Sitting of 17 February 1966

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

    Livestock Marketing Company, Limited
    Dame Irene Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of his inspectors on the Livestock Marketing Company Limited, inquiries for which were started in 1962, is to be published.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I cannot yet say when it will be possible to publish the report of the inspectors.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the concern about this matter and the fact that it has been such a long time, will the hon. Gentleman say why the report cannot be published, or when it is to be published?
    Mr. Darling: I share the hon. Lady's disquiet about this case. The Board of Trade inspectors produced their report in October 1963. It was then sent to the police, which, of course, precluded publication, and the papers are now being considered by counsel. We are doing our best to speed up the proceedings.

    Industrial Stocks
    Mr. Mawbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the level of industrial stocks at the last available date; what was the level 12 and 24 months previously, respectively; and what is the percentage change over this period.
    Mr. Darling: The book value of manufacturers' stocks at the end of September 1965 was £7,204 million; it was £6,686
    1506
    million at the end of September 1964, and £6,126 million at the end of September 1963. These figures represent increases of 9 per cent. between September 1963 and 1964 and 8 per cent. between September 1964 and 1965.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Mawbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been received by his Department on the effects on industry and commerce of the Corporation Tax.
    Mr. Darling: Formal representations on matters of taxation are made to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but views on various aspects of the Corporation Tax have been put to my Department by representatives of industry and commerce.
    Mr. Mawby: I accept that this is obviously a matter primarily for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but does not the hon. Gentleman realise that a great responsibility is placed upon the President of the Board of Trade and that people in industry ought to know by now at least what the rate will be which they will be charged?
    Mr. Darling: The President of the Board of Trade can hardly announce the Chancellor's rate of Corporation Tax before the Budget.
    Mr. William Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures of 35 and 40 per cent. are being bandied about and, further, that this difference of 5 per cent. means additional taxation to industry of £150 million a year?
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct, but, in any case, the question ought to be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Barnett: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that companies are not misled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite as to the effects of the Corporation Tax, and will he ensure that industry and commerce are made aware that, in so far as they plough back their profits, they will be better off under the new system than under the old?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Kennedy Round
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in the Kennedy Round tarff negotiations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Darling: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of developments since my right hon. Friend made his statement on Thursday, 29th July, 1965.
    Mr. Marten: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the deadline for completion of the negotiations is July of this year? If that is so, are the Government taking any steps to approach the American Government to extend the date?
    Mr. Darling: What we are doing at present is trying to restore the momentum in the negotiations so that the bargaining over the final round can be settled, if possible, this summer. It is necessary that the negotiations should be completed very early in 1967 because that is when the United States' statutory powers concerning the Kennedy Round come to an end.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Now that the problems appear to be solved in the E.E.C., it is not clear that this advance can be taken, and will not all our E.F.T.A. partners be looking to us to force the pace in the negotiations? It is up to the Government to do this.
    Mr. Darling: When the hon. Gentleman sees the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that we are doing precisely that.
    Following is the statement:
    Progress in the Kennedy Round negotiations in the second half of 1965 was affected by the difficulties experienced by the European Economic Community, which prevented the Community from extending its negotiating mandate and, in particular, from joining in submitting an offer of concessions on agricultural products other than cereals.
    Discussions have continued between delegations, bilaterally and in wider groups, on the scope for limiting the exceptions to the proposed linear reductions in tariffs and on problems in certain industrial sectors such as chemicals, steel and textiles. The examination of non-tariff barriers to trade is also continuing.
    The British Government joined in September, 1965, with most other participants in the agricultural negotiations in submitting
    1508
    offers of concessions on agricultural products other than cereals.
    Forty-three other governments, including governments of agricultural exporting countries and developing countries, have now contributed offers to the negotiations. A special group on tropical products has been examining the scope for action in this field in the interests of the developing countries.
    In an effort to restore the momentum of the Kennedy Round, the Director-General of the G.A.T.T. circulated to participating Governments last month a report which identified the numerous points on which decisions will need to be taken by Governments in order to ensure early progress. The British Government are considering the possibilities for taking action as quickly as possible on the recommendations in this report.
    As a country dependent on experts, Britain's interest lies in maintaining the growth of world trade, and in securing reciprocal reductions of trade barriers. The Government consider it particularly important to reduce tariffs reciprocally in Europe, so as to mitigate the discrimination arising from the separate existence of the E.E.C. and E. F.T.A. They will, therefore, continue to do all they can to ensure progress during the spring so that negotiations can pass through their decisive stages during the summer and autumn. They believe that, if all participants show a similar determination, is should be possible to complete the negotiations early in 1967.

    Firms and Industries (Public Ownership and Control)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the firms and industries which have been considered for further public ownership or control in the last six months.
    Mr. Darling: None, Sir.
    Mr. Marten: Will not the powers which the Government hope to take in the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation enable them virtually to nationalise the steel industry, or will they continue with their Bill, as pledged at the General Election?
    Mr. Darling: As pointed out in the debate on the White Paper, the I.R.C. will not be used for the purposes the hon. Gentleman suggests. As for the steel industry, I can only say " Wait and see ". Meanwhile, if the hon. Gentleman has any firms in mind which he thinks would operate better under public ownership, we should be glad to look at his suggestions.
    Mr. Barber: How does the hon. Gentleman square his original Answer with

    1509
    the express statement by the Minister of Technology in the House of Commons when he said that he had come across a number of sections of industry
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to quote at Question Time
    Mr. Barber: The Minister said that he had come across a number of sections of industry which he would like to bring into public ownership—and he was speaking on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. Darling: This Question was directed to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Rose: In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten), would my hon. Friend perhaps look into the drug industry as possibly the first candidate?
    Mr. Darling: That question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

    Consumer Council
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to strengthen and expand the work of the Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Darling: The Council decides for itself what work it will do, within the limits of its grant-in-aid and terms of reference. My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider any proposals it may put to him for extending its work.
    Mr. Evans: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Consumer Council is doing a grand job to protect the consumer? Will he consult the Council to see whether its resources are sufficient to make generally known to the public what it has done to protect the consumer?
    Mr. Darling: We are in constant consultation with the Consumer Council and listen, of course, to all the representations it makes. I agree that the Council, now that it is well established, is doing a very good job.

    Water Charges
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to alleviate the extra cost of main water, due to the provisions of the
    1510
    Finance Act, 1965, which is harming producers of goods and produce for export.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has no powers in this matter.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the Minister of State realise that his Answer will be very disappointing to many farmers and small manufacturers in Suffolk and the rest of the country, because the costs of water—a necessary ingredient—are up by 25 per cent., due entirely to the Finance Act?
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure who is responsible for the question put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would think that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

    Redundant Miners (Scotland)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with Scottish interests regarding the provision of alternative industries in areas affected by coal closures.
    Mr. Darling: In addition to the discussions on this subject which my right hon. Friend held with the Board of Trade Principal Controller for Scotland and representatives of other Departments during his visit to Scotland on the 4th January, I have had discussions with Scottish industrialists, the Scottish T.U.C., Members of Parliament and representatives of the local Authorities of Fife and Lanarkshire county councils about alternative work for miners affected by pit closures.
    Mr. Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is need for special and urgent action here, since Scotland has been singled out for savage treatment through coal mine closures, with only 28 of the 76 pits having a guaranteed future? Has he no definite news for the Scottish miners and clergy representatives who are here to complain about the virtual annihilation of the Scottish coalfields?
    Mr. Darling: I do not think that any of the representatives I spoke to in Scotland would share the hon. Gentleman's views. But, in any case, we intend to carry on with the good work started by the Government. During 1965, as compared with 1964, the rate of unemployment was considerably brought down;

    1511
    we gave approvals for I.D.C.s amounting to 11 million sq.ft. of factory building as compared with 6 million sq.ft. in 1964; we have had a round of advance factories and additional areas of Scotland, including the coal mining districts of Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, have been added to the list of development districts. The new proposals of the White Paper on Investment Incentives will help—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting too long.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh would be well placed to provide additional employment for displaced miners from the Lowlands and the Fife coalfields but for its cruel and unjust exclusion from the scheme for investment incentives?
    Mr. Darling: There is another Question on that subject.

    Manufacturers (Rationalisation Agreements)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide for exemption from the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, of agreements between manufacturers which have as their object the rationalisation of industry with a view to increasing the efficiency of production or the saving of imports.
    Mr. Darling: No, Sir. There is no a priori reason why rationalisation proposals designed to improve the competitive efficiency of industry need involve restrictive agreements.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that even discussions towards these ends can be registerable agreements within the meaning of the Act? Does not this pose an appalling dilemma for industries which genuinely desire to comply with the law when they are encouraged by the National Plan to embark on these negotiations? The hon. Gentleman cannot shuffle off the problem by an Answer of that kind.
    Mr. Darling: When I saw the Question on the Order Paper I thought that the hon. Gentleman was changing the views which he expressed during the passage of the Monopolies and Mergers Act. The industrial economic development
    1512
    councils are discussing this question, among many others, and when representations are made we shall look at them.

    Council of Europe Convention (Patents)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make available in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the memorandum submitted to him by a minority of the Patents Liaison Group, dealing with the changes in the Patents Act, 1949, which would be involved in the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Strasbourg Convention of 1963.
    Sir J. Hobsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now publish as a White Paper or in some other form equally convenient to the public the memorandum of the three members of the Patents Liaison Group setting out their reasons for refusing to sign the report of that group on the effects of 1963 Strasbourg Convention on United Kingdom Patent Law, Command Paper No. 2835, together with the comments thereon of the chairman of the group; and why that memorandum by a minority was not published by him in the White Paper with the report.
    Mr. Darling: As was explained in the Foreword to Command Paper 2835, my right hon. Friend decided not to publish this memorandum with the Report of the Patents Liaison Group since it appeared to deal with matters outside the scope of the original request to the Group and to be concerned in the main with proposals for future action by the Government. He felt that it would be more appropriate for him to consider the memorandum together with other comments arising in connection with the Report. He is, however, very willing to respond to the requests made to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford that the memorandum should now be published, and has arranged for this to be done in the Board of Trade Journal for 25th February. He will at the same time publish the comments on it which the Chairman of the Group made at the time of its submission. Copies of both documents have today been placed in the Library.
    Sir J. Hobson: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that happy, if belated, conclusion?

    Rhodesia
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the loss in revenue to the United Kingdom in a full year by Her Majesty's Government's decision preventing Lloyd's underwriters meeting their liabilities in Rhodesia.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I understand that there has been a loss of business. I cannot estimate what the loss to the United Kingdom might be if it were necessary to maintain the present restrictions for a full year.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very depressing Answer, particularly from a Department which is supposed to encourage exports? I am told that the loss amounts to £1½ million in premiums in Rhodesia, which is undermining the goodwill of Lloyd's Exchange. Is he aware that countries like South Africa intend to keep back part of their premiums as a guarantee against such action in future?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. and gallant Gentleman exaggerates the figure. This is a unique situation. There is a rebellion in Rhodesia. The situation can only be resolved when constitutional government returns to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures of the extent of the default already or of the failure to renew premiums in South Africa because of what has happened in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Mason: I have no figures available now, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will see whether they can be obtained.
    Mr. Derek Page: Does not my hon. Friend agree that infinitely greater loss would result if the Government were to bend to rebellion?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barber: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby)? This is a very serious matter
    1514
    and may have consequences outside the area we are concerned with.
    Mr. Mason: As I indicated, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, West will put down a specific Question I will see if I can get the answer.
    Sir H. Harrison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has given British exporters who have lost, or will lose, their market in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Mason: I would advise them to sell in other export markets. All the services of the Department are at their disposal to help them to do this.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not that a rather flippant Answer? Having by their policy of sanctions at a time of grave economic trouble for Britain thrown away a preferential market of at least £30 million a year, have the Government no useful advice to offer whatever?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is tending to exaggerate. We have received few, if any, requests for advice and have had brought to our notice very few cases of hardship to exporters resulting from the sanctions.
    Mr. Harry Hynd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would not be this difficult situation in Rhodesia if the régime there were not getting so much help from hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Mason: The best way to reduce any loss to British trade is to bring the rebellion to an end as quickly as possible, and this is what the Government's policy of sanctions is intended to do.
    Mr. Barber: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is in order for British exporters to keep in touch with their old customers in the hope of resuming trade after the rebellion is over, or whether this is against the advice of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Mason: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir".

    Hotel and Catering Industry
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the emphasis in the National Plan on the need to give priority to those sectors of industry which can make the greatest contribution to strengthening the balance of payments, what proposals he has for encouraging investment in the hotel and catering industry.
    Mr. Mason: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 31st January to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden).
    Mr. Blaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the President of the Board of Trade gave as the reason for the exclusion of the industry from the system of investment grants the fact that only 10 per cent. of its earnings are in foreign currency? Will he draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the point that the hotel industry is the very heart of the tourist industry as a whole and that, if it does not modernise at the pace it should, the whole tourist industry will suffer?
    Mr. Mason: I am not satisfied that the hotel industry will be severely hurt. It will have the initial allowance, increased from 10 to 30 per cent. Development districts are to be widened and, consequently, all those who wish to build or expand hotels in those regions, thereby providing assistance in dealing with the unemployment situation, will be able to get a 25 per cent. building grant. The whole industry is being indirectly assisted by the £2 million grant in aid that we give to the B.T.A.
    Mr. Barber: Can the hon. Gentleman name a single industrial or commercial body in favour of the Government's new proposals? If so, which?
    Mr. Mason: Most of them.

    Footwear (Retail Distribution)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the monopoly position at present obtaining in the British shoe distribution industry is consistent with the public interest; and whether he will refer this industry to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Darling: Although one firm has a large share in the retail distribution
    1516
    of footwear, it is not so large as to satisfy the conditions for reference to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this monopoly buying position works very hardly against the manufacturing end of the industry and that this organisation indulges in very heavy mark up and, on the whole, is deteriorating standards in the trade? Should not something be done about this?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that something should be investigated, and I think that an investigation on the lines he has suggested could take place, but not by the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Is not this situation also working against the interests of the consumer, for the housewife gets the impression that a number of shops in the High Street are competing with each other when in fact they are owned and controlled by the same concern?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir.

    Leases and Contracts (Insurance Clauses)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that solicitors, estate agents, building societies, and others, many of whom have no substantial interest to protect, place in leases, etc., clauses requiring insurances to be effected with companies from whom they draw commission, and that a departmental committee has already condemned this practice; and if he will take steps to end this restraint of trade.
    Mr. Darling: I understand that this question will be examined by the Law Commission in the course of their deliberations on the reform of the law of landlord and tenant.
    Mr. Shepherd: This, too, is putting off action. When are we to get tough about monopolies and make their lives uncomfortable? Unless we do, there will be no real vitality and dynamism in British industry.
    Mr. Darling: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Law Society and the Building Societies Association have already taken steps to discourage this

    1517
    insistance on clauses of this type, which are likely to lead to double insurance. If we can do the job by voluntary agreement, I do not see why we should bring into play a great sledge hammer to deal with it.

    European Free Trade Area (Agriculture)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action he is taking to eliminate non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the members of the European Free Trade Association;
    (2) what action he is taking, in view of the elimination of tariffs between the members of the European Free Trade Association on 31st December, 1966, to move towards the harmonisation of agricultural price levels.
    Mr. Mason: The E.F.T.A. Convention does not require the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade in the agricultural sector or the harmonisation of agricultural price levels, and we are not taking action for either purpose in E.F.T.A.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is not that just the sort of initiative which the Government might well take in order to improve trade among the members of E.F.T.A. and also to set an example to the Six so that we may all go forward together?
    Mr. Mason: As the tariffs on industrial goods are gradually eliminated, an examination will take place as to how E.F.T.A. can be strengthened, and no doubt this will be one of the talking points.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Council of Europe wishes to work along this line and that it is no encouragement to it when the hon. Gentleman makes that sort of answer? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend's statement about entering Europe is nonsense if the Board of Trade will not take action along this line?
    Mr. Mason: That is very much wider than the original Question. We are here dealing with E.F.T.A.

    Latin America
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what
    1518
    steps he is taking to encourage British enterprises to set up subsidiaries in Latin America, following the visit there of the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Mason: The Board of Trade and our Embassies in Latin America are glad to help British firms interested in local manufacture with licensing agreements and the sale of know-how. The transfer of capital to subsidiaries in Latin America is subject to the exchange control regulations currently in force.
    Mr. Digby: I recognise the present exchange difficulties. However, does not a dollar premium have to be paid in most of these cases? Is there not a danger that we shall be permanently excluded from these opportunities unless we can get in fairly soon in many of these countries?
    Mr. Mason: Since the visit of the Foreign Secretary we have done our utmost to try to establish closer links with Latin America.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is not one of the difficulties about setting up subsidiaries in countries like Brazil the severe limitations on the dividends which South American countries permit to come back to this country? Can the Board of Trade do anything about raising those limitations or dividends so as to make British overseas capital more profitable?
    Mr. Mason: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what success the Committee for Exports to Latin America is having in persuading more firms, and especially smaller firms, to take an interest in the Latin American market.
    Mr. Mason: The Committee for Exports to Latin America are rightly concentrating their efforts on those industries for which the market potential is greatest. They report an increasing interest in Latin America among firms of all sizes.
    Mr. Digby: Will the Minister give an assurance that this Committee will have every help in its very useful work, particularly in analysing the opportunities which now exist in Latin America?
    Mr. Mason: Certainly. In response to a recent questionnaire from the Committee, 385 firms said that they were willing to discuss export opportunities in Latin America with a member of the Committee.
    Mr. Peter Emery: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that since the visits of the Foreign Secretary much of industry has become more conscious than ever before of the trade opportunities which exist in Latin America? Unless we have much more action from the Board of Trade than was implied in the two Answers which we have just received, the trade opportunities resulting from the visits will have been wasted.
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman must have thought of that supplementary question before he heard my last answer. Did he not hear me say that since we set up this Committee 385 firms have shown interest?
    Mr. Speaker: That was a rhetorical question.

    Newspaper Undertakings (Nominees)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Press that he should exercise his powers under the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate and regulate the control of newspaper undertakings whose equity is held substantially by nominees.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider exercising powers under the Companies Act to investigate the true ownership and control of any paper undertaking where grounds exist (for example, where the Press Council is unable to obtain sufficient information). He has no power under the Act to regulate the control of newspapers.
    Mr. Jenkins: Did not the Royal Commission recommend that the Board of Trade itself should take the initiative in this matter and not wait to have matters brought to it?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, that is perfectly true, but the Board of Trade cannot exercise control over newspapers in the sense of a daily examination of what they are
    1520
    doing, or a daily examination of their share dealings. Whatever the Royal Commission may have said, facts have to be brought to the attention of the Board of Trade.

    Industrial Development Certificates (King's Lynn)
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial development certificates were granted for firms to develop in the King's Lynn area in each quarter of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965.
    Mr. Darling: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although there has been a very welcome increase, I understand, there was a lack of correlation between housing and industry a couple of years ago with the result that about 100 houses are now standing idle? Will he bear that in mind when considering future applications for I.D.C.s?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, we have had discussions with the King's Lynn Council and the Greater London Council and we are doing everything we can to improve phasing of housing and industrial development.
    Following is the information:

    INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED FOR THE KING'S LYNN EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AREA

    1963

    1964

    1965

    1st Jan.-31st Mar.

    —

    1

    —

    1st Apr.-30th June

    1

    2

    3

    1st July–30th Sept.

    —

    4

    9

    1st Oct.–31st Dec.

    —

    1

    4

    Total

    1

    8

    16

    Development Areas
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the President of the Board of Trade what criteria, apart from unemployment, he is now taking into account in designating development areas.
    Mr. Darling: As explained in Command Paper 2874, the development areas will be chosen with reference to the Government's wider regional policies and will take account of all relevant economic circumstances. In particular,

    1521
    account will be taken of such factors as population change, including migration, and employment trends as well as the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Page: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the scandalous variations in earnings between different regions and the fact that earnings in parts of East Anglia just about equal National Assistance in the development areas? Will he give an assurance that the lines of division in the White Paper on investment allowances will not be the last word when legislation is introduced?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend knows, because of his persistent questioning, which I very much welcome, that we are taking earnings into account in some circumstances, and we will certainly follow up the last part of his question.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is it not entirely inconsistent with the Government's designation of the new development areas, thus getting away from the concept of smaller development districts, that they should have excluded from the development areas, as it were, pockets of non-development areas, such as Edinburgh, North Wales and South Wales?
    Mr. Darling: At the moment we are discussing King's Lynn.
    Mr. Jenkin
    Mr. Darling: In regard to King's Lynn—[Interruption.] If I can take King's Lynn as an example of the issues which my hon. Friend raised in the Question, King's Lynn has an overspill arrangement with London which we think will work out just as satisfactorily as treating it as a development district, and I am assured that this is how it will work.
    Mr. Speaker: Ingenious, but too long.

    Deaf hill Pit, County Durham (Redundant Workers)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are being made to provide alternative employment for those miners whose work at the pit at Deafhill, County Durham, will come to an end.
    Mr. Darling: I understand that most of the men employed at Deafhill will be
    1522
    offered jobs in nearby collieries. There are also opportunities for alternative employment for men in the new town of Peterlee about eight miles away, where new industrial developments are going forward.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very much surprised that there appears to be alternative employment in industry in the new town of Peterlee? For years during the period when the Opposition were in Government I tried hard to get new industry injected there and failed. Now my expectations are greater.

    Baking and Confectionery Trade
    Mr. W. Hamlingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the state of monopoly in the bread-baking and confectionery trade.
    Mr. G. Darling: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Hamling: Is my hon. Friend aware that we on this side hope that he does not leave this until there are only two firms left in the business?
    Mr. Darling: We shall keep the situation in mind.

    Distributive Trades
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the impact on investment in the distributive trades of the exclusion of retailing and distribution from the new system of investment allowances.
    Mr. Darling: No precise estimate can be made, but I expect that, as forecast in Chapter 5 of the National Plan, investment in the distributive trades will grow less rapidly than in recent years.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Plan suggests that particular attention has to be paid to productivity in the distributive trades? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the exclusion of these trades from the benefit of investment grants is a good example of this attention?
    Mr. Darling: The distributive trades will not be left out altogether. Under the new system they will get 30 per cent.

    1523
    initial allowances for plant and machinery, including vehicles, and they will get help with shop fittings, furnishings and office machinery. We think that this will be satisfactory.
    Mr. Barber: In answer to an earlier Question, the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend said that most of the industrial and commercial bodies were in favour of this new system of investment allowances? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House of one single body which is in favour?
    Mr. Darling: We have had representations from most of the trade associations concerned. Some of them were critical of parts of the plan, some accepted parts, and it would be quite impossible to give a "yes or no" answer, or to name precisely anyone who answered.
    Mr. Sheldon: Would my hon. Friend not agree that members of the little Neddy on machine tools were in favour of this system of investment grants?

    Crystal Palace Site
    Mr. Goodhartasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the necessary Government support will now be given for the construction of a national industrial exhibition centre on the Crystal Palace site.
    Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend has recently received a report from the Greater London Council. A full examination of the proposals will take some time, but the Government will reach a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that there are four major international industrial exhibitions which may come to this country in 1971 if this exhibition centre is open? Is he further aware that there is no chance of the exhibition centre at Crystal Palace being open if the Government do not make a decision by Easter?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. We are treating this matter as one of urgency.

    Caxton Publishing Company Limited
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he proposes to take following the discussions
    1524
    between his Department and the Caxton Publishing Company Limited on sales methods.
    Mr. Darling: I am continuing to watch the position closely.
    Mr. Boston: Would my hon. Friend accept that his examination of the material sent to him by the Consumer Council and myself about this is appreciated? Does he realise that evidence is still coming in that this company has been using misleading sales methods and threatening customers who have been the victims of these methods? Would he now consider taking further steps to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Darling: I should be very glad to have the information mentioned. An official of the Board of Trade saw representatives of the company in November and as a result its sales methods, we were told, would be altered. If my hon. Friend has further information we would be very glad to look at it.

    Investment Incentives
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm which starts a project in a new development area, not previously in a development district, between 17th January 1966, and the date of entry into force of the legislation foreshadowed in paragraph 51 of Command Paper No. 2874, Investment Incentives, will qualify for the grants to be introduced under that legislation.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly on this and certain other questions arising in connection with the proposals in Cmnd. 2874.
    Mr. Campbell: Does not this uncertainty lead to postponement of projects? Is this not, therefore, part of the Chancellor's credit squeeze rather than an inducement?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, this is one of the factors. [Laughter.] I am not agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. This is one of the factors which my right hon. Friend will mention in a statement which will be made shortly.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Minister's right hon. Friend be informing the House

    1525
    on that occasion whether there is to be any right of appeal against the refusal by the Board of Trade to give an investment grant in any circumstances?
    Mr. Darling: I shall certainly put that point to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade how much less the new scheme of investment incentives will cost Her Majesty's Government compared with the previous investment allowances; and if he will apply this saving to making payments earlier than 18 months hence.
    Mr. Darling: I do not expect the new scheme of investment incentives to cost less than the previous arrangements. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many economists and accountants think that the Government are going to save £100 million on this scheme as compared with that introduced by the Conservative Government? In view of that, ought not the Government's scheme to have been brought in much more quickly?
    Mr. Darling: We do not accept that because the previous scheme was associated with a company's profits and taxation. It is true that the cost of investment allowances under Income Tax and Profits Tax would have been substantially higher—upwards of £300 million—but this is merely because the value of investment allowances, unlike grants, reflects the level of taxation. The tax on retained profits under Corporation Tax will be significantly less under Income Tax.
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman has given one side of the equation. Would he now tell us what is the difference in cost between the old system of investment allowances, which operated in 1964, and the new system of investment grants which will operate in the future?
    Mr. Darling: It is quite impossible to answer that question because the cost of grants will depend upon the level of investment.

    Advance Factories (Scotland)
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade how many advance
    1526
    factories are complete but empty in Scotland; and, in view of the fact that the old development areas have lost their special investment status, what new efforts are being made to find tenants for these factories.
    Mr. Darling: There are only two completed advance factories in Scotland which are not yet allocated. The proposals for new investment incentives in the White Paper (Cmnd. 2874) should serve to reinforce the efforts already being made to secure tenants for these and for other advance factories still being built.
    Mr. Grimond: While appreciating that Scotland as a whole has now been made a development area, with advantages to many places, is the Minister satisfied that he will be able to find tenants for these two factories, one of which has been vacant for some time?
    Mr. Darling: Many inquiries are coming along and they lead us to think that there will be no difficulty in finding tenants.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Since only two advance factories are not being used, will the Minister state what provision he is making to provide more advance factories in the north-east of Scotland, where they are badly needed and where they can obtain power from the new reactor station near Dounreay?
    Mr. Darling: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has a Question on the Order Paper dealing with this point.

    Scotland (Ministerial Visits)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the President of the Board of Trade when next he proposes to pay an official visit to Scotland.
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend was in Glasgow early in January and is always willing to visit Scotland as occasion arises.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that encouraging reply, when he is next in Scotland would his right hon. Friend be so good as to spare the time to visit East Lothian and Berwickshire, because local authorities in those two counties would be very happy to put some propositions before him, if he could see them on the spot?
    Mr. Darling: I will put the suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but I have a suspicion that the job will fall on me.

    North Vietnam
    Mr. Goodhartasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to increase trade with North Vietnam.
    Mr. Mason: Our trade with North Vietnam has always been extremely small, and in present circumstances there is little scope for increase.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. McNamara, the American Defence Secretary, said to the American Senate recently that the British Government were bringing great pressure to bear on British shipowners to decrease their trade with North Vietnam? What pressure has in fact been brought to bear? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our trade with North Vietnam has doubled in the past year?
    Mr. Mason: I am not aware of any British ships under the direct control of British owners which are trading to North Vietnam.

    Japan (Export Control)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Japanese Government following the original Exchange of Notes concerning Voluntary Export Control in November 1962, in connection with the Treaty of Commerce Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan which was ratified in 1963; which product groups are now the subject of control as a result of direct Board of Trade inter vention; and which product groups are controlled as a result of negotiations between the respective industries in this country and Japan.
    Mr. Mason: Discussions took place in 1963, 1964 and 1965 on the quotas for items listed in the Exchange of Notes. The only other product now subject to voluntary export control, as a result of our intervention, is stainless steel tableware, which was freed from import restrictions on 1st January, 1966. I am
    1528
    not aware of any control imposed as a result of negotiations between British and Japanese industry.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the growing adverse balance of payments on visible trade? What is his view about that? What is the position with regard to the cutlery industry? Is he taking steps to avoid re-exports through third parties in other countries?
    Mr. Mason: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about cutlery, he should know that if the Japanese voluntary export control fails to prevent serious injury to British cutlery manufacturers we can invoke the safeguard provisions of the first protocol to the Treaty; and that seems to be a sufficient safeguard.

    Advertisement
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he took in respect of an illegal advertisement, referred to him by the hon. Member for Swindon on 25th August last, which contravened the Advertisements (Hire Purchase) Act, 1957; for how long the illegal advertisement appeared; what information he has concerning other similar advertisements; for how long such advertisements appeared; and what action he will take to prevent similar offences in future.
    Mr. Darling: The directors of the company concerned and its advertising agents were interviewed and agreed to change their advertising to comply with the requirements of the Act. This they appear to have done. Similar cases which are brought to the Board's attention are investigated.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: With respect, my hon. Friend has not said for how long the advertisement appeared. Does he consider it enough to interview people who are breaking the law? Why was not a prosecution instituted?
    Mr. Darling: Because we thought that we could get the advertising changed much more quickly this way.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Amalgamated Dental Co. Ltd.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to prevent United States interests securing control of more than 70 per cent. of the British dental manufacturing industry, thus cutting out part of the export trade, through the proposed take-over of Amalgamated Dental Company Limited by Dentists Supply Company of New York.
    Mr. Darling: On 10th February, my right hon. Friend referred to the Monopolies Commission the proposed acquisition of the Amalgamated Dental Co. Ltd. by either the Dentists' Supply Co. of New York or the Dental Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his right hon. Friend has the power to preserve the status quo with these companies while they are before the Monopolies Commission? If not, will he urge the Monopolies Commission to take power to ensure that the status quo is preserved, otherwise it is no good bringing the matter before the Commission?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend has this power under the Act and any merger can be stopped. No merger can then take place until the Monopolies Commission has reported.

    INDIA (FAMINE RELIEF)
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers about the threat of famine in India.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the appeal by the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation for help to the Indian Government to meet the famine which now threatens 100 million people.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and a number of Governments of non-Commonwealth countries
    1530
    are already in close touch with each other and with the Government of India about the threatened famine. As the House is aware, we, for our part, have made an immediate and interim contribution in the form of an interest-free loan to India of £7½ million.
    Mr. Chataway: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that in the weeks since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for a special programme of help to relieve the famine the British and other Commonwealth Governments have done all that they can to ensure an expansion of the capacity of Indian ports and an increased supply of vitamins, and so on? Will he confirm that the £7½ million to which he referred falls almost wholly within sums already pledged to India? Will he agree that there is a genuine—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even supplementary questions to the Prime Minister must be short.
    The Prime Minister: While welcoming, as I did, the Leader of the Opposition's statement, the special programme of aid started before he made his statement. Only today the Australian Government, with whom we have been in touch this week, have announced a very big shipment of food to India in addition to what everyone else is doing.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the action which the Government have already taken, may I ask him whether he will consider that this is not only a gigantic humanitarian problem but a gigantic political problem and that if the West fails to give adequate help to Mrs. Gandhi the results, both short term and long term, may be very grave, and, if necessary—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is long enough.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said. Although, as he said, the Leader of the Opposition and I said in the recent debate that the problem is above all a problem of port capacity and of internal distribution, some very massive shipments of food are being organised.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister recognise that the help which the Government are giving, which he describes as £7½ million, consists of £6 million which

    1531
    was already pledged for normal economic development in India separately from the famine relief? Therefore, the only additional amount which the Government are making available is £1½ million. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this matches up to the scale of the problem in India? Secondly, will he assure us that he will, if necessary, make available from the strategic stocks which we have the port handling equipment which he has said is one of the greatest needs?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has made the first point before. We thought it right to reallocate that part of the aid for this purpose because we are dealing with an emergency and not long-term development. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that we should increase in total the amount of aid, that is a matter which could be considered at any time within the overall ceiling on Government expenditure, which I hope he supports.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (SPEECH)
    Mr. Hornbyasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science on comprehensive education delivered at Harrogate on 7th January, 1966, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I answered this Question on 8th February, Sir.
    Mr. Hornby: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply on that date still left the position very far from clear, with particular regard to the future position of the direct grant schools? Would not he agree that it would be much wiser if both he and his Ministers began to talk in terms of reopening and extending the list of direct grant schools rather than threatening closure?
    The Prime Minister: I thought I dealt with this matter the last time that it was raised and referred to the position of direct grant schools. I also invited hon. Members to put detailed questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science if they wished. I am glad, however, that the right hon.
    1532
    Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has given his support to the policy.

    CIVIL SERVICE (INQUIRY)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up an inquiry into the organisation and efficiency of the Civil Service.
    The Prime Minister: I have, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: While welcoming the fact that the Prime Minister has already yielded on this point, may I ask him whether he will assure the House that this inquiry will not be used as a pretext for putting off necessary reforms and reductions? Will he also assure us that there is nothing in the terms of reference of this inquiry which preclude the speedy setting up of specialist Parliamentary committees?
    The Prime Minister: The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman goes far beyond this Question. It is a matter which has been considered by the various bodies of the House concerned with this question. I did not yield to anybody. I announced the setting up of the inquiry as soon as I was ready. I had been working on the matter for some time.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister still adhere to his oft-repeated remark that we have the best Civil Service in the world, or does he share the views, published today, of his Parliamentary Private Secretary condemning the British Civil Service outright? If he does not share those views, will he now repudiate them?
    The Prime Minister: I could see that question formulating in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I stand exactly by what I have said on a number of occasions. What I have been wondering since we came to power is why this superb Civil Service machine was so badly used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange for a group of Privy Councillors, selected from all parties, to visit Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think this is the right time, Sir.
    Mr. King: Was not this the Prime Minister's own suggestion? Will he accept that the negative policy of imposing hardship and unemployment on 4 million helpless Rhodesians is arousing growing distaste? Will he seek to do something constructive?
    The Prime Minister: Distaste is a feeling that occurs to some of us on other matters. We have had a Privy Councillor in Rhodesia this week. We hope to hear from him when he finally gets back. He did not arrive in time for last night's debate, for reasons which we all understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—for reasons we all understand and which were forecast. One thing that bears on the timing of this, which was my idea, is that if Privy Councillors when they go to Rhodesia are not allowed to see the people they ask to see, this might diminish the value of a visit by a Privy Councillor.
    Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whereas a Parliamentary delegation would probably be desirable at the right moment, the fact that it is composed of Privy Councillors will not be met with undiluted enthusiasm from all quarters?
    The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider that. The House will, of course, know that I proposed a mission of Privy Councillors to Mr. Smith as long ago as December, 1964, and that it was simply rejected by him at that time. I should like to see more signs that Privy Councillors will be allowed to meet the people they want to meet if we make such a proposal.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware, as I have already stated in public, that all the information which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has been able to obtain during his ten days in Rhodesia will be made available to the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary if they so wish, but that the cheap sneers which the Prime Minister has just made do not give one any confidence that they will receive proper consideration?
    The Prime Minister: The words I used were based on the assumption that
    1534
    the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be desirous of reporting to everyone concerned with the Rhodesian problem. I am a little concerned to know—perhaps we can be reassured on this—whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made quite plain, as the Leader of the Opposition himself said in a public statement, I think in Punch, that there should be no question of negotiating with Mr. Smith until he calls off the illegal independence. I should like to know whether the Opposition stuck to that in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Shinwell: Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has said, is it not the general opinion of the House that if all the Privy Councillors were sent business would be expedited?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the International Boat Show at Earl's Court about the balance of payments and holidays abroad on 5th January represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Chancellor is apparently against people in this country taking holidays abroad on the ground of cost. As there is public concern about this, particularly in the tourist industry, will the Prime Minister give the assurance that it is not the Government's intention to restrict holidays abroad?
    The Prime Minister: It is the duty of the Government to limit overseas expenditure in any way we can. Therefore, voluntary action—I emphasise voluntary action—by residents of this country to limit expenditure on foreign exchange is perfectly reasonable and a reasonable thing for the Chancellor to suggest in his speech. Certainly, I can confirm that we do not propose any statutory or similar action on this matter. As the hon. Member will know, it is already covered by our obligations under the International Monetary Fund and, I think, O.E.C.D.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister what representations have been made to him on proposals to abolish the comprehensive principle in social security provisions as recommended in the Beveridge Report and embodied in the social insurance schemes enacted since the war; and what replies he has sent.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir, outside the lunatic fringe of my correspondence.
    Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend resist all attempts to introduce two systems in social welfare, a lavish one for the wealthy and minimal standards for the poor?
    The Prime Minister: Our position has been made clear by Ministers on a number of occasions. While all of us want to encourage self-help schemes, to suggest that the country's social security can be safeguarded on the basis of occupational schemes and by an introduction of the means test for the rest is completely abhorrent to what we stand for.

    GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL (ADEN OPERATIONS)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend that the grant of the General Service Medal shall apply, subject to appropriate conditions, to officers and men of the Armed Forces who have taken part in recent operations in Aden.
    The Prime Minister: This matter is under consideration, Sir.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that many of these men have been giving arduous and dangerous service under active service conditions and that it would, I am sure, give great pleasure in all parts of the House and in the country if he were able to reach a favourable decision on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I fully agree with what the hon. Member has said in the introduction to that question. As he will know, the grant of the General Service Medal for specified service in the Radfan operations was approved by Her Majesty and announced last July.

    PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
    Q9. Mr. Pounderasked the Prime Minister if the proposed post of Parliamentary Commissioner will be open to women.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Pounder: Not even the Prime Minister could say "No" to a woman. Would he not agree, however, that there are many women who have the qualifications, experience and qualities which make them well suited for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the preamble to that question, not only myself but most of my predecessors have sometimes had to say "No" with the greatest regret to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). We can do it when we have to. I am, of course, completely aware of what the hon. Member has said. What we have to do is to choose the best man or woman for the job regardless of the sex to which he or she belongs.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for once? Women always want either the best man or the best woman for the job, but they do want equal opportunity.
    The Prime Minister: I assure the hon. Lady that that will be the intention concerning this post. She has, however, probably noticed the Clause in the Bill which, under the ancient laws of our country, would preclude any serving Member of this House from being appointed to the post.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is indeed a most suitable post for a woman, who is far better able to create an effective row than most men, and that if he would get in touch with me in confidence I should be delighted to give him a short list of suitable women?
    The Prime Minister: While hoping that the right hon. Gentleman's last few words will never be quoted out of context, here or anywhere else, I should certainly be prepared to receive any list of persons whom it would be suitable to appoint, be they men or women.
    Mrs. Anne Kerr: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his first response to this Question. I wonder whether he is aware that very large numbers of women's organisations and also of individual women feel strongly on this matter and would very much like to see a woman appointed to the post, and that they feel, moreover, that women should be appointed to whatever type of board this organisation sets up.
    The Prime Minister: The board will, of course, be a Select Committee of this House, which, like the original appointment, will be open to all on grounds of merit.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PAY CLAIM)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister what assurances were given to the National Union of Railwaymen Executive, their Chairman or their General Secretary on Friday, 11th February, with regard to the suggested negotiations about pay and conditions of service, that had not been given previously.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Sir T. Beamish: Is the Prime Minister aware that two very different versions of what took place on Friday have been given? Is he aware that Mr. Sydney Greene has made it absolutely clear that the strike would have been called off on Saturday in any case, whereas Mr. Jones, a leading member of the N.U.R. Executive, made it equally clear that it was only the Prime Minister's undertaking, which changed the whole financial structure of the railways and would give different terms of reference to the Chair man, that led to the withdrawal of the strike notice? Which is the correct version, the version implied by Mr. Greene, the "put-up job"—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of what was attributed to Mr. Greene in a certain newspaper. I am well aware of his views on that statement which was attributed to him. The position is that it was very much touch and go and that the likelihood was that there
    1538
    would have been a strike but for what happened on Friday evening.
    As to the pay review and the Prices and Incomes Board, nothing was offered that evening that had not been offered in the previous discussions with Ministers earlier in the day and on the previous day. This was one of the big issues, because they thought there might be more to offer, and there was none to offer.
    We have suggested that there should be a fresh look at the whole system of wage negotiations, its structure and, ultimately, the wages structure arising from that, in order to link productivity much more directly with pay and also to take account of the other factors which have been mentioned, including the lower-paid workers.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the allegation made about the statement of Mr. Sydney Greene is a gross distortion and the worst possible example of Press misreporting, and would it be my right hon. Friend's opinion that this type of grossly distorted reporting would be a suitable matter to refer to the Press Council for investigation?
    The Prime Minister: I very much doubt that. What I think Mr. Greene was saying was that it was not a simple vote whether to go on with the strike definitely or to call it off. But the minority here, after all the discussion—and certainly not before—took the view that there should be further negotiations on the Saturday in the hope still of extracting a little more money on this pay offer. I had made it clear that that was not forthcoming, and that is what I think Mr. Greene meant in his statement.
    Mr. Heath: Leaving aside the question of Press interviews, the official resolution passed by the N.U.R., after listing the special arrangements that were being made, said that the strike notices were being withdrawn on the understandings given by the First Secretary and the Prime Minister. What were those precise understandings, and do they include increases in wages as a result of the review of the structure next autumn?
    The Prime Minister: The understanding, so far as my right hon. Friend was concerned, was the point that I confirmed, namely, the proposal to bring the pay increase forward by a month from October

    1539
    to September. On that, no change was made. The understanding that was referred to when they referred it to me was that there should be discussions—a long cool look now at the whole basis of negotiations—to relate productivity to the other things that I have mentioned. It was in the light of that that I think this reference was made. It did not involve any undertaking at all. Indeed, I categorically rejected the idea that this would affect any pay settlement in process between now and next September. If we can get a new structure and relate pay to productivity, that would create a different situation in a later round, but not for the present.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Rather than squeeze the economy of the railwaymen, many of whom are taking home less than £11 a week, would it not be better to squeeze our overseas arms spending, since it is the latter that is causing our economic and balance of payments difficulties, and not the railwaymen's wages?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of seeing what is being done in that directtion when he sees the White Paper which is to be published next week. Though I yield to none in the House or anywhere else about the very low pay that some railwaymen get, I still believe that higher wages could be paid on the railways if we linked pay settlements to productivity more than we do.
    Sir M. Redmayne: Did not the Prime Minister give a promise that he would undertake that the British Railways reshaping plan would either be abandoned or preferably modified?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said was that the whole question of the integration of transport which had been destroyed ten years ago is very much to the fore in our work at the present time. I did say what I believed to be right, that fundamental changes will have to be made in the 1962 Act for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are responsible.
    Sir M. Redmayne: Are we to assume that " integration' means that the reshaping plans are to be abandoned?
    The Prime Minister: If by "reshaping plans" the right hon. Gentleman means
    1540
    the closure policy, the position on that has been announced several times from this side. There is no abandonment of the policy as enunciated by us—not as enunciated by the previous Government. But by "integration" we mean that the system under which the railways have been driven unnecessarily into a position where they cannot pay their way while other sections of the transport industry are very profitable and not brought into the same reckoning, must be ended at the earliest opportunity.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on. Mr. Heath, business statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Companies Bill.
TUESDAY, 22ND FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Secretariat Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) and (Export Promotion Levy) Orders, and on the Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 23RD FEBRUARY—Debate on the Welfare State, on a Government Motion.
THURSDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Rating Bill, and also of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords] and the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
FRIDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—The proposed Business will be: Debate on Leasehold Reform, on a Government Motion.
Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. May I be permitted to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to a report in today's Evening Standard which gives the business for

1541
next Wednesday and the following Monday, and to ask whether it is in order for the information to be released before it is given in the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman can put his question as a question to the Leader of the House in the ordinary course of business questions.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House for an assurance that when the Secretary of State for Defence returns from his visit to Washington he will then immediately make a statement to the House about that visit?
Secondly, we notice that in the business which the Leader of the House has announced there are debates on Wednesday of next week and on Monday of the following week. Despite all the pressure of legislation before the House, and also the immense pressure from various right hon. and hon. Members for debates on their own specific subjects, the Government are taking time for these two debates, one on the Welfare State, and the other on leasehold reform.
While we particularly welcome the debate on the Welfare State, in answer to the initiative that we have taken on this side, can the Leader of the House say whether White Papers are to be presented before each of those debates on which the House can base its discussions, or what is to be the procedure? Can there possibly be any other ulterior motive?
Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously rather worried. On his first question, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence if he is prepared to make a statement when he returns about his discussions on N.A.T.O.
Secondly, it is because of the pressure of business, as the right hon. Gentleman will probably realise as a former Chief Whip, that at present, with seven Standing Committees, it is easier for me to get over promised debates and return to legislation a little later. For that reason, we are taking the debate on the Welfare State on Wednesday and the debate on leasehold reform on Monday of the following week.
The debate on leasehold reform will take place on a White Paper which, I hope, will be available tomorrow.
1542
The debate on the Welfare State will be on a Government Motion. It is hoped during that debate that we shall elicit from the Opposition their views on the Welfare State, following their recent publication.
Mr. Heath: I offer my apologies to the Leader of the House. I had not realised that the Government's legislative programme was so far behind. We welcome the debate on the Welfare State, following up the initiative that we have already taken. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Defence White Paper will be available, in order to clear up the uncertainty?
Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir. It will be available on Tuesday of next week.
Mr. John Hynd: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to today's Evening Standard announcement that the Cabinet decided yesterday that the business for next Wednesday and the following Monday would be as announced in the House today? Will he tell us how that information came to be released to the Press before his statement in the House?
Mr. Bowden: I can assure my hon. Friend that the business had not been decided by the Cabinet yesterday. I cannot be responsible for any information that the Press might glean as to what is likely to take place.
Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of Wednesday's proposed debate on the Welfare State, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we may expect the result of the Government's review on all the social services? Are we to have a White Paper on that ready for the debate on the Welfare State, because without the facts from the Government how are we to debate the subject properly?
Mr. Bowden: I think that the hon. Lady should await the Government's Motion. I have said that there will not be a White Paper for Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Rose: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 135, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and a number of my other hon. Friends?

1543
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Government of Ireland Acts 1920–1949, with particular reference to electoral franchise, boundaries and malpractices, the continued operation of the Special Powers Act, and religious discrimination in housing and employment; regrets the inaction of past Governments in relation to industrial development in Northern Ireland; and deplores the opposition of Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament to much needed measures of social legislation introduced by the Labour Government and not applicable to Northern Ireland.]
Because of constitutional conventions this matter has not been discussed within the scope of other debates on Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on this important topic?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot promise time. I think that we had better leave the position where it is, because successive Governments have decided not to intervene here. It would need a major overhaul, probably a Royal Commission. Nevertheless, it is a fact that 12 Northern Ireland Members take part in our deliberations and vote on matters with which Northern Ireland is not concerned.
Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 7th December last he gave an undertaking to give further consideration to a debate on the White Paper on the Parliamentary Commissioner, in advance of legislation being framed? The Government have now published the Bill without any further consultations or debate in the House. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this falls a little below the level of courtesy which the House has a right to expect?
Mr. Bowden: I recall making that promise, but I was not aware at that time how near the Bill was to publication. I intended to take the debate on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill the week after next. We might discuss this through the usual channels. If the right hon. Gentleman would still prefer to do it on a White Paper, that may be done.
Mr. Palmer: May I draw my right right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 71, which deals with a Select Committee on Scientific Policy? It is in my name and that of other hon. Members of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, and is now supported by 53 hon. Members on both sides of the House.
[That, to enable this House to establish more effective scrutiny of scientific and technological policy, a Select Committee, with the normal powers to hear evidence and make reports to the House, should be appointed to examine the annual reports of the Councils of the Privy Council for Research, the Atomic Energy Authority, the National Research Development Corporation and similar bodies.]
Can my right hon. Friend say whether time can be provided for a debate on this subject, or, alternatively, whether any progress has been made through the usual channels?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise a debate. Discussions are taking place, and have done, through the usual channels. There are physical difficulties about setting up another Select Committee. One suggestion was that we might add to the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. That is one way of dealing with it, but no firm decision has been taken.
Mr. Ramsden: Is it proposed to have a separate day's debate next month on each of the three Service Estimates, as in previous years?
Mr. Bowden: The usual procedure is a two-day debate on the Defence White Paper about 10 days after publication, then a day on each of the Services, and a fourth day on the Service Money Votes.
Mr. Duffy: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early debate on regional economic development? It is two years since the House had its last debate on this subject, and since then the state of the Yorkshire economy has weakened and is now a matter of special concern to Yorkshire Labour Members.
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise a debate on that. It might fit in during the Easter Adjournment debates. Perhaps we can consider that.
Mr. William Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the various leaks

1545
to the Press about the proposed double taxation agreement between this country and the United States? Is he further aware that this is causing considerable difficulty in the City and in the professions? Would it not be better to have the agreement put before the House next week, rather than have this dribbling out of information from the Government through the Press?
Mr. Bowden: I would prefer to check on that before making any comment at all.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend given earnest consideration to the possibility of having a debate in the not-too-distant future on the Brambell Report?
Mr. Bowden: The House has had one short debate on this matter. There was to have been another one tomorrow, but it has been withdrawn. I have promised to try to arrange a half-day debate. I shall keep to that, but I cannot promise anything immediately.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Last week, on the ground that he had no time available, the right hon. Gentleman rejected a request to gratify the Minister of Housing and Local Government's apparent desire to try to vindicate himself in respect of the censure imposed on him by the Council on Tribunals in the Islington case. As he now obviously has plenty of time for general debates, can he arrange this?
Mr. Bowden: It is a matter of opinion—and it is not mine—whether the Government have plenty of time. We have not. I cannot move from the position which I took last week. I cannot at the moment promise a debate on this matter.
Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety throughout the country in connection with the Press and advertising? May I ask whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 67, signed by more than 100 Members?
[That this House views with concern the concentration of advertisement placing, both commercial and official, in fewer and fewer newspapers, to the detriment of the others; draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the statement
1546
by the President of the Advertising Association, Lord Robens, in the Sunday Citizen on 12th December, 1965, that advertising revenue forms a substantial part of the income of newspapers and periodicals and that advertisers, with their large stake in the fortunes of the Press, must therefore bear some responsibility for maintaining its variety and vigour; and calls upon all national advertisers, including Her Majesty's Government, so to diversify a proportion of their advertising as to make a significant contribution to ensuring the independence of existing newspapers and periodicals and an increasing freedom of choice for the public.]
Can my right hon. Friend promise a debate on this subject?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I have replied to this point on two previous occasions. I cannot promise a debate. The matter has been looked at by a Royal Commission, and we will have to leave it there at the moment.
Captain Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was widely understood, both in the House and in the country, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, backed by all the Government's resources, was engaged on an exhaustive study of the social services? Is it not, therefore, extraordinary that we in this House are not to be given information about the results of his work before the debate on Wednesday, so that we can take advantage of his investigations and have a sensible debate?
Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend is still engaged in his studies, but no doubt during Wednesday's debate the House will learn a little more about the progress which is being made.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although there is not an early-day Motion calling for a debate on the North-West Study, many hon. Members on this side of the House would very much appreciate an early opportunity of discussing this important Report?
Mr. Bowden: I shall bear that in mind, along with many other requests.
Mr. Goodhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted Motion No. 125, on the Defence Review, which is signed by 175 of my right hon. and hon. Friends?

1547
[That this House deplores the alarm and uncertainty which have been created both in the services to the detriment of morale and recruitment and also among the general public, by the Government's protracted delay in announcing crucial defence decisions and by the consequent continuing spate of humours regarding their intentions.],
Can he give an assurance that we will have an opportunity to debate the Defence White Paper in this Parliament?
Mr. Bowden: That Motion, Motion No. 126—
[That this House deplores the impending destruction of Great Britain's naval capacity both at sea and in the air, which safeguard this country's essential interests and those of Commonwealth and other allied countries throughout the world.]—
and a number of others on defence will be in order during the debate on the Defence White Paper.
Mr. Hawkins: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 128 on alleged steering defects in B.M.C. cars?
[That this House, aware of the public disquiet over an alleged steering defect of Austin 1100's, urges the Minister of Transport to undertake an immediate inquiry into the true facts.]
In view of the grave disquiet in the country due to the Ministry's statement about having warned this company in May, 1964, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on this urgent matter?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise a debate, but I realise the urgency and importance of this matter. At this moment—and I mean today—a full investigation is being carried out by the Ministry of Transport, B.M.C., and other interested people, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will make a statement immediately a report is issued from that meeting. In view of its urgency, my right hon. Friend will make the report to the Press if the House is in recess over the weekend when the investigation is complete. It is extremely urgent that this matter should be resolved one way or the other.
Mr. Brace-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government's plans are for the introduction of legislation on the early-warning system, or has this been abandoned?
Mr. Bowden: The Bill will be presented on Thursday of next week.
Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will encourage a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on Motion No. 124 about a Royal Commission on government in Scotland?
[That this House, noting the Prime Minister's announcement of a separate Royal Commisison on Local Government in Scotland whose terms of reference are not yet determined, calls instead for a wider Royal Commission to examine the whole structure of the government of the people of Scotland, including not only local government reform but the structure of possible regional government within Scotland, the relationship between Scottish administration and the United Kingdom Exchequer, and the case for establishing a Scottish parliament for Scottish affairs.]
If this is not possible, will he convey to the Prime Minister the terms of the Motion, together with yesterday's editorial in the Scotsman commending our suggestions?
Mr. Bowden: On the question of a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, perhaps through his Chief Whip the hon. Gentleman will communicate through the usual channels, and we will see what can be done to help.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: When do the Government expect to receive the Geddes Report on shipbuilding? In view of the serious position in the industry, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us of an early debate after its publication?
Mr. Bowden: We had better await the Report and talk about a debate afterwards.
Mr. McMaster: Can we conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply that it is the intention of the Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the rights of Ulster Members? If there is to be such a Royal Commission, will the Government, at the

1549
same time, set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the rights of English, Scots and Welsh Members to debate and vote on matters which are the exclusive concern of each group?
Mr. Bowden: I have not announced that the Government are likely to set up a Royal Commission on Northern Ireland or on the other parts of the country.
Mr. Bessell: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. William Clark) on the problem of double taxation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is a possibility of a Government statement on this at an early date, because this is causing anxiety not only in the City, but in the United States, and may well be damaging Anglo-American trade relations and preventing the investment of dollars here which would be valuable to our economy?
Mr. Bowden: I have already said that I will look at this and do what is possible. I appreciate the urgency of the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 16th February].
  [Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

    Clause 7.—(ASSESSMENT OF DISABLEMENT.)
    Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. Last evening, when we were discussing Clause 6, I referred to certain matters arising out of it about which I had some doubt. The Clause was then disposed of, and I went upstairs to put down an Amendment which I could move on Report. I now understand that there may not be a Report stage, in which case I shall not be able to raise this matter again as fully as I did last night. Will you take this fact into account, Sir Samuel, when we discuss the new Clauses, so that I may return to the point which I was seeking to make last night? Can this be done when we reach the first of the new Clauses on the Notice Paper?
    The Chairman: No point of order arises at the moment. We are discussing the Question, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill". I cannot give any Ruling as to what will happen when we reach the new Clauses.
    Mr. Lewis: In that case I shall seek to raise this matter on the Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill. "
    The Clause before us deals with the assessment of disablement, and to that extent I hope that it may be connected with Clause 6. Last night we were discussing the question of the extra £3 allowances to be made under the pro visions of Clause 6—
    The Chairman: Order. We cannot go back to Clause 6. We have passed that now.
    Mr. Lewis: The reason I have raised this matter at this stage is that there is unlikely to be a Report stage of the Bill. Will you be prepared, Sir Samuel, to arrange that there is a Report stage, so

    1551
    that I can move the Amendment which I sought to move last night? I can then give it to you in manuscript and my Amendment can be discussed.
    The Chairman: The arrangement of a Report stage has nothing to do with me. At present, we are discussing nothing more than the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
    Dame Irene Ward: I have got into rather a muddle over this. I thought that when we terminated our discussion last night—so that we could discuss the Orders on Rhodesia—my hon. Friend was discussing matters relating to Clause 7, and that, as is the normal practice when business is changed because other essential business is required to be dealt with, the hon. Member who had the Floor when the debate was cut off was allowed to continue his speech when the Committee returned to the debate. I do not understand why that has not happened in this case.
    The Chairman: In the first place, the hon. and learned Member who was in possession of the Committee is not in my vision at present. All that we are now discussing is the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Lewis: May I ask you, Sir Samuel, how an hon. Member on either side, in a situation of this kind, can make a point on Report in respect of a Clause that has been passed in Committee, when, as I am informed, there is unlikely to be a Report stage?
    The Chairman: It is not for the Chair to give guidance to hon. Members as to how they should raise matters in the House or Committee. We have passed Clause 6 now. Whether there is a Report stage is a matter for the Committee.
    Mr. Lewis: I am sorry to press this matter, Sir Samuel. I do not think that this is a matter for the Committee. Can you tell me how this Committee, or the House, can ensure that there is a Report stage on the Bill? I would like to have a Report stage. If there is no Report stage there will be no opportunity for a discussion, which should be available to hon. Members. I think that I am right in asking you to protect me, as a back bench Member, so that I am enabled to put my point of view.
    The Chairman: I can only repeat that it is no business of the Chair to arrange a Report stage. The hon. Member cannot now raise matters which he did not raise at the proper stage. We have now discussed Clause 6 and passed from it, and we cannot go back at present.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Can the Minister expedite this part of the proceedings, to help my hon. Friend in what is a very legitimate interest, by making some reference, in the Third Reading debate, to the point in which he is interested? Can she also make it possible, when the Bill goes to another place, for the point of substance which my hon. Friend has in mind, in the light of her comments on it, to be considered during the various stages of the Bill there? I hope that my hon. Friend will find that helpful. Will the Minister consider making some reference, in her Third Reading speech, to my hon. Friend's legitimate point?
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbson): I will help if I can, but this will depend on whoever is in the Chair when we reach Third Reading. I may be ruled out of order. If not, I shall be most willing to refer to this matter. I thought that a sufficient explanation had been given to the hon. Member, and that if he were interested he would have read the McCorquodale Report and discovered what that Comittee had proposed, and how we have carried its proposals out. But if I can help in my Third Reading speech I shall be most happy to do so.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order. It is because I have read the McCorquodale Report—
    The Chairman: There is no point of order before the Committee. The hon. Member is not speaking further to any point of order.
    Mr. Lewis: On another point of order, Sir Samuel. Arising out of what the right hon. Lady has said, may I point out that it is because I have read that Report, in the light of her remarks, that I want to raise this matter. I shall be quite happy so long as I am allowed to mention it en route in the proceedings of the Bill. The reason that I have raised this point of order is in order that you, Sir Samuel, will understand the difficulty

    1553
    that I was in last night and the difficulty that I am in now. Provided that the matter can be raised without my being called to order in future, I am quite happy.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: There is no point of order before the Committee. What happens in the Third Reading debate can be dealt with only when we reach that stage of the Bill. We have passed Clause 6, and we cannot deal with this matter at present.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(PROVISIONS AS TO EVIDENCE.)
    Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir K. Joseph: Subsection (5) of the clause raises the rather delicate issue of non-disclosure to a person of medical evidence. We understand that the officials have to balance the two interests when deciding what to disclose and what not to disclose. Could the Minister tell us whether there is anything new in the proposed regulations, or whether this is just the usual balancing of the personal interests of the individual against the danger of psychological shock for the individual if told something too depressing? Is there anything new in this?
    Miss Herbison: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. At present, when dealing with war disabilities, we have the power not to give information if that information might make a person more ill. We are just doing the same as far as it applies to those cases which go before the tribunals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(INVALIDITY BENEFIT.)
    A sum of £1 per week shall be paid at the end of the period covered by graduated benefit so long as incapacity for work due to sickness
    1554
    continues or at the end of the period under the Bill for which but for low earnings or the 85 per cent. rule graduated sickness benefit would have been paid, and shall be disregarded for the purpose of benefit under the National Assistance Acts.—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Chairman: This Clause can, I think, be discussed with new Clause 7—
    Further payment on expiry of entitlement to earnings-related supplement
    For so long as the interruption of their employment continues, there shall be payable to persons who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit, including earnings-related supplement, the sum of £1 per week at the end of the period of their entitlement to that supplement, or at the end of the period which, but for low earnings or the 85 per cent. rule, such earnings-related supplement would have been payable; and the sum of £1 referred to shall be disregarded for the purposes of benefit under the National Assistance Acts.
    Sir K. Joseph: This new Clause proposes that extra money should be paid out of the National Insurance Fund. The Committee will remember that the Opposition tried, although unsuccessfully, to save the equivalent sum of money by means of an earlier Amendment. We are not, therefore, making any proposal to spend extra money out of the National Insurance Fund and I should like to explain our proposal.
    It is that the community should make a beginning on the important task of providing some extra benefit for the chronic sick. I doubt whether there is anyone in the Committee who will disagree with the good sense of this purpose. What is at issue is when and how we can begin to carry out that purpose. At the moment, the result of the Bill is that a person who is sick either by a combination of his or her employer's sickness scheme and the graduated benefit, or by the graduated benefit alone, is provided with the flat-rate sickness benefit and some additional help for the first six and a half months of any spell of sickness. But after the first six and a half months, the sick person who continues to be incapable of work because of sickness fails altogether, unless his employer has an unusually generous sickness scheme at flat-rate sickness benefit, supplemented, where the resources of the household make it necessary, by assistance from the National Assistance Board.

    1555
    It is probably common ground that, as the weeks and months go by, most households begin to exhaust the resources which they have accumulated both in the form of financial savings and of assets on their shelves. Therefore, as sickness is prolonged, it becomes more and more important that some sort of extra benefit shall be available to them. Our proposal is that, from the end of the graduated sickness benefit period, the sum of £1 per week shall be paid for the duration of incapacity due to sickness. We do not begin to pretend that £1 is the right amount. It is on the low side, but it is a practicable and modest starting point.
    There is little doubt that it would bring great benefit to the households concerned and would be much more socially relevant than the use to which the Bill proposes that the equivalent sum of money shall be put, at any rate for the next 10 years, that is by a very modest supplement to the retirement benefit.
    Normally, when one makes an addition to a flat-rate social benefit, one encounters the difficulty that such a flat-rate increment brings no help whatsoever to the poorest in the community, because it merely gets deducted from the National Assistance supplement which such people receive. That is why, in the Clause, we provide that the 20s. per week proposed payment shall be disregarded for the purpose of National Assistance benefit.
    Of course, if the right hon. Lady advises us that the Government accept the purpose of the Clause, but would like it withdrawn so that it can be introduced in better technical shape, we shall gladly withdraw it for that purpose.
    The Clause is drawn also with the thought of the lowest-paid wage earner particularly in mind. As the Committee is aware, people who are paid sufficiently little or whose children are sufficiently many for the 85 per cent. rule to exclude them from graduated benefit would not get any graduated benefit at all and would thus be excluded from the benefit of any new Clause which merely continued the graduated benefit period of £1 flat rate in respect of the graduated benefit itself.
    The Clause would provide that, where a person would have been entitled to
    1556
    graduated benefit but for the circumstances of his earnings and/or the application of the 85 per cent. rule, then, from the end of what would have been the graduated sickness period had it been applicable, the £1 benefit shall be paid. The Clause, both by the provision that the payment shall be disregarded for National Assistance and by the provision to which I have just referred, is slanted heavily in favour of the lowest paid. We hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will look kindly on the Clause.
    I hope that it will also be of some benefit to those households which suffer from incapacity of work due to ill-health but where the ill-health is due to disability rather than sickness. There is, as the Minister knows, a large number of people whose lives are crippled by disability and the Clause would bring them some benefit as well as giving it to the more normally incapable due to temporary or chronic sickness. I could go on at length, but my only other point is the possible scale of the problem.
    Perhaps I have not got the right figures, but I have not seen anywhere an analysis in detail of the exact numbers of the people incapable due to sickness for different lengths of time. This may have been my fault, but I have in front of me the National Assistance Board Report for 1964, in which I find that 26 per cent. of those receiving supplement to sickness benefit were ill for more than six months and that the total number receiving supplement before sickness benefit was about 146,000 people.
    Therefore, from the point of view of the Assistance Board, which covers the poorest in the land, the numbers to whom the Clause would apply would be about 35,000. I am certain that many more than this—but I do not know how many-would be covered by the Clause. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will give us the figures.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I support the new Clause and agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that the amount stated in it may not be as high as it should be. Doubtless if the Government accept it they will say what amount would be appropriate.
    I particularly support the Clause because of the discussion we had last night.

    1557
    I am sure, arising out of that discussion, that the point I was attempting to make is not covered for a great many people and that, therefore, something extra—at least the amount stated in the Clause—is necessary. I remind the right hon. Lady of what she said last night:
    "The £3 will go not only to people at home"—
    she was referring to those who get the normal constant attendance allowance—
    "…but to pensioners and industrially disabled people in hospital who do not get this allowance".
    Later, she added:
    "We have carried out to the full those recommendations…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 1431, 1433.]
    The right hon. Lady was referring to the McCorquodale Committee's recommendations which could be dealt with in a Bill of this kind. Bearing that in mind, I will quote what the McCorquodale Report stated. It made certain recommendations to the effect that the Government should consider additional allowances for certain groups of people. The first group which it recommended should receive an increase was those receiving either the exceptional or intermediate rate of constant attendance allowance. The second group contained:
    "…any others suffering from multiple disablement (whether due to one or more conditions) of which in the opinion of the Minister the net total effect is as disabling as that of pensioners receiving one of those rates. (This would cover mainly hospital cases, but would also allow the inclusion of pensioners, should there be any, who had not qualified for constant attendance allowance at the intermediate rate because of exceptional efforts.)"
    In my view, the people in that second group are not fully covered by the Bill. Does the Minister dispute that?
    Miss Herbison: Yes. As I said yesterday, the groups mentioned by the McCorquodale Committee are, from the point of view of the industrially injured, completely covered. The groups mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be covered in the Royal Warrant; the war disabled will be covered in the same way.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I must, of course, accept that as being the case. However, when I compare what the right hon. Lady stated last night with the Bill it seems that a group of people will not be
    1558
    covered. However, many people who are in need of extra would be covered by the new Clause, remembering that they do not come within the regulations to be made under the Bill. I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for at least considering the people in the groups I have mentioned.
    I have recently been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour on this issue. I will quote from a letter, of yesterday's date, which I have received from the right hon. Gentleman concerning certain disabled people who are employed in sheltered workshops. The letter states:
    "These residents accommodated in the centres under welfare arrangements are so severely disabled as to be capable only of diversionary occupation as distinct from employment; but I understand that committees of management arrange for payments additional to the statutory pocket money to be made available to those residents engaged on occupational work."
    That letter, signed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, shows that that Ministry believes that there is a need for additional payments to be made. If that is the view of the Ministry of Labour, should not the right hon. Lady consider this matter, particularly in relation to the new Clause, remembering that it would be far better if the money were available from the State than that these people should be at the hazard of any charity which might be provided for them?
    If one considers the payments that are made—for example, the training allowances given to these disabled people—one finds that a man living away from home receives £5 a week while a woman receives £4 a week. A man with a wife or maintaining an adult dependant gets £7 5s. a week. These rates are extremely low.
    We are having to look after a large number of people who are unemployed or sick, but, in addition, there is a smaller number of people who are living on the poverty line. This point was made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a speech recently. These are the people whom the party opposite is inclined to forget, perhaps because their numbers are not large. Do I see the right hon. Lady smiling? I trust she realises the plight of these people and the fact that the Bill does not cover

    1559
    their needs. For this reason, I support the Clause and warn the Government that they will be judged by whether or not they accept it.
    The right hon. Lady has not accepted any Opposition Amendments so far. We hope that she will accept this proposed new Clause. If she does not she will be judged accordingly.
    Mr. R. H. Turton: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). The new Clause illustrates the difficulty we have got ourselves into by this Bill being introduced before the debate on social security next week. In other words, the Bill, good as it is, is making a scheme that requires revision more anomalous by its provisions.
    I cannot understand how any hon. Member can justify a state of affairs in which a man with a family who, from the 14th to the 169th day, has received a graduated supplement to his benefit, is cast back on to the basic rate after that time. I am certain that if the right hon. Lady got the approval of her colleagues she would want to see that that anomaly was not perpetrated.
    The weakness of the Beveridge scheme is its failure to deal with the problem of the chronic sick. I have held that belief for a number of years. I learned it when I was at the right hon. Lady's Ministry. We therefore need a provision, such as that contained in the new Clause, to provide some form of invalidity benefit. I cannot understand why, when the war and industrially disabled are so incapacitated that they receive the constant attendance allowance, somebody who is struck by a disabling disease gets no help at all towards paying for those who must look after him.
    I think of a very low-wage family in my constituency. Four of the five daughters suffer from disseminated sclerosis. One can imagine the extra burden on that small-income family, yet, with the best will in the world, neither the welfare authority nor the Government are able to provide sufficient to help it meet that extra expense. I know that this one small illustration can be repeated in any constituency. In all constituencies we could find scores of similar
    1560
    illustrations of the problem of the long-term sick who, with the old, are the two sections of poverty with which—notwithstanding Beveridge's high ideals—we have failed to deal.
    I beg the right hon. Lady to tackle this problem through this Bill. It is no good saying that we are to have a review and that this matter can be caught up in it. Time does not wait for these people, who are suffering from long-term sickness. When we have already given a graduated benefit for the sick, we must not have the anomalous position in which they are cut off from extra benefit just when they most need it. The 1966 Report of the Ministry said that there were 162,000 people suffering from spells of incapacity of more than six months' duration. That figure shows the size of the problem.
    I cannot believe that the ordinary insured contributor would be worried if we had to put up the rate of contributions by the amount necessary to give these long-term sick a more adequate income after they had been ill for six months. I am sure, knowing the people of Britain, that they would be very ready to pay the extra coppers a week in order that these sufferers might be removed from their present low-subsistence position.
    The Minister has a choice of two new Clauses here, either of which would fairly meet this problem. My own view is that £1 a week is too little, and that the amount should be nearer to the constant-attendance figure of £3. Nevertheless, even £1 would be some measure of help. I beg the right hon. Lady to see' that either of these two Clauses, or a Clause with similar effect, is inserted in the Bill before it receives the Royal Assent.
    Mr. Paul Dean: The intention of new Clause No. 7 is to extend the proposed invalidity benefit to the unemployed. I am not here thinking of that category of unemployed who do not want further employment. The right hon. Lady referred to the two distinct categories of those who, for various reasons, do not want further employment, and those who are suffering from some disability. Some of those in the latter category are virtually unemployable, although for various reasons they are still on the register and therefore get unemployment benefit. They have needs that are quite

    1561
    as great as those of the long-term sick. In practical human terms the two categories are virtually identical, although at present they get different benefits. The object of the new Clause is to bring in that other category as well.
    Mr. Bernard Braine: I strongly support the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on behalf of the chronic sick. My right hon. Friend said that one of our difficulties is that we are discussing the Bill, as it wore, in isolation—as we must—in advance of a general debate next Wednesday on welfare provisions. He could have gone further and said that it appeared from the exchange across the Floor earlier today that we are also to discuss next Wednesday the welfare provisions and the whole concept and practice of the Welfare State in advance of the review promised by the Government, and being conducted by one of their ablest members—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I think this is a pity. It simply does not make sense.
    When the Beveridge proposals were first adumbrated in the war years, Sir William Beveridge, those advising him, and the Government of the day had in mind conditions that have changed out of all recognition. Those who founded the Welfare State were influenced by recollections of the chronic unemployment and deflation of the 1930s. Ever since then we have lived—and especially today—in conditions of full, if not overfull, employment and inflation such as Beveridge could never have envisaged. We have seen a tremendous improvement not only in the general standard of living of the people but in general social conditions.
    What has happened, however, is that, in the process, in strictly relative terms, certain categories of our sick and needy have fallen far behind. I must not anticipate the kind of argument which we shall hear from both sides next Wednesday, but we are now discussing a simple demand for social justice for a relatively small but extremely deserving category of citizens. I do not think that there is any division in the Committee on this point, and I would be very surprised if in the review being conducted by the right hon.
    1562
    Member for Sowerby some improvement in the position of the long-time sick was not recommended.
    The question is: when shall we get that review? We have not got it now. We shall not have it on Wednesday. The Bill has been described by the right hon. Lady as a temporary Measure which may be modified in the light of the review when it is published, and so on. The Bill excludes any provision for the chronic sick. I hope, for reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend yesterday and today, that the Minister will make this one concession, which would be the best concession she could make.
    I hope that she will approach this subject in a conciliatory and generous frame of mind. Our plea is made on behalf of a small category of our fellow citizens who are sorely afflicted. My right hon. Friend has referred to cases and I, unhappily, have similar cases in my constituency—as I am sure that other hon. Members have in theirs. I therefore trust that the right hon. Lady will approach this very modest proposal in a generous spirit.
    4.30 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: The people who would be covered by this new Clause are the concern of all of us, and have been for a considerable time. I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) pointed to this side of the Committee and said that it seemed that hon. Members here forgot those who are suffering poverty.
    This is a matter with which we have been concerned for a very long time—the problem of the chronic sick, those unemployed over a long period and families depending on low-wage earners. In our review, when considering the possibilities for legislation, we had to start completely from scratch. That was only 16 months ago. What we have been able to achieve in those 16 months has been considerable in the help given to some who were among the poorest.
    Mr. Arthur Tiley: The right hon. Lady says that the party opposite started from scratch, but that is not what hon. Members opposite were saying to the country at the time of the General Election. It was said then that

    1563
    the minimum income guarantee which would cover these cases was ready to be implemented immediately, as a first task.
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said, just as he misunderstood the coverage of the minimum income guarantee. It was made very clear that the guarantee would cover pensioners, widows and people without retirement pensions. Those were the people to be covered, not those which this Clause seeks to cover.
    From scratch we made it perfectly clear that something would be done for the chronically sick. Anyone who has been a Minister, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has been, and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who has been a Minister in my Department, knows that it is one thing to have plans worked out and another thing to put those plans into operation in a legislative framework. It takes some time. Although we have had to start from scratch we have done a number of things, but a great deal still remains to be done. The people whom this Clause would help are among those who will be amongst the earliest to benefit under the review and the legislation when it is completed.
    All those hon. Members who spoke on Second Reading were genuinely concerned about the position of the chronically sick. All who have spoken this afternoon have been concerned with those who are chronically sick at the present time. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton gave the example of a tragic family with daughters suffering from disseminated sclerosis. All of us have in our constituencies families suffering from such diseases, but none of them would be helped by the provisions of new Clause 1. At present, there are 350,000—a larger figure than that given by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—in receipt of sickness benefit for over six months. One could almost say that they are chronically sick. The provisions of this Clause would not touch them.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not understand why the new Clause would not touch them. I am sure the right hon. Lady is not criticising the Clause for being badly drawn technically, because she could ask for it to be withdrawn and to be technically
    1564
    improved. Why would this Clause not cover the 350,000?
    Miss Herbison: I am not criticising the Clause from a technical aspect. From my experience as a back-bencher in opposition, I would consider that a Minister had a bad case if he opposed an Amendment merely because it was not technically correct. We know that it is not easy to draft an Amendment, particularly to a Bill as highly technical as this one.
    The Clause says:
    "A sum of £1 per week shall be paid at the end of the period covered by graduated benefit so long as incapacity for work due to sickness continues".
    We come to another group of people who would not come within the provisions of the new Clause. I have spoken about the 350,000 in receipt of sickness benefit. Sickness benefit can go on for years so long as the person concerned can prove that he is incapacitated for work through illness. A number of people such as those about whom the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke might come into another category. Take, for example, those who become adult, but who, from birth or early childhood, have been physically or mentally handicapped and have never been able to work. Never having been able to work, they have never contributed. There is a fairly big class of men and women who, because they have no contribution record, get no sickness benefit at all, nothing from the contributory scheme. They get whatever help is available from the National Assistance Board.
    There are large groups of people who would not be touched by the Clause. I shall deal with those who would be covered by the Clause. If we were to give an extra £1 a week, as suggested, to those who are chronically sick, when they reached pension age it would be impossible to take that £1 away. We would have to continue to pay the £1 a week because it would be inhuman to take it away. It would have to be paid after retirement pension took the place of sickness benefit.
    A person who is able to work until he is 65 then goes on to pension. We all know that on the whole there is more ill-health among pensioners than in the rest of the population. Should we then say that if men or women in receipt of retirement pension became chronically sick

    1565
    after retirement they should be denied the extra £1? If this provision were there we could not deny it to those people. We would have to add that number of people. We would then have two kinds of pensioner, the one who had the extra £1 a week and the one who did not have it.
    Everyone in this Committee realises the pressures which would develop to give an extra £1 a week to all who retire. There would be the anomaly which occurs in so much of our social insurance of two people living next door to each other and one of them having a clear £1 lead. If there were that clear £1 lead, there is no doubt that pressure would be very strong to give the £1 a week to all retired people, particularly when almost any day a retired person could be feeling not very well.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Lady's argument is rather weak in the context of the Bill. The constant attendance allowance which is to be made available on the basis that the Committee discussed yesterday in particular cases, will create the very anomalies which she says the Clause will create.
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but in this instance, also, the hon. Gentleman just does not understand the provisions of the Bill. All hon. Members would want to find a solution to the human problem posed by the Amendment.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I submit that it is completely out of order for the Minister to suggest that I, who have sat here for two days, do not understand what the Bill is about. The fact is that the right hon. Lady would like to think that I do not know what the Bill is about.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Leslie Thomas): That is not a point of order. Such interchanges between the opposing sides of the Committee are natural and understandable.
    Miss Herbison: I will try to explain to the hon. Gentleman the point that he has raised. He talks about a provision in the Bill for the constant attendance allowance. There is not anywhere in the Bill provision for constant attendance allowance.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
    Miss Herbison: I think that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends know that.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Lady is just trying to be clever.
    The Temporary Chairman: If the right hon. Lady does not care to give way, the hon. Gentleman must not persist. He knows the rules of order.
    Miss Herbison: I gave way.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
    Miss Herbison: I am not giving way any further at present. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that there is no provision in the Bill for constant attendance allowance.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is an additional grant.
    Miss Herbison: Not for the constant attendance allowance for the seriously disabled. I have tried to explain how this would have to be extended.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East made a very fair point when he said that, with a few exceptions, any increase given would have to be taken into account by the National Assistance Board. Thus, a person might receive an increase in sickness benefit, on the one hand, and suffer a cut in National Assistance, on the other. For this reason, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the £1 ought to be disregarded by the Board if someone made a claim for National Assistance.
    The Committee knows that National Assistance is payable to people who have sickness benefit, as it is payable to many others. The Board tries to cater, as far as possible, within the regulations, through its standard scales and through its discretionary allowances, for the individual needs of the chronic sick, as it tries to cater for others—for example, the old. In the first place the Board grants the scale allowance, plus rent. Apart from the scale allowance, plus rent, the Board has discretionary powers to make additional allowances. Someone who is chronically sick often needs extra nourishment, and the Board can make a payment for that. People often need extra heating, and the Board is able to make a discretionary payment for that. Domestic help and laundry

    1567
    charges, which can be very high for the chronic sick, are taken into account by the Board. So these people are not completely left out in the cold, though I am the first to admit that something further needs to be done for them.
    4.45 p.m.
    I come to the cost of providing for those that the Amendment would cover, not the 350,000 who would be left out. The extra £1 a week payable only until retirement age would work out at about £18 million a year. If it were continued after retirement age, it would add at least another £5 million. That comes to £23 million. As I said earlier, there would be very great pressure to extend this provision to all pensioners. If that were done, the cost would be £250 million a year.
    Mr. Turton: I am sure that the right hon. Lady did not mean to give the figure of £250 million, because, quite clearly, this provision would not be extended to pensioners who are not sick. A man can perfectly well be a pensioner and be earning and, therefore, he would not qualify for the supplement.
    Miss Herbison: That is true. Knowing what happens in Parliament and in the country, I gave three figures, first, the £18 million and then the extra £5 million if it were continued after retirement age. I am not able to give a figure of the cost of extending it to those who become chronically sick after retirement. One assumes that everyone would want them to benefit from such a provision. If we went as far as that, there is no doubt that there would be a great deal of pressure to extend this to all pensioners. That is why I gave the figure of £250 million.
    Much has been said about doing something for these people now and not waiting until the result of the review. If the Amendment were accepted, we should not deal with the thousands of people about whom we have been concerned for a long time. I can give the Committee the assurance that the matter is receiving the closest attention in the review. Again, I want to stress that the Bill is only the first of a number of developments which will emerge as a result of the Government's review.
    The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) said that it was wrong
    1568
    for us to have a debate on the Welfare State next Wednesday before the result of the review is known. Over all the years I have been in Parliament—I shall soon have spent 21 years here—we have had many debates on the Welfare State which did not wait for the result of a review or anything else. I am glad that new Clauses such as this are tabled. It is a good thing that we should let the country know the problems that are still to be solved and ventilate these matters.
    Mr. Braine: I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not wish to misrepresent what I said. I do not think I said that it would be wrong to have a debate on the Welfare State. I have myself pressed in the past for more frequent debates on this sort of subject. I said that I thought it a pity that we were having the debate when the review was nearing completion, but not yet available to us. Both sides of the Committee are well aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy has been engaged upon a thorough and painstaking review—incidentally, a review which we ourselves, when in office, promised to undertake if we were returned. I presume that the review is nearing completion and is almost ready to be published. If it is not, I am sure that the Committee is entitled to know when it will be.
    Miss Herbison: My right hon. Friend, who can take good care of himself in the debate on Wednesday, will deal with these points. It may be a pity that we are having the debate before the review is completed, and it may be that the hon. Gentleman's own Government had promised a review. There were 13 years for that review. This is why I said that in this matter we started from scratch.
    Mr. Braine rose—
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman makes a remark of that kind, he must not take it too hard if I take him up on it.
    I come now to new Clause No. 7, and I shall not spend long on it, because several of the points I have made apply to this, also. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) suggested that the extra £1 a week should be applied only to the one class—I divided them into two classes last night—that is, people

    1569
    who, for disability, ill-health or social reasons are unemployed for a long time. But this is not what his Clause would provide. It would give it to both classes. That is the first point.
    If I agreed that what the hon. Gentleman wanted to do was feasible at this time, I could provide for it. Whenever a Minister is convinced of the need for something, that Minister can put an Amendment down to meet the point which has been made by the Committee. But how is one to decide whether people are genuinely seeking work? We come back to that problem again. At least, new Clause No. 7 would cover all people at present unemployed and who have been unemployed for a long time. We should not have cut any of them out as some of the chronic sick would be cut out in new Clause No. 1.
    We want to give help to both these categories at the earliest possible moment, the long-term sick and the long-term unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right to speak about what happens in a home after there has been a long period of sickness, and the same happens after a long period of unemployment. I think that the best way to deal with this is to ensure that, whether people become chronically sick or whether they have already been chronically sick for a long time, steps are taken to alleviate their position. This is what we hope to achieve as a result of the general review.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Lady give for new Clause No. 7 figures of cost similar to those which she gave in respect of new Clause No. 1?
    Miss Herbison: The cost would be £9 million a year, and there would then be an addition of £2 million if the £1 were continued to be paid after pensionable age. Again, it would be very difficult to take it away. Moreover, the Clause speaks of "interruption of employment" instead of unemployment. There are people who are not even going to the employment exchange but, if they had £1 dangled in front of their noses, they could come along and claim that they were still suffering a period of interruption of employment.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I would not have intervened again if the right hon. Lady, who started off yesterday by being
    1570
    thoroughly bad-tempered, had not been thoroughly discourteous to me a few minutes ago. She went on to be thoroughly inaccurate. She knows perfectly well that, in referring to the constant attendance allowance, I was talking about the related plus in the Bill, and constant attendance allowance is mentioned in this context several times.
    The truth is that the right hon. Lady, as yesterday, is anxious to make as much political capital out of the Bill as she can. We have, quite properly, treated the Bill as non-controversial and we have supported it all the way through. In view of her attitude to me a few minutes ago, I can only say that, if the Prime Minister is thinking of appointing an ombudsman, perhaps a lady ombudsman, I hope that he does not appoint the right hon. Lady.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a second opportunity to speak, which he is entitled to have, but I thought that he would confine himself to the new Clauses.
    Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Lady has been helpful in analysing the implications of the new Clause, and some of the figures she has used must cause us on this side to hesitate a little. It is not so much the cost of the new cases as the aggregate of the new cases plus the existing chronic sick. As I understand from what the right hon. Lady said—she did not give us this figure—there must be about 30,000 new cases each year of people moving into the "more than six months" category. If that were the size of the problem, we should all want to help them, and I cannot see that there is any case at all for withdrawing the £1 a week benefit at retirement age. Most people come to retirement with some of the fat from their working lives still in their pockets, their cupboards and their savings accounts, but those who have suffered chronic sickness have very little, if any, of that fat left.
    Even if we had to add £5 million to the £18 million, we on this side of the Committee would regard that as money well spent. As I calculate it, the £23 million would cost about 3d. a side on the contribution. That is the order of magnitude. But when the right hon. Lady points out that there is still, as it were, the existing load, the 350,000

    1571
    chronic sick, this would add something like an additional 2d. a side in order to look after the £1 a week for them. Thus, we should face a cost, if the Clause were made rational, that is, to include the existing load as well as the chronic sick, a cost of 5d. a side, that is, 10d. in all, on the Insurance Fund. That is big money, and at this stage we on this side of the Committee cannot tell whether that is the best way to use such a large sum of money.
    We urge the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend, when they come to the stage of, perhaps, producing proposals to the House, not to be frightened of carrying over into retirement a benefit which is necessary because, as I have explained, the people concerned have had very little in their working lives. We shall support her if she wants to hold the door against extending such a benefit to all the other retired who have not been deprived in their working lives, through long unemployment or long sickness, of the chance to build up some resources. I do not think that the right hon. Lady should frighten us with that talk. But in the light of the figures she has presented, and after a useful debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(GRADUATED SICKNESS AND WIDOWS BENEFIT FOR SELF-EMPLOYED.)
    Subject to regulations to be made by the Minister and approved by both Houses of Parliament there shall be payable as from the appointed day earnings-related supplement for sickness and widows' benefit as provided by this Act for those self-employed who elect to pay one half per cent. of the excess up to £21 per week of their reckonable earnings over £9 per week or the equivalent amount for earnings not receivable weekly.—[Mr. Tiley.]
    Brought up, and read the First Time.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Tiley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    As the right hon. Lady says, we are discussing some very interesting subjects. The purpose of this Clause is to bring into the Bill the whole army of the self-employed and to extend the scheme to cover them. I hope, therefore, that she will acquit me of the charge of the profit motive, because I am engaged now in
    1572
    extending her scheme and not making it less. I do so because it is essential to differentiate between the sickness, accident and widows' benefits and unemployment benefit in the case of the self-employed. We understand the case for the exclusion of the self-employed from unemployment payment. It would be difficult to check their claims and to prevent fraud. That is an unfortunate difficulty in respect of legitimate claimers, however.
    We understand their position because we Members of Parliament are self-employed and I have no doubt that there are quite a few Members who would, especially at this moment, like to become members of a scheme of wage-related benefits for unemployment. It is a pity, therefore, that the legitimate classes who might otherwise have been included even for unemployment benefit have to be excluded because of those who would fall by the wayside.
    Whatever one's job, things do not always go right and this is through no fault of one's own. Happily for us, as hon. Members and as self-employed persons, we do not have cause to suffer any financial loss from absence due to sickness or accident. Because we are aware of the problems ourselves, we should be the better able to understand the needs of the other self-employed who are not in the same fortunate position.
    During her Second reading speech, the right hon. Lady entirely forgot the self-employed. She made no reference to them. Nor is there a word in the Government Actuary's Report about the self-employed. Nor does the White Paper refer to them. They are the forgotten people, left alone in the cold—all 3 million of them.
    It was only because, on Second reading, some of my hon. Friends raised the matter that consideration was given to this very great problem and the Government made to realise that this body of people exists. Replying to the debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "It has been asked why supplements do not apply to certain cases, and the question of the self-employed person has been raised by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been suggested that the self-employed person should be brought within the scope of the new scheme. Self-employed people cannot be covered for unemployment benefit and therefore could not be brought into this part of the

    1573
    scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 136.]
    That may be so when referring to their unemployment benefit, but in our view there is no reason why the self-employed should not be brouhgt into the sickness, accident and widows' portions of the wage-related benefits. We do not accept that it is too difficult to bring them in. They are already in the scheme for flat-rate benefits and they purchase their stamps. In our view, it is unjust to leave them out with nothing.
    The simplest way to deal with the problem would be a tax concession—say, 1 per cent. of gross earnings—for the self-employed to deal with the problem privately. We cannot make such a provision in this Bill for that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had to search for a way to deal with the problem and that is why we have put down this new Clause.
    If we accept that mass contributions from everyone in the country bring in these great benefits for all, then there is no argument for leaving a certain section out of the mass benefits which the mass contributions provide. It would be no excuse to say that the self-employed were left outside the graduated pension scheme. They were left outside deliberately because previous provision had been made, following the Tucker Report, for the self-employed to provide pensions for themselves through separate arrangements under the 1956 Act.
    We do not want the self-employed left in the cold. We need not think of the wealthy ones—those with money and influence who will make their own provision both for illness and accident and for their widows. They are not beset by worries of unemployment. We are thinking particularly of the small shopkeepers, the small businessmen and the small farmers.
    There is one other aspect of the mass collection of the contributions—it allows the hazardous risks, as the right hon. Lady pointed out earlier, to be taken in with the better risks. If this Clause were accepted, people in hazardous trades, like window cleaners—thousands of them are self-employed—who find it difficult to make provision for their own coverage against accident or illness would be brought into the scheme. Risks may be
    1574
    involved, but we should take the bad as well as the good in this case.
    We believe in our Clause and apologise if the wording is not correct. We would be happy to see it suitably amended to become workable and we do not want this item to cost any of the taxpayers' money. We are prepared that the cost of providing these benefits to the self-employed should be borne by them. If the ½ per cent. which we ask for as a contribution from the excess up to £21 a week of reckonable earnings over £9 a week would not be sufficient to meet the benefits, we hope that the right hon. Lady will make an appropriate amendment to the Clause to bring the contribution in line with the cost.
    We hope that the difficulty of collecting contributions will not be used as an objection to the Clause. We already trust self-employed people to buy their own stamps, and we believe that the contribution could be collected quarterly on the basis of the previous complete year's tax accounts. We know the year's earning of a self-employed person in the same way that we know the total annual earnings of an employed person.
    We therefore have the method and the amount. There would be no difficulty about collection of the contributions, because if the contributions were not paid, the person would not be in benefit. The position could be protected further by having a waiting period of three months before benefits were payable, which would cut out those who periodically took time off because they thought that they were about to be ill.
    We hope that the Minister will regard the new Clause sympathetically and will support it and, if necessary, amend it. If the wording is wrong, we hope that she will tell us where it is wrong, and, if the percentage is wrong, we shall be glad to alter it.
    Captain Walter Elliot: Whatever the right hon. Lady's misconceptions about the merits of profit are, we all know that she has a very profound feeling for the elderly and the sick, and I am sure that she will agree with me when I say that age is a form of sickness in that there is a drop of efficiency. It seems quite wrong that if a person cannot do a full-time job as when young, the alternative is to do nothing.

    1575
    We know that many self-employed are elderly and for that reason are more likely to go sick. There are various reasons why such people want to go on working, often financial so that they can supplement their savings or pensions, or to keep themselves occupied. In these days, when our labour force is at such stretch, it is a very good thing that elderly people like that should go on working. They may be only in the service industries, but by working in those industries they release labour for the productive or manufacturing industries.
    Many other self-employed people are in the prime of life. They are self-employed perhaps because they prefer to work for themselves, because they are energetic and ambitious. This, too, is something to be encouraged. Many of our great industries were built up by such people starting in a backyard. I am sure that many are doing so today and it is on their efforts that we shall have to rely in future.
    Whatever the moral issue is, I would like to know why the self-employed should be excluded from the Bill. Is it for administrative reasons? I know that it is customary to leave them out of the social services, but I would like to know whether there is an orientation of our social services towards those who work only in the large industries or businesses as a cog in the organisation. I am well aware that the self-employed are difficult to organise. They are often very awkward and cantankerous, but it is a very good thing for the country to have awkward people to keep things going.
    We should bear in mind that when one is self-employed, whether elderly or not, one's position is likely to become very difficult on going sick. It is not just a matter of staying off from work in a big oganisation. The business may have to be closed down, and the effect on the person concerned can be very serious.
    I am sure that the right hon. Lady will give these matters careful consideration. Not all self-employed people are wealthy by a long chalk. Some are the most humble people in the land, and if we can possibly help them we should do so.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): At this juncture perhaps, I can say that the Opposition are not knocking at a completely closed door. I have listened with intense interest to the case of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and I am sure that both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that some self-employed people carry on their job when they should be resting or recuperating from an illness, having to do so because they run one-man businesses.
    I must eradicate the impression that we are in any way prejudiced. In the National Insurance Scheme, in 1948, we discovered a means by which to include the self-employed, and the Opposition continued the system when in power. But the problem in this case is not so easy. Far be it for me to make cheap jokes about the wording of the new Clause, for I know the difficulty. However, giving an option to self-employed people to enter the scheme would create terrific administrative and other difficulties.
    A concrete example was that of Germany, where people could elect to join the German State insurance system. The result is that there is a tendency for those who have private cover and who feel themselves to be immortal—and we all feel ourselves to be immortal when we are in our 'twenties—to opt out. But the chronic sick cannot opt out. That is one of the difficulties of imbalance which any Government, of whatever political calibre, would have to face in dealing with this problem.
    I know that there will be smiles when I say that we are bearing this in mind—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may join in the joke if they like, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—is working on it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not use the argument of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who used to be in the Department. He sailed into harbour with his ship in full sail with this new philosophy. I would be out of

    1577
    order to deal with the new philosophy of the social services and social security which has been advanced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his Birmingham speech. They were marvellous speeches. The sails were full blown and they were looking to the social security of the future, but I must say that I do not yet know what it is to be.
    Wednesday will be a chance for the Opposition to explain to the country clearly what this new philosophy—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele): I am not sure that this is the opportunity for the Opposition to do this and I think that we ought to confine ourselves to the new Clause.
    Mr. Davies: I thought that I would not get away with that. One of our difficulties is that this has been left in the form of persons electing whether they are to come in. It was asked whether my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to this. He did give quite a full answer on the Second Reading, and that argument still stands.
    If we take the arithmetic of this it would mean that about ½ per cent. earnings-related contribution would have to be paid, considerably in arrears. It is doubtful whether this would be acceptable to many self-employed persons, particularly if contributions on high earnings have to be paid at a time of low earnings. We believe that it would be difficult to determine in good time the rate of benefit payable to a self-employed person, or his widow, on his earnings for a particular tax year. While the Clause appears to recognise some of the special problems attached to the self-employed, by making the provisions subject to regulations, and by providing an option, the Clause is rendered inoperative.
    This is an interim scheme, effected not only for social but for economic purposes. Take the costs proposed under the Clause, which envisages a contribution of ½ per cent. of earnings in the £9 to £30 range. We believe that if this were to be taken up, and even if all self-employed persons opted in, a ½ per cent. contribution would produce about £3 million a year, whereas supplements to sickness benefit and widows allowances would cost £3¼ million. These are the facts.
    1578
    The Government feel that they cannot accept the Clause because it is not feasible to fit the self-employed into the structure of these contributions and benefits, which are based on P.A.Y.E. tax assessment, and this is needed to get this scheme started in good time. This is a problem faced by the Opposition when they were in office in 1959. The Government are sympathetic and accept the provisos and the arguments put forward on behalf of the self-employed. We regret that we shall have to resist the Motion. We do assure the Committee that this is being given consideration and we hope one day to be able to find a formula to be able to answer this problem.
    Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always has a very attractive way of talking. It is very simple. He makes us all feel that he is behind what we are trying to do, and, indeed, what the Government are trying to do. When it comes to be assimilated, however, the answer is "No".
    I do not think that we shall accept that, because if it is so difficult to do anything for the self-employed, how far have the Government looked at the position of the self-employed in the overall review which is being carried out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? The self-employed are a very important section of the community. Their trouble is—and I say this quite advisedly, because I know enough about parliamentary and political pressures—that they have not got powerful appeals and pressures behind them to shift any Government.
    They apparently cannot shift the present Government and I doubt whether they would have shifted my party when it was the Government. It is an absolutely monstrous way to treat a section of the community, which pays taxes, helping to sponsor a great many of the new schemes put forward. It is not apparently within the capacity of the Government to find a way of giving them in the Bill what is their due. I call that a monstrous repudiation of a section of the community to whom the country owes a very great deal. I have listened to broadcasts on behalf of the Government and seen their television appearances and I do not think that any

    1579
    self-employed person who has done so would ever have imagined that the Government would have rejected this Clause on the ground that "they really cannot include the self-employed in the Bill".
    I know the Parliamentary techniques of all Front Benches. Sometimes they make me sick, and the hon. Gentleman's contribution today has made me sick. First of all, he talks about the Clause being badly drafted. It may be. But what does that matter?
    Mr. T. W. Urwin: Is the hon. Lady really serious in her latter remarks, after being so complimentary in her earlier remarks, and particularly after saying that her own party, if in office, would not be persuaded to introduce this new Clause?
    Dame Irene Ward: That does not make any difference to me. You see, I am a free woman. I do not always subscribe to party Whips. I do not always subscribe to the views of the party to which I belong. If the Conservative Party had paid a little more attention to what I have said in the past, you would not be sitting there today.
    The Temporary Chairman: That does not entirely follow. I hope that the hon. Lady will apply herself to the Clause.
    Dame Irene Ward: Certainly, Mr. Steele, but when someone bursts in and attacks my comments I am sure that I can say what I think. I listened to some of the Labour Left wing last night, on the Order on Rhodesia, saying what they thought about their Front Bench.
    5.30 p.m.
    This is a matter which affects hundreds of thousands of the best people in this country. It is no good talking, as the hon. Gentleman talked, although not very much, I agree, about the tax return difficulties. Many self-employed people do not pay taxes. The Conservative Administration relieved self-employed people in the lower income groups from paying taxes. It is no good talking about people who pay Income Tax. I am talking about those who do not pay Income Tax.
    The hon. Gentleman in his charming way—I never mix charm up with speeches—says that the Clause is badly drafted. What does that matter? If
    1580
    he liked, he could say, "We do not like the way in which the Clause has been drafted, but on the Report stage"—this would help my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis)—"we will introduce a new Clause which is properly drafted". If he were to say that, I would say "Hear, hear". The hon. Gentleman spent most of his time talking about bad drafting. Then he spoke about the cost—£3 million—if the new Clause were put in the Bill. He went on to say that there would be £250,000 over. That is a very small amount in this context.
    My objection is that the Government always think about the masses of industrial and professional workers who are employed. But there are many self-employed people who, by way of inventions or bravery in action, have given something to the country, the cost of which, can never be counted. That is why I think that this is a monstrous way of dealing with this matter.
    I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on the Clause because I am sick of all the promises, pledges, talk and build-up. Unfortunately, I did not hear the opening speeches; I was engaged in another Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I have a lot to do; much more than many other hon. Members. Where are they? For a long time there was not one member of the Liberal Party present, or an hon. Member opposite, except on the Government Front Bench and the Minister's P.P.S.
    The Government cannot face the repudiation of the self-employed. The Minister, for whom I have a great admiration, has plenty of character to tell her civil servants to draft the new Clause properly. The Conservative Government used to say that they could not tell how many people did not apply for National Assistance, although I knew that many did not apply for it. But in a White Paper—there are so many White Papers that I cannot remember them all—they have put a figure to the number of people who do not apply for National Assistance. How did they manage to do that? That is much more difficult than discovering the number of self-employed people.
    As I say, I hope that we will divide on the Clause. I look forward, with my

    1581
    right hon. and hon. Friends, to doing what we can for that section of the community which deserves just as well of this country as any other section.
    Mr. Tiley: I am sure that I voice the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we have had a very pleasant answer from a very pleasant Minister but not a convincing one. If nothing is forthcoming in answer to the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the free lady from Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), we shall have to divide the House.
    I want to deal with one or two points which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made. The self-employed are used to dealing with payments in arrears. I say that advisedly, because they are independent people. In addition to paying for things in arrears, they create reserves to deal with that situation. They are among the most thrifty and best payers in the country. They will not, therefore, be put out of balance in their economic affairs by having these small contributions payable in arrears.
    The self-employed were deliberately left out of the Conservative Government's graduated pensions Measure not because they had been forgotten but because they had been dealt with earlier. The Tucker Commission was set up to deal not with greengrocers, grocers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, but with the pensions for the great body of professional men. But following the Tucker Report in 1956 the Government implemented a scheme for the self-employed to purchase their own pensions with a certain tax rebate.
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters. I accept that in moving the new Clause he was concerned about the needs of the small self-employed person. Has he any idea how many small self-employed people now have a pension to look forward to?
    Mr. Tiley: It would be unfair for me to give the facts which I know personally from my own professional pursuit, but I know that many hundreds of thousands
    1582
    of small self-employed people are thriftily saving through pension arrangements created by the Conservative Government and through private endowment assurance. Many hundreds of thousands of small self-employed people are saving for their old age with the help of the tax rebate on which both parties agreed.
    I was surprised to find how near we were to the costing of this matter. We were within £250,000. It is not the wish of my hon. Friends that the self-employed people should cost the taxpayer anything. The self-employed person is a sturdy, independent man. I am sure that he is willing to pay for any benefits he may receive. We felt that if six days of benefit were deleted in respect of the self-employed we would bridge the small gap. We feel that it could be done immediately in the Bill.
    Unless a more definite answer is forthcoming from the Government, I ask my hon. Friends to divide on the new Clause.
    Mr. Harold Davies: I regret that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and his colleagues feel that they should divide on the new Clause. The Tucker Report dealt with a completely different matter. I can give figures for these pensions. The wrong impression must not be created. One side of the argument relates to private pensions. It is worth while to have it on record that only 2 million people are currently drawing occupational pensions and that half of these are less than £2 a week. We should not go away with the impression that colossal pensions are being given by private occupational schemes. That side of the argument, therefore, is irrelevant.
    We are dealing here with earnings-related benefits. Present as well as former Ministers, on both sides, know how difficult it is to deal with this subject in this interim Measure. I have made no cheap remarks about the drafting—far from it. I said that I would not do so, because I know how difficult it all was. I did say that the "option" made things difficult. However, if hon. Members opposite have to divide the Committee, I see no point in prolonging the debate
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 143.

    Division No. 29.]

    AYES

    [5.42 p.m.

    Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

    Farr, John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fell, Anthony

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Murton, Oscar

    Amery, Bt. Hn. Julian

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Balniel, Lord

    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Peel, John

    Bessell, Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

    Biffen, John

    Grant, Anthony

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pym, Francis

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grieve, Percy

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Blaker, Peter

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Roots, William

    Braine, Bernard

    Gurden, Harold

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Bryan, Paul

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hordern, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Burden, F. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    summers, Sir Spencer

    Buxton, Ronald

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Irvine; Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Teeling, Sir William

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Chataway, Christopher

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Cooke, Robert

    Kirk, Peter

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Costain, A. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Walters, Dennis

    Curran, Charles

    Longbottom, Charles

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Webster, David

    Dean, Paul

    MacArthur, Ian

    Whitelaw, William

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Eden, Sir John

    Mathew, Robert

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Mawby, Ray

    Younger, Hn. George

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Mitchell, David

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Monro, Hector

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Eyre, Reginald

    More, Jasper

    Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Fraser.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Doig, Peter

    Howie, W.

    Albu, Austen

    Driberg, Tom

    Hoy, James

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Atkinson, Norman.

    Ennals, David

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Bence, Cyril

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Floud, Bernard

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Bishop, E. S.

    Foley, Maurice

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Boston, Terence

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)

    Ford, Ben

    Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Freeson, Reginald

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

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Lawson, George

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Grey, Charles

    Ledger, Ron

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Chapman, Donald

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Mclnnes, James

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Hannan, William

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Harper, Joseph

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Darling, George

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    McLeavy, Frank

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hazell, Bert

    Manuel, Archie

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Mason, Roy

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Holman, Percy

    Mellish, Robert

    Delargy, Hugh

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Dell, Edmund

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Miller, Dr. M. S

    Molloy, William

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Snow, Julian

    Monslow, Walter

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Stones, William

    Murray, Albert

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Neal, Harold

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Tomney, Frank

    Newens, Stan

    Prentice, R. E.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Urwin, T. W.

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

    Rankin, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Norwood, Christopher

    Rees, Merlyn

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Ogden, Eric

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wallace, George

    O'Malley, Brian

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Warbey, William

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Weitzman, David

    Orme, Stanley

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Oswald, Thomas

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Owen, Will

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Padley, Walter

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Zilliacus, K.

    Palmer, Arthur

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Small, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. McCann and Mr. Fitch.

    New Clause.—(DEATH GRANT.)
    Death grant shall be payable under section 39 of the National Insurance Act 1946 in respect of any person who at the time of his death is severely mentally handicapped and has been so since childhood, notwithstanding that at the time of his death he was over the age of nineteen years.—[Mr. Dean.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause deals with a small but important and rather technical point. The main object is to ask the Government what progress they have made in finding a solution to the problem. The question has been discussed on a number of occasions, as the Committee will recall, and a similar proposal to this was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) during the Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill, on 3rd December, 1964.
    On that occasion, in reply to the debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "…we have examined this problem very carefully indeed, and we have found, as the previous Government did, that it is a difficult one to solve…We want to find a solution—make no mistake about that—and we are determined to find one if it is at all possible. We want to assure the Committee that we shall embark upon a detailed study of this matter. This will not be brought within the ambit of the major review. It will be an independent study into this problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 854.]
    At long last we are discussing a point which does not depend upon the famous long-term review. We are discussing one which depends on an entirely independent review; so let us hope that on this occasion the right hon. Lady or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to
    1586
    tell us that they have reached a satisfactory conclusion.
    The object of the Clause is to enable death grant to be payable in respect of someone who has been severely mentally handicapped since childhood and is not now covered for death grant.
    If I understand the rather difficult technical point correctly, the present position is that if a severely mentally handicapped child has a parent living and dies before the age of 19, there is usually no problem, because he or she is covered for death grant on the parent's insurance. The problem largely arises when the person concerned is over the age of 19. He or she has almost certainly not paid insurance contributions, and cannot qualify for death grant on his or her own contribution record.
    It may be said that it is a case for the National Assistance Board to deal with, because the chances are that a severely handicapped person in that category would be in receipt of National Assistance. But the law appears to be that there is no power within the National Assistance Act to make a grant towards funeral expenses, except through a living person who is receiving National Assistance. If the parent is on National Assistance, a payment towards the funeral expenses can be made, but not otherwise.
    If I have understood the position correctly, it appears that at the moment there is no solution in these cases either through National Insurance or through National Assistance. I recognise that it is very much easier to state the problem than it is to find the solution. I recognise that it is a very complicated matter. First, how does one define "severely mentally handicapped"? Secondly, ought one not

    1587
    to include the physically handicapped as well? I recognise that there are those complications and that there are wider implications if one is to deal with such cases more satisfactorily than purely on the very narrow point which the Clause selects.
    It is generally agreed that the problem exists. It may be small, but it is an important gap in our social security arrangements. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us today that they have had the independent inquiry and have been able to find a satisfactory solution. The drafting of our Clause may not be satisfactory, but if the Government are able to say that they have a solution and can offer an alternative, that will be satisfactory from our point of view.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has referred quite properly to the undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) during the course of the Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill on 3rd December, 1964. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members of the Committee that, following my undertaking to the hon. Lady, we have spent a good deal of time giving sympathetic thought once again to how we can find a formula to overcome this very difficult problem.
    We have tried to find ways and means of making provision for the payment of a death grant upon the death of permanently handicapped people, not only the mentally handicapped, but also the physically handicapped who are not referred to in the Clause.
    I want to make it clear to the Committee that the problem that faces us about the death grant for the disabled person is not, on the narrow front, primarily one of expense at all, because there are estimated to be only about 3,000 deaths every year of that kind. Let me clear that away once and for all. The essential difficulty that we have to face is that of doing what the Opposition suggest under the existing scheme without it bringing considerable wider changes in its train.
    1588
    One possible solution which has been examined by us is the replacement of the existing contribution conditions for death grant by a provision under which the grant could be paid provided that the deceased was an insured person. As the Committee will be aware, people who are resident in Great Britain and over school leaving age are insured persons, irrespective of whether they pay contributions; so this would mean paying the grant where no contributions had been paid at all. It would mean that such a proposition would go much wider than the Clause and would make the grant available to everyone.
    To make such a change would involve a fundamental departure from the general principle for National Insurance benefits. As the hon. Member will probably know, their payment depends on the satisfaction of contribution conditions.
    6.0 p.m.
    We must face the fact that once that principle was abandoned, and it was accepted that benefits could be paid without contributions, we should be taking a far-reaching step, the implications of which would extend far beyond the narrow point of death grant. The Government take the view that it would not be right to embark on such a step to meet this problem without being sure that the wider repercussions could be resisted.
    Another difficulty is that it would seem odd to provide insurance cover for these permanently handicapped people only in respect of death grant. This could open up the whole question of the way in which the National Insurance Scheme provides for people in such a position, and this again is an issue which the Government believe should be considered on its merits, and not as an incidental result of a change in one particular sector of the field.
    I regret that the various possible courses which we have considered, even when looked at with the greatest sympathy and wish to help, are seen not to provide a solution to the problem at the present time. But we have not given up the ghost in our endeavours to solve it. It is a problem for which everyone in this Committee, regardless of which side he is on, has the deepest sympathy, and we are still trying to find

    1589
    ways and means, outside the review, of doing something about it.
    It is possible that the review could lead to more fundamental changes which would enable the matter to be dealt with in a more logical and comprehensive fashion, but we do not know that yet. It could, for example, be dealt with by a more general arrangement for the provision of benefits for persons disabled from childhood.
    As I have said, the cost of the Clause itself, ignoring the repercussions which could flow from it, would not be large. I repeat that it is not a question of cost. It could cost up to £50,000 a year for mentally handicapped persons only, and about £75,000 a year if physically handicapped people were included, as they clearly would have to be.
    I stress that we regard this problem with the deepest possible sympathy. We want to try to find a solution to it, but, after looking at all the possibilities, we still have not found a way through the technical and other complications which arise. Nevertheless, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the Clause, on the understanding that we are still doing everything possible to try to find a solution to a very difficult question.
    Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation. I appreciate the difficulties of trying to find a solution to this problem. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems which arise in trying to solve this problem through National Insurance, and said that the review was considering all these matters, but he did not say anything about the possibility of solving the problem through National Assistance. Can he explain a little more what difficulties exist there? It appears to me that it may be easier, at any rate for the time being, to relax the National Assistance arrangements so that most of these cases, at any rate in the interim, can be covered.
    Mr. Pentland: The question of dealing with this problem through National Assistance has been urged from time to time, and I think I am right in saying that the previous Government applied their minds to this approach. It is said that as the National Assistance grant is paid to handicapped people during their lifetime, in appropriate cases the National Assistance
    1590
    Board should be willing to use its discretionary powers to make a payment in the form of grant on the death of these people. Any such change would require an Amendment to the National Assistance Act itself, and could not be done in this Bill.
    The field to be covered by the Board—and this is another consideration—might be difficult to define or de-limit. Indeed, there may be pressure for the Board to meet funeral expenses in all cases where the National Insurance death grant was not payable and there were no other, or sufficient, assets in the deceased's estate. We have examined this possibility, but we still think it does not meet the problem about which we are all concerned, and once again I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we are determined to try to solve the problem.
    Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that additional information, and in view of his explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(INDUSTRIAL INJURIES—WIDOWS.)
    The widow's benefit of 20 shillings a week payable by virtue of the Industrial Injuries Act shall be increased to 30 shillings a week.—[Mr. Dean.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Temporary Chairman: I think that with that Clause it might be convenient to discuss new Clause No. 5, "Widows.":
    Without prejudice to any other benefit to which she may be entitled under the National Insurance Act there shall be payable to a widow a pension at the rate of 30 shillings a week.
    Mr. Dean: Thank you, Mr. Steele.
    I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    These two Clauses deal with various aspects of widows' benefits, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree that it would be wrong to let a Bill of this kind go through without discussing the problem of the no-shilling widow and the 20s. industrial widow. I propose to deal with them separately, because, although we are dealing with similar problems, they are rather different from a legislative point of view.

    1591
    The object of the second Clause is simply to provide a pension for what we call the no-shilling widows, the 40,000 women who at the moment get no pension. The cost of accepting this proposal would be very small indeed. In fact, it would be so small that it does not enter into the argument.
    I do not propose to rest my case on the precise wording of the Clause. There may be argument about the best way of achieving the objective. Indeed, I am one of those who hope that occupational pension schemes will play a growing part in providing benefits for widows, but I am convinced about the basic objective behind the Clause. In my view, widowhood should create the right to a pension. I do not believe that we shall remove the anomalies, and the sense of injustice which exists, until that principle is firmly accepted.
    There are two main reasons why I say that. The first is the number of anomalies and the second is the fact that widows have special problems. I recognise that the previous Administration, together with this Administration, have done a good deal to improve the lot of widows. The previous Administration raised widows' benefits, together with other benefits, no less than five times in their period of office. They also introduced a valuable measure of additional help, within the National Insurance Scheme, to widows with children and, also the "flying start", to help those widows without pensions who have difficulty, because of the deficiencies in their contributions record, in getting early employment or sickness benefit. All these were substantial moves by the previous Administration to improve the lot of widows. I readily concede that the present Administration have taken this process further, through the general increase which has been given, but the time has arrived to consider the next step.
    I want to refer to the main anomalies. They have been discussed before. Every hon. Member knows that they exist. The first and most obvious one arises from the so-called "50-year rule". A woman who is widowed at the age of 51 has a permanent pension, with no more contributions to pay, whereas a woman
    1592
    who is widowed at the age of 49—although she has a small resettlement benefit, admittedly increased by the Bill—must afterwards earn her living, with no pension but with contributions to pay.
    This is one of the stark contrasts which widows outside, comparing their-lot with their next-door neighbour, simply do not understand. It is bound to give rise to a sense of injustice. There may well be two widows in precisely similar circumstances, the only difference being that one was widowed on one side of the 50-year line and the other on the other. Then there is the anomaly of the 30s. widow and the no-shilling widow. If a woman was married before 1948 she is entitled to the 30s. pension whereas if she was married after 1948 she receives no pension at all. That anomaly has been magnified in the minds of widows owing to the fact that the pension was raised from 10s. to 30s. in 1964.
    The no-shilling widow, comparing her lot with that of the 30s. widow, naturally cannot see any sense in the difference Why should one have the pension and not the other? The Bill focuses attention on this problem. We have a welcome addition, in the early period of resettlement, but this merely means that the subsequent drop is that much greater. It certainly helps to solve the short-term problem, but it highlights the long-term problem all the more. In the long-term it still leaves the no-shilling widow with nothing.
    I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady has had many letters from widows and others drawing her attention to these anomalies. I do not want to labour the point, but I want to quote two examples from correspondence that I have received which illustrate typical reactions on the part of these widows. One reads:
    "Recently it was announced that widows' allowance was to be paid for 26 weeks instead of 13, but nothing was said about anomalies in widows' pensions. I am now 51, having to do a part-time job and care for my mother, aged 86, and for a greater part of the year, for my aunt, aged 84. Thirty shilling widows could be younger and have less responsibility."
    That is a typical reaction of a no-shilling widow who is obviously carrying a considerable burden of family responsibility, having to look after two aged relatives.

    1593
    Another typical letter reads:
    "I was left a widow at the age of 49 years, and was informed, 'You must find work'. At 49 this is not easy. Also, where does the Government think the money comes from to pay N.H.I, contributions until the age of 60 to receive a retirement pension?"
    Every hon. Member must have received shoals of letters expressing similar reactions from widows who feel that they are left out of the scheme. I know that the right hon. Lady will say, "Wait for the review." This is the answer that we receive to most of our proposals. Let us hope that our curiosity will be satisfied to some extent next Wednesday, in the debate on the social services in general—
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Braine indicated dissent.
    Mr. Dean: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) nods his head.
    Mr. Braine: My hon. Friend calls me in aid, but I got the impression, from the exchange during Business Questions this afternoon, that there is not the slightest sign of the review materialising by Wednesday. We are not likely to see it for a considerable time to come. I regret that.
    Mr. Dean: Perhaps I am being a little more optimistic than my hon. Friend. On Wednesday next we shall see how much progress has been made with this famous review. I hope that the right hon. Lady realises that the more she piles anomaly on anomaly in relation to widows' benefits the greater is the obligation upon her to produce a long-term solution. There are many other anomalies, but I hope that I have said sufficient to remind the Committee of the important ones and of the reactions which they naturally evoke among widows who are getting no pension.
    My next point concerns the special responsibilities of widows. At the moment we expect a woman who has been widowed at the age of 49, and who has no dependent children, to go back into the labour market to earn a living and to pay contributions until she is 60. Surely what matters is not so much the age at which a woman becomes a widow as the length of time for which she has been out of the labour market. It will be difficult for her anyway to get back into the
    1594
    labour market when she is 49, or younger, but it will be even more difficult if she has not been working outside the home for many years—if she has spent those years bringing up her family. The comparatively young widow, whose children have grown up, is becoming a fairly common phenomenon.
    Under the present arrangements the tendency will be for the proportion of no-shilling widows to increase. We all know that many women now marry before the age of 20. The Government Actuary, in his last quinquennial review of the National Insurance Scheme, estimated that the marriage rate of women aged 20 or under will be 20 per cent. greater in 1973 than this year.
    They are marrying younger and are also having their families younger, so the tendency will inevitably be for more women to have grown-up families when they themselves are still comparatively young, and unhappily—because women, for some reason, are tougher than men—many of those will be widows. So the proportion, under present arrangements, of no-shilling widows is likely to increase. The right hon. Lady may say that the woman widowed at the age of 25 does not meet the problems of earning a living to the same extent as the widow of 49. I agree. This is perfectly true. If she will accept the principle of the Amendment and propose a better way of doing it, I shall be content.
    She may, equally, say that there are other women who deserve more help, for example, deserted wives, who in some cases are, in effect, in very much the same category as widows. Here again, I shall have no complaint if she can improve on the Clause. The cost, according to the right hon. Lady, of the Clause would be about £3 million, or less than 2d. a side on the weekly contributions. This is a very small additional cost to deal with the problem of the no-shilling widow. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity.
    I now turn to the other Clause, which concerns the 20s. industrial widow. This is a similar Amendment to the one proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut-Commander Maydon) in Committee on the 1964 National Insurance Bill on 3rd December, 1964. He argued then that, if it were right to put up the pension of the 10s.

    1595
    National Insurance widow to 30s., it was equally right to increase the 20s. pension for industrial injuries widows and war widows to 30s. After all, industrial injuries widows and war widows are the counterpart of the present 30s. National Insurance widow.
    Replying to that debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated that this question and others were being considered by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. He recommended the Committee on that occasion to reject the Amendment on those grounds. I should like to ask whether the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has now reported on this point. If so, what advice has it given and what conclusions have been reached? I hope that we will not be told that this also must wait for the review, because this is another specific example of a case already having been referred to a committee set up to advise the Government on these matters.
    However, if the right hon. Lady says that this is unacceptable, why did the Government pick out the 10s. widow for an increase and leave aside the equivalent industrial injuries widow and the war widow? They are as nearly on all-fours as is possible within these separate schemes. I hope that she will tell us. Perhaps she has clear evidence that the industrial injuries and war widows are in less need than the 30s. National Insurance widow and that this was the reason why one was provided for and not the other. I am very doubtful that she has evidence on these lines.
    This gives the Government an opportunity to answer these questions on both the 20s. industrial injuries widow and the no-shilling widow within National Insurance.
    Mr. James Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has referred to the Amendment moved in December, 1964, relating to the industrial injuries widows. On that occasion, I spoke in support of my hon. Friends. I called it a tragic injustice that the 10s. widow had had her pension increased to 30s., whilst the 20s. widow remained in exactly the same position as before. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that the whole problem was part of a fundamental review
    1596
    undertaken by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and we had to leave it at that.
    I have, perhaps, more information than my hon. Friend, because the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to write to me in December to tell me that the Advisory Council had reported and that its report was not very encouraging for the 20s. widows. The majority of reports said that there was no evidence of hardship to a degree calling for an immediate remedy; that the 20s. widow could not be compared with the 10s. widow as she was not in the same condition. Of course she is not: she is in very much worse condition than the 10s. widow as regards her loss. In consequence, the Council made no recommendation. In view of the fact that it had been informed that the whole subject was due for a comprehensive review by the Government, the Council thought it inappropriate to make any recommendations.
    However, three members of the Council made a contrary recommendation. They said that they were not satisfied that there was no evidence of hardship among these people. They thought that there was a strong case for comparing the 10s. widow and the 20s. widow, in that, if the 10s. widow has her pension raised to 30s., the 20s. widow is entitled to feel that her case should be considered at the same time.
    But the net result is that the 20s. widow has been told once again to wait for another fundamental review. I described this as being unfair 14 months ago, and I still describe it as unfair. It is no less unfair always to be fobbed off with the story that a fundamental review is proceeding. This is what is happening to the 20s. widow. She should have had her pension increased to at least 30s. in the Bill we discussed 14 months ago, and now we are told that she can no longer hope to get it even this year. It will still have to wait for one more fundamental review. I hope that the Minister will look more kindly on this case on this occasion and will accept the new Clause.
    6.30 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: I will deal with new Clause No. 4 first. This applies to the 20s. industrial injuries widow. There is a difference between the 20s. industrial

    1597
    widow's pension and what was formerly the 10s. widow's pension. The latter had what was known as a reserved right—a right which a widow had under the old Contributory Pensions Acts passed before 1948. The Government decided to continue that right in 1948. When the Government considered the treatment of the industrial widow, it had been decided that the lump sums of the Workmen's Compensation Scheme should play no part in industrial injuries benefits. Under the old compensation Acts there had been lump sum payments for a deceased man's dependants.
    It was decided at that time to give a weekly payment of 20s., as was given to the young childless war widow. Since 1948, that 20s. has not been increased. The 10s. pension was increased to 30s. because that was a reserved right carried over from the legislation passed before 1948, but it was not increased until 12 months ago, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) pointed out. It was increased from 10s. to 30s.—in other Words, something was done to try to make their pension equivalent in terms of purchasing power to what it had been in 1948.
    Some of the 20s. industrial injuries widows had this same reserved right from the old cases. At the beginning of 1966 there were 2,360 of what are known as "20s. industrial injuries widows." Of those, 1,400 had their 20s. pension raised to 30s. That was done because they enjoyed that reserved right under the pre-1948 legislation.
    I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised this matter. In my constituency there is much heavy industry. It contained a great many collieries. Because of that there are a large number of what are called "industrial widows" there—particuarly the widows of men who lost their lives in the mines. Among these widows are some who are included in the figure of 2,360. Because of the interest of my hon. Friends and I in these widows, we raised this matter on many occasions when we were in opposition. As a result of the pressure we placed on the then Government, it was decided to refer this matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) told us the result of that reference.
    1598
    We felt that it was right and courteous that hon. Members who had shown an interest in this matter should be given the information about the Council's conclusion as quickly as possible. When the Council had looked at the matter, the majority view of the Council was that, since a searching inquiry into the needs of and provision for widows was going on, it would be wrong for the Council at that time to take the matter any further. However, the majority said that once the inquiry was completed the Council would be willing to reconsider the matter afresh. I accepted that majority view, and that is where the position stands at present.
    New Clause No. 5 does not cover a great number of widows, although it does cover a greater number of widows than the Clause dealing with 20s. industrial injuries widows. The hon. Member for Somerset, North suggested that we had created further anomalies. I do not agree. I am sure that he will be fair enough to agree that in raising the benefit of the 10s. widow we did not create an anomaly since the 10s. pension was there and the no-shilling widow already existed. I agree that it is an anomaly, but increasing the pension from 10s. to 30s. did not create an anomaly.
    Perhaps we have been responsible for getting rid of at least one other anomaly. The hon. Member for Somerset, North put his case for the Clauses clearly and reasonably and I agree that there are many anomalies in the treatment of widows. Consider, for example, the earnings rule. If a widow went out to work the earnings rule applied to her pension. However, if she had an income from a private source and did not go out to work, there was no reduction in her pension. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made representations to the previous government to abolish that anomaly. By abolishing the earnings rule for widows and widowed mothers the present Government have got rid of one anomaly—and getting rid of one from a number of anomalies must be something worth while.
    The hon. Member for Somerset, North went on to speak about the divisions which could take place. I agree, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that once one states a definite age—of, say, 50 years—one must have some people aged less than

    1599
    50, but even worse, people under that age by only an hour. That problem has always caused us great concern.
    I have explained the rights of the 20s. widow and I will not repeat the arguments I then outlined in connection with the rights of the 10s. widow, whose pension was increased to 30s. I agree with all the examples that have been given. One cannot represent any constituency without realising the anomalies that exist. These anomalies have, unfortunately, been with us for a very long time. We have tried in the Bill to do a little for widows, even for those who will become no-shilling widows. I am not ashamed to again say that until the review has been completed there will continue to be no-shilling widows. At least, by increasing the period from 13 weeks to 26 we are giving a longer period for these women to settle down.
    The age of 50 has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Somerset, North was right to draw attention to the fact that women marry earlier and, perhaps because they are tougher—I do not know—they live longer, so we have many younger widows. He was worried about what happened to those widows when their families cease to be dependent while the widow is still young and the widows have to go out to work. In 1956 the age for such widows was raised from 40 years to 50. In 1948, the age was 40. I give that just as an example of the various movements that have taken place in this branch of pensions.
    The hon. Member referred to a letter mentioning a widow looking after an aged parent. It is not only widows and their position that concern us—and they do concern us. We have the spinster who sometimes go out to work. Some of the most tragic cases in my constituency have concerned the spinster who goes home to look after ailing parents, is not able to pay the contribution, and who sometimes uses the savings she has made from her work for her own old age to care for her aged parents. It is just another of the many anomalies—
    Mr. Dean: The right hon. Lady will remember that I said that there were other categories of women who were equally deserving—small categories. I should be very happy if she would bring
    1600
    forward an Amendment to include other categories whom she thinks are in need of this help.
    Miss Herbison: The hon. Member is quite right. He spoke of the deserted wife. We have the deserted wife, and the divorced wife, and the kind of woman of whom I was speaking. It all shows the very great need there is to get rid of anomalies and examine the subject thoroughly, as we are doing.
    One cannot find an easy solution overnight. On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may be able to give some information, but I can assure the Committee that he will not be able to say what conclusions we have come to. This debate has shown, as all our debates have shown, that this is one of many matters where we will have to start from scratch. I have tried to make it clear that these matters caused me great concern long before I was a Minister—the dividing line at 50, the no-shilling widow, and all the others. These problems I am certain we shall be able to solve when the complete review is brought before the House.
    Mr. Braine: Before the Minister resumes her seat, I would point out that she has made an extremely important admission. It would now appear that her right hon. Friend will not be in a position at the outset of our debate on Wednesday on the Welfare State to make any pronouncement about the review. I make no complaint about that—except that it underlines what I said earlier about the unwisdom, perhaps, of having the debate before the review is published—but can she give the Committee any kind of indication as to when this review will be published?
    Miss Herbison: I am very surprised that the hon. Member should think that I have made an important admission. He will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that we have been questioned on this subject time and again in the House, and have shown that, for some of the reasons I have just given, this review is not something that can be done quickly. I have, therefore, made no important admission at all. As I said earlier, on the question of welfare provision generally, my right hon. Friend will say much of interest to the House.
    Mr. Braine: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, I am not complaining that the review is taking a long time; this may well be evidence that a very thorough job is being done. I am asking her to give us some general indication as to when this review—which is germane to all our discussions on the Bill today, and even more germane to the discussions we shall have on Wednesday—will be completed. The Government must have some idea when it will be presented.
    Miss Herbison: No, I could not give any date at all. As I said earlier, we are not waiting until the review is complete before moving in certain ways. This Bill is an example. In our general review we considered this question of earnings-related benefit, and brought forward our provisions when we were ready. It is possible that when we have completed our work on different parts of the review we shall come forward again, as we have now come forward with this completed part. In other words, we have no intention of holding back until the review is completed. Again, I could say something of the work I have been doing on the question of old people. We have no intention of waiting for a complete review before coming forward with, perhaps, some further proposals there.
    I therefore think that from all that has been said over this period it has been made perfectly clear that some aspects of the review will take a considerable time. I might add that on this side we are not in the least worried about the debate on Wednesday. Just as I am glad that these Amendments and new Clauses have been tabled, because they have given both sides an opportunity to highlight some of the sores that still remain in our social security system, so I hope that Wednesday's debate may further highlight these matters.
    6.45 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: Before the right hon. Lady sits down, I would point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) was quite right in stating that she had made an important admission. If I recollect correctly, I myself asked the Leader of the House this afternoon whether the result of the review would be available on Wednesday—and I think that I asked
    1602
    the Prime Minister the same question the other day. The answer was neither "Yes" nor "No". I can honestly say that we were—or, at least, I was—expecting that we would have an important speech relating to the review, but the right hon. Lady now says—and I am very glad that she is so honest about it—that we are not to have any explanation of the review.
    That being so, my hon. Friend was right in saying that the Minister had made an important admission. We now know where we are. We realise that the debate on Wednesday will be an interim debate. I appreciate the length of time necessary for a review like this, but ever since the party opposite won the General Election groups of us have been pressing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about provision of special allowances for spinsters and widows looking after aged parents, and it is very disappointing to know that we cannot look forward to anything like that. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting us in the picture, and telling us that this will not be the subject of the review but merely an interim step.
    Mr. Allason: The Minister told us that only 960 were concerned under new Clause No. 4. I calculate that the cost would be only £20,000 a year. I should have thought the Insurance Fund could stand that. Could the right hon. Lady not be a little more generous to these people? She has not made a case against the new Clause.
    I appreciate that behind this argument lies the fact that war widows also at 20s. and slightly higher rates would tend to run in line. Nevertheless, the problem is not a very big one and I ask the right hon. Lady to look at it again. She gave an excuse that the pension of the 10s. widow went up to 30s. because of cost of living but the pension of the 20s. widow because it was considered by the Review Board falls as a result of the Board giving a divided report. The right hon. Lady should make up her own mind. I ask her to be compassionate on this occasion.
    Mr. Dean: Although I appreciate the careful way in which the right hon. Lady has dealt with this point, I am exceedingly disappointed. So far as concerns the 20s. industrial widow, it

    1603
    appears that we are now to have a review of a review. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has reported. Some reported that there is a very strong case for increasing the amount to 30s. while others said the opposite. Surely this is a case in which the right hon. Lady, having received advice from a body set up to help her with these problems, should make up her mind. Why should we have a review reviewing a review?
    On the question of the no-shilling widow the right hon. Lady made the point that new anomalies were being created. It is certainly the case that every time we make a move on widows' benefits those left out feel a sense of injustice all the greater. When the pension of the 10s. widow was put up to 30s. the no-shilling widow naturally said, "Why is nothing done for me?" Although I very much welcome the way in which short-term problems have been dealt with in this Bill, none the less the no-shilling widow will ask, "Why more for them and nothing for me?". The obligation is on the right hon. Lady, particularly in this essentially long-term problem, to bring forward a solution urgently. It does not cut any ice with these widows to tell them, "You must wait for the review". The more we deal with short-term problems and leave aside the long-term problems, the more we shall get into difficulties. For these reasons I am very disappointed with the right hon. Lady's reply.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Having listened to some of the views expressed by hon. Members opposite, I hope that we are not to be pressurised into making concessions when no concessions are needed. We have heard emotional phrases about widows, about doing something to assist the 10s. widow and as to whether it is justified to help the no-shilling widow. It would be more practical to say what we mean when we talk about assisting a no-shilling widow. There, surely, we are thinking of a woman who, unfortunately, has lost her husband but who is of an age when it is not unreasonable to expect her to make a contribution in her own interests and in the interests of society. I think we are doing harm to a woman under 50 if we encourage the belief that it is desirable
    1604
    for her to sit at home and receive a pension.
    Mr. Dean: Surely that is not the case. The hon. Member appears to be saying that it is perfectly simple for a woman widowed at the age of 49, who has spent the last 20 years bringing up children, to go out and get a job.
    Mr. Brown: I must put that intervention down to language difficulty and suggest that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) did not understand what I was saying. Of course I recognise that there is a problem in widowhood. Because I think I have more understanding of the problem, I suggest that we should look at it with less emotion and with a more practical and common sense approach. There will always be a dividing line. The hon. Member suggested that because a woman is widowed, willy-nilly she should be entitled to a pension. No one else accepts that and hon. Members opposite, when they were in Government, did not accept it. I think they were quite right in that.
    If we examine the best interests of women who are widowed we find that the biggest step forward has been the introduction of the 26 weeks instead of 13 weeks benefit period. That was the biggest single improvement made by any Government for a long time. Surely hon. Members will not argue that giving someone a 30s. a week pension solves all that person's economic problems. Of course it does not. That is a purely emotional approach. My only reason for intervening is to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will not be carried away and assume that there is great strength of opinion which suggests that pensions should be paid without proper examination of the problem.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that anyone in this Committee believes that the right hon. Lady is in danger of being carried away by anyone. The difficulty which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) faces is that the right hon. Lady, I am sure, herself believes in the justice of these proposals. I wrote down what she said: "Until the review is completed there will continue to be no-shilling widows". There were two implications to be drawn from that. The first was that the review will almost certainly provide something

    1605
    for no-shilling widows. The second was that the right hon. Lady is greedy for virtue and wants everything to come from the review, and wants her right hon. Friend to have all the credit.
    Here is something which is unambiguous, useful and helpful. The 30s. a week is a useful supplement for a woman who, as my hon. Friends in very cogent speeches have said, may not be able to return quickly to the labour
    force. She may have been out of action for work outside the home for many years. My hon. Friends and I are very disappointed that the Government do not see fit to take this step now. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 104, Noes 114.

    Division No. 30.]

    AYES

    [6.59 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Grant, Anthony

    Murton, Oscar

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Balniel, Lord

    Grieve, Percy

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Batsford, Brian

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwlck)

    Peel, John

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gurden, Harold

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bessell, Peter

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Pym, Francis

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Blaker, Peter

    Hawkins, Paul

    Roots, William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Braine, Bernard

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Sharpies, Richard

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hordern, Peter

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn, Dame P.

    Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswlck)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Bryan, Paul

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Burden, F. A.

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Buxton, Ronald

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Lagden, Godfrey

    Teeling, Sir William

    Cooke, Robert

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, s.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lubbock, Eric

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Curran, Charles

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Dean, Paul

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Webster, David

    Eden, Sir John

    McLaren, Martin

    Whitelaw, William

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Wilson, Geeoffrey (Truro)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mawby, Ray

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Mitchell, David

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Monro, Hector

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mr. More and Mr. Younger.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dell, Edmund

    Howie, W.

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Hoy, James

    Bence, Cyril

    Driberg, Tom

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Boston, Terence

    Floud, Bernard

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Ford, Ben

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Grey, Charles

    Kelley, Richard

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mclnnes, James

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Chapman, Donald

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, Archie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Harper, Joseph

    Mason, Roy

    cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mellish, Robert

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Hazell, Bert

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Darling, George

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Mikardo, Ian

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Holman, Percy

    Molloy, William

    de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Monslow, Walter

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Small, William

    Murray, Albert

    Pentland, Norman

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Newens, Stan

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Stones, William

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

    Prentice, R. E.

    Tomney, Frank

    Norwood, Christopher

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Urwin, T. W.

    Ogden, Eric

    Redhead, Edward

    Wainwright, Edwin

    O'Malley, Brian

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wallace, George

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras. N.)

    Warbey, William

    Orme, Stanley

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Weitzman, David

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Zilliacus. K.

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Parker, John

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Mr. Lawson and Mrs. Slater.

    New Clause.—(EARNINGS RULE FOR RETIREMENT PENSIONS.)
    In section 4(2) of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1964 (which relaxes the earnings rule in respect of retirement pensions) for the words "one hundred shillings" there shall be substituted the words "one hundred and twenty shillings" and for the words "one hundred and twenty shillings" there shall be substituted the words "one hundred and forty shillings".—[Mr. Dean.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not in his place—doubtless he has a good reason—because it was he who dealt with this point the last time it was raised. The Clause aims to raise by £1 the amount which pensioners can earn without any deduction in pension; in other words, it would raise the limit from the present £5 to £6. It is precisely similar to the Amendment we moved to the last National Insurance Bill on 3rd December, 1964.
    I have said in the House of Commons on a number of occasions, and I say it again, that in my view the only solution to the problem is to abolish the earnings rule. I know that there are complications about that. I know that if the rule were abolished it would mean giving a full pension to people who are working full-time over the minimum pension age. I agree that other changes would be required to get over this difficulty, but, none the less, it is both economically and socially necessary to find a solution to the problem.
    Economically, we are short of labour. The National Plan shows clearly that we are short of labour and it points to our elderly people as one of the possible sources of more labour. If this be so, it must be economically right to encourage
    1608
    those who are able and willing to do so to carry on at work after the minimum pension age.
    Socially, the most important need is to encourage gradual retirement. The social problems created by a man or a woman working full-time one week and going into full retirement the next are well known, and I need not detain the Committee with them. We need a pension situation which encourages people to ease off gradually. Instead of the sharp break which there always tends to be now, there should be more opportunities for part-time employment.
    Thus, on both economic and social grounds, it is clear that the earnings rule, whatever value it may have had in years past, is now out of date and works clean contrary to those highly desirable objectives.
    On Second Reading, the right hon. Lady told us that she had referred the whole matter to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. One cannot, therefore, expect her today to say that she will accept abolition of the earnings rule—I neither ask for that nor expect it—but I must put to her one or two questions about the Advisory Committee's terms of reference on this subject. The right hon. Lady defined the terms of reference as being
    "To review the present level of the earnings limit for retirement pension earners and to examine matters arising therefrom; and to report".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 51.]
    Is the question of abolition clearly within those terms of reference? I want the right hon. Lady to give us a definite answer to that question because, when the whole question of the retirement condition and the earnings rule was last considered by the Advisory Committee, in 1955, the terms of reference were very much the same as the terms of reference

    1609
    given on this occasion. In 1955 the terms of reference were:
    "To consider whether adjustments in the present earnings limits…are called for, any matters arising therefrom, and to report".
    On that occasion, the Advisory Committee interpreted the terms of reference as excluding the question of the retirement condition entirely from its consideration, saying in paragraph 9 of its Report, Cmd. 9752:
    "The principle that between age 65 and 70 (60 and 65 for women) pensions should be conditional upon retirement from regular employment is settled Government policy, and as such is excluded under our terms of reference".
    I hope the right hon. Lady will tell us today that the question of the abolition of the whole apparatus is within the Advisory Committee's terms of reference and that this is one of the matters she expects it to discuss.
    7.15 p.m.
    The new Clause provides not for abolition but for relaxation. I hope that we shall not have our old friend the review—in this case, the National Insurance Advisory Committee—dragged out again as the reason why nothing should be done. If that be the argument, there are some very good answers. First, the relaxation which we propose introduces no new principle. The suggestion is merely that the relaxation which has been done on many occasions since the war should now be carried a stage further. Therefore, it is no adequate reason to say that the subject has gone to review and that we must, therefore, carry on with matters as they are in this respect, as in so many others which we have been discussing.
    On the last occasion when a similar proposal was put to the Committee, the Chancellor of the Duchy replied to the debate. He admitted, in the first place, that the abolition of the earnings rule for the widow had created a fresh impetus for the same move in respect of the retirement pensioner. He said:
    "I know that fresh impetus has been given to the desire to relax the rule for retirement pensioners by the abolition of the rule for widows. I quite understand that. There is no doubt that the complete abolition of the rule for widows puts in fresh relief the existence of the rule now only for retirement pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 841.]
    I admit that the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, in his view, there was
    1610
    a difference between the earnings rule for the widow and the earnings rule for the retirement pensioner, but he admitted, nevertheless, that a fresh impetus had been given to the desire to abolish it for the retirement pensioner as well. What he admitted to be true then is equally true today.
    The second main argument the right hon. Gentleman used on that occasion was that the raising of the limit is normally done by regulation and at a different time from a Bill. But he did not attach very much importance to that point, saying that it did not really matter one way or the other. That is another argument, therefore, which bears no weight.
    His third main argument was that the rise in earnings since the last increase in the limit did not warrant a further increase at that time, that is, at the end of 1964. I admit that there was some weight, perhaps considerable weight, in that argument at the time, but it does not carry weight today. The figures show strikingly that, in the last two years since the limit was raised, average earnings have risen, in round figures, by about £2 10s. In May, 1963, the limit was raised to £4, and at that time average earnings were about £16. In January, 1964, the limit was raised to £5, by which time average earnings had risen to, roughly, £17 10s. In other words, there was an increase in the earnings limit of £1 during a period in which earnings had risen by £1 10s.
    The present proposal is to increase the earnings limit to £6 when average earnings are not far short of £20. In other words, we propose that, after a period in which earnings have risen by about £2 10s., the earnings limit should be raised by £1. Therefore, not only is there a strong case now for raising the limit again because of the rise in earnings since the last occasion when it was raised, but, more than that, if we were to maintain the ratio between the earnings limit for a retirement pensioner and average earnings, one could well argue that there was a strong case for an increase in the limit of not £1 but something like £1 10s.
    These are very strong arguments for a relaxation of the rule. We have a situation in which average earnings have increased by no less than £2 10s. since the last change, whereas the retirement

    1611
    pensioner who is earning still has his earnings based on the position of two years ago. That is a strong case for saying that, as other sections of the community have increased their earnings during this time, so the retirement pensioner should be able to earn more before his pension is affected.
    The only other argument which could be used is that of cost. I hope that the Government will not use it because, in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question, they stated that the cost of this proposal would be about £350,000 a year. I hope that the right hon. Lady, in view of what appears to be a very strong case, will be able to accept the new Clause.
    Mr. Braine: I strongly support the new Clause, which was moved in a cogent and forceful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). If one is not to be misunderstood, it is essential to make it plain that to abolish the earnings rule in its entirety would presumably be neither wise nor practicable. I recall that in 1964 it was estimated that the cost of doing so would be about £100 million, and most of the benefit would go to those in full-time work.
    Nor do I quarrel with the basic principle of our insurance system that benefit is paid only when earnings are interrupted, or cease through sickness, unemployment or retirement. But I am utterly against—and I feel that many hon. Members are, too—the present rigidity in our social services. Social conditions change and expectations of better social provision are rising all the time. Average earnings increase and our definition of need alters. This is why I look forward, as I have said before, to the long overdue review promised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    To relax the earnings rule in the pensioners' favour as circumstances permit makes good social and economic sense. The Minister earlier alleged that we had done nothing to change the Beveridge scheme of social security during the 13 years we were in office. That is not true. We made steady improvements—and right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said so readily, except, of course, at election time, or when their thoughts are turning to elections. They have conceded
    1612
    that in that period there were substantial improvements in our social provisions for the sick, the unemployed and the retired. I want to put that on record in view of the unnecessarily provocative remarks made by the right hon. Lady. In this context, we raised the earnings limit five times—in 1956, 1959, 1960, 1963 and 1964. When we left office, a retirement pensioner could earn up to £5 a week net with no reduction in his pension as against £2 a week net when the last Labour Government were in power. We should get the facts on record.
    I support the Clause on two principal grounds. The first is that a further relaxation is well overdue. I am surprised that the Government did not act in this matter when they relaxed the earnings rule in respect of widows in the National Insurance Act, 1964. On both sides then there was general agreement that this was a wise step to take for widows and I recall the arguments used by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for distinguishing at the time between the widow who had lost the support of her husband and the retirement pensioner who had simply ceased to get his wages or salary from his former employment. I accept the distinction, but my experience has been, as has the experience of others, that the pensioners at that time did not, and they still do not, appreciate why they were left out.
    Moreover, I am certain that there would be a considerable gain to the economy by a further relaxation which would offset any loss of revenue. I would argue that every incentive ought to be given to men to go on working if they wish to do so. I concede that not all pensioners at retirement age are fit enough to postpone drawing their pensions completely in order to earn a higher pension later. I am referring only to those who, having retired, wish to supplement their pensions by doing a relatively light job.
    The second reason for my support of the Clause is that it is generally accepted that there should be a relationship between any relaxation of the earnings rule and the rise in the level of wages. During the Committee stage of the National Insurance Act, 1964, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
    "The normal reason for relaxing the earnings rule is to keep the condition of the rule

    1613
    in harmony with the rise in wages, to keep the two things in some sort of relationship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 843.]
    Like my hon. Friend, I have looked into this carefully. His proposal would raise the limit from £5 to £6 as the net amount that could be earned without any reduction in pension. My hon. Friend went into some detail to show exactly how this would work out. Let us consider the effect against the background of changes in average earnings since 1964.
    In January, 1964, when we raised the limit to £5, the average earnings totalled £17 10s. Today, we are proposing that the limit should be raised to £6, and average earnings have risen to about £20. That rise of £2 10s. in average earnings is two-thirds greater than the increase which took place between the relaxation of the earnings rule by £1 between May, 1963, and January, 1964. Thus, the Amendment is fully justified on social grounds and more than justified on economic grounds. Society must adjust its attitudes towards the whole question of retirement. That means that Government and Parliament must give much greater thought to the problem than up to now.
    7.30 p.m.
    When I was at the Ministry of Health, I once asked an eminent physician why it was that, on average, women lived longer than men. He laughed and came back with the reply, "The answer is quite simple—women never retire". The more one thinks about that, the more true it seems to be. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that we should get away from the present rigidity in the retirement condition. I know that many of my constituents wish to do so. In my "surgery" every Saturday morning, I have many old-age pensioners coming to see me and more than once they have told me that they want to carry on working and do not appreciate the earnings rule. They say, "I have earned my pension. Why can I not go on working a little to supplement it?" It is very difficult to answer that sort of question.
    Acceptance of the principles contained in the Clause would be a move in a direction socially desirable and in the best interests of pensioners who do not want to continue to work flat out, but who want to do some work. Nobody says that the man who has done his share and
    1614
    who has worked hard all his life should continue to work flat out unless he wishes to do so, in which case he is covered by the provisions for deferring pension and getting a higher rate when, finally, he retires.
    The provision which we suggest is socially desirable and it would be welcomed by pensioners generally. It would enable many citizens, who at the moment are prevented, to have the feeling that they were continuing to be useful and productive members of the community. It is on those grounds that I strongly support this proposal and I hope that the right hon. Lady, even if she cannot give any firm indication tonight, will show that she is generally sympathetic to the objectives of the Clause.
    Dame Irene Ward: The arguments in favour of the new Clause have been very well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and I do not propose to go over their reasons again. However, I must not miss this magnificent opportunity to say something about the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which has featured in these debates for many years.
    When I heard the right hon. Lady give exactly the same answers as Ministers of my party gave, I wondered how the new Government could represent themselves as a modern, up-to-date, go-getting Government. It may or may not be true, but I have always somewhat suspected that this earnings rule, established as it was by the Labour Government of 1945, largely for protection purposes—and I accept their importance—was wanted by the trade unions. Certainly, nobody has ever denied it and it is probably a statement of fact.
    However, the trade unions have moved a long way forward in the last couple of decades and I should have thought that their position was so secure that they could spare a little thought for those who, in their retirement, still wanted to keep going and do a useful job. All the psychologists and all the health people say that the great thing for the elderly is to have an interest in life and that to have something to do is probably as important to life among the elderly as getting a little extra money. When people

    1615
    retire and have nothing in particular to please them or amuse them, it is very exhilarating for them to be able to do a useful job and it seems ridiculous that they should be deprived of a reasonable amount of money being added to their pensions.
    I have a rather suspicious nature and I have always somewhat wondered, especially since the earnings rule has been relaxed for the widows—and I was very pleased that it was—when there did not seem to be any difficulty about it, whether the Advisory Committee had not wanted to do that all the time. On the other hand, there are many spinsters who have to stand on their own insurance and earn their own retirement pensions. It is all very well to say that women work longer and live longer, but the longer one lives, the more is required to keep one happy and comfortable. The time has surely come for a greater relaxation of the rule.
    Over the years, the Advisory Committee has studied every aspect of these matters. I do not suppose that there is any member of that Committee who does not know every detail of how any proposal would effect the economy, the trade unions and employment in certain areas. The members of that Committee must be bored when every time a proposal comes forward—from either party—the Minister takes refuge in referring it to the Committee. If all the facts are known, I would have thought that we could get the Committee's advice in the twinkling of an eye. I suspect that the fact that we do not means that referring matters to the Committee is one of the ways in which the Minister puts off additional expenditure. I think that the reference is a smokescreen and that we could very well do without this Advisory Committee.
    After all, Ministers must have some idea of life themselves and need not always rush to an advisory committee which has existed since 1948. At the beginning, Ministers probably did not know all the details of the industrial position and how relaxation of the rule would affect the economy, but, after 18 years, Ministers and "shadow" Ministers must know all the answers themselves. I suspect that all this is a manoeuvre. It may support the trade union view and it may show the world how careful
    1616
    we are about spending public money. In fact, however, in these circumstances we could make economies which would make the money available.
    I am sick of this advice from the Advisory Committee. This continual reiteration fills me with gloom. It would be a very good idea to ask the Committee to give the facts concisely in a brief memorandum. It does not need to chew over the whole thing again and I am sure that it has a file that would reach almost to the roof of this building. I am all in favour of this Clause. I think that it is very moderate and could not possibly do anyone any harm.
    Sometimes people believe what they hear and see on radio and television. I do not believe for one moment that the team in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance ever said over the air that it would be so adamant over such a small sum. The retirement pensioners do not have a clue about what the Advisory Committee is. They think that it is the Ministry, those glorious Ministers who go on to television with such persuasive charm. They think, "Dash it all, they are letting us down".
    This point will help us to win the next General Election, but if I have to choose between getting this little bit of added pleasure in fighting the election campaign, or giving the pensioners this concession now, I would rather see the right hon. Lady grant this small relaxation for the retirement pensioners. In view of the increase in fuel costs and heating—
    Mr. Pentland: Ah, ah.
    Dame Irene Ward: It is no good saying "Ah, ah". It is a reality. It is all right sitting in this overheated Chamber, but electricity prices go up. Hon. Members opposite say that it is bureaucracy gone mad, but they do nothing about it. All I am saying is that one wants to give as much comfort as one can to retirement pensioners and, at the same time, to give them as much interest in life as possible. Let us abolish the Advisory Committee and let the Minister take the decision herself.
    Mr, Kenneth Lewis: We have had a long debate and I do not want to detain the Committee. I would like to underline one or two points which have been

    1617
    made, and make some of my own. I believe that the rule should be relaxed because pay has gone up and because there has been a considerable rise in the cost of living in the last few years. A lot of these pensioners get their extra £1 anyway and nobody knows about it. The difficulty is that where one has a rule as tight as this is, those who get away with it enjoy doing so and others who can only find the kind of work where they are on some one's payroll find themselves handicapped because it is known exactly what they earn and the earnings rule bites against them.
    Mr. Pentland: That is a very interesting point. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that some of the old-age pensioners, for whom we are concerned when discussing the relaxation or abolition of the earnings rule, are really getting away with something?
    Mr. Lewis: Of course I am saying that. They get paid, but they are not on anyone's payroll and therefore the earnings rule does not affect them. I am being perfectly straightforward. If they are working on a casual basis, which is accepted by the Ministry of Labour and which is not looked at by the Treasury, they are not breaking any rules. It is just something which is accepted as being a fair way of increasing incomes. This rule bears hardly on the people who cannot do this. The right hon. Lady has put this matter to the review body. Why have the Government not made a decision on this themselves? Why do they have to go to the review body?
    7.45 p.m.
    I was interested in a statement made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee recently on this matter. The body has been asked to look into the earnings rule and into other matters related to it. This is interesting because it has been asked to look at the regulations which enable the elderly retired to draw unemployment pay, although they have not reached retiring age. Are the Government considering whether this unemployment pay should stop? The Committee is also being asked to look at the position of people drawing unemployment pay who have retired earlier than the normal retiring age. Presumably, the right hon. Lady has asked the Committee
    1618
    to look into these matters. The third paragraph of the Committee's statement, as set out in The Times, reads:
    "Critics of the present position have often expressed the view that many retired professional people, especially where they have gone to live in rural or coastal districts, have really left the employment field and claim unemployment benefits and credits with no real intention of taking another job."
    The right hon. Lady is suggesting that the review body should look at what she obviously thinks exists, the position whereby professional people who retire early are drawing unemployment pay and do not intend to work. She knows perfectly well that when people sign on at the employment exchange they have, after a certain period of time, to take a reasonable job offered to them or their unemployment pay can be stopped.
    Miss Herbison Miss Herbison rose—
    Mr. Lewis: I will give way in a moment. I ask the right hon. Lady what was the point of having the review body look at this?
    Miss Herbison: I merely wish to ask the hon. Member what part of the new Clause applies to those who are under pension age? I will be grateful if he can tell me.
    Mr. Lewis: We are asking that the earnings rule should be relaxed. If it were relaxed it would mean that many of the questions which the right hon. Lady is putting to the review body would be unnecessary. In asking these questions she is prejudging matters which may never arise. If the earnings rule is relaxed, there is no need to ask questions of this kind. These people want to earn. They want to be able to increase their income over and above their pensions by earning. We assisted them to do this when we were in power, and there is no reason why the Government should not be able to make their own decision without putting questions of this sort to the review body.
    Mr. Charles Curran: I speak with some reluctance to the right hon. Lady on this matter. We have been round this mulberry bush so many times that she is familiar with all the words. Therefore, I will not repeat more of them than is strictly necessary.
    I invite the right hon. Lady to recall the position she took up when she was

    1619
    on this side of the Committee and I was on the benches opposite and we were both in agreement in attacking the earnings rule. There was more than one occasion when I not only attacked my own Government but voted against them. The right hon. Lady understands perfectly well the human case against this rule. We are seeking to erode it, to lift the ceiling a little higher. I fancy that as things are the only way in which this rule can be removed is by lifting the ceiling to the point at which it does not make any difference. If the ceiling could be lifted not to £6, which we urge in the new Clause, but to £100 it would make no difference to anybody, and everybody would be pleased with that solution. I do not know whether the Minister recommends doing that. If she does, my hon. Friends and I will be glad, even at this stage, to see whether we can amend the Bill to give effect to that.
    I ask the right hon. Lady, without inflicting on her a procession of the familiar arguments, to address herself to some direct questions. We all know that the rule was created by the Labour Government in 1948 for two reasons. The first was that the 1948 Act gave people benefits only if they were unable to work. It was argued that if we gave people retirement pensions it was not right that they should draw the pension and go out to work. Secondly, it was created for the implied reason that we were giving people a retirement pension which was big enough to enable them to support themselves without earning money. That assumption has long since gone by the board. The processes of post-war inflation have reduced the value of the pension to the point at which nobody can seriously argue that it is possible to live on it by itself. That has been true for 20 years, and it is true today. Therefore, the implied basis of the rule, namely, that we were giving people a subsistence pension on condition that they retired and therefore that we were entitled to attach to that pension the penalty of the earnings rule, has vanished. I ask the right hon. Lady to tell us whether she agrees with that.
    For 20 years this rule has been supported rigorously by the trade unions. They have always been the watchdogs of the earnings rule. They have always
    1620
    barked in a very familiar chorus. They argue that if we give people pensions without tying strings to the money they will take the pension and go into the labour market and work on the cheap. It is said that this is a method of creating an army of cut-price workers. I ask the right hon. Lady whether she believes that now. Does she think that in 1966 anyone can seriously argue that we should keep the earnings rule in order to protect trade union rates of pay? It is now self-evident that in a full employment labour market the trade unions are perfectly capable of protecting wage rates without penalising the pensioner. I invite the right hon. Lady to say whether she dismisses this argument as bogus.
    The Chairman: Order. It is time that the hon. Gentleman applied his arguments to the figure in the new Clause.
    Mr. Curran: I agree, Sir Samuel. I am asking the Government to lift the ceiling, but, in doing so, I have to deal with the argument for keeping the ceiling where it is, which is that it should be at its present level in order that the rule shall fulfil its purpose. It can be argued, in reply to me, that if we lift the ceiling we remove the reason for the rule and therefore that the ceiling should not be lifted. I fancy that that will be the reply to what I am saying. I want to anticipate it and deal with it before it is made.
    I ask the right hon. Lady whether she agrees that by keeping the ceiling where it is she is stimulating a widespread feeling of injustice in our society. We are all familiar with the fact that people who draw retirement pensions feel, whether it is reasonable or not, that they should get the money as of right. To tell them that they get the pension only with a retirement condition which must be guarded by the earnings rule is to say something which may make sense in Whitehall but which makes no sense outside Whitehall.
    May I say parenthetically to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that I congratulate him on his naivety when he interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). I heard him express amazement, incredulity and shock at the suggestion that there were pensioners who earned extra money and evaded the earnings rule by not declaring their earnings. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he

    1621
    could not believe that. He thought that this was an incredible, astounding and completely unbelievable statement. He must have lived a very sheltered life. He must have been guarding his innocence jealously if he does not know that there are—
    Mr. Pentland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was born in a colliery village and lived in a colliery village all my life—a very sheltered life indeed!
    Mr. Curran: It is all the more remarkable that someone who has lived all his life in a colliery village should say that he could not believe that pensioners earned money and evaded the earnings rule by not declaring their earnings. Does he really say that that is something of which he has never heard?
    Mr. Pentland: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the retirement pensioners in Uxbridge who are deliberately evading the rule by not declaring their earnings?
    Mr. Curran: That is a very good question, and I should be glad to answer it—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the figure in the new Clause.
    Mr. Curran: I agree, Sir Samuel.
    This limitation is bad. Any other limitation would be equally bad. I do not accept that if we keep the rule as it is and decline to lift the ceiling, we shall be supporting the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion—
    Mr. Pentland: I am not making any suggestion.
    Mr. Curran: I want to deal with the Parliamentary Secretary's assertion that he cannot believe that pensioners ever draw the pension and evade the rule by not declaring their extra earnings. He asks me whether I can give any examples from Uxbridge. I do not propose to act as an unpaid "nark" for the Ministry of Pensions. I should have thought that it was widely known that there were quite a number of old gentlemen and old ladies drawing the pension who earned a little extra money and evaded the rule by failing to declare it. I repeat that if the Parliamentary Secretary has never heard of this, he must have been living in a
    1622
    world of his own. That is something of which everybody must be aware.
    8.0 p.m.
    I want to ask the Minister one other question. Can the Advisory Committee, to which the right hon. Lady has referred the matter, recommend abolition of the rule? Is it competent for the Advisory Committee to say that the rule should go? Is it required simply to say whether the rule should be modified? This goes to the root of the argument. Suppose that the Advisory Committee recommends abolition of the rule. What then? Would the Government act upon that, or would they simply tell us once more that we must await the outcome of the celebrated review with which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is so busy?
    I repeat that I do not want to inflict upon the Minister at great length all the familiar arguments, but I should like to get an idea of the way in which her mind is working. I ask these questions, therefore, for explanatory reasons, in the same way as I should be glad, if I had the chance, to put them to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Pentland: I listened carefully to the case put by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) and other hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) that many of the arguments which we have heard this evening have been ventilated many times in the past.
    I want briefly to put the Government's case concerning the new Clause. We simply feel that the time has now come for a more thoroughgoing re-examination of the position. As announced by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading, we have asked the National Insurance Advisory Committee to undertake this task.
    Hon. Members have asked how wide the terms of reference are. They will be wide enough to enable the Advisory Committee to consider every possible avenue relating to the problem. It is as wide as that. If the Advisory Committee recommends abolition of the rule, that would be fair enough. To put the matter beyond doubt, I will quote the terms of reference:
    "To review the present level of the earnings limit for retired pensioners and to examine matters arising therefrom, and to report."

    1623
    These terms of reference are simple and very wide.
    The last examination was conducted in 1955–56 when a similar reference was made, under the previous Government, to the Advisory Committee, which on that occasion produced a useful report containing a number of suggested changes, most of which were subsequently adopted by the former Administration. Since then, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North has indicated, the level at which the earnings rule begins to operate has been raised on a number of occasions. On three of those occasions, however, the change was made by Regulations. The Advisory Committee was simply called upon to consider whether an increase to a specific amount proposed by the Government was justified. Those were the terms of reference on those occasions.
    We have also to consider that in the last 10 years there have been important developments in National Insurance, such as the increases in the level of benefits and changes in the provisions governing increments. There has also been the introduction of graduated contributions and benefits. Quite apart from these substantial changes, a number of lesser problems and difficulties about the working of the earnings rule have arisen which, in the Government's view, could be usefully examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
    There are, for example, deductions which are made from the pension in respect of earnings exceeding the basic level to which the hon. Member for Uxbridge referred. At present, these deductions amount to 6d. in the 1s. for the first 20s. of earnings above the level and 1s. for every 1s. thereafter. The Clause does not propose to alter this. It makes no mention of it. It might, however, be desirable to consider whether an extension of this proportionate band would now be appropriate. This, too, is a question which the National Insurance Advisory Committee will consider. In addition, the way in which earnings are calculated, including the special problem of people whose work is intermittent or whose earnings cannot easily be expressed as a weekly rate, ought, no doubt, now to be considered.
    1624
    There is also the problem of allowable deductions from earnings, including the existing somewhat anomalous rule under which Income Tax collected under P.A.Y.E. from salary or wages may be deducted but no allowance can be made for tax paid in other ways. It is against this background that the Government felt that it would be right to give the National Insurance Advisory Committee the opportunity of considering the matter once again.
    Another point which has been made—and this must be borne in mind—is that to introduce a change now in the limit as suggested by the Clause would prejudice the review by the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Braine: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's patient explanation. Over a year ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the normal reason for relaxing the rule was to keep it in harmony with the general level of wages. There has never been any dispute about this on either side. Is the hon. Gentleman seized of the fact that since the rule was last relaxed early in 1964, average wages have risen so much that the rule is now totally out of harmony? In other words, the question did not have to be sent to any advisory body for advice. It is now clear that the earnings rule is totally out of harmony with present-day realities.
    Mr. Pentland: That may be so. That is what we want to find out from the Advisory Committee. I have already said that the terms of reference are wide enough to include consideration of abolition of the earnings rule. Therefore, my view is that if the Clause were accepted, it would prejudice the review.
    If the National Insurance Advisory Committee in due course reported in favour of an increase in the existing limit, such an increase could be brought in by Regulations, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course that can be done. I hope that in view of what I have said, the Opposition will withdraw the Clause. If not, I must ask the Committee to to reject it.
    Dame Irene Ward: How long does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary think that the Advisory Committee will be sitting clucking over this question?
    Mr. Pentland: We do not know that, any more than the previous Government knew when these matters were referred to the N.I.A.C.
    Dame Irene Ward: How often does the Committee sit?
    Sir K. Joseph: We have a certain amount of good will for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and we are at the end of nearly two days of debate, but I must tell him that his was a shockingly disappointing reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) deployed a formidable case. He was supported by a number of other hon. Members who spoke cogently and trenchantly. We had from the hon. Gentleman a flabby and inadequate reply.
    Here is a small piece of good which the right hon. Lady can approve and which would cost a negligible amount
    of money in terms of the National Insurance Fund. It has not been controverted that the cost of the Clause would be £350, 000 per annum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has just stressed, the £5 is totally out of step with the new average earnings, and all that the hon. Gentleman can do is to tell us to wait for a report. Granted that a report may make sense on the subject, but here is a step that would be sensible and humane, and it would facilitate that gradual retirement which all sides of the House agree is the right emphasis for us to help the elderly to adopt. I hope that, in view of that very inadequate reply, my hon. Friends will divide on the Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 95, Noes 100.

    Division No. 31.]

    AYES

    [8.12 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Peel, John

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grieve, Percy

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

    Pym, Francis

    Batsford, Brian

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gurden, Harold

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bessell, Peter

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Blaker, Peter

    Hastings, Stephen

    Shepherd, William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Braine, Bernard

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. sir John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hordern, Peter

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Bryan, Paul

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Bullus, Sir Erie

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Burden, F. A.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Buxton, Ronald

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Teeling, Sir William

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Kilfedder, James A.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Cooke, Robert

    Kirk, Peter

    Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Curran, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Dean, Paul

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Webster, David

    Doughty, Charles

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Whiteaw, William

    Eden, Sir John

    Mitchell, David

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Monro, Hector

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Eyre, Reginald

    More, Jasper

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Younger, Hn. George

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Murton, Oscar

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Goodhew, Victor

    Onslow, Cranley

    Mr. McLaren and

    Grant, Anthony

    Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. Dudley Smith.

    NOES

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

    Dell, Edmund

    Atkinson, Norman

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Chapman, Donald

    Floud, Bernard

    Blenkinson, Arthur

    Conlan, Bernard

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Boston, Terence

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)

    Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

    Freeson, Reginald

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.

    Grey, Charles

    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

    Darling, George

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Prentice, R. E.

    Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

    Manuel, Archie

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Hannan, William

    Mason, Roy

    Redhead, Edward

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Hazell, Bert

    Mikardo, Ian

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (st. Pancras. N.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Molloy, William

    Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)

    Holman, Percy

    Monslow, Walter

    Silkin, John (Deptford)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Murray, Albert

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Howie, W.

    Newens, Stan

    Small, William

    Hoy, James

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

    Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Stones, William

    Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

    Ogden, Eric

    Tomney, Frank

    Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)

    Wallace, George

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Orme, Stanley

    Warbey, William

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Weitzman, David

    Kelley, Richard

    Palmer, Arthur

    White, Mrs. Eirene

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

    Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lawson, George

    Parker, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Mclnnes, James

    Pentland, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Ifor Danes and Mr. Harper.

    Schedules agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    8.22 p.m.
    Miss Herbison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I think that it is almost wonderful that a Bill of this nature, bringing in a completely new concept for one part of National Insurance, has got through the House so quickly, and I thank hon. Members on both sides for ensuring that we got it as quickly as possible.
    I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues, who had to sit through these highly technical debates. I think, too, that the officials of my Department who have had to work at top speed should be congratulated and thanked for the work which they have done on the Bill
    1628
    I think that that is all that needs to be said at this stage, and I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.
    8.23 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: We on this side of the House join the Minister in thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your fellow Chairmen for keeping us in order during these two days.
    We also join the Minister in the tribute which she paid to her officials for drawing up the Bill, though we suggest that but for her majority we would have amended it in parts. We are glad to have played our part in expediting a Measure whose basic principle is common to both sides of the House, and we hope that it may speedily reach the Statute Book.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [14th February] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

    Clause 8.—(POWERS OF SENATES.)
    Which Amendment was: In page 5, line 34, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) It shall be the duty of the Senatus Academicus to prescribe the extent and procedure of their disciplinary powers, a copy of which shall be laid before the Secretary of State for. Scotland."
    Question again proposed, That those words be; there inserted in the Bill.
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: As I was saying before I was interrupted, I feel that one should prefer the Amendment put forward in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) because it brings in the Secretary of State, and one of our tasks at the moment is to restore public confidence in the immediate issue which forms the background of the discussions.
    It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) is not present, because some of the things that I have to say this evening are intended to clear up some of the inaccuracies in his speech. My hon. Friend said that no one had criticised the procedure that had taken place on the Glasgow issue. The fact is that there has been continuous criticism by the people involved, by outside bodies, by some university bodies, and by the agents of the people represented, at almost all stages of the procedure.
    The basic point is that the principles of national justice tended not to be followed. For example, they were not aware of the charges made at the time of the first hearing. There was the difficulty of obtaining extracts of the evidence on which they could lodge their appeals. Indeed they still have not got this fully so that the agents of the men involved can challenge the procedure. The rehearing was stated to be de novo when it was not, because to a great extent it was based on the initial inquiry, at which, from the evidence, it appears that they were told there was no need to answer questions if they did not wish to, and
    1630
    finally the evidence of the main witness throughout has been seen to be unreliable.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend referred to the boys involved as being guilty. This is a matter which is disputed. Thirdly my hon. Friend referred them being guilty of grave misdemeanours. This has never been the situation. The boys about whom we are talking, particularly the three in my constituency, if guilty of anything, are guilty of the sin of partial omission, not the sin of commission. Fourthly, we were told that in our anxiety to get justice done we were forgetting the victim of the case.
    I found that a most extraordinary proposition. We do not show sympathy for the victim in a murder case by hanging the wrong person. The curious factor here is that the person who appears most guilty has been punished least, while those who appear to be the most innocent, have been punished most.
    The victim involved has tended to exculpate most of the boys still involved on most points and therefore if there was any sin, it was a sin of partial omission, and if injustice had not taken place, it would only be an accident that it has not and this is what we still have to clarify.
    The court of inquiry, having said that there was no need to answer questions, nevertheless eventually levelled charges against the boys precisely because they had not posed the question sharply enough to their colleagues.
    It is a pity, therefore, that this whole question was reopened in this way. Nevertheless, I do not think that this helps to excuse the violence of language which has been used on the other side in this case, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows my feelings on this one. This also has not helped us to clarify the situation.
    I would have preferred at that point the natural moves taking place within the university to clear up the situation. It could have been allowed to continue in a more tranquil atmosphere instead of creating a naturally defensive attitude which has in itself sharpened the situation and made things more difficult. It pushed people into an over-defensive position, which we can understand, but it created a more difficult situation.

    1631
    I also regret the relatively grudging way in which the reprimand was finally removed from the boy Marr. I am having discussions in connection with the three outstanding cases with which I am concerned, and I would prefer to leave the position as it is in respect of those cases.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to try to find a solution for the future, and to protect not only the students but the universities. It was undoubtedly their over-anxiety to protect their good name that tended to cause the matter to boomerang. It is that attitude of over-anxiety with which we must sympathise and understand. I hope that the universities will decide to have a full public inquiry in Glasgow in order to clear the air. The General Council is the obvious body to carry out this inquiry, for the sake not only of the people involved but of the university. If an inquiry is not carried out the parents may be forced to take other action, for example, in the court of session, which I would regret.
    8.30 p.m.
    Good may still come out of this. It is clear that relationships between the Senate and the S.R.C. were not of the best, but I understand that an informal meeting is taking place tonight between the students and senior members of the staff to discuss the position and to see what recommendations and ideas come forward to create the right atmosphere in which confidence can be restored. We all hope that these discussions will succeed.
    Because of the public aspect of the matter I would prefer the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mary-hill, because it would bring these questions before the Secretary of State, but either Amendment would help the situation. There is one practical point of legal procedure. It might be advisable—not that I believe that it will frequently be necessary—to establish a common court of appeal for Scottish universities. It could consist of four members of the Bench—Scottish judges who are themselves members of the general councils of the four Scottish universities. It would rarely, if ever, be needed, but its existence as a safeguard would help to restore the necessary confidence.
    1632
    It has been said that those of us who have been worried about the present situation have been careless about the reputation of Glasgow University. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that he was a Glasgow graduate and was proud of it. I, too, am a Glasgow graduate and am proud of it; but this is not the important thing. The real question is whether the university will be proud of us as a result of the decisions we take and attitude that we adopt to this kind of question. The university is great enough to bear criticism. I hope that it will be great enough to institute a public inquiry, with the help of the General Council, to ensure that justice has been done, and, if it is seen not to have been done, to rectify the situation openly and publicly.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I wish to comment in a few sentences on the Glasgow students' affair, to the extent that it is related to the Amendment. First, however, I want to refer to the powerful and very worthwhile saying speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). Even at this stage I can in no sense regret the strength of language that I used in this Chamber on 25th January. On that occasion, it was really as a last resort that I brought the matter to a head.
    I had known about this matter since July, in a rather blurred form. It never occurred to me but that the appeal committee would clear the matter up. I had been reluctant to discuss the question in public, for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend, namely, that I did not want to make a public issue of this kind about the university unless it really was necessary.
    Here, I return to the letter that I wrote to the Secretary of State in early January. He is present, and he will remember that in early January, after the announcement of the appeal committee was made, I wrote to him a letter in the most moderate terms asking for information. I realise that he could not give all the information that I asked for, but I cannot believe that, in the nicest way, he could not have asked the university to provide this information. The university was given every opportunity to come forward with a full answer before the time was

    1633
    reached when too much harm had been done.
    I have a suspicion that this case is not unique. Since early January I have had a fairly wide correspondence. Some of it goes back as far as the 1940s. One letter, asking that old wounds be not reopened, which is now in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), whose absence tonight we regret, tells of a man, now 75, whose only daughter was sent down from Glasgow University in the most drastic way. I know not the rights and wrongs of this particular case, but it is clear that, even at that time, there was a great absence of pastoral care and that this young lady—who subsequently emigrated because of the circumstances of the case—was treated in a cold, cold manner by some of those who are still on the scene.
    Glasgow University must realise that justice knows no halfway house. Justice, by its very nature, must be complete. If it is not complete, it is not justice. Of the five students who remain, some may or may not be guilty. I do not intend on the Amendment to go into my own personal views. They are of little consequence here, because some of the students themselves, I gather, are deciding to go to the high court and the case will soon be sub judice. However, as one party told me, they would much rather have an inquiry. I certainly do not fancy the idea of a university spending a year or two in the Court of Session. I would personally be much happier about an inquiry.
    One understands, too, that the university has already spent something of a fortune from public funds in obtaining legal advice. Therefore, for these reasons, would it not be much better to have some kind of inquiry? The situation at the moment is that one student has got off. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that this was the student who had access to high-powered legal advice. He had senior counsel, junior counsel and, in the person of the Rev. Andrew Herron, a most conscientious and able solicitor. For the others, the stigma remains. If some of them had had the same legal advice, might not they, too, have been exonerated?
    One may ask, what is all the fuss? I can only put it in the words of the wife
    1634
    of one of the students. She turned round towards her four-and-a-half-month-old baby girl and said, "Is she to grow up being told that her daddy was banned from Glasgow University?" This may be an extreme way of putting it, but this, in human terms, is the situation. This is why, tonight, I am asking for some kind of inquiry. I believe that it should not be a Governmental inquiry, but it is sensible to ask the Government—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that any question of an inquiry arises on the Amendment.
    Mr. Dalyell: In case I give a false impression, I would say that, if there is to be an inquiry, I hope that the Government will invite, perhaps, the University Grants Commission to conduct it.
    Appreciating your Ruling on this issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I should say no more except that, fortunately or unfortunately, this is no longer a purely Glasgow matter. Perhaps the importance of the Amendment is that this situation has now become something of an issue not only in our Scottish universities but throughout Britain. To build for the future, along the lines of the Amendment, it is necessary, in my view, to create the foundations by clearing up the past.
    Mr. David Steel: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) into a discussion of the Glasgow case. I wish to discuss the Amendment in general. There are several questions which I hope the Under-Secretary will answer.
    The hon. Lady said in Committee that the Privy Council was at present considering the whole question of the powers of universities over students in disciplinary matters. This would appear to go some way towards answering the point the hon. Member for West Lothian was making, although it does not deal with the case he had in mind. However, it is a step to be welcomed.
    There are differences between Amendment No. 60 and the Amendment to Clause 8. I was glad that the Undersecretary said when we discussed this on Monday that she does not regard her proposal as a fixed or rigid Amendment; that it is not the end of the question, that discussions are going on, and that if

    1635
    any improvement can be considered the Government are willing to consider the matter in another place.
    Having said that, I come to the differences between the Amendments. The Amendment to Clause 8 suggest that a copy of the agreed procedure should be laid before the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is an important point, because while it does not in any way suggest that the Secretary of State should alter or have any say in what that procedure should be, it would bring home to the universities the fact that the relationship between students and universities has changed from what it was some years ago. Most students attending universities are there at the taxpayers' expense.
    Therefore, the Government have the right to be concerned in some way with what procedures may be used to send down a student who is there at public expense—to bring to an end a £600 investment in a student's future which has, say, another year to run. That is why I welcome the suggestion in the Amendment to Clause 8 that these procedures should not simply be confined within the universities, but that they should be laid before the Secretary of State.
    The other point of difference between the two Amendments is that the Under-Secretary's Amendment specifically refers to
    "…alleged breaches of discipline within the University…"
    I would like clarification of those words because there have been cases—and there may be cases in the future—where a university has decided to expel or rusticate a student not for a breach of discipline within the university, but for a criminal act outside which has already been punished in the normal way in the criminal courts—that is, if it was an offence of a type which the university thought brought discredit and adverse publicity to the university. Amendment No. 60 therefore seems too narrowly drawn, because it includes the phrase "within the university".
    I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who referred, when we last considered this matter, to the phrase
    1636
    "…where the…breach…might be punishable by expulsion or rustication ".
    I see no harm in the whole procedure for discipline, even if it does not involve expulsion or rustication, being drawn up and known by all concerned. I am referring to even minor breaches of discipline, even if it would mean, say, a lecturer or director of studies having minor disciplinary powers, because that would not seriously affect a student's career. I do not see why this should not also be included in the recommended procedures which should be made known not only to the university, students and staff, but also to the Secretary of State.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House may recall that on Monday my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) indicated that we would support Amendment No. 60, standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Under-Secre-tary of State. In this debate there is, as it were, a choice of Amendment, but we think that her Amendment strikes just about the right balance in the disciplinary matter which concerns us.
    I do not believe that this Bill is a suitable vehicle for a detailed code of procedure in alleged breaches of discipline, but where there is need to improve the disciplinary procedure within the university I think that the House has made it abundantly clear that the need must be met. I believe that Amendment No. 60 is the right way to meet it.
    I recognise at once that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has had a deep and sincere constituency interest in the Glasgow University affair, but I agree with the hon. Lady's view that we might now leave that unhappy incident. Perhaps, in doing so, it would be the wish of hon. Members, in view of all that has been said, to record our respect for that great university, and for its Principal, who is a man of the highest standing in the academic and national life of Scotland.
    The hon. Lady told us on Monday that she proposes to have further discussions with the four ancient universities, and that if it is found right to amend or extend the terms of the Amendment, that will be done by further amendment in

    1637
    another place, with opportunity for further debate, if necessary. During the course of that review the Under-Secretary might look again at the wording towards the end of the Amendment referring to the case in which the alleged breach
    "…is one which might be punishable by expulsion or rustication".
    That is rather indefinite. An alleged breach will be one that clearly is or is not punishable by expulsion or rustication, or will be at least one which clearly is or is not capable of punishment by expulsion or rustication. I would be better pleased if the Amendment were more definite on this point.
    Subject to that relatively small point about the nature of the wording towards the end of Amendment No. 60, and subject also to the assurance the hon. Lady has given of further consideration, I hope that the House will support the Amendment standing in her name.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): Perhaps I may deal first, with one or two detailed points. We will certainly like to have the chance to look a little further at the precise words of our Amendment. As I explained on Monday, we had only had two or three days from start to finish to consider it. We shall certainly look at the two points, raised in the one case by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and in the other by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is quite right in what he says about the words "within the university", It may be that, in the end, we will find this the correct thing to say, but the point is worth looking at.
    On the point about the words "which might be punishable", I would say to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire that we certainly intend to look at them again, but these were words which, in particular, we looked at very closely with the draftsmen, who were very clear at that point that they were the best words to use. However, when we have completed our consideration of these words, I shall, if I may, have a discussion with my hon. Friends and with all those who have been concerned with this matter and let them know our advisers' final view on the drafting.
    1638
    Turning to one or two of the more general points which have been raised, as I have said throughout discussion on this Bill both in Committee and on Monday evening in the House, I do not propose myself to make any comment on the particular affair at Glasgow University, because I do not think it right that my right hon. Friend or I should make such comments. This matter has caused a great deal of distress to a great many people in Glasgow, not least to those who are concerned with trying to arrive at justice and to the people who have been, as it were, the plaintiffs in the case. It has caused a great deal of distress and I fear that it is clear from what has been said that it is likely to continue to do so.
    But it is a matter for the court, for the senate, and for the General Council of Glasgow University. There can be no question whatsoever of my right hon. Friend or the Privy Council holding any kind of inquiry into this affair at Glasgow University. It is a matter for the university to find its own answer to the problems which face it.
    I come to discuss the Amendment on the more general points which have been made. They come down to this, as between the Government Amendment and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan), the points between us lie in particular on whether there should be a duty or a power. There has been some discussion of whether my right hon. Friend should be, or indeed could be, brought into the picture at any point. Because of something that has been said, there is the question whether there ought to be an ordinance or a resolution.
    It was quite clear to us when we were framing our Amendment that we had a range of choice as between imposing a duty or giving a power to a university to frame its procedures and between doing this by orders or by resolution. I wish to sketch in the arguments for and against to indicate to the House why we came to the view, as we did, that it should be a power and that it should be provided by Resolution procedure because in their turn these dictate whether or not the Secretary of State, either himself or in his capacity as a member of the Privy Council, is involved. They also dictate the answers to one or two of the other questions.

    1639
    I am quite clear—I think most of us are—that in view of the very generous assurances given to us by the four universities which we are considering in this Bill—it is a point to remember that we are considering only four of the Scottish universities in the Bill and we are grateful for their generous assurance—that they intend to review their own procedures. I have not the slightest grain of doubt that, having said that, they will do it. Of course they will. There can be no doubt about this. It would be a gratuitous insult to impose a duty rather than to give them a power in view of the assurances they have given.
    Therefore, it becomes a power rather than a duty. That is what is in my Amendment as against the words "It shall be the duty" in the Amendment by my hon. Friend. I hope that my explanation of why my right hon. Friend came to the view that a power was all that was needed in this case will be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill. It is because of the very generous assurances we have been given by each of the four universities, including Glasgow.
    I come now to the question of the choice between ordinance and resolution. If the ordinance procedure were adopted, as with every ordinance an ordinance in this case would have to come before the Privy Council, of which my right hon. Friend is a member, so to that extent he would see it. A resolution could not come before my right hon. Friend, because there is no need for a university to bring its resolutions to the attention of the Privy Council.
    However, the strong argument at the end of the day against the ordinance procedure was that an ordinance would necessarily be framed in the most general terms. I think that I have quoted, either in the House or in Standing Committee, the letter written by my right hon. Friend the Secreary of State for Education and Science to the National Union of Students on certain matters, including the question of discipline. In that letter my right hon. Friend referred, in particular, to the
    "provision which is being made in the interests of students in the draft Charters"
    in some of the institutions of higher education at the moment. My right hon. Friend
    1640
    said that the Privy Council was putting to the sponsors of the Charters "the desirability of making" a provision
    "whereby a procedure will be laid down for a right on the part of a student suspended or expelled to be formally heard by the Senate or by a body appointed by the Senate before the decision becomes final."
    This indicates the kind of generality with which, and only with which, the Privy Council could be concerned. The Privy Council could not be concerned with an ordinance spelling out in very great detail the kind of procedures that a university may wish to lay down.
    What most of us are concerned about is that, to satisfy natural justice, most of the universities will wish to go in some detail into the way in which they work out their disciplinary procedures. Therefore, one is faced with the choice between detail, which is what seems to be desired by most hon. Members, and the generality which would be seen by my right hon. Friend as a member of the Privy Council.
    Faced with this choice, it was right to have opted for the resolution procedure and the possibility it gives of greater detail. An additional advantage that it offers is that an ordinance, once approved by the Privy Council and once having received Her Majesty's approval, cannot easily be amended. On this kind of matter it will be, I would suppose, of considerable importance that, in the light of experience, a university should be able to change a few words here and there to improve the procedure it has worked out. One would wish to give the university the freedom to do so. I think that this can be given only by the resolution procedure.
    This and the other reasons I have given are good reasons. This is why we have chosen to table an Amendment which gives a power rather than imposes a duty and which relates to the resolution procedure rather than to the ordinance procedure. I must make it quite plain that, unless it were to be the ordinance procedure, there could be no question of anything being laid before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    There is one further general point which was raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. He was concerned about the all-embracing nature of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which he preferred, compared with the Government's more restrictive one which

    1641
    attempts to distinguish between cases involving expulsion or rustication and less serious offences.
    The hon. Gentleman was anxious that all breaches of discipline should be covered. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with him; nor, I think, would most of those who regard it as of some importance that the kind of relationship should exist between university staffs and their students that most of us want to see. If whatever procedure is to be devised were to be extended to all offences, one would totally inhibit any possibility that the most minor offence could be dealt with by the principal or a professor simply calling a student into his room to discuss something with him. One could not lay down in a procedure that, for such-and-such an offence, a student shall go and have a chat with the head of his department. This being so, one must distinguish—
    Mr. David Steel: I said that I saw no reason why a statement that minor breaches of discipline could be dealt with at the discretion of heads of departments should not be included. But I do not think that it is a major point.
    Mr. Hart: I think that the point will be covered by the kind of resolution which the universities adopt.
    9.0 p.m.
    I do not think that we expected that, during our discussions on the Bill, we should have to give our minds to such weighty and difficult considerations as have been brought in by what recently happened in Glasgow. I put it to the House that, by adopting Government Amendment No. 60, we shall be laying the groundwork for the future and ensuring that there need never be in future anxiety of the sort which has centred on recent events. This will be for the greater good of all students and all the universities. I think that the universities themselves are the first to recognise this and they welcome an Amendment of this kind.
    Mr. William Hannan: The House will recognise that our Amendment No. 58 and the Government Amendment No. 60 are almost identical in their terms, with the important exception to which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)
    1642
    drew attention, that is, the three words which he suggested might be excluded. With that proposition I agree. I had intended to make the same suggestion, so that the Amendment would read in its concluding words:
    "where the alleged breach is one punishable by expulsion or rustication".
    Nevertheless, when one looks again at that proposition, we seem to be back to the same position as gave rise to trouble. The words
    "where the alleged breach is one punishable by expulsion"
    suggest that we shall be doing the very thing which my hon. Friend said in Committee we ought not to do, that is, approaching the problem by defining the circumstances or charges in respect of which universities could exercise discipline or approaching it by defining the procedures by which universities could exercise discipline.
    I agree with my hon. Friend in the latter part, that we should try to define the procedures by which the universities should exercise discipline, but, if we exclude those three words, there is a slight danger that we shall be asking the senate to list a certain number of offences which would merit expulsion or rustication, as compared with others which would not. Proof is the big thing. I do not consider that the universities have any right to exercise their discipline until the normal processes of the courts have been gone through. This is the kernel of the problem. I do not envy my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State or, for that matter, the universities in tackling it. But, if justice is to be seen to be done, this is the essence of the question to which attention must be directed.
    I have said that I regard both Amendments as similar and, recognising this, I am quite willing, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, to give way to her in my judgment on this matter because of the additional information which she will have. Therefore, I shall wish to withdraw the Amendment which I put down for the reasons I adduced on Monday. I am aware of the rather circumscribed timetable and I shall not go over the arguments again. My hon. Friend has made it clear that she does not propose to depart from the processes in the Bill. The Secretary of State is not to

    1643
    take power unto himself in respect of this matter but is to give the power to the university courts, as was the case in the past.
    This theme has run throughout our discussions of the Bill and there is a keen difference of view that will not be resolved by pressing my Amendment. I take the view that the Bill is wrong in this respect and that my right hon. Friend should have taken some powers. On the contrary, he is giving some up. My hon. Friend said that there would be advantage in having further discussion on the subject with the universities. I assume that such discussion will take place. But what I have been saying was borne out by her sentence during our discussion on Monday. She said:
    "We know that the principals are content with the form this proposal takes…"
    Of course they will be. The real question is whether they will exercise this power. We may have an assurance from my hon. Friend, but the principals have had other powers in the past that they have not exercised.
    My hon. Friend went on:
    "If, following that, it seems desirable to amend or extend the provision we are making in the Bill we should have the opportunity to put down any necessary Amendments in another place…I make clear that it is right only to give a power to the universities rather than to impose on them a duty because of our knowledge of their intentions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 1045.]
    The universities already have power to do certain things, including a power with regard to St. Andrews dating as far back as 1924. But nothing has been done and the matter is now being put right in the Bill. The question is, therefore, whether the universities will exercise their powers. As my right hon. Friend said, dealing with another aspect in Committee, it is a matter of good faith.
    I shall not press the Amendment to a Division. I have taken the opportunity to reiterate some doubts that I have, but in view of the strong argument—and I commend my hon. Friend for her reply—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12.—(ANNUAL REPORTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.)
    Mr. Hannan: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 33 after "before" to insert:
    "the Secretary of State and".
    This is similar to an Amendment I moved in Committee. Its purpose is that a copy of the financial report which each university must provide for the General Council should also go to the Secretary of State. We are losing the present provision whereby the annual reports went to the Secretary of State, so it is but little to ask that copies of the financial reports should be provided to him.
    Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) will know by now, following the very full discussion of this subject in Committee—in the first place, nobody knows better than he—that Section 30 of the 1889 Act was never fulfilled. It was on this issue that he almost had the head of the former Secretary of State on a charger. But having drawn our attention to that, I think that he has accepted, as most hon. Members have accepted, that it would be wrong, especially as we are moving forward to a day when all the universities are likely to have charters, to distinguish between the four older universities and the others in Scotland in terms of their relationship with my right hon. Friend.
    What is required is that hon. Members should find it a little easier to have the kind of information which many of them wish to have in their consideration of matters of higher education and of universities in general. Most of the hon. Members who were members of the Committee have had a letter—all are supposed to have had it and if I have omitted anybody, I apologise—to explain exactly what we have done about this. We have compiled a very long list of the sources of information which are relevant in this respect and which any hon. Member is free to have from me if he wishes. It amounts to consulting a small number of sources such as the University Central Council on Admissions, the U. G. C. Report and the calendars and reports of the Scottish universities themselves.
    My hon. Friend is asking that the four older universities should lay before my

    1645
    right hon. Friend a copy of their reports and accounts. I can tell him that we have done a great deal better than that for him, because, by courtesy of the four older universities and the newer universities, we have arranged that all Scottish Members will receive a copy of the annual reports and financial statements which the older universities are required to circulate to their general councils under Clause 12 and which the newer universities are compelled to circulate to their convocations under the terms of their charters. I trust that, having now been given the kind of information himself which he was asking should be provided to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend will rest content on the basis of his great achievement in connection with Section 30.
    Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Lady may remember that in Committee we expressed a certain sympathy with the Amendment which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) then moved, for the very good reason that we were anxious that hon. Members should have access to necessary and relevant information about the progress of universities in Scotland.
    I am sure that I speak for all those hon. Members who were members of the Scottish Standing Committee on the Bill in thanking the hon. Lady for her courtesy in writing to us as she did and listing the material which she proposes to make available. I am grateful to her, as I am sure all hon. Members are, for proposing to arrange for the reports, which older universities are required to prepare under Clause 12 and which the newer universities are required to circulate under the terms of their charters, to be made available. This will be very welcome and helpful.
    It was also good of her to say that she proposed to compile a list of references. I question whether that is strictly necessary. As I said in Committee, by doing a relatively small amount of devilling, hon. Members could dig out this information for themselves. It is surprising how much information there is in the Library if one spends a few minutes looking for it. However, I do not want to be obstructionist and it is very good of the hon. Lady to go to the trouble and I am sure that hon.
    1646
    Members would wish to thank her for her courtesy.
    Mr. Hannan: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the care and attention which she gave to this Amendment upstairs. Her remarks were very helpful and she has rightly said that it will serve a useful purpose to bring all the details of the universities together.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mrs. Hart: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 6, line 38 at the end to insert:
    (2) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as an auditor under this section unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:—

    (a) he Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

    (b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

    (c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

    (d) the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;

    (e) any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Board of Trade;

    but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners thereof is qualified to be so appointed.
    (3) No person shall be qualified to be appointed as an auditor under this section who is, or any member of whose firm is, a member of the University Court or of the staff of the University concerned.
    This is a somewhat technical Amendment about which I can be very brief. Its effect is to prescribe the qualifications of the auditors appointed under subsection (b) of the Clause. It has become the standard practice in recent legislation—for example in the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, and in the Airports Authority Act, 1965—that when provision is made for the appointment of an auditor, there is also included a provision as to his professional qualification. For example, the charters of Strathclyde and Heriot-Watt contain an equivalent provision.
    The wording of the Amendment is in standard form. The same words are contained in the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act. Subsection (3) came from the

    1647
    Heriot-Watt Charter as an addition. It will be for the convenience of the House if I move the Amendment formally since I suppose that it will be generally accepted.
    Mr. MacArtbur: I do not want to detain the Committee on this point, but I should like to ask one question. I am sure that the Committee would wish to see this Amendment go through as it meets a real need. But I understand that there is one question of doubt about the order in which the various bodies appear in the Amendment. I have not checked this with the Teaching Council Act to which the hon. Lady referred, but I understand that in other Acts there is often a slight difference in that the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants appears before the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. I gather that this may cause offence in that the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants was recognised in 1933 whereas the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland was not recognised until after the last war. It is a small point but perhaps the hon. Lady will look at it.
    Mrs. Hart: Yes, I will. I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the Institute of Accountants of Scotland should not have appeared at the top of the list. The list is as in the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1.—(COMPOSITION OF COURTS OF OLDER UNIVERSITIES.)
    Mrs. Hart: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 24, leave out from "number" to "as" in line 25 and insert:
    "of whom none may hold an appointment in the University of St. Andrews".
    I think it would be convenient if we take Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 50 and 51.
    This Amendment and those associated with it give effect to the undertaking I gave in Committee to delete the words "full-time" on Report to ensure that the Court of St. Andrews would have a lay majority and that this would follow for the courts of the other universities. During the discussion on Schedule 1 hon. Members will remember that the
    1648
    hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) drew attention to the possibility that under the wording of the Bill as it then stood professors who held chairs under the patronage of bodies other than the university court—he was particularly pointing to Edinburgh—could be co-opted on to the university court and thus disturb the balance between lay and academic representation.
    Hon. Members will remember that I promised to look at this point and this Amendment, is the result. We have confirmed that there are academic appointments under the patronage of bodies other than the courts in all four universities. The Amendments will ensure that the courts continue to have a lay majority. It will be obvious why it was convenient to take Amendment No. 51 with this, because it covers a safe point and fulfils the undertaking given in Committee.
    Mr. MacArthur: I should like to record our appreciation to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for considering this point. As she says, her Amendments cover the point which we had in our Amendment No. 51.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In line 41, leave out "from the University Court" and insert "in the University of Glasgow".
    In page 10, line 15, leave out "from the University Court" and insert: "in the University of Aberdeen".
    In line 31, leave out "from the University Court" and insert: "in the University of Edinburgh.—[Mrs. Hart.]

    Schedule 2.—(POWERS OF UNIVERSITY COURTS.)
    Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 52 in page 10, line 37, at the beginning to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Act".
    This point was made by myself in Committee, and I do not propose to go through the arguments again in detail. The hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State was good enough to say that she would consider the point between the Committee stage and Report. I should be

    1649
    obliged if she would let us know the result of that consideration.
    The argument, in brief, is this. There is an interesting contrast between Clause 7 and Schedule 2. Part I of Schedule 2 gives the university court the power, by ordinance,
    "To amend the composition, powers and functions of the University Court, the Senatus Academicus, and the General Council…",
    whereas Clause 7 lays down specifically the proportion of readers and lecturers who should belong to the senatus academicus of each of the older universities. It would, perhaps, be a mistake not to have the protection of the Amendment written into the Schedule in view of the very special recognition of the position given by the provisions of Clause 7.
    Mrs. Hart: I have very carefully considered this Amendment and I have a good deal of sympathy with the motives which lie behind it. However, having considered it in terms of a logical and sensible Bill within which the various parts are consistent with each other, it does not seem a good idea to accept the Amendment. First, there is the protection that any change in the composition of the senate as laid down in Clause 7 would have to be prescribed by ordinance. It would, therefore, have to come before the Privy Council. To that extent, there is the full protection of the Privy Council.
    It would be inconceivable, either at present or in the foreseeable future, that in the existing climate of opinion the courts would seek to reduce the proportion of members of the senate who are readers and lecturers relative to the others. This is not a point on which anyone need have any fear.
    If, therefore, it is not likely to be a practical possibility because nobody would allow it to happen, and if there is the protection of the Privy Council, the question that remains is whether, having regard to the importance that we attach to this point and have done in our consideration of the Bill, we should distinguish between this type of ordinance and this aspect of the composition of the senate in comparison with other equally important aspects of the constitution of the senate—for example, the number of senate assessors on the court. This is a matter which is regarded
    1650
    as quite as important by many people. If an Amendment covered this point, what would be the logic in refraining from making other Amendments that enshrined other provisions of a parallel nature in the Bill?
    It is therefore merely on grounds of inconsistency in the Bill rather than because of any lack of sympathy with the hon. Member's intentions that I do not regard his Amendment as acceptable, it being clearly understood that one recognises the total improbability that any worsening of the position from this point on would occur in the proportion of readers and lecturers. There might possibly be an extension, but not a reduction.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's sympathy and, in general, I accept her explanation. I agree that it is most unlikely that any change of this kind would be proposed, but I thought it right to raise the matter in what I thought to be the interests of consistency. The hon. Lady has, however, reminded us that in the unlikely event of this happening there would be a form of protection through the Privy Council. I accept that and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mrs. Hart: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "always that in" and to insert "that before proceeding to".
    This is a minor drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the court must take into account the views of any body set up under the Acts of 1858 or 1889 before any steps are taken to amend the composition of that body. In Committee, at col. 243, I accepted an Opposition Amendment the purpose of which was to ensure that the bodies set up under those Acts would be heard if it were intended to amend their composition.
    Technically, in view of the acceptance of the "body or person" Amendment—that phrase is now familiar to hon. Members—there was no need to accept the Opposition Amendment on that occasion. Since any change can be made only by ordinance procedure, those bodies could make representations under Clause 4(c). However, under the ordinance procedure

    1651
    those bodies can make representations only when they have received the draft. The Amendment would enable any of those bodies to make recommendations during the preparation of the draft—that is, before the procedure of Clause 4 has begun to operate. This strengthens the proviso.
    The Amendment may go some way to meet the representations of Edinburgh Corporation. We have a later Amendment concerning the curators of patronage, but this Amendment is relevant to it in that it protects their position much further.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 6, at the end to insert:
    "and in the case of the Curators of Patronage, shall have their consent".
    As the hon. Lady has just said in our discussion on the previous Amendment, the point is to some extent covered by what has gone before, but, with respect to the hon. Lady, not sufficiently so.
    The University of Edinburgh has its roots back in time in the College of Edinburgh, or the Town's College, which was founded in the sixteenth century by the town council of Edinburgh. Under the Act of 1858, the patronage of certain chairs in the University of Edinburgh was transferred from the town council to the curators of patronage. There are seven curators of patronage, three nominated by the University Court and four nominated by the town council. The relationship between the curators and the university is a very ancient one and, in a sense, the curators have carried forward today the ancient atmosphere of the original nature of the foundation in which the university started its being.
    I understand that what might be called the balance of power between the various sections of the curators of patronage is now the subject of some discussion as to whether there should be three or perhaps four members nominated by the university court and may be three members nominated by the corporation instead of the present four.
    Obviously I do not propose to discuss the merits of that at the moment. But I think that it is important in the Schedule
    1652
    to provide that if there is to be a change in the weighting of authority within the curators of patronage, the curators of patronage themselves, as a body, should give their consent to that change, and the whole authority for the change should not be entirely in the hands of the university court. I hope that the hon. Lady will extend her sympathy on this occasion to acceptance of the argument and the Amendment.
    Mr. David Steel: I hope that the hon. Lady will not extend her sympathy to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is quite correct in tracing the origin of the curators of patronage. The fact that they are more or less a mediaeval institution is no reason why they should have supervening powers today. The case for taking their views into consideration has been adequately met in the Amendment that we have just passed, and I hope we shall not continue to give some right of veto to this mediæval, interesting but perhaps not quite up-to-date body in the administration of the university.
    Mrs. Hart: I have just been experiencing the same sense of slight surprise which has afflicted me from time to time during the passage of the Bill, in that I have never been quite sure what any hon. Member was going to say. The support of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is surprising, but none the less welcome.
    I must say to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) that the previous Amendment covers the point. He will know, as he indicated, that discussions are going on between Edinburgh Corporation and the university. We have looked into it very carefully, and we do not find any reason to suppose that Edinburgh Corporation has any distinct feeling of unhappiness about the arrangements that have been made in the Bill. I can see that those who are mediæ valists, either by taste or by inclination, may feel that, above all, the interests of the curators of patronage must be protected, and I can see that the hon. Gentleman feels that.
    I would say that Edinburgh Corporation seems pretty happy that mediævalism is being preserved to some extent at least in the Bill, that the curators of patronage

    1653
    are being given every possible consideration, and relationships with the university show no signs of any pronounced deterioration on that account.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am not a medievalist. I do, however, have a certain respect for ancient institutions. I think that it is unwise to weaken them or to push them about without very careful thought, and this was at the back of my mind in moving the Amendment. However, the hon. Lady has pointed out that the previous Amendment does to some extent meet the point, and I accept her assurance that the discussions which are now going on, and to which the Amendment directly relates, are taking place in a spirit of harmony and agreement. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 31, at end insert:
    4. On the recommendation of the Senatus Academicus, to prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of alleged breaches of discipline within the University where the alleged breach is one which might be punishable by expulsion or rustication.—[Mrs. Hart.]

    Schedule 6.—(TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, ETC. TO UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE AND OTHER TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mrs. Hart: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 19, line 25, to leave out "after" and to insert:
    "from the start of the academic session next following".
    The effect of this Amendment is simply to extend five years after the appointed day to five years from the beginning of the academic session following the appointed day. It is rather a technical Amendment, but it is of considerable importance to the medical students who will need to complete their six-year courses. If the appointed day does not happen to occur at the end of the academic session, they will be in some difficulty.
    As the proviso stood, if the appointed day fell half-way through a session, the students would not be entitled to complete their courses, and I am sure that no one would wish that, so I am certain that I shall have the support of the House on this last Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

    Clause 1.—(PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS.)
    9.38 p.m.
    The Minister of State for Scotland (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, at the end to insert:
    (6) Any decision under the said subsection (8) (as amended by this Act) to remove any disability imposed by the said section 73 may be modified or revoked by the Secretary of State.
    During the Committee stage of the Bill we had considerable discussion concerning the length of time for which dispensations given by the Secretary of State should last. It became clear that we had omitted from the Bill powers for the Secretary of State to modify or revoke any dispensations given by him, and I promised to table an Amendment on Report to correct this. This is the Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to find a suitable form of words to deal with the point which was raised during our discussions in Committee. We accept the words which have been suggested as filling the gap which we discovered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. Campbell: In Committee, we raised a number of points, on which we had a full discussion. Now that the Bill is likely shortly to receive its Third Reading I want to make some general comments upon it. It was introduced as a minor Measure, to make possible certain improvements of an administrative nature. There were two in particular. The first, as we understood it to be explained by the Government was to give a councillor or local government official a defence in court if he were charged with failing to disclose an interest in a case which could

    1655
    be only a technical breach of the 1947 Act and could have no substance.
    The relevant parts of the Bill are Clause 1(1) and Clause 2(1). In Committee, doubt was expressed whether this provision was necessary in Scotland, and whether the wording introduced as a defence would make the position any clearer. The Government stated that this was the intention.
    The second administrative improvement enabled the Secretary of State to give a wider dispensation to councillors to speak or vote, in certain circumstances, if they were disabled by having a financial interest. We recognise that the present system, under which there is a separate dispensation for each item considered at a meeting, and for each councillor, could lead to an unnecessary and time-wasting repetition of applications, but we do not think that the power of the Secretary of State need have been extended so widely as it is in the Bill in order to overcome this difficulty. In particular, we would have preferred a time limit rather than an indefinite period.
    We hope that the Government will use the new provisions of the Bill for the purpose which they stated on introducing it, namely, to improve the administrative position in carrying out the 1947 Act. It is apparent from what I have just said, however, that Clause 1(5) could be used for much wider purposes—for example, to alter entirely the principles and practice of the past 20 years or more in Scotland for granting dispensations, by granting dispensations, without a time limit, to whole categories of persons throughout Scotland, regardless of the position in each council, when, in the past, decisions to grant or not to grant have been taken in the light of the proportion of councillors on each council who were disabled.
    If whole categories were given dispensations in this way there would be a major change in the present practice. Hitherto, applications for dispensation have been considered in the light of the question whether only two or three persons in a council were disabled, or whether there were a considerable number—the question often being whether more than one-third of the councillors were so disabled. We consider that if such sweeping changes
    1656
    are contemplated, or seem necessary, the Government should bring the matter to the House of Commons.
    Those major changes of principle should be considered here, on their merits, at the time. When we put this suggestion forward in Committee the Minister of State appeared to recognise the need for further parliamentary debate if such a question came up, and it seemed that this change was necessary in Scotland. We consider that this would be the correct procedure.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: There does not seem to be much that I need to reply to in the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). We have had long discussions on the first point with which the Bill is concerned, namely, the insignificant or remote pecuniary interest. The Bill puts Scotland in the same position as England. We think that it would be advantageous to all local authorities. The local authority associations think so, too, and because of this we are quite happy with it.
    On the second point, about the possibility of changing the practice and principles already operating in Scotland, under Clause 1(5), we have had considerable discussion about this also. While it is true that that makes it possible to alter the practice in Scotland, I pointed out during the Committee stage that, clearly, before acting under this subsection, the Secretary of State would consult the local authority associations—the counties, the cities, the county councils, the small burghs and the rest. He would not, of course, use the power wrongly—
    Mr. Campbell: I understand that he would consult the local authorities through their associations, but our point was that ratepayers and electors and other persons in Scotland who are concerned with local government ought to get their opportunity, through their representatives in Parliament, also to comment.
    Mr. Willis: It is certainly doubtful whether the Secretary of State would take any action until there was a demand for it. That demand would be expressed in the usual way, through public speeches, by questions to my right hon. Friend in the House, by deputations, representations and the rest of the democratic

    1657
    procedures which enable a Minister to judge public opinion, at which point he would, as is customary—I know of very few occasions when the Secretary of State does not—consult the local authority associations and assess the volume of opinion for anything which he might think of introducing.
    The hon. Gentleman made the point, as he did also during the Committee stage, that if a category of people was given a dispensation throughout Scotland, we might give a dispensation to the only person on a council requiring a dispensation. I think that I told the hon. Gentleman at that time that the present position is very anomalous.
    If there is only one person on a council of 27 members with an interest, perhaps as a municipal tenant, he must neither speak nor vote. If, however, there are more than nine councillors who are municipal tenants—or a sufficient number to alter the majority within that council—they are given powers to vote and to speak. In other words, the anomaly at present is that, precisely when the person is unable to influence the council, he is told that he must on no account speak or vote. However, when a group of persons reaches a number able to influence the decisions of the council, they are given a dispensation. Does not that strike the hon. Gentleman as a little anomalous and make nonsense of his argument?
    I am sure that, if he thinks over this, he will realise that this is an indefensible position, but it has to be accepted in order to allow councils to carry out their work—
    Mr. G. Campbell: What I am saying is that this is a subject on which, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are different opinions. People can say that it is anomalous. On the other hand, it has been going on for a considerable time. It ought to be considered separately on its merits if the whole practice is to be changed, with views put defending it and opposing it. I am not concerned with its merits at this stage.
    Mr. Willis: I answered that earlier by saving that in this case, about which the hon. Gentlemen opposite were most concerned, we have been consulting the local authority associations. I reported the results of those discussions and
    1658
    we are still consulting the associations on this matter.
    I promised, in Committee, to consult the local authority associations concerning a declaration of the full interests of councillors, the suggestion having been made that these interests should be registered in a register to be kept by councils. In the short time that has elapsed between the Committee stage and now we have not been able to carry out these consultations thoroughly. However, we did approach the counties and county burghs and neither of them were happy about the suggestion. We therefore took no action and did not put down any Amendments. Clearly, we did not have sufficient time to consider the matter, although our preliminary inquiries showed that there was no great support for the suggestion.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I understand that the Bill is designed to remove certain anomalies. Having listened to the discussions in Committee it is fair to say that the Bill is concerned more with the South of Scotland than the area which I represent. This is due largely to the fact that in the Highlands we have no party politics in local government. Councillors are elected because of their knowledge, experience and understanding of the problems of the area, and the question of party politics does not arise.
    I can understand why the question of interests held by councillors—particularly from the point of view of remote or insignificant interests—is a difficult matter to decide. In the Highlands councillors must be given a certain discretion in deciding whether or not they have such remote or insignificant interests in the business before the council. That does not mean that councillors in the area are not aware of their obligation to disclose any financial interests they may have in council business.
    We must remember that a great deal is expected of councillors. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people with the necessary qualifications to undertake this work, particularly in constituencies such as mine. Councillors must spend much more time these days in local government activities and it is, therefore, important that nothing is done which would give prospective

    1659
    councillors the impression that their work is not of extreme importance. We must also ensure that there is no suspicion that councillors hold their positions because of pecuniary interests.
    As far as I can judge, the changes proposed will have the tendency to remove any such suspicions, and while this is, perhaps, the most unimportant Measure which has been before the Scottish Grand Committee during the last 14 months, it will do some good and, on behalf of my party, I support it.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister said, in connection with Clause 1(5), that he would seek the support of the local authority associations. "Support" was the word he used. I take it that my hon. Friend really means that he will consult opinions, and will not necessarily allow the decisions of the various associations to determine what his action will be in that respect?
    Mr. Willis: The short answer is, "Yes".
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL
    Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
    9.55 p.m.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    In view of the very friendly way in which the Bill was received at its earlier stages, I do not propose to trouble the House with a long speech on its Third Reading, but I should like to say how grateful I am to hon. Members opposite who, in the Standing Committee, contributed to a most careful, but always expeditious, scrutiny of the Bill. We had many interesting questions and debates, and the House can rest assured, I think, that although the Bill has emerged un-amended, the searchlight of criticism and inquiry has been turned very fully on it, and we certainly expect that much that was said in the Committee will be reflected in our final arrangements for the investment account service.
    There is just one other general point I would mention, because it was fundamental to much of our discussion in the Committee. I was greatly impressed by the point made by various hon. Members who were anxious to see that the new service was managed in the interests of depositors. The Government's contention is that the service must be run with just that objective if it is to produce the extra savings for which it is designed—and which the country needs. In any case, I hope that the specific assurances I was able to give will help to allay any possible anxiety they might have had that we do not intend to put the depositors' interests first.
    I am sure that the Bill goes forward now with the good will of the House under the happiest auguries for the future, and I greatly hope that the House will now give it the Third Reading.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Paul Bryan: On Second Reading I said that we on this side welcomed the Bill, that we would help it through, if it needed help, and that we would do our best to improve it. I think the fact that there were only three Committee sittings showed that we

    1661
    meant what we said. On the other hand, the fact: hat there were no Amendments does not really mean that we have not improved the Bill at all. The purpose of a Standing Committee is not merely to pass a Bill but also to inform and reassure people outside the House, whether they be the investors of the future or the professions that advise them, and I think that, judging from the reassurances and information we stimulated the Postmaster-General into giving us, we did just that.
    In the Committee we discussed at some length the question of the investment of funds, and got the assurance of an exact statement in some detail in the annual accounts of the way in which the money was to be invested. I am sure that the statement issued in the Post Office accounts will be scrutinised by those of us who took an interest in these things in the Committee. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the interests of depositors, a subject about which we talked a good deal in the Committee. It is true that we wanted this point written into the Bill, but his assurance will bring comfort to those who were worried about it.
    This has been very much a catching-up Bill—we have been catching up with the trustee savings banks—and we on this side were looking closely at the Measure to see whether it had sufficient flexibility to avoid future legislation—or future catching-up Bills. Again, I think the assurance we had on this point persuaded us that there was a good deal of flexibility in the Bill. There is the fact that the rate of interest can be varied; that conditions of withdrawal and notice of withdrawal can be adjusted; that the qualifying deposit, now £50, can be changed by the stroke of a pen, as the Postmaster-General put it; that the calculation of interest which is now by the calendar month can be altered if, by computerisation or other means, it can be speeded up. That was all brought out in Committee. We therefore congratulate the Postmaster-General on this Bill—or his interitance—and hope that it will prosper in another place.
    9.59 p.m.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I want to thank the Postmaster-General for his generous tribute to the Opposition. As he himself spent many weary years on
    1662
    this side, he knows that opposition can be a thankless task. The Government of the day can always say that the Opposition are ill-informed—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Sir D. Glover: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute to the Opposition for their informed and responsible criticism of the Bill, which goes some way to refute the remark of the Prime Minister who spoke about "an irresponsible Opposition". If this House ceases to debate Bills at this time of night in the weeks to come, I shall have much pleasure in quoting what the Postmaster-General said tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that perhaps the Solicitor-General might have explained the Bill a little and might have mentioned that this is the last product of the Statute Law Committee. That Committee has been in existence for nearly a century and its work is now to be taken over by the Law Commission. This being the last Bill which comes from that Committee, we should pay tribute to the work of the Committee over the years.
    As was said in the Joint Committee on this Bill, statute law revision is not something like knitting that one can take up, knit a few rows and then put down; it is a heavy job. For the past 10 years it has been a one-man job by one Parliamentary counsel who has done very great service to the House. I see no reason why his name should not be mentioned from this Box—Mr. C.H. Chorley, who has

    1663
    done great service in statute law revision. I trust that the Law Commission will be able to do it as well.
    Since 1961, there have been six Statute Law Revision Acts. Although this House has the benefit of the admirable work done by the Joint Committee, it should study the Bill when it comes before the House even though it cannot question the Committee's Report that the Statutes included in the Bill are all
    "obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments".
    The House should look at the Bill because the Statute Law Revision Act, 1950, the last Act of the previous Labour Government, had to be corrected by the first Statute Law Revision Committee of the Conservative Government of 1953.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): It will not happen again.
    Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it will not happen again. This is the first Statute Law Revision Bill of this Labour Government'—the first major one; there was a minor one correcting one or two particular Statutes. In view of the rumours, we may have to correct it quite soon. So I want to see whether it is in order. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could explain the very first item in the Schedule. This is the repeal of the Billeting Act, 1679, which, I understand, forbade the billeting of soldiers on private residents. I understand that this Act is now considered to be unnecessary because these provisions were included in the Petition of Right. This puzzled me a little to start with, because I was not certain whether the Petition of Right was really a Statute, but I find that it is. It is Statute No. 3, Charles I, Chapter 1.
    What puzzled me even more is that the Billeting Act which is now to be repealed is 1679 and apparently was made obsolete by the Petition of Right, which was 1627. How could the Billeting Act, 1679, have been made obsolete by the Petition of Right in 1627? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain the reasons for this and the effect of this.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He knows—indeed, he has already said—that the Bill has come from a Joint Committee
    1664
    He has paid tribute to that Committee's work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to go through all the Acts in this way on this Second Reading.
    Mr. Page: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I was endeavouring not to question whether the Measures listed in the Schedule are
    "obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded"
    because the Joint Committee has told us that that is so. I could not see the effect of repealing the very first Act in the list. It is the effect of these repeals which we are entitled to question when a Statute, Law Revision Bill comes before the House.
    As I understand it, the effect of the whole of the first portion of the Schedule, which deals with the Armed Forces, is to repeal the Volunteer Acts which were superseded when the Territorial Army was created in 1907, but for some reason the Volunteer Acts have been left in operation. I wonder whether we are now asked to repeal these Acts in case the Government's abolition of the Territorial Army might result in the volunteers coming into operation again if we did not repeal these Acts.
    There are a number of points in the Schedule which are a little puzzling. Although the way the Schedule is set out, with the several headings, is a great convenience—"Armed Forces Repeals", "Constabulary Repeals", "Transport Repeals", and so on; I would not dream of going through every single Statute—there are one or two which are a little puzzling. For instance, is the point of the land tax repeals merely to remove the phrase "land tax" from a number of Statutes where it now occurs? Land tax has been repealed for a very long time. It is puzzling that we should have to repeal a number of Acts now which deal with land tax. One would have thought that they had gone already.
    We must take the Joint Committee's statements that the Acts are all within the Long Title, but the statement in the Long Title that they are "unnecessary" needs some explanation in connection with some of the Acts. For example, there is the one which was commented upon in the Joint Committee, in which, I am sure, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), whom I see in his place, will be interested, which

    1665
    dealt with hackney carriages plying for hire outside the Post Office. Apparently, it is now either obsolete or unnecessary. The question was raised in the Joint Committee as to what was meant by the word "unnecessary".
    As I understand, Statutes brought before the House in this Bill which are said to be unnecessary are unnecessary not by reason of having been repealed in some other Statute but merely because there are other powers elsewhere which are just as efficient. If I am right in this, the Report of the Joint Committee takes substantial steps in amending the law. This is not quite like a consolidation Bill. It is an amendment of the law, and to that extent it calls for some explanation by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    10.11 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): First, I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the Joint Committee and, in particular, to the contribution which has been made by Mr. Chorley.
    All the points which the hon. Gentleman raised were fully considered by the Joint Committee, which has certified that the Bill does not represent any change whatever in the law. It is purely a consolidation Measure. We are not asked to engage in any fresh adventure in legislation. We are asked simply to clear away a certain amount of legislation which has now become entirely unnecessary and which clutters up the Statute Book.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General says that we are told that there is no change in the law. But there is this distinction between a consolidation Bill and a Statute Law Revision Bill, that the latter does alter the law; it removes law which is unnecessary or obsolete, quite different from consolidation.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will see in the evidence given to the Joint Committee that the Joint Committee accepted what was said by Mr. Chorley, that this involves no change whatever in the substantive law. It clears away a certain number of Statutes which have now become meaningless or which are duplicated by other Acts of Parliament.
    1666
    The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of billeting and asked, as was asked before the Joint Committee—though no one quite knew the answer—why there had to be a Billeting Act in 1679 prohibiting compulsory billeting upon the people of this country when billeting had already been prohibited by the Petition of Right in 1627, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is part of the law and, I hope, will always remain part of our law.
    Hon. Members are familiar with it, but may I remind them of the terms of the Petition of Right, 1627? It was said in the Title:
    "And whereas of late great companies of souldiers and mariners have been dispersed into divers counties of the realme and the inhabitants against their will have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to sojourne against the laws and customs of this Realme, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people…."
    In the substantive part of the Petition, it was prayed:
    "And that your Majestie would be pleased to remove the said souldiers and mariners that your people may not be so burdened in tyme to come."
    The King was pleased to accede to the Petition, and it has remained part of the substantive law of this country ever since.
    Then, of course, there was the problem of why it was necessary in 1679 to re-enact this matter. The only explanation that I can suggest is one put to me just now by one of my hon. Friends—that in 1679 there was a Conservative Government and, as on other occasions, they thought it necessary to pass wholly unnecessary legislation. That was the major point raised by the hon. Member for Crosby.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred in particular to the question of land tax repeals. It will not have escaped him that, on this occasion, there is a long Explanatory Memorandum. I do not propose to burden the House by reading it but he will find a complete explanation in page 3 of the Memorandum in a paragraph dealing with land tax repeals.
    I assure the House that, although a number of Statutes which no longer have any application to anything at all are removed from the Statute Book, the Bill does not involve any substantive change

    1667
    in the law. It is, therefore, purely a Consolidation Measure which I commend to the House.
    10.16 p.m.
    Sir Douglas Glover: While, after a period in this House, I suffer more and more disillusionment, I have always believed, whichever party was in power, that the Law Officers of the Crown were gentlemen very learned in the law who ensured that ordinary Members of this House passed only such legislation as was necessary for the good government of the country.
    Now, however, the learned Solicitor-General, holding a distinguished office held by predecessors of all political parties before 1627 and ever since, says that we are removing from the Statute Book laws which duplicate other laws. I suggest to the House, therefore, that perhaps we had better be a little more cautious in accepting the views of learned Law Officers of the Crown in the future. Apparently, in the past, they have recommended to the House legislation duplicating other legislation already on the Statute Book.
    The Solicitor-General indicated dissent.
    Sir D. Glover: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but otherwise it would not be necessary to repeal legislation duplicating other legislation. Some Law Officer of the Crown at some stage must have allowed this to be passed into law by Parliament when in fact another law dealing with the same subject was already on the Statute Book.
    What emerges from this debate is that ordinary Members of this House had better view with a little more suspicion pleas put forward by the Law Officers when explaining legislation to the House, its implications and how it affects previous legislation.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I had thought that a Bill was usually presented from the Government side, but on each occasion I am having to rise from this Bench to explain what the Bill is about. I am flattered to do so, but I would have thought that the learned Solicitor-General might have risen to do so as a matter of courtesy to the House.
    This Bill is truly a consolidation Bill and not a Statute Law Revision Bill. It seeks to consolidate a particular form of compulsory purchase and compensation—a form of compulsory purchase relating to the obtaining of rights to work minerals if it is in the national interest that those minerals should be worked.
    The Bill consolidates the rather unusual procedure whereby a person who desires to work minerals, or to have certain rights to do so, applies to the Minister and the Minister, if he then sees fit, refers the matter to the High Court and the High Court decides whether that right should be granted and what compensation should be paid. This is an unusual form of compulsory acquisition and assessment of compensation.
    Sir Barnet Janner: I do not understand how, in a debate on a Bill of this nature, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) can raise issues of this kind. This is purely a consolidation Bill. We are here not dealing with the subject matter of the Bill. I respectfully submit that all the hon. Gentleman can do is to say whether the Bill consolidates the law. If it does not, he is entitled to speak on it. The merits or demerits of what is in the Acts being consolidated have nothing to do with the subject.
    Mr. Graham Page: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to develop my argument, he would have seen that I have a perfect right to question the timing of the Bill. I have to explain its contents in order to explain why I think that it is ill timed. When a consolidation Measure

    1669
    is before us, the House is entitled to consider whether this is the appropriate time at which to consolidate the subject matter of the Bill.
    Sir Douglas Glover: Surely, in addition to that, the House is perfectly entitled to know what is being consolidated.
    Mr. Graham Page: Indeed. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General did not tell the House, I intend to do so. I will explain why it is ill timed.
    The Bill deals with compulsory purchase of mineral rights. There is now before the House legislation dealing with the Land Commission, which has some monstrous powers of acquisition. It is making a farce of consolidation when it is quite clear that other legislation, if passed by the House, would set aside this form of compulsory acquisition. It will be quite purposeless in future.
    Instead of using this form of acquisition, of applying to the Minister for mineral rights and the Minister referring the matter to the High Court, none of that will happen in future if the Land Commission Bill is accepted by the House and there will merely be an application to the Commission to acquire the mineral rights and to exploit them in the national interest.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): The hon. Member is not in order in discussing arrangements alternative to those which are provided in this consolidation Measure.
    Mr. Graham Page: With great respect, I was endeavouring to show why this was the wrong time to bring forward a consolidation Measure and I was saying that the House was contemplating a Measure which would make this purposeless. I would have thought that I could also deploy that argument in connection with the compensation provisions which are consolidated in the Bill.
    Assurances have been given by the Government during the course of previous debates in this Session, on earlier matters of legislation, that there would be a complete review of compensation. I cannot imagine that the form of compensation contained in the Bill would survive a review of that sort. Again, I say that
    1670
    it is ill timed to bring forward a consolidation Measure which cannot have a very long life. Perhaps this part of the law has been consolidated because it is easier to repeal it when collected together and consolidated in this form. If that is so, the Government should be frank and honest with the House and say that that is the purpose of the consolidation.
    10.25 p.m.
    Sir Barnett Janner: We have had this kind of Bill before the House on a number of occasions. The whole purpose of consolidating is to remove the dead wood and try to bring into reasonable wording the law as it stands. No one has a reasonable ground for complaint if a Bill is introduced in order to make the law clear, without having to delve into all of the Statutes concerned, which are repealed by virtue of a Measure of this kind. I do not think that this lends itself to being a question of debating what is coming in the future. The question is whether it is proper and right for the purpose of the lay people as well as the lawyers, to consolidate a number of Acts and remove the rubbish lying about? Nothing can be better than to have consolidating Bills for this purpose.
    10.26 p.m.
    Sir Douglas Glover: This is the sort of Bill that Governments of all parties bring in on a day when they do not think that anyone will be here. It has been said from the other side of the House that one has not a right to ask what is being consolidated. I believe that the Government have treated the House with grave discourtesy, because any Government has a responsibility to explain the purpose of legislation which they are trying to get through the House.
    I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who is an old friend of mine, that a lot of this is dead wood. He happens to be a lawyer, and is much more conversant with what is dead wood than perhaps 90 per cent. of the Members of the House. But other Members are just as entitled to know what is being done in cleaning up legislative statutes.
    I am not disagreeing with the idea behind this, but I do think that the

    1671
    House has been treated discourteously since my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has had to move the only explanation we have had about the Bill.
    10.27 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): We are dealing with a perfectly well understood procedure here. This is a consolidation Measure which does not raise any question of principle, and if any hon. Member wishes to know what is involved, all he has to do is to look at the Report of the Joint Committee. This procedure has been followed again and again and no discourtesy is involved when a Minister does not go over the ground covered by the Report. I do not complain, and I never have complained, when either of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to debate a consolidation Measure. I would respectfully suggest that the purpose is clear enough. To see what is involved one has only to look at the Schedule to the Bill, and at the Measures repealed.
    1672
    If hon. Members care to turn to the Bill they will see that there are nine Measures dealing with working facilities and support, and similar matters in the mining industry. This has nothing to do with forthcoming legislation on the Land Commission. It is a matter of general convenience, that legislation dealing with this very technical subject should be included within the ambit of one Statute. The Committee has reported that this Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law and that there is no point to which it thinks the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
    This is a report of a Committee on which the party opposite was fully represented. That is a perfectly sufficient answer to the speeches that we have heard.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (LEPROSY) REGULATIONS
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Public Health (Leprosy) Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 12), dated 10th January, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be annulled.
    These Regulations to which I am drawing the attention of the House concern the method by which the disease of leprosy is notified medically. I realise that I should incur the wrath of the Chair if I were to go at all wide. Nevertheless, perhaps I may be allowed to say briefly by way of general introduction that I suppose the disease is one of the oldest known to mankind and certainly one of the oldest which have been known to those of us who are in the House at the moment, for we will have heard of it literally in the course of all our lives, largely from a biblical connotation.
    It is interesting to recall the dramatic story of the second Book of Kings of the captain of the host of the King of Syria, Naaman, who was told by Elisha to wash seven times in the Jordan, and to reflect that if he was doing that in the Thames in 1966 and if Elisha was a qualified medical practitioner he would come within the ambit of these Regulations against which I am now praying.
    These Regulations, I repeat, are concerned with the notification of disease. As I understand it—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, for whose presence at this late hour I am very much obliged, will correct me if I go wrong on any question of fact—the present law relating to notification of the disease is contained in the Public Health (Leprosy) Regulations, 1951. I think it was in that year, in Statutory Instrument 1036, that the disease for the first time became notifiable. Nor is it difficult to see the reason, for, by and large, this is not, mercifully, an indigenous disease. It is not one which affects permanent residents in this country.
    I believe the last indigenous case of leprosy died in Shetland in 1798, and, since we no longer have any Scottish
    1674
    Members present, I am able to make that assertion without fear of being knifed in the back. Therefore, I say quite simply and without making any point about it that this is a disease overwhelmingly connected with those who come into this country. Under the Regulations of 1951—they are the Regulations which are at present in force—
    Sir Douglas Glover: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, those who come into this country may be British citizens who contracted the disease while serving abroad. It does not mean that they came to this country for the first time.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, I understand that. I am merely seeking to make the point that it is not, generally speaking, a disease which those permanently resident in this country contract—at least, not at the present time.
    Under the 1951 Regulations, broadly speaking, any medical practitioner coming up against a case of leprosy has the duty of reporting it direct to the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. That is the present situation. The medical officer of health for the district in which the patient is, is not notified, at least in theory.
    The major change made by the 1966 Regulations, those which we are now discussing, is that every case of leprosy discovered and reported to a qualified medical practitioner will be notified not direct to the Ministry but to the medical officer of health in the district in which it is reported. I am putting the matter in shorthand. I am not going into the refinements of sending notices to the area in which the patient lives, and so on. The medical officer of health is under duty, under these Regulations, to send a copy of that notification at once to the chief medical officer of the Ministry of Health. That is the first change.
    The second change is that by these Regulations many important and far-reaching powers of the Public Health Acts are made available to medical officers of health in respect of leprosy. I need only draw attention to Part I of Schedule 1 for that to be seen at once. A number of cases are there set out—I do not want to waste time in repeating them—in which important powers under

    1675
    the Public Health Acts are now made available in respect of leprosy.
    I say at the outset to the Parliamentary Secretary, so that we may know our point of disagreement, if there be one, that we on this side firmly support the new notification procedures. We believe that the Ministry of Health is right in bringing these forward. We certainly support the mobilisation of the powers of the Public Health Acts in respect of leprosy. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding from me about that.
    It is more the method by which the notifications are made that I should like to explore. For example, Regulation 9, headed "Confidentiality", governs the method by which a medical officer of health sends a report to the Ministry. It states:
    "Every certificate or copy required to be sent to or by a medical officer of health in pursuance of section 144 of the Act as applied by these regulations or regulation 7 of these regulations shall be sent in such a manner that during its transmission its contents cannot be observed, and the information contained in any such certificate or copy shall not be divulged to any person except so far as is necessary to comply with the requirements of any enactment applied by these regulations."
    My first question to the Parliamentary Secretary is to ask why he is, apparently, erecting a wall of secrecy round these Reports. This requirement is not contained in the 1951 Regulations, which contain nothing comparable. I am well aware that under those Regulations the medical officer of health reported direct to the Ministry of Health, and yet one would have thought that it was perfectly appropriate for similar stringent provisions to be included in those Regulations for medical practitioners to be under strict instructions not to make the contents of reports known to anyone. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it must place the House upon inquiry when he asks for that sort of power concerning a disease of this kind.
    There may be a perfectly good answer to this, but it makes one anxious that in some way the Ministry is trying to be secretive over this important disease. This goes right against the trends of modern medicine. To give a rough analogy, I suspect that when history comes to be written, it will be said that the late Richard Dimbleby's greatest contribution
    1676
    to mankind, beyond even the magnificence and pleasure he gave in his broadcasts, is that he will perhaps have been the first public figure to take the stigma out of cancer and so enable medical science to get to grips with it in the early stages. Therefore, it seems to me that to erect a wall of secrecy round this disease, in which, after all, there is no shame whatever—as there is not in any other medical condition, at first sight—at least, is questionable. That is my first point.
    The other notifiable diseases are, broadly speaking, dealt with by the Public Health Officers Regulations, 1959. They are directly relevant to our discussion tonight, because those Regulations are quite specifically mentioned and modified in those now before us.
    The relevant Regulation of the 1959 Regulations specifically mentioned is 15(3). By that, the medical officer of health of a district is very properly required to make a weekly report of infectious diseases to the Minister. That duty is set out in Regulation 15(3), and I do not need to go into it in detail. He is required to make a return of the number of infectious diseases and of the cases of food poisoning and suspected food poisoning notified to him during the week.
    So my second question to the Parliamentary Secretary is, why do we not simply apply those existing Regulations of 1959 to leprosy? Why do we not make leprosy a notifiable disease and require medical officers of health to report weekly in the way for which the Parliamentary Secretary has powers to call? They are already there. They have long been there, and there is no problem about it whatever.
    It may be that he will reply to me that it would not be sufficient, and that leprosy, as with certain other serious diseases, is of such magnitude that he must require to be notified more quickly. That must be his judgment, but, if that is his reply, I would say to him that he has the power to do precisely that already. If he will be good enough to look at Regulation 15(7) of the same Regulations, he will find that there is a duty laid upon medical officers of health "forthwith" to report to him
    "…any case of plague, cholera, smallpox, yellow fever, louse-borne typhus or louse-borne

    1677
    relapsing fever or any serious outbreak of disease or food poisoning in the district".
    In cases of those very serious diseases, it is right that the Minister should be notified immediately. Those Regulations exist. The power is there, and, subject to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I do not see why we could not place leprosy in precisely the same category and simply say that in future No. 15(7) of the Regulations of 1959 shall apply, and the Minister will be reported to "forthwith". The hon. Gentleman is upon inquiry to explain to the House why he takes a very special course in the case of leprosy.
    The fourth question with which I should like him to deal is this. In No. 15(5) of the Regulations of 1959 there is a requirement that a medical officer of health shall make an annual report. I rather think that the technical position is that the medical officer of health is not by law bound to make that report public but that invariably he does so. Hon. Members will be familiar with the practice, having seen such annual reports published in their local newspapers, and they are the subject of considerable interest.
    I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, once we have agreed to the Regulations now before us, the statistics of leprosy, area by area and district by district, will be known to us through the reports of the medical officers of health, and whether they will be collated at the centre. He will know that, at the moment, all we have to go on is the Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the latest one of which is that for 1964. I do not propose to detain the House by reading it. At page 49 it makes a short comment on the number of leprosy cases in the year.
    As a result of these Regulations, will there be an annual report by medical officers of health, and will those reports be collated at the centre and reported to the House? It is important to recall that we are not dealing with small numbers. I think that it comes as a nasty shock to many of us to learn that there are more cases of leprosy in this country than we had appreciated. As far as I am able to ascertain—the Parliamentary Secretary with his infinitely greater facilities will correct me if I am wrong—the last published figures are contained in a
    1678
    reply by his right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) on 1965, when the right hon. Gentleman said that as at 5th July, 1965, there were 330 cases of leprosy in England, an increase of 106 on the figure at 31st December, 1960, though, to keep the balance, it is only fair to make it clear that a number of those cases are quiescent.
    I come back to my essential questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope he will agree that I have not sprung them on him. By these Regulations, he is requiring notification of leprosy to be in a different form from that for any other notifiable disease. That it should be notified to medical officers of health is accepted without question. That the powers of the Public Health Acts should be available to him is accepted without question. What we are probing tonight is why he has apparently erected this wall of secrecy around this particular disease.
    It is right that anyone speaking from this side of the House should avoid anything in the way of theatrical comments or statements about this disease. It must be made quite clear that the disease is neither highly infectious nor highly contagious, but at the same time it must be said that, so far as I am told, there is no known curative drug, and of course the fact that people are able to travel much more easily and quickly than they were puts us on inquiry to a greater extent than would have been necessary in previous years.
    The Minister may, therefore, take it as axiomatic that we accept the need for an "early warning system", if I may coin a phrase. I accept that something of this kind is necessary, but at the moment, subject to the hon. Gentleman's reply, he is placed on inquiry as to the apparent secrecy with which he is surrounding the actual notification. That is the purpose of the Prayer.
    10.50 p.m.
    Sir Douglas Glover: I suppose that all hon. Members who have something they particularly want to say are very grateful when circumstances arise when they are able to say it. I rise not as a party politician but in order to pay tribute to one of my ex-constituents—I regret to say that he must have got

    1679
    tired of his Member of Parliament, because he has emigrated to some other constituency in the south of England—who was one of the bravest men I have ever come across. He also did his Member of Parliament more good than any other constituent of mine.
    This man was a quiescent leper. Before I met him, like most other members of the population, I regarded leprosy—as it was referred to in the Middle Ages—as the unmentionable disease. I agree with most of the comments made by my hon. Friend, and, in particular, I ask whether this secrecy is necessary. My ex-constituent was a leper, and was not ashamed of it. He realised that he had been unfortunate in his service overseas. The medical profession told him that it was quite in order for him to move among other members of the community, and he came among us, with all the deformities that come with this disease, not ashamed but quite prepared to accept it.
    He did me an enormous amount of good. Before I met him, if I had been asked to visit a colony of lepers I would have been frightened. He altered my whole outlook, and made me realise that contracting leprosy was just the same as getting any ordinary disease. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in the Ministry's requiring notification, but the Ministry should think very seriously about the fact that there are still some diseases which are unmentionable. They remain unmentionable because no one mentions them.
    I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend said about Richard Dimbleby. He did a tremendous job as a public commentator on television, but probably the greatest service he did was to bring an unmentionable disease into the open. From now on it will be discussed far more freely than it has ever been discussed in the past.
    There are over 300 lepers in this country. Anybody who was given the opportunity of meeting one of those lepers at this moment would be frightened to death of doing so, because of the veil of secrecy that has been drawn over this disease. The degree of secrecy surrounding this disease causes those people who have it—even those who have the quiescent form—to keep it secret,
    1680
    unless they have a lot of courage, because to make the fact known means losing their friends. These Regulations are increasing the bad effects of this veil of secrecy.
    If, in 1966, we really want people to notify diseases without pressure—if we want them to accept the fact that nearly all diseases are, if not curable, at least controllable, provided the people concerned are not frightened to notify them—we must get rid of this veil of secrecy. By saying that leprosy is a special case the Ministry is, in effect, saying that there are diseases which are so objectionable to the public that all communications about them must be sent under a cloak of secrecy, and that this disease is unmentionable.
    This is exactly what I would think medical science would want to do away with. The person who travels abroad and by some mischance contracts leprosy should be in no worse position than the person who travels abroad and gets what is known as "Spanish tummy". I admit that that is a much more prevalent disease, but it is contracted only from going into the climate and atmosphere in which it exists. We should make it clear that these are just the problems with which medical science wants to grapple. Nobody unfortunate enough to contract one of these diseases needs to have any sense of shame.
    Any attempt to make the notification of such a disease secret must have great objections, as it would carry into the future an implication that anyone with the disease should feel ashamed. If it had not been for my constituent, who opened my mind to this problem and to this disease, I probably should not have spoken in the debate. I wanted to pay tribute to him, because he did me more service from a medical point of view than anybody else. Admittedly, he was quiescent and so able to go among people, but his courage was an inspiration to all afflicted people. He would have hated the thought that his disease was being given a cloak of secrecy, which is the effect of these Regulations.
    10.56 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)

    1681
    for the restrained way in which they have dealt with the problem inherent in the Regulations. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, some people make exaggerated statements about the extent and nature of the disease.
    I join both hon. Members in paying tribute to the late Richard Dimbleby for the way in which he brought home to the public the essential fact that there is nothing to be ashamed of, no matter what disease one contracts, whether it be mental or physical. The quicker this approach is inculcated into the general public, the better it will be for the health of the whole nation.
    The Regulations replace those made in 1951, which provided for the notification of cases of leprosy direct to the chief medical officer of my Department. Since then we have felt that sufferers from leprosy would benefit if notification arrangements were made to fit in with the general arrangements which govern the notification of diseases under the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Regulations made under Section 143 of that Act. The normal notification procedure under that Act is for medical practitioners to notify the medical officer of health of the local authority. Where that local authority is not also the health authority, a copy of the notification is also sent to the county council. The authorities can bring into play the full health and welfare service, so that the patient can get precisely the kind of service which he requires.
    Under the Regulations now being superseded, these services are not readily available to sufferers from leprosy, as notification is to the Chief Medical Officer of my Department and the medical officers of health of local authorities are not immediately informed. It is true that Dr. Cochrane, who was the Ministry's consultant adviser in leprosy until the end of 1965, took a personal interest in all cases and followed them up. Nevertheless, it has now been concluded that even though there are not a great number of cases—at present there are 333 such cases—it is preferable to put their follow-up on a more regular basis.
    The figure of 330 cases in this country was given, and I understand that the statistics provided by my right hon. Friend gave that as the figure, which is three different from the figure I mentioned. It might be thought that an increase
    1682
    of three in six months is rather substantial. However, I have examined the figures for the past 15 years and I notice that they have had a tendency to fluctuate. For example, in 1958 there were 303 cases. One might claim that, on that basis, there had been a considerable rise in a rather short period.
    We have not only introduced the normal means of notification, but also set up a special Panel of Leprosy Opinion. The members of the Panel, who are all distinguished experts in leprosy, will be prepared to assist medical officers of health and doctors in clinical charge of patients with problems of diagnosis, potential infectivity and management of the cases and their immediate contacts. It will be seen, therefore, that instead of having Dr. Cochrane himself following up cases where he felt that that was necessary, we have a Panel of Leprosy Opinion—perhaps not the best title for such a body—composed of distinguished people who will be responsible in various parts of the country, to ensure that the coverage is sufficiently wide.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures are high because this disease is imported into this country?
    Mr. Loughlin: We know that this is not an indigenous disease. It comes from, among other places; parts of the Continent of Europe, certain Asian countries, certain Mediterranean islands and parts of Russia.
    Sir D. Glover: May I help the hon. Gentleman on this point?
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not need any help. I could list the countries, but at this late hour I do not wish to weary the House. We must be careful about our approach to this problem. The hon. Member for Wokingham made the legitimate point that it is not an indigenous disease and that there is a greater possibility of infection because of the increased amount of travelling that is now done. The trouble is that once one starts talking about this or that disease being brought into the country one has an emotive approach to the problem. I do not want to indulge in polemics on this issue. We have had a useful debate. Let us be careful how we handle this aspect of the problem.

    1683
    We have also, as the hon. Gentleman said, taken the opportunity of new Regulations to make available to local authorities the appropriate powers contained in the Public Health Acts of 1936 and 1961—specified in the part of Schedule I to which he referred.
    Both hon. Members referred to the question—which I accept is deliberately part of the Regulations—of the need for confidentiality. I should say at the very outset that I do not want to see any secrecy in the sense that I want to avoid a free and frank discussion of leprosy, which is a disease for which no one is responsible. It is because of the exaggerated horror in which the public often hold the disease that confidentiality is essential if patients are to be encouraged to come forward and take advantage of the advice and treatment available to them.
    This is a fairly important point. We have to try to get them to take full advantage of the service, because although I am not too sure that there is a known drug that will cure the disease in advanced cases, it is curable if it is treated in the early stages. We have therefore made a special effort to preserve confidentiality. In Regulation 9 we require that information transmitted should be sent in such a manner that the contents cannot be observed, and that it should not be divulged to any person unnecessarily.
    In a further effort to preserve confidentiality, we have arranged that medical officers of health should not send weekly and quarterly returns of notifications of leprosy, as they do of other notifications, to the General Register Office, which publishes figures for each local authority. I want to emphasise this, because we take precisely the opposite point of view to that which has been advanced on the question of confidentiality. We think it essential to have the maximum degree of confidentiality, and we do not ask medical officers of health to make the return they normally make of other notifications, in case it should lead to local inquiries which would uncover the name of the sufferer. But to ensure that my Department continues to be fully informed on the incidence of leprosy throughout the country, a medical officer of health has to send a copy of
    1684
    the certificate of notification to the chief medical officer of my Department.
    These arrangements, of which the new Regulations form an integral part, are designed to ensure that cases of leprosy are discovered and helped towards cure, and that the remote chance of their infecting others is still further reduced—
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am most obliged to the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so. He has been most helpful to the House, as always. Would I be correct in understanding that, for reasons which he believes to be substantial, leprosy will be the only notifiable disease in respect of which this secrecy provision will apply? Is that right?
    Mr. Loughlin: I think that is right, and the reason why it is right is that we are somewhat afraid that we are in a phase where, unless we exercise a great deal of discretion, we shall discourage rather than encourage sufferers from leprosy to come forward for treatment. That is why we make this exception.
    Sir D. Glover: This is not valid, as I understand the disease, because someone who has contacted leprosy or who is developing the disease would probably go to the doctor in the first instance thinking that he was suffering from something entirely different. Such a person is not inhibited from going to the doctor because he has leprosy. He is inhibited from going to the doctor or discussing leprosy because society goes on talking as though it were an unmentionable disease.
    Mr. Loughlin: That is true. I agree that this is one of the great problems with leprosy. The disease not only has a very long incubation period of up to five years, but in the early stages it is very difficult to diagnose. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; I look forward to the day when leprosy can be accepted in the same way as we accept that we have a cold. This ideal situation has not yet arrived. I believe that this is the only way in which we can encourage sufferers to come forward and be treated.
    The hon. Member for Ormskirk says that a victim of leprosy may well not know that he has leprosy; he will consult his doctor thinking he has something entirely different. A patient who consults his doctor thinking that he

    1685
    has something different and who then finds that he has leprosy but that it is not necessary for him to have in-treatment may well be driven from the doctor and be prepared to do without treatment rather than disclose that he is a victim of leprosy. There is a considered opinion in the Department on how to meet this. We do not do these things because we are perverse in any way. We can only make our judgment. It is a question of balance whether the approach of the hon. Gentleman will be right or whether the approach of my Department will be right.
    I think that the approach that we are taking is in keeping with the current medical opinion of what is likely to happen if there is any departure from confidentiality. We may be wrong, but somebody somewhere has to make a judgment. In a sense, I hope we are wrong, because if we could say that we were wrong in trying to ensure confidentiality it would mean that we were getting to the point in time when there would be the healthier attitude of complete acceptance.
    The biggest contribution which we can make to ensure that there is no risk of the disease spreading is to create the right kind of climate of opinion in which fear of social discrimination and racial antagonism is absent. In such an improved climate of opinion, patients will come forward more readily and measures can be taken where necessary to guard against the possible spread of the disease and to cure the patient. We ought to be absolutely clear and keep this matter in proportion and make a determined effort to emphasise that, contrary to all the loose talk which is so often heard, leprosy is not a highly infectious disease and that, except where there is gross overcrowding, there is little likelihood of its spreading in this country.
    The hon. Member for Wokingham asked me some questions about the Public Health Officers Regulations. In my view, it is not likely that cases of leprosy will be included in the detailed reports made under those Regulations. Here, we come back to the very issue which we have just been discussing, the issue of confidentiality. The hon. Gentleman asked also why we did not use Regulation 15(7) of the Public Health Officers Regulations instead of the confidentiality provisions. It would have
    1686
    been possible to add leprosy to the list in this paragraph, but we have previously provided for direct reports of leprosy under the 1951 Regulations. To use the 1959 Regulations would represent a change in the method to be followed, and we have for this reason stuck to the principle of specific Regulations.
    I hope that no one will misconstrue what the hon. Gentleman said in referring to plague, cholera, smallpox, yellow fever and relapsing fever. No one should think for a moment that leprosy is in any way analogous to these diseases. They are entirely different. They are diseases such that, if we had 333 sufferers from them in this country, we should be in a most serious situation because we should have epidemics of each of them. I mention this because I do not want it to be thought that one can speak in the same breath of leprosy and of plague, cholera and the other diseases.
    Mr. Gurden: By what he said about encouraging people to come forward to report that they are suffering from leprosy, does the Parliamentary Secretary imply that there may be quite a large number of people yet undiscovered suffering from the disease?
    Mr. Loughlin: No, I do not imply anything of the sort. This is going back to the point I was making prior to answering some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wokingham. I have already referred to the long incubation period of leprosy. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that all the people suffering from leprosy are of a different colour from ourselves. There have been some wonderful white missionaries who have fallen victim to leprosy. It is very difficult indeed to contract leprosy by infection. It is very doubtful that any white person in this country living in normal housing conditions could ever contract leprosy. But the incubation period is very long and the disease is often very slow to show itself. That is the point I was making.
    I think I heard the hon. Member for Wokingham mutter—I do not mean it offensively—a reference to food poisoning when I was speaking of the other diseases. Here we have the same position. If there is an infectious carrier in an hotel or eating house, in practice there can quickly be an epidemic in the area. But

    1687
    these are epidemic diseases. Leprosy is not.
    We believe that we are dealing with this subject in the proper way. We are seeking to ensure that there is not a spread of the disease and we are offering all the services required to meet the situation should the disease show itself in a particular area. We believe that confidentiality, because of the emotive nature of even the word "leprosy", is necessary at this stage.
    I hope that, in the light of my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Motion.
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am certain that the House is obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the painstaking way in which he has answered and which has been of great assistance. Perhaps I might be allowed briefly to say that I make no point whatever about the numbers. I join warmly with him in that. He gives the present figure of 333 and I do not want to bandy across the Floor argument as to whether there is an increase or a decrease over any period in a year. It is merely helpful to have his authoritative statement on it.
    It is helpful to know about the panel of advisers throughout the country, which will very much reassure public opinion. It is clear from the debate that the point of difference centres around what the hon. Gentleman calls "confidentiality" but what, I am afraid, in all friendliness, I must call secrecy.
    The hon. Gentleman deployed with his usual skill his argument in favour of "confidentiality". He says that it is necessary because of the exaggerated horror of the disease. I respectfully say to him that, just because there is this horror of the disease, he should desist from erecting a wall of secrecy around it. However, he has generously said that he might be wrong about this.
    I respectfully tender some advice to him. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), as Undersecretary for State for the Home Department, has been given particular responsibility
    1688
    for the problems of persons coming into this country, and a very distinguished and broad-minded member of the Government he is. He is a personal friend of mine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consult the hon. Member for West Bromwich and see whether he feels that this wall of secrecy round the disease—a disease which, as the hon. Gentleman says, is closely associated with people coming to this country—falls within the sort of climate of opinion that the hon. Member for West Bromwich is seeking to create.
    I must honestly say that, on this point, we are not convinced by the powerful arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary has put before us.
    Mr. Loughlin: I want the hon. Gentleman to be absolutely fair. We are seeking only to ensure that this information will not go to another person unnecessarily. We are not being secretive about it. We are merely ensuring that the information concerning a patient is not exhibited in such a way that unauthorised people could see it. I do not think there is anything "secret" about that. I think this is the sort of relationship that a doctor and patient have.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman also said, in answer to an interjection, that leprosy had been selected exclusively for this treatment. Surely it is as important that someone with smallpox or cholera should be under no limitation whatever in coming forward quickly for medical attention as it is for a sufferer from leprosy.
    I remain yet to be convinced that the mere reporting to a medical officer of health will destroy the essential confidential nature of the relationship between doctor and patient. At this late hour we have to leave that discussion with the warning that this may well be something to which we have to return, in spite of the full and helpful way in which, I freely admit, the Parliamentary Secretary has answered the debate.
    On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CHILD CARE (DORSET)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
    11.25 p.m.
    Mr. Oscar Murton: When I asked for this debate, I had two objects in mind. The first was to urge the Home Secretary to order a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case which I want to discuss tonight. The second was to gain an assurance, which I hope that the right hon. Lady can give me, that her Department is satisfied with the administration of child care throughout the country is being carried out in strict conformity with Acts of Parliament and Home Office circulars governing this very important subject.
    In part, my first object has already been achieved. The Secretary of State announced on 9th February that he would institute an inquiry into the case. I am given to understand, however, that the inquiry is being carried out by Home Office inspectors who will report their findings to the Secretary of State. While I am pleased that he has acted so promptly, I am frankly disappointed in the choice of method of inquiry. I would have preferred there to have been a judicial inquiry where evidence would be taken on oath, an inquiry at which the Press could be present.
    My reason for this is the paramount importance that not only should justice be done, but that it should be seen patently to be done. Not only have we the fact that a young life has been damaged, perhaps irreparably, at the hands of the person subsequently convicted of this offence, but we have to establish exactly how this evil thing occurred and whether and in what way such an occurrence could have been prevented. Likewise, I would have thought that it was only fair to those officials whose duty is the task of child care in Dorset and who are concerned in this case that they should be able publicly to give their evidence on the supervision and reporting which was carried out.
    The case of this little boy has aroused the public conscience. I seek an assurance from the right hon. Lady that when the inquiry is finished, the Secretary of State will publish the evidence in sufficient
    1690
    detail to make it quite clear that the inquiry has been both far reaching and conclusive. I think that I am entitled to ask for that assurance, for too much is at stake. The Secretary of State may also care to give the juvenile court's reasons why the offender was only placed on probation. The House and the public at large want to know the facts.
    I should also like the right hon. Lady to bear in mind that since the facts of this tragic case were first made public, I have been informed of two other matters, affecting constituents of mine, which I should like her to investigate. I shall not mention names tonight, but I have already given the right hon. Lady the details.
    The first is the case of a father who told me the tragic story of his daughter whom he asked to be placed in care because she was a difficult child, difficult to control, and because his wife was very ill at the time and in and out of hospital. I shall not go into all the details, except to say that she became pregnant. It is apparent to me that she would have been better protected at home than under the care of the Dorset County Council at its reception centre where this happened to her.
    The second case concerns a private home styled "For boys in need of special care", which, until November last, existed in Poole, my constituency. This home, so I am informed, over a number of years took in children from the Dorset County Council and from local authorities from as far away as Berkshire and at least two London boroughs. Ironically enough, I believe that the responsibility for the supervision of this type of home lies entirely with the Home Office. If the duties were delegated, they would be to the Dorset County Council. It is certainly not the responsibility of Poole Borough Council. The home is certainly not registered, and it is my understanding that, as the law stands, it did not need to be registered.
    The proprietor of this home approached three charities, known to me, one in Poole and two in Bournemouth, asking for financial and other assistance. As long ago as June, 1965, the proprietor is alleged to have said:
    "We have only four boys in residence at present, but had nine during Easter and have, so far, not received a penny piece for their

    1691
    maintenance. The financial situation is that I have an overdraft of £80 and about sixpence in cash. No pocket money for the boys this week then, and their haircuts will have to be postponed yet again. Clothing and bedding are very welcome and naturally, toys too."
    In October last the proprietor asked for assistance with clothing from a welfare organisation in Poole. A considerable quantity was supplied. It was then discovered that it was the intention of the proprietor to sell the clothing to meet current debts and expenses. Subsequently the County Council on being informed of the facts, persuaded the proprietor to close down. I am not impugning the integrity of this man. He meant well and he was endeavouring to provide a service and he did his best. But is it right that such establishments should go unregistered and unvisited? If it was visited, why were these facts not discovered?
    That brings me to the sheer physical size of this problem. The last published return available to hon. Members of the number of children in care was Cmd. 2240, which gave the figures up to March, 1963. At that date there were 64,807 children in care, of whom 31,208 were boarded out, with a further 1,803 in lodgings or residential accommodation. A further 19,405 were in local authority children's homes and the balance of 12,391 were in voluntary homes, special schools and other accommodation.
    While no official Home Office figures have been published since 1963, the Daily Telegraph tells me that it has reason to believe that that total now stands at some 67,500, and that some 53 per cent. of these will be boarded out. I do not wish to weary the House with figures but in Dorset, which had 505 children in care in 1964–65 the statistics are interesting. Taking the average percentage of all counties in England and Wales, the figures among those boarded out were: all counties, 53 per cent.; Dorset, 61 per cent. That is 8 per cent. above the average. In local authority homes: all counties, 29 per cent.; Dorset, 11 per cent. That is 18 per cent. below the average. In voluntary homes: all counties, 10 per cent.; Dorset, 19 per cent. That is 9 per cent. above the average. In other
    1692
    residential accommodation: all counties, 8 per cent.; Dorset, 9 per cent. That is 1 per cent. above average.
    At present there are 550 children in care in Dorset. I presume that the 8 per cent. above average boarded out and the 9 per cent. above average in voluntary homes arises because of the apparent shortage of places in local authority homes, which is 18 per cent. below average.
    No doubt the right hon. Lady will look into this, and if she thinks that these figures are significant she will act upon them. I have had letters from all over the country on the subject of child care. They are thoughtful and helpful letters and out of them have come a number of questions I should now like to put to the right hon. Lady.
    First, are there sufficient trained child care officers to do this vital work? Are sufficient applications coming forward? I had a letter from a male officer who is a university honours graduate, working a 45-hour week. His local authority is understaffed and he is paid £855 a year. Is this adequate? Secondly, are there too many internal postings of officers? I read of one child in a foster home who was seen by six different officers in as many months. This is surely wrong. Third, are there sufficient male officers employed? Older boys, in my opinion, are more likely to respond to male influence than to a woman officer.
    Fourth, is the routine medical examination of a child over 2 years of age in a foster home too infrequent? I understand that the Regulation says that it should occur "at least once a year". As a father, I should not be happy with that. I would suggest that it should be twice a year at the very least.
    Fifth, is the scale of charges paid to a foster parent adequate to ensure comfort for the child and, at the same time, a reasonable inducement to the foster parent to take the child? The figure must be above bare subsistence level. I know that the scale varies to meet individual circumstances, but I have heard criticisms that too little regard is paid to the differential between ages. A 15-year old boy eats more and, I dare say, causes more wear and tear to home and clothes than a 9-year old boy. Yet the differential can be as little as 15s. a week.

    1693
    Sixth, is sufficient care taken in choosing foster homes? This is the most vital question of all. To revert to the tragic case being debated tonight, the foster home chosen was in a remote country district; yet this little fellow was born in the middle of Poole.
    I want to quote from Home Office Memorandum on the Boarding out of Children, dated 12th December, 1946, paragraph 14:
    "If boarding out in remote areas is contemplated…it is essential to ensure that the conditions in the foster home meet the requirements of that particular child…"
    I wish to emphasise the following:
    "…effective supervision is the more necessary, since any difficulties in the foster home may not come to notice from other sources."
    If ever there was a case where this warning was appropriate this is it.
    Finally, in a short debate such as this I cannot hope to do more than draw attention to the problems involved. The statistics show that by far the larger part of the boarding out of children is caused by temporary domestic difficulties such as short-term illness or confinement of the mother. These children return home within six months. There is, however, a hard core of intractible cases occasioned by desertion by either parent, by illegitimacy, homelessness and, of course, fit person orders. The true figures are masked by an unknown number of parents who make private arrangements.
    There should be a statutory duty on such parents to notify local authorities where a child is boarded out privately other than with a relative. I am sure the right answer lies in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, Section 1 of which states:
    "It shall be the duty of every local authority to make available such advice, guidance and assistance as may promote the welfare of children by diminishing the need to receive children into or keep them in care…a local authority…may, if the local authority think fit, include provision for giving assistance in kind, or in exceptional circumstances, in cash."
    What is required is more preventive work. Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that children are only removed from their homes as a last resort? Is the old adage not true that a real mother, however ill, helpless or weary, is infinitely better than no mother? If we support and encourage the mother, are we not in reality doing
    1694
    more for the child than any foster or children's home could possibly do?
    11.39 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) for giving me prior notice of some of the questions he has raised this evening, but the House will appreciate the difficulty in which I find myself in answering the whole of the questions put to me by the hon. Member. If I were to say nothing, I would be accused of evading the issue about the occurrence in Dorset. On the other hand, if I gave the facts as I already know them, I might be accused of prejudging an inquiry which is only just beginning. In this case, however, I think that the House would prefer to await the result of the inquiry, and I will say only a little about the basic facts of the Dorset case.
    I agree very much with the hon. Member when he said towards the end of his remarks that it is important to apply the principles of Section 1 of the 1963 Act, which places upon local authorities the duty of taking preventive measures to avoid children being taken into care. As the hon. Member has said, local authorities now have the power to take any action they think necessary, including the giving of cash assistance, to prevent children being taken into care.
    The boy in the case raised by the hon. Member tonight was one of a family of a man and his wife and five children who were evicted—I do not know why; it may have been for good reasons—by the Poole Council. I think perhaps that Section 1 of the 1963 Act might have been applied in Poole to prevent these children from going into care and to keep a roof over their heads.
    As the hon. Member has said, the distressing occurrence that gave rise to this debate was a serious injury caused to a boy by an older youth who was lodged with the same foster-parents. The facts of the assault were carefully investigated by the police in 1964 following a complaint by the boy after he had returned to his own family. As a result of the police inquiries, the youth was charged with causing grievous bodily harm and was brought before the Wimborne magistrates. He pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for two years on 23rd June, 1964.

    1695
    The hon. Member has asked me to say why the court only placed the youth on probation, but he will, I think, realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no power to make inquiries demanding reasons of the court in any of these cases. It is for the court, hearing the facts, to give what sentence it thinks fit.
    While the boy was in the foster-home, he apparently made no complaint and the county council's officers who visited him discovered nothing to arouse suspicion. Neither did the doctor who examined him after the incident report anything amiss to the children's department. After the complaint in 1964, the county council removed the foster-parents from its list. Whether in all this anyone was at fault and whether more could, or should, have been done are questions which greatly concern my right hon. Friend.
    My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Dorset County Council on 9th February. The council welcomed my right hon. Friend's suggestion that Home Office inspectors should carry out a thorough inquiry into the work of the county children's department. This is now under way. It will be an inquiry by Home Office inspectors into all aspects of the county council's children administration to see whether they call for changes in the interests of the welfare of the children.
    The facts known to the police and the children's department about this case and the records relating to the boarding out of the boy will be available to the inspectors with all the other records of the children's department. The inspectors' object will be, not to duplicate the police investigations, but to determine whether there are any failings or weaknesses in the council's administration and arrangements for supervising boarding-out, to propose remedies for any faults they may find and to draw from this lamentable affair any needful lessons for Dorset or, indeed, for the children's service throughout the country.
    I emphasise that the inspection will not be a hearing simply in one room but it will necessitate the inspectors visiting many places in Dorset. To that extent, it cannot be a public inquiry.
    1696
    The inspection may take up to three weeks, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my right hon. Friend will make all the facts known to the House and the country as soon as possible afterwards.
    The hon. Gentleman has raised the case of the 16½-year old girl who was put into the care of the Dorset County Council at the request of her parents. As the hon. Gentleman has said, she was a rather difficult girl. I understand that her uncle, who was a doctor, had tried but had not succeeded in doing anything with her. The girl went into a home and became friendly with the superintendent's family circle. Her association with the superintendent's son appears to have been fully accepted by her own parents and, indeed, the son visited their home and stayed there when the girl returned to her parents' home for weekends.
    If the girl's parents considered that there was any danger to her in the relationship, it was entirely open to them to remove her from the care of the council at any time.
    It is some years ago now, but there was a full inquiry at the time by a subcommittee of the children's committee, which held a special meeting to discuss the whole matter with the girl's father. But, after the birth of the child, the parents still kept the girl in the care of the council for some months, until she reached the age of 18. The council could not have retained her in care had the parents wished otherwise, and that suggests to me that the parents accepted that the council was doing its best for her. I am making further inquiries about it, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman when they are complete.
    I have not time to deal fully with the case of the home which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was not a home in the proper sense of the word. Had it persisted in asking for charitable contributions, it would have come under the inspection of the Home Office. But the people are not receiving children into their care now, and it has been closed down.
    On the subject of boarding-out, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, there are unfortunately a great many deprived and neglected children who have to be cared for and others who, for various reasons,

    1697
    such as the temporary illness or confinement of their mothers, need to spend a period away from home. Such children are the responsibility of the children's committees of county councils, county boroughs and London boroughs.
    Years ago, most of those children were accommodated in big homes and institutions where they felt apart from the rest of the children in the community. However good an institution, it is not the same as normal home surroundings, and, over the years, local authorities have been encouraged to get away from the big institutions and to provide accommodation in small family homes for less than 12 children and foster-homes. Their aim is to provide a normal home life, for it is best for a child that he should grow up as a member of a family.
    The Children Act, 1948, says that local authorities shall discharge their duties and provide accommodation and maintenance for a child by boarding out or, where it is not practical or desirable for the time being to make arrangements for boarding out, by maintaining the child in a local authority or voluntary home.
    As recently as 1963, the House of Commons Select Committee on Estimates considered all these matters in relation to child care as part of an investigation into the Home Office as a whole. It urged the Home Office to encourage local authorities to extend boarding out.
    But, of course, there must be very careful selection of foster-parents. The safeguards are contained in Regulations made by the Home Secretary—very strict Regulations which I have not time to go into in detail at the moment.
    This case in Dorset has aroused great interest, and a great deal of publicity, and it is right that in a case of this sort that should be so. But we must also remember the thousands of foster-parents all over the country who, for no material reward, are providing love and affection for children who have been denied it. We have all heard of cases in which such a great bond of affection has developed between children and their foster-parents, who have lavished love and care on them, that they are unwilling to leave when their parents are ready to take them home. Only today I have had representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on such a case.
    1698
    Foster-parents all over the country are rendering a great service to the community, and there are thousands of children who for the first time, thanks to foster-parents, have known the security and affection of a family home. The promise which every foster-parent makes to bring up the child as his own is, with rare exceptions, carried out in the letter and in the spirit. Indeed, in many cases foster-parents are called on to meet, and do meet, much greater demands than those which the average parent has to face, because the children for whom they have to care are sometimes of a most difficult kind. They come from broken homes; they have been neglected, and in some cases even ill-treated.
    I should also like to draw attention to the heavy responsibility on some foster-parents who, in order to keep brothers and sisters together, cheerfully accept three or four extra children. We must also remember the many foster-parents who, long after a child has ceased to be their formal responsibility on attaining the age of 18, continue to watch over and support them as young men and women.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of child care officers, and about their training. There is a shortage of child care officers, as indeed there is a shortage of all trained social workers in health, education and most welfare work, but the reports of this have been grossly exaggerated. At the date of the last annual return, which was 31st March, 1965, there were 2,010 child care officers, 237 more than a year before, and 461 more than two years before. There are, of course, many vacancies, but, strangely enough, none in Dorset. At 31st March, 1965, Dorset showed an establishment of 21 posts, all filled, but I cannot say what the position was in 1961 at the time of this occurrence.
    Great provision is being made for the training of additional child care officers. Throughout the 'fifties and up to 1961 the annual output fluctuated between 40 and 60. Expansion then began, and in 1965 the output was 235. It is expected that 273 students will qualify in 1966, and the target for 1967 is 400. Further expansion is under consideration, and I think that this is striking progress, for which we are greatly indebted to all those concerned with training.

    1699
    I cannot sit down without paying tribute to child care officers. I have seen them at work during the last year or so, and I have greatly admired the work which they have been doing. I have attended their conferences, and seen them up and down the country. What has struck me particularly is that when they meet at their conference they do not talk so much about their salaries and conditions of employment as about the children who are their responsibility.
    1700
    I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these matters tonight. We are not complacent about this, but it is important not to exaggerate the position as a whole. It is also important to pay tribute to the child care officers, the foster-parents, and everybody who works in this important field.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Investment Incentives
  Investment Incentives
  Weights and Measures Regulations (Consultations)
  Weights and Measures Regulations (Consultations)
  Companies Act, 1948
  Companies Act, 1948
  Third Lanark Athletic Club Ltd. (Shareholders' Complaints)
  Third Lanark Athletic Club Ltd. (Shareholders' Complaints)
  Cadco
  Cadco
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Industrial Development Certificates (Okehampton)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Okehampton)
  South Western Development Area (Okehampton)
  South Western Development Area (Okehampton)
  Laundry and Dry Cleaning Charges
  Laundry and Dry Cleaning Charges
  Canned Pilchards (South African Imports)
  Canned Pilchards (South African Imports)
  Anglo-Rumanian Trade (Talks)
  Anglo-Rumanian Trade (Talks)
  Rhodesia (Insurance Business)
  Rhodesia (Insurance Business)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Investment)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Investment)
  Consumer Complaints
  Consumer Complaints
  Advance Factory, Stranraer
  Advance Factory, Stranraer
  Development Areas, Scotland (Extension)
  Development Areas, Scotland (Extension)
  Danish Poultry (Dumping)
  Danish Poultry (Dumping)
  British Overseas Engineering Services Bureau
  British Overseas Engineering Services Bureau
  Industry (Linwood Area)
  Industry (Linwood Area)
  Motor Trades (Monthly Turnover Statistics)
  Motor Trades (Monthly Turnover Statistics)
  Computers (Investment Grants)
  Computers (Investment Grants)
  Council Offices, Kingston-upon-Thames
  Council Offices, Kingston-upon-Thames
  Professions (Degrees Without Examinations)
  Professions (Degrees Without Examinations)
  Industrial Materials and Foodstuffs (Import Costs)
  Industrial Materials and Foodstuffs (Import Costs)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Development Areas (Assistance)
  Development Areas (Assistance)
  Electricity Supplies (Aberdeen)
  Electricity Supplies (Aberdeen)
  Building and Construction Industry (Investment Incentives)
  Building and Construction Industry (Investment Incentives)
  Ship Repairing Industry (Pilot Study)
  Ship Repairing Industry (Pilot Study)
  Development Area, South-West Lancashire
  Development Area, South-West Lancashire
  Fishing Vessel "Admiral Rodney"
  Fishing Vessel "Admiral Rodney"
  Overseas Trade (Exports to Africa)
  Overseas Trade (Exports to Africa)
  Development Districts (Day Nurseries)
  Development Districts (Day Nurseries)
  Anglo-Danish Trade
  Anglo-Danish Trade
  Latin America (British Exports)
  Latin America (British Exports)
  Development Area, Dorset
  Development Area, Dorset
  Tripoli Trade Fair
  Tripoli Trade Fair
  Monopolies Commission (Powers)
  Monopolies Commission (Powers)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Public Schools Commission
  Public Schools Commission
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  Young People's Organisations (Grants)
  Young People's Organisations (Grants)
  Lawson Tait Memorial Trust
  Lawson Tait Memorial Trust
  Students' Grants (Parental Contribution)
  Students' Grants (Parental Contribution)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dangerous Substances (Carriage By Road)
  Dangerous Substances (Carriage By Road)
  Eastern Europeans (Work Permits)
  Eastern Europeans (Work Permits)
  Toy Pistol (Import)
  Toy Pistol (Import)
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Prisoners (Marriage Regulations)
  Prisoners (Marriage Regulations)
  Crime (Eastbourne, Brighton and East Sussex)
  Crime (Eastbourne, Brighton and East Sussex)
  Fireworks (Injured Persons)
  Fireworks (Injured Persons)
  Charities (House-to-House Collections)
  Charities (House-to-House Collections)
  Illegal Abortion (Prosecutions)
  Illegal Abortion (Prosecutions)
  Water Heaters
  Water Heaters
BRITISH GUIANA
  Elections
  Elections
SOUTH ARABIA
  Constitutional Proposals
  Constitutional Proposals
BARBADOS
  Independence Conference
  Independence Conference
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Live Animals (Export)
  Live Animals (Export)
  Meat Inspection
  Meat Inspection
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Imported Drink Coolers
  Imported Drink Coolers
  Statutes (Departmental Responsibility)
  Statutes (Departmental Responsibility)
  Vehicle Exhaust Fumes (Deaths)
  Vehicle Exhaust Fumes (Deaths)
  Health and Welfare Services (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Health and Welfare Services (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
HOSPITALS
  Leicester Area Hospital Service
  Leicester Area Hospital Service
  Hospitals, Swansea (Accommodation for Mothers)
  Hospitals, Swansea (Accommodation for Mothers)
  Chronic and Elderly Sick, Nottingham (Beds)
  Chronic and Elderly Sick, Nottingham (Beds)
  South Western Regional Hospital Board Area (Waiting Lists)
  South Western Regional Hospital Board Area (Waiting Lists)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Government Departments (Advertising and Publicity Costs)
  Government Departments (Advertising and Publicity Costs)
RAILWAYS
  Superannuitants
  Superannuitants
  Liner Trains
  Liner Trains
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Oil (North Vietnam)
  Oil (North Vietnam)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. (Building Projects)
  B.B.C. (Building Projects)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  INDIA (FAMINE RELIEF)
  INDIA (FAMINE RELIEF)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  B.E.A. Flights (Buses)
  B.E.A. Flights (Buses)
RHODESIA
  British Companies
  British Companies
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Recruits (Northern Ireland)
  Recruits (Northern Ireland)
  Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association (Redundant Employees)
  Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association (Redundant Employees)
  Royal Naval Armament Depôts
  Royal Naval Armament Depôts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Boundary Commissions (Membership)
  Boundary Commissions (Membership)
  Race Relations Board
  Race Relations Board
HOUSING
  High-Density Building
  High-Density Building
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Government Departments (Rented Premises)
  Government Departments (Rented Premises)
  Winter Building Precautions
  Winter Building Precautions

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

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Court of Criminal Appeal.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stonham told the House on November 24, the Government have accepted the recommendations of this Committee, and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible. To this, I am only able to add that the necessary Bill is now in process of being drafted.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that good news. I should like to ask him whether he does not think it would probably be helpful to have a debate in this House on the Committee's Report at a fairly early date, because although there are no Party views with regard to it, I know that doubts are held in certain quarters upon some of the recommendations. It might facilitate the passage of the Bill if we had such a debate and the Government had the opportunity of taking into consideration the arguments advanced before presenting the Bill in its final form. I am suggesting this to the noble and learned Lord simply to find out whether he thinks that that would be a helpful course.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Viscount can, of
1144
course, put this suggestion forward through the usual channels. I should have hoped that the Bill might be introduced soon enough to make it not really worth while to have a discussion on the Report first.

JURY SERVICE
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Jury Service; and, if so, when it is proposed to introduce legislation to do so.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONIIAM): My
Lords, the Government welcome this Report and are in general agreement with the Committee's main recommendations. Legislation is being prepared, but I cannot yet say when it will be practicable to introduce it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord perhaps give the same encouraging answer as did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the last Question? Is the Bill now in process of being drafted? After all, this Committee reported before the Donovan Committee—it reported in April, 1965. Does the noble Lord not regard reform of our jury system as being most necessary and urgently required?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this legislation is most necessary and urgently required, and we should like to bring it forward. But there have been no unavoidable delays, and there are, of course, many other claims on the legislative programme. When my noble and learned friend was answering the noble and learned Viscount's previous question, I found myself uttering the words in advance—though not so eloquently as my noble friend was uttering them—and I can only say that the same answer would apply on this occasion.

NORWICH INNER LINK ROAD SCHEME
3.9 p.m.
VISCONT NORWICH: 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 on what grounds the Minister of Housing and Local Government has accepted the Inner Link Road Scheme proposed by Norwich City Council, thereby overriding the views of Professor Colin Buchanan, the Civic Trust and his own official appointed inspector; and whether, now that the City Station site has become available, he will reconsider his decision.]
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, after considering the report of his inspector and all the alternative suggestions, none of which commanded general support, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government decided to approve the Council's line, which, unlike the others, could be implemented quickly to meet an acute traffic problem. Even if the City Station site became available, it is by no means certain that this would provide a better route.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to point out that the City Station site—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
Viscount NORWICH: I apologise to your Lordships. Are Her Majesty's Government aware that in fact the City Station site is now available? And does not this fact put a completely different complexion upon the matter?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think not, for the reasons I gave in my original Answer.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this decision has caused the greatest distress to the Norwich Society and to all other lovers of this historic city, to which the decision threatens to do irreparable injury? Are the Government further aware that if they could encourage the Norwich City Council, even at the eleventh hour, to have
1146
second thoughts, they would be thanked by posterity?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that he cannot satisfy everybody. I have counted six different suggestions, all supported by different people; and, for the reasons given in my original Answer, I think that my right honourable friend did perfectly right to meet an acute traffic problem by this decision.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not dangerous to assume that the inspector who hears the inquiry is always wrong?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, it is even more dangerous to assume that the Government are always wrong. They are usually right.

DEFENCE SECRETARY'S VISITS TO THE UNITED STATES
3.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: 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 why it is necessary for the Secretary of State for Defence to visit the U.S.A. twice within three weeks, presumably to take decisions as to the purchase of the F.111 aircraft, without Parliament being advised of the matter.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has gone to Washington for a meeting of the Nuclear Planning Working Group of the NATO Special Committee on Nuclear Consultation, which was arranged several months ago. The visit is not connected with the possible purchase of the F.111 aircraft. The Defence Secretary's previous visit to the United States of America, with the Foreign Secretary, was part of the general consultation with our allies about various aspects of our Defence Review, including equipment questions.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him this further question? Is he aware that the Air League is on the side of the Navy and that a member of

1147
the Council, who is also a distinguished member of the Party opposite, has sent a telegram to the Minister of Defence for Air urging most strongly the reconsideration of the Spey-Mirage project, in view of new factors, publicly stated, affecting the F.111 performance and consequently—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD TEYNHAM:—increased cost in equipment, and further urging the formula of "Spey-Mirage plus aircraft carriers" as most desirable in British interests?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would hardly call that a question. It does not arise out of the Question which the noble Lord asked. I can only say that he reads fairly fast.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend not to yield to the pressures of those who want us to retain aircraft carriers? As an old submariner in the First World War, may I say that aircraft carriers are now so big and are such vulnerable objects that killer-submarines, such as the American "Nautilus", could put them out of existence in a minute?

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Leader of the House a Question of which my noble friend Lord Carrington, who I am sorry to say is indisposed to-day, has given Private Notice—namely, whether he would care to clarify the practice of the House in regard to Private Notice Questions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for asking this Question. May I say how sorry I am—as I know we all are—that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is indisposed. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will convey our good wishes to him.
In view of the exchanges that took place yesterday on the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I think it would be helpful to the House if I attempted to clarify what I understand is the present practice in
1148
this matter. My interpretation of the relevant passage in the Companion to the Standing Orders is that when a Peer wishes to ask a Private Notice Question he must get in touch, before noon, with the Leader of the House, who then has to take a view, in his capacity as Leader, as to whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply.
If the Leader of the House decides that it is of sufficient urgency, the Question is asked in the usual way, immediately after the Starred Questions. If he decides that it is not of sufficient urgency, that is not necessarily the end of the matter. The Peer who wishes to question the Government can still rise at the appropriate time and seek the support of the House, which is the final authority as to whether or not a Question may be asked. All this bears, in my view, only upon the issue: is it or is it not a Question of sufficient urgency? And this is a matter for the Leader of the House to decide in the first instance. Whether the Question is then to be answered is, of course, a matter entirely for the Government.
I now come, if I may, to the events of yesterday. May I first say that if yesterday I left the House with the impression that I thought the decision on the urgency of a Private Notice Question was a matter for the Government, I wish now to correct this and to express my regret, in particular to the noble and learned Viscount, It is, of course, a matter in the first place for the Leader, as Leader, and in the final resort for the House itself. That latter point concerning the House itself I never challenged.
I would conclude, if I may, by saying that of course the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, had a perfect right to pursue the matter if he thought fit to do so—as, in the end, he did. But I venture to offer the personal opinion—and I do not want it to be treated as more than a personal opinion, but it is offered after consultation—that if a noble Lord wishes to challenge the view of the Leader of the House on the matter of urgency, he should take two steps. First of all he should give adequate notice to the Leader—which was certainly not given yesterday—that he is proposing to challenge his view in the House and, secondly, he should make clear to the

1149
House, when he rises to ask his Question, that he is appealing to the House to support him in doing so against the view of the Leader.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl the Leader of the House—and I am sure the whole House is grateful to him—for the clear statement he has made with regard to what is the practice of the House. He certainly left me with the impression yesterday that he was saying that the matter was one on which the Government were entitled to express a view. I do not want to revert to what happened yesterday, although I must say at the time I felt that the noble Earl's observations to me were uncalled for and unwarranted. I am grateful to him for making this statement, which is entirely in accordance with what I think is the right position.
I am sure that the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to give notice that he intended to ask the Question, after the Leader of the House had said it was not qualified, was inadvertent and due to ignorance of a practice, which I think, if it has not existed before, certainly should be regarded as existing in the future. I am grateful to the noble Earl and I think that the statement he has now made should avoid any further difficulties on these matters in the future.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should just like to add that notice of my Private Notice Question was given to the Party opposite, through the appropriate channels, early in the morning of yesterday.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his kind observations, and I can assure him, in the words of the old song that, "I want to be happy, but I can't be happy till I make him happy, too".

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to extend Sections 1 and 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 to further
1150
classes of statutory inquiries and hearings; to transfer to the Secretary of State the power to make rules of procedure under the said Section 7A in respect of inquiries and hearings in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read l,—(Time Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales as to the rights of a husband or wife to occupy a dwelling-house which has been the matrimonial home; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1,—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Bill read 1, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has for long been Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. He is now retiring from that position and is being succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Upjohn. As your Lordships will appreciate, there is a considerable body of work attached to the chairmanship of this Committee, and in view of the long chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and the work which he has done in that capacity, I feel that your Lordships would wish me to thank him, on behalf of the House, for his contribution in the field of law reform.
Moved, That the Lord Upjohn be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THEATRE CENSORSHIP
3.21 p.m.
LORD ANNAN LORD ANNAN rose to call attention to the problems of censorship of the theatre; and to move that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to review the law and practice relating to the censorship of stage plays. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving this Motion is very simple. The type of censorship which is exercised by the Lord Chamberlain over the theatre is unique. It produces anomalies and embarrassments which I think must be almost as embarrassing to the Lord Chamberlain as they are to the theatrical profession, and I believe there is a widespread feeling that this matter ought to be reviewed.
I have always been puzzled to know how the censorship of plays became one of the Lord Chamberlain's duties, Apparently censorship goes back to Tudor times, but it was Sir Robert Walpole who placed censorship of the theatre firmly in the Lord Chamberlain's lap. The reasons, I think, were political. The Court and Walpole's Administration were satirised by Henry Fielding in his plays, and also in The Beggar's Opera, which suggested that Walpole's dealings with his friends and with public money were indistinguishable from those of highwaymen and thieves. Sir Robert Walpole did not like this satire and, as a result, the Act of 1737 was passed. In consequence of the passage of that Act, Fielding never wrote again for the theatre, and there began for the English stage a melancholy epoch of over a hundred years of sterility, which was broken only by the comedies of Sheridan and Goldsmith.
Then, because these restrictions proved so onerous, there was passed the Theatres Act 1843, on which the present powers of the Lord Chamberlain rest. By that Act, as later modified, the Lord Chamberlain licenses theatres in the Metropolitan area, In other parts of the country, they are licensed by the local authority. By Section 12 of the Act, no new play, or new translation of an old play, may be performed unless it has been sent to the Lord Chamberlain seven days prior to production and unless he has issued a licence. No deviation from the authorised script is permitted. By Section 14, the Lord Chamberlain is entitled to forbid
1152
the performance of any play, new or old, on the grounds of the preservation of good manners and of the public peace. No appeal against the decisions of the Lord Chamberlain by management or author is allowed.
In 1909, a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament made recommendations by which it is believed the Lord Chamberlain to-day is guided. A play to-day may be banned, or deletions made to it, if it is indecent; if someone living or recently dead is portrayed; if it portrays someone who has died within a measurable space of time; if is offends religious susceptibilities; if it conduces to crime or vice; if it might offend a foreign Power, or if it portrays any member of the Royal Family later than Queen Victoria. The Lord Chamberlain is advised by a staff of part-time advisers and by controllers. All these gentlemen are of his own choosing.
This, my Lords, is the form which theatre censorship takes to-day. But before I refer to the difficulties which it creates, I want to pay tribute to the Lord Chamberlain and his officers. Theirs is a very difficult and often unpleasant task. It is universally acknowledged that the present Lord Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, have been models of courtesy and kindliness and conciliation towards authors and producers of plays. When Mr. Benn Levy, himself a playwright, introduced in 1949 in another place a Bill to amend the Theatres Act 1843—a Bill which incidentally was given a Second Reading—he complained whimsically that it would be far easier to abolish the censorship if the Lord Chamberlain were not so moderate and charming in all his dealings with authors. There is no obligation on the Lord Chamberlain to explain his reasons for demanding deletions to a script. He always does so, however, and tries his very best to suggest alternatives and to meet the playwright or producer. Indeed, after he has had further talks with the author, he will sometimes relent and pass a passage to which his advisers objected.
Nevertheless, my Lords, this censorship produces formidable anomalies. For one thing, the theatre is no longer the sole medium for acting. The cinema, television and broadcasting now exist. Plays

1153
which are banned on the stage can be performed on television. Sketches about living people are performed on the B.B.C., but are not permitted on the stage. Improvisation—that is to say, spontaneous dialogu—is inescapable on television. Yet improvisation is not permitted on the stage, where not only the text but the stage directions must be passed by the Lord Chamberlain. Then there is the question of ballet. The status of ballet is obscure. It has never been tested in the courts, but it may be that under the Act ballet would not be held to be an art of the theatre. In consequence, nudity and mime, which would not at present be likely to be passed by the Lord Chamberlain in the theatre, are permitted in the ballet. Then, again, the stage is censored, but not the music hall. Nor are the strip-tease "joints" in Soho. Indeed, to dramatists it must often appear that the more serious a play, the more likely it is to be censored.
Then there is the matter of theatre clubs. It is widely believed that if a theatre forms a club, which the public may join on payment of a membership fee, the Lord Chamberlain has no jurisdiction over it. On this matter there is a conflict of legal opinion. Some expert legal opinion holds that such clubs are not exempt under Sections 12 and 14 of the Theatres Act. The obiter of the Lord Chief Justice in 1962 threw further doubt on it. But even if the Lord Chamberlain, as an act of grace, turns a blind eye to such performances, a playwright can justly complain that his royalties have been most ingeniously limited. I am told that a dramatist who has been refused a licence suffers a loss of between £200 and £2,000, because, of course, his play is performed in a theatre which is usually a small theatre and will not go on to the West End.
Your Lordships will know that a prosecution is pending relating to the performance of a play at a London theatre, which the accused claim was produced under club auspices. I am advised that this matter is sub judice, and that it would be wrong for any of us to comment on it. But we are entitled to comment on the wording of Section 15 of the 1843 Act, and it is typical of the anomalies involved in the present law that a "performance" depends on whether
1154
the performance is, under the Theatres Act, a public performance and not on whether the play is obscene or as pure as driven snow.
I am bound to say that two major principles of the freedom of the subject seem to me to be infringed by the present censorship. First, a man's work and property—that is to say, the playwright's play—can be destroyed without recompense and without appeal. He is penalised for an offence before he has committed it, and he has no redress in the courts. It may be true that only a few subjects suffer in this way. But that has never been a defence in a democracy, because it is the boast of our own form of government that it protects the rights of individuals.
The censorship also violates a second freedom of the subject: freedom of expression. But before I try to deal with that, may I give some instances of how the censorship works? At the beginning of this century it worked so severely and absurdly that there was a public outcry. At that time three plays of George Bernard Shaw, Ibsen's Ghosts, Granville Barker's Waste, La Dame aux Camélias, and even, on the visit of a Japanese Prince, The Mikado, were banned. So also was Sophocles', King Œdipus. One of the Lord Chamberlain's examiners in 1891 said:
" I have studied Ibsen's plays pretty carefully and all the characters seem to me morally deranged."
It is very easy to argue that all this was long ago and that such decisions, so ludicrous to us, would never be made to-day. But the principle that was then invoked is still invoked to-day. Surely—so it was then argued—prostitution, syphilis, abortion, incest, were deplorable, immoral subjects, and would needlessly shock the public. It is the same principle to-day that led to the refusal to licence Miller's A View from The Bridge, Tenessee Williams's Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, and Charles Wood's Dingo. Two or three plays a year are refused a licence in the form in which the author wrote them.
May I here cite the case of a particular dramatist? One of the most interesting and most important dramatists in England to-day is John Osborne. He is in perpetual trouble with the Lord Chamberlain's Office. Many excisions

1155
were made, and more proposed, to his play of The World of Paul Slickey; 18 passages were objected to in Luther; and, finally, his play A Patriot For Me was refused a licence. This last play, like all serious plays, centred upon a number of themes, but one of the most important themes was that of homosexuality. The play was based on the life of an intelligence officer in the Austro-Hungarian Army before the First World War, who, gradually discovering his homosexual tendencies, indulged them and was blackmailed by agents of the Russian imperial secret service. On being exposed, he shot himself. I cannot conceive of any play less sentimental towards homosexuality, more cold-eyed and ruthless in its exposure of the horror of life with a particular kind of homosexuality, and less likely to induce anyone to go into this practice. The transvestite scene, to which particularly exception was taken, was both pathetic and comical, but it was entirely integral to the play.
This play, which won the Evening Standard award for the best play of 1965, had to be performed as a club production. Despite the fact that it played to packed houses, it could not be transferred to the West End. As a result, the management lost £16,500, and Mr. John Osborne stood half that loss. Is this the way to reward one of our better playwrights? Mr. Osborne is a devastating critic of the society in which he lives, as Bernard Shaw was of the society in which he lived. But the difference between them is that, while Shaw wrote in an Irving style, Mr. Osborne employs the full range of the vernacular. But is it really necessary to censor the wording of his plays as severely as they are censored? To-day it is not only the avant-garde theatres, such as the Royal Court Theatre in Sloane Square, which are most hampered by the censorship regulations. So are the great companies of the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare, as may be many distinguished repertory companies in the Provinces, which are supported by public funds from the Arts Council and are attempting to put on serious drama.
I will not now weary your Lordships with a long list of the sort of excisions which are made from plays. Many serious dramatists come up against the
1156
rules—as indeed would Shakespeare and the Jacobian dramatists were it not felt that their plays were licensed before 1843. The most numerous cuts are of language which is thought to be coarse or likely to offend religious susceptibilities. Here, as it seems to me, there is always a slight danger that the language of gentility may be imposed upon dramatists who are trying sincerely to evoke the manners and modes of different classes in society. I think there is unnecessary criticism on this matter from some people, though I well understand that others hold sincerely opposed views. Some people feel here that class bias does intrude. Some are rather sorry that the racy, vigorous language which is used by at any rate some Members of your Lordships' House, and by many members of the working class, should be excised and replaced by middle-class euphemisms. I think we have to recognise that, however much we may relish the language and wit of Wilde, Shaw or Maugham, the day of the jewelled epigram is past, and, whether one likes it or not, one is moving into the stern puritanical era of the four-letter word. This snipping of the text which occurs, and which is totally understandable in some circumstances, is applied even to plays in a foreign language. The Berliner Ensemble, playing at the Old Vic, were astonished when they were ordered to change the text of two of the Brecht plays they were performing in German.
But may I leave this aspect and pose the question which very rightly is put whenever theatre censorship is discussed? Are not the present arrangements better than anything which could be put in their place? Is not censorship by the Lord Chamberlain better than any other alternative? Hilaire Belloc warned us in his Cautionary Tales
"Always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse."
My Lords, we might very well find something worse. The reason why theatre managements before the Select Committee of 1909 and up to the present day opposed any change was that the Lord Chamberlain protects them. Once he licenses a play, it can be performed anywhere. If managements were left to themselves to guess what line metropolitan and local authorities would take in licensing plays, they would exercise a far severer censorship, because there is no knowing how

1157
the different authorities would react. When the British Board of Film Censors refused a licence to Fanny Hill, 18 authorities gave it an "X" certificate, 44 an "A" certificate, four a "U" certificate, and a considerable number banned it.
I have expressed regret that the Lord Chamberlain could not see his way to license certain plays in the form in which they were written. May I, with respect, congratulate him on his courage in licensing such plays as The Killing of Sister George, The Collection, and The Home-Coming? If his office were simply replaced by a professional body, such a body would be much more likely to be subject to the influence of pressure groups, as the Hays Office in America has been subjected to, with, some people would feel, deplorable results.
In fact, one must admit that censorship in one form or another is always with us. There is no statutory censorship of the cinema, B.B.C. or I.T.V. But in each case some organisation or group of persons act as unofficial censors. There is no censorship of books, but in fact firms of solicitors or of printers advise publishers that in their opinion a book runs the risk of prosecution under the laws of obscenity or blasphemy, or of a civil action under the law of libel. There is unofficial censorship here, because no one wants to lose the money that he has invested in producing a film or a book. If the Lord Chamberlain's powers were to be abrogated, unofficial censorship might well have a much more debilitating effect on the theatre than the present official censorship. It would be exercised by management or local watch committees, who would be alarmed at the plays which are presented to them; and in fact they would also be alarmed by another factor. They could be influenced by the common informers who would be able to ruin or embarrass theatre managements, because they would induce the police to bring prosecutions, or to issue injunctions, to stop productions, at enormous cost to managements.
I am sure that those who have the cause of liberty at heart ought to recognise that the Lord Chamberlain is under fire from two directions, not only, on one side, from theatre managements and others, but also, on the other side, from many well-meaning people—or, perhaps, some
1158
of them not so well-meaning—who would wish him to ban a geat deal more than he does. It was to get over this difficulty of the common informer that Mr. Benn Levy proposed in his Bill that no criminal prosecution arising out of the performance of a play should be initiated unless the order of a Judge in Chambers had first been obtained. This was a variation on the suggestion made by Bernard Shaw before the Joint Select Committee of 1909, when Shaw suggested that, before any proceedings were launched, the Director of Public Prosecutions should give his agreement. Another suggestion has been that this should be done by the Attorney General. Under such arrangements, managements would be free to put on any play free from censorship, and they could be prosecuted only if a law officer declared that a prima facie case for prosecution existed.
But here, too, there are objections. A play might run for several weeks before it was decided that a prima facie case existed, and during that time, say, the Crown might have been brought into disrepute. It may be argued that if anyone living were depicted unfairly in his view, then he has his remedy in a civil action under the law of libel. But we can hardly imagine such a remedy being of practical use to members of the Royal Family, still less to the Sovereign, whose dignity would be inadequately covered by the present law of seditious libel. It must have been, I suppose, such considerations that led Mr. Levy, in his Bill, to propose that it should be unlawful to depict on the stage any living person, or any person whose death had occurred within the preceding ten years. Nevertheless, I well recognise that some will be bound to feel that any such change in the law would be an invitation to some unscrupulous writers to see how much sadism and how much obscenity they could get away with and, also, how far they could outrage religious susceptibilities.
These are most difficult and complicated matters, and I certainly do not want to suggest that there is any easy solution. In this connection I have consulted many people and held conversations with a number of official and unofficial bodies, and there seems to be general agreement on only one issue—namely, that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory and ought to

1159
be changed. But I have not been able to find any ready consensus on what form that change should take. Clearly we need to take soundings from many quarters before we can decide how best to proceed. That is why this afternoon I am asking your Lordships to say that it would be desirable to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the matter. If that were to be done, we should be following the procedure which led to the great improvement in the law following the passing of the Obscene Publications Act. A Joint Committee would best represent public opinion, and if it recommended a change in the law it could indicate the broad lines on which the Home Secretary might draft a Bill.
If such a Joint Committee were set up, I believe that it would first have to consider whether there should be any system of licensing plays at all. I myself think that there is a good deal to be said in favour of retaining a system of licensing, though I am much more doubtful as to whether there would be any point in issuing "X", "A" or "U" certificates as has been suggested in some quarters. But if licensing were entirely abolished, managements might find themselves completely at sea, and in danger of being swamped by the waves of the law. But, of course, it is precisely on this point that one would need to have the opinion of all sides of the profession, as well as the opinion of other bodies.
There is, of course, the further question that a Joint Committee would have to consider whether, if a system of licensing were to be retained, it should continue to operate under the Lord Chamberlain. This is a matter on which there will be a great deal to be said on both sides. One would have to weigh the experience of the officers in his Department, and the fact that the Lord Chamberlain's position puts him beyond any suspicion of partiality or Party politics. One would have to weigh that and other factors against the fact that the Lord Chamberlain is a Great Officer in the Sovereign's Household, and that some people, and inevitably foreigners, would assume that censorship is somehow connected with the Court. I think one would also have to ask oneself whether, if the matter were to be officially
1160
reviewed, now would be the time to change a procedure which surely no one would dream of instituting if one were starting from scratch.
There is another issue which a Joint Committee would also have to consider, and that is whether to permit plays to be performed without a licence on the lines similar to those suggested by Mr. Levy in his Bill. It might well be that if an official, or demi-official, licensing body continued to operate, it would be possible, say, for an experimental period of ten years to permit plays which had been refused a licence to be performed. Of course, they would run the risk of being prosecuted under the law. If dramatists want liberty, they must take the consequences, but if the Joint Committee considered such a possibility, I think they would have to face the problem of the common informer, and consider framing legislation in such a way to ensure that no prosecution could be brought unless a law officer ruled that a prima facie case for prosecution rested. If this were done, it would seem, at any rate to me, to be advisable that the Law Officer should be capable of being advised on the literary merits of the play by a committee of literary advisers set up, perhaps, by the Home Office.
I hope that some of these officers would be under the age of forty, because there is always a danger that the taste of the older generation is imposed upon the younger generation; and it is among the younger generation that the majority of creative artists are to be found. If these means were adopted, frivolous prosecutions could be avoided, and the serious theatre protected, but filth would continue to be prohibited, as it is to-day.
These, of course, are only the first problems which would face the Joint Committee, if one were to be set up. There are many other problems, and for this reason alone I hope that there will be no move by noble Lords to extend the terms of reference of such a Joint Committee to cover the problems of censorship in the cinema, television or broadcasting. These are quite different media, each with its own separate problems. They are media, I think one is bound to note, which in these days reach out to a far wider public than the theatre—a public numbered in millions, whereas, for the most part, the theatre-going public is

1161
numbered in the thousands. So I hope that your Lordships will be sympathetic this afternoon to setting up a Joint Committee on these lines.
It would be disingenuous of me to sit down without indicating where my own sympathies lie. I said that the present censorship violated a second freedom of the subject—freedom of expression. Of course, there is always a conflict between freedom of expression and the need for security and moral wellbeing of society. But where art is concerned I think it wise to give the artist the benefit of the doubt. It is the most crucial of all his rights, and surely all of us believe that this is one of the most important distinctions between a free country and a totalitarian country. It is a little hard to explain to foreign dramatists why the texts of their plays have to be altered in this country to meet the objections of the Lord Chamberlain's Office. For example, it took the Royal Court Theatre six months of intensive correspondence between themselves, the Lord Chamberlain and Mr. Samuel Beckett, who lives in Paris, before one of his plays could be produced, with consequent great increase in the cost of production.
We notably extend less tolerance to the artist than do some other Western countries where the theatre is concerned. In my view, the serious author must be given freedom of choice as to what to say and how to say it. I am afraid this means that the language or the theme or the treatment may very well shock. But can one have art without shocks? This is one of the things that art does: it makes us see life in a new and disturbing way. What shocks one generation, the next finds commonplace, I well understand that at any given time there will be those who sincerely believe that the moral fabric of society will be torn to shreds if this novel, if this picture, if this film or if this play, is read or seen. Twenty or thirty years later it is being read or seen, and the moral fabric of society seems to have withstood the shock.
The real question seems to me to be: how far should we go, over and above what the law lays down, to protect the sensibilities of all sorts of different people from shock? Mr. Terence Rattigan has said that every time he writes a play he has in mind a mythical figure called
1162
"Aunt Edna", and he asks himself, "Would Aunt Edna like that? Would she understand it?". Well, my Lords, Mr. Rattigan's plays must have delighted many of your Lordships, but most serious dramatists cannot write with "Aunt Edna" looking over their shoulders. I myself very much doubt whether any Department of State ought to feel itself obliged to act as the guardian of Aunt Edna's morals. Finally, perhaps, we should not forget the judgment of posterity. An age is judged by the art it bequeathes to future times. When we are dust we shall be remembered less for the deeds we did than for the few good plays and other works of art which we witnessed and which survive from our generation. I hope it will be said that we succoured and not strangled them. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to review the law and practice relating to the censorship of stage plays.—(Lord Annan.)
3.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I hope your Lordships may think it not inappropriate that I should take part in this debate, seeing that for some ten years I had the honour to hold the office of Lord Chamberlain and therefore during that time I was, by Act of Parliament, the censor of stage plays. Having thus declared my interest, I should like to go on to say that I listened with close attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I hope he will not think it a presumption on my part if I say that it seemed to me that he approached this troublesome theme with great fairness.
Of course I like very much what he said about the present Lord Chamberlain and his predecessor. I find, too, that I arrive, perhaps by rather a different route, at the same final conclusion as that which he has just put before the House; namely, that it is now time for another look at this not very easy problem. After all, it is nearly sixty years since the Joint Select Committee of 1909 produced their Report, and since that time there has been enormous development in the whole wide field of entertainment, including the drama. At that time films were only just beginning; later, cinemas came to cover the whole country. Now, as we know,

1163
radio and television enter into every home.
Before I sit down I shall have a word to say about the wider context within which the censorship of plays might be considered, in view of those developments, but I want to say now that I support the proposition that a Joint Select Committee should be appointed to consider this problem afresh. I know, too, that my noble friend Lord Cobbold, the Lord Chamberlain, also takes that view and would welcome the appointment of a Joint Select Committee. As he will not be speaking until towards the end of the debate, he has asked me to make his view on that point known at this stage.
My Lords, this is not an easy problem, and I do not think there is any simple solution to it. It is essentially an issue in which we have to find a balance and, if we can, the right balance between conflicting points of view; not, I think, between conflicting interests but between conflicting points of view. What I should like to do is to put before your Lordships some views which I have formed on some of the main questions involved.
First, there is the fundamental question: should there be any censorship at all? I believe that one has to make up one's mind about that first of all. It is essential to recognise that there is a body of opinion which holds that it is a frustration of the human spirit for anyone to be restrained in his writing or in his creation by any kind of official. I know that that opinion is strongly held. I do not doubt that it is sincerely held: at times it may be even fanatically held. And, as the noble Lord has said, one of the great human freedoms, the freedom of expression, is felt to be at stake by those who hold it. Therefore it is important that it should be recognised that this very strong opinion exists. If it did not exist, of course, the problems of the censorship would be comparatively simple.
If I may express my own view, I do not think it is practical politics to abolish censorship entirely. I should not like to set myself up as a prophet—it is a dangerous occupation; but I think one must try to consider what might he the immediate result if censorship were entirely lifted. I believe that there is quick
1164
money to be made from obscenity, from indecency and from representation of cruelty on the stage, and although I would not for a moment suggest that the theatre, in its fullest sense, would be lured by that, I have little doubt that some persons would be so lured. And what would be the result of that? Strong public reaction. Most Governments have a great many things which bother them and which seem to be inescapable, and I do not see any Government adding to their inescapable troubles a further one which might quite easily rouse the sleeping conscience of the nation. For this what might be termed political reason. I think it unlikely that censorship will be entirely abolished; and on broad grounds of public and national interest I do not think it should be. I would call to aid that view one sentence from the Report of the Joint Select Committee of 1909, of which the Chairman was the then Mr. Herbert Samuel:
"There are few things more harmful to a community than the influence of a licentious stage."
That was written in 1909. Is there anybody who will say that it is any less relevant to-day?
If there is to be some form of censorship, what should be the general approach of the Censor, whoever he may be? I am not thinking of the minutiae of censorship, the details: I am thinking of the thought behind his task. In my view, he is bound to have in mind that he is dealing with one of the great things of English life, something which has had a profound influence in the past and which was never more widely spread over the country than it is to-day. Almost every school has its play, often written in the school; almost every place has its dramatic society, of one kind or another; and civic theatres, repertory companies and the like, are slowly on the increase.
I remember being told on more than one occasion by distinguished foreign observers that in no city in the world, not in Paris, Moscow or New York, is there better theatre than in London. Realising all these things, the Censor is sure to want to act with great care, so as not to limit or obstruct the development of this great feature of the social life of the nation. Also he is sure to have in his mind that among those who are drawn to the life of the theatre are

1165
quite a number who are young, who may be termed avant garde, who are chasing new experiences, characteristics, I suppose, not usually associated in the public mind with a Lord Chamberlain. Nevertheless, the Censor, whether he is the Lord Chamberlain or another, is bound to be at pains to understand their desires and their aims and not lightly to interfere with their self-expression or their experimentation. So the Censor is bound, I think, to want to be careful, to want to be tolerant. So far, so easy.
Then we have to turn to the other side of the balance; and there are some heavy weights which go into the opposite scales. There are those who go to the play and do not like the modern idiom. There are those who do not like the pulling down of traditions. There are those who want to maintain standards of morality. And there are those who work with great devotion to preserve youth from what they conceive to be the corruption of the day. These are formidable weights of opinion. Their spokesmen cannot be ignored. How is the Censor to find the right balance between those two opposing ideas? He cannot expect to please both sides. He will probably be doing best if he pleases neither.
I used to set up for myself the objective of trying to keep the censorship not too far away from the centre of public opinion. That may sound a judicious doctrine: I found it very difficult to put into practice. Public opinion does not always exist, and if it does, it usually comes into play too late. The only clue I ever had as to whether I was at all near that objective which I set up for myself was if, over a period of time, the rather rude remarks which could be found from time to time in the newspapers about what the Lord Chamberlain had banned were matched by letters of indignant protest at which he had passed. If those two things appeared to be in some sort of balance, I thought I was not too far away from my objective. Usually, although it is difficult to be quite sure, the latter— the protests at what the Lord Chamberlain had passed— seemed to be more numerous than the others. But this problem of finding the right balance is the main problem for the Censor, whoever he may be; and though one may change the Censor, that problem will remain.
1166
Just a word as to what sort of authority might take the place of the Lord Chamberlain, supposing a Joint Select Committee thought that a change should be made. Various suggestions have been made, such as a body like the Board of Film Censors, which would be drawn from the industry itself and presided over by a neutral chairman. I have no doubt that a Joint Select Committee, if it were set up, would consider that and other suggestions, but I would plead, in the interests of the theatre, that any system which is set up should be simple and certain, so that those who have plays which they want to put on will know where they stand and will know that if they do get a licence from that authority it will be a licence that will apply throughout the country.
I should like to try for a moment to explain what the Lord Chamberlain's censorship has tried to provide for the theatre. It has tried to be tolerant, and I think in recent years it has been— some, indeed, have said too tolerant. It has tried not to be hidebound by strict rules, and has been prepared to move— not too quickly perhaps; but prepared to move. It has tried to be approachable. It has tried to be quick in the dispatch of the business which comes to it. Moreover, if I may make one further point, though I do not press it far, the present system costs the taxpayer virtually nothing. If there is any truth in what I have suggested the Lord Chamberlain's system of censorship has tried to provide, then the credit must go, in the main, to the staff of the Lord Chamberlain's Office, who have taken censorship matters in their stride, along with their many other duties, and to the examiners of plays. All of these have received little thanks and many kicks; but the credit for any success which is due must go to them.
I see sitting behind me my noble friend Lord Nugent. For some 25 years he was involved in these matters, and no one could have done more than he did to try to make the censorship which the Lord Chamberlain had to undertake palatable to the theatre. A Joint Select Committee will no doubt consider whether the Lord Chamberlain should continue as Censor, or whether some other body or person should replace him. I would note, in passing, that in addition to the Joint

1167
Select Committee of 1909 there were three other occasions when the House of Commons considered this matter, and on all those occasions they recommended that the Lord Chamberlain should continue. I think I know why. All Governments are scared of having to take this business on their own shoulders; they are quite content to leave it in the lap of the Lord Chamberlain. And I should not be altogether surprised if considerations of that kind did not arise again; and it may be that another Joint Select Committee will come to the same conclusion. But would that be right? On that particular question, I have two things to say. I would look at it, first of all, from the point of view of the theatre.
I am inclined to agree with one passage in Lord Annan's speech, when he said the theatre might do much worse than under the present system. But this question should also be looked at from the position of the Lord Chamberlain. The Lord Chamberlain is a member of the Sovereign's Household: he is, in fact, the head of that Household. As part of his business he endeavours to see that the members of that Household perform their various duties with anonymity, and do not, if they can possibly help it, become involved in controversy. Yet the Lord Chamberlain himself, by reason of this censorship task, is always close to this running controversy. I do not say that it is not possible in these days for the Lord Chamberlain to continue to carry out this task: obviously, it is possible. But I do say that it is much more questionable than it was in days gone by, because of the glare of publicity in which we live. It is much more questionable whether it is really good for his position as head of the Sovereign's Household that he should continue to do so.
I have one more thing that I should like to say. This Motion is confined to the censorship of stage plays. Your Lordships know that there are other forms of censorship. There is the question of films, over which my noble friend Lord Harlech now presides. Although it may be claimed that there is no censorship of television, I think I am right in saying that restraints are imposed by Acts of Parliament and by Government direction on the television authorities—and "restraint" perhaps sounds a much nicer word than "censorship".
1168
A Joint Select Committee may wish to look at all forms of censorship which exist; there may be some co-ordination to be done. But are not all these just parts of a wider question: how to reconcile freedom of expression, in a free society such as ours, with the plain duty of a citizen to have a care for others, and for the country's interests, in what he says or writes? I doubt whether any age has found the real answer to that problem. I do not think that our enlightened age has found a solution, though I expect we understand better than earlier generations did the dangers of too much control. It is not more control that I want to see, but a clearer recognition of standards. If there could be that clearer recognition, the social life of this country might be enriched rather than debased.
I should hope that a Joint Select Committee, with all the authority it would have, might be able to say in measured words what is intolerable for one person to say of others, and what is wrong for a citizen to say— not in criticism, because that can be most healthy, but in denigration of this country. I feel it is possible that if that could be said on high authority, some might pause before they lifted up their voices or took up their pens. A voluntary pause of that kind would be the British way of finding a partial solution to a seemingly insoluble problem. If that could be one of the results which came from the deliberations of a Joint Select Committee, then this Motion which is before your Lordships to-day may well have been productive of some advantage to the national interest.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD HOBSON
4.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will permit me to mention a matter which has come to my notice in the last few minutes. It is sad news for the Members of this House. It is the death of a great friend of a great many of us in all parts of the House—Charles Hobson. I think we all, wherever we sit, respected his great integrity and his great common sense, even though we may have disagreed with him on occasions politically. I first made his acquaintance when we were both Members of another

1169
place, and since then I have always valued his friendship, as so many have in this House, irrespective of their political views. I hope that your Lordships will not think it inappropriate of me to mention this now, and to express what I am sure is the desire of the House as a whole, our great sympathy with his family and his relations in the loss that they have suffered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would allow me, on behalf of the Government, and indeed myself, to be associated with the observations which he has made. Lord Hobson had had the advantage of some fifteen years of local government experience, and then spent almost fifteen years in the other place before coming to this House some three years ago. I know to what extent he has endeared himself to Members in all parts of your Lordships' House. Both the Government and his many friends in all parts are deeply grieved at his sudden death. I should like also to join in extending to his widow and family our deep sympathy.
Loan WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself. I should like to add my tribute. I had the pleasure of knowing Lord Hobson for a number of years in another place, and I had the privilege of serving with him on a number of Committees. I always appreciated his great sincerity and his forthrightness. He had a fine record of public service, and he will be greatly missed.

THEATRE CENSORSHIP
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I start what I have to say to-day by apologising for taking up your Lordships' time on two days running. I do so because, as your Lordships know, my noble friend Lord Carrington is indisposed and he has asked me to take his place. He has kindly provided me with the notes of what he was going to say, and. on looking at the notes, I am not surprised to find that we are substantially in agreement.
1170
It surely must be a unique occasion for your Lordships to listen to a speech of a former Lord Chamberlain detailing the discharge of his duties in that office and the difficulties he experienced. I listened with the greatest interest to his speech, and indeed I feel that anybody who heard what he had to say cannot but appreciate more fully the invidious position of the Lord Chamberlain and the difficulties that beset him. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on introducing this Motion. I agree with him that the time has come to review the law and practice relating to stage plays. But, frankly, I have very considerable doubts whether a Joint Committee is the most suitable body for this purpose. Whether it is that body or another body is perhaps a subsidiary question to which I will return later. I should like now to say a few words about the case for a review at this time.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, raises the question whether there should be any censorship at all of stage plays. On that matter I am sure opinion is very divided. I myself think that it must to some extent depend upon the adequacy of our general law. But most people would think there must be some control over what is done and said on the stage; but to say that there must be some control over what is said and done on the stage does not necessarily imply that there must be a censorship. If the general law of the land was adequate, it could he said that there would be no need for censorship. On the other hand, the greater the inadequacy of the existing law the greater it can be argued, is the case for censorship. I am particularly glad therefore that the noble Lord's Motion involves a review of the law.
I cannot say that I myself regard the law in this field as in a satisfactory state. In 1959 Parliament passed the Obscene Publications Act as the result of the work of a Joint Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, praised that Act and commended the work of that Joint Select Committee. I must say that it is not an Act which I would be so ready to praise. It defines obscenity as something tending to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear it. That embodies the law as laid down in the case of Hickling, I must confess that I have long felt that

1171
that definition is not satisfactory and is in some respects too narrow. I would not enlarge on the difficult question whether it is those who are already depraved and corrupted who buy obscene literature, or whether in fact anyone is depraved or corrupted by a book. But surely there are things which are obscene in the ordinary sense of the word and which cannot be said to tend to deprave or corrupt. One could, for instance, have a statue which would be regarded as obscene in Hyde Park, but I very much doubt if it would have the slightest tendency to deprave or corrupt. I suppose most people would agree that anything which does tend to deprave or corrupt should not he permissible on the stage, any more than it is permissible in books. But should obscenity—a matter which people using that word in its ordinary sense would describe as obscene—be allowed on the stage? If so, how could one satisfactorily define what should and should not be allowed? The noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said that what he hoped to see as an end-product would be a system which was simple and certain. It is a desirable objective, but I doubt whether one would ever be able to establish a system that is so very certain.
Throughout the centuries there have been very different views as to what constitutes obscenity. One has only to contrast the Victorian outlook with that of the time of the Restoration, and, as has already been pointed out, the task of a censor is most invidious. As Lord Annan pointed out, he is liable to be attacked from both directions. He, whoever he is, must take account of the spirit of the age and try to prevent the performance of anything that would generally be regarded as disgusting and contrary to public advantage. He has to exercise a subjective judgment, recognising that what may be shocking and offensive to some may not be to others. Certainly I would not wish myself to undertake the task, and our thanks are due to the present Lord Chamberlain and his predecessors for the way in which they have in fact discharged this onerous responsibility.
It is unfortunate and unfair that the Lord Chamberlain shares with the Jockey Club, and with Mr. George Brown, the distinction of being the most criticised of all in current days. So the first
1172
question that has to be decided, by whatever body is set up to review this matter, is whether there should be a censorship at all. And, if it is decided that it will not suffice just to rely on the criminal law then the question which has to be decided is whether the present system should be retained or another put in its place.
I would say that I think the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, in favour—if there is a censorship—of transferring the exercise of it to someone other than the Lord Chamberlain, are really very strong indeed. If you have a censorship, I do not myself see why you should not have an independent body appointed to perform those functions. I quite see the difficulties of there being any Government responsibility for the performance of those duties, and I think it would be right, if you have to have a censorship at all, to have a high-powered body appointed, which would operate according to certain defined criteria—they would have to be defined in fairly general terms—in relation to which that body would exercise its judgment without any influence by the Government of the day.
One argument in favour of censorship—and I think it is a powerful argument—is that it reduces, if not completely abolishes, the risk of prosecution provided that the censor's directions are complied with. I think that producers of plays, and indeed the writers of them, may well prefer to know in advance what they may or may not do, rather than run the risk of prosecution for what they have done. But you cannot have any form of censorship without upsetting some people; and the censor, whoever he is, must always be, if anything, a little more behind public opinion than in advance of it. I think it can be said, too, that over the years the censorship of the theatre has worked pretty well, and a great many people would be sorry to see much change in the present system.
Most of the controversy surrounding censorship seems to centre upon sex, violence and obscenity. But there are other things which are just as offensive. To take one example, the vast majority of people in this country would think it very offensive and wrong if the

1173
Royal Family were lampooned or held up to ridicule. Prevention of that happening would be better than the imposition of penalties under some criminal law after that had occurred. The same is true, I think, of religious beliefs and the great institutions of the State, such as the Church, when offence might be given to a very large number of people, quite unnecessarily.
I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, drew attention to the fact—and I think it is a sad fact—that there are those not imbued with the high motives to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred, who would seek to take advantage of the opportunity any relaxation of the present system would give, to coin money out of the presentation on the stage of matter that was shocking and disgusting. I think myself that arguments for and against censorship are very evenly balanced. I am slightly inclined to think that it would be better to have some form of censorship, rather than just to rely on the criminal law. On this one matter—it is not the only one, I hope—I have a pretty open mind al the present time.
I am glad to have an opportunity of saying something in this debate, in particular, about the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as to the role that might be discharged by Law Officers. As a former Law Officer, I am strongly opposed to his suggestion, which seems to me to be a suggestion that the Law Officers of the day should take the invidious position now occupied by the Lord Chamberlain. I do not think there is any need for a Law Officer to be advised by some advisory committee on plays, as to what is filthy and what is not, and I would very much deprecate any change of that kind. If it is to be left to the criminal law, I think that the institution of prosecutions, could well be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who acts under the general guidance of the Attorney General. But, again, I should not like to see him left with that responsibility, unless the law laid down pretty clearly the kind of test which should be applied.
When one looks at the Report of the Joint Select Committee of 1909, one finds this:
1174
" We consider that the Law which prevents or punishes indecency, blasphemy and libel in printed publications would not be adequate for the control of the drama. Ideas or situations which, when described on a printed page may work little mischief, when represented through the human personality of actors may have a more powerful and more deleterious effect."
It goes on to say:
"Moreover, scenes in a play may stimulate to vice without falling within the legal definition of indecency; they may include personalities so offensive as to be clearly improper for presentation, which yet are not punishable as libellous; they may outrage feelings of religious reverence without coming within the scope of the Blasphemy Laws"—
and so on. The Committee conclude:
"that the public interest requires that theatrical performances should be regulated by special laws."
I doubt very much whether, although many years have passed since 1909, the general law as it now stands is really adequate to achieve the objects which I think we all have in mind, if we dispense with some form of censorship. I am really astonished, looking back, at the fact that over the years the Lord Chamberlains in their time have really been so little criticised, having regard to the vast number of plays which must have come through their hands.
I should like to say a word or two on the Committee or body which I think should investigate and review this matter. As I see it, there will be three questions which they will have to consider. First, should there be any censorship at all? Secondly, if there is, what is the right person or body of persons to administer it? Thirdly, what guidance can be given? In considering that, it is relevant to bear in mind, as the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said, what happens in the field of television and in the field of films.
The noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said, quoting from the 1909 Select Committee's Report, that there were few things more harmful than a licentious stage. I wonder whether that is true to-day. I think, perhaps, people would say that there were few things which could be more harmful than a licentious stage or a licentious television broadcast. In considering what is the right control (to use a word which does not necessarily involve censorship) I think regard ought to be had to the control exercised over television production and, indeed, film production, and

1175
whether it might be possible—and, if it were, it would be far better—to have the same sort of control, the same criteria, laid down to presentations, whether they be on the stage, by television or by film.
As I have said, I have the gravest doubts as to whether a Joint Select Committee is really the best body for this purpose. I hope a body will be set up. I think it is going to be a formidable task for any body—one to which a considerable amount of time and labour will have to be devoted. I doubt whether Members of Parliament of either House will find that easily available.
I should like to stress, too, that I think the issues raised in this Motion are really totally unconnected with Party politics. I cannot see that there is any political issue in it at all; and I do not think that membership of either House of Parliament necessarily fits one to sit on such a Committee or to make recommendations on this subject. I should have thought it would have been much better to appoint a Committee of people specially selected for this task, and to ask them to report to Parliament. It might be that this should take the form of a Royal Commission. But of one thing I am sure, and it is this. Whatever body is appointed, it is bound to take a considerable time to look into this matter thoroughly and to report upon it, and it is much better that time should be taken if it results in a good report which is acceptable to most people in the country, irrespective of their political views, and which could then probably be speedily embodied in legislation.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time this afternoon, but those are the matters to which I wished to draw attention. As I have said, and as we know, films have as Chairman of the Board of Censors my noble friend Lord Harlech, who I am glad to say is going to make his maiden speech in a moment or so; and reference has already been made to the B.B.C. and I.T.V., and to the control exercised on television. In view of recent correspondence in The Times, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, it may perhaps be doubted whether that discipline is not capable of improvement. I do not think it can be said that either
1176
television or the films have suffered artistically or financially by the controls or forms of censorship to which they have been subjected; and if, on inquiry, it is recommended that some form of censorship should persist in relation to stage plays, and that that is preferable to prosecutions under the criminal law, I think that that form of censorship must be one which certainly does not penalise the stage in comparison with television and films.
My Lords, I should like to conclude as I began, by saying that I think we all owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for raising this subject, which I regard as of very great importance, and to the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, for the most valuable information he gave to the House.
4.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving the House an opportunity to consider this subject this afternoon. Increasingly in past years dissatisfaction has, rightly or wrongly, been expressed at our present pre-censorship of plays, the theatre, culminating, I think, most recently, in a Bill by the present Solicitor General. The Government are accordingly of the opinion that the time has come when this subject should at least be discussed, as it is being discussed this afternoon in your Lordships' House.
When we have heard the views which are to be expressed, and have had the benefit of the opinions of all noble Lords taking part, I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Stonham to state, at the end of the debate, what conclusions the Government have then reached; and I would desire only to express, in a few minutes, a personal view, as one who has always had a great love of the theatre. After all, if we are talking about the ill-effect which a play may have, it is the ill-effect on those who have seen the play; and therefore I feel that this is primarily a matter which should be determined by theatre-goers rather than by those who do not, in fact, see plays at all. However that may be, those who have a love of the theatre have, perhaps, a special interest in the subject.

1177
I would respectfully agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that there are really two separate questions here. The first is: ought there to be pre-censorship? It is not quite accurate, I think, to ask, "ought there to be censorship?" because, of course, our law provides for censorship. We have laws against obscenity; we have laws against seditious libel; we have laws against blasphemy and we have laws against doing something that is likely to create a breach of the peace. I hope it will not be thought I am too much prejudiced as a lawyer if I say that I have a preference for having our laws administered by judges and juries. The question, therefore, is not whether anybody should be free to put on any play he likes, without ally penalty being visited upon him. The question is: should theatres, like most other things in our country, be subject to the rule of law, of the courts, in the ordinary way; or is there to be pre-censorship?
Of course, there is room for a difference of opinion as to whether our law is right. The noble and learned Viscount said that he had some questions to raise on whether the 1959 Act drew the law of obscenity in the right place, if it is drawn in the wrong place, let us alter it and put it right. But the question is: should there be pre-censorship? The Lord Chamberlain is not, of course, a Judicial Officer, and there is no appeal from his decision. And what I have never quite understood is what is the difference, or should be the difference, between plays and books. We have laws which apply to books and under which people who publish obscene, seditious or profane books can be sent to prison, but I hope that we should all join in objecting to any pre-censorship of books. The difference has always seemed to me to be obscure. Sometimes, if the question is raised, someone will say, "If you read in a book that a woman had taken her clothes off and had a bath, that would be quite all right; but it would be very different on the stage". Then everybody nods and says, "Yes, there you are, you see; there is a great difference between books and plays". But as soon as one comes to think of it, the whole thing is ridiculous, because any actress who did this would at once be "run in" by the police. I have never understood why there should be this difference.
1178
"I am not an ordinary playwright in general practice. I am a specialist in immoral and heretical plays. My reputation has been gained by my persistent struggle to force the public to reconsider its morals. In particular, I regard much current morality as to economic and sexual relations as disastrously wrong, and I regard certain doctrines of the Christian religion as understood in England to-day with abhorrence.
"I write plays with the deliberate object of converting the nation to my opinion in these' matters. I have no other effectual incentive to write plays, as I am not dependent on the theatre for my livelihood. If I were prevented from producing immoral and heretical plays I should cease to write for the theatre and propagate my views from the platform and through books.
"I mention these facts to show that I have a special interest in the achievement by my profession of those rights of liberty and speech and conscience which are matters of course in other professions. I object to censorship not merely because the existing form of it grievously injures and hinders the individual, but on public grounds."
So wrote Bernard Shaw, in his memorandum to the 1909 Select Committee—the memorandum which, your Lordships may remember, so greatly shocked the members of the Committee when Shaw attended to give oral evidence that they all solemnly handed back their copies of it to him.
Shaw went on to point out that a moral standard is really an acceptance of that which is customary at any given time, and that for those who have neither the intellectual qualities nor the interest in ethics to decide a standard for themselves, it is extremely necessary that there should be a standard of morality and that it should be upheld. But, he said, there is no real danger of its not being upheld, because it is always upheld by the Establishment, by the Government, by the Churches, and by the Establishment in its other forms; but that a great part of whatever is the accepted morality of the day has always been immoral or heretical at some previous times and that therefore it is necessary, in the interests of society, that protection should be given to individuals to express immoral and heretical views.
It is sometimes said that, if there were no pre-censorship it would not much matter, because even if the Lord Chamberlain did not give a licence one could always have a play put on by a theatre club or society. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, in the

1179
first place that costs the author a great deal of money, and, secondly (although I do not wish to mention the pending prosecution), it obviously depends on exactly what form of club or society it is. You may not even then be saved from prosecution, not because you put on the obscene play (because in that case it does not matter whether it is obscene or not), but simply because you have not drafted your rules of membership properly.
The absurd position we have got into to-day is that, after all, you do not have to go to the theatre: you go only if you want to; and it is quite expensive. You obviously do not go to see a play unless you know the sort of play it is. Yet the very play which may be banned by the Lord Chamberlain may be brought into your home on television—and this, I understand, has actually happened. There have been plays banned by the Lord Chamberlain which, nevertheless, have been brought in, unasked, to the home. And when the set is turned on, young people say: "That is interesting. I should like to see the rest of it."
The other point on which I am bound to say I entirely agree with Shaw is that the one thing I should regret much more than the present censorship is an enlightened censorship. Any sort of board of play censors or any sort of committee of experts to decide on literary views would, I think, be very much worse than the censorship of the Lord Chamberlain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I have the highest regard for the Lord Chamberlain. I know how extremely courteous he is to everybody; and succesive Lord Chamberlains, taking changes in public opinion into account, have, I think, been liberal and have moved with the times. When I contrasted them with an enlightened censorship, this was not meant in any sort of depreciatory sense. What I had in mind, to put it delicately, is what The Times said in their leading article yesterday:
"The background of his effective deputies, Eton and the Household Brigade, is of a kind which an outdated popular imagination does not readily associate with the Theatre of Ideas."
If you take Ibsen as an example, with one exception, they passed all the plays of Ibsen, saying: "Obviously, all these
1180
characters are crackers '." But there is a grave danger that an enlightened censorship would have recognised that the plays of Ibsen were, as indeed they were, revolutionary plays designed to make people do that which was quite contrary to the accepted morality of the time. A minor criticism (I think it is less true to-day than it was, but it is one that a good many people venture to make about the exercise of the censorship as it is at present) is that it always seems all right to mention certain subjects humorously, but you must not deal with them seriously. For a long time, for example, it was perfectly all right to put a homosexual in a musical show, so long as he pranced and wiggled about and moved his hips, and everybody laughed at him. It was all right if you laughed at him. Whereas the playwright who tried to deal seriously with the subject was not allowed to do so.
It may be that before this debate is concluded—and I myself have nearly concluded—someone will tell us whether there is any other country in the world in which there is pre-censorship of plays. I believe I am right in saying that in Italy, and I think only in Italy, there is pre-censorship of musical comedies and revues; but not, I think, of plays. How is it that the adults of all other countries can exist with a theatre which is free and subject only to the same laws of obscenity, sedition and blasphemy as apply to everything else, and that it is only grown-up Englishmen who have to see their plays read by somebody else beforehand who will tell them whether or not they are to be allowed to see them? Whatever the right conclusion, my Lords, there is clearly, I think, a case for an inquiry.
Before I sit down, may I say that, owing to a public duty which I cannot avoid, I may not be able to hear the whole of the rest of the debate, I hope to hear most of it, however, and I shall certainly read any contributions from noble Lords which I have not heard.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I rise with considerable trepidation to address your Lordships' House for the first time. I feel those novel and disconcerting sensations which I think are felt by every maiden speaker; but, in addition to that,

1181
I have intervened in this debate on this occasion because I am at the present time the President of the British Board of Film Censors. But the truth is that I have held this appointment for only a matter of six months and, therefore, I cannot claim any long experience with the blue pencil or, perhaps, more appropriately in my case, with the scissors. As has already been indicated in the speeches of other noble Lords, it not possible to have a useful discussion about censorship of stage plays without some reference to censorship in other media of entertainment—and this, of course, includes broadcasting, television and the films.
I thought it might be of some assistance to the House if I gave some rather brief account of the history, of the functions and the powers of the British Board of Film Censors. I do this because it has been tentatively suggested that, if we are to examine other means of providing what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor calls pre-censorship of plays, there might be certain aspects of the arrangements now in force for censoring films which would be of value to any inquiry into this matter.
It will not surprise your Lordships that the British Board of Film Censors, having been established in this country, is a curious and, in some ways, anomalous body. Its birth was really as strange, although clearly not as beautiful, as the birth of Venus. At the turn of the century, the cinema industry was developing rather rapidly; but the first action taken by Parliament was in 1909, when they passed the Cinematograph Act. I think it is clear from reading that Act that its principal purpose was to safeguard the general public against being incinerated in the cinema-theatres of the time, which were ill-designed, or not designed at all, to handle the highly inflammable films—and I am talking about the actual structure of films, and not of their content—and projection equipment then in use. However, Clause 2(1) of that Act was very widely drawn, and after being tested in the Courts (I think at the instigation of the L.C.C.), it was held that local authorities had the power and the discretion to set out various considerations which had to be taken into account before they would issue a licence, and
1182
that this could include a form of control over what was actually to be shown on the screen.
Shortly after this, the film industry itself, no doubt partly concerned about some of the conditions that were being laid down by local authorities, and partly concerned about their own reputation, sent a delegation to the Home Secretary of the day, Mr. McKenna, suggesting that they should set up a board of censorship, and that he should appoint a representative of the Home Office to act as arbiter, if there was any dispute with regard to a decision of the board of censorship. Mr. McKenna, being a wise man, welcomed the setting up of a board, but declined to allow the Home Office to have any thing whatever to do with it. No doubt he felt—and I think rightly—that it would be quite wrong to introduce any form of Governmental or Parliamentary control into the business of censorship. But, having received a welcome from the Home Secretary of the day, the industry went ahead and set up the British Board of Film Censors in 1912.
Since then, the Board has examined all films for public exhibition, except newsreels. Broadly speaking, for the first forty years, it issued "U" certificates for films that it thought suitable to be seen by children, and "A" certificates to films it thought suitable to be seen by adults; but children were also allowed to see these films, if they were accompanied by a parent or guardian. Then, in 1951, on the recommendation of an Inter-Departmental Committee, known as the Where Committee, the "X" certificate was introduced. This enabled the Board to issue certificates to films which would not be seen by children under sixteen, whether or not they were accompanied by adults. I think that, on the whole, the category system for films has worked fairly well. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, whether it is a useful idea which could be applied to the theatre is something which I think an inquiry could look into, though I myself have doubts.
I said a little earlier that the British Board of Film Censors was in some ways a curious body. I will now explain why. In the first place, although I am President of the Board, in fact there is no Board,

1183
in the ordinary sense of the word. There is a Secretary, and a number of examiners who work in teams of two. Here, perhaps, I could correct something which the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said. Nobody on the Board, in so far as it exists—that is, me—and nobody connected with the present operations of the Board has any connection with the film industry.
The second curious feature of the Board is that it has no direct legal powers. As I have already explained, the power to control what is shown upon the screens rests with the local authorities, under the Cinematograph Acts of 1909 and 1952. In the light of these Acts, the Home Office issues model licensing conditions. These lay down that, before a film is shown on the screen, there must be displayed a representation of the certificate given either by the B.B.F.C. or by the licensing authority. This means, of course, that the local council, as the local licensing authority, have the legal power to decide what is shown, but in practice they find it convenient to accept the judgment of the B.B.F.C.
Normally, the local council are quite unwilling to consider applications to show a film unless it has first of all been submitted to the Board. Sometimes the Board refuses a certificate, and certain local councils are subsequently prepared to issue a certificate. There have been some recent examples. One has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The most recent case is that of Fanny Hill, a rather squalid little film made in West Germany in order to cash in on the notoriety surrounding the book of the same name. We refused that film a certificate—in my view rightly—but a great number of local authorities took another view. An earlier case was "The Wild One", with Marlon Brando in it, for which we refused a certificate—I think that about two local authorities granted it a certificate. When it was shown in Cambridge, it produced a near riot—but then, perhaps owing to the particular venue, that is not altogether surprising. I give these two examples simply to show that in practice there is a form of appeal from the Board's judgment to the local authorities.
The final curiosity in connection with the Board is that it was found convenient in 1912 to set it up under the auspices of
1184
the Kinematograph Manufacturers' Association. This was partly due to the fact that the first Secretary of the Board was also the company secretary of the Kinematograph Manufacturers' Association. Members of this Association, as the name implies, are concerned with the manufacture of cinematograph equipment. They are the one trade association in the industry which has no interest whatsoever in the Board's work.
I need not go into the details of how the President and the Secretary are appointed. But I think that this point is very important: the financial resources of the Board derive entirely from fees which are charged on films submitted for certification. This means that there are no money grants from any section of the film industry to the B.B.F.C., so that pressure through financial control is totally excluded. Therefore, almost by accident, we have a truly independent body which cannot be influenced improperly by Government or by Parliament, or by the film industry itself. Nevertheless, it has a somewhat strange constitution, and it possesses no direct legal authority. Yet, in practice, in recent years it has worked pretty well. But, should it not exist, I doubt whether it would be decided to set up a board precisely on this pattern. This leads me to doubt whether it provides an altogether satisfactory blueprint for any method of dealing with censorship in the theatre if the need for a change is established.
My brief experience in the field of censorship leads me to two rather simple and obvious conclusions. First of all, any censorship body, if there is to be one, must have a constitution and a source of income which cushions it against political pressure and against pressure from vested interests within the industry. Secondly, in my opinion, there ought preferably to be some court of appeal from its judgments. At present, there is no appeal from decisions made with regard to censorship of the theatre. There is no appeal, so far as I know, against the internal censorship in television or in broadcasting. Indeed, if there was some method of appeal, I think it highly likely that the British public would have been allowed to see The War Game, which I saw last week, and which I think ought to be seen by a much wider audience.

1185
There is a form of appeal in the case of film censorship to the local licensing authority. Whether this is an ideal arrangement is just the sort of thing that an inquiry could closely examine. Local option is a procedure which is sanctioned by long and respectable tradition, and one must say in its favour that it is true that moral standards and canons of good taste do vary quite considerably from one part of the country to another. On the other hand, some local authorities are really not very well equipped to wrestle with the intricacies of censorship, and it is quite likely that you would get growing up a whole jungle of anomalies in the land. Perhaps it might be possible to set up an appeals board constituted along the lines of a body like the Arts Council, but, hopefully, very much smaller, which would handle appeals from all the various entertainment media.
I think I have already said enough to fulfil the main purpose of my speech, which was to give an account of film censorship as it operates in this country at the present time. But before resuming my seat I should like to make a few general remarks about censorship. It will no doubt be argued—and it has already been stated this afternoon—that one of the simplest solutions would be to abandon all censorship and leave it to the courts to deal with cases which contravene the law due to their clearly obscene or anti-social nature. With all due deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am not convinced that this would be a wise solution under existing conditions. First of all, I do not believe that courts are well adapted to making judgments which, in the final analysis in cases of this kind, are subjective judgments. The artistic merit of the piece; the integrity of the producer; the integrity of the author; the intentions of the author, public opinion in particular parts of the country at certain times in history—all these are factors which have to be taken into account.
I must say, with due deference to the lawyers' profession, that, try as they will, I do not think that lawyers here, in America, or in other countries have been able to find words so accurately to define "obscenity" or a "tendency to corrupt" as to enable courts to make a purely
1186
objective judgment. In addition, the whole procedure of taking criminal action against a theatrical management, through complaints by private individuals, or through police action, seems to me cumbersome, dilatory and uncertain in its operation; and I cannot but agree with those noble Lords who have already indicated that such a situation might well lead to a more cautious attitude on the part of theatre management, and that this would have its effect upon authors. Indeed, I think in many countries where there is no pre-censorship this is precisely the effect, because certainly the stage in this country is at least as vigorous as it is in any other country in Europe or North America.
Secondly, I do not think that anyone can pretend that we have overcome the problems of living in a modern, affluent industrial society. The figures for crime, for juvenile delinquency and for mental disturbance all tend to show that we are not even holding our own at the present time. The society we live in—and, of course, this does not apply only to Britain—is a disturbed and even a violent society. And I do not think it is possible to argue that whatever is seen in plays, on films or on television can have no detrimental effect upon the social behaviour of viewers; the threshold at which the ill effects of the exploitation of perversion or violence in the theatre can he expected to operate will sometimes fall short of that which is necessary in order to lead to a successful criminal action against a theatrical management.
Intelligent critics of censorships have often argued that it is not possible to prove that a person has been corrupted by a work who would not otherwise have been corrupted. But, my Lords, nor is it possible to prove absolutely that he has not been corrupted by that work. We cannot find two identical human beings and expose one to extreme corruption and protect the other from it and then compare their subsequent social behaviour. But we can use such ordinary common sense as we possess over this matter. If unlimited audiences of vastly different levels of sophistication are exposed to a constant diet of pornography, perversion and sadism, common sense tells us that it will have an unfavourable effect upon

1187
their subsequent social behaviour. I have no doubt in my own mind that this is precisely what the result would be. I should therefore regard it as an unjustifiable and irresponsible risk to abandon censorship altogether at the present time.
On the other hand, censorship in a free society is basically distasteful, and to be acceptable it must be exercised in a way that accords with present-day standards of taste and behaviour. While some newspaper critics attack theatre censorship, as they do film censorship, because they think it is too strict, or because it exists at all, I believe that these represent a minority group in the country. Similarly, although it is true that the most usual criticism from the general public is that we are being too liberal in censorship, I believe that this group of people are also a minority in the country.
I am convinced that there is widespread support for some measure of censorship of stage plays, as well as of films, television and broadcasting. Nevertheless, it is clearly the general feeling that the time has come when a new look should be taken at theatre censorship. The Motion which has been proposed is that a Joint Committee should be set up. Whether this is the right body, having listened to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, I do not know—but I am sure that it is right that some inquiry should take place. I can assure your Lordships that if such a body is set up to inquire into censorship, the British Board of Film Censors will give it every possible assistance. For my own part, if the Government decide to widen the terms of reference to include other forms of censorship, I personally would see no objection.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I feel a little embarrassed that it should have fallen upon me, a comparative newcomer, to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and to congratulate him on his brilliant and highly informative maiden speech. I only hope that it will not sound too presumptuous on my part if I say that I am sure I speak for all your Lordships when I say how pleased we are to have him with us, and how much we look forward to hearing from him again.
If, as a result of this debate, it is decided to establish a Joint Committee of some
1188
kind or another to look into the general question of theatre censorship in this country, I think that that Committee will find itself at the outset with one tremendous advantage, in that it will see on its own doorstep, operating in this country, practically every shade of censorship of which it is possible to conceive. It will be able to see voluntary censorship, obligatory censorship, censorship veering from the most stringent to the most permissive in all the various media of communication, arts and entertainment.
If, to begin with, it looks at the printed word—the most universal and widespread of all those media—it will find, of course, no censorship at all. If it then looks at what is probably the next most widespread and universal and, therefore, presumably, the most potentially influential, television and sound broadcasting, it will find that there also there is no censorship as such. There may be a certain amount of advice, but the broadcasters are not necessarily bound to accept the advice they are offered. This cannot really be called censorship in the strict sense of the word.
Looking a little further, to the next medium, which doubtless caters for only a sliehtly smaller audience, it comes to the films; and we have just heard from the noble Lord how the British Board of Film Censors works. We have seen that it is a form of censorship which has no legal authority, which normally works hand in hand with the local authorities and is, in fact, a form of censorship considerably more stringent than that which applies to the printed word and broadcasting, but less stringent than the last medium which the Joint Committee will come to examine, the stage. Here they will see a system which was instituted, as we have heard, by a corrupt Prime Minister, Walpole, to defend his regime against the attacks of a fearsome and formidable polemicist, Henry Fielding. They will see a system which has at various times in the past withheld Sophocles. Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Bernard Shaw from the English stage, and which, in more recent years, has been responsible for "prettifying" Pinter and Bowdlerising Beckett.
Having seen that, they will also see—and I am sure that we are deeply grateful and appreciative of the fact—that in the hands of the present Lord Chamberlain

1189
and his predecessors and their staffs, censorship has been wielded certainly more sensitively, more understandingly, more sympathetically and more perceptively, than at any time in the past. In fact, it seems to me that recently it has been operated in a way which it will be hard, if indeed possible, to improve upon, while censorship exists, and while the censors have to exert their function. At the same time, they cannot allow this fact, true as it is, to blind them to the other more important fact, that censorship in itself constitutes totalitarian, authoritative infringement of the artistic liberty of this country.
The present Lord Chamberlain, Lord Cobbold, has gone on record as saying that he conceives his functions as being those rather of a licensing authority than of a censorship authority. With great respect, I do not see that it is possible to defend this view, so long as censorship remains compulsory. Except in so far as any censor might be considered to be a licensing authority, in that it is necessary to ask him for a licence, if censorship means anything it means what is at present provided for by the law of England.
It might therefore be argued—in deed it has been argued—and it may well be suggested by the Joint Committee, that the best solution to the problem will be to institute a system, perhaps on the lines of the British Board of Film Censors, which is at least theoretically a voluntary one, and which can be bypassed if necessary. I hope they will not do that, because, just as every exhibitor has effectively to have a certificate from the British Board of Film Censors—certainly every major chain of distributors and, virtually speaking, every other little cinema in the country, either from the British Board of Film Censors or from the local authorities—in exactly the same way, if this scheme were extended to the live theatre we should find 99 per cent. of all the licensees of the theatres always applying to the Censor before going any further. It is natural that they should do so, for exactly the same reason as the large majority of them to-day approve of the present system. This system gives them complete and comprehensive protection at negligible premium, and it is natural that they should want it. But the fact remains that
1190
this system, in hands less wise, less permissive or less understanding than those in which it fortunately rests to-day, could be used, virtually speaking, to kill the English theatre stone dead.
What then, my Lords, are we left with? It seems to me that we are left with the only valid, workable, simple, system that remains: the system that has worked extremely well, and is working extremely well, with the printed word and television. This is, in my view, the most important innovation to have occurred in the field of mass communication since the invention of printing, which is the system of freedom—the freedom to "publish and be damned", always, and only, provided that there remains the ultimate deterrent (for want of a better phrase) of police prosecution. We already have this ultimate sanction, and I see no reason why we should wish to saddle ourselves with another unnecessary one.
There will inevitably be abuses. Unless we are dramatic critics we shall not be forced to go and see those plays in which this freedom appears to be abused; the police will be at liberty to act if they think fit though I hope very much that they will in fact consult some authority—not perhaps a Law Officer—before doing so, at least in any case where the play concerned bears the imprint of anyone who has done as much for the English theatre as, for example, Mr. Peter Hall, Mr. William Gas kill or the late George Devine. I hope they will think carefully before taking such action, but nevertheless there will be performances which many people will consider to be in bad taste or may indeed consider actively offensive. But surely it will be a sad day for this country when the risk of being offended is considered too high a price to pay for liberty.
5.31 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS:My Lords, some of the points I had intended to make have already been made and my speech will therefore be the shorter. Also my views have been modified by some of the things which have already been said by noble Lords who have, from their expert knowledge, made such valuable contributions. However, we need to remember the views of those who are not so well informed.

1191
Recently I was talking with someone who was interested in the subject of our debate and he told me that he considered the existing system works quite well but he had three criticisms to make. I quote them, though I do not share them, for they seem to me to represent a wide sector of public opinion. His criticisms were, first, that it muddles along but it is vulnerable upon grounds of irresponsibility; secondly, it is vaguely connected with the Royal Family; thirdly, the Lord Chamberlain's officers might be more representative.
I had in mind, before listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, which I greatly enjoyed and to whom I pay my tribute, that something on the lines of the British Board of Film Censors might be the model for the future censorship of the living theatre, but now I feel the case for that suggestion has been destroyed. Nevertheless, I believe a great number of actors will welcome a body that will have positive as well as negative responsibilities—not just refusing to licence a play but authorised to promote the interests of the theatre. It may be there is not that amount in that suggestion. I speak as an occasional theatre-goer, to both professional and amateur productions. I like to enjoy the theatre and I wish I could find more free evenings to go with my family and friends. To me the theatre is a place of entertainment: I want to think and to laugh and to grieve, but not to be revolted by indecency or over-emphasis on sex, violence, cruelty, or sheer ugliness. Where a play is terrible or revolting I hope for some beauty or strength in thought and language and production to compensate.
I have consulted actors and producers and my impression is, as a number of your Lordships have said, that many prefer some form of censorship. I can see that wise censorship gives them protection and security; if critics condemn a play the theatre at least has the censor behind it. This support may not save the play, and it may have to be taken off after a short run, but to some degree censorship can spare the actors from degradation.
With this and other benefits in mind I want to pay my tribute to the Lord Chamberlain and his staff for the way
1192
they have done their duties. Presumably the qualities needed for the office of censor are a knowledge of, and enjoyment of, the theatre, with an appreciation of its history and practice and prospects. That first, and then wide experience, the ability to discern the mood of the times, and to sift the varied opinions of men and women of sound judgment who are slightly ahead of public opinion. After that, the capacity to take a line and stick to it, and to base your line, I would hope, on principles of morality and Christian ethics. If the censor in the future is not to be the Lord Chamberlain, he should be someone who has the qualities of a Lord Chamberlain.
I have two further points to make. The first concerns the visual representation of Jesus Christ on the stage. The second concerns the position of clubs. As has been mentioned, the Theatre Act 1843 gives the Lord Chamberlain an absolute veto on any play. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the attention the Lord Chamberlain is expected to pay to offending religious susceptibilities. I understand that the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament in 1909 agreed upon certain limitations upon plays, and the first of them was that a portrayal of the Deity must not appear. Since then it has been the considered policy of the Lord Chamberlain not to license any portrayal of Christ on the stage.
I received a copy of a memorandum on this subject which I believe was sent also to the Lord Chancellor. It came from the Religious Drama Society of Great Britain, and Christians in our country are indebted to this society for its lively work. I shall quote from it, for I accept its arguments. The society raises the question whether this policy of refusing to allow a play where the Deity is represented is in line with the views of Christians to-day. Before the Reformation, Christ was presented in mystery plays, both in church and in the open air. His life, death and resurrection were shown in great detail, but these scripts, being earlier in date than the grant of the powers to the Lord Chamberlain, did not come under his censorship. In the last fifteen years many mystery plays have been revised, and they have been seen in cathedrals and in the open air and in licensed buildings such as the Mermaid Theatre

1193
in London. Millions, too, have watched them on films or television.
Among modern religious plays is one called A Man Dies, and this play the Lord Chamberlain refused to license. It was written a few years ago for a Presbyterian Youth Club in Bristol, and was shown on television. It tells the story of Christ's Passion in a combination of Bible words with songs and dialogue in a contemporary idiom natural to a young cast, and it also used a good deal of mime. Christ is portrayed by a non-speaking Christ figure from among the young cast. His words are spoken from the Bible by a narrator. This play was produced last Holy Week in St. Alban's Abbey. We had an œcumenical cast of St. Alban's young people, all of them, I think, under the age of 30 and drawn from different churches in the city. It was performed in modern dress; jeans, slacks, guitars, drums and tape recordings were not out of place as that play was presented in St. Alban's Abbey, and the Christ figure simply and naturally took his place at the heart of the play.
I consider it helps the spread of the Gospel that on the stage, as already in many other media, the Christian religion should be interpreted in modern terms and by modern techniques, and that the portrayal of Christ be permitted under certain conditions. The script should be approved by competent judges, and it is so important that attention should be paid to the producer. A Man Dies produced by a well-meaning amateur might be disastrous; at St. Alban's, competently produced and acted, it gave vitality and relevance to Holy Week, and I had no protests.
I therefore hope that the Joint Committee or some other committee, if appointed, will reconsider this question. Provided there are safeguards, many Christians, perhaps the majority of Christians, would be glad if a permissive policy were substituted for a prohibitive one. I have in mind two safeguards; that a small panel of experts should be appointed to assist the censor with advice when scripts in which Jesus Christ is portrayed come before him. There must be censorship here, for a play could be written without reverence or understanding. I should hope, too, that the panel of experts would be qualified to advise
1194
on production, and that they would be consulted about it. I realise that the censor's decision must be based on script, including stage directions. I accept this as the norm, but I submit, because the number of plays in this category is likely to be small, that for an experimental period of, say, ten years a panel of experts should be given the advisory powers I have outlined.
I conclude with this point. When a Prelate speaks on such a subject as this in your Lordships' House, it is probable that any negative remarks he makes will receive first attention. I end, therefore, by expressing my positive gratitude to those authors, actors and producers who enrich our days, and to the Lord Chamberlain's office for its wise guidance in the past and at the present time.
5.43 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I have first to declare an interest, that as an executor I found myself somewhat unexpectedly the lessee of a London theatre. I am happy to say that it is a theatre which has had no conflict or collision with the Lord Chamberlain. Our plays are duly licensed without trouble. I have a less tenuous interest in that as Chairman of the Arts Council I preside over an organisation one of whose most important functions is to promote and sustain an interest in the live theatre. On that account we are profoundly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having introduced this subject; and I would add that I personally am particularly grateful for the terms in which he introduced it. His introduction was from the point of view of the subject, if I may say so without appearing patronising, impeccable.
This is a very difficult subject, and it would be quite wrong for anyone with a knowledge of it to dogmatise about it. It is not a matter that admits of dogmatic views. We of the Arts Council have a committee, composed of very authoritative persons, which was set up by the Council when it was presided over by my predecessor Lord Cottesloe. This committee has been sitting a considerable while, and has not yet arrived at final conclusions. I hope that any Select Committee appointed as a result of this Motion may receive the benefit of the deliberations of this committee which, from what I have read, I consider to be useful and valuable.

1195
I may say that, having read those deliberations, I myself have undergone several changes of view. I said at the outset that I think this is a difficult subject, and I have arrived at a very paradoxical conclusion.
I should state first that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the question of principle; I disapprove of and dislike censorship. I think that my paradoxical conclusion is that from the public's point of view there is no benefit whatsoever in continuing the existence of the censorship under the Lord Chamberlain. I hasten to add that, from personal knowledge, I would wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks and tributes paid to the incumbents of that office. I have had dealings with that office in a number of particulars over the years, and they have discharged their duties, in difficult circumstances, in irreproachable fashion. The remarks we wish to make are not about the officers but about the office, and in that regard very trenchant observations are called for.
I do not think censorship, as I have known it over the years, serves any purpose whatsoever to protect the public. I think the way of looking at it is this. The function of the Censor falls broadly into activities of two distinct qualities. The first and least palatable is to deal with the deliberate commercial pornographers. This is, I think, the greater part of his function. I think it undignified and absurd that a Government office should be in existence to debate with deliberate, calculated pornographers just how far they may go in the way of pornography. I do not think it right that examiners of the Lord Chamberlain's office should be sitting down to discuss a double entendre, or how far an indecent joke can be indecent before it is blue-pencilled. The gentlemen who perpetrate such things should be left to the criminal law. I am quite convinced it is wrong that they should be given any form of reassurance in the way of a licence. If they wish to perpetrate obscenities I feel they should run the risk and at least have the neurosis of not sleeping at night, uncertain about the police visiting next morning. I do not think any Government should set up an office to give them protection.
1196
We then come to what may appear the smaller part of the Censor's function, though it is, in fact, the larger and more important part of the Lord Chamberlain's duties; that is, dealing with the serious theatre. Here I think the best way to review the matter and determine what use his function has served is to view it retrospectively. Consider now what benefit has come to the denizens of this country by prohibiting over the years, shall we say, The Children's Hour, A Penny to see a Peepshow, Green Pastures—and I was very gratified to hear the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, because I believe that a liberalisation in that respect is very important. I cannot for the life of me see what damage or harm would have been done by showing the very charming and reverent depiction of the Divinity in Green Pastures. I am sure we should be the better for that reform. If we review this matter retrospectively, are we, in fact, a better race of men, and have we got a more virile, more moral community because we have prevented them over the last twenty years from seeing these plays? Do we need an answer to that question? The question is an absurdity. Of course we have not.
So far as the serious theatre is concerned, it is quite unnecessary to have a formal official protecting the public from serious playwrights, and it is an affront to the serious playwrights that there can be any question about it. In a way, the existence of the Lord Chamberlain is a goad to them. They are prompted, I am sure, to go beyond what they might write, because they think the Censor should not be there and they want to provoke him: their aim is, epater les bourgeois. I am perfectly convinced that if we could have a moratorium on censorship for a couple of years, and invite all writers to think of the most extreme forms of obscenity they could envisage, and put them on the stage for the next two years, they would get it out of their systems, and would get down to writing their plays. Far from censorship protecting the public, I think that it does positive damage. And censorship in regard to the serious play ought to be abolished from the point of view of public welfare.
I have suggested that we cannot dogmatise, and that one may arrive at a paradoxical conclusion. I am by no

1197
means sure that the same conclusion is right from the point of view of the interests of the theatre. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, spoke of the abolition of censorship in the belief that this would open the gates of freedom, and that thereupon plays not now performed would immediately be performed. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, instanced Mr. John Osborne's A Patriot for Me. That is a very good instance. I am quite satisfied that, unless we associated with the abolition of the Lord Chamberlain the abrogation of the obscenity laws, which no one in his right senses would advocate, we should not have seen A Patriot for Me in the commercial theatre. That is not because the play is obscene—on the contrary; and I ventured to engage in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on the subject—but because it would not be possible to find a lawyer (and in his delightful and remarkable maiden speech Lord Harlech made some remarks with which I, as a lawyer, am in profound agreement) who would express the view that this play might not undergo a conviction by a jury of twelve ordinary people. That would be the test which would replace censorship by the Lord Chamberlain. We should be no better off by abolition of the Lord Chamberlain. In fact, I arrive at this conclusion: that, ironically, we have had a more liberal theatre in the last few years, under the administration of the Lord Chamberlain, than we might have had had we abolished him altogether. I can think of two or three plays now on the London stage, and a number of plays that have appeared on the London stage but are no longer being performed, that would not in my opinion have seen the light of day if they had not been licensed by a liberal and progressive Lord Chamberlain.
Having paid those tributes to the Lord Chamberlain, I want to make a few less flattering observations. I think in regard to a play like A Patriot for Me, it is presumptuous for any one man to set his voice against those of a distinguished literary mind. I think that perhaps the Lord Chamberlain may not be conscious of the effect abroad of proscribing the work of one of our most distinguished intellectual dramatists. If I may say so, we have witnessed in the last few days a horrible instance in another country of the persecution of human thought. I do
1198
not know, but perhaps the House might feel that we should from here send out a message of a feeling of abhorrence at countries that persecute people who wish to examine their views carefully on matters of the human mind. But we have witnessed that kind of thing.
We are prone to forget that an effect of that kind may be produced abroad when it is read that one of our most distinguished dramatists has had a play refused performance by the Lord Chamberlain, whom they believe to be a Court official in this country. I think it behoves the Lord Chamberlain and his office to think most carefully before they proscribe plays by people whose previous record as intellectual dramatists, as important dramatists and people who demonstrably are not pornographers, entitles them to have their work considered. As it is likely that the Lord Chamberlain, or someone in a similar position, will continue for many years, it is important that the exercise of his office should take this factor into account; this is of the first importance. I do not think we have appreciated quite the shock that this is to people abroad. I have no axe to grind for people like John Osborne, many of whose views I would not agree with—neither would many of your Lordships—but the fact remains that he and a few others like him are regarded as the people who speak for this country and for young people in all parts of the world; and if it is thought that we are persecuting them, or shutting them off from public performance, then it will be thought that we are operating an illiberal and oppressive form of Government in this country. However satisfied we may be as a country, we shall not succeed in convincing others abroad to that effect.
This brings me to another matter which I think is of first and cardinal importance. If the Lord Chamberlain's office were to go, the whole question would turn on prosecutions. Here we have a bad record so far as intellectuals are concerned. I do not apologise for using this word, because the intellect is the commodity we are dealing with in this debate. There is certainly current among intellectuals a feeling that in the Establishment, and particularly among prosecuting officials, there is an anti-intellectual bias. Every so often the Establishment

1199
demonstrates the truth of this. I am not suggesting it is wholly true, but they provide evidence of its truth by some colossal gaff such as the prosecution of Lady Chatterley's Lover. I do not believe that Lady Chatterley's Lover would have been prosecuted by any literate body of men. I think it could only have been prosecuted by people with firm preconceptions—honest but foolish people. I think it is terribly important that before any prosecution is launched on subjects of obscenity, on subjects that affect letters, on subjects that affect the arts, people who know what they are talking about should be consulted.
Here I strongly support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that a consultative committee should be brought into being. I do not think that this is in the least a matter for lawyers. I do not think they need any protection in the way of asking an unfortunate Judge in Chambers to cease his other activities in determining whether an injunction should be given for a lady who is trespassing on somebody else's property, to have to decide whether somebody's play is a prima facie case for a prosecution. I think that there is no standard by which a Judge could reach any decision on this matter, and certainly a Judge's training does not make him more eligible, and in many ways makes him much less eligible, to determine matters on the basis of broad common sense and an appreciation of current conventional morality.
We need a committee of literate persons to determine this question, and I think that if these matters were determined by a committee of literate persons, half the problem would disappear. I should like to think that the Motion of Lord Annan might be carried into effect. What are we to do? My own personal preference is to maintain a voluntary system. This was touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, who said that he thought that if there was a voluntary system everybody would be encouraged to act as volunteers and there would be timidity and nobody would put on plays that might otherwise not be shown because they would not get a licence. I think that the main affront of the present system is, as Lord Harlech said, that there is no
1200
appeal. I do not think that by abolishing the system there will be any greater audacity in the production of plays. But I think that if there is a voluntary system so that a man may put on a play if he wants to and take a risk, or otherwise can go to some organisation, be it the Lord Chamberlain or someone else, and ask him for a licence, and know that if he has a licence he is free from prosecution, we shall probably have the best of both worlds. That is the system I myself, after a good deal of thought on the subject, should like to see adopted.
It may well be that if a Select Committee consider this matter they will arrive at some other and better conclusion. But my present belief is that in the situation where there is no perfect solution, where some controls are obviously necessary, where, on the whole, something has to be done to protect theatrical managements, the best thing to do is to allow a means whereby the timid manager may go and get his licence, and the audacious manager can take his risk, and the man who is not satisfied with the decision can take the risk if he is courageous enough.
That brings me to my concluding point on this matter, which is that I think we want to view it in perspective. I think it is important to do this. I do not think that the English theatre has suffered terribly under a horribly oppressive tyranny by the Lord Chamberlain. It is right to say that under the Lord Chamberlain, in so far as he impinges on the topic, the English theatre has arrived at the moment at a situation of considerable good health and prosperity. We have a most distinguished collection of young dramatists. We have a virility and a vitality in the theatre that has been unequalled in my recollection. It must be plain, therefore, that we do not want to make too much of this matter; that it would be wrong to send out an exaggerated notion that the theatre is burdened oppressively by what is happening by censorship. I think it is right to say that censorship is an anomaly. I agree with the Lord Chancellor, and The Times, that to some extent the anomaly is made worse by the Lord Chamberlain's very "personality", by the fact that he is or is not an old Etonian, that he lives in a charming old house

1201
adjoining a Palace, that he is a gentleman and courteous, and so on. This conveys a patrician image that is violently in conflict with many of the non-patrician plays that are coming on. This is a slight but not a total irrelevancy.
It may be a reason for making a change. A man can be too nice for the job. But what I think is of importance is to establish an organisation for controlling the theatre that will have the confidence of the writers. At the moment there is a feeling of resentment over the whole situation. Rightly or wrongly they feel humiliated and they feel affronted. I hope the outcome of to-day's debate will be that some machinery will be set up, if any is needed, in which they will have confidence.
The last thing I want to say is that I find myself having regard to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the question of a Select Committee. I am by no means sure that this is the right kind of body to investigate this matter. It is a highly professional question. The conclusions one arrives at when one first looks at this question are never the conclusions one reaches when one studies it carefully over a long period. I think, therefore, it is of great importance that whatever committee or commission examines this question it should be a really expert one acquainted with the theatre. If you abolish the Lord Chamberlain or have a voluntary system, you have to consider what one may call the public policy aspects of his activities. Here I should like to say a few controversial words. It has been suggested that the problem of Royalty arises. I consider that this is no problem. Royalty have resorted to the courts recently and found complete freedom where there has been an undue invasion of Royal privacy. I do not think it is necessary to maintain the Lord Chamberlain for that purpose. Common Law provides a perfectly effective remedy for Royalty, as for anyone else. The position of the Sovereign herself may be another matter. I regard it as quite unnecessary on that score to regard the retention of the Lord Chamberlain as necessary.
On the question of living persons, and so forth, we have a law of libel which, misguidedly, some people are thinking of
1202
diluting. If we leave it as it is, it is a very effective weapon, and it is unnecessary to maintain the Lord Chamberlain as an auxiliary for people who have been defamed. I do not think that any of these peripheral activities are necessary to maintain at all. On the question of obscenity, this is a matter for the Commission. I am sure that we can forgo these other safeguards without feeling that we are going to be murdered in our beds. I speak as somebody who for years has derived pleasure and enjoyment from the theatre. I am therefore grateful that this debate has been initiated, and I hope that its results will be fruitful and encouraging to those people who work for and with the theatre.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords,
"The Censor's arbitrary rights must be a deterrent to men of any intellectual independence and self-respect. We rub our eyes, we writers accustomed to freedom in other walks, to think that this cause has still to be argued in England."
That is not an angry film producer complaining at the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, whose maiden speech I so enjoyed, nor is it anybody complaining about the Lord Chamberlain's office to-day. It was written by Henry James many years ago. Writers of all sorts are still rubbing their eyes that the cause has still to be argued in England. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made such a distinction between the officers and the office, because I, too, should like to add my name to those who pay tribute to the officers. I should like to add my name to that of Lord Goodman as one who has a few uncomfortable things to say about the office.
One would think nowadays that the extraordinary situation whereby, for instance, because of the madness of King George III, King Lear was forbidden on the stage, and anomalies of that sort, would be impossible. Yet the Royal Shakespeare Company (of whom, by way of declaring an interest, I must say that I am a Governor) was quite recently preparing a play in which it was proposed to quote a complete poem by the noted American poet E. E. Cummings. They submitted the text to the Lord Chamberlain's office, and cuts amounting to some six or eight lines were requested and, indeed, insisted upon. It happened

1203
that that poem had recently been read in its entirety on television on a programme called Monitor, and not a single complaint had been received. It also happened that the poem had been read twice within the Aldwych Theatre at Sunday performances, and in the end, when it came to produce the play, the company were forced to leave gaps in the actors' speeches at that point. The audience could then look down at their programmes where the poem was printed in its entirety, since it had already been printed in many countries and anthologised widely. This is the sort of anomaly which still exists.
One would have thought also that the days of the first performance in this country of Richard Strauss's opera Salome were over. Your Lordships will recall that Sir Thomas Beecham put on the opera for the first time, and that its German libretto was taken from the celebrated drama by Oscar Wilde. The text of this was submitted to the Lord Chamberlain of the day—this was between the wars. A large number of cuts were also insisted upon in the German text. These were duly carried out, and the German singers were forced to learn a whole lot of new lines and a whole lot of Bowdlerised German. On the night of the first performance, however, under the stress and excitement of every first night—and, no doubt under the sway of the music—very early on in the performance the singers forgot all the alternatives which they had been forced to learn, and reverted immediately to the original text and continued so until the end of the opera. Sir Thomas was a little alarmed to see a representative of the Lord Chamberlain's office, with whom he had been dealing, bearing down on him after the performance, and was a little surprised to find his hand warmly shaken, and to hear the man say how pleased he was at the immense cooperation that he had received from everybody concerned.
This, one would think, was something of the past. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out that cuts had been requested, and changes made, in the German texts of plays by Brecht, who is, after all, whether you like him or whether you dislike him, a modern classic. I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate gave us some hope that the present practice regarding the portrayal of Scriptural
1204
characters on the stage might be on its way towards being changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned Green Pastures, which we should all be the better for having available to us. It might be worth adding to that George Moores' play The Passing of the Essenes. It is more controversial, but it is published and may be read by any of your Lordships who wish to do so. Encouraged though I was by the right reverend Prelate's remarks, the thought of what would happen to a controversial play, even one as smoothly controversial as The Passing of the Essenes, in the hands of a committee of experts, who would advise the Censor, and another committee of experts who would advise the producer, makes me wonder whether in fact we are on the road to any reform in this direction at all. If we are to liberalise our view of our laws or practices, let us by all means liberalise them, but let us not hedge them around with committees of experts who are notorious in retarding progress.
Many suggestions have been made as to possible alternatives to the office of the Lord Chamberlain. The whole question of film censorship, which has been so carefully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is possibly not the answer. If films and theatre are to be considered, then I would beg your Lordships not to accede to the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who suggested that terms of reference might be made which would equate films, television and theatre, and somehow make common ground between them. If this were done, I fear that the terms would have to be so wide, and the net so large, that nothing would escape it. In fact, we should be making a blanket of censorship so thick that I doubt whether a novel idea could ever penetrate it. If there is to be reform in theatre censorship, or, indeed, abolition, then let it be considered on its own merits and in its own right.
Many previous speakers have pointed out that the biggest problem of setting up any alternative board or alternative organisation to the Lord Chamberlain's office is the problem of the right to appeal. One of the greatest criticisms of the present system is its lack of that right. Let us suppose that a body is set

1205
up with the agreement of stage managements and the theatrical world in general, and let us suppose that it is genuinely agreed that there must be some appeal from it, to whom is such an appeal to be made? To the courts?—probably not. The legal view, so learnedly expressed this afternoon by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and, indeed, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, leads one to suppose that using the courts as a kind of advisory body to the world of the theatre is unlikely. Could it, perhaps, be to local councils? Could there be some form of certificate which local councils were obliged to abide by, but to whom an appeal might be made if it were not granted? The instance of the film Fanny Hill, to which the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Harlech, referred, shows what dangers there would be in leaving things in the hands of local councils. That any film or any play should be awarded an "X" certificate in some places, an "A" in others, a "U" in others, and in some places banned altogether, is so hopelessly inequitable that it is not to be considered. Could an appeal against censorship be made to some Government body? This, I doubt, too. The dangers of Government censorship are graver than any other.
Already, imputations of political censorship have been made about many plays. Indeed, at this moment one of the productions of the Royal Shakespeare Company—the famous Marat-Sade—has been invited to open the Paris Festival of Theatre. The Advisory Panel for Drama of the British Council recommend that the British Council should make a grant to send it there. The British Council refused to do so, and I think it is little secret that the grounds for its refusal relate mostly to the nature of the play. In any event, a private individual has supplied enough money to take it to Paris.
The fact remains that this production, which might well not have reached Paris, is a production whose prestige has grown enormously throughout the world—and not only in this country, for it has had immense success in America. It has been pointed out, I think, that as an example of production, and, above all, of ensemble playing, it has no peer at the moment in the British theatre world; and
1206
ensemble playing is not something to which we are so accustomed. Many other countries have had their great ensembles. We tend to have our great actors, and for a piece to receive this sort of praise is not only gratifying; it is quite obviously a matter of great concern to British prestige that it should be done abroad.
Yet the nature of the play itself, I believe—and I must not be dogmatic about this, because there has been no public statement of the British Council's view—has prevented this from being sponsored, at any rate by the British Council. Therefore, I think that a Government body, even in the loosest sense, must not be allowed to be an appeal committee from any censorship body which may be set up. Indeed, so grave is the problem of appeal, that it seems to add yet another argument to the already formidable arguments for abolishing censorship altogether and relying entirely upon the law.
It would seem that the biggest danger to those likely to be offended by plays is ignorance. A friend of mine, who is responsible for one of the biggest ticket agencies in the country, is always receiving complaints from people about plays which they see. A notable example which he quoted to me was of two ladies who came up for an occasional visit to the theatre, went to this ticket agency, asked for no advice, and looked down the list of titles. They chose one called "Entertaining Mr. Sloane", possibly because they thought it would be entertaining, or possibly, indeed, because they knew a Mr. Sloane. When they got to the theatre, however, they discovered that the play concerned two people of considerable sexual deviation, one of whom was murdered later in the play in full view of the audience. They naturally complained bitterly to the ticket agency, but I have very little sympathy with the two ladies.
Every play that comes on is reviewed in one newspaper or another. Pictures are published. The publicity given to the Arts in general, and to the theatre in particular, is so considerable now that it seems to me inescapable that you no longer have to subject yourself unwillingly to any form of offence. Yet there are few angrier people than those who

1207
have been to the theatre and been disappointed or upset in some way. A curious factor about the entertainment business is that it so often causes immense resentment in those who pay money. Let a man plant a rose tree in the autumn, if it fails to come up in the spring, although he has paid 10s. for it, he will be philosophical about it. Let a man pay 10s. for a book, not enjoy it and find it distasteful, he will put it down with a sense of disappointment. But let him pay 10s. at the box office of a theatre or a cinema and be disappointed, and his righteous indigation will know no bounds. Paying an entrance fee at a box office does not entitle anybody, by a kind of moral right, to be entertained in his own terms.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, should have made the point that to be shocked is not necessarily a pejorative phrase. Most of us were taught in our schools that the earliest form of drama which is currently revived to-day—the Greek drama—depended for much of its tragic effect upon catharsis. Indeed to-day, Œdipus Rex which, as has been mentioned, the censor of the time duly banned for a little, or The Baccghœ are plays which even to-day can scarcely be seen without a tremendous sense of shock—a sense of shock which I cannot help feeling is entirely beneficial. The one comparison in this direction between theatre and books, which is perhaps instructive, is that if you are about to be shocked by a book you know more precisely why. It has a dust-jacket. You can look at a page or two. You can read a piece on the flyleaf which gives you a synopsis of the story. In the theatre you cannot do that. You sit down and you must face it. But, heaven knows! there is no reason why a man should not leave a theatre if he is offended or upset. In that respect, books have an advantage over the theatre; it is easier to know what is about to be presented to you.
They certainly have an advantage over the theatre in the fact that they are not pre-censored, and I was delighted to hear that the Lord Chancellor himself finds it difficult to understand the distinction between the theatre and literature. I find the same difficulty. Yet the abolition of theatre censorship has
1208
an advantage over the abolition of literary censorship, and it is this. A book may be published clandestinely: it could defy the law. There being no Censor for it to defy, the author and publisher could defy prosecution by attempting to avoid detection. It may be published under the counter. But, of course, it is almost impossible to put a play of any size on "under the counter". It must be known; it must be seen. Thus the risk of its evading prosecution and detection is, I think, negligible. This seems yet another argument for leaving its career to be dealt with by the law and not by any body of censorship.
The arguments for abolishing the function of the Lord Chamberlain, and for entrusting the public's livelihood or protection entirely to the law, are so strong, in fact, that any Select Committee which is set up will have to consider very carefully what alternatives are better. I feel that the debate so far has brought us to the point where only an alternative better than abolition can be canvassed. I feel that I can do no better, in finishing, than to quote something which was said in your Lordships' House over 250 years ago by Lord Chesterfield, when he first opposed the setting up of censorship in the time of Walpole. He said:
"If Poets and Players are to be restrained, let them be restrained as other Subjects are, by the known Laws of their Country; if they offend, let them be tried as every Englishman ought to be, by God and their Country. Do not let us subject them to the arbitrary Will and Pleasure of any one Man. A Power lodged in the hands of one single Man, to judge and determine, without any Limitation, without any Control or Appeal, is a sort of Power unknown to our Laws, inconsistent with our Constitution. It is a higher, a more absolute Power than we trust even to the King himself; and therefore I must think we ought not to vest any such Power in his Majesty's Lord Chamberlain."
6.20 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for putting down this Motion, and giving the House the opportunity of discussing this vital question. I myself have had only one or two brushes with the Lord Chamberlain. I think that in 1948 or 1949 one of my first plays went to his office, and it came back with a long list of words which had to be omitted, including the

1209
word "bloody", which it was requested should be removed, I think, fourteen times. Subsequently, of course, in 1956–57, I went to see a play called Billy Liar, which had that same word in it 249 times. I do not quite know what this proves: either I was ten years ahead of my time or the Lord Chamberlain was ten years behind it.
I should also like to pay tribute to the Lord Chamberlain for the courtesy, delicacy and generosity with which he treats writers. But, my Lords, a man can be courteous, he can be delicate and he can be generous; but if he is a jailer it makes him no more pleasant—and to my mind the Lord Chamberlain, in his role as theatre censor, is a gentle and kindly jailer. In this matter I am a "wholehogger" and an abolitionist. I believe that any compromise would be worse than the present system. I agree that there must be some special measures—and this perhaps is what the Select Committee, if it is set up, could do—to protect managements against frivolous prosecutions; but, by and large, I do not want the theatre to be privileged. I want it to be subject to the same checks and controls in law as any other form of art or literature, or any activity of any citizen.
Some critics oppose the office of theatre Censor because, they say, it is irrational and illogical that the duty should be vested in a member of Her Majesty's Household. To me, this is completely unimportant, and I think we should not venture too far along this track in your Lordships' House, because there are many institutions in this country which cannot be justified on rational or logical grounds, and if we push that argument too far we may find ourselves arguing ourselves out of a place to sit. Not only that, but I am not one of those advocates of great tidiness in public life. I remember the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth once complaining, with regard to the Greater London Bill, that there seemed to be this madness in local government for tidy parcels of government. I think the office of the Lord Chamberlain is untidy, and that the whole matter is untidy; but I do not regard that as a good reason for abolishing him. I think we must abolish him on principle, and not for any of these reasons. In fact, I agree with those other speakers in the debate who have said that, if we are to have a Censor, then the
1210
present method of censorship is by far the best. I would much rather have Lord Cobbold than Bertrand Russell; I would much rather have Lord Cobbold than some of my Labour M.P. colleagues, or even the British Council.
My Lords, I am opposed to theatre censorship in its present form for eight reasons, which I will give your Lordships as clearly as possible. I am opposed to it, first of all, because it is a childish way of dealing with an adult problem. I am opposed to it because it puts a barrier around free expression and limits the dramatist. It builds a tariff wall against free trade in ideas, and that must be bad. I am opposed to it because it forces one man to set himself up as a judge and to apply absolute standards—absolute standards which just cannot exist in any fixed form at any one time. In fact, we have heard in this debate to-day, in the very good maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that his Board tries to take the middle point of view of a particular section of the public as the guide line. That is the most powerful argument against any fixed form of censorship that I have ever heard. In fact, listening to Lord Harlech—and this is no reference to the quality of his speech—I felt absolutely horrified. I could not realise that the British Board of Film Censors was the same body as that which he had described in this particular way.
I am against the theatre Censor because it puts one man in the position of immense political power; and this point has to some extent been overlooked because of the concentration on sex, violence and pornography in the theatre. The fact that the present Censor has tried not to abuse these powers, and has tried to be as progressive as possible, is beside the point. In the past, we have had examples of works by Ibsen and Shaw—classics—being banned from the theatre; and Mrs. Warren's Profession particularly, was banned, and could only have been banned, whatever the excuse, on political grounds. I do not think that any man should have that sort of power.
Next, I am against it because it operates in a way which is objectionable in a democratic society. Although in practice the censors do give reasons, they are not bound to do so, and the dramatist is in effect, tried in secret, and has no

1211
effective right of appeal. Then, censorship is hypocritical in effect, if not in intention. For example, I have seen lists of the changes that have been required to be made, and for the life of me I cannot see why it should be all right to say "God Almighty" as an expletive but not "Jesus Christ"—but that is the rule. But, more important than this, to me it seems that it forces the dramatist to subterfuge in the portrayal of some of his ideas, so that what was honest vulgarity becomes sophisticated smut, and what was open and frank becomes dirtily suggestive. It replaces, very often, the laugh by the giggle, and the truth by the innuendo. This is nobody's fault: it is a built-in defect of the present system.
Finally, I think it is time we released the poor Lord Chamberlain from the whole tedious, sordid and revolting business. As I said, I have seen lists of the various changes which the Lord Chamberlain has asked dramatists to make in their plays. Most of the references are to what is generally called "bad language", or something which is offensive to good taste. Whenever this issue of bad language or good taste comes up, I am reminded of the Englishman who said of Hamlet's scene in Gertrude's bedroom, "No gentlemen would speak to his mother like that". I will not bore your Lordships with any long details about some of these cuts: I just want to pay tribute to the immense stamina of the Lord Chamberlain and his staff in carrying out this unique and rather dreary task—and I could not help wondering who were the secretaries who typed these particular lists that go back to dramatists. But to ask grown men and women to debate whether the phrase "man in the boat" is more or less likely to shock than the 'phrase "button in the forecastle", or to consider suitable alternatives for the word "latrine" is to reduce the whole thing to the level of a schoolboy joke.
Turning away from that aspect for a moment, my Lords, there is a strange kind of logic in many supporters of the Lord Chamberlain's present powers which says that because you are in favour of abolishing the Lord Chamberlain, because you want to abolish the threatre Censor, you must therefore be in favour of pornography and smut on the British stage.
1212
Indeed, I had an obscene, anonymous and smutty letter this morning accusing me of exactly that: that, because I was in favour of abolishing theatre censorship, I was therefore going to open the floodgates in the British theatre to smut, pornography and dirty plays. This is about as logical a suggestion as that a man who does not like a waistcoat is a sex maniac.
Sex and violence have of course been legitimate elements of drama for hundreds of years, and will continue to be so in any adult society where there is drama. But, honestly, my Lords, like many others I am disturbed and puzzled by the excessive emphasis which some of our younger dramatists place on these aspects of human behaviour to-day, and by their constant preoccupation with the darker corners of human society and the human soul. But before we condemn them, ought we not to try to understand them? We must remember that they do not write in this way because somebody forces them to do so: they write in this way—and most of them write with great talent—because they have a wish to do so; because they feel impelled to do so; because they believe the issues that they are trying to describe in their plays are every bit as important as the issues which Shaw tried to describe or fight for in his plays.
Why do the young people of to-day, more than ever before, challenge the verbal and visual taboos that we have created in our society? When I was young, I saw my own particular revolution in social terms. I saw as the object that I believed in, and believed in with starry eyes, the liberation of this country from poverty and dreariness; and I can remember, as a very young man, lying on the green grass of Finsbury Park and really believing, in my innocence, that England's "green and pleasant land" was only a very few short years away. My own early plays tried, rather badly, I admit, to reflect this particular theme of social justice. Much of what I dreamed of then, and what many of us dreamed of, has been realised—much, but not all. We have full employment; we have wider freedoms; we have far less real poverty. But is it not true that the dignity we dreamed of is lacking? The vision has soured somewhat; we have given too much scope in our society to the hucksters; we have created too much that

1213
is cheap and tawdry. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, said in a public speech the other day: we have gone for the immediate gain rather than the long-term benefit. The young deeply feel the hypocrisy that is rife in so much of modern society. They feel that the greatest hypocrisy is in our attitude towards the human body, towards sex. And so they have directed their fire to this area particularly; because the areas of social justice have to a certain extent been covered, and are being covered, by Government action.
It is a revolution, and like all revolutions it is sometimes extreme and coarse and one-sided and savage and intolerant. We may disagree with the aims of this revolution—that is our right. But it is their right to be heard. We do not answer an argument by stifling it. In fact, if we stifle it, we do so at our own peril. If you stifle the voice of the young, you stifle the voice of the future. I hope personally that the emphasis will change in the writings of our dramatists. I want to see a greater and more liberal attitude towards sex; I do not want this to be a continual theme in plays on our stages. I believe our talented young dramatists will begin eventually to realise that reality is not bounded by bed-sheets; that people have brains as well as genitals; that love is often more important than lust; and that gentleness and wisdom are not luxuries but necessities. I think they may sometimes ponder the fact that great dramatists and writers like Arthur Miller, Dickens, Tolstoy, Ibsen and Shaw, manage to convey an enormous amount in all their works without the need to use four-letter words.
But, my Lords, the point I want to hammer home is that we cannot legislate for this; we cannot censor our dramatists into what we may consider to be the paths of righteousness. They must have freedom. We must listen to them; we must learn from them; we must fight them; we must argue with them; we must hammer out the issues. But we must give them freedom of expression. We must let them shock us, if they can; for shocks are the best medicine for our complacency. They want to create a moral purpose in society. Some of your Lordships may consider they are going about it in a perverse and paradoxical way. I think we all want to re-create a sense of moral purpose in society; and if we want
1214
to do that, we must look to them and realise that they are allies, and not treat them as enemies.
That is why I am an abolitionist in this matter. I want a greater freedom for our writers. That is why I have no fear that if we come to relieve the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, of his duties as censor, there will be a great wave of depravity to hit our theatre. There are enough checks and balances in our law to prevent the venal and corrupt operators from peddling their pornography. If there are not, we can threngthen them.
The matter of theatre censorship may seem a small matter when compared with what is going on in Vietnam or Rhodesia or with the problem of the balance of payments. But it is not. No issue of artistic freedom is ever small or unimportant. Do not let us muddle on any longer with this; do not let us say that because it works in a liberal fashion, therefore we shall tolerate it. It is an affront to the freedom of artists. It must be abolished. In present hands it may operate in a liberal way; in other hands it may not. As an institution it is wrong. As an institution it is false and it must go.
6.34 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD:
My Lords, I am attending this debate more to listen than to speak. I wanted to listen, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I was very far from disappointed. I only want to say two things. First, the theatre censorship carried out by the Lord Chamberlain's office is undoubtedly as good as any other method of censorship that could be devised; secondly, I see no need for censorship at all. I dare say that those of us who demand as much freedom of speech on the stage as there is off it will be accused of weakening the moral fibre of society and of encouraging licentious ribaldry, sexual promiscuity and so on. What humbug and nonsense! I refuse to believe that the ending of censorship would persuade every theatre management in the country to put on a series of strip-tease shows or to try to put on displays of obscenity. That type of entertainment is quite adequately provided in London already, so I am told.
The difference might be that plays such as John Osborne's A Patriot for Me could be seen by an audience who have not

1215
had to go to the petty trouble of joining a club for the purpose. That is the kind of thing that leads me to use the word "humbug". Anyone who really wanted to see A Patriot for Me could quite easily have done so when it was on at the Royal Court Theatre. But it was a bit of a bother: one had to fill in a form to join a club, and wait a few days to become a member before applying for tickets. Therefore, because it could not be shown to the general public, a lot of people missed a tremendous theatrical experience, an experience which left one sadder and wiser and certainly not inclined to any form of vice. The theatre is a form of art which has flourished in this country for several hundred years, and elsewhere in the world for several thousand years. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it has now grown-up and therefore no longer needs a nurse or a censor.
6.36 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, after some of the speeches we have heard today I feel that little has been left to say; but I want to fill in one or two nooks and crannies of the history of this matter to try to trace what I perceive to be a continuing guerrilla between different forces in our society about it. The 1909 Committee, about which we have heard, came to a definite recommendation which was that there should be voluntary censorship: that is, those who wanted to get the protection which they Imagined lay in the Lord Chamberlain's certificate should be entitled to get it, and those who preferred to do without it should be free to put plays on and risk prosecution at law. Nothing was done because the opinion in Parliament at that time came down as it has done more than once later, in favour of preserving the safety of the theatre managers, and specifically the Society of Theatre Managers, commonly known as the West End theatre managers, who find de facto protection in this system.
For forty years thereafter there was no move in the theatre censorship situation until the presentation of the Levy Bill, in 1949, which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned in his opening speech in this debate. This would have done very much what the 1909 Committee recommended. It was for a voluntary censorship. The
1216
Bill introduced in that year received a Second Reading, but was not passed because a General Election came. It never met a definitive defeat at the hands of Parliament. During the nearly sixty years since the 1909 Committee first recommended a voluntary censorship, the situation developed in the way it did before.
If we take tally of the playwrights who have suffered either total ban or major excisions you find they include Tolstoy, Shaw, Ibsen, Granville Barker, Aristophanes and Sophocles themselves (the "business" in their plays has been subject to intervention by the Lord Chamberlain at different periods), Oscar Wilde, O'Neill, Maeterlinck, Shelley, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Samuel Beckett. John Osborne, Anouilh, Brieux, Pirandello, Schnitzler, Lilian Hellman, Hugh Ross-Williamson, and so on, I do not know whether your Lordships can remember any other playwrights—it is about the lot. Anybody who has had anything to say in the theatre has been crossed at one stage or another by the British Lord Chamberlain—I mean, by the different incumbents in the office. Let me assure your Lordships, as other noble Lords have done, that we are being rude about the office, and not about the holder of it, because he has been marked always by extreme courtesy, if not by logical and social justification.
The situation between the Lord Chamberlain and the playwrights came to a head in two cases in 1958. One was the Theatre Workshop case, concerning a play put on by Joan Littlewood, which contained a large element of improvisation. A sort of text was submitted to the Lord Chamberlain and was approved, so far as it went, and the actors improvised, as they always have under Joan Littlewood, because that is her purpose in the theatre. They departed from the text, and in the course of their improvisations they said and did certain things which incurred the displeasure of the representative of the Lord Chamberlain, who came to the theatre to see the play. A prosecution ensued before the East Ham magistrates. We have here a case in which something which appeared to the Lord Chamberlain of the day to be impermissible was sent for trial at law. Largely, I think, because my noble

1217
and learned friend the present Lord Chancellor was far-sighted enough to give his services for free—I do not think that this company could have paid for them—the company got off with a token fine, and Joan Littlewood and those associated with her have continued to be major ornaments in the British theatre.
The second case was that of Paul Slickey. I should like to give your Lordships a short extract from the correspondence between the Lord Chamberlain's office and the legal representative of the playwright, John Osborne. I quote, first of all, from a letter from the Lord Chamberlain's Office:
"Act 1, scene 2, omit the lines: They'll make it much too hot for us to tackle any crumpet '."
The answer from the playwright's legal representative was:
"With respect, the expression crumpet is now one in fairly universal use and can be construed as referring to ladies or girl friends, and not as appertaining to any particular part of the physical anatomy.'
Third movement—a letter from the Lord Chamberlain's Office:
"His Lordship cannot agree to the word ' crumpet being used."
Fourth movement—a letter from the playwright's lawyer to the Lord Chamberlain's office:
"Act 1, scene 2. With regard to this my client is prepared to substitute for the word 'crumpet', the word 'muffin '."
It is ridiculous, is it not?—and the very ridiculousness of the situation is perhaps a more potent element for change than emphasis on injustices or long-standing struggles of one sort or another.
After these cases, in 1958 there came into existence the Theatre Censorship Reform Committee, about which I should like to inform your Lordships. This Committee met many times over a year, mainly in my house, and among its members were the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the present Home Secretary, a wide spectrum of theatre people, and representatives of the League of Dramatists and Equity. Our first move was to communicate with the Lord Chamberlain in order to seek from him certain facts, not about his powers, which are there for all to read in the 1843 Act, hut about the way in which they were exercised, and to ask whether he would be prepared to meet
1218
this committee and discuss the functions of his office in order to help us to make more sensible proposals for reform. He answered our approach by saying that it would not be proper for him to enter into correspondence with any unofficial body. We were, therefore, deprived of that possible means of arriving at sensible solutions to the problems which were boiling up at that time.
So we got down to it, as best we could without help, and drafted a Bill which would have abolished the powers of the Lord Chamberlain over the theatre and placed nothing in their stead. When we looked at this a little, we were much impressed by the argument that this left the theatre manager too exposed, because in practice it has always turned out that the Lord Chamberlain's licence is a guarantee against prosecution. We were also impressed by the evidence from the United States, where the degree of audacity—otherwise stated, the degree of interest—in any production is conversely proportionate to the amount of money sunk in it, simply because one cannot afford to put on a big expensive show and send it to Boston, where it may be banned and prosecuted by local enthusiasm under State law. Anything of interest in the theatre has to be done cheaply in America. We did not want to reproduce that situation in this country.
We therefore started on a second draft Bill, which bore a remarkable resemblance to the 1909 Bill and the Levy Bill in 1949. It provided for a voluntary censorship—that is, a theatre manager or playwright could send his play to the Lord Chamberlain and get a licence, in which case he would be in the same position as he is to-day, or he could put on the play without the protection of a licence. Then we had a second part of the Bill, which proposed that no prosecution should be possible against a play without a licence except by permission of a Judge in Chambers.
At this point, the Lord Chamberlain made a public announcement that he would "liberalise" himself. He said that henceforth the mere presence of a male homosexual on the stage, or the fact that homosexuality was part of the topic or thread of a play, would not be sufficient reason for the withholding of a licence. At the same moment he licensed a certain

1219
number of plays which, though not dealing with homosexuality, dealt in a more explicit manner than usual with heterosexual matters. It seemed as if our committee had, de facto, had an effect on the situation. Therefore, we abandoned our intention to introduce a Bill and turned ourselves into a sort of watchdog committee to see how things developed. I have told your Lordships this story for two reasons—first of all, as an example of the sort of thing that happens, and, secondly, to say that I shall be more than ready to give the records of the committee's deliberations to whatever form of inquiry may be set up as a result of this debate.
Let me wind up by mentioning a popular fallacy and a logical impression, both of which seem to be false. The fallacy is that once a play has received the Lord Chamberlain's licence, under present law it is untouchable. This is not so. There is nothing in law, so far as I have been able to ascertain, which says that the play which enjoys the Lord Chamberlain's licence may not be prosecuted on grounds of obscenity or of libel or as being dangerous to public order, or on any other grounds whatever. The fact that plays which have such a licence are not prosecuted, interpreted in real social terms, means that the enthusiastic opinion which would like to prosecute that which offends it on the stage is held in check, shall we say, by the licence issued by the Lord Chamberlain's office. It need not be. It is not held in check by any legal provision whatever, simply by custom. But for myself I hope that, supposing we are to abolish theatre censorship, this enthusiasm for prosecution, which occurs largely in the Provinces, would be held in check by the custom which would develop, the custom being simply that writers should be allowed to write what they want, and actors should be allowed to act what they want—in
other words, the custom of freedom.
That brings me to my second point, which is that I very much hope that the first inquiry to be made by the Select Committee, or the Royal Commission, as it may be, will be what happens abroad—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to this aspect. At the time of the Theatre Censorship Reform Committee in 1958 we
1220
carried out a small inquiry into this matter, and among all the countries of the Free World about which we asked—which was most of them; or, at any rate, most of those that can claim what we are accustomed to call a culture—there was only one that we could find which had a pre-production censorship in the theatre. That was Spain. I think that most noble Lords will agree that this is not very good company to be in a matter of this sort.
Lastly, I should like to say a word about the question of theatre clubs. It has always seemed to me quite absurd that by the payment of 5s., the lapse of 48 hours and the inscription of my name on certain forms and lists I could become incorruptible. There are many thousands of British citizens who have been declared to be incorruptible by obscenity or seditious libel, or things of that sort, simply because they have paid 5s., have waited two days and signed their name. That is what the law says at the moment. This is another of the ridiculous situations which acts against the seriousness of the art we are discussing, and, as I think, the seriousness of our society as a whole. Obviously any inquiry which may be set in being will have to address itself to this manifest absurdity, along with all the others which are queueing up for attention. I should like, in conclusion, to agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said about the common experience: that once you get into this field it is difficult to decide what should happen. It is easy to decide what should not happen. The right answer is hard to find, as we discovered in the 1958 Committee. But I have every hope that, with the skilled secretarial assistance which any Committee of inquiry having Government support may expect, the time and effort that can be put on to it, and, above all, with the inquiries abroad, we may get at least to a reasonable solution, and one worthy of the traditions of freedom in this country.
6.53 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for raising this subject which has given rise to a most interesting debate, during the course of which the main tenor of the speeches seems to have been that it is high time that a committee was appointed to review

1221
the question of censorship in the theatre. It certainly is an incongruous situation that nowadays plays and films should be subject to censorship, while plays on television, books, newspapers and magazines are not subject to prior censorship, but only to the criminal law. At present, we have a situation—and, indeed, we have had it for many years—that a play when performed must be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. But that same play can be published as a book without any prior licence from anyone.
As has been said, the present powers of the Lord Chamberlain are defined by the Theatres Act 1843. The Lord Chamberlain is responsible to no Government Department, his decisions cannot be questioned in Parliament, and there is no appeal from them. He need not even give any reasons—although I believe, through his courtesy, he usually does—to the playwright concerned. As the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said so rightly in his interesting speech, the position of the Lord Chamberlain as head of the Sovereign's Household can also be an embarrassing one.
Another anomoly—and this is one of the most extraordinary of all—is that, although the Lord Chamberlain is a censor, he has no control over plays written before his appointment. This could include any Restoration play, many of which, if highly amusing, are very bawdy. So really he is not a censor in the full sense of the word; he is a kind of censor with a small "c", censoring modern literature.
If we consider hooks, we remember that the recent trend of the law is that a novel must now be judged as a whole. It is considered in the courts. It cannot be banned for isolated passages. Yet the stage censor can ban single sentences and isolated words, and quite often these are words that are common currency in real life. Even more objectionable, in my view, is the way the Lord Chamberlain's Office attempts to restrict comment on religion and politics, and even sometimes attempts to control opinion. This should not be its function. Recently the Royal Shakespeare Company put on a serious play about the war and the background of a public figure, who by then had been dead for several years. The licence to perform it was only granted if along with that another point of view was printed in the programme. Yet this same play can be
1222
purchased as a book without this proviso. What should we say if the Home Office threatened to prosecute a publisher for publishing a biography critical of a public figure, who was then dead, unless that publisher withdrew the book and added an appendix giving another point of view?
Like my noble friend Lord Willis, I am an abolitionist; but, unlike him, I am an abolitionist only in theory, and not in practice. I agree that if censorship was abolished, this would place a heavy onus on theatre management. They might risk prosecution on a costly show in which they had invested a great deal of money. I concede that censorship of a kind is a certain protection to them; and, indeed, if there was no censorship, quite apart from the licence that might be the result of it, I think it might be difficult for theatre management to get backers for plays where there was an element of risk. But I agree that the time has come when the matter should be reviewed and consideration should be given to whether this is a burden which should now be removed from the Lord Chamberlain's shoulders. Possibly there is a case for some kind of voluntary censorship on the lines of British Board of Film Censors which operates in the film industry. I know that one or two noble Lords have been opposed to this for various reasons, but, while respecting their views, I am not really persuaded that there is not some case for it.
Some people trace the decline in the British drama to censorship methods. I do not know whether this is a valid argument, but the knowledge that his play must first be submitted for a licence to the Lord Chamberlain's office can, I am told, have a most inhibiting effect on the playwright, who never knows whether what he is writing, either a word, a scene or a single sentence, will get through. It is high time that the present system was revised so that the British theatre can once again begin to flower. My Lords, we have liberated the printed word; let us now liberate the theatre.
7.1 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having enabled us in this House to discuss a matter of great public controversy. I believe that this is the kind of subject

1223
which your Lordships' House is particularly qualified to discuss, because we can do so without any fear of Party recriminations; and this has been a most subjective debate.
The great dramatist Henrik Ibsen wrote to his publisher, Hagel, after his play Ghosts had received a great deal of controversial notice, these words:
"Ghosts will probably cause some disquiet in certain circles, but if it were not to do so I should not have needed to write it."
I believe that a great many of our plays, both the modern plays and the older plays which have caused controversy, have been written because the author has had a message to convey. In many cases it is an important social message, and in my opinion such plays deserve to avoid the more drastic censorship which other plays most certainly need. My own experience of the theatre has been confined to amateur dramatics, first at school, and then, just before the end of the war, by appearing in two dramatic productions at the Ministry of Information. My father had a great friend at the Ministry who introduced me to the chairman of their dramatic society, who was rash enough to ask me to appear in two of their productions, which I did. I have always had a great interest in the theatre, especially in the repertory theatre, around which most of my brief comments will be centred.
The great difficulty about this subject is who should be the Censor if, as a result of this debate, the Lord Chamberlain was relieved of his post. I should like to join other noble Lords in paying a great tribute to Lords Chamberlain throughout the years for the patient and conscientious work which they have done in what is, after all, an unenviable job. I think we are fortunate in this country to have such public-spirited people, who I know show as much impartiality as they possibly can. I think the objection to Parliament undertaking this job is two fold: first, because Parliament is busy enough as it is, particularly another place, and, secondly, because it might well be that Members of another place, who represent constituencies which have religious or social problems, might find themselves in some difficulty as regards judgment if it became known that they allowed a play of a controversial nature to go on. I think this is a difficulty
1224
which must be faced. There are no doubt Members of your Lordships' House who have the time to devote to this business; but it is an onerous business, and it means seeing a great many plays every year and passing objective judgment upon them.
Therefore, my Lords, who should do the job? I have given this question much thought, and I have discussed it with friends in the theatrical profession. This may be a loaded matter, but I feel that the theatre itself could provide its own Censor. After all, the Press Council carries out this job for the Press. It is true that they are not liable to prosecution in the event of something going wrong, but as I understand it the law of libel applies. Dealing with the theatre, in my opinion representatives of the profession, which could include members from repertory companies, producers, and many other grades in the executive and in the acting spheres, could do this job. Possibly one experienced legal representative from the Lord Chancellor's Department could be briefed to advise them on legal matters. I wonder whether this is a suggestion which might be investigated. As I say, I am not professionally connected with the theatre, and therefore these are largely personal views as a suggested solution to what is undoubtedly a difficult problem.
My Lords, so far as the repertory theatres are concerned, of course no repertory theatre dare put on a really salacious, sex-ridden and sadistic production and hope not to be put out of business very soon. Here we have another real difficulty. Perhaps I may quote an example of a production put on at the Leatherhead Repertory Theatre, which is near my home, and of which I am a frequent patron. Miss Joan MacAlpine, one of our leading young theatrical authors, who has also worked in many other capacities, last year presented the first straight dramatic production of Tom Jones at the Leatherhead Theatre. I saw this production, and I was very impressed with it. In it there is a bedroom scene, where a couple are seen getting into bed. Being a club theatre, this was quite uncensored. When the play went to a theatre in Colchester, which is not a club theatre, the Lord Chamberlain insisted that this scene was altered, and it was agreed that a curtain should be put around the bed. The producer saw

1225
the Lord Chamberlain, who was extremely helpful, in an effort to get the original scene restored, and the Lord Chamberlain allowed this. The play is now on tour, possibly as a prelude to a West End run, and the original scene, as at the Leather-head Theatre, is now in evidence. I think this proves that the Lord Chamberlain is very accommodating and reasonable in matters which are submitted to him. But, at the same time, it shows up the present censorship problem.
If there is a decision to be made, in common with many other noble Lords I should rather keep to the present situation, which, with all its shortcomings, I think is the fairer one, rather than have Parliament, and still less the legal profession, taking on this job. I say this with no sense of denigration of either body, but I feel that both the law and both Houses of Parliament have quite enough to do, and I do not believe that they could carry out these vital duties with sufficient care. I end by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for allowing us to discuss this, and I am sure that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, are now eagerly awaited.
7.13 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to your Lordships' House, and to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in particular, for my absence during his speech and most of the earlier speeches, which I very much regret, but it was due to a public engagement I was not able to defer. I do hope I shall not rehearse too many of the points already dealt with, I am sure far more eloquently and effectively, by earlier speakers.
In principle, I agree that censorship is bad. After all, the freedom of expression in a society is really a test of its maturity. It is a test of the degree of tolerance that we are prepared to show, and in particular I think it involves the willingness to accept that other people are no more likely to be corrupted by public displays of which we disapprove than we are ourselves. Are we a mature society in this sense? I should very much like to think that we are, but I rather doubt it. I for one, would think that we cannot extend in the present state of our society an absolutely unfettered scope to public performances, because I think this would provoke such furious reactions in many
1226
quarters that things would be likely in the end to be rather worse, if not much worse, than they are at present.
So far as the drama is concerned, I think everybody responsible for putting on a play would feel himself subject to a great many pressure groups which unfortunately operate in this and similar matters, and it would soon become apparent that nobody would be prepared to take a serious commercial risk in putting on a show or play which might arouse the disapproval of what some of Her Majesty's Judiciary describe in other connections as "right-thinking people". Of course, with all respect to the present Lord Chamberlain, whose contribution to this debate I await, as I am sure we all do, with great interest, the position is a little absurd, that a court official whose function is mainly concerned with ceremonial should be given this task of censoring stage plays. It might indeed have been more logical to retain the services of his predecessor, the so-called Master of the Revels, who protected the Royal interest by licensing plays in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
But, for all this, I think it is reasonably clear that though no doubt there are instances where criticisms can be made—and we have heard some of these this afternoon—by and large the Lord Chamberlain does, at the present time, exercise his powers in a fairly reasonable and sensible way. It is quite true that some responsible critics, such as Mr. Tynan, apparently, would like a total freedom on the stage—apparently to have even sexual orgies performed there if this were the desire of particular authors. But for my part I am a little doubtful whether the public as a whole would be anxious to support this sort of view. Logically, of course, we might argue in favour of transferring the Lord Chamberlain's office to some body which is not hampered by the historical and other associations of the present Lord Chamberlain's office. But one cannot help wondering whether this would improve matters. After all, the present censorship has learned a good deal, and it might be quite a long time before another body would develop to a point even as liberal as the present system.
Is there a case for some kind of appeal from the Lord Chamberlain's decision?

1227
Of course, the criticism is rightly raised that these powers are despotic and that the Lord Chamberlain is not accountable to anybody, and naturally the legal mind thinks in terms of some system of appeal. But one cannot help wondering whether an appeal would be valuable, because first of all you have the difficulty of saying what criteria the appeal tribunal is to apply, and is there any reason to believe it would be any more liberal than the existing censorship? Be this as it may, however, the really vital point remains, I would think, that there are many advantages in being able to obtain a prior licence to perform. Provided this power is exercised reasonably, it provides protection, not only against unreasonable prosecutions, but against attacks of narrow-minded groups and individual Mother Grundies, and I think this is a point very much appreciated by theatre managers—and not by theatre managers only.
It is said that of course we have no power of censorship of books or newspapers, and, therefore, why should we have them with plays? But I should have thought, with respect, that there is a considerable difference between reading words in private and watching a public show. After all, some censorship has been found necessary in other public media, such as the films and television. The I.T.A. exercises a sort of censorship over the commercial television companies, and the B.B.C., as a public body, exercises its own form of censorship, albeit some people take the view that this is not always adequate. However, this is a point I need not discuss.
Some people argue, why not leave it to the courts? If it is a criminal case, let there be a prosecution; and if it is not criminal, then there ought to be no restriction. I am rather doubtful whether, if the law were changed in this sense, those who argue in favour of the change would be satisfied. Neither courts nor prosecutors have shown themselves to be outstandingly liberal in their approach to such matters as obscenity, and in non-criminal matters such as anti-religious plays or matters of this kind, private unregulated censors, or possibly theatre managers themselves, would, I should have thought, soon impose a much more rigorous pruning of such
1228
plays than the relatively mild régime that we have with the present Lord Chamberlain.
But—and here I come to what I think is the really important point—that is not the whole issue. Surely, in a free society there is a case for saying that if an author wishes to assert his right to "publish and be damned", as the phrase goes, within the limits of the criminal law, and the limits which the law of defamation permits, then he ought to be entitled to do so. In this respect I think that there is a case in principle for an alternative system, one which allows, on the one hand, prior licensing which is to confer immunity, at any rate so far as the criminal law is concerned; or alternatively, a system of publishing without licence, where the author and the producer are exposed, at their own risk, to the tender mercies of prosecutors and Mother Grundies and all the other pressures to which they may be subject.
I would also suggest that the principle of freedom of expression is so important that it ought not to be left to any private individual, or any public or local authority, to launch a prosecution at will. I think that this could lead to unfair harassment of authors, as well as to a good deal of intimidation. There ought to be safeguards. Of course there may be arguments as to what safeguards should be provided. Some have argued in favour of getting the prior leave of a Judge in Chambers. With all respect to those who put forward that suggestion—and of course one entirely accepts the fact that on this, as on other matters, Judges would be completely impartial—one must accept the fact that, in a case of this kind, Judges may vary enormously in their view as to what is a proper limit of tolerance. For this reason I should have thought that this kind of safeguard would not be appropriate.
For my part, I should prefer a safeguard in the form of some committee (this is, on the footing of authorising prosecutions) set up, perhaps, by the Home Office, with a legal chairman and a number of members drawn from spheres of activity, such as drama and literature and education, of which they could be assumed to have some expert knowledge. I would have a system where no prosecution could be launched unless such a body

1229
held that it was in the public interest for a prosecution to take place. I would also submit that there is a strong case for not allowing local authorities to exercise a form of censorship under the guise of regulations which are designed to enable them to protect the safety and health of theatre audiences, which is an entirely different matter.
To introduce a scheme of this king would be an experiment in the exercise of an important freedom, which I think must be cherished in a society such as ours. The world of literature and drama, which, after all, is entitled to serious consideration, would, I think, regard this as an important advance in principle, and I should have thought that the time has come when we can safely concede this advance. It may be that the difference in practice will not be great; but I believe that anything that encourages greater tolerance and freedom of expression in our society, and does not involve any manifest threat to the social order, is deserving of the support of this House, which has recently shown so much good will towards other forms of tolerance. As your Lordships know, a Select Committee of both Houses in 1909 recommended a similar optional system to the one to which I have just referred. It is perhaps not too encouraging that no progress has been made on this suggestion in the ensuing 57 years. Surely the time has come to institute a fresh inquiry into the whole question. I therefore warmly welcome the proposed reference to a Joint Committee, and I can only hope that its deliberations may be more productive of results than those of its predecessors.
7.27 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, it is the normal convention of this House that the Lord Chamberlain does not intervene in any debate which may be controversial. The Lord Chamberlain's duties in matters concerning the theatre were, however, laid down by Parliament in the Theatres Act 1843. They are wholly separate and distinct from his duties as head of the Sovereign's Household. As this debate is solely concerned with the theatre, I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is proper for me to take part.
Naturally, I have listened to the debate with the greatest interest. In particular I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating the debate,
1230
and also for his kindly references to the Lord Chamberlain's office and to myself. As a humble member of his college, may I congratulate the Provost on a balanced and thorough speech, I hope later on to cover some of the points which he raised, but here I should just like to add one note to his historical survey. On May 31, 1832, towards the end of the melancholy hundred years to which the noble Lord referred, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the laws affecting dramatic literature. Its Report, in 1832, did the spadework for the Act of 1843—an interval between Select Committee and legislation of 11 years— absit omen ! Your Lordships will understand that it is of some personal interest to me that the chairman of that Select Committee in 1832 was my wife's great grandfather, Edward Bulwer-Lytton.
I must also thank the many noble Lords who have expressed the view that the Lord Chamberlain's office does a reasonably good job in fairly difficult conditions. From the kind remarks that have been made around the House about my predecessor and myself, I begin to feel like (I think the current phrase is) anti-hero. If it is not out of place I should like, as a comparatively new incumbent, to pay my own tribute to the staff of the office. When I took over these responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, who made such a helpful contribution earlier to-day, I was greatly impressed not only by their knowledge and experience, but also by their very genuine feeling and concern for the theatre. In so controversial a business one might have expected to find an atmosphere of strain and animosity. On the contrary, I found an atmosphere of easy personal contacts, of sympathetic understanding and, despite an occasional and inevitable clash, of sensible and practical give-and-take.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will, of course, be stating the Government's views on the matters of policy which have been raised. It may, however, be convenient if I deal with one or two points which have been raised about the present censorship administration, since the responsibility for this administration lies, under the Act of 1843, with the Lord Chamberlain and not with any other Department of State. I do not wish to

1231
take up your Lordships' time with too many details of fact or practice. I set them out at considerable length in an interview published by the Sunday Times on April 11, 1955, copies of which are available in the Lord Chamberlain's office if any noble Lord would care to have one.
I must first join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on two small points. Despite one or two much publicised incidents a year or so ago, I do not think that the facts actually support the suggestion that the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare are, to quote his words, "most hampered by the censorship regulation". Certainly nobody admires their work more than I do—and I seem to have done a little better for them than the British Council lately. Secondly, as I think any commercial theatre manager would agree, the recent revival of drawing-room comedy, as the noble Lord put it, of "the language and wit of Wilde, Maugham or Coward" is due to box office considerations and not to the action of my Department. If the noble Lord thinks that we impose the language of gentility and prevent racy and vigorous language (which, in his words, is often in more general use in this House) he cannot have read and seen as many plays as I have in the past three years.
If I might presume to correct the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (I do not know whether it is in order to do so), he made a point which I know is often made, that serious plays got worse treatment than humorous and comic plays. He instanced homosexual treatment in a serious play and in a music-hall. I must say that the music-hall would lie outside my responsibility, and therefore the Question would not arise. I know that that is a complaint that is often made. It is a point we try to take into consideration, but it is frequently a very difficult one. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, is not now in his place. I was going to thank him for what he said. But, at the same time, I would say that there is some importance—and Perhaps I may stress this—in the phrase he quoted and disputed, that I said that a Lord Chamberlain likes to see himself more as a licensing authority than as a censoring authority. I believe that it is his licensing functions which give the theatre so much
1232
certainty and protection and on which so much stress has been laid to-day. They are at least as important as his censoring functions and it has always been my objective, and I know it has been that of my predecessors, to license where possible and only to censor where one has to.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans spoke about religious matters, and I shall be touching upon some of them a little later in my speech. May I now say a word at this stage about the play A Man Dies? I found this a particularly difficult case since I have never doubted that it is a reverent and sincere play, and could be helpful to a modern audience. The trouble is that, once representation of Christ on the stage is allowed, it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line. Furthermore, as the right reverend Prelate agreed, even with the same script, what is reverent and sincere in one production can become the reverse in another—and once a script is licensed it is difficult to control exactly where it is going to be produced. I accept that this is a problem which needs to be looked at again. I shall shortly be receiving a deputation from the Religious Drama Society to discuss this subject, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate or one of his colleagues may be on the delegation.
I come to the very forceful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I say at once that I agree with a great deal of what he said. I thought that he was absolutely right in saying that without the censorship which exists at present, particularly in matters of obscenity, things would be far more restrictive than they are to-day. He said that he could think of two or three plays which would not be running in the West End to-day if they had not had a licence from the Lord Chamberlain. I think that I could multiply that number by two or possibly three.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, mentioned the question of differential licences and of trying to explain what plays were suitable to certain types of theatre-goers and what plays were unsuitable. I think that he slightly deprecated the practice. I am hound to say that I think that it would give some help to theatre-goers if some managements—and some are doing it—were in general terms to suggest of a play, "This play is not suitable

1233
for general audiences", or something of that sort. That would seem to me to be a helpful line of argument. I agree with Lord Birkett in his suspicion of a proliferation of committees of experts. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a very robust speech and I shall be covering one or two of the points which he raised as I go along.
If I may comment on Lord Strabolgi's speech, he referred to the decline in the British theatre and suggested that the decline was in some way due to the action of successive Lords Chamberlain. If I could think that the Lord Chamberlain was responsible for the present state of the British theatre, I should be proud. I do not regard it as being in decline: I regard it as being at an extremely high level at the moment.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Goodman, both had something to say about the play A Patriot for Me. I accept the force of the points made by Lord Goodman about foreign reactions. They are important, and I hope that they were duly taken into consideration. But there it is, the decision is mine and I have to decide. I can only say that I was very grateful to the noble Lord for taking up the matter with me, and we gave full attention to the points he put forward. It is perhaps a little misleading to say, as was said here and there at the time, that this play was banned. The facts are as follows.
In August, 1964, a script was submitted, without a production date but with a request for my reactions. A reply was sent to the effect that I felt unable to license the script without some modifications, particularly as regards two scenes. Discussions were then held between my officers and the producers, but we were eventually informed that the author did not wish to consider making any alterations, and that it had been decided to offer the play, unlicensed, to members of the English Stage Society. Subsequent to this production an approach was made to my office for reconsideration, with a view to the grant of a licence. Further correspondence took place, and it was left that the producers would discuss with the author whether any revised script could he submitted to deal with the points at issue, about which I still felt difficulty. There the matter remains. As always, we are very ready
1234
to consider any suggestions, and my objective is always to reach a position in which I feel that I can properly issue a licence.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in this interesting speech, but I think that, in fairness to the author, it ought to be said that those changes, as I understand, involved the removal of at least one complete scene, apart from other very material changes. It was not a question of a young man being difficult about a few textual changes. This being said in public, I thought it right to make that observation.
LORD COBBOLD: I entirely agree with that, my Lords. I hope that I did not make any contrary suggestion.
In this debate, there are two main questions: should there be a theatre censorship; and, if so, who should do it? I will deal, if I may, with the second question first. As many noble Lords have said, there are practical advantages in the present set-up. Theatre managements get quick answers, and when they have got them they know where they are. Whatever his other defects, the Lord Chamberlain, by virtue of his office, is independent and has ready access to advice in any quarter. In retrospect, I feel myself that Parliament was wise, in considering these matters from time to time up till 1909, to leave things as they were as a practical and efficient, even if increasingly anomalous, arrangement. Even to-day, if I may say so, I think that the Lord Chamberlain's office gives an efficient service to the theatre and to the Public—incidentally, at very little cost.
To avoid any risk of possible misunderstanding from what I have to say later on, I should perhaps make one thing clear at this stage. So long as the present Act remains on the Statute Book, whatever may be the outcome of this debate and of deliberations in the next few months, I shall see it as my duty to Parliament to do my best both to administer the Act and to see that it is enforced. But many things have moved since 1909, and I cordially agree with those speakers who have urged that it is time for a new look. I see three main reasons for this.
First, and I think most compelling, is the development of films, broadcasting and television, and, more particularly, the

1235
increasing scope of drama in those media. It is true that different considerations apply to each medium, and that it would not be desirable or practicable to have a uniform code of censorship for them all. But, equally, it seems to me absurd that theatre censorship should now be in a completely separate compartment. Most people, as I go about the world, seem to think that I am responsible for films as well. When I tell them that I am concerned only with such plays, and that films, broadcasting and television are dealt with quite separately, I find it no easier to explain to them than to myself the logic of this arrangement.
Secondly, I personally agree with the criticism often heard, and mentioned today, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that it is not in line with present-day thinking that these powers and responsibilities should be entrusted to any one individual without any form of policy supervision or any provision for appeal. Thirdly, there is the association of the censorship with the Crown. The link between the Court and the theatre goes back over several centuries to the days of the Lord Chamberlain's Players, but of recent years it has, I think, been bedevilled by the much-publicised controversy over censorship. I doubt whether it is wise nowadays, even if the two functions are generally recognised to be separate, that the person who for the time being is head of the Queen's Household should also bear these responsibilities.
Any censor, particularly a censor of plays is a natural target for criticism. If he can be portrayed as a dyed-in-the-wool old courtier, it all adds to the fun. I daresay, too, that it adds to the publicity and market value of the more abusive form of criticism. But abusive articles are the exception, and they tend, I think, to defeat their own ends. The bulk of recent comment in the Press has been fair and constructive, and, as has been said many times during this debate, criticism that we are too restrictive is balanced all the time by a stream of complaints, which have little publicity value and do not often see the light of day, that we are too lax. But whether criticism is sensible or silly, whether it comes from the Social Morality Council or from the avant-garde theatre, I do not feel it a
1236
happy arrangement that it should come so close to the Crown.
I conclude on a balance of arguments, that if theatre censorship is to be maintained it would be more appropriately dealt with in some other way. In saying this, I should not like to leave the House with any impression that I find this task personally distasteful. On the contrary, it is interesting and extremely enjoyable, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, will agree. One meets a number of very attractive people, one sees a great deal of theatre, and one is very well served. The difficulties and the occasional tiresomenesses have many compensations.
I turn to the other main question: should some form of theatre censorship continue, or should it be abolished? Here I do not presume to express any, as it were, official opinion as Lord Chamberlain. I speak only as an individual who has given a good deal of thought to the subject over the past three years, and who has discussed it with many people in many walks of life. The big question is obvious enough: what is the object of censorship? Broadly, through the centuries, the answer must be to prevent offence being given. Originally, when the censorship was exercised under the Royal Prerogative, it was, presumably, to protect the Court from offence. Later, when Walpole brought the question to another place, it was to protect the political figures of the time. To-day the basic philosophy, at any rate as I see it, still centres on the conception of preventing offence to individuals, to sections of the community or to the community at large.
I do not see myself as an arbiter of taste or morals on the stage. Public opinion on these matters is not static, and my objective is to move, as the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, said was his objective in his time, with the mood of the times and to keep as near as possible to the centre of public opinion. The 1843 Act referred to:
"Preservation of Good Manners, Decorum, or of the public Peace"
which leaves the field pretty wide. Otherwise, the only form of guidance I have is contained in the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1909. I think it is worth while quoting these recommendations in full. They were that plays

1237
should be licensed unless they were judged:

" (a) To be indecent;

(b) To contain offensive personalities;

(c) To represent on the stage a living person, or any person within fifty years of his death;

(d) To do violence to the sentiment of religious reverence;

(e) To conduce to crime or vice;

(f) To be calculated to impair friendly relations with any Foreign Power; or

(g) To be calculated to cause a breach of the peace."

These recommendations—all of which, my Lords, are concerned with offence to the community or to individuals—are over fifty years old, and they were never endorsed by Parliament. But in exercising our personal judgment, as the law requires us to do, my recent predecessors and I have kept them in our minds. We have sought to interpret them in the light of changing climates of opinion and of any advice on particular subjects or particular plays which it has seemed appropriate to take.
My Lords, I took on this office with an open mind, and with the sort of vague general suspicion of censorship which is probably shared by most of your Lordships. After three years I have come to the conclusion that, at any rate for the immediate future, some form of theatre censorship should be maintained. If there were only the question of obscenity, I should be inclined to take the risk of abolishing censorship, to let things find their own level and to leave managements to decide how far they could go without inviting prosecution. So far as obscenity goes, I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am much more concerned about some other things, particularly violence, religious questions and the offensive treatment of personalities.
In the present state of public opinion I do not think it would be generally acceptable, or indeed in the best interests of the theatre, that extreme violence, sadism and the more horrific types of crime should be allowed on the stage. To me—and, as I say, I am expressing only a personal opinion—one can acceptably go some way further in these directions on the screen. In the theatre, with its more human and direct relationship between player and audience, the limit of acceptability is reached a good
1238
deal sooner, Similarly, I believe that public opinion as a whole would not at the present time favour complete freedom in the treatment of Christianity on the stage, or offensive representation of living personalities, from the Royal Family and foreign Heads of State downwards.
If that judgment is correct, the idea of an optional censorship, under which plays could be, but need not be, submitted which at first sight is attractive and offers to theatre managements some of the protection which they now enjoy, is not the right answer. Too much offence would have been given while the processes of law were being invoked, and in many cases it might not be convenient or possible to invoke them. With respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not myself believe that it would be an adequate solution to abandon pre-censorship of these matters and to leave them to be dealt with entirely by the law.
For the future, there are, of course, various possibilities. The line of thought which attracts me most at the moment (I put it no higher than that) is the setting up of some independent body, on lines somewhat similar to the Board of Film Censors, preferably working in close conjunction with them—although I fully accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that precisely the same hat would not fit both heads. I entirely agree, it is scarcely necessary to say, with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that any body of this sort should be entirely independent of Government. But it would certainly need a great deal of independent authority and would need to have complete Government blessing and support. I should also like to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough: that the new body should be in a position to give simple and certain decisions for the benefit of the theatre.
But, my Lords, it is not the purpose of this debate to examine the merits and demerits of possible alternatives. That will be the task of the Select Committee if this Motion is accepted. For the reasons which I have given, I should welcome a new look at this problem, and I hope that the House will accept the noble Lord's Motion. If it does so, I trust that the Select Committee, or

1239
whatever other form of Committee may be appointed (it may be a Royal Cornmission, or a body of any other form: I express no view on the merits of one as against the other), even if its terms of reference are limited to the theatre, will continuously bear in mind the relevance of cinema, broadcasting and television. I do not believe that the problem of theatre censorship can sensibly be examined to-day in a narrow context. Finally, may I express the hope that the question will be dealt with, as it has been to-day, as a non-Party matter, and will be handled as speedily as possible? I can assure the House that the resources and experience of my department will be fully at the disposal of a Select Committee—and, indeed, of any body which may subsequently be charged with any of these responsibilities.
7.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, at the end of a long debate, and as the last speaker, I feel, in terms of the theatre, somewhat like the boy who stood on the burning deck when almost all but he had fled; and, again in terms of the theatre, some of the players appear to have been killed off in the second act, and have no doubt retired to the green room. But if so, my Lords, they have missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, which has been extremely enlightening and has greatly eased my own problems.
I should like to join in the general chorus of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this most interesting and important debate—a debate which could have been staged only in your Lordships' House. For speakers have included the present and immediate past holder of the office of Lord Chancellor; the present and immediate past holders of the office of Lord Chamberlain; the Chairman of the Arts Council; the President of the British Board of Film Censors (whom we were all glad to hear contributing a notable maiden speech—and we hope to hear him, as I am sure we shall. on many more occasions on many subjects), and a noble playwright who frequently entertains one of the largest mass audiences in the country. To me, the most remarkable thing is that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate appear to have combined in saying
1240
to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold—and, indeed, they have said it with a degree of delicacy unimaginable elsewhere—"We do not like what you do, but we admire the way you are doing it ". They have also said, "There is a job to be done: we do not agree precisely what job, but we do agree it is not your job". I think that is a not unreasonable summary of the general views that have been expressed.
My Lords, I think it would be not unfair to say that, in recent months, your Lordships' House has established a tradition of giving the nation a lead in dealing with difficult questions involving morality and the liberty of the subject which, for various reasons, no doubt including the pressure of business, have received little attention in another place. We have had a lead in your Lordships' House, which is being followed elsewhere, with regard to homosexuals; we are at present in the midst of dealing with the subject of abortion; and I understand, through the "grape-vine", that my noble friend Lord Willis will soon be asking us to initiate what he regards as necessary reforms with regard to Sunday Observance—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: A very unhappy conjunction.
LORD STONHAM: Then to-day we have been asked to take the first step towards reviewing what most of us regard as an archaic anomaly which has been left undisturbed for more than a century. I think that Lord Annan's speech illustrated just how your Lordships' House is acquiring a reputation for radical thinking, because his attack on the anomalies was incisive without being provocative, and he generously recognised the difficulties of creating a better system—and I am glad to echo his tribute, and that of others, to the work of the Lord Chamberlain and his staff.
My Lords, it is nearly sixty years since the last review of the law on this subject. The Select Committee of 1909, which has been mentioned many times in this debate, made recommendations for change which were not found acceptable and therefore the present system of censorship is still based on the Theatres Act 1843 which was itself an extension of previous Statutes and of practice reaching as far back as the early years

1241
of the 17th century. The persistence of the present system of censorship is in itself a remarkable fact. It can be ascribed to a number of causes; but one at least, I suggest, is that it has always been a good deal easier to point to the anachronisms and anomalies of the present system than to suggest what exactly, if anything, should replace it. As Lord Annan admitted in his speech, he has canvassed many opinions but has found that the sole issue on which there is general agreement is that the present arrangements should be changed. This has been borne out by the debate. By implication this indicates that the arrangements have not worked as badly as has sometimes been suggested.
All this is, I am sure, a tribute to good sense of successive holders of this great office; not least the present holder and his immediate predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, who made such a helpful contribution to our debate this afternoon. They have together, not only in this debate but over the last thirteen years, when between them they held this office, destroyed the conception, if it ever existed, of the Lord Chamberlain as Terence Rattigan's Aunt Edna, in a coronet and pin-stripe trousers; but they gave some ground for the view of the head of the Royal Household in the position of a universal Aunt Sally. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said at the conclusion of his speech: this is not a position to be desired. Nevertheless, one is bound to agree with the view expressed by Lord Cobbold that, when the system is isolated and looked at independently of the background of practice and experience, it does appear extraordinary, and perhaps unwise, that in this day censorship should still be exercised by a single individual, and he still (as in Renaissance times) the head of the Royal Household.
Clearly, it is time for the system to be re-examined. As Lord Cobbold put it, it is time for a new look. In taking that new look we have to take into account, for the purposes of comparison, the different arrangements applying to films, broadcasting and television. These new media, unknown to the Committee of 1909, have added to the arguments then canvassed concerning freedom of expression, the anomaly of maintaining an archaic system for the theatre, while related art forms are free to develop in no
1242
inhibited manner. But although the arrangements made for these other media may be relevant for the purposes of comparison to the problem presented by stage plays I do not agree that they also should be made subject to formal review. A uniform system of censorship for these different media would be neither desirable nor practicable.
It has been suggested outside this House that there should be some kind of public body to supervise the programmes provided by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and that the Inquiry suggested by Lord Annan should be extended to cover television. There are two broad objections to this: the constitutional and the practical. The constitutional objection is that broadcasting is conducted as a public service by two public corporations: the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. It is to the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. and the Chairman and members of the authority, that Parliament has entrusted the conduct of the television services; and it is in them that Parliament has consciously vested full responsibility for the content of the programmes they broadcast. Within this general responsibility, both broadcasting authorities are under certain more particular obligations. Thus, they have a duty to satisfy themselves that, so far as possible, their programmes shall not offend against good taste or decency, or be likely to encourage crime or disorder, or be offensive to the public feeling. These are matters not of fact but of taste and opinion—and especially of taste and opinion as it develops.
Certainly, mistakes are made. Many people think a recent television programme on the police was one of them; but in the presentation of matters of taste and opinion, there is bound to be criticism—unless programmes are to be such as will offend no one, and presumably interest very few. If we want lively and enterprising television, ready to experiment and to explore new areas of experience, then we must recognise that some viewers will be disturbed, and some annoyed. This is not to say that the two corporations, as trustees for the national interest in broadcasting, can be careless of people's feelings and attitudes. Rather, it is to say that they have positive responsibilities to make the most worthwhile use of the medium entrusted to them, as well as the negative ones of restraint and censorship, if I may

1243
speak as a consumer rather than as a Minister, I consider the standard of broadcasting in this country to be generally of the highest quality. It is certainly the envy of most of the rest of the world. We all sometimes see programmes which annoy, infuriate, or offend us. But we can exercise our own form of censorship, which consists of turning off the set.
The second objection to censoring material for broadcasting is a practical one—the sheer volume of the material would create difficulties and in particular, a great deal of it is unscripted and must be uncensored. For example, Mr. Kenneth Tynan's four-letter word could not have been prevented by censorship. For this practical reason, the more effective way to secure proper standards to make those responsible for producing the broadcasts responsible for the maintenance of standards in every sense of that word.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, covered the question of film censorship very thoroughly, and I do not think I need say any more; but we would all support his view that generally it works very well, despite the anomalies. It is a body set up and paid for by the trade; yet it has complete independence in its decisions. But, apart from the wisdom of its decisions, this may well be because of the additional safeguard that the local authorities who license cinemas can and do permit public exhibitions of films for which the Board has refused to grant a licence. Indeed, in my own recollection, as to the only film of which I have had personal knowledge of a licence being refused by the board (mistakenly, I thought, because it was a film which deliberately set out, by exposing vice, to tell a moral story), the view I then held was supported by some 100 local authorities who licensed it for exhibition. But it is a safety valve.
Certainly there has been little or no pressure for a change in the present system with regard to films, which appears to command our general support. Occasionally the Home Office receives complaints about the Board's decisions on individual films, but almost always that the Board has been too lax. The total number of complaints received over the last two years is about a dozen, which gives the idea of a fairly satisfactory pro-
1244
cedure. I note the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, nevertheless, that this method of censorship is not wholly suitable for the theatre. It is the archaic structure of the system of censorship which principally distinguishes it from others and suggests that an inquiry would be useful. I hope I have shown that it is neither necessary nor profitable to tie consideration of theatre censorship too closely to the consideration of other art forms. If we attempt to deal with the whole subject at once it will be 1909 all over again—a lot of talk and very little "do".
The basic problem in the theatre, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made so clear, and as my noble friend Lord Willis robustly emphasised, is the problem of freedom of speech, one of the most cherished liberties, and Parliament takes its responsibilities for safeguarding this liberty very seriously.
What emerges also is that there is a wide divergence of opinion both on what, if anything, is wrong, and on what should be done about it. During the debate suggestions have ranged from tightening up the existing controls through a variety of suggested modifications to proposals for the total abolition of control, which came from my noble friend Lord Willis, the noble Marquess, Lord Hertford, and others. Because of all these different views within the consensus of opinion that the time has come to take a new look at this, the Government accept that there should be a review of the law and practice relating the censorship of stage plays. The next question is what form that review should take. In the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, we are invited to agree to the setting up of a Joint Select Committee of members of both Houses of Parliament. The alternative would be a Committee on which experts could serve, with perhaps in addition representatives of your Lordships or of another place.
Bernard Shaw had some hard things to say about Select Committees in general, and about the 1909 Committee in particular, but as he himself once wrote:
"People must not be forced to adopt me as their favourite author."
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, advocated a Committee of persons from outside Parliament and stated what he regarded as the advantages,

1245
thinking that it might develop into a form of Royal Commission. He emphasised that there is nothing of Party politics in this question—and I entirely agree—and he was supported by my noble friend Lord Goodman.
Nevertheless in our view this is not a question for specialists and experts. Obviously, there is no shortage of noble Lords and Members of another place with knowledge and experience of the problems of the theatre. But the difficulties of the problem lie in neither legal nor administrative complexities, and it is not just a question of literary appreciation. The Committee will not be sitting in judgment on particular plays but deciding whether there should by a system of theatre censorship and, if so, by whom it shall be carried out. The crux of the problem, therefore, is a question of values—a combination of conscience and common sense. I do not claim that we or, for that matter, the Members of another place have a monopoly of conscience or common sense, but appreciation of the one and use of the other are basically what we and they are here for—to see that the right thing is done in a sensible way.
The noble Lord's proposal for the appointment of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses to undertake the proposed review has received the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, of the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, and of the majority of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It also commends itself to Her Majesty's Government. I therefor invite the House to accept the Motion. I am advised that by so doing we shall be taking the first formal step in the setting up of the proposed Select Committee, so ensuring that there is no undue delay in embarking on the review which we all believe to be urgently needed. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in wishing the members of the Committee, when they are appointed, well in their deliberations.
8.15 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very much for his most gracious answer to the question I put. It is a great relief to me to hear that the Government will back the idea to set up a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I hope that what the noble Lord said may have done something to allay any
1246
doubts which noble Lords have had on the wisdom of a Joint Select Committee being the means of dealing with this problem. I can only try to persuade the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who I see shaking his head, by saying that it is surely a proposal which Members of your Lordships House could be said ex officio to be incompetent to deal with.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would give way for one moment, I did not suggest that any noble Lord would be incompetent to do anything or, indeed, that any Member of another place would be. But I have some experience of the operation of Joint Select Committees, and while I recognise the good work they can do, I should have thought that here there is room first for an inquiry, independent of Parliament, by people who could report to Parliament; then if need be a Joint Select Committee might serve.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept that suggestion. It seems to me to be another instance of the noble and learned Viscount's great ability to produce delaying tactics where a matter of reform is concerned.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord really should not say that. If he had listened to my speech he would have heard that I am in favour of a review. I supported him. I do not wish to delay, but I wish to get a really workable reform and it was to that end that I made this suggestion. I rather resent the noble Lord suggesting that I wished to delay something which I advocated.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am not entirely prepared to withdraw what I have just said. Although, of course, the noble and learned Viscount said he was in favour of reviewing this matter, I did detect more reluctance on his part than on the part of some other noble Lords, precisely in the way I have suggested.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, there was no reluctance on my part. If he thought that was intended or if he got that impression, I can only assure the noble Lord that he is entirely wrong. I thought I made it clear—as he can see if he looks at Hansard—that I support his Motion. I said clearly in terms but I had my doubt about whether this was the appropriate body. The noble Lord should not seek to represent that I am

1247
seeking delay by suggesting an independent Committee for a reform which I had supported.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and of course I unreservedly accept that that was not his intention.
At this late hour I certainly should not be doing what your Lordships wished by answering every individual Member of the House who has so kindly taken part in this debate. I can only express my gratitude to those who have spoken and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for a notable maiden speech, to which he brought not only the long experience of speaking in another place, but also the wisdom and distinction of mind which we associate with his mission to Washington from which he has recently returned. I should wish to say words of thanks to many noble Lords, but perhaps I may single out the brilliant and fascinating paradoxical speech, in some ways, of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who has obviously given great thought to these problems.
In particular, I should wish to refer to the Lord Chamberlain and his predecessor, and to assure the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that the only thing that I in any way regretted in his speech was his obvious feeling that in some cases he had to give an explanation to the House of certain decisions that he had taken. I am sure it was not in the minds of any of your Lordships to question decisions which he had taken on a personal basis. Those decisions, of course, arose from the 1843 Act and the way it was interpreted

TABLE A

INTEVAL (IN WEEKS) BETWEEN ISSUE OF SUMMONS AND HEARING IN INNER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 1965

Court

Dangerous, Careless Driving

Long Cases

Other Police Informations

Public Authority Informations

Domestic Cases

Other Private Informations and Complaints

Balham

5

3

5

5

6

6

Bow Street

6

6

6

6–8

8

5–6

Clerkenwell

5–6

1–4

4

4

4

3–4

Greenwich

7–8

4–5

8–9

3–4

3–4

3–4

Hampstead

4

4

3–4

3–4

3

3

Lambeth

2

2

2

4

4

1–2

Marlborough Street

4

2

4

4

3

3

Marylebone

6

3–4

3–4

6

5

6

North London

11

5

9

—

4

3

Old Street

6

5

6

4–5

7

4

South Western

5

2

3½

4

4–5

5½

Thames

8

2–3

7

7

6

9

Tower Bridge

5–6

5–6

4–5

5–6

3–4

4

West London

4

2

5

4–5

6

5–6

Woolwich

6

5–6

5

4

4

4

in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1909, I hope the noble Lord recognises the affection which many of us feel for him personally, and our appreciation of the difficulties that he faces in his job.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.

  PROCEEDINGS IN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  PROCEEDINGS IN METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES' COURTS
  APPEALS TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  APPEALS TO COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  SPEED LIMITS AND ACCIDENT RATES
  SPEED LIMITS AND ACCIDENT RATES