S.S.R. It ensures a measure of international uniformity in the law governing international carriage by air, thereby removing difficult and perhaps expensive litigation as to which country's law applies. It also confers on passengers and their dependants, and on the shippers of cargo, the reversal of the burden of proving the carrier's negligence, in exchange for which the carrier enjoys a uniform limit of liability, which makes easier the arrangement of insurance. In the absence of wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier, his servants or agents, this limit is at present equivalent to some £3,000 per passenger.
The Carriage by Air Act 1932 gave effect in the United Kingdom to this Convention, and the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order 1952, made under the provisions of that Act, applied the same limit of liability to domestic and other carriage not covered by the Convention. Under the Act and the Order, therefore, the same limit is applied to all carriage, whatever the point of departure and destination or the nationality of the passenger or shipper, and it makes no difference where the accident occurs or which airline is involved. The Hague Protocol of 1955 made a number of amendments to

1835
the Warsaw Convention and in particular raised the limit of liability from £3,000, which was generally agreed among the nations to have become too low, to some £6,000. It has now been ratified by 49 countries. Section 1 of the Carriage by Air Act 1961 gives effect in the United Kingdom to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol, thereby enabling the Protocol to be ratified by the United Kingdom, but this section has not yet been brought into force and the Protocol has not yet been ratified by the United Kingdom.
In the meantime international discussions have begun under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation with a view to the further amendment of the Hague/Warsaw system and in particular a further possible increase in the limit of liability of £6,000, which with the passing of the years has once again come to be regarded as on the low side. It is the Government's hope that these discussions will be successful, but we recognise that several years are likely to pass before a new Convention or Protocol is drawn up, signed and ratified by a sufficient number of States. We think, therefore, that we should, without more ado, proceed to ratification of the Hague Protocol, and are planning to lodge the instrument of ratification with the Polish Government on March 3, 1967. Allowing for the 90 days that must elapse before it becomes effective, the Protocol will then be in force for the United Kingdom as from June 1 next.
On the same day the Carriage by Air Act 1932, which gave effect to the provisions of the original Warsaw Convention, will be repealed by virtue of Section 1(3) of the 1961 Act and the Carriage by Air (Non-International Carriage) Order 1952 made under it will accordingly cease to have effect. It is proposed that that Order, which, as I have said, applied the Warsaw provisions, with some exceptions and adaptations, to domestic and other carriage not governed by the Convention, should be replaced by the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 which is proposed to be made under Section 10 of the Act of 1961, and which is now before noble Lords.
The main provisions of the draft Order are: one, it applies to domestic and
1836
other carriage which is not governed by either the unamended or amended Warsaw Convention, the principles of the amended Convention. As permitted by Section 10, however, a number of "exceptions, adaptations and modifications" are made: for example, the omission of the requirements as to documentation and of the restriction of the courts in which actions may be brought. A matter of more general interests, and one which I think will be particularly welcomed by noble Lords, is that the draft Order raises the carrier's limit of liability in respect of domestic carriage and other types of carriage to which it applies, to some £21,000 per passenger instead of the £6,000 which is the limit in the Hague Protocol; two, it applies the principles of the amended Convention to the carriage of air mail, with similar exceptions, adaptations and modifications; three, as a transitional provision, it applies, with the necessary modifications, those principles to the diminishing amount of carriage which will continue to be governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention, to which the United Kingdow remains a party; four, it applies the Warsaw-Hague system to gratuitous carriage by the Crown, carriage by the Crown for reward already being governed by that system; and five, as permitted by Section 10(3) of the 1961 Act it gives the Board of Trade power to exempt any class of carriage from the requirements imposed by the Order.
If the draft Order is approved and both the Order and the Hague Protocol come into effect in this country on June 1, 1967, there will then be three classes of carriage governed by their provisions: one, carriage governed by neither the amended nor the unamended Convention where the £21,000 limit willapply—for example, London-Glasgow, London-Gibraltar non-stop, and London-Istanbul non-stop since Turkey is not yet a party to either the Protocol or the unamended Warsaw Convention. The second is carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol where the £6,000 limit of liability will apply—e.g., carriage between London-Paris, since both the United Kingdom and France will then be parties to the Protocol. The third is the residual and diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention where the £3,000 limit will apply

1837
—for example, London-Delhi, until such time as India also ratifies the Protocol, although the return journey London-Delhi-London will be governed by the Protocol. In practice, however, a great deal of this carriage will be governed by arrangements under which the major airlines have voluntarily agreed to a limit of £21,000 as an interim measure pending the further revision of the Convention.
It is a matter for regret that there will be these variations in the limits, but uniformity is not something that we can achieve by ourselves, because of the international aspects. Nevertheless, our proposals do, I believe, represent a valuable advance on the existing situation where both international and non-international carriage is subject to the same limit of £3,000; and, having regard to the interests of the ever-growing number of the public who travel by air, I am sure that noble Lords will wish to approve the Order.
Moved, That the Draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, laid before the House on 7th December, 1966, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could I ask the Minister one question on this Order? I ask it as a layman not so well versed in law as are many noble and learned Lords. Under the amended Order raising the old Warsaw limit of £3,000 to £6,000, and under the new proposal for £21,000 for domestic services, is there any taking away from the citizen of his right to go to the courts and sue the operating company if he feels that there are grounds for alleging negligence on the part of the company or its servants?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, none whatever.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I welcome What the Minister has said about the increase in the limit of liability in relation to domestic flights but I am sure he recognises that the disparity of limits, depending upon which route you fly and whether or not it is covered by the Warsaw Convention, is wholly anomalous and illogical. I should like to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are pressing actively for that Convention to be revised with a view to
1838
getting some uniformity of limit more approaching that which applies to domestic users.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I made special reference to that point towards the end of my speech when I said it is a matter for regret that there will be these variations in the limits. But uniformity is something we cannot achieve by ourselves. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that we are doing all we can to speed this matter up.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I listened to what was said by my noble friend, Lord Rhodes, with a great deal of attention. I gathered that he was referring to scheduled flights on recognised air lines, but I did not gather whether or not charter flights, and particularly the growing package deals of charter flights in association with holidays abroad, are covered by this Convention.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, that is another point, but so long as it is international in content I take it that it does.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, am I to gather that the normal passenger accepting a holiday package deal offered by a charter firm is covered by this Convention?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I do not know, but I will let my noble friend know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a long, complicated and, I think important Bill, I will try to be concise, consistent with clarity, but I am sure that your Lordships' will excuse me if I begin with two personal references. The first relates to my noble friend, Lord Stonham, who is now in hospital. Normally, he would have been replying for the Government Front Bench I know that all of us are responsive to his personality and have admiration for his

1839
ability, and that every one of us, irrespective of Party, will hope that he has a full and an early recovery.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: My second reference is to my noble friend Lord Sorensen, who will be replying as deputy to Lord Stonham. It is not generally known that Lord Sorensen was the pioneer of legislation on the subject of racial discrimination. He introduced his Bill nearly twenty years ago; and because of that fact I am hopeful that his reply from the Front Bench will be sympathetic to this Bill.
My Lords, this Bill has very authoritative support. There are three specialist committees of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, of which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Chairman. One of those committees deals with employment, the second with housing and the third with legal questions and welfare matters. All those special committees have considered the terms of this Bill in detail. They have gone through it clause by clause. They have recommended certain amendments which those associated with me have been glad to accept.
All those three specialist committees of this National Committee responsible to the Prime Minister have endorsed this Bill in the form that I bring it before your Lordships' House to-day. Further than that, the National Committee have recommended to the Prime Minister and to the Home Secretary that a Bill endorsing the principles of this measure shall be brought to the Houses of Parliament. I regret very much—and I have had a letter from him expressing his sorrow—that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot be present to-day; but he has asked another representative of the Church to speak in his place.
In addition to that very substantial authority behind this Bill there is Ministerial support for an amending Bill. The Home Secretary and the Minister specially responsible for the integration of the immigrant community have both indicated—and on this I will speak later—that changes are necessary. The Chairman of the Race Relations Board has
1840
also indicated this. Mr. Maurice Foley, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, said in Manchester on September 18:
"There is mounting evidence that the Race Relations Act is inadequate."
In addition to those authoritative views of the Committee dealing with the Commonwealth immigrant and the expression of views by Ministers I was greatly heartened, as I listened to the debate in the House of Commons on Friday on the Bill introduced by Mr. Orbach (it is similar to mine, though not quite so extended because of the definition in the Long Title), by the speech from the Conservative Front Bench made by Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke. He reminded the House that Mr. Thorne croft, speaking for the Opposition when the Bill of 1965 was being considered, said that it was inadequate because it did not deal with jobs and homes, which he described as being "where the shoe pinches". Mr. Fletcher-Cooke said he had a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Orbach's Bill which sought to widen the scope. He said—and I quote his words:
"I think that the scope of the conciliation procedure may well have to be extended to jobs and homes".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 738 (No. 119), col. 942; 16/12/66.]
These are the most urgent extensions which the Bill urges.
The Bill differs from the measure which Mr. Orbach has introduced, in that it deals with religious discrimination as well as racial discrimination. May I, at this point, apologise to the House for the three typographical errors in the printing of the Bill? Religion is not mentioned in the employment section and in the definition of "discrimination", and the subjects of the Bill are transferred in the title at the end. I take full responsibility for these mistakes. There had to be speed in handing the typescript over to the Officers of the House and I had not read it as carefully as I should have done. I think that all of us would wish to pay tribute to the accuracy and speed of the Officers of this House and for the amazing way in which, during the night, official publications are printed and delivered to our homes by first post in the morning.
My Lords, I recognise that religious discrimination is comparatively rare in this country. It does sometimes take place in the case of those of the Jewish

1841
faith, and also with Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs. I regret very much that I am not able to propose that this Bill should extend to Northern Ireland, where there is evidence that religious discrimination is widespread. But I hope that the adoption of this Bill may be regarded as an example to Northern Ireland. Again, I am glad to quote Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is not acting in accordance with our Rules in quoting a statement made in another place during the present Session, unless it was made on a point of policy by a Minister of the Crown.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. More than once he has corrected me on points on procedure in this House. I acknowledge it. Therefore, I would only say that the spokesman for the Conservative Party on the Front Bench suggested that religion undoubtedly is just as much a division as race, and expressed the hope that the question of religious discrimination would be included in any Bill.
The best evidence of the need to extend the scope of the 1965 Act is in the experience of the Race Relations Board. I have been provided with the number of complaints which have been received by that Board up to and including Friday, December 9, last. This document shows that, of the 198 complaints presented to the Board, 148 were outside the scope of the present Act. Of those 148, 66 referred to employment. And I would emphasise that number, because it is larger than all the complaints received by the Board which were legitimate under the Act. The second category of complaints relates to housing, where the number of complaints, which again I want to emphasise, was 29. The comment may be made that that number is small, but the House should remember that only three of the fourteen local committees, who are to be responsible for forwarding complaints to the Board, have yet been formed.
I should be speaking for too long if I dealt in detail with all the extensions of the scope of the Act which this Bill proposes. But there are two extensions, in addition to employment and housing, to which I wish to refer. First, all places of public resort are included, and not only those listed in the 1965 Act. The
1842
danger, of course, is that When one lists places legal sanction may be given to places not included in the list. I will say only that there is some evidence of discrimination in shops, offices, holiday camps and night clubs.
Secondly, the Crown, which is not at present bound by the Act, is included in this Bill. It would make Government Departments and their agencies subject to the Act. In another place on Friday, Mr. Foley indicated (I will not quote him but only paraphrase his words) that Government Departments are taking steps to apply non-discrimination. But I would urge on this House that it should also apply in all Government contracts by a clause as automatic as the present fair-wages clause.
I pass to the two principal extensions suggested in this Bill. The Bill would cover discrimination in employment, whether by employers, trade unions, labour exchanges or private agencies. The evidence is overwhelming that discrimination takes place now in the sphere of employment. I have in my hand a bundle of complaints endorsed after investigation in the City of Manchester alone. In these complaints there is instance after instance where coloured persons with good qualifications have been told that vacancies were filled, and subsequently, when non-coloured applicants applied for the same jobs, they have been given them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the complaints have been endorsed. Could he say by whom?—because this is rather important.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, investigation was carried out by the Campaign against Racial Discrimination and all those complaints have been forwarded to the Race Relations Board. I recognise that most coloured persons can obtain jobs, but they cannot obtain jobs appropriate to their qualifications. Indeed, one of the dangers in the present situation is that the coloured workers in Britain are becoming a second-class in the working class. There are mills in Yorkshire where white workers will no longer accept employment at night time, and all the night shifts are now carried out by Pakistani workers. A Birmingham heavy industry firm employs only coloured workers on the shop floor at £8 a week for a 50 to 60 hour week.

1843
I think the greatest evidence of the inability of coloured workers to obtain employment according to their qualifications is shown in the survey which has been carried out at Southall by a number of students who have lived with the immigrant community. They have detailed case histories of 150 Indian graduates. Of these, 88 per cent. are in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. It is estimated that two-thirds of the Indian graduates in Southall have teaching qualifications. I recognise that Indian qualifications sometimes are not as high as those upon which we insist in this country. I would urge, in view of the shortage of teachers, that opportunities should be given to them to have courses of training. I commend the experiment which has been carried out by the Bradford education authority, where they are giving those from Commonwealth countries with qualifications the opportunity to become efficient for teaching in this country.
The worst feature of discrimination in employment is among the school leavers. The Home Secretary said on October 11, not in another place, that the danger in job discrimination comes with the second generation. He warned that school leavers may work up the kind of resentments that are rife in America. Again, I recognise that most coloured school leavers now obtain jobs, but emphatically not in accordance with their ability.
The Minister, Mr. Foley, said three years ago (and the number has grown since) that sons of coloured immigrants who had been educated for several years in Britain could not find openings as apprentices, and daughters, though fully qualified as shorthand typists, could not obtain office jobs. This is borne out by the Report of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council and by the Report of the Inner London Education Committee. Many of these school leavers were born in this country; they have become adjusted to our way of life; they are as British as we are British, and to allow discrimination to take place in their employment is a denial of the principle of human equality in which all Members of this House believe.
The second important extension of the scope of this Bill is that discrimination is made unlawful in the sale and lease of
1844
housing accommodation, in the advertising of the same, and in covenants restricting the sale or letting of any interests in land or housing. Again, the evidence is so extensive it is difficult for me to select. I know of three instances relating to senior members of the staffs of Embassies and High Commissions in London. Their solicitors had arranged for the lease of accommodation, but when the estate agents found that they were coloured, the fulfilment of the contract was refused. I will satisfy myself with quoting from the Milner Holland Report on Housing in Greater London. It says:
"There is, we find, a marked degree of reluctance among private landlords to let to coloured tenants, and where these lettings occur the rents arc in general higher."
The Committee said that higher negotiating fees are charged to coloured people; and they cite cases where registration fees of 10 to 15 guineas were charged for finding accommodation consisting of one shabby room, and charges as high as £50 even when no results followed.
I recognise that we must be careful not to invade personal rights in this matter, as, for instance, where a woman takes lodgers into her home. The Bill does not apply to any dwelling where the person letting the accommodation shares any part of the premises, except for the purpose of access. It does not affect any tenants who share with a landlady or landlord facilities for cooking, eating, toilets or washing. The letting must be of entirely separate accommodation.
I should like to sum up on these two extensions to housing and employment by quoting a speech by Mr. Bonham Carter, the Chairman of the Race Relations Board, last Saturday in Chicago, after investigating American methods. He used these words:
"I am now convinced that, whilst legislation cannot in itself provide the equal opportunity we must be seeking, it is none the less an essential prerequisite in tackling the problems of discrimination. Those problems undoubtedly face us today in terms of both housing and jobs, and they are likely to become more and more intractable unless we take action in time."
My Lords, we are asking the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill to encourage the Government to take action.
There are other provisions to which I will only briefly refer. The Bill applies

1845
to discrimination in credits, hire-purchase, mortgages and insurance; and again I have with me many instances of discrimination in these spheres. It applies to clubs, except where the membership of those clubs is specifically limited. I want to say at once that I am not sure that we have the wording of this clause right to express the differentiation, and I shall be happy to consider Amendments if this Bill reaches a Committee stage.
The second main feature of this Bill is to change the structure of the administration under the Race Relations Act. It is now generally recognised that further powers must be given within the structure of the administration if it is to be effective. The Home Secretary said on October 11:
"They"—
that is the conciliation committees—
"find that the very process of conciliation, which is central to the whole idea, is hindered by the lack of powers to compel alleged discriminators to talk to the local committees."
This Bill is not so radical as the Home Secretary; it does not propose any extension of powers of the local committees. The task of the local committees is to seek conciliation, and in my view the temper in which they endeavoured, by persuasion, to reach a settlement would be prejudiced if they were given any compulsory powers.
We propose that enlarged powers should be given to the Race Relations Board so that they can investigate complaints which the local committees have not been able to settle. To do that, in our view they should have power to subpoena witnesses, to take evidence on oath and require the production of relevant documentary and statistical evidence. If a complaint is upheld under the Bill, the Board would be entitled to make orders to the discriminator requiring him not to contravene the terms of the Bill, and to pay any damages for loss to the victim of the discrimination. An appeal would be allowed from those orders to the High Court. The Board's orders would he registered in the county court, and in the event of any breach by the discriminator the Board could bring proceedings to enforce the order as an order of the court. To enable the Board to fulfil their enlarged responsibilities, their membership under the Bill would be
1846
increased from three to eight, including one legally qualified member.
In his speech on Friday, it appeared as though Mr. Fletcher-Cooke thought the Bill would give the Board, or others, the power of criminal sanctions. This is not so. In the case of any breach of an order by the Race Relations Board, which would be passed on to the county court, the county court would not have authority under criminal law, but it would have the power to ask that the order be obeyed, and if it were not obeyed the ordinary procedure of contempt of court would follow. There is no proposal for appeal to criminal court.
Finally, there are provisions regarding incitement. Under the Bill the promotion of contempt is added to the incitement of hatred. Contempt can be more dire in its consequences than hatred. One can hate an equal; contempt implies inferiority, the extreme denial of the principle of human equality. Secondly, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the Attorney General, is authorised to prosecute in a case passed on by the Race Relations Board. Thirdly, club and private associations are prohibited from publishing and distributing, even among their own members, material which contravenes the Bill. This issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in the case of the Viking Club. Those of us who support the Bill take the view that the distribution of material inciting religious or racial hatred, or contempt, is poisonous. If any club or association were distributing drugs among its members, they could come within the law. In our view, this propaganda is as disastrous to the spiritual life of our community as the distribution of drugs would be to its physical life.
We have resisted pressure to include religion in this section of the Bill. We have done so because we want to maintan the fullest liberties of freedom of speech consistent with social welfare. Religion is a matter of choice. It is within the realm of opinion. To be a member of a particular race is a matter of creation. It is decided by birth, and no one can choose his parentage.
I have tried to explain clearly the provisions of the Bill, and to justify them. In the background there is the fundamental issue of the equal value of all

1847
persons, irrespective of their race and colour, or their religious opinion. This nation is proud of its democratic toleration and its dedication to liberty, which deep down is based on that spiritual concept. We have an Act on the Statute Book which embodies these principles, and the purpose of this Bill is to advance it to fulfilment. We are not wedded to the letter of the Bill. Your Lordships may amend it if you please, but I beg you to preserve its spirit. Giving a Second Reading to this measure which I have tried to present to this House will encourage the Government to conclude the task to which they have put their hand. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Brockway.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the clarity with which he has put the case for this Bill and, if I may say so, the moderation with which he has put it. But I am afraid that I am going to say that I hope the Bill will not go any further this afternoon. I will not go into great detail about the Bill—in fact, when I have finished, I hope that I shall have a vote of thanks from the House for the brevity of my speech. There are fifteen speakers on the list, and other noble Lords will no doubt go into details and raise matters which they think are wrong in the Bill.
My objections to the Bill are these. The principal Act, the Race Relations Act, which is in force now, has been passed only a year, and it has been operating for only a few months. As the Government described it when it was in your Lordships' House as a Bill, it is experimental. There is a good deal that is not yet known about its working and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, it is not yet working fully. There are, as I think noble Lords said, three conciliation committees out of the fourteen which are to be set up. So there is limited experience as to how the Bill is in fact working. There are various ways going on of which I understand Her Majesty's Government want to know the results. There have been certain accusations—I have no idea whether true or untrue—against certain of the conciliation committees. I take it that they are
1848
probably teething troubles. They, too, ought to be sorted out. This really does not seem to me to be a moment to try—I am not being insulting but I cannot think of the right word—to "mess about" with the principal Act, particularly by a Private Member's Bill, because Her Majesty's Government have said that, as soon as they have the necessary information, if they find it is necessary to introduce new legislation, they will do so.
I do not think I can do better than quote to the House—and this being a Minister's statement I may quote it—a couple of paragraphs from a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the other place on December 16. He said this:
"If we are to effect change we must make sure that we find the right solution, and if it be shown that additional legislation is required we must be careful to see that we introduce practical legislation, which will provide real remedies and which is not open to easy evasion."
This is the important part of his speech:
"To do this we need more factual information than is now available. We welcome the survey which is now being conducted by P.E.P. on behalf of the Race Relations Board and the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 733 (No. 119), col. 936; 16/12/66.]
That Bill, as your Lordships know, was eventually withdrawn and from reading the Report of the debate it seems that it was withdrawn for the same reasons that I am asking your Lordships this afternoon not to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is too early and if the present legislation is found, after more experience, not to be satisfactory, it should be altered by the Government. Those are my main reasons for suggesting that we should not go further this afternoon with a Private Member's Bill.
I have said that I am not going into great detail. When I thought there might be only two or three speakers I had quite a lot to say about this Bill, but I shall refrain in view of the length of the list of speakers. I will make only one or two brief remarks, in the first place with regard to certain things said by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. The noble Lord mentioned clubs. Much of this Bill, as it is drafted, in my view not only goes too far but is unenforceable. In fact, as the Bill is drawn, any private club will have

1849
taken away from it the right not to admit people to the club regardless of the grounds. In other words, if it wants to say, "We do not want people from Central Africa"—I shall use that phrase as an example—"in our private club", the committee will not be allowed to take up that stand although it is a private club. So in spite of what the noble Lord said, I think that part of the Bill goes too far.
The noble Lord also talked about complaints. He gave us certain figures regarding the number of complaints, but he did not go far enough if he was going to give numbers; he did not say how many of those complaints were found to be genuine. I interrupted him, for which I again apologise, when he said that certain complaints had been endorsed. I hoped he would say whether it was done either by the Race Relations Board or by the conciliation committees, but in fact they appear to have been endorsed by a body which might have an interest in endorsing them.
I now want to refer to a couple of points in the details of the Bill itself. The first is a matter of principle, which one can talk about on Second Reading. It appears in Clause 2(i) of the Bill. In the principal Act the offence was to "practise discrimination", and Her Majesty's Government, when introducing the Bill, took great care to explain why they chose this wording. They were particularly anxious that an isolated case of a man losing his temper or behaving stupidly should not cause a prosecution, but a course of conduct should cause a prosecution, and in my view they rightly made a strong point about this. This Bill seeks to reverse the position so that any isolated act of discrimination will be liable to prosecution. As to paragraph (iii) of the same clause, the Government were anxious to stipulate with some exactitude the places where discrimination should not be practised. This Bill seeks to go very much further, and the reason I object to this particular paragraph is that I believe it is unenforceable in this form.
I was going to say something about Clause 3 (1A) which deals with employment. I know other noble Lords will be dealing with that, and also in particular with Clause 3 (1F) which deals with insurance. I dislike both these clauses,
1850
but my principal objection to them is that they are completely and absolutely unenforceable in their new form. I do not want to say anything else, except that I should like to go back to where I started and say that it is much too early to try to amend the principal Act and I think it should be done by the Government when they have the information. It may be that I have it wrong and that Her Majesty's Government want this Bill, in which case I hope they will explain to us in some detail why. If, of course, they do not want this Bill, then they will tell us so.

ADEN: DETENTION OF TERRORISTS
3.47 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. His words were:
"The House will recall that towards the end of October I appointed Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., a distinguished former Member and Deputy Speaker of this House, to go to Aden as my personal representative to examine the procedures for the arrest, interrogation and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities there. Mr. Bowen was in Aden from October 27 to November 8 and submitted his report to me on November 14. I have arranged for the report to be published in full as a White Paper and for copies to be placed to-day in the Library of the House.
"Honourable Members will see that I have included in the White Paper an Introduction describing the sombre background of the security situation in Aden. It was against this background that I decided I should reassure myself directly that the necessary special procedures in Aden were being carried out in the best way and that those responsible for them would be protected as well as is possible from uninformed or malicious criticism. I have also added a note on the action already taken to carry out Mr. Bowen's recommendations.
"As I have already told the House, Mr. Bowen has submitted a most valuable report and I take this occasion to

1851
thank him publicly for having carried out his task so expeditiously and so thoroughly. I am happy to say that, after receiving the High Commissioner's comments on Mr. Bowen's recommendations, I have been able to accept them almost in their entirety and the High Commissioner is now putting them into effect.
"Among Mr. Bowen's recommendations are a number for dealing with complaints by detainees in the future and these recommendations have generally been accepted. Mr. Bowen did not investigate specific allegations of cruelty to prisoners but he has criticised the handling by the Aden Administration of some such allegations in the past. I must emphasise here that his criticism relates to a short period in the past and centres on the activities of three interrogators at that time employed in the Interrogation Centre and the control exercised over their activities. Investigations into these allegations will now be pursued to a conclusion. While these investigations take place I think it right that nothing should be said publicly to prejudice the position of any persons who may be implicated, before they have had an opportunity of giving their own account of what took place to the appropriate authorities.
"We must remember that in Aden to-day, as Mr. Bowen says in his report,
'the life and limb of the population as a whole are in constant danger from the indiscriminate throwing of hand-grenades and other activities.'
"I was therefore glad to see that Mr. Bowen gained the general impression that the military personnel and the police, upon whom falls the main strain of protecting the population and dealing with the terrorists, were discharging their onerous duties with great restraint. I well understand the difficulties to which they are subjected in doing this, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration for the way in which all those concerned in the preservation of order in Aden, both civil and military, are carrying out their duties."
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement of the Foreign
1852
Secretary in another place. I should like straight away to associate all those on these Benches with the remarks in which he paid a tribute to the way in which the civil and military authorities in Aden are carrying out the task of trying to preserve law and order in extremely difficult circumstances. This is, I imagine, quite a long report and we have not yet had an opportunity of studying it. The noble Lord said that Mr. Bowen's recommendations were generally acceptable: is it indicated in the White Paper which of the recommendations are not acceptable to the High Commissioner and to the Government? Finally, I think it is very important that the further investigation should take place as speedily as possible. May we take it that every effort will be made to get out a report on the past allegations? Because until that report is out I fear that there will be a certain amount of uninformed and malicious criticism of the authorities in Aden.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about the men who are carrying out a very difficult task in Aden. It is made clear in the report which of the recommendations the Foreign Secretary felt he could not accept, and why. As for the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks, I would say that the investigation has already been started, and naturally it will be to the advantage of everyone that a conclusion should be reached as quickly as possible. I ought to add, however, that it cannot be expected that the report of this further investigation will be out in the very near future, simply because of the difficulty of contacting some of the individuals concerned.
There is one other point I would add with regard to the work being done out there by the British Servicemen and some of the civilians. I say it all the more feelingly because I have seen what is being done. I refer to the way in which some British Servicemen and civilians out in the desert have voluntarily been helping the Arabs in such work as boring for water. That work is something, I regret to say, which has not received the publicity it deserves.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to express the confidence of my noble friends and myself in the civil and military authorities in Aden, who, as we all

1853
know, have been carrying out and are carrying out a most disagreeable task. With the noble Lord and his right honourable friend I would say how glad I am that Mr. Bowen found that the military personnel and the police have discharged their onerous duties with great restraint. I should not have expected them to do anything else. But there is one point which has been made by Mr. Bowen, and this possibly was the cause of the whole trouble, or much of the trouble. He found, I gather, that there was failure to deal expeditiously and adequately with the allegations of cruelty at the interrogation centre. I would ask the noble Lord Whether Her Majesty's Government will see that if there is any future allegation of cruelty it will be dealt with at once, so that no doubt will be left in anyone's mind that there is no foundation for the allegation if that is the case.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are two matters here which are really separate. One is the point made by Mr. Bowen that where attention had been called to certain complaints in the past, action had not been taken upon them at the time and the Foreign Secretary has invited the High Commissioner to inquire into this. There is also another aspect, investigations into alleged cruelty, which are being carried out by other authorities. That will of necessity take a long time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether copies of this report and the further report will be sent to the United Nations mission which is to visit Aden and Southern Arabia?
LORD BESWICK: I am not sure whether they will be sent to them, but certainly the reports will be freely available.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not quite understand the noble Lord's reply to my question. Is it the fact that these matters to which Mr. Bowen referred will be dealt with in the future without delay? He said that there was considerable delay in dealing with them.
LORD BESWICK: Yes. I am sorry if I did not quite understand what the noble Lord said. There were some criticisms of delay in dealing with allegations in the past, and the Foreign Secretary has invited the High Commis-
1854
sioner to explain or inquire into the reason for that delay. As to the future, the changes that have been made will ensure that if there were criticisms or any complaint by individuals about alleged ill-treatment, they would come to light at once and there would be an immediate inquiry.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
TILE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the absence of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the presence of a representative of the Church this afternoon in his place, I think I should make it clear that I do not stand here as the mouthpiece of the most reverend Primate, who in fact has no idea what I am going to say. I completed preparations for my speech on my lunch-time train. I say that lest there should be misunderstanding.
I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in introducing this Bill. Whether or not this is a propitious moment for promoting further legislation in the sphere of race relations, or whether it would be wiser to allow a further period of experience in the operation of the present Act, I do not regard myself as competent to judge. It is, however, clear to me that if the admirable intentions of Her Majesty's Government in introducing the Race Relations Act 1965 are to be adequately fulfilled, certain limitations must sooner or later be remedied. And I would go on to say that if the fundamental principles inspiring the present Act are sound, as I believe they are, then a wider application of those principles is demanded.
I begin by saying a few words about the present Act and its limitations. First, by introducing the Race Relations Act Her Majesty's Government recognised that it could and should promote equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of race. The limitations of the Act, however, prevent it from promoting equal treatment in areas where discrimination is most prevalent; for example, as we

1855
have been reminded by the noble Lord, in the fields of housing, employment and credit facilities. Secondly, the Act prohibits discrimination on racial grounds only and does not cover discrimination on grounds of religion. In this way it creates a possible loophole for those who might claim that they are ready to serve coloured people but are not ready to serve Hindus, Moslems or Sikhs. Thirdly, by giving an exclusive definition of "places of public resort" the Act prevents the Race Relations Board from tackling many cases which are submitted to it. The present definition does not include, for example, shops, offices and other places which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord.
Fourthly, the powers of the Board and of the local conciliation committees are severely limited, as we have been reminded. The Board itself has no powers except to transmit to the Attorney General reports received from local conciliation committees. It is the local committee which considers and inquires into complaints and tries to settle difficulties. But, equally, the local committees themselves have no power. There is nothing that either the Board or the conciliation committees can do to obtain evidence from anyone who is unwilling to discuss a complaint with them. This is a severe limitation and must hamper the work of the Attorney General in enforcing the Act. Furthermore, the present procedure of working is prolonged and cumbersome. The Bill now introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is, in my judgment, to be welcomed, in that it seeks to remove these limitations and to extend legislation to cover wider fields.
Certain points in support of the Bill are, I think, worthy of particular mention. I begin by mentioning to your Lordships that legislation in Canada and the United States has been shown to be workable, flexible and effective. Between 1945 and 1962 the New York State Commission for Human Rights, which operates the New York State laws against discrimination, received 9,240 complaints. Of those, 39·1 per cent. were adjusted by conciliation; 1·1 per cent. were settled by consent after a hearing; 47·9 per cent. were considered unjustified, due to lack of any probable cause for complaint; 9·1 percent.
1856
were not dealt with, as they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and 2·8 per cent. were withdrawn. In Massachusetts and Ontario similar figures are, I understand, available.
Then, legislation is a preventive as well as a cure. Legistlation now would prevent discriminatory practices from hardening into accepted procedures. This is particularly important for the second generation of the immigrants now leaving school and trying to get work suitable for their qualifications. We are indeed grateful to the noble Lord for the emphasis he has placed upon this aspect and on the urgency of this need. As the Home Secretary also said in a speech on October 10:
"It is essential to deal with racial problems before they assume such a magnitude that they become, if not insoluble, then capable of solution only at immense cost and effort, and over a period of time."
There is also serious need to expand the areas of public resort covered by the present Act. Any limitation can be interpreted by those who wish to discriminate as being permission to do so in areas other than those covered by the Act. The new Bill attempts to meet this need by removing these limitations and by expanding the areas of public resort covered by legislation.
A fear has been expressed that extension of the legislation would provide protection for one group of the community and thus create a privileged class. It would, I think, be more accurate to say that at present there is a double standard of citizenship being applied by employers, estate agents and others, which results in inequality of treatment and inequality of opportunity. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to remove such inequality. Critics of the proposals have expressed concern that legislation in the fields of housing and employment would lead to an over-rigid interpretation of the law. It should be emphasised, therefore, that the whole basis of the present proposals in the present Act is conciliation, not punishment. The idea, as I see it, is to settle differences and to prevent recurrence of discrimination; and conciliation implies flexibility.
I would add that the Bill, as we have been reminded, would make it unlawful to discriminate not merely, as at present,

1857
on grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origins, but also on grounds of religion. The reasons for this amendment are three-fold: to ensure that members of the Jewish community are protected as a religious, rather than as a racial group; to ensure that there is no longer a loophole in the law for people to assert that they discriminate because others are Hindus, Moslems or Sikhs, rather than because they are coloured; and thirdly, because religious discrimination is as unjustified in principle as racial discrimination.
The Bill proposes an extension of the powers of the Race Relations Board. This is crucial if the Board is to be an effective instrument against discrimination. We have been informed that the Bill would enable the Board to subpœna witnesses to give evidence and to make recommendations for enforcement of the Act. This is an important provision, for without additional powers the Board cannot be fully effective. By introducing the Race Relations Act the Government recognised that legislation has a role in promoting equality of citizenship. As I understand them, the intention of the new proposals is to adjust the legislation so that this role, already accepted, may be more effectively fulfilled.
I do not intend to examine the details of the Bill, or, as I have already indicated, to pass judgment as to whether this is the wise moment to proceed with further legislation. I content myself with stating my own sincerely held conviction that the principles underlying the Race Relations Act 1965, and the present proposals for its amendment, are fundamentally sound, and are such as ought to receive the wholehearted support of those who desire that the way of life in our country should continue to be ordered in accordance with Christian principles and should provide equality of opportunity for all persons, regardless of race, colour or religion.
4.7 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, my first words can well be a corollary to what has already been said so eloquently by the previous speaker. I wish to commend this Bill on the ground that there is widespread need to reduce, if not eliminate, the kind of discrimination about which the Bill is concerned, and to express my confidence that the additions and amendments to the already
1858
existing Bill in another place are necessary in the light of the magnitude and danger of this whole problem.
As a professing Christian, I need not remind myself, or surely remind this House, that racial and religious discrimination is entirely opposite to the spirit of the One about whom many of us are professionally and fervently thinking during this particular Christmas week. I am up to my eyes, as are many other ministers, in carols and Christmas parcels and Christmas trees. I make no apology for that, because it brings home to me the more clearly that racial discrimination and religious discrimination is an evil thing, and is all the more evil because so much of it is concealed and ought to be brought to light. For that reason, I have done a little trawling in the squalid waters of the National Socialist publication. It may be of interest—I think it should be, if I may say so—to your Lordships to see something of the quality of the material that you can dredge up in this particular cesspool, which can, at least, I think, be included quite properly under Clause 8, the clause which includes "contempt", if indeed it finds no place in other parts of the Bill.
This publication states:
"Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes today, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term: Man. It is our business to instil into the hearts and brains of the youth entrusted to us the racial instincts and the understanding of the racial idea. Our programme is to arouse general indignation against the maleficent enemy"—
that is the Jew—
"and the real author of all our sufferings."
"The first proposal in the policy of the National Socialist Movement is to deport all Jews and coloured people already resident here."
It may well be argued that this is not only a squalid but an insignificant movement. I should regard that with considerable dubiety. I believe that it has a purchase upon adolescent and impressionable minds, and my own feeling, for what it is worth, is that this process is not becoming less, but in large measure or in appreciable measure becoming more, serious. Therefore, I need not delay your Lordships to remind you that

1859
from the professional standpoint of one who believes in the Christian faith everything should be done to reduce the kind of evil of which racial discrimination is a characteristic part.
I should like to refer a little more particularly to the religious issue, because it fills a gap which was absent from the other Bill. I do not know whether it is proper for me to refer to matters which pertain to Northern Ireland, but I believe that what we do in this place will have some marked and, I hope, immediate effect on what is a most dangerous situation over there. I have some knowledge of the Reverend Ian Paisley, who calls himself "Doctor Ian Paisley"—the "Doctor" is a self-inflicted wound—and I can, from my own knowledge of his behaviour, say a good deal about the kind of hatred and the kind of religious vindictiveness created. Not long ago I was involved in a rather injudicious place—that is, a horse fair at Ballymena—in an open-air debate with the Reverend Ian Paisley. In the course of the afternoon he threw at me a Bible and a rosary, which I felt was an expression of the œcumenical movement. Those of your Lordships who have any knowledge, at first or even second hand, of the kind of wicked and evil vindictiveness that is generated in this particular Northern Ireland situation will be most anxious that it should not cross the St. George's Channel, and all the more anxious to do anything we can in this place to make it impossible for such incidents and conditions to prevail in these Islands.
There is a very peremptory reason why religion should be included. It has already been stated by the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, and I will repeat it. It is that there may be some cause for alarm and perturbation among our Jewish friends that unless religion is included those who practice such discrimination may escape the net. It is therefore the more necessary—if I may be presumptuous enough to speak on their behalf—that we should safeguard them from any increasing and recurrent exhibition of the kind of thing from which they have suffered for so long.
I would refer your Lordships to the extension in Clause 8 under "Incitement" to what is called the promotion of
1860
contempt. I would mention a very public place with which I am not unacquainted. When I began to speak forty years ago in Hyde Park—and it is exactly forty years ago that I began to speak there—so far as I remember the only non-Aryan or non-white speaker was the immortal Mr. Saklatvala. I took the precaution on the last few Sundays of making a roundup of the speakers. I am not talking of those who are in a chronic state of "public utterance" to whom very few people listen at all; I am talking of those who at least can command some kind of audience. Is it within your Lordships' knowledge that three Sundays ago, at five minutes to three o'clock, there were six speakers, five of whom were coloured? On the Sunday afterwards there were four speakers, three of them coloured. Last Sunday there were five speakers, four of them coloured. I levelled up the score a bit until four-thirty, but at four-thirty it was still true that the larger number of speakers in this forum were coloured.
This might be considered to be inconsequential were it not for the fact that a new situation is arising, which I regard with great perturbation. Perhaps 40 per cent. of the habitués of Hyde Park on Sunday are now coloured, and there is a very large increase in contempt and the incitement of contempt. It would not be within my province to suggest that there is going to be racial rioting in Hyde Park, but unless something is done to reduce the kind of contempt which now flows, both from white and from coloured speakers, I, for one, am quite sure that sooner or later there will be some kind of undesirable disturbance, and maybe protracted disturbance, in that public place. It is for that reason I am the more concerned that incitement to contempt shall be included. I believe that the inclusion of a provision merely against incitement to hatred, as has been so clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Brockway, is not a sufficient guarantee that there will be a reasonable chance of maintaining free speech within the ambit of the fellowship of controversy.
It is not for me to go any further than has already been traversed by previous speakers into the fields of housing and employment, except to say this. I dare say all your Lordships will have in your minds a general feeling of unease that

1861
indeed there is racial discrimination in these fields. Your Lordships may not be as satisfied as my noble friend was as to the prominence of particular instances, but when particular instances can be adduced they should be presented. There came before the Methodist Conference a month or two ago irrefrangible evidence of racial discrimination in the matter of housing. It was in Brixton, where a protracted effort was made to find accommodation for a Jamacan minister and his wife who had come to Brixton in order to minister to fellow Jamacans. No accommodation was forthcoming—no accommodation whatsoever, a flat, or a house, in the whole of Brixton, until one day they found the possibility of a flat in Brixton. But when it was known that they were coloured, that flat offer was withdrawn, and, so far as I know, those two, who were to minister to their fellow citizens in Brixton, had to find accommodation elsewhere. This is a particular and precise piece of evidence. I give it, not that it can be adduced in general terms, but because when we talk of this particular field of racial discrimination some of us have first-hand evidence to back up what we have to say.
The problem of housing is probably more acute and complicated than almost any other. It would be unwise to assume that by any such Bill as the one now before your Lordships this particular problem could be solved. I am sure that the problem of housing, where racial discrimination is involved, has a great deal to do with the fundamental question of education and citizenship. Some months ago I was in the North Carolina city of Durham, where there is very little problem of inter-racial housing, because in Durham, unlike so many other cities of the South, there has been free and equal educational opportunities for black and white. It was an astonishing discovery to find to what extent housing is linked with a social consciousness, a freedom of access to the social and intellectual opportunities which hitherto have been there only for the white boy and girl, and how many of the emergent and exacerbating causes of discrimination and unhappiness have been removed.
What can be done is to act in the spirit of this Bill, in order to include within these categories such opportunities as we may have of making our case known and
1862
of declaring our intent. It is in that spirit that I believe this Bill has much to commend it. I make no apology for thinking that it is not an inappropriate time, when so many of us are singing "God rest ye merry, Gentlemen", that we should think of gentlemen who are black, white, yellow and brown and to whom we ought to offer that Christian comfort.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord fully resumes his seat, I wonder whether he will enlighten me. Would he say under what clause, apart from Clause 7, he thinks his references to religious discrimination and prejudice would be covered?
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I believe that the question of religious discrimination is particularly apposite in our relationship to our friends the Jews. I wish the Bill could include Northern Ireland, when I should have a good deal more to say. But it may be of interest to my noble friend if I say that I have in my possession a letter under the signature of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Perhaps I may read it to your Lordships, as I think the appropriate paragraph may be of some help.
"We should very much like to see the introduction of 'religion' so as to avoid the doubts which exist as to whether or not Jews are covered in any of the existing categories of 'colour, race, or ethnic, or national origins'."
4.22 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, both of the last two speakers have used the word "Christianity", and I very much hope that they are not intending to tell us that there is any sort of Christian duty to support the present passage of this Bill which, whatever its intentions, seems to me to have all too little relation to real life. I am sure none of us can help respecting the intentions of the noble Lord who sponsors this Bill, or of the Bill itself. But, if we are going to talk about religion, I am reminded all too much of the good intentions (and good intentions by no means always produce good results) of the Puritans in 1655, when those eminently worthy gentlemen determined to eradicate vice and enforce virtue by the simple process of treating any conduct of which they disapproved as a criminal offence. Needless to say, the Puritans did not succeed in eradicating vice or in establishing virtue. What they

1863
did succeed in doing was very greatly to inflame the tensions already present within the nation; and I am very much afraid that that would be the result of this Bill if it were passed in its present form and at this moment.
I am very much afraid also that this is only the second of a long succession of Bills of this nature, progressively severer in form, with which Parliament is likely to be faced over the next ten, twenty or thirty years. This much might have been foreseen as soon as the immigrants, who, if they had arrived in their thousands, or even in their tens of thousands, would have been welcome as the flowers in spring, began to arrive in their hundreds of thousands, thereby ensuring the future growth of a multiracial State. For your true multiracial State is inevitably tormented by racial tensions, and inevitably driven on to ever severer enforcements of criminal sanctions and ever greater suppressions of freedom, in order to protect the rights and privileges of minority groups.
The truth, which we should always remember when we are faced with a Bill of this kind, is surely that what a minority group needs most—and, in fact, in a very real sense all it needs—is the good will of the majority. Now you can produce good will by conciliation; by example, by education. But what you cannot do is to produce good will by legislation. What you are much more likely to do by legislation is to produce ill-will.
Until a year or two ago "discrimination" was a word of high praise. According to my dictionary, it means "noticing a difference", and the discriminating person was a person who was generally respected. Even to-day, when "discrimination" has been turned into an ugly word, it is pretty obvious that there are an infinity of varied types of discrimination, which shade off into each other by infinitesimal stages until they become virtually indistinguishable, and of which, though some are reprehensible, some are neutral, some unavoidable, and some positively salutary. I can foresee infinite confusion over the elusive boundary line between the various types of discrimination: confusion in the Race Relations Board itself, and confusion in those local racial organi-
1864
sations which are said to be busily distributing complaint cards and encouraging immigrants to fill them up—a process which in itself is not likely to lead to good will.
To reduce the sort of problem which I should have thought was bound to arise to its very simplest elements—a mere reductio ad absurdum—suppose that two persons apply to the same employer for the same job. Let us say that one is an Englishman and one a Pakistani, and suppose that the employer rejects the Pakistani and says, in effect: "So long as I can get an Englishman I will never take a Pakistani." Obviously, he is liable to prosecution because he is discriminating on ethnic grounds. But suppose, on the contrary, he takes the Pakistani and says, "Well, I have studied recent legislation, and I know which side my bread is buttered on; I will never take an Englishman so long as I can get a Pakistani." Surely in that case he is also discriminating on ethnic grounds and is equally liable to prosecution, though whether he would in fact be prosecuted I do not know.
Then, of course, there are all the myriad examples of unavoidable discrimination. If I may give just one from my own countryside, which must be repeated ad infinitum and on a much larger scale in the urban areas, I have a neighbour who is manager of a small bakery in the neighbouring country town. There he employs a considerable number of Pakistanis, and his report on them is one which could no doubt be duplicated from scores of factories up and down the country. He says that at home they live in great squalor and overcrowding, riding rough-shod over our housing laws and regulations, but that in the factory they are most admirable workmen, avid for overtime, sending home every penny they can afford. He says that he would very much have liked to promote one of them, but he did not dare to do it because if he had done so his white employees would have walked out on him. For some while he attempted a sort of compromise, by secretly paying the man extra; but he has had to give up even that for fear of the possible repercussions. Of course, that sort of incident will recur on a large scale all over the country.
To take one other very simple incident from my own countryside, which again,

1865
in much more enlarged and embittered forms must be reproducing itself all over the country, not long ago in a certain village there were two houses which nestled up against the wall of the village church. They were both for sale or to let, and the owners were devoted members of the village congregation who were very anxious to let or sell them to tenants or purchasers who would join the village congregation. If they had heard of potential purchasers of an alien faith, I feel pretty sure they would have said to their agent, "Please, no Asians; we do not want Moslems, Buddhists, Sikhs or Hindus." That would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable attitude to take, though I suppose that under this Bill it would be actionable.
But it is the provisions with regard to incitement which seem to me in this Bill, as in the last, to be full of the greater dangers. For we have to remember, in respect of legislation of this kind, that to the simple dweller in the back street in an area of dense immigration, who has had to watch helplessly while his neighbourhood has been reduced to the condition of an early Victorian slum, and who is therefore feeling apprehensive and resentful, legislation of this kind inevitably appears much more formidable and far-reaching than its actual provisions warrant. For example, to take what is perhaps a rather absurd example, but a perfectly true one, I know a woman who the week before last went into the local chemist's and asked for a dye. The assistant said, "What colour?", and she replied, "Nigger brown". The assistant said, "You could be put in 'jug' for that remark".
My Lords, what has this clause in the Bill really resulted in so far? The first prosecution by the Attorney General under the section in the original Act was of the unfortunate Christopher Britton. Christopher Britton, as many of your Lordships may remember, was a boy of 17 with a record of mental instability who broke two windows in the house of his local M.P. and affixed a notice to the door with the words, "No blacks wanted here"—an offence, one would have thought, which for a boy with a record of mental instability, could have been sufficiently met by, let us say, fining him £5 and telling him to behave himself in the future. What in fact happened to
1866
the wretched boy was that he was sent to Wormwood Scrubs to await a place in Borstal. I do not know what his latest history is, but on November 22 he had already been 34 days in Wormwood Scrubs, associating with the more sophisticated wrongdoers to be found there, and was expecting to wait for a further four weeks before finding a place in Borstal. That is the kind of ferocious consequence that this type of legislation can produce.
Once again, we ought to remember that legislation cannot create good will but can create ill-will Our people are kindly and tolerant. If we set them an example, if we educate them, and if we work the conciliation boards as they should be worked, we shall do far better than if we send feeble-minded boys to Wormwood Scrubs. After the Act of Union the Scots poured into Britain and they were extremely unpopular for a while.
LORD BOOTHBY: Not for long.
LORD ELTON: Dr. Johnson, and even Charles Lamb, the gentle Elia, both uttered remarks which might have brought them within the provisions of the present Bill.
"Sir, it is not to be lamented that Old England is lost, but rather that the Scots have found it",
was typical Johnsonese; while it was actually Charles Lamb, the gentle Elia, who said:
"I have been trying all my life to like Scotchmen, and am obliged to desist from the experiment in despair".
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend for a moment. The English owe everything to the Scots. Without the Scots, the English would be sunk.
LORD ELTON: That is more or less the point I was endeavouring to make. What I was just going to say was that, in spite of these somewhat rough beginnings, the Scots and the English settled down together very soon in amity, to their great mutual benefit. Surely that process would not have been much assisted if Dr. Johnson had been imprisoned for two years, or Elia had been fined £1,000. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will take the advice which I rather think may be given from his Front Bench, and will postpone his Bill for the present; but if

1867
it does come to a Division I hope that your Lordships will not support it.
4.34 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, as one of the Scots who was not discriminated against, I want to support the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I believe, and sincerely believe, that the amendments to the 1965 Act are necessary; that the Race Relations Board has to be reinforced for its purpose; and that, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, it should be an offence not only to stir up hatred but also to promote contempt of any section of the public on racial grounds. I know, as the noble Lord has emphasised, that you cannot remove prejudices nor change attitudes merely by Act of Parliament; but, my Lords, you can quarantine prejudice, as you can a pestilential disease, so that its virus does not infect others. I know that you cannot, by Statute, make me like someone I do not like, but you can make sure that I do not persecute him or incite others to persecute him. An Act of Parliament spelling out duties, socially enforceable, can safeguard the rights of others and create a climate of tolerance which might even reconcile the English to the Scots more quickly than has happened since the Act of Union.
My concern is with international relations and with the world, which has now become a neighbourhood—a neighbourhood where what happens in Smeth-wick or Selma, in Notting Hill, London, or in Montgomery, Alabama, reverberates everywhere. The attitudes which we adopt here are the stuff of foreign policy. Our domestic behaviour must not belie our protestations. We have a coloured, racial and religious minority in this country, but we are a white minority in a world in which the majority are coloured—a global multiracial society in which we have to contrive to get along with people whom we no longer dominate and with whom we have to share the resources of a small planet. Our enlightened self-interest, apart from our common decency, therefore demands that we engender good will by our example and our deeds. Let us get our record of race relations straight because it will determine, and must determine, our international relations.
1868
My Lords, I want to make this country honest. I spend a great deal of my time in international conferences and in the United Nations bodies. I very much prefer not to be a hypocrite. This country is pledged to the principles and institutions of the United Nations, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister so constantly reminds us. As a country, we are committed to Human Rights Year, which in 1968 will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. If the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wants any reason for some urgency in dealing with this, I would remind him of that—that in two years' time we are committed as a country to the defence and justification of human rights. That Declaration declares:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
And Article 7 of the Declaration of Human Rights says:
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All arc entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and"—
I emphasise this—
"against any incitement to such discrimination".
We know that discrimination and incitement to discrimination do exist and are practised in this country, and without the statutory powers called for in this Bill the Race Relations Board, the Archbishop of Canterbury's National Committee on Commonwealth Immigrants and the Under-Secretary responsible for Race Relations cannot be effective in removing the worst abuses—because I am sure your Lordships will not deceive yourselves into thinking that moral sanctions or persuasion which might influence misguided people would have any effect at all on the red-necks of race hatred. Unless Parliament reinforces the Declaration by domestic legislation, our support for Human Rights Year is merely sanctimonious.
We have other international commitments. We have ratified the UNESCO Convention—and a convention has the status of a treaty—against discrimination in education. This calls for any measures

1869
that are necessary to guarantee that there is no discrimination in the admission of pupils to educational institutions, that there is equality of opportunity and treatment in schools and that we promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups. I think we have tried through the Department of Education and Science to fulfil this obligation. At least we have stated it and, as it were, regulated it by circular in June last year. We, as a country, have ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention on Migration for Employment. Article 3 binds all concurring Governments to take all necessary steps against misleading propaganda relating to immigration, and Article 6 binds the Governments to apply to the immigrants lawfully within their territory treatment no less favourable than that which is applied to their own nationals; and this includes the rights of membership of trade unions, the enjoyment of collective bargaining and accommodation.
The United Kingdom has not ratified, although most member States have, the I.L.O. Convention on discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Member States undertake to pursue national policies designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment, regardless of race, colour, religion and so on, and to enact such legislation as is necessary to ensure this. The recommendation which accompanies this Convention wants agencies established by law to ensure that there is no discrimination.
Another I.L.O. Convention which Britain has ratified, and therefore is treaty bound to apply, demands a policy to ensure that there is freedom of choice in employment and the fullest opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use his skills and endowments in, a job in which he is well suited, irrespective of race, colour, religion, et cetera. There is the overriding United Nations Convention adopted by resolution of the General Assembly a year ago. The Convention covers social rights, including rights of employment, rights to join trade unions, rights to housing, social services, education and cultural activities. It demands right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafés, theatres and
1870
parks—the kind of rights this Bill is prepared to safeguard. It calls upon Governments to institute legislation against racial discrimination which in any way diminishes any of those rights.
My Lords, there was a time when as a nation we could afford to ignore world opinion, to ignore even the reproach of "Perfidious Albion". To-day we have to practise what we preach or be denounced as hypocrites and lose our authority in the councils of the world. Where we ratify conventions we have to abide by them. Often, as in the case of the I.L.O. Convention on discrimination in employment, we have had to admit that we cannot ratify because discrimination does exist. We have had to to admit it; we have had to admit that discrimination in this country exists, at least in sex and colour, and that the Government had no powers to counter this and therefore could not ratify. This Bill, proposed by my noble friend Lord Brockway, would give the Government the powers which would enable them to enter into this I.L.O. Convention with at least this much authority. My noble friend Lord Brockway pointed out the problem of school leavers. I would remind your Lordships that the school leavers are not immigrants; they are now British; they are children of these islands. We must accept them and do our utmost by them. If by any reason of race, colour and creed we discriminate against them, we are not fulfilling our duty.
My Lords, I am at this moment worried. If there is to be unemployment this winter we are liable to see an upsurge of racial resentment. In full employment immigrants can have the jobs that other people do not want, but if jobs are scarce then the whites—to use that pejorative term—look for the jobs that the coloured people already have and then there can be trouble. Colour just accentuates it. One recalls Glasgow in the 1920s when it was the Irish with the label "Catholic". The Irish came as potato-lifters and never went back—as everyone can read in the books of Patrick McGill. They took jobs as navvies and scavengers which the Scotsmen did not want. That was all right when skilled tradesmen did not want to be navvies and scavengers; but when they were jobless, they did—and the "Scurvy Papists" were in those jobs; so we had

1871
bitterness, violence and gang wars. I speak with some knowledge and, indeed, with a great deal of perturbation about that because at that time I happened to be a crime reporter in Glasgow. Those days are gone we hope; and the religious wars have been ritualised in the Celtic and Rangers matches. But now, all over the country, there are hundreds of thousands of workers identifiable by their complexions; and without some protection, hatred and contempt can be fomented.
My Lords, I have noticed in my brief sojourn in your Lordships' House a predilection for Edmund Burke. May I remind you of his "sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour which felt a stain as though it were a wound"? I hope that we shall never be anæthetised against that sense of wound and against that sense of stain, and that we shall honour our obligations to our fellow men, regardless of race, Or colour or creed—and honour them in practice as well as in professed principle. I ask your Lordships to support this Bill.
4.48 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, this subject of discrimination seems to me to be one essentially suitable for legislation, and for a tougher and more comprehensive legislation than we have at the present moment. I suggest that more would be lost than gained by following the cautious recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. The effects of discrimination seem to me to be cruel, wasteful, dangerous, irresponsible and unnecessary. The cruelty of causing gratuitous indignity to a large community of people seems to me to be self-evident. Discrimination tends to be wasteful because it results in increasing the number of persons relegated to jobs below their trained capacity for reasons that are irrelevant. It is dangerous because, over time, it will provide risk of an embittered attempt at violent redress by this under-privileged minority, as we have seen happen in the U.S.A.
In an age in which there are awful disparities of national wealth and in which the various nations of the world are becoming increasingly embittered in their international race relations, it seems to me to be irresponsible that this country should not go out of its way to provide
1872
some measure of racial harmony at home. It is particularly so when there are a great number of coloured students leaving this country each year, highly educated and highly qualified, with their lessons in political tolerance behind them, to return to their own underdeveloped countries. It seems to be unnecessary because the current tendency towards increasing discrimination—which I am convinced exists—seems to be still legislatively controllable.
I think one ought also to remember that this Government have accepted what small numbers of immigrants they have electorally decided they could afford to accept into this country, on the assumption that they were to be full citizens of this country with full political rights and, by implication, with full economic opportunities. They are not helots. And in those circumstances it seems clear that a failure to institute adequate legislation would be at once dangerous and immoral.
This is a question which is particularly important at the present time. In the first place—and this has been pointed out—there are coloured people in this country, leaving school and about to leave school, who will have had the same education as their white colleagues. They will have been imbued already with precisely the same culture. In other words, their qualifications in every possible respect will be equal to those of anyone else in this country leaving school at the same time. As they apply for jobs—the evidence indicates that this has happened in a great number of cases already—they will almost certainly find that it is markedly more difficult for them to get the job for which they are suited than it is for their white colleagues whose training has been similar. I would say that this has probably not yet become the general pattern in this country.
I think that racial discrimination tends to start as a perfectly natural competition for limited domestic resources in housing, employment and that sort of thing, and the resentment grows at an intrusion of foreigners into this highly competitive situation. After all, one saw something fairly similar in the case of the resentment against Italian miners in Yorkshire some years ago. I think this is aggravated again by a natural, and perfectly obvious, tendency for coloured

1873
immigrants to congregate, in this unfamiliar and at times rather hostile climate, into the same areas; and by doing so they tend obviously to crowd these areas and make competition yet more severe. I think that the novelty and the danger of this particular division between the indigenous and the alien competitors lies in the fact that each is easily and immediately distinguishable from the other to the eye.
Once a community has begun to resent the intrusion in this competitive situation, other commercial competitors—shopkeepers, landlords, employers, hotel owners—less from any prejudice of their own than from a cautious sensibility of what they fear may be the prejudices of their white customers, start themselves to discriminate. I think that out of this grows a collection of assumptions and fears which become reciprocated, and there occurs a bitter and potentially explosive resentment. Although I do not think this has become, as I said, a pattern in this country, it undoubtedly exists now in its simplified final form of naked racial discrimination. It is perfectly easy for any noble Lord who doubts this to check it for himself. He should go to one of those boards recommending accommodation for sale posted up in various parts of London, and there he will see, in a very high percentage of cases, a small, but perfectly prominent legend, saying, "No coloureds wanted", or, "Only Europeans wanted". This is a perfectly blatant and perfectly clear form of naked racial discrimination, against which, I am glad to see, there is a provision in this Bill.
The present legislation seems to me inadequate on two principal grounds. In the first place, a law which insists on racial equality in the pub and in the public dining room, but declines to require it where a man's accommodation or employment is concerned, reflects, I should have thought, a bewildering view of the priorities of life.
Secondly, I would criticise the procedure in the legislation as it now exists. The Board is unable to compel evidence; it is unable to subpœna witnesses. Moreover, if it approaches any person against whom a charge has been brought, that person is perfectly entitled to have nothing
1874
further to do with the question; not to answer it and to decline to take any part in the investigation of the Board at all. This again is something which this Bill seeks to remedy, and I think it is possibly relevant—and certainly more indicative of the limited powers of the Board than the limited degree of discrimination in this country—that only two cases have been referred to the Attorney General, in neither of which has a prosecution been initiated.
My Lords, the present Bill retains the provisions for conciliation, and I am quite sure that this is correct. In the first place, what would tend to happen under a stronger anti-discrimination law, I think, is that the commercial position would be equalised; that is to say, if one hotel owner or one shopkeeper knew perfectly well that he stood to gain nothing over his rivals by discriminating, the general tendency for him to do so, or the impetus for him to do so, would be removed. I think also that people tend to be conformist, and if they were told that something like this is against the law they would stand to win too little by defying it. Thirdly, there is the quite astonishingly impressive evidence of what has happened in the United States. Figures were given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who quoted a figure of 30 per cent. But of the actual cases that remained within the jurisdiction of the law, or where it was decided there was a case to answer at all, over 90 per cent. were settled by conciliation.
My Lords, there are one or two respects in which I would tend to take issue with the Bill. I am not entirely happy—and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not give his reasons why it should have been included or be part of the Bill—that there should be no provision for appeal against an order issued by the Board.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Bill includes a right to appeal to the Appeal Court.
LORD REAY: My Lords, do I understand, then, that this right to appeal means that the ordinary law courts could investigate the justification of the Board in having originally made an order? Is that correct?
LORD BROCKWAY: Most certainly.
LORD REAY: In that case I entirely withdraw that objection.
I think that, for once, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on an issue, in that I believe that clubs ought not to be included. Certainly there is a provision for the exception of bona fide clubs. It seems to me that clubs exist to permit the congregation of people for irrational reasons and to this extent ought to fall into the same sort of categories as private domestic servants—for which, again, the Bill makes exception—and cases of accommodation where facilities within a house are shared between landlord and tenant. This seems to be something which it would be quite easy to do; and although, clearly, there would be certain difficulties over borderline cases, these could be dealt with later.
So far as the question of religion is concerned, there has been a certain amount of confusion, I think, between noble Lords about precisely what the Bill attempts to do. It seemed to me that the ground of religion was to be reinserted in an earlier clause from which, by accident, it had been omitted. I appreciate the point that what you could get is a sort of redescription in religious terms of what is basically a racial reason for discrimination, and it seems to me right on these grounds that something of the same sort should be included.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, more for the sake of someone on the Front Bench than for his sake? I indicated in my speech that, through an omission, religion had not been applied to employment and to the definition of "discrimination"; but that it would not be included in the incitement clauses.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am quite well aware of that: it is clear from the Bill. I understood that in the proposed new Section 1J (which appears in Clause 3 of this Bill) it had, by accident, been omitted. I am pleased to hear that it has not been included in the provision for incitement. It would seem to me a very sorry day for intellectual liberties and for our chances of legislative progress if it became illegal to promote contempt of religious dogmas. In any case, race seems certainly by far the most important question with which the Bill concerns itself.
1876
The problem will not be solved, a solution will not even be helped, and the danger of domestic discord will accumulate, unless the present law is strengthened. I see no reason why this should not be painlessly successful in providing the prerequisite for a racially undiscriminating society. If, however, this opportunity is evaded by the Government, for reasons of political cowardice, because they are intimidated by the illiberal forces of the trade unions or the C.B.I., or those sections of the electorate which have already been infected—and it may here be worth pointing out that electorate resistance will tend to harden with the years unless something is done—then an inexpensive way of avoiding a great deal of misery and danger will have been shamefully lost.
5.1 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, first of all, I would thank my noble friend Lord Brockway for having introduced this Bill and congratulate him on having done so at such a seasonable time. I will not follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in his ultra-political references, which I think were most misguided. There is only one statement in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with which I agreed, and that was that the problem is intensified with the number of immigrants who come into this country. The point is an obvious one, but I think that it has to be made; because the greater the number of immigrants, the greater the problem of integration.
When the noble Lord made that point, I was reminded of the time, two or more years ago, when I was in one of our former Colonies, now a well-developed independent country, where I talked with people about their attitude to our immigration laws. I talked with a leading member of the Government, whose attitude was that Britain had the right to impose any restriction on immigration necessary for Britain's interest—to stop immigration altogether or limit it, provided that there was no discrimination on grounds of colour. I talked with the Leader of the Opposition, who used almost exactly the same words. I talked with a Member of Parliament and with a local mayor, and both of them, too, said the same thing.

1877
I thought that these four men showed an understanding, a tolerance, of our problems which we should do well to display with regard to the immigrants whom we have permitted to come into this country. A week or two after I came back from that visit, I was in a factory not fifteen miles from your Lordships' House and saw on the notice board that workers were required in various categories. Underneath were the words, "No coloureds". I thought then how little we showed of understanding and tolerance compared with those four public men in one of our former Colonies.
I want to depart to some extent from the line of the discussion we have had so far this afternoon, because this problem of integration and legislation against discrimination is not peculiar to this country. It occurs in many other countries. And the International Labour Office has instituted a series of studies of this problem of discrimination, and of legal action for its elimination. The first study was carried out, not surprisingly, in the United States of America, where the problem is probably even more acute than it is here. In the I.L.O. Journal of March of this year there is a report on the situation in the United States. Its emphasis is with regard to fair employment practices.
I know (and my noble friend Lord Brockway will probably rebuke me for this) that what in the U.S. study are called "public accommodations"—that is, schools, restaurants, hotels, public transport and private and public housing—are extremely important, but to my mind the most important thing of all is fair employment practice. If a man has the same chance as any other man of getting the kind of job for which he is fitted, then the probability is that these other things will to some extent fall into place. But if he cannot get a job, it does not really matter whether he has the right to go into a restaurant or public house or not, because he will not have a penny in his pocket to spend there.
I am not going to weary your Lordships with all the actions that have been taken in this field in the United States. It starts with Presidential Executive Orders, something for which we in this country have no exact equivalent. There have been many of these Orders from
1878
about 1946 up to date. There has been fair employment practice legislation in most of the States. And these have culminated in the Civil Rights Act 1964, probably one of the most important and romantic pieces of legislation that the U.S. Congress has carried into effect. It would be an over-simplification to say that the Civil Rights Act is based on conference, conciliation and persuasion, but these, fundamentally, are the line of approach to the problem of discrimination and its elimination. All the evidence in the U.S.A. is that conciliation and persuasion are completely ineffective unless behind them there are the sanctions of legal authority for those who can be neither persuaded nor conciliated.
Let me give the House one or two examples of how the system works in the U.S.A.—and I would say that the examples I am giving are the results of conference, conciliation and persuasion, and not the results of legal action. In 1952, there was an aircraft factory on Long Island which was looked at by the appropriate board. It had over 11,000 workers and only 247 Negroes. As the result of the processes of persuasion and conciliation, by 1959, seven years later, 7 to 8 per cent. of the then total employed were Negroes: and at all levels; not all at the most menial level. In Detroit, Michigan, a taxicab company employed no Negroes at all. The process of complaint was made, and consideration was given to this by the appropriate board. As a result, within a year there were 300 Negroes employed, out of a total employment of 1,200. In the department stores (and I think that this American term is quite well understood here now) the situation in 1948 was that one store had only six Negroes in its employment. By 1958, as the result of conciliation, persuasion, and so on, there were 200.
The point I want to emphasise—and this is the justification for my noble friend's Bill—is that conference, conciliation and persuasion are effective only if they are backed by legal sanctions. That is why my noble friend's Bill is important. The approach to this whole problem must be, in the first place, the approach of voluntary conciliatory action; but that action must be backed by legal action, to be taken, only if and

1879
when necessary. In other words, there must be teeth. I think that the Bill provides the teeth, and I hope your Lordships' House will give it a Second Reading.
5.12 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a few comments on this Bill, may I say at once that I agree with the objections already voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Derwent. To me, they seem completely convincing. I shall try to confine the few remarks I have to make strictly to the principle that I think demands that we should refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. I do not intend to yield to any temptation to stray over the field of the details of race relations. The Race Relations Act 1965 is, as has been said, barely a year old, and any attempt to extend its scope seems to me indefensibly premature. One may legitimately urge that the Act of 1965 should be given a reasonable time to reveal whether or not it is inadequate, and whether so drastic a reconstruction as is contemplated by this Bill is justified by the proved inadequacy of present legislation and by its own intrinsic merits.
I think that the process of trying to change psychological prejudice by Act of Parliament—in short, by making the exercise of innate personal prejudice or personal rights of choice a crime—is a violation of the liberty of the individual which cannot be justified by any alleged public interest. Both racial and religious discrimination, as we all know, are difficult subjects, and they cannot be cured or profitably dealt with by legislative force. I very much doubt whether public opinion in this country is in favour of the restriction on choice embodied in this Bill.
I listened intently to the speech of the noble sponsor of the Bill, and I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity of purpose. But I very much question his judgment and the timing of this effort to force public acquiescence in the views that he takes. If I may say so, he seems to me to be a political homœopath, and apparently believes that intolerance can be cured by doses of the same thing—"a hair of the dog that bit him", in more vulgar parlance. For this Bill aims to
1880
carry the principles of the 1965 Act to a point where deeply felt racial and religious differences of outlook are to be treated with penal severity. You cannot (I should have thought that there was no necessity to make such a statement as this) make people good according to your own personal views of what is good by Act of Parliament; nor can you inflict upon the community your own views with the severity of the law of the Medes and Persians.
In my view, for instance, this Bill is the acme of intolerance and an attempt to cure intolerance by heavy doses of the same thing. I am not an uncompromising defender of intolerance, and certainly not when what appears to be intolerance is carried to lengths that endanger law and order. But, equally, I am not a political homœopath, and I believe in leaving private choice as wide a scope as reasonably can be given to it without trespassing on the legitimate sphere of public legislation.
If I may say so with respect, this Bill enshrines public interference with private rights. I appreciate that many men are inspired with the urge to regulate an erring world on their own lines, feeling, as Shakespeare said:
"The time is out of joint. Oh, cursed spite That ever I was born to set it right!"
Men arise from time to time with a Messianic megalomania and aim to stereotype human nature in a mould of their own making even to the eclipse of common sense. They may be ahead of their time, or just dreamers striving to make dreams come true, or perhaps merely bigots. In fact, one has to have patience and rely on the modifying force of education and social understanding. It is no use being like Kipling's missionary, who first of all knocked a man down and then led him up to grace, which is what this Bill is trying to do.
I believe in the value of civic education and in giving a fair deal to immigrants; of course I do. But I also believe that the natives of my own country have a few rights left which they ought to be allowed to enjoy. I am reminded of the remark of Oliver Goldsmith, who said:
"A virtue which requires to be ever guarded is scarcely worth the sentinel."
That is how I feel about this sort of subject. You cannot enforce a principle

1881
like this by penal legislation. So I am not in favour of this kind of political forced feeding. As I see it, you cannot cure imponderables like personal prejudices and predilections with the sledgehammer of penal sanctions. If we continue on this course, the time is not far distant when the only people in this country who will find there is no place for the four freedoms are the natives of this land. I therefore submit that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading, and that the issue should await the greater knowledge of the working of the present Act.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend who has just sat down in entirely recognising the sincerity and motives of the noble Lord who is sponsoring this Bill. Everybody recognises him as an entirely sincere man and one who wishes well for others. But I must also join with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in saying that I do not think this is the way to achieve what he is trying to do. Many noble Lords have said that legislation is the way in which to introduce a greater consideration for others. But, my Lords, I do not think it is. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the more we are told that we must think one way, the more we shall most certainly think in the opposite direction. The Englishman is a very independent animal, and when he is told that he must think one thing he will most certainly think the other, whether he makes it public or not.
The motive behind the Bill, the prevention of the victimisation of any particular section of the community, is absolutely sound and good, but I do not think this is the way to achieve it. In his opening speech the noble Lord mentioned the mounting evidence to show that the Race Relations Act is inadequate. If it is, surely that is evidence that one cannot work by legislation. I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put before your Lordships a case of which I had been thinking on my way here. It is the case of an employer who had two men set before him, one coloured and one white, with probably similar qualifications. The noble Lord pointed out what might happen if he chose one or other of them on grounds of colour. But I would point out another
1882
thing. Suppose the employer has no feelings whatsoever about colour. Suppose he is entirely willing to employ a coloured man or a white man, and suppose he chooses purely from the point of view of the man's qualifications and his fitness for the job. If he chooses the coloured man, of course no questions will be asked. A white man has simply lost, and he has no method of suing the employer for discrimination. But if the employer chooses the white man, the coloured man has that right, and if the case comes before a judge who is to say what was actually the motive in the employer's mind?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? If the noble Lord will read the Bill, he will find that if the white man is excluded he has just as much right to complain as the coloured man.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not think that any white man in his senses would imagine that he was being excluded on the grounds of colour. I do not think that would arise. The point is that this gives the coloured man a definite privilege over the white man.
LORD BROCKWAY: No.
LORD SOMERS: Even if the motive is only that of colour, we must remember that we are only human beings and that there are some excuses for it. I know that perhaps some people may not be very adaptable and, as I have said, discrimination purely on grounds of colour is a bad thing. But one must remember that with the enormous number of immigrants streaming into this country there has come a considerable proportion—I will not say even the majority—of those whose civilisation and social and moral standards are very low. Any race can produce people of this sort, and we produce plenty of them ourselves. You have only to go into certain parts of London to see that or travel on the Underground, as I do very frequently.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is making special reference to the coloured people employed on the Underground, or to the travellers on the Underground, because there are large numbers of Barbadians employed there, and I deeply resent any aspersion on them.
LORD SOMERS: I am making no reference to colour whatsoever; I am merely saying that any race, either coloured or white, can produce people of a very low standard of civilisation. It is the unfortunate fact that some people who have had the misfortune to live close to these groups of coloured people have come to take that as being the standard. They do not perhaps realise that the coloured races produce also men of very high civilisation, and very fine men indeed, of great responsibility. On the other hand, I think one must give to the individuals of our country, our own natives, the right to choose whether they wish to open their premises to a coloured man or not. This is still our own country, although it is rapidly becoming less so. I believe that to introduce legislation which will definitely give rights to the coloured man which it does not give to the white man would be the very gravest mistake, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not force the Bill to a Second Reading.
5.27 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission mention a couple of reminiscences? First of all, in 1942, in Australia, during the long summer holidays—and it is very hot where I was—we had staying with us a Burmese boy. He was a very nice boy by the name of Reggie Ohn Kya. In that hot weather we used to go out at 4.30 in the morning and get all our work done before the heat of the day, and then come back. One day when I had come back from shaving and my wife was in the kitchen cooking, a rather stupid woman arrived at the backdoor and explained that she had stalled her car at the entrance. My wife, frying pan in hand, listened to her woes. She was mainly concerned with the fact that she had left the sprinkler on in her garden and it was a crime to do so after 9 o'clock. My wife shouted to the Burmese boy, "Reggie", and he answered, "Yes Ma'am". He came and stood behind her, and the woman took a pace to the rear. Then my wife said, "Go and tell Dad to help this lady to start her car". The woman took one more look at my wife, who is comparatively white, another look at Reggie, comparatively brown, let out a scream and fled! I think there is a moral in that particular story.
1884
May I mention another one? In 1962, back in this country there was a Ghanaian student at Seale Hayne college who was going through a difficult time trying, to find accommodation for his wife and child. The professor there said the student could not stay unless he could put his affairs in order. It came to my notice and my wife and I looked after his child for six months. Everything would have been fine and dandy had it not been for the rather usual intrusion of the Press, who, without permission and against special pleading (it was an agency), sold the story, with the photographs, to the Daily Mail. Then of course there followed headlines in that paper: "Baby Bongo moves into a stately home", and all that sort of thing.
The point I am trying to make is that once that had happened it let loose a whole flood of prejudices. Quite apart from the fact that the unfortunate student (who I am glad to say is now an important official in the Ministry of Agriculture in Ghana) was pestered, we also were pestered. There were some nice, sloppy, sentimental letters, and some the reverse. This is one of many, but the sort of thing one received was this:
"Sir, all you are doing is to seek cheap publicity for"
this, that and the other—"degraded British", "hypocricy", "mongrel breeding", all that sort of thing with which I am sure your Lordships are quite au fait.
The point is that a lot of this sort of thing is going around. One of the best paragraphs here says
"Colonel indeed; you are only fit to be that in some African tribe of cannibals who mutilate and eat our white children and rape our women",
and then the writer goes on to accuse me of sharing my bed with all sorts of what he refers to as "lice-ridden" some things. I mention those points purely to show that one has had some minor experience of what some of these things mean. However, I do not believe that this malaise should be dealt with by legislation. To my mind, this is a case of tolerance against prejudice and fear, and I think that should be dealt with not by law but by education and example.
We all have prejudices. I was speaking to a Member of another place the other day (not an Opposition member, in case

1885
anyone might think it was) and he told me that he was always plagued by a subconscious "thing" about gypsies. I asked him why, and he said he had been examining his conscience and it was because his nannie, when he was a boy, had always said to him, "You be good; otherwise the gypsies will get you". That is one example of the sort of prejudice one has. Why should any of these things be dealt with by law? It is only a matter of time. I admit that I have some prejudices. Your Lordships will remember that just after the last war there were some rather brutal murders in Palestine by extremist gangs. I happened to be a British soldier out there and a certain Mr. Ben Hecht was reported as saying that he had a song in his heart every time a British soldier was bumped-off. Now until the cows come home no Bill passed by Parliament will stop me from having a prejudice against Mr. Ben Hecht. The effect of the Scots on Dr. Johnson has already been referred to.
Another thing I cannot understand is why everybody seems to be so touchy nowadays. When I am in Australia—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would bear me out if he were here—I am introduced regularly as a "Pommie bastard" and my American relatives refer to me as their "God-dammed Limey liability". When I am in South Africa it is something about an unmentionable Rue Kneck, and in China it is unprintable in both senses of the word. This particular Ghanaian friend of mine had the name of Martin Ohemeng and he was one of the nicest chaps I have ever met—and I mean that in the Christian sense of the word—but when he telephoned me on one occasion and I did not recognise his voice he said, "Oh, this is the Black Irishman", because he thought his name sounded somewhat Irish. What I am getting at is that there is a lot of super-touchiness going around and the sooner we forget it and get on with overcoming the problem by education and example, the better.
On the question of religious persecution I come from a family which, by law, was excluded from your Lordships' House from the passing of the Test Act until 1829. But did the passing of the emancipation Act in 1829 make any
1886
difference to what people felt inside? No, it allowed us to come here, but that is all. I had a great-uncle who, as a major, was awarded the V.C. in the Crimea. A few years later he became a Major-General in the Aldershot Command and we still have a letter from him to his wife, saying, "Don't worry; you will not have to do any entertaining; nobody will entertain us". That was thirty years after the passing of the Act.
What people feel inside them will not be altered by this or any other Bill. I should not mind a bit of religious intolerance towards me if only the people who showed the intolerance really believed something themselves. The scientific humanists who seem to run our permissive society to-day think anyone who believes anything is rather a peculiar oddity. We all know what unfortunate or unpleasant people inverted snobs are, and I think we are in danger of being inflicted by a lot of inverted racialists—those people who complain bitterly that the greatest insult they can be offered is to be regarded as a racialist, and yet the whole time go around accusing other people of being racialists, and probably have never had any dealings in their private capacity with a person of a different view or colour.
To sum up, although I fully sympathise with the motives of the noble Lord who is introducing this Bill I am against it, because I do not believe men's minds and thoughts should, or can, be governed by laws. I think it would be much better if we could remove the causes of these things. The fear of losing your job, your position, your home or your women, or the possibility of getting a home: it will be much better if we concentrate on those rather than on unenforceable Bills.
I think also many of my friends who have a different colour from us really do not respect us any more because of the attitudes of some people who, let us face it, strike me as being rather humiliating and crawling, as if they were going around always with a kind of super-guilt complex. I think people of another colour would rather be treated man to man, which I think would happen with the majority of people in this country if they were left alone. Lastly, I am against this Bill because I cannot see where the

1887
trend is going, unless it is back to Cromwell and all the controls over men's minds. I remember when I was a prisoner of war there was a very earnest young man who, when we were having a semi-religious argument, told me he had only one religion. I asked him what it was and he said it was the "religion of Socialism". If we go on like this we may have the noble Lord, in a few years' time, introducing a Bill to say we must not do anything to bring the religion of Socialism into disrespect. With respect, I think that when that sort of thing happens the brain drain will be complete.
5.40 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, this is a racial Bill and I must declare I am a chunk of Norman, a chunk of Saxon, a bit of Viking—not the Viking Club—a touch of Dutch, a streak of Shamrock, a quake of Scot. I must also declare that my original name was Lest range, meaning the stranger or foreigner, so I am not sure whose side I am speaking on, but I think it will work out that I am speaking on my own.
Some years ago I was in America, and was struck by the fact that in the South they had rather Victorian adequate arrangements for travellers; they had ladies' waiting rooms and gentlemen's waiting rooms and gentlemen's smoking rooms, but of course their use was translated into their own idiom—black women, white women, black men, white men, and so on. I was on a small river boat going across an estuary, which is called a river in America, and I got completely confused. I found I was in "white women" and bolted out, and then I was in "black men" and I bolted out of there, and found I was in "black women", and I gave up. All this racial stuff is very confusing when you are not used to it. At that time in America there were hotels with no Jews and other hotels with no gentiles, and I believe, though I did not see it, there were others with no gentiles and no "kikes". There was a colony of Swedes up in the North who did not speak any English at all, or any American at all. There were these terrifying shanty towns where Africans were cooped up under corrugated roofs and broken down motor cars, and nobody seemed to realise or do anything about it at all. Worse—I
1888
think it was worse—was the position of the Costa Ricans. It was not known how many there were. They spoke no known language and wrote no known language, and were breeding as fast as it was possible for human beings to breed. Above all this there was the fear of a witch-hunt going on against the Communists.
I was very generously treated in America, but I could not help feeling a great deal of relief when I got back to the country I knew. My hall porter had just adopted a piccaninny for no very good reason I could discover, and he was very pleased about it. The B.B.C., radio and television, were filled with lampoonists such as Britain has always had, good cartoonists, who were running down everything we consider sacred, even our Prime Ministers and your Lordships' House, but they were very witty and amusing and everybody was laughing at them. It was a non-union which had no Communist in it, which the ordinary people describe as a "Commy". The British people were exactly the same as they had always been. They were completely unmoved by all this. They were solid, with their feet on the ground, taking it all in their stride.
In the 'eighties and 'nineties of the last century there was havoc over Europe as your Lordships will remember. It was a very poor procession if somebody did not lob a home-made bomb into it. The President of the United States was assassinated. There were strikes and lock-outs and beating ups, and the Secret Service and private detectives were everywhere. Yet Herr Karl Marx could come to this country and live in complete comfort in Bloomsbury, and write his book and have it published, and have a decent funeral in Highgate. In the 1914–18 war I think the casualty list proved for ever that we are not a class country. The same thing happened in the Battle of Britain. When something really happens the British people wake up. They are completely united; they will see anything right through to the end.
I do not know why these ancient ancestors of mine came to this country. I am jolly sure they were not asked, and I am certain they did not come for the climate. People have been coming ever since, the Huguenots from France, and others from every other place. But the one thing I

1889
think it is important to realise is that in this debate speakers over and over again talk about coloured workers and coloured people, blacks. These people are British. When they are in this country they are British; they are not Pakistanis any more, they are British. We have laws for the British. They must obey our laws. Those laws are carefully made; we live under them and we have lived under them for centuries and they have evolved through centuries. We must never think of them as anything else but British.
This system would have worked all right, but unfortunately, as your Lordships know, we have had too large an intake recently into this country. I am very anxious—I expect we all are—that they should have time to adapt themselves and soak into the British way of life. I feel this Bill is very ill advised at the present moment. We are facing very large troubles. I should not like to describe what is going to happen if unemployment rises to astronomical figures. It is not the moment to stir up all this racial stuff, as in America. Leave it alone. I am sure the British Government are very carefully considering a Bill on these lines. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I trust his Bill never sees—if any daylight comes through these stained glass windows—the light of to-morrow.
5.47 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway has asked me to wind up the debate, and he will speak very briefly after my noble friend Lord Sorensen. I hope that I shall be able to answer the various points that have been raised, and if I do not I hope that noble Lords will interrupt me. The case for this Bill rests on three propositions: first, that discrimination in the areas covered by this Bill is wrong and cannot be condoned; secondly, that there is evidence that it is being practised, and will go on being practised, on a very wide scale; thirdly, most important of all, that legislation on the lines proposed by this Bill is an appropriate weapon in the armoury which society can dispose of to stop it.
Bearing in mind the opposition which has come from the last four speakers, I think it is important to realise that there has been complete agreement on the first proposition. There cannot be many Bills which come before your Lordships' House
1890
where there is complete agreement on the objects. This is quite a different subject from immigration control, on which a number of widely differing views have been expressed, in all parts of the House. I think it is perfectly consistent for someone to hold the views of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on immigration control, and yet hold my views on this Bill, because we are talking about citizens of this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Strange, said; and it is quite unjustifiable, and wrong, for those citizens to be denied equal treatment and equal opportunity on the grounds of colour or race alone.
I think there is also a very large measure of agreement on the second proposition, the evidence of discrimination. Many examples have been given, and I should like to add only one of my own, which concerns a friend of mine who was looking for a flat. She went to a large flat agency which was thought to operate some kind of colour bar. The point of my story is that this friend has a strong West Indian accent but a very lightly coloured face. She went in and she asked for a flat. The girl looked at her and listened to her and said, "I think so. I am not quite sure". Eventually she had to go and ask someone else, and eventually again had to come out with a personal question, "Excuse me, where do you come from?" They were absolutely flummoxed. That is a lighthearted story, but it shows quite a serious situation.
Nor can I agree that the problem is likely to get better if we do nothing about it; on the contrary, I am quite sure that it will get worse—not because the white citizens of this country will get more illiberal, but because the numbers of coloured people competing for jobs on equal terms with the white population is increasing. Until now the great majority of immigrants to this country have been subjected to what is regrettable, but what one may call justifiable discrimination. Their English is bad; their qualifications are not the same, they are unused to the English way of life. But in the future there will be an increasing number of coloured people, particularly school-leavers who, as has been pointed out in this debate, are as English as any noble Lord in this House. I cannot disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, when he claims that someone whose family has been here a long

1891
time can claim to be more English than someone who has recently arrived.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a second, I am surprised, then, that he has taken his seat in this House, because that arises simply from the fact that his family has been in this country a little longer than others.
LORD GIFFORD: And I am sorry for the principle that means I am here; I do not approve of it at all. But, to revert to what I was saying, it is estimated that by 1975 one in six school-leavers will be coloured. It is these people for whom we are legislating. These are the people whom this legislation is designed to protect. To me, the most startling stories of discrimination are those which concern them.
I think the question, and the only question, which has divided opinion in this House is whether we can tackle by legislation in general, and by this Bill in particular, the problems which we know exist. I should like to deal first with one argument—though I must say that I do not feel it to be an argument at all; namely, that you cannot abolish prejudice by legislation, prejudice being an attitude of mind. Of course you cannot. You can no more abolish prejudice than you can abolish other attitudes of mind which lead to reckless driving, breaches of contract, fraud, indecent assaults or any other kind of anti-social behaviour which is sanctioned by the civil or criminal law. Discrimination on the grounds of race and religion is a form of antisocial behaviour. What legislation can do is to provide a remedy for the victim which this Bill does; to deter, and if necessary sanction, the wrongdoer, which this Bill does; and to guide and educate public opinion. In this latter field I believe that this Bill can do enormous service. There are many people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, pointed out, practice discrimination, not because of their own prejudices but because of what they conceive to be the prejudices of other people. If this Bill becomes law, those people will have an excuse for doing the right thing. They will be able to say to anybody who objects, "I am sorry but it is the law, you know". It will become respectable not to discriminate.
1892
If your Lordships have followed me so far I hope you will agree that a prima facie case has been made out for this Bill. It has been said by many noble Lords that it will have adverse effects which outweigh its advantages. The most serious of them was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strange, that the Bill will increase racial feeling and not diminish it; that it will defeat its own object. Although the noble Lord is not in his place at the moment I think what he meant was that there will be a number of unfounded complaints made by people with a grudge or a chip on their shoulder, and that the ill-feeling which these complaints will arouse will bring the law into contempt. I would sympathise with this objection if the victims, or the so-called victims, of discrimination were enabled to rush to the civil courts, or even the criminal courts, for redress. But this is not the case. The complainant must go to the local conciliation committee, who will investigate the matter quietly and without fuss. If it appears that the complaint is without any foundation, the committee will report to the Board accordingly, and the Board is empowered to convene a hearing only if it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this kind of procedure will effectively stop vexatious complainants from causing any trouble. I think it will also stop the trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, foresaw when he talked about an isolated incident. If there is an isolated incident of discrimination, the local conciliation officer will have no difficulty in going round and talking to the people concerned, perhaps extracting an apology from the man who discriminated and an assurance that he will not do it again; and the matter will all be forgotten.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I think the noble Lord is mixing up the present Act and this new Bill. Under the present Act, of course, nothing would happen, because the man concerned would not be practising discrimination. Under this new Bill he would in fact be discriminating and committing an offence. I do not know on what grounds the noble Lord says that no action could be taken.
LORD GIFFORD: He would be discriminating, I agree, but the complaint, surely, would be quite easily conciliated.
I turn now to the argument raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, among others, that this Bill will create a privilege class of coloured people. I find this difficult to understand. The Bill is not the Black Muslims' Charter. Take the case that Lord Somers raised, of the employer who rejects the coloured applicant because his qualifications are not as good; and assume that the coloured applicant complains and says that it was a case of discrimination. Again the conciliation procedure will be made to function: the officer will go round, and he will no doubt see the other coloured people who are working in the factory. He will listen to the reasons why the employer thought the qualifications were not so good, and he will have no difficulty at all in establishing that no case of discrimination has been made out.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is rather over-simplifying this matter. Supposing there were no other coloured workers in the factory, and supposing, too, that the employer in question was rather tending to defend himself, which is not unusual in such cases, how is the judge to know? I think the noble Lord must be endowed with remarkable gifts of mind-reading if he can tell what is in other people's minds.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I will deal with the noble Lord's point a little later, if I may. I was thinking at this particular moment of the man who, according to the noble Lord, had no prejudice at all, and I was assuming that there would be evidence in the nature of his employees to establish that without difficulty. But I will take up the noble Lord's other point in a moment. The noble Lord's point is really that of enforcement, a matter which has been mentioned by a number of opponents of this Bill. They say that it is not enforceable, that it cannot be proved. I believe that discrimination can be proved, in exactly the same way as any other wrongful act in which the state of a man's mind is an essential factor, by the surrounding circumstances. Your Lordships may know the dictum of Chief Justice Bowen, that "the state of a man's mind is as much a question of fact as the state of
1894
his digestion". There are countless crimes and wrongs in which exactly that, the state of a man's mind, has to be established.
There will be some cases where the discrimination will be open and apparent; there will be others where the excuse of the neighbours or the customers will be given; there will be others where some vague generalisation will be put forward. These cases can be easily established. But there are others (and I agree that they are the most difficult) in which an employer says, perhaps: "I turned down this applicant because he was not suitable, but I have no prejudice". If he says that then the Board has to discover whether this reason is a genuine reason or only a pretext. For instance, there was a case in the U.S.A. where a large airline turned down a prospective air hostess, who was coloured, because her hips were too large. The local Civil Rights Commission went round; they measured the hips of the applicant, they measured the hips of a sample of air hostesses in the fleet, and they soon found that her hips were not too large. Not all cases, perhaps, would be quite so simple as that. Even so, from the practice which is in operation at the factory, from the surrounding circumstances, discrimination can be proved in exactly the same way as fraud can be proved.
I should like to refer briefly to two specific objections which were put forward. One related to clubs. I can see that many noble Lords were worried possibly at the invasion of White's or Boodle's by large numbers of coloured people. The promoters of this Bill were thinking of clubs which were hardly "clubs" at all. They were thinking of night clubs, working men's clubs, golf clubs, tennis clubs. I can see that there may be difficulties. This is obviously a point which needs to be looked at in Committee, and I feel that possibly we can formulate, as my noble friend has said, a definition of "club" or even perhaps (although I should not like it) exclude "club".
I want to refer now to incitement and to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I have some sympathy with what he said about the Britton case, which I think was a bad case. There are many good arguments to be put forward on

1895
behalf of this particular provision, and in particular the extension which it brings in to cover the Viking Club and other such organisations which have been mentioned in the House to-day. But again it is only an insignificant part of the Bill, because incidents involving incitement are insignificant when compared to the instances of discrimination. In voting upon this Bill, if we vote tonight, we should be thinking about discrimination and the appropriate remedies for it, not about incitement.
Lastly, I come to the main argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent: that we are debating this Bill too soon after the 1965 Act. First of all, we believe that it was the wrong Act, and that that Act should have gone as far as this Bill goes. Secondly, the noble Lord said that the committees were not fully established—and that is true. But the three which are established cover the whole country. I think the best answer to the noble Lord's argument is given by the endorsement of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, about which my noble friend has told your Lordships, and by the remarks of Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, which provide as good a summary of the case for this Bill as can be imagined.
My Lords, if we shelve legislation now we shall be allowing attitudes and patterns of discrimination to harden. This would be a tragedy. We shall be faced with an American-type situation in which, as the Home Secretary has said, the trends will be almost impossible to reverse. I believe that this country can, and must, show that it offers equality, equal treatment and equal opportunity, to black and white alike. I have tried to show that legislation can be effective in helping to bring this about. I consider that there is no better forum than your Lordships' House in which to have a full discussion of this human problem. For these reasons I urge your Lordships' support of this Bill.
6.5 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Gifford that I have not allowed him to wind up as he indicated. I also apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I am speaking at all, as my name does not appear on the list of speakers. I probably would
1896
not have been drawn to my feet had it not been for the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Milverton. What they had to say this afternoon disturbed me immensely. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and his criticism of Lord Brockway's idealism, I would say, with deep respect to the noble Lord, that I am always mystified how a noble Lord who has been a Governor of any of our territories in colonial days can take the line he does in these debates. It is something I cannot understand.
I would remind him that three weeks ago he and I, together with other noble Lords, participated in the Barbados Independence celebrations. Could there be a better example than that small island that a multiracial society can exist in happiness? Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand why the noble Lord should have any doubts about the success of a multiracial society in this country. Yet everything he says seems to contradict the possibility of a multiracial society. I am deeply concerned indeed that a point of view so representative of past centuries should still exist in your Lordships' House in one or two places.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, we have, of course, heard him often on these subjects; he has heard me often on these subjects. We take entirely opposite points of view. He has claimed again this afternoon that we can get over these problems by a spirit of good will. I would not be supporting my noble friend Lord Brockway this afternoon if I felt we could overcome these difficulties just purely and simply by hoping that good will will come.
A number of years ago my friend Mr. Nigel Fisher, M.P., and I formed the British Caribbean Association. By coincidence, we formed it at a time when the Notting Hill troubles were beginning. We found this problem on our shoulders. Since then we have had an organisation which has consisted in its executive and council work of 50 per cent. English people and the rest Commonwealth immigrants. We have gone on with great success. But this organisation, since the passing of the 1965 Act, right down to this day, has been inundated with complaints which this Bill would put right. Every week instances of where discrimination has been apparent pour into the Association. Therefore, I am merely

1897
suggesting that it is quite ridiculous to hope in this day, particularly with the number of coloured people we have in our country, that by good will for very many years to come we might overcome this problem. I do not believe it. I believe, therefore, that the time has come when there has to be extended legislation because the idea of good will has failed.
The main purpose of this legislation will be prevention. I believe that if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament people will not risk the form of discrimination dealt with in the Bill. I believe they will make quite sure that they do not offend against the principles and ideals which have been so very well expressed in many parts of the House during the course of this debate. I do not want to say more. It is because that good will has not succeeded that I believe it is now necessary to proceed to an extension of legislation to cover the points with which the Bill deals.
LORD SIMEY: My Lords, may I make two brief but most important points? The first point is that most of this debate has been developed in terms of immigrants, more immigrants, immigrants not aware of our way of life. I come from the North-West of England, from Liverpool, where our coloured fellow citizens are nearly all locally-born. They have been educated in our schools, they speak the common language of Liverpool, but because of their colour they are given unskilled jobs. They are the first to become unemployed in a slump, they have the worst accommodation, the worst social services, and the worst neighbourhood to live in. We are creating a Harlem and we are creating a group of sub-standard fellow citizens.
That situation is about to become universal in this country. What now applies to Liverpool, and has obtained for some sixty years in increasing degree, will shortly apply to all the big cities in England. And may God help us if we lose equality of citizenship with people merely because they are coloured! Where is the process to stop? We are at our wits' end to know how to deal with this problem. We have tried every way we can think of, including the recent Act, and we have got nowhere. There is no sign that we shall get anywhere. There is no sign that we can educate, that we can
1898
rely upon good will and upon bettering our knowledge of the problem. We want urgently a better means of dealing with the problem, which is what this Bill seems to give us a chance of, and we ask your Lordships most energetically to give us a chance.
My second point is a brief one. My first point was simply on the matter of colour; I forbear using the word "race" because the whole thing is entirely bogus from start to finish. The second problem on Merseyside, and in our district, is religion. A certain number of our people, mainly in Manchester, are Sikhs. They are religious people. We welcome them to live beside us and to fight with us so long as there is a war. There was no complaint whatsoever in our Army about living and fighting with Sikhs in the last war, and allowing them to wear turbans. But as soon as they become members of bus crews the trouble starts. That is absolutely abhorrent to me. As a Christian I must demand the right of members of religious minorities to practise their professed religions. I have the deepest respect and admiration for the Sikhs, and I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill in order that we shall wipeout this shameful disgrace.
6.16 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate lasting for over three hours, and I do not mind confessing that I am most grateful that at last I have to wind up after a procession of speakers, although the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will have a few words to say after I have finished. First of all, may I express my appreciation of all the contributions which have been made of varying points of view and from both sides of the House? To some extent, arguments have been answered by other sneakers who take the contrary point of view. Nevertheless, I think that running through the debate as a whole there has been a consensus of opinion to which I shall refer again in a moment or two.
Meanwhile, may I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his opening expression of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I have sympathy with myself as well, because I have to take his place and had he been here that would not have been necessary. But, certainly from the moment when many of us heard that he was stricken with infirmity and

1899
was seriously ill, we were seized with great anxiety and a fervent hope and prayer that he would speedily recover. It is very heartening to know that steady progress is now being made, and I hope very earnestly indeed that we shall have further reports in the very near future of his speedy return to good health, with the prospect therefore of his once again speaking from this Box.
My situation this evening is certainly somewhat ironical, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to this in his second sentence. It is quite true that some years ago—I did not think it was as many as almost twenty years ago—I had the opportunity of introducing a Bill along these lines in another place. It did not get very far, because I was not called on the particular Friday when the Bill was down for debate. Nevertheless, it was an initiative, and I am most grateful that later the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, took the substance of that Bill and added to it, and with his characteristic energy has pursued it through the years. But it is somewhat in the nature of a poacher turned gamekeeper that I am here to-night to inform the noble Lord of the advice of the Government regarding his Bill; but for the moment that advice shall be shrouded in mystery which will therefore make everyone curious to know exactly what it is.
If the House does not mind a brief personal reminiscence, I would say it is strange that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I through the whole of our lives have been interested in much the same issues, though not necessarily in the same way. To think that he and I are here related in this strange juxtaposition is certainly very curious. It almost makes me think that we are reincarnated non-identical twins, with the accent on the non-identical. Be that as it may, there is certainly deep appreciation of his devotion to this purpose, and the Government are entirely sympathetic both with the intention of his Bill and with his motives and expressions, which were also voiced by other noble Lords supporting the Bill.
We all know, of course, that a similar Bill—not entirely identical, but similar—was introduced in another place only last Friday, and that the mover of that felt it wise, in the end, having had an exten-
1900
sive and useful debate, to withdraw the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord feels the same wisdom—we have yet to see. But I would exhort him to consider very carefully doing that, as perhaps, in all the circumstances, the best thing that can be done in advancement of the purpose he has in mind.
I quite agree that many of the proposals in this Bill are logical and consistent in their extension of principles already accepted in the Race Relations Act 1965; and to that extent, too, I can appreciate the reasons why he has brought this matter to our attention—so that we realise there is still a very grave need for further action to be taken at an appropriate time. The word "discrimination", of course, is in itself quite an innocent one. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who had done as I have done—that is, looked up the dictionary to find the etymological meaning of the word. To "discriminate" means merely, "to note the difference between one thing and another", which in itself is quite innocent. Therefore, I would myself distinguish between natural, innocent discrimination, such as we all practise, on the one hand, and that which is, on the other, quite uncivilised, by calling the latter "uncivilised discrimination".
Here, I would just touch on a few remarks made by Lord Royle, and others, in regard to good will. Always there is this difficult problem confronting legislators, and others, as to how far they should go in trying to encourage good conduct by legislation—by, if you like, coercion—and how far they should rely purely upon guidance, inspiration, education and persuasion. Really, my Lords, I would submit there is no necessary antithesis between the encouragement of good will, on the one hand, and legislation, on the other. Surely all beneficial legislation embodies the principle of good will to the citizens as a whole. Every good Act of Parliament, I would submit, is the embodiment of an aspiration to a better society. To that extent there is no distinction in essence between the diffusion of good will generally and the encouragement of it specifically through an Act of Parliament.
But I agree, of course, that there are limits. There are limits both ways. There are limits to reliance upon the diffusion

1901
of good w ill and limits, also, on what can be done in trying to enforce, if not good will then good behaviour upon citizens. Here, therefore, I must make it quite clear that the Government, considering this matter, believe it to be highly desirable to determine, in the light of experience that is still continuing, what in due course may need improvement in the present statutory machinery dealing with race relations, and then to take whatever other action may be necessary. That is the Government's position. Perhaps I may anticipate later remarks by saying now that in these circumstances—feeling, indeed, that the noble Lord has stimulated all our minds, and has already warned us that there is a great deal of evidence which has accumulated to show that there is need for further action—I hope he will now leave it to the Government to ponder upon these matters.
Moreover, I think we have to remember that the Race Relations Board set up under the 1965 Act has been operating only since last April, and it is customary to give a little longer time than that before trying to assess the results of such an investigation. It is surely a little too early to assess its working. Moreover, we hope to receive a report from the survey that P.E.P. is undertaking. And might I explain, for the benefit of those who may not know what the initials "P.E.P." mean, that they do not mean merely that which we all require in this House and elsewhere, but "Political and Economic Planning." They have undertaken, on behalf of the Government—or, rather, on behalf of the Race Relations Board—an investigation into the whole of this field; and that, together with the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, to which reference has already been made, in respect of the nature and extent of racial discrimination in Britain, will surely produce factual evidence (it has been and is being secured now) which will fortify the Government in whatever action they feel should be taken some months ahead.
I feel very strongly (and I assure your Lordships that I feel this personally, and not merely as a Devil's advocate) that until further evidence is available, further evidence than has yet been obtained, it would be unwise and imprudent to make any firm decision. I say this while expressing, as I have already said, great
1902
appreciation not only of the motives of the noble Lord and others but also of the many facts which he has brought to our attention. There is much to cause us disquiet. We have all, I am sure, in one way or the other, had experience of gross unfairness and injustice which, at least from a moral criterion, Christian or otherwise, no-one can support or endorse. Here, one knows, of course, that moral patterns vary enormously, and I am not therefore suggesting that anybody who does not accept this particular criterion which I personally accept is immoral; it merely means that his morality is different. That is why I deliberately select the words I use to indicate a moral criterion which is in accordance with, I think, the feeling of most noble Lords in this House, even though others may not subscribe to it, or may desire to qualify it quite drastically.
All the contributions of noble Lords, whether they subscribe to the implicit moral criterion by which some of us approach these matters or otherwise, have made invaluable contributions which will be most carefully considered. But, again, I am sure we shall all agree that any new measures dealing with a serious social and ethical problem should be fortified by careful and detailed consideration of what is appropriate and practicable, and will effectually serve the purpose which we endorse. There are complexities in this matter, and even dangers; and these must be appreciated, not just brushed on one side. It is always well, I think, for all of us who have strong convictions on one side to try to understand the convictions of those who oppose our own convictions. By so doing we are better informed, and sometimes we can build abridge where otherwise there would be merely a yawning vacuum or abyss. It would be wrong, of course, to exaggerate these dangers and these complexities. Nevertheless, I submit that they demand and require of us the obligation of constant, earnest attention, lest otherwise the difficulties increase, and even provoke reactions that may confuse the basic issue.
Before I touch on those contingencies, may I be permitted observations of a more general character, though I hope relevant to the nature of both the existing Act and this Bill? The question that arises with all of us, and has arisen one

1903
way or the other this evening, is: why should there have been urgent need for legislation on this matter of racial discrimination? We know that the evil exists—at least, some of us believe it to be an evil; others, perhaps, do not think so—either passively or flagrantly. We also believe that, while Acts of Parliament can certainly do much that is substantial to check racial prejudice and to prevent its gross expression, they cannot of themselves erase the fact of prejudice from human minds. That I think, is agreed. Only education and enlightenment, and a convergence of moral assessments, can do that. This, of course, includes the nourishment of a moral conscience that makes racial prejudice utterly repugnant to human decency.
But, again, we have to ask ourselves this question, platitudinous though it may be: what are the roots of this evil? Psychologists have probed deeply into the subject, and have provided their own assessments from time to time. A few appear to accept the fact of racial prejudice as a natural fact that cannot be reasoned away; and a few sociologists and politicians have appeared to rear on that alleged ineradicable basis a social structure of permanent racial separation. Again one must understand that, either openly or secretly, many accept that and say that it is a law based on nature that there shall be this severe and permanent separation of different communities. Thus the existing Act and the proposals of the noble Lord have more than a national significance. They are a challenge to our thinking, a challenge to our moral values; and, more than that, they are involved in the whole world-wide problem of racial relationships within our human community. Such a debate as is taking place to-day is being listened to, so to speak, representatively, by those in South Africa, Rhodesia and many other parts of the world.
Most of the human race, we must remind ourselves—as I think another noble Lord reminded us—consists of so-called coloured peoples, although "coloured" is a most misleading term, because those of European or Caucasian stock are themselves coloured. We here in this House this afternoon are coloured. The pigmentation of the human race ranges from pallid to pink, and from persistent or tem-
1904
porary sun-tan, such as the advertisers of holiday resorts or bottles of skin varnish extol, to the aggressively ruddy and choleric. I believe that we are all coloured, from fair to swarthy, but many of the fair minority, unfortunately, presume their own lighter hue to be a valid criterion by which they relegate the less fair or the swarthy to an inferior status. That is an assumption that exists in this country even among those who do not tolerate the worst excesses of discrimination. They still have the assumption that this purely accidental fact of pigmentation indicates an intrinsic inferiority. Of course, it is true that in other parts of the world this assumption does not exist.
Some years ago I addressed both Houses of the Venezuelan Parliament and saw their elected representatives of every shade of colour from ivory white, on the one hand, to the most sable black, on the other. There are other parts of the world where this extraordinary reaction to colour does not exist as it does in some parts of this country and in some parts of the world. Of course, pigmentation is not the only prejudicial factor; for generally associated with this are differences of ethnic culture including religion—and here I would say, in passing, that I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or some other noble Lord who suggested that, while one cannot help the colour of one's skin or its ethnic significance, one is responsible for one's religion. The great majority of Hindus are born into the Hindu faith as part of their being; the great majority of Moslems in the Moslem world—or, for that matter, Christians—surely are born into a community where the religion is part of its fabric, part of their being. To that extent people are not, by intellectual conviction, Moslems, Hindus, Christians or Jews. Religion is to that extent a communal characteristic. Let that be by the way. I would merely say that, because of these different factors—whether they be cultural, religious, moral or economic—there are reactions evoked of fear between one human community and another. That fear, I would submit, is quite natural; but it can be exploited and aggravated either by those of primitive identification with their own familiar community or, more deliberately, by those with a sophisticated and distorted mentality.

1905
Your Lordships will forgive me for dwelling on this; but I know very well that there are those theologians and others who argue that there is a natural law, apart from a Divine Law, which can make certain things intrinsically evil. I do not accept that. I say it is natural for one community to fear another whose characteristics are unlike its own. National prejudice can be fused with racial animus, although not necessarily so; for national enmity to another nation can be ephemeral, according to national State political policies, economic exigencies or the psychological concomitant of war. Our own variable attitude to Germany and France respectively could illustrate this. Just behind the Throne, noble Lords will remember, there is a large mural painting of Blucher and Wellington shaking hands at that time when Germany and England were allies against the "infamous French"—who are, of course, recumbent on the ground at the feet of the conquerors. That has passed. I mention it merely to illustrate how in the course of time the bitter enmity and hostility to a particular nation can pass away.
But racial prejudice, I think, can go deeper and last longer than ephemeral national hostility or prejudice. Moreover, it can operate within a particular nation, as it did most woefully and tragically with Germany in the persecution of the Jews in the last war. However, anti-Semitism has operated elsewhere and exists in the United Kingdom. In this, as with other forms of antipathy, it is a defensive fear of the impact of differences that issues in aversion, discrimination, virulent hostility and, sometimes, in vicious persecution. It is precisely because of this that I welcome the attempt of the noble Lord and of all others to try to educate legislatively the people of the country into the realisation that differences should be welcomed. Instead of being accepted as a source of conflict, they should be welcomed as adding to the richness of our national life and as showing that differences and diversities can exist within a national harmony.
In the few, moments that I have remaining I will turn to the Bill. May I say that we should bear in mind the fact that communal protectiveness is very strong with many sections of our com-
1906
munity who are not themselves evilly disposed, as soon as they feel that their particular rights or privileges or standard of life need protection against those Philistines or vandals who would blindly tear them down—not necessarily through base intention but through ignorance. To understand that, we must understand why there is a fear as much in the working class as in any other section of the community of miscegenation, of intermarriage between different communities, because they believe that would cause a deterioration of their particular community and its values. We must understand this, even though biologically and anthropologically the assumption of some people that there is some deep biological difference between different sections of the community is quite absurd and spurious. Nevertheless, we have objectively to recognise that, however irrational and morally reprehensible the several kinds of community prejudice may be, they not only exist but can persist despite prohibitive legislative measures designed to eradicate or diminish the social evil.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway fully appreciates this; and also that in our eagerness to take strong action we must be careful not to implement our conviction in a manner that could stimulate emotional resistance and evasion and thus frustrate our good intentions. Oil may be appropriate for pouring on troubled waters but not for putting out fires. Unfortunately community distinctiveness can become deliberately aggravated until its victims become obsessed to the point when they react automatically to casual stimuli and lose customary restraints. They can be so conditioned as to be impervious to reason and moral obligation.
Not irrelevant to this, may I cite an unhappy experience I had myself some years ago when two young men came, separately, to my house. One was a South African national, the other a Nigerian. I have know them for many years; I admired them; indeed, they were my young friends. But as soon as they arrived coincidentally in my home, I could sense a freezing apprehensiveness on the part at least of one of them, and before many minutes had gone by, possibly preceded by an exchange of words which I did not hear, they were almost

1907
at each other's throats. It was a lamentable experience; and, of course, my home not being adapted to such pugilistic encounters, I am glad that it did not proceed too far. But it was a revelation of the latent ferocity of racial animus. These two otherwise excellent young men, when together in a certain situation, reacted automatically in a mood of almost murderous hostility.
I mention this, my Lords, only to apply it to the Bill—many of you may say, "And about time too!" Imagine, instead of these two young men just being temporary guests in my home, that one was a landlord and the other a prospective tenant; that one was applying for a room—shall we say?—in the house of the landlord. Under the law, it could be said, and rightly so, "You must not declare that there shall be discrimination against the Nigerian because he is black", and therefore no advertisement would appear to that effect. But with what consequential result? I submit that it is possible for the landlord to advertise his room to let, invite the applicant to attend at a certain time and then to give some spurious, evasive excuse for not granting him the tenancy, an excuse which it would be impossible to refute. And even if he accepted the tenant, one has to appreciate the state of tension and conflict that would exist in this situation. I am not saying that therefore nothing should be done; I am saying that we have to bear this in mind and realise that in some circumstances, though theoretically it may be desirable to coerce and compel, and sometimes it may be necessary in truth, nevertheless, there are emotional and psychological feelings which we should do well to bear in mind and they should counsel us to be cautious.
In his Bill the noble Lord proposes greatly to extend the provisions of the existing Act in many respects. Incidentally, I note an indication in the Title that he proposed to deal with religious discrimination, but I have looked through the clauses very carefully and, so far as I can see, except for Clause 6 there is no clause which deals precisely with this particular matter. It may be that on second thoughts it was discovered that there were very great difficulties in this respect and I can appreciate that as well; because once you start bringing in the matter of religious discrimination, you
1908
begin to tread on very dangerous ground. It might well mean, in course of time, that the satirists on television and other brash young men would find themselves in danger of being prosecuted for satirising religion or bringing it into contempt. It might, indeed, mean that all those humanists, or others, who satirise or criticise some of the more archaic elements of any particular faith would themselves be liable to prosecution as bringing that faith into derision or into contempt. I do not know; I simply say that there is this danger.
My Lords, there are certain clubs to which reference has been made, and their members undoubtedly indulge in distasteful discriminatory practices. But it is the essence of a club to be selective in its membership, and even with the proviso which the noble Lord has written into his Bill, it would be very difficult to deal with undesirable practices at some clubs without imposing unfair restrictions on the freedom of the many genuine clubs established for a wide variety of purposes. Reference has also been made to trade unions. Here, again, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been in consultation with the trade unions, for although I know that trade union officials have exercised a very beneficial influence over some of their members who may be infected by racial prejudices, nevertheless any attempt to try to deal with these tendencies still further requires consultation among those who are responsible for the great unions of our land.
There is much else that I could say. I am sure that already many are saying, "Please don't", and I will not. I will conclude by saying once again that we appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the plea he has made and the facts that he has brought to our attention; and, indeed, also those which have been brought to our attention by other noble Lords. But we ask that the existing Act and the Race Relations Board shall be given a reasonable time to accumulate experience upon which we can rest our determination to do something even better than has been done so far. It does not mean that nothing is being done meanwhile. We will continue to use our influence as a Government in every possible way, within the legislative and administrative machinery already at our disposal, to support and encourage all those who are devoting

1909
their time and energy most splendidly to combating any manifestation of racial discrimination as a cancerous growth in the body politic.
My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, intends to do, but I would say as I sit down that I hope most earnestly that he will feel that the debate has been more than worth while. All the contributions to it will be heeded by the Government most carefully. I hope he will then withdraw his Bill. If, on the other hand, he does not do so, most reluctantly I must advise the House to oppose a Second Reading.
6.46 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, we have had a long and I think a useful debate. I do not propose to enter into the controversy on the merits of the Bill; I propose only to make a comment on the advice which my noble friend Lord Sorensen has given. I think I am right in saying that at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord urged that the Bill should be withdrawn on the ground that the Government are considering the surveys that have been carried out and will introduce a Bill later if, in their view, those surveys justify that measure. On that ground the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, asks me to withdraw the Bill. As my noble friend says, our association has been very close. But I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot accept the advice which he has given.
I cannot accept it for three reasons. The first is that it will be next October before the new Session of Parliament begins and before the new measure which he contemplates can be introduced. Between now and October will be a period for the formation of public opinion, and it seems to me very desirable that this House should give some leadership to that public opinion by agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill. I am looking at this matter in quite a practical way. I appreciate that if the Bill obtains a Second Reading to-night it will be very difficult, in view of the programme of the Government, and indeed in view of other Bills which are before Committees and before this House, to give facilities for this Bill to
to have a Committee stage. I recognise that in a practical way. But I say to your Lordships that if that is the case, there is a greater importance in our now declaring in favour of the principles of this Bill which have been supported from nearly all quarters of the House.
The second point I wish to make is this. This House is proud of a certain independence and liberty. In recent weeks we have demonstrated a liberal attitude on many issues which, I think, is ahead even of the attitude in the House of Commons. This is one of those deep moral issues. I believe that this House would be fulfilling its recent record of liberality on moral issues if to-night it were to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
The third reason why I would urge this House to accept this Bill to-night is that this is not a matter for the decision of either Front Bench of this House. This is a Private Member's Bill. It is a free vote. It is one of those occasions when individual Members of this House can, without Governmental or Party pressures, express their own convictions. I was just a little surprised when my noble friend, who has known me over the years, appealed to me to leave this to a Government. I do not believe that we ought to leave matters like this to a Government. I believe tremendously that, particularly in the Houses of Parliament, democracy involves that on every possible occasion—and this is one—when there is a free vote Members should declare their convictions and vote accordingly. I believe that to carry the Second Reading to-night will be an encouragement to all those—and I know they are in the Government itself—who wish to see a Bill on these lines carried. On these grounds, I am afraid that I cannot accept my noble friend's advice to withdraw the Bill, and if the Second Reading of the Bill is challenged I have no other course than to take the matter to a Division.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 23; Not-contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Arran, E.

Chorley, L.

Airedale, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Collison, L.

Archibald, L.

Brockway, L.

Faringdon, L.

Gifford, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Royle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mitchison, L.

Simey, L.

Truro, Bp.

Popplewell, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Winchester, Bp.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Stocks, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L. [Teller.]

Audley, Bs.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Barnby, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

Beswick, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Moyne, L.

Bowles, L.

Falkland, V.

Newall, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fortescue, E.

Phillips, Bs.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rhodes, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brown, L.

Hall, V.

Sandford, L.

Burden, L.

Hawke, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Henderson, L.

Sherfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sorensen, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strang, L.

Daventry, V.

Leatherland, L.

Strange, L.

Derwent, L.

Lindgren, L.

Teynham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ypres, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FILMS BILL
7.3 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13):
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Before letting it go, I should like to thank your Lordships for your cooperation in helping this Bill through. Subject to the minor Amendments that I outlined during the Second Reading, the effect of the Bill is to prolong existing legislation for three years, so as to enable the Government to carry out, in the light of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Supply Bills, a review of films policy and legislation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COMPANIES BILL
7.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brown.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 25 [Directors' service contracts, or memorandums thereof, to be open to inspection at company's registered office]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) For the purposes of this section the expression "contract of service" shall not include a contract expiring or determinable by the company without payment of compensation within a period not exceeding twelve months, and where a director is serving a company on terms contained exclusively in the company's Articles of Association and not otherwise he shall be deemed not to have a contract of service with the company.
( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to a private company or to any other company none of whose shares or debentures are for the time being dealt in or quoted on a prescribed stock exchange or to a company which is the wholly owned subsidiary of another."
The noble Lord said: Dealing with this clause, which requires directors' service contracts or memoranda about them to be open to inspection at the company's

1913
registered office, we have put down this Amendment in order to make certain exceptions. I would accept that shareholders probably ought to know more about directors' service contracts, and therefore we agree with the intention of this clause. However, it is questionable whether the clause does not go too far, as it requires all contracts, whether written or verbal, whether, as I understand it, for one week or ten years, and whatever the pay involved may be, to be disclosed, and, in particular, it does not discriminate between public and private companies.
One important purpose of the clause is to enable shareholders to work out what it might cost the company in damages to remove a director before the expiry of his contract. In that case, there would be little point in requiring disclosure of contracts with a short time to run of, say, a year or so, and certainly those with less than a year to run, where those contracts could be terminated by notice within that period and without any payment of damages. A high proportion of directors, and particularly non-proprietary directors, in groups of public companies are working under a contract of one year or less, and no useful purpose will be served by compelling wholly-owned subsidiary companies to disclose this information, as it will already be known to the only shareholder, which is the parent company.
The peculiar position of private companies does not seem to have been taken into account. Many thousands of directors of family companies do not work under a contract of service, for the simple reason that they are their own employers. In a director-controlled company the directors' remuneration is often fixed at the year end according to the available profits, and not by any formal contract. Where the directors and the shareholders are one and the same people, or even where the directors as a body own the majority of the equity shares, there is clearly no point in requiring disclosure of any contract of service. We therefore think that the clause should not apply to what are at present exempt private companies—to private companies, that is, or to unquoted companies.
For those members of the public, including the Press, who want to find out what a director of a good company earns,
1914
the solution will be simple. The purchase of one share for perhaps less than £1 will entitle the holder to inspect that director's contract of service. In this light, one is left wondering whether the Government believe that only telling the public the number of directors falling into rising bands of remuneration is as much as is good for them. I think, on reflection, the Government will see that this clause is rather too comprehensive and goes too wide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 7, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD RHODES: I think we can take this Amendment in three parts, the first ending "not exceeding twelve months", the next one at the end of that paragraph, "service with the company", and lastly "wholly owned subsidiary of another". I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is arguing that in the case of directors serving a company on terms contained exclusively in the company's articles of association, as mentioned in the second part of the first paragraph, it is unnecessary to make the contract itself available. If he can tell me that, I can shorten the reply and speed up business.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so.
LORD RHODES: The first part of this Amendment seeks to exclude from the requirements of Clause 25 directors' service contracts expiring within a year or determinable by the company within a year without its having to pay compensation. One of the reasons for making information available to members about directors' service contracts is that if a director has a service contract over a long period, with no adequate provision for its termination or revision, the company may be put to great expense if it wishes to get rid of the director. I am aware of the Stock Exchange requirements in this regard.
May I reduce the time that I spend on this point? Since the objects of that part of the Amendment up to the words "twelve months" are in line with the general purpose of the clause, may I say that we will accept that part in principle, and see that the intentions are carried out. Moreover, we have been assured by the noble Lord, that since the information is in the articles of association

1915
and available to all, it is unnecessary to make the contract itself available. I do not think his wording is quite right, but we will consider whether anything can be done before the next stage.
With regard to the third part of the Amendment, beginning "Nothing in this section shall apply" I must tell the noble Lord that we cannot agree to this. Private companies have shareholders who are not relatives (that was said by the noble Lord), and it is clearly of interest to the shareholders to have information about directors' contracts of service, since they give some indication of what it would cost the company to dismiss a director. I should have thought that the noble Lord, with his knowledge of Company Law, would have wanted this included. Another thing that could come out of it is whether any part of the company's future earnings was likely to be absorbed by an increased remuneration for directors. I can assure the noble Lord that it is sometimes very difficult to get to know anything, even in a private company. So we believe there are no grounds for making a distinction between public and private companies, so far as disclosure of directors' service contracts to members is concerned. Having conceded in principle the first part of this Amendment, and having undertaken to consider the second part, I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to turn down the third part.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has dealt with this Amendment. I am grateful to him for accepting the first of the three parts and agreeing to consider the second. With regard to the third part, I think there is substance in what he has said. It is undoubtedly the case that not enough information is available to some of the shareholders in private companies, and what the noble Lord has said has convinced me, at any rate, that the shareholders should be able to see the register. I take it, however, that this will relate only to the shareholders. The Bill is drafted in terms that the register should be open to the inspection of any member of the company without charge. Since this is, of course, a private company, with limited shareholders, and the shares are not available to the public, it
1916
seems to me that he has answered this point. I notice that the noble Lord nods assent to what I am saying, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Rules for giving effect to Section 26(1)]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment deals with a very simple point. It is to ensure that where a director, for example, is given a proxy, he should not be considered to have an interest resulting there from. That is the whole point of this Amendment. I think the Government probably agree that this is right. I am not quite certain whether it is already covered in the Bill, but it does not appear to be, and perhaps it is as well to make it explicit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In determining whether a person is interested or deemed to be interested in shares or debentures there shall be disregarded any entitlement to exercise or control the exercise of any right or voting power being an entitlement which arises solely by reason of such person's being the proxy of another.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARDOF TRADE (LORD BROWN): We are grateful to the noble Lord for his Amendment, which is helpful. We accept it in principle but we should like to have another look at the wording. If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, we will certainly accept it in principle and include the same or slightly different wording.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provisions for securing that information furnished under Section 26, and certain other information about directors' interests, is recorded and made available]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (8), to leave out "or other person". The noble Lord said: This

1917
Amendment is to leave out the words "or other person" in subsection (8) which says:
"Any member of the company or other person may require a copy of the said register, or of any part thereof, on payment of sixpence, or such less sum as the company may prescribe, for every hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied."
This is virtually in identical terms to Section 113 of the Companies Act with regard to the inspection of the register and index. The substance of this is not quite on a par with the inspection of the register or index. We are here dealing with the obligation of a director to notify interests of his shares or debentures in the company or associated companies. This applies so far as public companies are concerned, but does it not go rather too far so far as private companies are concerned? Here again we are dealing with shares which under Section 28 (1) of the Act cannot be transferred outside a restricted number, because by definition a private company means a company which by its articles restricts the right to transfer its shares, and prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares or debentures of the company.
I should have thought that in taking this direct from Section 113 the Government have gone a little far, and that is why I propose to leave out the words "or other person". I should be grateful if the Government could indicate what they have in mind in going so much wider than I should have thought was necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 13, leave out ("or other person").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I do not want to spend too much time reiterating comments that I made on previous clauses, but may I say briefly that we are anxious to take the bold step of having one class of limited company, and to follow this through. That is one basis of argument. I wonder whether, without taking up immediately the words of the noble Lord, I could embark upon another line of argument which is rather different? I should like, if I may, to take into my remarks not only Amendment 32, but Amendments Nos. 33, 38 and 39. The noble Lord will see why in a moment.
1918
Amendment No. 32 limits the right of receiving a copy of the register of directors' holdings to members. Amendment No. 38 applies the same restriction—that is the limitation of the right of receiving a copy of the register of those with a 10 per cent. interest—to members, excluding the public. Amendment No. 33 proposes an increase in charge for supplying a copy of the directors' register, and Amendment No. 39 proposes the same increase for the cost of supplying a copy of the register of those members of the company holding 10 per cent. or over.
We concede that there may be at times a rather indiscriminate use of this right on the part of non-members of the company to apply for a copy of either of these two registers, and we are prepared to increase substantially the amount of the charge which a company is entitled to make for supplying a copy of either of these registers to members of the company or to members of the public. We are not prepared to go quite so far as the 2s. 6d. for a hundred words which is suggested by the noble Lord in his Amendments and which compares with the current charge of 6d. per hundred words. We have not quite finished our consideration of what would be an appropriate figure, but it would be a substantial increase.
I am wondering whether it would be possible to cut down the debate on this matter in view of the fact that there is partial agreement between us. If this argument does not suffice, I shall have to rise again to support the case with some further argument, but for the moment I will rest my case there.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Lord has argued in the only way he can, having regard to the fact that the Government are prisoners in their initial blunder in trying to treat private companies in all respects in the same way as public companies in whose shares the general public are interested. This particular clause seems to me to be quite indefensible and iniquitous. It is what might be called a "Nosey Parker's charter". Staff reporters on the local paper will apparently be able to go and have a look at the register and then write chatty little articles on who owns what in a particular town. It will be a quite unwarrantable intrusion into privacy, but

1919
the Government, having made their initial blunder, obviously have to carry it through. I cannot see what else they can do, unless they are prepared to have a different category in some respects for private companies.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I wonder whether the noble Lord has thought of differential charges as between members of the company and members of the public?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I revert to the substance of this question? I think I made it clear that I put down the Amendment because I thought there was a real distinction between holdings in public companies, which have to be on the register and which can be made available, and holdings in private companies, and changes therein. I think the noble Lord really ought to make some comment on this because there is a distinction between a private company which, under its articles, has its right to transfer shares restricted and none of the shares is available to the public, and a company in which all the shares are registered and the public can inspect the register. I should have thought it was essentially a private matter how the shares were distributed. We are not objecting in any way—indeed we could not object—to the actual amount of the capital being disclosed, including the paid-up capital, but the way in which it is distributed seems to be a different matter, and that is why I made this distinction.
I do not pretend that my Amendment is perfect, but I put it down in order to draw attention to this point. Having done so, if the noble Lord, Lord Brown, does not want to give a full explanation tonight we shall understand and perhaps I could put down an Amendment on the next occasion, but I will leave it to him now to say whether he would prefer me to do that, or whether lie is able briefly to give an answer to the point.
7.26 p.m.
LORD BROWN: I am quite happy about giving the answer to-night. I was hoping the Amendment would be withdrawn in view of the fact that we have gone some way towards meeting it by indicating that we propose to increase the charges. We are really dealing with something which might be described as a clash of philosophies over this matter. The
1920
noble Lords on the opposite Benches are using the words "private company" to denote both companies whose shares are not transferrable and also undertakings carried on by individual persons, and it is nobody's business what they do. The clash of philosophy I think arises from the fact that on this side of the Committee we do not think we can really regard businesses—and in particular many of the major businesses which are, in the noble Lord's sense of the word "private"—as private affairs. They are part of the economy; they use labour, they use resources, they use services; they are responsible for exporting and they are not really "private" in the ordinary sense of that word. To limit the right of knowing a great deal about these companies to those who are shareholders would, in our opinion, be wrong in principle.
This is one of the reasons why we have sought to create one class of limited company. We are opposed to exempting substantial companies which happen to be private in the limited sense of the word "private" from disclosure of their affairs to the public; and although we do not want to expose them too much to the person who merely wants to be a nuisance, we think that a member of the public should have this right.
I want to make a comment on the proposal that there should be differential charges: one charge to members of the company for copies of the register and perhaps a higher one to members of the public. I think that would complicate the matter and if we introduced substantially higher charges it would limit the use to which this could be put responsibly. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn in the light of our attempt to concede at least part of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord thinks that this information should be available to the public. For what purpose? I can see that information about the shares of a public company where the shares are widely held is of importance and interest to the general public, but the case we have in mind is possibly that of the local garage. What profits it any man to know who holds the shares and in what proportion? It is of no interest to the creditor because it is a limited liability company. He has no recourse to the shareholder. Nothing but simple curiosity

1921
would be satisfied, and I feel there would be a great deal of intrusion into privacy.
LORD DRUMALBYNI am sorry to have to return to this subject. I am left wondering where this argument really ends. One can understand that where a great factory or great enterprise is involved the public has an interest in knowing who has the say in the decisions that are made. The argument that the noble Lord has put forward is that here the resources of the nation are being used, resources of manpower, material resources, and so forth, and therefore this is a matter of public interest. Surely the same could be argued of bank accounts. The money one puts in there is used by the banks and used presumably for financing this and that in the national interest, and before very long you get to the disclosure of bank accounts as well. Where are we going to stop? Is there to be no privacy at all?
I do not propose to pursue this argument. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has in saying he will meet this more general point, which really is a matter of pure cost. It seemed to me wrong that a company should be put to a loss in providing this information, and therefore it seemed to me sensible the charge should come nearer the cost of providing the information. It was not a question so much of stopping people from getting the information; it was of imposing on the person asking for the information the duty of paying something more like the appropriate cost. But this is quite a different matter from the major question of principle involved here. I do not propose to pursue it any further, but I think it is a matter we may revert to at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question: Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Lord give a little explanation of subsection (9)? Its meaning is rather peculiar. As he is well aware, at many company meetings where there has been adequate profit and a dividend has been paid a skilful chairman can dispose of the business of the meeting in a very few minutes. This suggests that if there were
1922
by chance a shareholder who wished to have information, which he is rightly entitled to have, he is able to get that only "during the continuance of the meeting". It would seem logical that the wording should suggest that a certain period, however few minutes, after that would be available for any shareholder who wished for information. The wording appears to give the opportunity for a company which wished to suppress information to withdraw the facilities which the subsection is aimed to give.
LORD BROWN: I think the matter is covered already in the present Act. If questions are asked at a general meeting about directors' shareholdings or share dealings it is useful if the register is at the meeting and accessible to anybody who wants to consult it. Provision to that effect is made in Section 195(7) of the present Act and it is repeated in this subsection.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Obligation of persons to notify company of acquisition, changes in amounts of, and disposal of shares in the company carrying unrestricted voting rights]:
LORD BROWN: This is a drafting Amendment to correct an accidental omission; it makes no change of substance whatever. Clause 27 contains rules for determining the meaning to be given to references to a person's being interested in shares for the purposes of Clause 26. Clause 27(7), (9) and (10) state that certain interests are to be disregarded. Clause 29(4) was to apply the rules in Clause 27 to Clause 29, which itself requires the disclosure of substantial interests in the voting shares of quoted companies, subject to the interests set out in Clause 27(7), (9) and (10) being disregarded. The reference to Clause 27(7) was accidentally omitted, and it is inserted by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 35, after ("subsections") insert ("(7)").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD BROWN: This again is a purely drafting Amendment to remove an incorrect reference to debentures in Clause 29(4)(c), and makes no change of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 2, leave out ("or debentures").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD BROWN: This is another drafting Amendment to clarify Clause 29(7), and makes no change of substance whatever. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("director" insert ("of the company").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Whether Clause 29, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I should like to ask a question on this clause, the purpose of which seems to be to warn a company if somebody acquires 10 per cent. of its shares, presumably for the purpose of going on and taking over the company. What is the philosophy behind protecting the managers from someone who goes to the market and uses the market in the perfectly normal way to buy shares in a company which he considers—I am assuming he is a man who wants to take it over—he could run better if he were in charge? Why should inefficient managers be protected against somebody doing that? That is my first question.
Assuming that the noble Lord can satisfy me that it is important that anybody who buys 10 per cent. of the shares in a company must declare that interest, I consider the clause is very badly drafted. All the man has to do is to buy 9 per cent. of the shares for himself, 9 per cent, for his wife, and 9 per cent. for say, his brother, or anybody else. He can easily get control of the company in exactly the way he does now. What is the point of limiting it to 10 per cent. and limiting it to one man? It seems to me that we need a little explanation of what the noble Lord himself called his philosophy in regard to this clause.
LORD BROWN: There is a long history of attempts, starting I think with the Cohen Committee, though it may have been earlier, to deal with the situation created by the convenience of nominee holdings, and the other side of that penny: the disadvantage that some people using nominee holdings and other forms of anonymity can get into significant positions in companies without its
1924
being known. The object of disclosure of 10 per cent. holdings is not to protect the company from take-over bids and so on; it is to disclose. It may indeed help those who wish to take over a company which is inefficient to do so. It cuts equally both ways. It discloses information.
I am not going to pretend that the clause is ideal. But, of course, there are difficulties in dealing with the situation where one wants at the same time the convenience of nominee shareholdings and the right of the individual not to have to declare the totality of all his shareholding, on the one hand, and the secrecy which would allow some people to operate in a way in which we should not wish them to operate (and I stress that) and to obtain a situation from which they could manipulate the affairs of the company. These two things clash, and the clause is an attempt to force disclosure by those who are getting into the power positions among shareholders in companies. I think it would be proper to say that consideration is now being given to the possibility of including within the clause spouses and children, to try to close the gap to which the noble Viscount has referred. But the philisophy behind this is simply that of trying to overcome some of the unfortunate effects of a convenient procedure with nominee shareholders and other types of anonymous shareholders. We are, so to speak, dealing with two requirements which clash somewhat.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am sorry, but I still cannot see what is wrong in somebody acquiring shares in a company through the market. A market is there for the purpose of allowing people to buy what is on offer. Why should purchasers then have to put it in their own names? I think it is going to protect the manager who would otherwise find—and perhaps a good thing, too!—that somebody with greater initiative is able to turn him out. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord that it cuts both ways. I think it will cut one way only.
LORD BROWN: I do not really understand the point the noble Viscount is making. Nobody suggests for a moment that there is anything improper in people buying shares in a company on the market. That is what puzzles me somewhat.

1925
I cannot see how disclosure of information is going to be a protection for anybody. I do not follow the argument that, because one discloses the ownership of 10 per cent., and over, of the shares of a particular class in the company, one is thereby protecting the managers of the company. It seems to me that, by disclosing who holds the key among the shareholders, one might equally be making it easier for somebody who wishes to bid for these shares to approach the persons who hold the percentages and make their offer. I do not want to argue that it is easier; I am merely balancing the noble Viscount's argument by saying that it seems quite obviously to cut both ways, and to say that it prejudices the thing in one direction or the other does not ring a bell with me at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask one simple question here? Does the expression "person" in subsection (1) include the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation?
LORD BROWN: I should require notice of that question. I will try to give the noble Lord an answer as soon as possible.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Limited companies may be re-registered as unlimited]:
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I ask one small question here? Clause 31 concerns limited companies which may be reregistered as unlimited, and subsection (3)(a) says—
"The documents referred to…are—
(a) the prescribed form of assent to the company's being registered as unlimited subscribed by or on behalf of all the members of the company."
I am a little concerned about the words "or on behalf of". As I mentioned on Second Reading, it seems to me extremely important that everybody concerned, all the shareholders, should know of this intention to change and to re-register a company as unlimited, because in that
1926
event each of them will be incurring unlimited liability, and one would want to be certain that "on behalf of" means that they have given their consent, and that it is with their authority that the application is being made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): I entirely agree with everything the noble Lord has said. Of course the documents in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) are most important, precisely because the conversion may impose heavy liabilities on individual shareholders. Therefore it is essential to see that either it is "subscribed by…all the members of the company "as individuals, or "on behalf of"—and strictly on behalf of"—by somebody who really is authorised to do so. I will keep the point in mind, but there is no difference of opinion between us.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Unlimited companies may be re-registered as limited]:
7.46 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (2)(b)(ii), after "with respect to the" to insert
"substance and form of the".
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brown. It puts right a pure omission. If a limited company is to become unlimited, or an unlimited company to become limited, its documentation, mainly of course the memorandum of association and the articles, ought to be both in substance and in form as they would have been if the company had started life in that capacity. That is why the Committee may see in Clause 31(2)(a)(i):
"if it is to have a share capital, are requisite to bring it, both in substance and in form, into conformity with the requirements imposed by the principal Act with respect to the substance and form of the memorandum of a company"
and so on. That is repeated twice again in paragraph (b)(i).
Then one comes to Clause 32, which, two lines from the bottom of page 35, reads:
"both in substance and in form, into conformity with the requirements of the principal Act with respect to the substance and form of the memorandum and articles…".

1927
Then, in sub-paragraph (ii) it says:
"if the company is to be limited by shares, provide for the making of such alterations in its memorandum as are requisite to bring it, both in substance and in form, into conformity with the requirements of the principal Act with respect to"—
and then it should say "the substance and form of the memorandum". This has been left out by mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 12, at end insert ("substance and form of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Exemption, in certain cases, of unlimited companies from requirements of section 127 of the principal Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: On a point of order, are we not inserting six stars after Clause 33?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): That indicates that the Amendment has gone.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Exemption from obligation to print certain resolutions and agreements]:
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is a small point on this clause. It says:
"no company need forward to the registrar of companies a printed copy of a resolution or agreement to which that section applies, if instead it forwards a copy in some other form approved by the registrar."
May I ask what the words "approved by the registrar" mean? Do they mean a particular or a general approval? And how will the registrar signify his approval? Is it in each particular case, or is it a general approval?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, it is the practice of the Registrar to accept documents reproduced by electrostatic photography such as the Rank Xerox process which he
1928
regards as printing. There are some other processes—for example, spirit duplicating—which he is prepared to accept from exempt private companies under Section 143. Some amendment to Section 143 is in any event necessary, since the proviso would cease to have any meaning with the abolition of the status of exempt private company. Clause 36, in effect, allows all companies, not merely those which were formerly exempt private companies, to forward to the Registrar copies of resolutions or agreements reproduced otherwise than by printing provided that the form of reproduction is acceptable to the Registrar.
The clause is consistent with paragraphs 493 and 495(j) of the Jenkins Report which deal generally with the form of documents delivered to the Registrar. Paragraph 493 points out that the form in which, under the Act of 1948, documents must be delivered to the Registrar varies, and suggests that there should be substituted for separate and inconsistent rules one uniform rule requiring all documents delivered to the Registrar to be legible and durable but not necessarily printed. The need to limit the size of the Bill is the reason for not giving effect to the whole of the Jenkins recommendation about the reproduction of documents. In substance, the Registrar will accept whatever is legible and durable. We live in times when methods of reproduction are changing fairly often.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I take it from what he says that the Registrar will not, in fact, publish indications of the forms which he is prepared to accept, but that so long as a document is legible he will accept it.
TIIE LORD CHANCELLOR: So long as it is legible and durable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Exemptions from prohibition imposed by Section 434 of the principal Act of formation of partnerships with more than twenty members]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: We welcome this clause, but there is a small point which arises on it relating to the stating of business names. As the law now stands, as I understand it, the names of all the partners have to be shown on the letterhead. I believe that this requirement is frequently not complied with, but it seems to be the law. If one is going to have many more than twenty partners, one is going to have them strung right down one side of the notepaper. I was wondering if the Government have considered the effect in this small way of this clause on the law and practice in this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I know, this point has not received consideration. It has always been thought to be important that the names should be there, unless they are trading under some other name, following the provisions of the Business Names Act. One is familiar, in the case of American partnerships, with all the names, however many there are, usually being shown on the notepaper. But I will certainly see that the point is borne in mind.
Clause 37 agreed to.
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of registration of companies by undersirable names
". For section 17 of the principal Act (which prohibits the registration of companies by undesirable names) there shall be substituted the following section:—
'17.—(1) No company shall be registered by a name which in the opinion of the Board of Trade is likely to mislead the public as to the nature of the goods or services offered or is in any other respect undesirable.
(2) Where a company is registered with a name which is subsequently used in a manner which in the opinion of the Board of Trade is likely to mislead the public, the Board of Trade may direct that such a company discontinues use of such a name forthwith and on failure to comply with this direction the company shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the default continues.'"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 41, but before I do so I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there are three Amendments put down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and myself.
1930
I should not like it to be thought that he has joined me, or I have joined him. We are as your Lordships know, members of the Consumer Council, and it is for that reason that these Amendments have been put down. I shall move the first one and Lord Peddie will move the other two.
In introducing Amendment No. 41A. I should like to make one or two comments about all three Amendments. We believe that there is a common purpose in them all. British Company Law has never made it a prime concern to safeguard the interests of the consuming public, and the ancestry of the Companies Acts has been the need to protect the interests of investors and of traders one in relation to another. Yet recent events have emphasised a longstanding need to protect consumers of goods and users of services within the framework of company legislation. I am referring not only to the recent failures of insurance companies, but also to those public and private companies which go into liquidation leaving consumers with defective goods or goods which carry an obligation for maintenance by the manufacturer; or companies providing services who are no longer able to fulfil their obligations for uncompleted contracts.
While the Companies Acts give shareholders and creditors the machinery of investigation and the right to claim benefits on liquidation, the consumer is left without spares for his refrigerator, without servicing arrangements for which he has paid and with a commodity which for these reasons is much reduced in value as an asset. In the field of providers of services, such as the installers of central heating, house improvement contractors and decorators, there is no remedy for defective work done by a company in liquidation—it is a company made of straw. It is for these reasons that the consumer should be given a much stronger position in company legislation, and those consumer bodies who are now recognised as a force in the land should be given wider and better facilities to institute the investigations of companies and company directors.
Section 17 of the present Companies Act gives the Board of Trade very wide powers to refuse a company permission to use an undesirable name. Despite

1931
these powers, many companies are registered and operate with names which are misleading. In this Amendment I seek to spell out the criteria that should be used by the Board of Trade in deciding whether or not to permit a name. It may not be generally recognised that possession of a pretentious or otherwise misleading name may be a valuable asset to a dishonest company and that an imposing title can be used as an instrument of deception or fraud. The value of a misleading title is too well recognised by the dishonest trader. An example of the kind of thing that can mislead the public is the institution known as the National College of Health Limited which is not in fact a recognised teaching establishment but a commercial institution offering postal medical diagnoses of certain serious conditions. There are many other misleading company names and business names. It is to be hoped that in deciding whether or not to permit an imposing title the Registrar would apply the same standards to businesses not covered by companies legislation as he applied to companies which come within the Companies Acts.
In this Amendment we suggest that the Board should be given power to withdraw a title when this is being used as an instrument of deception. An example of this is the organisation which calls itself Purchaser Advice Bureau; this organisation provides no competent advice service to purchasers but uses its high-sounding name to obtain subscriptions in a dishonest way from traders. When evidence of this sort comes to the notice of the Board of Trade they should be able to order that the title be discontinued. The Board of Trade explained their policy in relation to Section 17 of the Companies Act to the Jenkins Committee in terms which indicated that they had considerable sympathy with the views I express here. There is a reference here to paragraph 448 of the Jenkins Report. I know that the Amendment we propose would strengthen the Board of Trade's position vis-à-vis the dishonest trader. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may he for the convenience of the Committee if we
1932
also discuss the next Amendment, which stands in my name. I find myself in considerable sympathy with the noble Lady's Amendment, but frankly I prefer my own, which covers very much the same point. This stems from a Jenkins recommendation in paragraph 456(a) which says that
"the Board of Trade should be empowered to direct a company to change its name at any time if the name has become misleading in such a manner that it is likely to cause harm to the public. There should be a right of appeal to the Court."
My Amendment seeks to provide that right of appeal, which I personally think is important. It may be that the drafting of my Amendment is not consistent with a right of appeal, but in that case I think the Amendment should be redrafted to provide for such an appeal.
For example, if the obligation was laid on the Board of Trade to notify the company of the respect in which the name has become misleading or gives a false or misleading indication of the activities of the company or the nature of the goods or services offered, it would then be an appealable ground. So a company which received a direction to discontinue its name on these grounds would be able to appeal against the grounds given. One of the reasons why I prefer my own Amendment is that I designed it to fit in more closely with the Consumer Protection Bill which we hope to see again before very long.
There are really two points here. First of all, there is the type of case to which the noble Lady was referring, where a company has taken a name and used it in a misleading fashion. I am not quite certain whether or not some of the organisations to which she was referring were companies. Some of them seemed to me to have been business names, and of course they would not be caught, so far as I can see, by either of our Amendments, which deal merely with company names.
The other side of it is the case of a company which registers a name, when I would suggest the use of the name is not so much a matter to be called in question. My noble friend's Amendment refers to:
"a company…registered with a name which is subsequently used in a manner which in the opinion of the Board of Trade is likely to mislead the public".

1933
It would seem to me that it was more the relationship between the name and the activities of the organisation which had to be examined, and in that way I think my Amendment would be preferable. An Amendment along these lines would be desirable, and of course it is a fact that this is one of the improvements which was recommended by Jenkins. I quite appreciate that such an Amendment would not cover all the Jenkins recommendations, because we are not able to deal with the business names aspect. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we should go as far as we can. I would commend the idea and initiative of my noble friend, and hope that the Government will be able to do something along these lines.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Section 17 of the principal Act states that
"No company shall be registered by a name which in the opinion of the Board of Trade is undesirable."
The word "undesirable" is used in the widest possible context. The Board of Trade explained in their evidence to the Jenkins Committee that, in general, they considered a name to be undesirable on any one of five grounds—namely, one, falsely suggestive of Royal patronage or connection with the Government or with a local authority; two, falsely suggestive of connection with foreign Governments, three, pretentious or otherwise falsely indicative of the nature of the company; four, calculated to lead to confusion by being identical with a registered trademark which is not the property of the company; five, calculated to lead to confusion by resembling too closely the name of an existing company.
The first subsection of the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness would give the Board of Trade the same power as they have at present, but would mention specifically one, and only one, of the grounds on which the Board of Trade might form the opinion that a name is undesirable. In the Government's view, therefore, the proposed change is unnecessary and seems to them undesirable as it would give undue prominence to the particular ground mentioned.
Under Section 18(2) of the principal Act, the Board of Trade have a limited power to direct a company to change the name by which it is registered. The
1934
direction must be made within six months of the date on which the company was registered in the name it is required to change. The ground of the change must be that the name is too like that of another company which was registered before the company whose name is to be changed was registered.
Subsection (2) of the new clause would give the Board of Trade a new power: that of directing at any time that a company should forthwith cease to use its name, on the ground that it is using it in a manner likely to mislead the public. But the subsection in the terms proposed would be unworkable, because a company cannot be left without a name which it can use. It is true that the alterations in the subsequent Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, go rather further. But as to both there is, of course, the additional point that the whole question of names is one which my right honourable friend proposes to have considered in the second Bill. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like me to address myself to his further Amendment at this stage or to leave it until it is called.
Loan DRUMALBYN: I suggest it is dealt with now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, the same argument applies to both. This is a subject matter which is not covered at all by the present Bill, and the Minister proposes to consider and to deal with the whole question of names when we come to the second Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said, but it seems to me that it would be desirable to deal with this matter in this Bill. Of course, the difficulty about knowing whether a name is desirable or undesirable when it is registered is that the Memorandum goes exceedingly wide, and at the time of registration it is not known exactly what a company is going to do. It may do one of a great many things, but if the name which has been chosen proves to have been chosen with the object of misleading it would be right to direct that the name be changed as soon as that is discovered.
As to whether it is desirable to wait for further legislation, one never knows when opportunities for legislating on Company Law may arise. I think it is

1935
eighteen or nineteen years since we had the last Companies Bill, which came nineteen years after the previous one. It seems to me that where a matter does not appear to present any great difficulty and does not involve any consequential amendments in other legislation, such as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, referred to on an earlier Amendment in connection with no par value shares, it might well be desirable to amend the Bill if the Amendment can be relatively easily framed. If we could deal with this matter now, I should have thought it better to do so. I know the noble and learned Lord did not want to waste the time of the Committee by going into detail on my Amendment. But I should have thought that the prospect of more company legislation was not sufficiently imminent to lead us to attach very great weight to the argument which he adduced.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his answer to me. I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, since the noble and learned Lord has pointed out that mine falls short in one or two ways, whereas the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is better. I should like to put in a plea to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for an Amendment on these lines, because, like him, I believe that a bird in the hand is better than waiting for several years for another in the bush.
I think this is an important matter affecting a lot of people. We are continually hearing of names which mislead the public, and although the Board of Trade has five grounds for action under the existing Act, these Amendments contain one or two points which are not covered. I would beg the noble and learned Lord, if he can, to look at this again to see whether or not something can be done to protect the consumer on this particular matter, which is quite an urgent one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Application for investigation of company's affairs.
". For subsection (1) of section 164 of the principal Act (which provides for the inves-
1936
tigation of a company's affairs on the application of its members to the Board of Trade) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'164.—(1) The Board of Trade may appoint one or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such a manner as the Board direct—

(a) in the case of a company having share capital—

(i) on the application either of not less than two hundred members or of members holding not less than one-tenth of the shares issued;

(ii) on application by a member or members of the public whose interests are materially affected by the activities of that company or by the Consumer Council or by any body representing the interests of consumers or users of goods or services supplied by that company;

(b) in the case of a company not having a share capital—

(i) on the application of not less than one-fifth in number of the persons on the company's register of members;

(ii) on application by a member or members of the public whose interests are materially affected by the activities of that company or by the Consumer Council or by any body representing the interests of consumers or users of goods or services supplied by that company.'"

The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and myself. It seeks to extend the power of the Board of Trade to appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company so that consumers as well as shareholders may apply for an investigation under Section 164. I have already, I think, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, outlined the damage that can be sustained by consumers when a company gets into difficulties. All your Lordships will be aware of the case of two years ago when the Rolls Razor Company collapsed and left a large number of households with completely useless service agreements for washing machines. The owners of those which developed defects found considerable difficulty in obtaining spare parts.
I want to point out that this does not apply merely to large-scale public companies, but applies equally to private companies in the consumer field. It is true that the abolition of exempt private companies will increase the safeguards in this respect; but, quite frankly, it is not enough. Time and time again the Consumer Council has had knowledge of

1937
impending liquidations in the case of private companies but has had no real means of starting timely investigations to protect consumers. Some of these crashes have certainly been the result of normal commercial hazards which every company has to face, but far too many have been caused by an intention deliberately to perpetrate short-term and lucrative frauds. It is for this reason that I feel certain that the consumer should have the same rights to apply to the Board of Trade—and I emphasise the words, "to apply to the Board of Trade"—for an investigation as those who have a direct financial interest in the company. In pressing this Amendment, we feel that it will give certain rights to the consumer which are in the best interests of all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Peddie.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think there is a good deal to be said for this approach, for the reason that those who have, let us say, purchased some goods, some consumer durables, or something of that kind, are not themselves organised. They are not in a position to bring an action, or to take proceedings in any form; and, generally, the value of the goods they have acquired is not enough to warrant their taking action individually. Therefore, the Jenkins comment that it is open to a consumer to defend himself in this way is perhaps not appropriate.
I am not sure whether this Amendment is drafted in a form that the Government will be prepared to accept, although I think the idea should commend itself to the Government. Perhaps something along the lines of
"an application by a body which appears to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of a substantial number of consumers or users of goods or services supplied by that company"
might meet the case. Certainly the Consumer Council has been set up purposely to make representations to the Government on any lines which may reflect the interests of consumers, and I should not have thought that this could be considered to be outside the scope of its remit. I think that the words I have suggested would bring in at any rate the Consumer Council, and might also bring in other bodies. I do not think it necessary to be precise about it, but certainly
1938
one would want a definition that would include the Consumer Council.
8.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether your Lordships' Committee appreciate that this Amendment simply repeats the whole of the existing version of Section 164(1) of the principal Act, with the addition of paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b)(ii), which state that the Board of Trade may appoint inspectors
"on application by a member or members of the public whose interests are materially affected by the activities of that company, or by the Consumer Council",
and so on. Section 165(b) of the Act states that the Board of Trade may appoint inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company
"if it appears to the Board that there are circumstances suggesting…that its business is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors or the creditors of any other person or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a manner oppressive of any part of its members or that it was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose;…"
The Act as it stands, therefore, enables the Board of Trade to appoint inspectors if they are satisfied that the circumstances mentioned in Section 165(b) exist, and they might be so satisfied after considering information sent to them by a member or members of the public, by the Consumer Council or by a body representing the interests of consumers. In the Government's view, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary unless it be held that Section 164, which makes no mention of circumstances suggesting fraud or the carrying on of business for an unlawful purpose, permits an appointment on a ground which is not covered by the purposes mentioned in Section 165. It should be noted that subsection (2) of Section 164 states:
"The application shall be supported by such evidence as the Board of Trade may require for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for requiring the investigation…"
I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment, because it is unnecessary, since any application which the Consumer Council might make successfully under the proposed new clause they can make already, under Section 165(b) of the principal Act.
I should add that here again, of course, this whole question of investigation was

1939
one intended to be covered by the second Bill. I appreciate what has been said about a bird in hand, and I know the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the Government in relation to other clauses—about not wanting to accept an Amendment because it goes outside the scope of this Bill, and had been reserved for the second Bill. But noble Lords opposite have had great political experience, and they know the political facts of life. It must have been, I suppose, when they came back in 1951 that they had a great deal more to do than could be done, obviously, in the first Session; and all Governments have this difficulty of choice, and of deciding what they regard as of priority. Perhaps I may explain this point a little further, because I said on Second Reading that the Government would welcome any Amendments which were designed to improve the existing Bill but not, I hoped, to extend it. I was taken to task by one or two of your Lordships for saying that, and therefore perhaps the Committee will forgive me if, even at this hour, I explain what I had in mind.
When the Government came back to power in 1964, they had rents and housing Bill but not, I hoped, to extend it. I but even then they managed to include a consumer protection Bill, which we had all wanted, and a company law reform Bill with some 45 clauses. Then, as your Lordships know, in March there was, if I remember rightly, a rather small majority, and it was thought that it might be more satisfactory, having seen what a Labour Government were like for eighteen months, that the country should say whether it wanted them to go on or whether it wanted a return to a Conservative Government.
Then, again, in April the Government had the same problem to consider. Although this was to be a rather longer Session than usual, there was still this very difficult question of priority. For obvious reasons, the setting up of the Land Commission was politically a "must"; and, while I should not mention four-letter words in your Lordships' Committee, I suppose I may properly mention five-letter words, and one of them is "steel". Again, for a good many reasons, including the fact that this major industry
1940
must know what its future is to be, that obviously had to be taken in the first year. These are two major Bills.
But, as noble Lords may remember, owing to the Recesses, the Saturdays and Sundays, there are only 160 Parliamentary days in the year; and, of course, the pressure is not here but in the House of Commons. Six days have to be given to the Debate on the Address; that leaves 154. The Finance Bill and the Budget take up 16 days; that leaves 138. All Governments have to allow from 25 to 30 days for contingencies. Things are always happening which necessitate Bills which are not foreseen; and I have put down 27 days for this because I have ascertained that in no year during the last eight years have contingencies ever occupied less than 25 days. That reduces the Government's days for legislation to 111. There are 26 days to which Private Members are entitled; that reduces the number of Government days to 85. But the Supply and Consolidated Fund, the days when the Opposition take over Parliament, amount to 32; thus it is that in the ordinary session there are only 53 days which the Government have to get all their legislation through.
This time, apart from the Land Commission Bill and the Steel Bill, there are considerations affecting a number of Bills. The Parliamentary Commissioner was mentioned in the Queen's Speech as long ago as October, 1964; that matter could not be left over again. With crime as it is, the time had arrived for a major Criminal Justice Bill. Then the economic position was not the strongest that the country has ever been in; and there were essential measures dealing with that: Building Control, Industrial Development, and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. Then there was the Ministry of Social Security and, of course, the Finance Act and Export Guarantees and many others. There are also the ones that cannot be avoided; they may not be long but all have to be allowed for: Guyana Independence, Singapore, Malawi, the Lesotho Independence Bill, the Botswana Independence Bill. Then, with the increased activity of certain bodies, they needed more capital; they cannot be allowed to run out of money. The New Towns Bill was simply a question of more money, the Public Works Loans Bill, Post

1941
Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, the Films Bill. There were others from which you cannot escape: the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and the whole of the redevelopment of New Street Station in Birmingham would have come to a standstill without the Post Office Subway Bill.
In a Session of this kind it was impossible, unfortunately, to include a Bill either for consumer protection or for Company Law reform. Of course, if a Minister is prepared to start a Bill in the House of Lords—it still has to go through the Commons—this is, perhaps, something of a help. Here was a Minister who was prepared to start his Bill in your Lordships' House. But something had happened meanwhile. What used to be a Bill of 45 clauses now became a Bill of 87 clauses—quite impossible in this Session's programme, it might be said, to allow for a Bill of this size. Surely, when one bears these things in mind, one can understand a Government's saying, in effect, "Well, if you are prepared to start it in the House of Lords, on the clear understanding that it is not going to build up to anything more than 87 sections, we could just take it."
It would be unfortunate—would it not?—for all of us who are concerned for law reform (and, apart from directors' remunerations and political contributions, this is all lawyers' law reform; there is nothing Party political in it) if so much were added to the Bill in this House that the Government might have to consider whether or not they could carry it on any further. We want to encourage Ministers to start Bills in this House. So there are really two perfectly good common-sense reasons for the Government's saying: "Oh, that is going to be in the second Bill." The first is that there is only a limited amount, after all, which any Minister or Department can do; and, while the Board of Trade always has a very wide sphere of activity, in view of the events of the last two years it has had enormously more placed on its plate than ever before. It has had to see the whole of the distribution of industry, the local employment Acts, the Industrial Development Act, the establishment of the Cotton Industry Development Council, the recent acquisition of all responsibilities previously exercised by the
1942
Minister of Civil Aviation, B.E.A.., B.O.A.C., the Films Bill, the Hire-Purchase Acts, monopolies and restrictive practices, company fraud, a considerable share of the work caused by the Prices and Incomes Bill, Import Surcharge, GATT, EFTA, relations with the British National Export Council, the Queen's Award for Industry, and so on. Exports, after all, are a success story. I am sure that my right honourable friend would not wish to suggest that it is all due to him. Primarily it is due to the way in which British manufacturers and exporters have tackled the problem. I venture to suggest that those concerned with exports and industry have never been so much helped as by this Government—and with all this my right honourable friend and his Department have had to cope. On company law reform, he had already, by the introduction of the first Bill in February, covered a great many of the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee and, in substance, all the disclosure ones. Since then, he has gone further and has added a very large number of things which, of course, were not in the first Bill. That is why this Bill is about double the size of the first Bill.
The second reason is that there is always a limit to what a Government can allow for what. Whatever Government arc in power, there are complaints from all quarters of this House that not enough Bills are started in this House. This, I apprehend, is because most Ministers are in another place and every Minister likes to introduce his own Bills in his own place. In the case of a Labour Government, I suppose that they may be rather more reluctant to start a Bill in a Chamber where they have no majority; but I suggest that we ought to encourage them to do so. We do not want Ministers to say, "I am not going to start my Bill in the Lords. Look what they did to the Company Law Bill".
For all these reasons it is, I suggest, sensible—and I hope ultimately your Lordships will take that view—to point out that the Minister has every intention in the lifetime of this Parliament of having a second Company Law Bill. I know that he is most anxious to do so; but I hope we shall not so treat this Bill by expanding it. After all, a thing like the shares of no par value is a major

1943
thing. If we so expand it, the Government may have to reconsider whether, after all, they can go further with the Bill beyond this House. That is an additional reason why I feel that this Amendment cannot be accepted.
LORD PEDDIE: I must thank my noble and learned friend for that exceedingly detailed reply; but I am at a loss to understand whether it was the second part which was the basis for non-acceptance of my Amendment or whether it was the first part, which related more closely to the Amendment itself. Do I understand from the comments made by my noble and learned friend that under existing legislation bodies such as the Consumer Council would have full right, and indeed responsibility, to make representations to the Board of Trade for the purpose of setting up such an investigation? If that be so, if the answer be Yes—and I assume it is—I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is conditional. Will the noble and learned Lord answer?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I make one further point? One recognises the general point about introducing Bills in this House. We certainly want to see them introduced here, and we do not want to take action which will have the effect in future of discouraging the Government from introducing Bills in this House. At the same time, may I suggest that we should have a little sense of proportion in this matter? If there are already 87 clauses in a Bill, it would not seem to matter very much whether the number is increased to 90 or so. I think it would be extremely discouraging to your Lordships if we were to be told that the sole condition on which Bills were introduced here was that we should not be allowed to make helpful suggestions for further provisions in them. I hope that that is not what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor meant.
So far as another place is concerned, I should not have thought that it would make very much difference there whether
1944
they received a Bill containing 87 or 90 clauses. As for the question of introducing a Bill in another place, had it been introduced there I have no doubt that we should also have wanted to expand the contents of the Bill and so I do not think it makes any difference either way. I quite see that there are always limits to these things. On the other hand, I hope that the Government will not seek to restrict too closely what can go into the Bill. So long as a reasonable sense of proportion is kept in this matter I hope that we shall all be satisfied. In this case it is true that the Jenkins Committee recommended that Clauses 164 and 165 should be merged into one and be redrafted. This is not what this Amendment seeks to do, and indeed we shall be quite content to await the next Companies Bill to see that redrafting, especially as in any case I understand that Section 165(b) is the section of the 1948 Act under which the Board of Trade normally proceeds in investigations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.33 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 188 of principal Act
".Section 188(1) of the Principal Act (which provides for the restraint of fraudulent persons from managing companies) shall be amended by the insertion, after sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b), of the following sub-paragraph:—
'(iii) has shown himself, when acting as a director of any company or when otherwise concerned in their management, to have acted in an improper, reckless or incompetent manner in relation to the company's affairs'."
The noble Lord said: I hope, in the light of the comments made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that this Amendment will be considered as being a reasonable one which would add to the strength of the Bill. Section 188 of the principal Act deals with the power to restrain fraudulent persons from managing companies, and where a director has been guilty of fraud against the creditors of his company, or where he has been guilty of any fraud in relation to the company, the court may disqualify him from holding company directorships for five years. Noble Lords will certainly have noted that the kind of fraud envisaged here is fraud against the company, or the shareholders, or the creditors. Nothing is said of the damage

1945
done to consumers unable to formulate such a claim.
It is interesting to note that the Report of the Jenkins Committee recommended, in paragraph 85(b), that such extension should be made, and this Amendment is based upon that recommendation. This extension to the power of the court to disqualify should now be made, an extension which will incorporate the consumers' claims.
The Consumer Council, to which I have already referred, has a considerable list of individuals who involve themselves in short-term private companies and operate with fundamental fraudulent intentions. When one company go broke they may escape with complete impunity and then spring up again on the board of a new concern, or perhaps under the guise of the name of a "shell" company which they have purchased. The abolition of exempt private companies will certainly go some way towards keeping tabs on these people but, in my opinion, not far enough. The Consumer Council has had a number of instances where a fraudulent intention preceded liquidation, but they found that both the Board of Trade and the appropriate Fraud Squad were quite unable to act until it was too late.
An extreme example of this type of thing was the franchise racket operated by a man calling himself Mr. Holland—he had other names, too—who was active in the affairs of more than twenty companies, selling rights in respect of non-existent coin-dispensing machines and launderette washing machines. The Consumer Council knew of the impending liquidation months before it happened, but were unable to persuade the authorities to take any action. We feel that this Amendment will deal with this situation and we hope that the Government feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Peddie.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In order to save the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from being ruled out by this Amendment, I will now call it.
8.39 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have suggested that the words in this Amendment to the Amendment be added because there were in the recommendation to paragraph 85(b), to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, referred, three proposals one of which is reflected in the Amendment which he has just moved. I thought it would be worth while to add the other two which equally form part of the recommendation of the Jenkins Committee in this case.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
At end insert the following sub-paragraphs:
("'(iv) has been convicted on indictment of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty whether in connexion with a company or not;
(v) has been persistently in default in complying with the provisions of the Companies Acts 1948 to 1966.'").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As to Amendment No. 41D, I can only repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has already pointed out. There were three recommendations, and the Amendment would cover only one of them. If one is to deal with them at all, it would seem better to deal with all three. The Amendment to Amendment 41D would cover all three, but I am afraid that I can give only the same answer as before. This is part of the matter which my right honourable friend will consider when he comes to his second Bill.
There are other recommendations concerned with the situation arising from fraud and improvidence on the part of directors. There is a recommendation that the power under Section 270 to order the public examination of directors of insolvent companies should be extended, and that the penalties for fraudulent trading provided by Section 332 should apply, whether or not the facts are discovered in the course of winding up; and also a suggestion that Section 333 should provide a summary procedure to deal with actionable negligence by directors. All these proposals in this field were made by the Jenkins Committee, and the subject remains accordingly for consideration in the preparation of the further Bill. In view of

1947
that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will agree to withdraw his Amendment and my noble friend, Lord Peddie, his.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I just say one word? I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and we sympathise very much with the enormous amount of work which he and his colleagues have in their lives at the present time. But I feel a little depressed by the thought that legislation in existence, which the Lord Chancellor has mentioned to us, does not stop the kind of fraud and the kind of bad and wicked things which happen and which get into the Press. One or two have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and there are others which could have been mentioned. If legislation is being passed but does not stop these things, surely it cannot be very good. It may well be that we have to go on putting up with this situation, but when we are producing a Bill which we hope is going to be of great benefit to many people, to allow these loopholes to continue to exist because they apparently cannot be stopped up now is a trifle depressing.
I am not speaking, as the noble and learned Lord will realise, in any Party political spirit, since this is a matter about which both my noble friend Lord Peddie and I are deeply concerned. We hoped that we might have had something in the present Bill which would deal with these matters. Perhaps in the next Session or in the Session after we shall have another Bill and we shall welcome it, but meantime Rolls Razors and others will go on just the same and it is apparently not possible to stop them. I should have thought that this was a matter of some urgency, and in spite of the noble and learned Lord's tour d'horizon, I should have thought it possible to stop up a few of the holes. Otherwise these wretched people will get away with it and we shall continue to have these sad stories which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, as a lawyer, regrets just as much as any of us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In a sense what is being suggested in this Amendment is much along the lines of what is suggested in Clause 28 in regard to insurance com-
1948
panies. If we can legislate now without undue trouble to prevent the public from being defrauded, I should have thought that it would be well to do so. I think this is a more immediate way of protecting the public than the other points to which the noble and learned Lord referred. By the same token, it is one the omission of which would be more likely to attract criticism both here and in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is only part of a number of different recommendations, all in the field of fraud. I appreciate very much what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said, but in relation to this first year I do not think we could have blamed the Government if they had said, "We could have a Company Bill so long as it was restricted to 45 clauses, as was the Bill introduced in February. If there was any chance of its becoming an 80-clause Bill, we simply could not have found the Parliamentary time". They did not do that, but accepted the 80-clause Bill. I am only apprehensive that if we push them too far, they might reconsider whether they have sufficient time to go through with it. From the commonsense point of view, we might do better to leave it as it is.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PEDDIE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Interpretation of Part I, and application of provisions of the principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) A person shall not be deemed to be within the meaning of any provision of this Part of this Act a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act by reason only that the directors of the company act on advice given by him in a professional capacity".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment remedies an omission.

1949
The Companies Act 1948 and the Bill require that for certain purposes—for example, under Clauses 24(2), 26(11) and 28(12)—a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act shall be deemed to be a director even though he does not himself hold the office of director. Section 455(2) of the Companies Act 1948 makes an exception for those, like solicitors and accountants, who are giving purely professional advice to the directors on which they are accustomed to act. A similar exception should have been made in the Bill but was omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: We very much welcome this Amendment. It is not quite true to say that it was omitted entirely from the Bill, because it appears in Part Il dealing with insurance. It is now to be applied to Part I. I know that it is
1950
very much welcomed by the professions and I am sure we all agree to it.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Commencement of, and exercise of powers to make regulations under, certain provisions of Part I]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
Loan DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether it would be possible to simplify the drafting of this clause. I myself got caught on this point. I think that the words "both inclusive" are unnecessary and it would be much better not to have them at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May we consider that and perhaps return to it at a later stage of the Bill?
Clause 42 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.