Sitting of 20 June 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL AND STOURBRIDGE) BILL
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Derelict Land (Reclamation)
    Mr. Arthur Pearsonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what schemes submitted by local councils have been approved through the Derelict Land Unit of the Welsh Office; what is the total acreage of and at present being reclaimed; and if he will give examples of what are the intended uses of such land.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): Since the Derelict Land Unit was set up in November, 1966, 27 schemes for the reclamation of some 600 acres of derelict land have been approved. About half of this land has now been reclaimed for such purposes as
    1280
    industry, housing, public open space and car parks; work is in progress on the remaining 300 acres. In addition, 65 schemes are currently being considered.
    Mr. Pearson: Is my hon. Friend aware that expectations of the final results of clearance are high, and that it should be a proud achievement? Can he assure the House that the additional schemes will be encouraged?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I think we can claim a good deal of success already. The Unit has accomplished a great deal in a short period of time.

    Council for Wales
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, since the fact that only two women have been appointed to the 38 strong Council for Wales is an inadequate recognition of the contribution made by women to life in the Principality, he will increase their representation.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): My right hon. Friend made appointments to the Council on the basis of merit, not sex.
    Mr. Anderson: In this matter my hon. Friend is the exception that proves the rule. Does she not agree that this puny proportion in Human Rights Year, the year, too, of the anniversary of women's suffrage, is a very poor reflection on Welsh womanhood? Will she try to ensure that this type of attitude is not repeated in the future?
    Mrs. White: The two distinguished women who were appointed to the Council represent interests which are of special importance in relation to the work which the Council is expected to perform. Having myself been a "statutory" woman, I deprecate appointing members of councils simply because they happen to be women. There will be further opportunities to appoint members to the panels of the main Council.
    Mr. E. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ensure that information provided for and obtained by the Council of Wales will be available to right hon. and hon. Members of this House.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): It is not the normal

    1281
    practice to supply to hon. and right hon. Members information provided for, and obtained by, advisory bodies.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Minister of Technology, speaking at the annual conference of the Welsh Council of Labour, when he called for greater openness and less secrecy in government? Should not Wales set an example in this by ensuring that advisory bodies to the Government, such as the Council, should not be secretive, leaving hon. Members of this House in the dark?
    Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend said a lot of things at Llandudno. On this point I would say that information obtained in confidence, on that basis, must be kept confidential. If there is any other information which my hon. Friend or any other Member would like, the Welsh Office is eager to help, as is the Welsh Council.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the first part of his hon. Friend's suggestion, about information provided for the Council of Wales? Would he bear in mind that it can be of interest to English Members as well as Welsh Members in trying, for example, to follow Welsh education?
    Mr. Thomas: I am eager for the maximum amount of information to be made available. Of course, I will look at what my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said.
    Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense value of the deliberations of the Welsh Council to Members of this House? Will he bear in mind that reports of the Economic Council have often ultimately fallen into the hands of Members of this House? Would he agree that there seems to be no earthly reason why they should not have been placed there in the first instance, and made public without jeopardising the work of the Council?
    Mr. Thomas: I can give an assurance that all the information that can be made available without breach of confidence will be so made available.

    Local Government (White Paper)
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will
    1282
    announce the Government's plans for legislation to give effect to the White Paper on Local Government in Wales, Command Paper Number 3340, published in July, 1967.
    Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation in this Parliament. Preparations are proceeding.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 2 of the introduction of the White Paper refers to:
    "… the need for early action is particularly urgent in Wales …"?
    That we have not even debated the White Paper since it was produced in July, 1967, is one fact. Would the hon. Lady be prepared to go further and tell the House when we shall have legislation and when there will be a debate on it?
    Mrs. White: As I am sure the hon. Members is aware, we have been very busy with consultations with the local authority associations and with representatives of all the local authorities in Wales. We have certainly not been wasting time, but Parliamentary draftsmen have now to receive instructions to proceed from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: Can the Minister of State tell the House whether the Parliamentary draftsmen have reached such a stage that we can anticipate legislation next Session?
    Mrs. White: No, I do not think it will be possible in the next Session.

    Cwmbran New Town
    Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the population target for Cwmbran New Town.
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he anticipates he will announce the future population target of Cwmbran New Town.
    Mr. George Thomas: I hope to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the uncertainties caused by these long delays are having a bad effect upon the morale of the staff of the New Town Corporation, and will he sympathise with the urge of the local people to get an early decision?
    Mr. Thomas: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) have made very strong representations to me on this matter, and I am aware of the necessity for a speedy decision.

    Prestatyn (Proposed Holiday Camp)
    Mr. Birchasked the Secretary of State for Wales why there has been a five-month delay in deciding on planning permission for Pontins' proposed holiday camp at Prestatyn; and, in view of the fact that this delay has already caused loss and may result in the enterprise being sited in England, whether he will expedite his consideration of the matter.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: The decision on this application has been delayed because of the need to give careful thought to the complicated issues involved including the effect of previous decisions relating to the use of the land, the relevance of the coastal preservation policy and the adequacy of the town sewage disposal system. My right hon. Friend hopes however to announce his decision in a week or so.
    Mr. Birch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the replies given to the Prestatyn Council over a long period always suggested that the answer would be given "in a matter of days"? Is he also aware that the County Council is happy about the coastal position and that the sewerage scheme has already been approved?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of the situation but, as I have indicated, a decision is imminent and will be given quite soon.

    Roads
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in view of the recent representation made to him that a new factory in part of the Welsh Development Area is handicapped by poor access road communications, he will consider some increase in the Welsh roads programme.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: The Welsh Road Programme is increasing. Total expenditure on Welsh roads was £114 million in the four years 1964–65 to 1967–68
    1284
    compared with £66 million in the four years to 1963–64. It will increase still further in future years.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that the kinds of areas to which the Secretary of State and his colleagues are trying to induce industry to move are often serviced by tortuous and inadequate roads? May it not be that even the substantial inducements available to industrialists will not suffice unless some improvement is made?
    Mr. Davies: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our strategy on road improvements is designed to serve the needs of the Welsh development area and, in fact, new factories are being opened in Wales, despite our difficulties.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total expenditure on roads in Wales in the period 1965–66 to 1967–68 compared with that from 1962–63 to 1964–65.
    Mr. George Thomas: From 1962–63 to 1964–65 expenditure was £63·9 million compared with £86 million from 1965–66 to 1967–68, an increase of £22·1 million.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Of course, all hon. Members on this side of the House are aware of the inertia shown by previous Tory Administrations in this matter, but will he assure the House that there will be no let up in these encouraging developments?
    Mr. Thomas: We inherited a very serious problem, but I am determined that expenditure on these roads shall be as much as we can afford.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures that he has just given are both irrelevant and misleading unless they include the expenditure on such roads as the M50, 20 miles of which cost £6 million outside Wales, and the expenditure on such projects as the Severn Bridge?
    Mr. Thomas: It is very difficult to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that we have increased substantially the expenditure on roads in Wales, and we intend to go on doing so.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of major trunk road schemes started or

    1285
    to be started in Wales in the periods 1965–66 to 1967–68 and 1968–69 to 1969–70.
    Mr. George Thomas: In the three years 1965–66 to 1967–68, £9·6 million. In the two years 1968–69 to 1969–70, £27·5 million.
    Mr. Hughes: The figures which my right hon. Friend has given are most encouraging, but will he bear in mind that there are no grounds for complacency, because access to the Midlands and the Home Counties is essential to the future prosperity of South Wales?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is quite right. I wish that we could spend five times as much, because the need is there. But we will spend to the utmost of our capacity.
    Mr. Gower: While we are all delighted that the Minister has pledged himself to do what he can in the matter, may I ask whether he will concede that most of the roads built to date must have had some preparations during the years before he took office?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman in looking for a crumb of comfort, but I can assure him that this Government have had to find the money.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve road communications between southern and northern Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: These substantial plans are set out in paragraphs 54, 55, 371 and 393 of "Wales: The Way Ahead "(Cmnd. 3334).
    Mr. Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that for only one-third of the cost of the new town announced in 1964 for Mid-Wales, the Government could construct a splendid spine road from Cardiff to Caernarvon via Merthyr Tydvil and Ruabon, and Wrexham, with reconstructed trunk roads running off it to the west and east?
    Mr. Thomas: I am glad to note that the hon Gentleman is now aware that I have responsibility for roads in Wales. May I advise him that if he talks to his own county council in Carmarthenshire, he will find that what it is interested in is an east-west road and not a north-south read. What it is interested in, in
    1286
    the north, is a road from Bangor to Chester. These communications must have priority, but of course I want to see the maximum improvement in all directions in the roads of Wales.
    Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give first priority to economic matters, rather than to folklore, and insist on access to our major markets, by the M4 to London and by the Newport-Worcester trunk road to the Midlands, both of which are far more important to the economic life of Wales than any north-south links?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has spoken wisely.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer a moment ago shows a distinct change in the Government's road policy? Will he confirm that it is his opinion that east-west roads are, economically speaking, far more important than the much discussed north-south roads?
    Mr. Thomas: As far as I am aware this is not a change of policy, it has been the way in which we have been spending our money. We are engaged in 27 improvements on the trunk road north to south at present, and spending a great deal of money on it, but the main emphasis in Wales, under present economic conditions, must be to improve the main roads to the west in North and South Wales.

    Tourist Industry
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure closer co-operation and coordination between the Welsh Tourist Board and planning authorities in the Principality, in matters affecting the development of the tourist industry in Wales.
    Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend is already encouraging close consultation between the Board and the planning authorities on these matters. A meeting was arranged by the Welsh Office last month between county planning officers in Wales and the General Manager of the Wales Tourist Board.
    Mr. Gower: While it is true that this is a difficult and sometimes delicate

    1287
    matter, would it not be beneficial for the planning authorities to have a much more detailed picture of the sort of aim of the Minister and of the Welsh Tourist Board with regard to future developments in tourism?
    Mrs. White: They can, of course, consult the Tourist Board at any time and, in addition, the Environmental Panel of the new Welsh Council may be helpful. But in individual cases, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my right hon. Friend has a quasi-judicial capacity on appeal and could not properly intervene.

    Welsh Office (Bomb Explosion)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a further statement on the explosion at the Welsh Office on 25th May.
    Mr. George Thomas: I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 27th May [Vol. 765, c. 1229–1234]. Questions relating to police investigations are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning all violence against persons as well as property, including that violence for which massive and expensive preparations are made by the Government to kill and maim people and to poison and asphyxiate them—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about an explosion in Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome the tone adopted by the hon. Gentleman today. On the day after his appointment, he told The Times newspaper:
    "The Government does not think anyone is serious until people start blowing up things or shooting others."
    It looks as though some people have taken his words rather seriously.
    Mr. Abse: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest contribution that can be made to the prevention of bomb explosions of this kind would be the cessation by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) of anti-English racialist statements which breed the very atmosphere in which violence thrives?
    Mr. Thomas: I believe that all those who have this anti-English hatred policy in Wales today are doing grave harm to the interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole and of Wales in particular.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: May we get back to the real point, which is why the Government so far have not been successful in finding any of the people responsible for explosions? Will the right hon. Gentleman make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Thomas: While I have already said that the matter of police investigations is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with every respect to the hon. Gentleman, to ask why the Government have not caught these culprits is something of a distortion of what is happening. Surely he knows that it is a matter for the police, and the police are engaged in it.

    Housing
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were completed in Wales in 1967 in comparison with the average number completed from 1960 to 1964; and how many houses he estimates will be completed this year.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: 20,158 houses were completed in 1967, which compares with an annual average of 14,486 in the years from 1960 to 1964, an increase of 39 per cent. It is too early to say how many houses will be completed this year; but my right hon. Friend is very confident that the very high record of achievement over the past few years will be continued this year.
    Mr. Probert: While congratulating my hon. Friend on those excellent figures, may I ask him to take into account the fact that in Wales there are very many structurally sound houses which could be brought up to modern standards? Will he, therefore, publicise the excellent facilities announced in the Government White Paper entitled "Old Houses into New Homes"?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is taking note of the point. He is emphasising the needs of the older

    1289
    housing areas in Wales. The new proposals outlined in the White Paper have been very well received.
    Mr. Anderson: In view of the substantial progress to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, does the Welsh Office consider that, in the foreseeable future, the back of the housing problem in the Principality can be broken?
    Mr. Davies: We look forward with confidence to achieving that result.

    South Wales and Monmouthshire (Animal Trespass)
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to alleviate the effect of animal trespass on the roads and elsewhere in the valleys of South Wales.
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of increasing public concern with the problems created by sheep trespass in the urban areas of South Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether he will initiate inter-Departmental discussions with a view to minimising the present nuisances and hazards.
    Mr. George Thomas: I am aware of this problem, and am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the suggestions for dealing with it made at my meeting with those of my hon. Friends who came to discuss this matter on 28th May.
    Mr. Probert: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the prompt attention that he gave to the deputation which met him. and while appreciating that this problem will take a long time to solve, may I ask whether, in view of the distress caused over many years to motorists, farmers, gardeners, and the animals, he will give this matter urgent consideration, possibly by setting up a working party to look at this quickly?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not under-estimate the seriousness of this problem. I know that in the valleys of South Wales it is a grievous problem. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will look very seriously at his proposal for a working party, and that the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture are proceeding apace.
    Mr. Abse: Would the Secretary of State bear in mind that, complex and difficult as this problem is, if the sheep and ponies were behaving in the streets of Cardiff and London as they behaved in Blaenavon and Garndiffaigh, there would already have been urgent attention given to it? Would he note that the steps that he has already taken are looked upon with great interest by all the people of the Monmouthshire valleys?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is dealing with a serious subject and I understand his sense of concern. I will gladly bear in mind what he has said.

    Industrial Sites (Register)
    Mr. Tudor Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has completed his register of industrial sites in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. White: Work on the first part of the register, covering the development areas of South Wales, is virtually complete and work in the remainder, covering the rest of Wales, is in progress.
    The survey has already revealed that we have available over 200 good industrial sites, ranging in size from 3 acres to 800 acres.

    Welsh Rural Development
    Mr. Gibson-Wattasked the Secretary of State for Wales what functions of the Welsh Rural Development Board he proposes to control directly.
    Mrs. White: My right hon. Friend would propose to exercise the functions laid upon him by Part III of the Agriculture Act, 1967.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is always a little difficult to know what the Secretary of State's powers are in any direction. Might I ask the hon. Lady whether her right hon. Friend is aware of the intense opposition in Mid-Wales to the Rural Development Board? Will he use all his powers to cancel the whole project?
    Mrs. White: I am sad to find that the hon. Member, who in other respects is quite well informed about matters in Wales, has taken the line that this Board,

    1291
    which will be of very great advantage to the area, is undesirable. I can only hope that he will await the result of the public inquiry which is taking place.
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: Will the Minister of State kindly tell the House how much money it is proposed to spend in that part of Wales on the Rural Development Board each year?
    Mrs. White: I have not the figures with me, but if my hon. Friend cares to put a Question down, I will be happy to provide them.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Is the hon. Lady entirely unaware of the opposition which has been very clearly shown at the inquiry at Aberystwyth?
    Mrs. White: I am well aware of a great deal of misrepresentation in which unfortunately the hon. Member appears to have joined.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Text Books (Racial Discrimination)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to enable him to investigate the extent to which the content of school text books in current use encourages racial discrimination.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No new powers would be needed to promote such an investigation, but I do not think this would be the best way of spending the limited amount of money available to us for research.
    Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend note that there are some differences of opinion and that there is considerable prima facie evidence to suggest that the content of school learning is often, very subtly, to encourage an attitude of racial superiority, derived from our Empire stance? Would she have another more sympathetic look at this proposal?
    Miss Bacon: The only reason I replied as I did is that we should like to concentrate our efforts on new books rather than conduct a survey of old books, which would be very clostly. It is important that new books and teaching materials should be of good quality, and
    1292
    should be the right kind of books, and that teachers should be fully aware of what is available. We are doing our best, through various publications, and through State courses and so on, to bring this to the notice of teachers.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the right hon. Lady add that it is most undesirable in principle to tamper with school books in order to try to ensure that they represent particular political views?
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend was suggesting. He is anxious only that the books in schools should put forward a present-day view on these very important matters. I think that teachers are well aware of the problem and will ensure that books of the right quality are available in our schools.

    Keele University (Medical School)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a new medical school will be established at Keele University.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): The proposals for new medical schools contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education are being urgently considered by the Government and the University Grants Committee and the other bodies concerned. I am aware of the need for more doctors, and will make a statement as soon as these consultations are completed.
    Dr. Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend note that there is some urgency for an announcement by the Government of their policy towards the Royal Commission's Report on Medical Eduction? Would he note that the experiments at Keele University have aroused a good deal of admiration among both educationists and doctors?
    Mr. Short: I recognise the need for urgency and the importance of this matter, especially for those concerned with planning in the hospitals and the universities.
    Dr. Winstanley: In view of the known tendency for doctors to settle in practice in the areas in which they were trained, would the right hon. Gentleman recognise the desirability of establishing new

    1293
    medical schools in areas in which there is an acute shortage of doctors such as those adjacent to the new University of Keele?
    Mr. Short: There is a Question later about the geographical spread of medical schools. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait for that.
    Mr. Cant: While North Staffordshire, as an intermediate area, has been very grateful for the developments which the Government have allowed, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the development of a medical school at Keele would give as great a boost to the morale of the area as the issue of further industrial development certificates by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Short: I am aware that a great many right hon. and hon. Members would like new medical schools at their own local universities. But we must wait until we have consulted everybody concerned about the recommendations in the Report.

    Teachers (Training and Supply)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the National Advisory Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers will be re-activated; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Short: I am considering this question in the wider context of the status of the teaching profession.
    Mr. Longden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. However, would he expedite his consideration, because it is a considerable time since the Council functioned?
    Mr. Short: I agree. There has been a very great delay. There were difficulties with the previous Council. I hope, however, that I shall be able to make an announcement about this matter before long.
    Sir E. Boyle: Would the Secretary of State give careful consideration to the possibility of setting up a council for teacher education on a wider basis than the old National Advisory Council? Many people are aware of the defects of the old Council, although it did much useful work. Many feel that the time has come
    1294
    for the setting up of a council of the wider kind which I have suggested.
    Mr. Short: I am aware of that and of the difficulties of the old Council, but I hope that we may set up something perhaps even wider and more comprehensive than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

    Independent Junior Schools (Free Milk)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he has given to local education authorities regarding the continued supply of free milk to independent junior schools.
    Miss Bacon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: Would the right hon. Lady remind local education authorities that parents who send their children to independent schools are ratepayers and taxpayers in exactly the same way as everybody else and that to discriminate against them in the supply of school milk is victimisation of a most unfair and unpleasant kind?
    Miss Bacon: I think that local authorities are fully aware of the position. They know that they have a duty to provide milk in maintained schools and only a power to do so in non-maintained schools. I do not think that they need reminding of that.

    German Measles
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the Medical Research Council trial, which has proved the effectiveness of vaccination against measles, included information on the value of vaccination against german measles.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. Rubella, or german measles, is an unrelated illness, but the Council is organising a separate series of trials of rubella vaccines.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Medical Research Council take into consideration the researches done two years ago in America where they felt that they had the answer to this problem? Since this is an important factor in causing deafness, will my right hon. Friend expedite the work being done by the Medical Research Council?
    Mr. Short: I am sure that the Medical Research Council is aware of the urgency of this matter. But there is a particular hazard for women in the early stages of pregnancy. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of that. The matter must be treated carefully, and I am sure that the Council is aware of the need to find a solution.

    Local Education Authority Staff (Trade Union) Membership
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will send a circular to all local education authorities advising them that membership of an appropriate trade union should be a condition of service for new appointments to their salaried staff.
    Mr. Edward Short: Conditions of service in local government are matters for the local authorities.
    Mr. Longden: While wishing to encourage every teacher to join the union of his own choice, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he remembers what a predecessor of his did some years ago in connection with the action of the Durham County Council?
    Mr. Short: That happened in 1951 when there was a direction under Section 68. It was issued because the Minister felt that the council might not be able to carry out its statutory duties.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Silvesterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities are still awaiting approval for their 1968–69 school building programmes.
    Mr. Edward Short: Letters have been sent this week to all local education authorities in England and Wales.
    Mr. Silvester: Is the Secretary of State aware that great inconvenience has been caused to local education authorities which have, I believe, this day received information about the building programme for 1968–69? Would he like to take the opportunity of expressing his apologies to them for the inconvenience so caused?
    Mr. Short: This is a consequence of postponing the raising of the school-
    1296
    leaving age. I met the chief education officers this week, and I am sure that they fully understand the reasons for the delay.
    Sir E. Boyle: Have the final allocations now been sent out or is the right hon. Gentleman, as on many previous occasions, keeping some money in reserve for those authorities which can put forward the strongest case for an addition to their programmes?
    Mr. Short: I am afraid that the final allocations have been sent out for this year.

    Small Companies (Regional Tours)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will consult with the Regional Arts Associations with a view to their undertaking the arrangements for tours by small companies, so as to ensure continuity of their engagements.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Nearly all the regional arts associations already arrange tours by small companies, and on 14th June representatives of the associations discussed inter-regional co-operation in this field. A meeting of their officers will be held in November to discuss touring plans for the following years.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. However, would she bear in mind the necessity of urging forward the inter-regionalisation administrative arrangements so that companies such as the Minerva Ballet, which do such good work on an Arts Council shoestring, may have the assurance of continuity?
    Miss Lee: I am sure that all our regional associations will be looking round eagerly for every gifted company on the boards.

    Painters and Sculptors (Royalties)
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he is considering for a scheme to provide painters and sculptors with royalties on their work.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I have received an outline of a scheme under which painters

    1297
    and sculptors would share in the increased prices resulting from re-sales of their work and am aware that in France and other countries some such provision has already been made. As this proposal has copyright implications I am consulting my colleagues in the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the widespread interest which there will be in what she has said today? Will she let the House and the public know details of this scheme so that they can decide whether they think that it is a good idea?
    Miss Lee: I have given the House all the information I can. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest. We should be able to work out a viable plan.

    University Students
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will introduce legislation to provide that where students at universities take part in sit-in strikes they will be charged for the use of the buildings involved.
    Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public are getting a bit fed up with students who indulge in sit-ins and occupy premises which are paid for by the public and who are receiving grants? Will he make it clear to students that there are no such things as free universities and charge them accordingly for the use of premises?
    Mr. Short: University discipline is a matter for the universities which, usually by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament, are autonomous, and I have no power to intervene, even if I wished to do so. I think it is worth pointing out that in no case in this country has a majority of students carried out lawless behaviour of this kind, and in every case in which a majority of students have asserted themselves the trouble has ended.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he took serious cognisance of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) he would immediately be accused of using the heavy hand of the State to muzzle free expression of views by students in this country?
    Mr. Short: I do not condone lawlessness or breaches of the law. I condemn them very strongly. But the time to beware is when students stop protesting.
    Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to institute a full inquiry into relationships between students and university authorities?
    Mr. Short: There is a later Question about an inquiry.

    Nursery Teachers (Training Courses)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to set up more day and evening training courses to train enough nursery teachers to meet the rising demand as a result of the implementation of the Education Act, 1944.
    Miss Bacon: Twenty-five colleges of education now advertise courses of training for teachers specialising in the age ranges covering both the nursery and infant age groups, and the numbers of students have risen from 941 in 1964–65 to 1,209 in 1966–67. The present shortage of infant teachers makes it necessary for the colleges to concentrate their main efforts on the compulsory stages of education; but where colleges are able and staffed to offer courses which cover the nursery stages as well we are happy to authorise this.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, will she endeavour to give more encouragement to local education authorities to start more of these training courses, especially for nursery teachers, in view of the rising demand all over the country for the implementation of the 1944 Act relating to nursery education, which was underlined by the Plowden Report? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have support from the whole House if she does this.
    Miss Bacon: I think that my hon. Friend is a little confused between nursery teachers and nursery assistants.
    Mrs. Short: No.
    Miss Bacon: The Plowden Report particularly asked for training of nursery assistants.
    Mrs. Short rose—
    Miss Bacon: I fully understand my hon. Friend's question. There are the two points: nursery teachers and nursery assistants. It would be wrong at this time to have a great many nursery assistants trained unless we could offer them places in nursery school classes.

    Primary School Places, Wolverhampton
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the 19 empty primary classrooms in Wolverhampton schools are used for the children of school age who have been unable to get a school place so far.
    Miss Bacon: This is a matter for the authority, who have told me that they hope to staff and fill every available classroom by next September.
    Mrs. Short: Is not this a very extraordinary situation? In spite of my right hon. Friend's generosity in allowing the Wolverhampton education authority to build four new primary schools, there are still 400 children unable to get places. Does my right hon. Friend not think she should be much tougher with the education authority to see that these empty classrooms are in fact used? This is a nonsensical situation, and it is depriving large numbers of children of the education that they should have.
    Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend and I visited Wolverhampton recently and noted the position there. Some of these empty classrooms are caused by the fact that numbers on the new estates have not risen to the expected maximum and because the local authority cannot get the necessary teachers. I would emphasise that my right hon. Friend is willing to raise the quota, and indeed has done so, in these areas of special difficulty. But it is the inability of certain authorities to recruit the numbers of teachers in their quota which makes the problem so difficult.
    Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Lady agree that nothing causes more genuine indignation than the spectacle of empty classrooms in the same city where one has overcrowded schools? Will the right hon. Lady do what she can to see that the situation does not arise again, particularly
    1300
    in the West Midlands, where she knows there are special problems?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, certainly. As I said, my right hon. Friend and I visited the West Midlands and we discussed all these problems. I hope that before long these classrooms will be full.

    British Museum
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about congestion in the British Museum; and what action he is taking to ensure presentation of its unique exhibits in a manner consistent with contemporary museum standards.
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in remedying the shortage of room for exhibits at the British Museum.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Funds are now available for a number of important developments at the British Museum as part of the 12-year building programme for the National Museums and Galleries— projects include a microfilm unit at Colin-dale, a photographic studio, a public restaurant and the reconstruction of the bronze and vase rooms.
    In addition the move of the Ethnography Department to Burlington Gardens is expected to take place early in 1970. The Museum has an exhibitions officer on its staff; it also employed a firm of design consultants for the reconstruction of the Western Sculpture Galleries, where an exhibition will be on view to the public from 5th July.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I can assure my right hon. Friend that her Answer will be welcomed by all who believe that museums could do a great deal more in education as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the authorities in the British Museum and other museums to arrange exhibits to cater particularly for the needs of young people and schoolchildren?
    Miss Lee: I can assure my hon. Friend that very high priority is now being given in our museums to special exhibitions which will encourage visits by children.
    Mr. Whitaker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may

    1301
    I ask whether she will arrange for exhibits, for which there is no room for display, to be loaned temporarily to other museums in other parts of the country?
    Miss Lee: I know about the problem of trying to move exhibits from one part of the country to another. I can only say that our museum authorities are in an extremely co-operative mood and that they want to assist one another as much as possible.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Ql. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present state of Great Britain's negotiations over the Common Market, he will now set up a study group to consider alternatives.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers I gave to Questions on 18th June, just two days ago.—[Vol. 766, c. 906–8.]
    Mr. Marten: As the study which the Government made well over a year ago showed that there were considerable economic advantages in the proposition of the Atlantic Free Trade Area over joining the Common Market, will the Government publish that study, particularly because of the rising interest of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the rising interest and the importance of the subject. It would not be appropriate to publish internal documents of that kind, not least because I gave to the House, and so did my right hon. Friends, the fullest arguments which emerged from our study of the subject.
    Mr. Richard: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reiterate clearly and unmistakably, first, that we believe in the concept of a united Europe; secondly, that that concept is meaningless without Great Britain; and, thirdly, that the first step towards attaining it is the early accession of Britain to the European Economic Community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I reiterated that very clearly last Tuesday, and several
    1302
    times in the last month. On Tuesday I also emphasised the need for a truly united Europe looking outwards and uniting, as far as possible, the whole of Europe, not just a part of it.
    Mr. Jennings: Has the Prime Minister entirely closed his mind to a consideration of any other alternative, or is he prepared to examine, in a much more flexible attitude than has been shown hitherto, the whole question of alternatives to entering the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: I have said that there are possible advantages, but that this particular proposal is not a current reality. After very deep consideration, our view was that membership of the E.E.C. and of the other communities was by far the best thing for Britain and for Europe.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord President of the Council on Friday, 29th March at Basildon on post-devaluation economic strategy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: In referring the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 28th May, which followed 12 Answers given by me in this House on this particular speech of nearly three months ago, I regret that the hon. Member has thought fit to waste the time of the House by repeatedly tabling and retabling this Question on the Order Paper, Sir.—[Vol. 765, c. 208–9.]
    Sir F. Bennett: If the Prime Minister thinks that he has already adequately dealt with this Question, will he now take the advice of the Lord President of the Council to take the people of this country into his confidence and tell them about the true state of this country's international indebtedness?
    The Prime Minister: I dealt with all the questions arising from my right hon. Friend's speech in 12 Oral Answers that I have given to the House. If the hon. Gentleman is fairly interested in the

    1303
    position of our international indebtedness, perhaps he will put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.
    Mr. Barnett rose—
    Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend said that he had answered 12 Oral Questions on this matter. Does not the rule of tedious repetition extend to this? Mr. Speaker, will you give consideration to the idea that a continuity of repetitive Questions, which always come on to the Prime Minister's list, amounts to an abuse?
    Mr. Speaker: I do give consideration, but there is little I can do about it.
    Mr. Barnett: Whilst recognising that the original Question was framed for cheap party interests rather than Britain's, is it not a fact that the recent figures of capital outflow are sufficiently disturbing to make the Government perhaps reconsider their strategy, at least in this sense, and recognise that, no matter what value there is in capital outflow abroad at some times, at the present time, as we need it so desperately at home, it might be as well to reconsider it?
    The Prime Minister: That is an important but entirely different question. It was not raised in my right hon. Friend's speech at Basildon on 29th March, and it raises broad issues which, as my hon. Friend knows, have been repeatedly debated in the House, and which are incapable of being answered adequately at Question and Answer time.
    Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer you gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that you could do nothing about repetitive Questions, may I draw your attention to the fact that Erskine May states categorically that no Question may be put down which has already been answered? In view of that, may I suggest that it is within your power and authority to take action?
    Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that the Table refuses Questions which have already been answered. There are, however, circumstances in which the Table must accept Questions from hon. Members.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister and his hon. Friends do not realise the
    1304
    fascinating importance of the Lord President's speech. One of the things which he emphasised most was that the Government's economic strategy would not be effective unless the Prime Minister and the Government took the people of this country into their confidence. When will the Prime Minister explain, as his hon. Friend has asked, the seriousness of the economic situation in which the first quarter's deficit was £370 million, in which unemployment is now the highest for any June since June, 1940, and in which the Government's net borrowing is now 10 per cent. of the national income for the year?
    The Prime Minister: None of that arises out of my hon. Friend's question. The right hon. Gentleman is free to raise the matter at any time and to get a very full answer. What my hon. Friend raised was the question of capital controls. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to urge capital controls upon us because of the very high element in the first quarter's figures, I shall note what he said.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Prime Minister's answer that if a Question is put down about our indebtedness it will get a full reply mean that he will now tell us the answer?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to a question about indebtedness, I said last week that we followed the practice of the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. As my Question has three times been referred to in points of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to give notice, he must do it in the proper way.
    Sir F. Bennett: I am not doing that. With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have anticipated what I was not going to say. As my Question has been referred to, I want on a point of order to state that it was put down within 48 hours of the speech being made. The reason why it has not been answered is the turgidity of the Prime Minister in not answering Questions when they are put to him.
    Mr. Speaker: Part of that is a point of fact, the other is a point of comment.

    POLITICAL ECONOMISTS (CORRESPONDENCE)
    Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter he received on 9th May from seven economists, headed by Mr. Edward Holloway, on the causes of the current inflationary pressures within the economy.
    The Prime Minister: I have arranged for my correspondence with this group of political economists to be placed in the Library, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that these distinguished economists drew the Prime Minister's attention to the worldwide lack of confidence in Britain arising from our continuing failure to contain inflation? Does not the Prime Minister feel that the latest depressing figures of industrial production, coupled with the ever-rising trend of Government expenditure, give compelling evidence of the validity of the case which these economists are making?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that these very distinguished political economists succeeded in putting into economic jargon some of the more ignorant shibboleths of hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will have seen, as I think I said in my reply, that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that ours is neither the most highly taxed country, nor does Government expenditure absorb more of our resources than in many other countries in comparable circumstances.
    Mr. Cant: Perhaps I might remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the 13 halcyon years of Tory rule are the most dramatic refutation that we have of the public expenditure thesis. In the first five years when public expenditure fell from 40 per cent. to 36 per cent. of national income there was a growth rate of 2 per cent. When it rose from 36 per cent. to 40 per cent. the growth rate was just under 3 per cent. If the Friedman Chicago school of monetary theory is laughed at in the United States, why should we take it seriously here?
    The Prime Minister: I think that all those considerations are extremely germane to the correspondence which I have had with these economists, but I do not
    1306
    think that it is for me to add to the enlightenment which my hon. Friend has been giving to hon. Gentlemen opposite, except, on the point of Government expenditure, to say that out of every 10 proposals which we make for cuts in Government expenditure the Opposition vote against nine, and campaign against all 10.
    Mr. Turton: Will the Prime Minister make clear whether he agrees or disagrees with the verdict of these economists that the prime cause of inflation has been the fact that in the last three years deficit expenditure to the amount of more than £3,000 million has been covered not by borrowings from the private non-bank sector, but by the central banks?
    The Prime Minister: I should not use the word "verdict" about an ex-parte statement by these economists. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, "No, I do not agree with their analysis or their conclusions".

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
    Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference will take place.
    The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave on 2nd May and 4th April to Questions by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham).—[Vol. 763, c. 1285–7; Vol. 762, c. 600–1.]
    Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend consider submitting a proposal to his Commonwealth colleagues to hold such a Conference on the basis of showing the British Commonwealth flag and ideals in Salisbury in Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: The Question relates to holding a conference, and we were not proposing to hold it in Salisbury. The venue has not been settled, and there is this great difficulty, that with 27 independent countries of the Commonwealth it is proving very difficult to get agreement on a particular date when we can all be present, and

    1307
    when, unlike at the recent Commonwealth conference, we shall have present a very high proportion of Heads of Government. I hope that we shall agree on a date, but nearly every date suggested so far has been difficult for one or more Prime Ministers. We have ourselves put forward a number of alternative dates.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (SPEECH)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Secretary of State for Defence at Brussels on 10th May, regarding the level of forces available to the British Army of the Rhine, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Did not the Secretary of State say that this extra assignment of 20,000 men was to help Britain's connection with the Common Market? Is not that a bad reason for a bad policy? When N.A.T.O. is supposed to be considering mutual troop reductions east and west, why on earth should Britain appear to move in the opposite direction?
    The Prime Minister: I have read my right hon. Friend's speech. I did not find that thought expressed on those words, but I shall look at it again. My right hon. Friend gave the reasons for this decision. With regard to mutual reductions, it is the policy of the Government, and we are pursuing it very actively, and shall be again at Reykjavik, to try to get an agreed reduction in military strength on both sides of the Iron Curtain. That is different from a unilateral reduction by the West.
    Mr. Maudling: In the light of the Government's statement after the recent Kuala Lumpur conference, will the units committed to N.A.T.O. remain readily available, without inhibition for redeployment east of Suez?
    The Prime Minister: That does not affect our ability to formulate a general capability in circumstances where we consider it right to make a contribution. I think the right hon. Gentleman will know that under successive Governments we have from time to time, when an im-
    1308
    portant Commonwealth or other commitment has to be met, drawn on troops in Germany equally with drawing on troops in this country. What my right hon. Friend said at Kuala Lumpur does not make any difference.
    Mr. Shinwell: I think that every hon. Member, on both sides, will agree that we should seek a reduction of forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain, but was it nevertheless appropriate for the Minister to say that the assignment of additional forces is associated with our desire to enter the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: I said that I wanted to study the exact wording, because I had not read that into it. What my right hon. Friend was saying and has said many times in the House, and what was the basis of the defence debates this year, is that our decisions to redeploy the forces at present east of Suez will mean a heavier concentration of our defence effort on and in Europe. That was the theme of what he was saying. On the question of the mutual troop reductions, I have nothing to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the tense situation in Germany and the possibility that a future American Administration might reduce its forces in Europe, would the right hon. Gentieman consider very carefully before accepting any of the advice of his hon. Friends to reduce Rhine Army?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters are appropriate to collective discussion in N.A.T.O., and this very question, I am certain, will be one of the leading matters to be discussed at Reykjavik next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Medicines Bill.

1309
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.
Afterwards, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Countryside Bill and to the Justices of the Peace Bill.
TUESDAY, 25TH JUNE and WEDNESDAY, 26TH JUNE—Progress on the remaining stages of the Prices and Incomes Bill.
THURSDAY, 27TH JUNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Prices and Incomes Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.
Remaining stages of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill.
FRIDAY, 28TH JUNE—Second Reading of the International Monetary Fund Bill and of the Overseas Aid Bill, and, if there is time, of the Swaziland Independence Bill.
MONDAY, 1ST JULY—Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, progress on the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, recall that, last week, I asked whether the Foreign Secretary would keep the House informed of the progress of the peace talks with Nigeria and Biafra and also about the supply of arms. Will he be making a statement about this next week?
Mr. Peart: The Minister of State is out there now and will be reporting back. I will note carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Macdonald: When will my right hon. Friend find time for the affirmative Order under the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act relating to Turkish vehicles coming into this country and our vehicles entering Turkey, which the Ministry of Transport has been waiting to lay since 4th April?
Mr. Peart: I have not announced it for next week.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the possibility of a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations? Will he seriously consider a debate before the Government's consultations with both sides of industry
1310
go further? Would it not be a good thing, because there is much knowledge on these matters in all quarters of the House, for the Government to get the views of hon. Members before they begin to make up their own mind?
Mr. Peart: I am aware and will take note of that, but on a Business statement, my reply is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to say, "Not next week."
Dr. Hugh Gray: In view of the continuining situation at the Hornsey College of Art and the situation in other educational institutions, is it not time that my right hon. Friend provided time for a debate on student discontents? We do not yet have a Paris situation, but we may well have one. Should he not give us plenty of time to voice our views on what is happening in these institutions?
Mr. Peart: I could not find time for it in next week's business.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, and recognising your discretion in these matters, may I remind you of the traditional practice of the House on business, namely, that questions should be directed primarily to business in the following week and that we have departed from that practice to the extent that all kinds of questions are put which are not relevant to business for the next week?
Mr. Speaker: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the departure is of long standing and at business question time Members are seeking to plead a case that something be brought either into the business of next week or into business early ahead. The House will, however, be aware, I think, that business question time has extended in length a great deal and that this is done at the expense of other important business.
Mr. R. Carr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have deliberately refrained this week from pressing for statements on the various industrial disputes which are taking place or threatened, so as not to lessen the chances of solving these matters? Would he, therefore, particularly ask his right hon. Friend to keep the House informed next week as soon as possible?
Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir.
Mr. McNamara: May I ask, out of deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), why we are not to have next week a statement on the Government's proposals for the fishing industry?
Mr. Peart: When my right hon. Friend is ready, he will no doubt do so, but not next week.
Mr. Sharpies: When will the right hon. Gentleman honour his pledge to provide time for a debate on prisons?
Mr. Peart: I never gave a specific pledge. I said that I would consider it. Time was lost because of action by hon. Members who were on the Committee.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend consider giving a full day in the near future to a debate on the question of disarmament in all its aspects?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows about the signing of a treaty. It may well be that this could come up in the foreign affairs debate, but not next week.
Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 250 back benchers have now signed Motion No. 168, on the population problem, which he agreed a month ago was worth a debate?
[That this House, noting that England itself now rivals Holland and Taiwan as the most densely populated territory in the world, apart from some small islands and city states, and that the population of the United Kingdom is likely to increase by a third from 55 to 73 million by the end of the century, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish permanent and adequate machinery for examining the difficulties to which such population growth will give rise and for giving early warning to Parliament of such difficulties and to advise what steps should be taken to overcome them well in advance of crisis point.]
When will he be able to provide time for that debate?
Mr. Peart: I know that population is a very important problem, but I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. W. Baxter: In view of the expressions of opinion by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, and in many by-elections, and the expressions of opinion by the people of Scotland, when will my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity to debate devolution in regard to Scotland?
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly on this matter, but I could not put it in the programme I have announced.
Mr. Ridsdale: Could not the Government be more imaginative about their business for next week and drop one day of the debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill, so as to have, instead, a day's economic debate, in view of the unsatisfactory exchanges across the Floor of the House to-day on economic questions?
Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Member wants to go much further than business.
Mr. Ramsden: What is the expected date of the publication of the summer Defence White Paper? There is considerable concern about this, in view of what it may hold in store for the future of individual regiments.
Mr. Peart: As promised, there will be another White Paper on Defence in the next few weeks.
Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend apply his mind to Motion No. 343, signed by 58 hon. Members and myself, on the cereals price increase?
[That this House would view with concern any proposal to increase minimum import prices for cereals merely to save Exchequer subsidies to farmers, since it would annoy our overseas suppliers without benefiting our own farmers and it would both increase our already excessive import bill and increase internal prices contrary to the Government's economic and prices policies.]
Before he says, "Not next week", would he recollect that the relevant Order may be laid next week?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in cereals and agricultural matters, but I cannot promise him any time for a debate.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the developments at the United Nations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, would the right hon. Gentleman find time during the next two or three weeks to debate this matter?
Mr. Peart: That is something which we should consider, but I cannot promise a specific date.
Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are concerned about the present disputes in the motor industry, which are causing unemployment on Merseyside and in the South-East? Would he give an undertaking that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to make a statement on this next week?
Mr. Peart: I thought that that had been previously answered, but I will note it.
Dame Joan Vickers: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 325, on prescription charges for women over 60?
[That this House, bearing in mind that the age of 60 years has been accepted as the retirement age for women for purposes of social security benefits, is of the opinion that all women aged 60 years and over should be exempt from the payment of National Health Service prescription charges.]
As they had to start paying on 10th June, can he take action next week to see that the position is changed?
Mr. Peart: I will convey the point to the Minister of Health, but I cannot find time for this to be dealt with in the House.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Once again, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find time to debate my Motion about the threatened disbandment of the Gordon Highlanders, a matter of great interest to Aberdonians and people throughout Scotland?
[That this House views with disfavour the proposal to disband certain distinguished Scottish regiments, in particular the Gordons and Argylls, both of which have close family and other connections with Aberdeen and other places in north-east Scotland from which those regiments draw their members and upon which places their gallantry and military distinctions shed glory; and calls upon the Government to allow these regiments to continue their patriotic work.]
Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. and learned Friend feels very strongly and passionately about this and other famous regiments, but I cannot find time for the matter to be debated next week.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: After the excellent and constructive debate in another place on the subject of Rhodesia, is it not very urgent that we debate the composition of a reformed House of Commons?
Mr. Peart: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making shortly.
Mr. John Fraser: Without wishing to cut into Government time, is my right hon. Friend able to find time to complete the remaining stages of the Sunday Entertainments Bill?
Mr. Peart: I appreciate that many hon. Members feel strongly about this Measure. I will look into the matter.
rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

HOUSE OF LORDS (LEGISLATION)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order, 1968 (Statutory Instrument 1968, No. 885) dated 7th June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, which was approved by this House on Monday, 17th June, was on Tuesday rejected in another place.
I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Order, which were argued in this House at length on Monday, and accepted by this House.
What the Conservative majority in another place are arrogating to themselves is that this elected Chamber and the Government of this country, in their international relations and international commitments, can be frustrated, and their actions nullified, by another place, on one condition, namely, that a Labour Government are in office. By a simple majority in another place they, accountable to none, have now, quite deliberately, sought to assert a power to put this country in default of international obligations solemnly entered into, and particularly Article 25 of the Charter of the

1315
United Nations, which binds this country and all other members of the United Nations to implement decisions, having mandatory effect, of the Security Council.
This decision was taken after the clearest warnings as to its meaning and as to its consequences. No Government could for one moment tolerate action of this kind, which was taken not in pursuance of any democratic objective, but in pursuance of calculated party advantage. This House cannot accept what has happened and cannot but treat it as a denial of democracy and a total frustration of the spirit of our Constitution.
This House will expect that the verdict of the elected Chamber will be given effect to. It is the Government's intention to advise Her Majesty to make a fresh Order in Council which both Houses will be asked to approve at the earliest possible moment.
The House will recall the terms of the Gracious Speech:
"Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis, thereby enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern parliamentary system."
The House will be aware that, on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, constructive talks have been continuing for several months about House of Lords reform, talks which have been directed both to the powers of another place and to its composition, in the confident and not unreasonable hope that an all-party consensus could be reached about the place, powers, and composition of the Second Chamber in the second half of the 20th century.
The deliberate and calculated decision of the Conservative Party to take the action it did on Tuesday was in direct contravention of the spirit in which these talks were being conducted. There is no precedent for the voting down of a Statutory Instrument by the non-elected Chamber in which, in present circumstances, most of its Members sit not by the right of creation but by the right of succession from some near or distant ancestor. Not since the Parliament Act have they deliberately set themselves out to frustrate in this way the executive ac-
1316
tions, and in this case actions to fulfil the international commitments of an elected Government.
Since this decision was clearly taken after the fullest consideration, and after every warning of the consequences, there can be no question of these all-party talks, in these new circumstances, continuing. Although the time has not been wasted, and valuable proposals have been put forward both about the powers and the composition of another place, I must tell the House that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at an early date of the Government's choosing, to introduce comprehensive and radical legislation to give effect to the intention announced in the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Heath rose—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Shouting from neither side does any good.
Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first half of his statement contained a number of so-called constitutional doctrines which would certainly not be accepted by any constituhistorian of any standing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—and certainly should be debated? Is he aware that the House of Lords was exercising a right which was maintained by the Labour Government in 1949, a right which, it has now been made widely known in the Press, the Lords would be able to exercise under the proposed reformed powers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In these circumstances, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there can be absolutely no justification for this typical and characteristic attitude of the Prime Minister in breaking off these talks?
What we are seeing is a nasty, petulant display of tantrums and when the Prime Minister has had time to quieten down and get over them he will find that we are quite prepared to carry on the very constructive work which has been done so far.
The Prime Minister: No constitutional historian would be able to find a precedent for last Tuesday's action, which was totally opposed to the whole spirit of the talks. I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman or on the

1317
attempts of the Press to say what has emerged so far from the talks, because all parties agreed to confidentiality. If the Leader of the Opposition wants disclosure, he can have it.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this is likely to have happened under what has been proposed so far, because we were discussing a fundamental change in the constitution and not a House of Lords based on the hereditary principle, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The talks have been proceeding so far in reasonable agreement on all these questions, as the House will have to judge if this matter is ever put before it.
We are now taking the decision to introduce legislation in our time and of our choosing in view of the fact that last week the whole purpose of these talks was frustrated by and with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole tone of this week's apologies, in that their Lordships were only giving the Commons time to think again, is entirely different from the briefing which the right hon. Gentleman and others were putting out all last week, when they thought that they would get away with it.
I am not quite clear whether last week the right hon. Gentleman was engaged on what he thought was the assertion of a new constitutional doctrine or a squalid political manoeuvre; but it was clear that he made a poor fist of both of them.
Mr. Heath: As the purpose of the talks was to reach agreement between the three parties, which wanted to see a reformed House of Lords, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obvious thing for the Government to do is to get over this silly petulant attitude and get on with them?
The Prime Minister: I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's sourness about what happened and the defeat of his manoeuvre, but that does not excuse the right hon. Gentleman. On an important constitutional question, we are used to his giving way in this place to right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but that does not excuse his having his party's constitutional approach run for him by the Marquess of Salisbury.
Mr. Atkinson: While welcoming the proposals implicit in the Prime Minis-
1318
ter's statement, may I ask whether the House is now to take it that when the Prime Minister referred to the Second Chamber throughout the second half of the 20th century this now means that the Labour Government are guaranteeing the existence of a Second Chamber? Will the Prime Minister accept that this is contrary to Labour Party policy?
The Prime Minister: I know that a number of my hon. Friends are in favour of unicameral government, but that has not been the position of this party. Indeed, if my hon. Friend will refresh himself on the manifesto on which he was elected on the last occasion—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot titter his way out of this one. My hon. Friend will find that there and in the Gracious Speech we stated specifically our intention to proceed to legislation of the kind I have mentioned.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I deliberately referred to Labour Party policy, which is determined by the annual conference and I was not— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
Mr. Thorpe: Without disclosing what transpired in the conferences on the House of Lords, of which I have been a rather more regular attender than the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Heath: On a point of order—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath. A point of order.
Mr. Heath: On a point of order. As neither the Prime Minister nor I are members of the continuing talks on this matter, ought not the Leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw?
Mr. Thorpe: Recollecting the official arrangement whereby the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I all agreed that we had the liberty to attend as and when we wished, and

1319
repeating to the Prime Minister the question whether he is aware that my attendance has been somewhat more numerous than that of the Leader of the Opposition, may I dissociate myself from the interpretation by the Leader of the Opposition as to what were the suggested powers put forward by this conference, which does not represent what has been suggested or is likely to be suggested? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of questions to come and I want to hear them.
Mr. Thorpe: —that 194 noble Lords, 119 of whom are hereditary Conservative Peers, were egged on by the Leader of the Opposition to frustrate the will of the House of Commons against the need for radical reform, which beyond doubt is a matter for urgent legislation? May I ask two questions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask three questions?
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that no one will interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, or he may ask four.
Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Then may I ask two questions? First, whether we are to expect legislation this Session or later, and secondly, whether the Prime Minister, with his usual sense of priorities, will not allow the introduction of that legislation to overshadow the need for other legislation in this House on matters of the economy and the need to reform this House, which are the continuing responsibility of this House in general and of Her Majesty's Government in particular?
The Prime Minister: I do not propose to intervene as between two right hon. Gentlemen and their respective accounts of talks which I understood were confidential and which, as far as I am concerned, will remain confidential until there is a decision to the contrary.
Secondly, on the account by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) of the voting in another place on Tuesday, I am not sure that it is proper for me to comment, but it seems to be an accurate account of history.
1320
I cannot at this stage say when the legislation will be introduced, but it will be at an early date.
With regard to the question of priorities, I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, although, in view of the situation forced on us by last Tuesday the first priority is to retable the Order and have it accepted by both Houses.
Mr. James Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in the statement he has made he will have the support not only of this side of the House, but of the majority of people in the country? Is he aware that since it is now becoming fairly evident that, having made the statement, and having decided that talks which have been taking place should not continue, we are likely in the course of the next few weeks to have all kinds of versions of what has happened? Would it not be better, in the interests of the House of Commons as a whole and of fair consideration of all these problems, that the proposals put forward should be published as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, consider that, although, as I said, it will have to be a matter of agreement. We shall draw on the experience of those talks, but the House will have the Government's own proposals at an early date. I think that it would be more productive to consider those than what happened in a committee whose work was deliberably sabotaged by a political manoeuvre.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: To come back to the facts of the situation, in the interests of Parliament as a whole, and in view of the high standard of debate in another place, and the narrowness of the majority and the fact that it was stated that if the Order were reintroduced in similar terms it would not be officially opposed, has not the Prime Minister got this matter completely out of perspective? Is he not being rather hysterical about it all?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The back-tracking which went on on Monday and Tuesday about the question of leting it go through a second time and the other things that were said were a very big change from what was said when the manoeuvre was begun a week before. What happened was that the Lords were

1321
sensitive to Press criticism and about the consequences of what they were doing. The fact that the majority was as small as it was was no fault of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, beause every effort was made by a three-line Whip to get every backwoodsman there. It was a tribute not to the right hon. Gentleman's effort, but to his incompetence.
Mr. Coe: We on these benches welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend. When he introduces the comprehensive proposals, will he recognise that many of us believe that we must have total abolition of the delaying powers of the Lords and of the hereditary principle?
The Prime Minister: I cannot go beyond what was said in the Gracious Speech, which dealt with both those questions.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: If his statement means that the Prime Minister intends to set up a Second Chamber which is totally submissive to his Government, may we take it that he will start by treating this House and the electorate with very much less contempt than he does now?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware that that is not the intention of any party in these talks about the future of another place. What we on this side of the House, and I think most people in the country, feel is that this assertion we have had from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that another place exists to stop the Government in their tracks if they are a Labour Government, is unacceptable. When the Conservative Government were extremely unpopular and were pushing through a piece of legislation—the Rent Act— which was universally disliked, and to whose repeal when we repealed it hon. Gentlemen opposite did not object, I do not remember that at any time there was any suggestion that another place should intervene to correct the decisions, however wrong, of this House.
Mr. C. Pannell: Reverting to what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said about the fact that there was minimal interference the other day in the Lords and a general attempt to play this matter down, is it not a fact that this followed a Press
1322
campaign which hinted that this would go much further into the realms of legislation, particularly the Transport Bill? In view of what happened, can my right hon. Friend imagine anyone on these benches daring to trust the Second Chamber again?
The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on what might happen in another place—it would not be right for me to do so—about legislation which has gone through, or which may go through, this House. The motives for the actions taken by the Conservative Party in this case were not in their first presentation in any way related to a chance for the Commons to think again, but to a continuous attempt to frustrate the operation of the Government in their international relations.
Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister was good enough to pay some tribute to the work we have been doing on the inter-party committee. Since presumably the Prime Minister proposed these inter-party discussions, not as a favour to the Opposition, but because he believed it to be in the national interest to have agreement on a revised Second Chamber, why does a perfectly constitutional action by the existing Chamber change the situation about the future?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can have his own interpretation of the constitution. The action was unprecedented. It was the partial result of interference in another place by the Leadership in this House of Commons and it was a reflection of the attitude to Rhodesia under which the right hon. Gentleman has rushed as fast as his legs can carry him into the dictation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the Marquess of Salisbury.
Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just said, public opinion will be forthcoming in supporting the Government's announcement today? Will he further accept that what is needed is speedy action so that the reply should be immediate to this arrogation of power by another place? Will he accept that what is needed is complete disruption of

1323
the Lords' delaying power so that legislation should not be endangered during the remainder of this Parliament?
The Prime Minister: Even ahead of that it is important to take action to enable their Lordships to regurgitate last Tuesday's activities so far as the Order is concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will ensure a speedy passage for it in this House. He might also tell the Opposition spokesman that he was quite wrong on the radio in saying that this Order had anything to do, because it had not, with the question of material assistance to other African countries. Right hon. Gentlemen must read the Order before they talk about it.
Lieut-Commander Maydon: May I ask the Prime Minister for one moment to put aside party rancour and to apply his mind seriously to this question. In a bicameral system what would he think would be the purpose of a Second Chamber—just to be a rubber stamp to the diktats of the Government in power?
The Prime Minister: My conception of the rôle and putting aside all party affections, as I was asked to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, of the Second Chamber, which I believe has an important rôle to play in the Constitution, does not include the concept that it must rubber stamp everything that comes from a Conservative Government without querying it whereas it must assert to itself unprecedently the right to veto the actions of a Labour Government.
Mr. Whitaker: Irrespective of whatever the vote had been last Tuesday, is it not a matter of elementary principle that 300 years after Cromwell it is high time we announced close of play at hereditary Lords? Can we not have legislation this Session and also have the abolition of titles? A man's reputation should be sufficient honour for him.
The Prime Minister: We are dealing with the constitutional position which was deliberately provoked last Tuesday. I have referred the House to the passage of the Gracious Speech which will be given effect to as early as possible.
Mr. Grimond: The Prime Minister has stressed the undemocratic nature of the other place. When he is considering his
1324
new proposals will he bear in mind that an appointed Second Chamber would be just as undemocratic and, indeed, could be open to certain other objections as well?
The Prime Minister: This is one of the matters which have already been considered in the talks and a great deal of useful thought has emerged. It is clear, because of this provocative action last Tuesday, that we must now follow this period of constitutional reflection and constructive proposal by firm action. This will be done.
Mr. John Lee: Bearing in mind that the legislation can be quite short and simple, would not my right hon. Friend consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Ben Whitaker) that the whole of the hereditary peerage should be abolished so that the Marquess of Salisbury can be reduced to Robert Cecil?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would make any difference if that were to happen. We are just concerned with the constitutional question of the powers and composition of the House of Lords. We are not concerned with fundamental alterations to the pages of Debrett.
Mr. Birch: Would not the Prime Minister agree that "Peers v. People". combined with the absolute assurance that "the money in your pocket has not been devalued", would make a spendid election cry?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's continued perversion of that statement on which he will remember that I referred to "the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools", should cease.
Mr. Heffer: Reverting to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), may I ask my right hon Friend to give the House an assurance that if we are to have a Second Chamber, as I personally think we should, it will be on the basis of an elected principle and that there will not be people appointed once and for all to a Second Chamber to hold up any business from this House?
The Prime Minister: My hon Friend had better await the legislation and then

1325
express his views on it. We shall bear in mind all that has been said in the inter-party discussions. What I do not think any democracy would support is the perpetration of a Second Chamber, which had a built-in majority for one particular party irrespective of the size of the majority in or the composition of the House of Commons.
Earl of Dalkeith: Can the Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and deny the truth that at the present time the other place reflects far more accurately the views of the population? If he really means what he says about democracy, will he give the people of the country an opportunity to reform this place?
The Prime Minister: I do not remember that argument being used by the noble Lord during the long period—13 years—which the Conservatives had to show what they could do. I do not remember anyone suggesting that the House of Lords should frustrate the actions of the Conservative Government in order to force an election. It did not suit them then, but it suits the Conservative Party to talk that way at the present time. What I think we had last Tuesday was the action of a party which has consistently on this matter supported illegality, using extra-constitutional means in another place.
Mr. John Fraser: If reforming legislation from this House is defeated in the House of Lords, it would waste a great deal of legislative time which could be spent on other projects. Therefore, would the Prime Minister consider exercising his constitutional right to advise the Queen to make up sufficient peers to give the Government a majority in the Lords?
The Prime Minister: On that point —[Interruption.] The Leader of the Conservative Party has got his history of patronage wrong. He used to reward faithful members of Parliament with honours—knighthoods, and the rest. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: That was one way that the right hon. Gentleman had of keeping discipline which he has since lost. I: is not unusual for ex-Ministers, at the end of their period as Ministers, to go to the Lords. The right hon. Gentle-
1326
man will recall that unprecedentedly after the last election I asked him to recommend the names of Conservative Ministers to be nominated for the Lords, which had never been done for the Opposition when the Tories were in office.
With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), I think that I will content myself with using the words of a predecessor, Mr. William Ewart Gladstone, who said:
"The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted."
Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prerogative of the Crown which we would most like him to advise is a dissolution of Parliament?
Mr. Molloy: If Tory peers in another place are interested in entering the country's politics, they can follow the example of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—chuck their coronets away, and enter the proper field.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision about having any further discussions with the Opposition on this important matter, because what happened the other night was redolent of all that we have considered vulgar in authoritarian States? He might well be dealing with the Opposition Front Bench, who are still under the control of those in another place; and this in itself would be flouting democracy.
The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the courage of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who, since he came to this House, has made a most distinguished and notable contribution to the work of the House. I am only sorry that his last intervention, a few moments ago, made him sound almost as pathetic as his Leader.
Mr. Sandys: The Prime Minister said that it was customary for retiring Ministers to go to the House of Lords. Is it not time he went there himself?
The Prime Minister: We usually expect a rather more significant contribution from the right hon. Gentleman. After all, he has dragged his Leader with him on his Rhodesian policy with great success; and, if he is still not satisfied, he can have another word with his P.P.S. on the Front Bench and sort it out.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Opposition peers in another place took leave to take advice from the so-called Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on their action last Tuesday. He will also be aware—
Mr. Speaker: Order; a brief question, please.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will also be aware that many of us on this side of the House were not at all delighted with the joint talks which were taking place and, therefore, are very glad that they have been broken off.
Can my right hon. Friend give us a glimpse into the future, first, by making a clear pronouncement on whether there will be any delaying powers whatsoever in a reformed Second Chamber, and, second, by indicating clearly that there will be the complete abolition of hereditary peerages?
The Prime Minister: I could not hear the first part of my hon. Friend's ques-
1328
tion very well, because hon. Members opposite are obviously trying to talk their way out of the sense of shame that they are feeling. I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the purported instruction given to their Lordships' House by a political figure in Southern Rhodesia, which was obviously counter-productive and resented by the Conservative peers. I think that that should be said in fairness to them. No doubt Mr. Smith had felt so encouraged by his ability to give instructions to hon. Members of this House that he thought that he could get away with it in another House as well.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: On the constitutional precedents, is it not a fact that when the House of Lords rejected Government Measures in 1909 the then Prime Minister found it appropriate to have two General Elections before dealing with the composition of the House of Lords? Half a century later will not the Prime Minister be half as democratic and have one General Election?
The Prime Minister: The difference is that on this occasion we have twice sought a mandate for the legislation that we shall introduce and have been granted it.
rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

  Clause 15
  AGGREGATION WITH INCOME OF PARENTS OF INVESTMENT, ETC. INCOME OF UNMAPPED INFANTS NOT REGULARLY WOKKING
  4.20 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 11, leave out 'and only if'.
  I think that it will be convenient, Sir Eric, to discuss this Amendment with the following Amendments: Amendment No. 15,:in line 11, leave out 'a full-time' and insert 'an'; and Amendment No. 16, in line 14, leave out from 'education ' to end of line.
  Subsection (3) as drafted, is unworkable, harsh or both. Under subsection (1), the incomes of a child are aggregated with those of its parents while it is not regularly working. Subsection (3) seeks to define the meaning of " not regularly working". As the subsection is short, it may be convenient for me to read it:
  "An infant is to be treated for the purposes of this section as working regularly if, and only if, he or she is engaged in a full-time occupation, not being one entered into during an interval not exceeding fifteen months between two periods of full-time education, and intends to be regularly engaged in it or another such occupation."
  As I understand the meaning of this subsection, it is, first, that aggregation is to take place until the child leaves school. That is the essence of the Clause and no question arises on that. The aggregation is to continue until the child takes full-time occupation. What is the meaning of "full-time" in this context? Is it to be a certain number of hours; or is it to be what the tax collector thinks it should be? This is a taxing provision, and the Government should be clear about what they mean. Is it to be full-
  1330
  time paid occupation? The child might take up a voluntary job which might occupy it full time. Is that to qualify him to be assessed separately? How is "full-time" to be determined? Is it to be decided by the courts or in some other way?
  Even if it is decided that the child is in full-time occupation, under subsection (3) such occupation is still inadequate in two events: first, if the child starts full-time education again within 15 months of leaving school, and, second, unless the child intends to be regularly engaged in a full time occupation continuously thereafter. I am not quite certain whether those are joined by "and", or are intended to be alternatives.
  How is it to be known in advance that there will be an interval of 15 months? It seems to me to be quite impossible to determine when a child leaves school, and enters a job, whether or not it will enter full-time occupation. Suppose a mistake is made. Suppose the child leaves school intending to take up a job permanently, but after a certain length of time goes back into education. Is there then to be retrospection? We are dealing with the parents' as well as the child's income, and we must know whether or not the taxation will fall in advance.
  The Chief Secretary always deals with this matter as if we are talking of a handful of millonaires. I hope that he will understand from the debate last night that there will be many hard cases, particularly children of divorced parents, where the circumstances are quite humble and it will be essential to know in advance what the position is. How will it be possible to know 15 months in advance what will occur?
  How is the intention to remain in full-time occupation to be ascertained? I know of a young man who left school with the intention of taking a full-tune commission in the Army. I imagine that the job he started to do then would count as full-time occupation for the purposes of the Clause. He served for two years in the Army, but just before his 21st birthday he decided that it was not the life for him and went to a university, which is undoubtedly going back into education. That was a case of genuine intention, which was changed. What is the effect of an honest change of intention? How is it dealt with by the Clause?

  1331
  Whoever gave instructions for the drafting of the Clause has never been a Member of Parliament for a middle-class constituency, or, indeed, any constituency, and, I think, has never been a parent. Nowadays, young people of 18 or so do not know in advance precisely what they will do. Even if they have very clear ideas about it, they very seldom carry them out as intended, and where changes take place the provision will be quite unworkable.
  Apart from anything else, there will be a number of cases where young people leave school, but intend in due course to re-enter education. They may wish to do some voluntary service or they may spend a year or so enjoying themselves. This is not at all uncommon. The Clause will encourage them to tell deliberate lies. There will certainly be cases where that encouragement will be very hard to resist, particularly where the income is not very great and the last thing they want to do is to throw a burden on their parents.
  The Clause will be very harsh, it will be morally wrong, it will prove to be unworkable, and it will place an additional load on the courts. The Amendments are an attempt to straighten it up, to make it simple, and to give it good sense. If the Government have a better solution I should be willing to withdraw them and accept their solution, but this is the best I can do.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I support the Amendment so clearly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
  I, too, wonder what happens if a child decides to take up voluntary service. Does it count as full-time employment under the Clause?
  I reinforce my hon. Friend's request that the Chief Secretary should consider what happens when children enter employment for the first time. They change their minds about their future constantly, and it seems to me that the Government should have some sympathy in such cases. The Government have changed their minds constantly in a 15-month period on such fundamental issues as devaluation, the maintenance of our position east of Suez and the statutory enforcement of the prices and incomes policy.
  1332
  If the Government can change their minds so rapidly in 15 months, why should not one expect that young men and women aged 16, 17 and 18 should change their minds about their future? What is to happen if young people change their minds about the future just as often as the Government do?
  4.30 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The Clause was discussed fairly fully upstairs, when similar points were raised. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) have read the report of the proceedings. I do not think that, in practice, we shall have these difficulties, although this is a new provision. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their attempt to avoid difficulties, but the provision will be no more difficult in practice than any number of similar provisions of the taxing codes.
  The hon. Members were concerned with full-time occupation. Full-time occupation is defined in the Clause as
  "… any office, employment, trade, profession or vocation".
  which means, of course, those known to the taxation Acts and, therefore, if there is an office which does not produce emoluments which are returned for tax purposes, that does not count as an occupation for the purposes of this subsection and thus does not count as a full-time occupation.
  This would have the effect of excluding aggregation so that a wholly voluntary occupation would not result in the cessation of aggregation of the unearned income of the child.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Is it possible that the employment of an infant by a parent as, say, a domestic help in the house—for which it would be paid—would be counted as an occupation?
  Mr. Diamond: Questions of that kind already arise when a husband employs his wife in a variety of occupations or so-called occupations. The Inland Revenue has to determine whether it is an occupation or a so-called occupation, or an allegation of occupation, and inquiries have to take place. If it is

  1333
  found that it is not an occupation, then the consequences which would be expected to follow from that will follow. In the case quoted by my hon. Friend, it would be the same process. It would not be easy, however, to imagine the kind of occupation which he has suggested, but it would be easy to imagine similar occupations, such as employment in the father's business or office, perhaps being carried on at home. One would not want to determine the matter in advance. The only answer I can give is that, with a great many matters connected with the administration of tax, the inspector of taxes has to find out the facts and satisfy himself, and if the taxpayer objects to the findings he has the right of appeal.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Would attendance at a military academy be educational or occupational?
  Mr. Diamond: It depends on what kind of attendance the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The inspector of taxes would find out the facts. I am not able to give an answer without knowing any of the facts. If the facts are as described by the hon. Gentleman—that it is a full-time occupation—the answer is that there would be a cessation of aggregation. If it is a continuation of education, and is not full-time occupation as described in the Clause, then aggregation would continue.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This is a matter of great importance not only to many parents, but to the country. Surely the hon. Gentleman has heard of military academics. Surely government is not run in watertight compartments. What is the position?
  Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman wants a serious question to be answered, he must give some of the facts. I am not here to assume them.
  Mr. Goodhart: Supposing the student is at Sandhurst, then?
  Mr. Diamond: If a student at Sandhurst is merely continuing with his education, and is not engaged in full-time occupation as set out here, aggregation will continue. If hon. Gentlemen know the facts and have difficulty in interpreting them by reference to the Clause, I am
  1334
  anxious to help, but I am not in a position to determine facts which I do not know in sufficient detail. So the answer to the question on occupation is the one I have given in relation to whether it is paid or voluntary.
  The next question was in relation to intention. The hon. Gentlemen and I know that intention is a difficult matter and does not rely on intention if one can find a better method of dealing with the situation. But merely to have an occupation for the moment does not determine the issue. One has to go much further than that and have both an occupation for the moment and an intention of continuing full-time occupation. That is not difficult to decide in practice when one thinks of the dates on which the information is likely to be asked for and needed.
  In the normal circumstance, the child will leave school in the middle of the year, at the end of the first quarter of the financial year, and for another nine or 12 months there will be no need for any information to be given to the inspector of taxes with regard to the history of the child's activities during that period. By that time, the probability is that the matter will be clear and ascertained. If it is not, it will not be decided finally until it has become clear. In the normal case, this will present no difficulty.
  Of course, it is open to the child concerned to change his mind. On the facts given by. the hon. Member for Hendon, South in the case about which he was good enough to give some detail, I have no hesitation in saying that in the case of the person who enters full-time occupation believing it to be a full-time occupation, but then changes his mind after two years and is still of an age group to be a child and goes to university, there would not be retrospective assessment because, at the time he entered into the full-time occupation, it was clear that it was full-time occupation and that he had ceased therefore to be part of the family unit which constitutes the principle for aggregation.
  I do not think that any of these difficulties will arise in practice. The Amendment would not assist in making the provision more easily administerable and in these circumstances I regret that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: We find that a very disappointing answer. There may well be some points which others of my hon. Friends wish to pursue before we take this matter, as we shall, into the Division Lobbies, but there are some which I want to make now.
  The Clause and Schedule are detested on this side of the Committee but, given the fact that, for a year at least, they may well be part of the law of the land, we should try and make them comprehensible. My hon. Friends are making a good attempt to make sense of subsection (3). I do not know who drafted it but one can make certain deductions.
  First, unquestionably he was a bachelor and he has at no time had any contact with what young people do. Secondly, he must have lived all his life, until he came to its fulfilment in the drafting of subsection (3), on a planet a mile different from the one which hon. Members on both sides know. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has said, anyone who has had children, or who has been linked in any way with young people, knows that the assumptions in subsection (3) are absolute nonsense.
  The typical situation which we are considering is of a young man or young woman leaving home and becoming for a time part of the floating population of the bed-sitter world which is concentrated in areas such as Earl's Court, Knights-bridge, and parts of Kensington. A girl of 19 in those circumstances who has some savings income—otherwise she is not affected by the Clause—has not the faintest idea whether, 15 months from now, she will still be part of what I have called that floating population. She has not the faintest idea whether or not she will be married. She has not the slightest idea whether she will be doing the same sort of job, or another job. She has not the slightest idea whether she intends to remain, for ever presumably, full-time in her present, or, indeed, in any other occupation. Every parent knows that this is the situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has put forward three Amendments which, in effect, make two alterations to the subsection. The first is to take out the conception that occupation must be full-time. That is a wise Amendment, partly for the reasons I have given,
  1336
  and partly for the more important reason that his Amendment would eliminate most of lines 14 and 15 of Clause 15(3), and thereby eliminate the extraordinary assumption that such a young person, if I may quote the Finance Bill:
  "… intends to be regularly engaged in it or another such occupation."
  For the reason I have given, that assumption has no foundation in fact.
  This matter is very closely linked to the Amendment—from memory, I think it was No. 43—which I spoke to at the end of our proceedings last night. I invited special comment on it from the Chief Secretary, and he was courteous enough to give it. Amendment No. 43 —and this Amendment has much the same thought in mind—said, in effect, that if the savings income of the youth is, in practice, not available to the parents or parent for aggregation, it shall not be aggregated. As I said last night, this seems to me to be incontestable in law, logic and equity.
  The Chief Secretary said that it was a new point to him and that he would consider it, presumably before Report. With respect, it is not a new point. It has been raised since the Budget on a number of occasions. It has been raised in the national Press. It has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), and it was raised by myself and others upstairs in relation to residence. If the people with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is concerned are part of the floating population, their income may well be in no way available for the family unit or, in particular, for the parent or parents whom they have left, either temporarily or permanently.
  So I ask the Chief Secretary if he will take into his consideration of Amendment No. 43 the Amendments which are now before the House. The savings income may well be in no way available to the mother or the father, as the case may be, and, therefore, aggregation is both inequitable and, in practice, impossible. These Amendments greatly improve the subsection, and I very much hope that if we cannot screw anything further out of the Chief Secretary we will divide.
  4.45 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: May I ask the Minister what the deletion of the words "a full-time" means in relation to the universities, which are, of course, educational institutions? Many students nowadays do other work during the vacation. Would I be right in thinking that the Clause covers income from that other work? Would the large grants that are given to students for their maintenance at university be aggregated? Can the Minister say whether education is a full-time occupation? The amount of maintenance given to students may be well over £300. In the case of someone with two children at university, if that is to be aggregated, it will be a serious matter for the person with whose income it is aggregated and also for the young person at university.
  Mr. Diamond: No. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that his anxieties are baseless. What he refers to is not income, but assistance given to a university student which does not count as income for Income Tax purposes. There is no question of aggregation.
  Sir E, Errington: Where is that to be found in the Bill?
  Mr. Diamond: It does not need to be in the Bill, since it is not income in the first place.
  Sir E. Errington: Not income? I am staggered to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not income. Of course it is income.
  Mr. Diamond: I do not think that we need to get excited about it. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that it is not income for Income Tax purposes and that there is no intention to treat it as income for Income Tax purposes. There is, therefore, no question of aggregating it and regarding it as unearned income which, as the hon. Gentleman has no doubt noticed, is the kind of income which is subject to aggregation.
  The hon. Gentleman has asked me whether full-time attendance at university is an occupation. He will have observed that "occupation" is defined in subsection (3) as
  "… any office, employment, trade, profession or vocation."
  The answer is that it is not within one of those categories. Therefore, the un-
  1338
  earned income of a young person undergoing full-time education at university will be aggregated with the parents' income.
  May I turn now to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I recognise the connection, but I am bound to say that the discussion on these Amendments added nothing to our discussion on Amendment No. 43.
  I did not say that it was a new point. I recognise that it was discussed upstairs in relation to having a better definition than "full-time occupation" for when a child ceases to be a member of the family unit. We were considering whether residence did not provide a better definition, and, in committee upstairs, I gave reasons why that would not work. I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will not be able to screw anything further out of me on these Amendments but, naturally, what I said last night stands.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I apologise for not being present when the Chief Secretary addressed the Committee, although I hope that he will agree that my previous attendance has been good.
  Arising out of the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), there is another matter which should be looked into further. Many industrial organisations take on young people for whom they see a bright future. They pay them a salary and put them to work full-time in their businesses for a year and then send them to a university on a full-time course, continuing to pay them their salaries. What is the state of any remuneration paid in such circumstances? Is it regarded as being for full-time education?
  Mr. Diamond: I agree immediately that the hon. Gentleman was a most regular attendant on our proceedings upstairs, and I hope that he will not misunderstand me if I say that he attended almost too regularly. I say that to remind him that this point was considered upstairs, and there are a number of different circumstances which might arise. I invite him to refresh his memory by reading the reports of our proceedings in Standing Committee. However, I am

  1339
  sure that he will realise that the income that he is discussing is earned income, and there is no question of aggregating it.
  That Clause does not deal with full-time education. It deals with what is a full-time occupation. In the case of someone deliberately limiting himself to a week or a month in an occupation, followed by three months doing something else, followed by another deliberately limited period at a temporary job, those two periods being his only occupations in 12 months, they would be treated as two periods of full-time occupation. If they were regarded as taking the child concerned out of the provisions of aggregation, it would make a nonsense of the Clause.
  We have the usual problem that arises in any tax administration. We are administering the tax for a whole year, and we have to have circumstances relevant to the whole year. To the whole year once the child has left school, one has to apply something more than his being in and out of occupations for a week at a time.
  Mr. John Nott: In moving his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) gave a very interesting example, and the Chief Secretary has not supplied a satisfactory answer. My hon. Friend cited the example of a young man who goes to a military academy, and suggested Sandhurst. It is intolerable to leave the position in a state where the Chief Secretary says that a parent has to negotiate the matter with the tax inspector. Who is running the country? Are tax inspectors to be placed in a position where they decide whether a parent sends his son to Sandhurst?
  This is just as specific a case as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington).I
  quite understand that there must be matters of detail in tax legislation which are subject to discussion with the Inland Revenue, but here is a clear and specific case. If a parent decides that his son will have a military career, and go to Sandhurst, will any income of the son be aggregated? It is quite unreasonable to suggest that the parent has to negotiate the matter with the tax inspector. That is not the way to leave legislation.
  As the father of teenage children, my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is a far greater expert than I on the floating population which moves between Earl's Court and Notting Hill, but I support his claim that the Clause bears no relation to what goes on in real life. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that any teenage person can have an intention to be regularly engaged in work. This does not make sense to me. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but, having listened to this brief debate, I think that we ought not to leave the matter in this vacuous state before voting upon it.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) asked me whether the conditions of attending at Sandhurst are such as to come within the Clause. The answer is that they are. I am informed that, before going to Sandhurst, a student has to undertake to serve for a period of years. At the point of joining Sandhurst, it is clear that he intends to engage in a full-time occupation of the kind described in the Clause and, therefore, the aggregation of his unearned income with his parents' income will no longer apply.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 193.

  Division No. 223.]

  AYES

  [4.57 p.m.

  Astor, John

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Balniel, Lord

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Doughty, Charles

  Bell, Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Biffen, John

  Channon, H. P. G.

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Clegg, Walter

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Cooke, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Blaker, Peter

  Corfield, F. V.

  Farr, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Body, Richard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Foster, Sir John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Crouch, David

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Grant, Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Royle, Anthony

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Grieve, Percy

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharpies, Richard

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh & Whitby)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Silvester, Frederick

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marten Neil

  Smith, John (London & W'mlnster)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Maude, Angus

  Speed, Keith

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Teeling, Sir William

  Hirst, Gooffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hordern, Peter

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Hunt, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nott, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walters, Dennis

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Webster, David

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pardoe, John

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Jopling, Michael

  Peel, John

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pym, Francis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kirk, Peter

  Bamsdcn, Rt. Hn. James

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Evane, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Anderson, Donald

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lawson, George

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Ledger, Ron

  Barnes, Michael

  Forrester, John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Barnett, Joel

  Fowler, Gerry

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Beaney, Alan

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Calpern, Sir Myer

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gourtay, Harry

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Booth, Albert

  Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Boston, Terence

  Gregory, Arnold

  McBride, Neil

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Griffiths, Eddie

  McCann, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanely)

  MacColl, James

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hamaton, James (Bothwell)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackie, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Haseldine, Norman

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hazell, Bert

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Concannon, J. D.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  MacPherson, Malcoim

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Maxwell, Robert

  Cronin, John

  Horner, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Crosaman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Mendelson J.J.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Howie, W.

  Mikardo Ian

  Davies, If or (Gower)

  Hoy, James

  MilIan Bruce

  Dell, Edmund

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dewar, Donald

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)

  Milne Edward (Blyth)

  Diamond, Rt Hn. John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Dickens, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Molloy, William

  Dobson, Ray

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Moonman, Eric

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Driberg, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Eadie, Alex

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Moyle, Roland

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Murray, Albert

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  O'MaiHy, Brian

  Ellis, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Ennals, David

  Judd, Frank

  Orme, Stanley

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Oswald, Thomas

  1342

  1343

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

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Owen, WHI (Morpeth)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Urwin, T. W.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Varley, Eric C.

  Paget, R. T.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Ryan, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Park, Trevor

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Weitzman, David

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Silverman, Julius

  Wllkins, W. A.

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Slater, Joseph

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Probert, Arthur

  Small, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rankin, John

  Snow, Julian

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Roes, Merlyn

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Winnick, David

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Swain, Thomas

  Woof, Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Swingler, Stephen

  Yates, Victor

  Richard, Ivor

  Taverne, Dick

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Walter Harrison and

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Mr.Charles Grey.

  The Chairman: Last night, I promised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that there would be a Division on Amendment No. 13, which has already been discussed.
  Amendment proposed: No. 13, in page 11, line 17, at end insert:
  (4) Tax shall not be charged by virtue of this section in respect of—
  (a) any infant's income if such infant's income does not exceed five hundred pounds and in the case of income which exceeds that amount shall be charged only in respect of the excess; and
  (b) any infant's income so far as the same is income arising under a settlement in relation to which some person other than a relative of the infant's parent is or was a settlor (' settlement' and ' settlor' here having the same meaning as in Chapter III of Part XVIII of the Income Tax Act 1952, and relative including a husband or wife, parent or remoter forebear, child or remoter issue, brother or sister).—[Mr. Richard Wainwright.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 193.

  Division No. 224.]

  AYES

  [5.7 p.m.

  Astor, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Jentrin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Emery, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Balniel, Lord

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bell, Ronald

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Farr, John

  Jopling, Michael *

  Biffen, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Foster, Sir John

  Klmball, Marcus

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kirk Peter

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lane, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant) Anthony

  LewiS, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Buchanan-Smith,Allck(Angus,N&M)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grieve, Percy

  Longden, Gilbert

  Burden, F.A.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmuncrs)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mackenzie,Alasdarr(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hal, John (Woycombe)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Macleod, Ht. Hn. lain

  Clegg, Walter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Cooke, Robert

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Marten, Neil

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maude, Angus

  Costain A. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthome)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Crouch, David

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

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

  Crowder, F. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Monro, Hector

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)

  Hogg, Ht. Hn. Quintin

  More, jasper

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hordern, Peter

  Munroo-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Doughty, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Nott, John

  Royle, Anthony

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Walters, Dennis

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Webster, David

  Pardoe, John

  Silvester, Frederick

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Peel, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Speed, Keith

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Pym, Francis

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

  Renton, Rt Hn. Sir David

  Teeling, Sir William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Eric Lubbock and

  Mr. Richard Wainwright.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Albert

  Anderson, Donald

  Haseldine, Norman

  O'Malley, Brian

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hazell, Bert

  Oram, Albert E.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Hilton, W. S.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Barnes, Michael

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

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

  Barnett, Joel

  Horner, John

  Owen, Will (Morpetn)

  Beaney, Alan

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Howie, W.

  Paget, R. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hoy, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Blackburn, F.

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Park, Trevor

  Booth, Albert

  Hunter, Adam

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Boston, Terence

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rankin, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn

  Cronin, John

  Kelley, Richard

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Crossman, lit. Hn. Richard

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lawson, George

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ledger, Ron

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

  Dell, Edmund

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Rogers, George (Kensinton, N.)

  Diamond, Rt Hn. John

  Lesor, Miss Joan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dickens, James

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Dobson, Ray

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rayan, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sheldon, Robert

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

  Lyon, Alexander w.(York)

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCann, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Ellis, John

  MacColl, James

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Ennals, David

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Slater, Joseph

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Small, William

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Snow, Julian

  Fitch, Aian (Wigan)

  Mackie, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Swingler, Stephen

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Taverne, Dick

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Ceorge

  Fowler, Gerry

  Maxwell, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Tomney, Frank

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Walker, Harold (Doncastsr)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Molloy, William

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Griffiths, Eddie

  Moonman, Eric

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Weitzman, David

  Hamilton, william (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilkins, W, A.

  1346

  1347

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Winnick, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Woof, Robert

  Mr J. D Concannon and

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Yates, Victor

  Mr Charles Grey.

  Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)

  Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June]:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 188, Noes 151.

  Division No. 225.]

  AYES

  [5.16 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Anderson, Donald

  Hilton, W. S.

  Paget, R. T.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Horner, John

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Park, Trevor

  Barnes, Michael

  Howie, W.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Barnett, Joel

  Hoy, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Beaney, Alan

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Binns, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Probert, Arthur

  Booth, Albert

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Rankin, John

  Boston, Terence

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rees, Meriyn

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Bradley, Tom

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Haw, S.)

  Richard, lvor

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Roebuck, Roy

  Cronin, John

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lawson George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Ledger, Ron

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Ryan, John

  Davies, lfor (Gower)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Lestor Miss Joan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Diamond, Rt Hn. John

  Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Dickens, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sllkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dobson, Ray

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Doig, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Slater, Joseph

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

  McCann, John

  Small, William

  Eadie, Alex

  MacColl, James

  Snow, Julian

  Edelman, Maurice

  Macdonald, A.H.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McKay, Mrs Margaret

  Swain, Thomas

  Ellis, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Ennals, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Tinn James

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

  Mackie, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, G.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara,J. Kevin

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fietcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, David

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Millan, Bruce

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Weitzman, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Molloy, William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Moorman, Eric

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Eddie

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Winnick, David

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Albert

  Woof, Robert

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefietd)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Yates, Victor

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oswald, Thomas

  Haseldine, Norman

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hazell, Bert

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  NOES

  Astor, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n& M'd'n)

  Bell, Ronald

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Biffen, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Osborn, John (Halham)

  Body, Richard

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Peel, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Holland, Philip

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hordern, Peter

  Pym, Francis

  Burden, F. A.

  Hunt, John

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Channon, H. P. C.

  Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chichester Clark, R.

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Cooke, Robert

  Jopling, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharpies, Richard

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Crouch, David

  Kimg, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kirk, Peter

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington>

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lane, David

  Speed, Keith

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Doughty, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Teeling, Sir William

  Emery, Peter

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Errington, Sir Eric

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mackenzie,Alasdarr(Ross & Crom'ty)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Farr, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Fortescue, Tim

  McMaster, Stanley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek

  Foster, Sir- John

  Marten, Neil

  Walters, Dennis

  Cibson-Watt, David

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Webster, David

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Monro, Hector

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Cresham Cooke, R.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grieve, Percy

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Worsley, Marcus

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Murton, Oscar

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nott, John

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Schedule 9
  LIFE POLICIES, LIFE ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND CAPITAL REDEMPTION POLICIES
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 64, line 8, after ' term ', to insert:
  'or a series of capital sums payable on or after death and until the expiry of a specified term such specified term'.
  The Chairman: With this Amendment we are taking Amendments No. 164, page 64, line 29, after ' term ' insert:
  'or a series of capital sums payable on or after death and until the expiry of a specified term such specified term'.
  No. 165, page 64, line 36, after 'or' insert:
  'the same or a different capital sum payable'.
  No. 166, page 66, line 11, at end insert:
  (iv) Reduction of premium policies.
  5A. Where a policy issued under a scheme of participation in profits provides for the
  1350
  premium to be reduced after a fixed term of not less than seven years instead of bonuses added to the sum assured and the total premiums payable in any period of twelve months does not exceed twice the amount of the total premiums payable in any other such period during the fixed term it is a qualifying policy notwithstanding that it complies only in part with the conditions specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
  No. 167, page 69, line 2, after ' gain' insert:
  'or a loss as the case may be '.
  No. 169, page 72, line 7, at end insert:
  17. The Commissioners shall approve a special policy notwithstanding that it does not fully satisfy all the conditions applicable to-a qualifying policy, provided that they are satisfied that such special policy would have been a qualifying policy but for certain provisions contained therein which though conflicting with the provisions of this Schedule only do so to an immaterial or trivial extent.
  Mr. Jenkin: As I was fairly heavily involved in dealing with this Schedule and Clause 16 in Committee, it was suggested that it might save time if I were

  1351
  to move the Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friends. I understand that the rules of the House are such that one's name does not have to be to an Amendment in order to move it.
  Schedule 9 seeks to implement the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring to an end the enjoyment of life assurance relief and the exemption from Surtax on the proceeds of what are loosely called single premium policies. The Schedule contains a large number of new rules with which insurance policies must comply if they are to fall within the description of "a qualifying policy" referred to in Clause 16 and the Schedule. These rules are detailed, complex and, in many respects, as the Bill was originally drafted, highly restrictive.
  It was difficult to reconcile the Schedule as it was presented to the House with the intention expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced this part of his Budget. He said:
  "I say at once that I have no desire to weaken the tax position of legitimate life assurance or endowment schemes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 290–1.]
  We debated the Schedule at some length in Committee, and I am happy to say that the Government were most forthcoming. They accepted some of our Amendments as drafted. They accepted the principle of others and undertook to table suitable Amendments on Report. They were sympathetic with others and said that they would consider them between the Committee and Report stages. On yet other Amendments, they said that they were fairly sure that the Bill was all right but that they would look at it again. The Committee was impressed with two things: the very fair and open-minded attitude adopted by the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State to the matters which we drew to their attention; and with the astonishing rigidity of the Schedule as it was drawn. The comment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) as to what would have happened if the Schedule had been guillotined, not surprisingly, received no answer.
  We are content to leave for the Report stage most of the matters which we raised and which the Government are considering again, but there were a few Amend-
  1352
  ments which we thought it would be appropriate to air for a few minutes on recommittal. These are Amendments which were not selected in Committee. I make absolutely no complaint about that. The Chairman was more than generous in his selection. However, he felt that enough Amendments had been selected already.
  One Amendment was selected and debated, but the Minister of State was most unhopeful, although he had sympathy with the point, that a way would be found of drafting an Amendment to take account of our point. It was therefore rejected and we thought it right to return to the matter at this stage in order to demonstrate its importance. I express to you, Sir Eric, our thanks for having chosen these Amendments for discussion on recommittal.
  I will deal, first, with Amendment No. 163, with which Amendment No. 164 goes. These two Amendments were not selected in Standing Committee A. They relate to what is described in the Schedule, and is often referred to in the insurance world, as "term assurance". They seek to amend paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of Schedule 9.
  5.30 p.m.
  Paragraph 1(3) deals with a term assurance which is intended to last longer than 10 years. It provides that, to be a qualifying policy, there must be regular payment of premiums over a reasonably even spread. The details are spelt out. I need not weary the Committee with them.
  Paragraph 1(4) deals with term assurance where the term is less than 10 years. In that event, the only restriction imposed is that in the event of the surrender of the policy before it has run its period, the surrender payment should be no larger than the aggregate of the premiums which have been paid thereunder.
  These two paragraphs refer to term assurance in these words:
  "If the policy secures a capital sum payable on death occurring during a specified term …"
  In our view, and the view of those in the insurance world, this is altogether too narrow. It does not take account of a generally employed form of insurance policy, the family income benefits policy, where a series of lump sums are payable over a period of time, perhaps up to the

  1353
  termination of the term for which the policy was originally expressed, or up to any other date written into the policy. This is a popular policy and meets the needs of insurers in a large number of cases. As the Bill stands, I understand that this form of policy could not be taken out so as to qualify for relief. Yet, in my view, it most assuredly ought to be provided for, and Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 deal with that matter.
  Amendment No. 165 deals with endowment assurances in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9. Here again, the possible benefit has been too rigidly circumscribed. Endowment assurance is an assurance where the sum becomes payable not on death, but on some other event, or with an alternative of a payment on some other event. The kind of case that we have in mind, with which we feel that paragraph 2 ought to deal is special mortgage protection policies. Hon. Members who were on Standing Committee A will know that Clause 16 contains a broad general exclusion for mortgage protection policies, because they are a special animal which should not have to comply with all the requirements of the Schedule. They are narrowly defined to mortgage protection. We had an undertaking that this was probably too narrow, and we may find other words substituted on Report. But there could be mortgage protection policies which should not qualify for that blanket exclusion, but which would be qualifying policies provided they complied with the requirements of Schedule 9.
  We are here talking about
  "… a capital sum payable either on survival for a specified term or on earlier death…"
  In some cases these policies provide not for the payment of a capital sum payable either on survival or on earlier death, but different sums. The sums may be paid by instalments. The normal building society mortgage provides that the sums should be payable half-yearly, or indeed more frequently.
  The words which we suggest should be added to the Bill in Amendment No. 165 are:
  "the same or a different capital sum payable on earlier death."
  This is a small Amendment. I do not believe that it strikes in any way at the roots of the main purpose of the Schedule. It is a necessary Amendment
  1354
  in order that the legislation should not frustrate perfectly genuine life assurance relief.
  Amendment No. 166 is directed to a special kind of policy, to which we referred in Standing Committee A, the declining premium policy, where the bonuses earned by the policy during its life are applied not to add to the policy monies, but to reduce the premium in the latter years of its life. On 22nd May, in Standing Committee A, I quoted a passage from a letter from one of the life offices describing what the policy was about. It is probably simpler to refer to that letter again to put the matter before the Committee. The letter reads:
  "We are especially concerned over the Reduction of Premium Policy which has been issued without any material change in the basic principle ever since the Association was founded in 1806. It is a unique contract unmatched by any other company and of such long standing that it can hardly be said to have been devised with tax avoidance in mind.
  Briefly, the policy is a with-profits contract which participates in profits by way of reduction of the premiums payable as opposed to the addition of a reversionary bonus.
  A level premium is payable during the first seven years. In the eighth and subsequent years the premium is reduced by the rate per cent. declared by the Directors for that year. The reductions continue until the rate of reduction reaches 100 per cent. when the premium is extinguished and no further premiums are payable. Thereafter, declared 'reductions' are added annually to the policy and accumulated as a cash benefit."
  Clearly, any policy on those lines is bound to come into conflict with the basic rules written into the Schedule about the reasonably even spread of premiums. The difficulty which the Minister of State saw about this was that it could lead to great loopholes if the general were so altered that it would comprise a special policy of this kind. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "But there is the very great difficulty, which I hope hon. Members opposite will understand, of not altering the provisions of the paragraph in such a way that there is a very wide loophole that would be very widely explored."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1968, Standing Committee A; c. 1232.]
  I interpreted the Minister as saying that, though he was sympathetic, he did not think it possible to amend the Schedule so as to comprise this type of policy, of which tens of thousands must have been issued over the period since they have been in practice. Therefore, we thought it right to see whether it is

  1355
  not possible to deal with this as a special policy. Amendment No. 166 seeks to add to the Schedule new paragraph 5A relating to reduction of premium policies.
  We have adopted the solution of taking the term of the policy and, where one has a minimum term of seven years, as was described in the passage from the letter I read, writing that into the Clause as one of the conditions enabling the policy to be a qualifying policy. I am happy to say that the case which the Minister put as a possible loophole if the matter were dealt with generally was recognised by the company concerned which wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and said:
  "I think there must be a minimum term for the full premiums otherwise the way would be open for large first premiums. Some of the Bill's restrictions must apply to the full premium period otherwise there will be innumerable loopholes."
  I quote that to demonstrate again, if it needs demonstrating, that those who deal with these matters in the world outside— the life offices, the various constituent companies, and other organisations—are anxious that they should not be thought to be trying to leave loopholes for tax evaders. They take a very responsible attitude to these matters, and I hope that this Amendment, too, will attract the support and sympathy of the Financial Secretary.
  I come, now, to an Amendment which is regarded by the life offices as very important, and again one which was not selected in Committee. I am referring to Amendment No. 167, and with this we come to the paragraph which deals with the charge to Surtax where the policy is a non-qualifying one. The general rule is that if a policy does not qualify the excess of the policy moneys over the total premiums paid comes into charge for Surtax. The rationale is simple to understand, namely, that the income which has accrued in tie life company's hands has been subject to Income Tax, and there has also been Capital Gains Tax on the investment, but there has been no Surtax, and therefore if the policy holder is a high Surtax payer this is a way of getting an accretion to his wealth without a charge to Surtax.
  That being so there must be a case for the allowance where there has been a
  1356
  loss on a policy, and the case comprehended by the Amendment is where, for instance, two policies are surrendered at the same time. Qualifying policies do not give rise to any difficulty, because there we are not concerned with Surtax, but if two policies which do not qualify are surrendered simultaneously, the one which shows a gain will be Surtaxable, while the other, as the Bill stands, will receive no relief if there is a loss. Surtax is paid on the gain, but to the loss is carried by the policy holder. I cannot believe that that is the right way to approach the matter.
  The normal rules relating to losses for Income Tax and everything else are that a balance is struck between gains and losses, and the result is the figure which represents the sum on which taxation is charged. I cannot believe that it is right to tax the gains and to leave the losses unrelieved.
  Finally, I come to the last of the group of Amendments, Amendment No. 169, and in some ways this is perhaps the most important of the lot. Here we are introducing new and admittedly complex provisions which, whether the Government like it or not, are bound to have a material influence on the general shape and development of life assurance over the years ahead.
  The tax reliefs given to those who pay premiums on genuine life insurance— Income Tax relief, and freedom from Surtax on the proceeds—are extremely valuable. Although many policies do not qualify for those reliefs, even as the law stands, nevertheless the great attraction of life assurance as a vehicle for saving is that for many years these tax reliefs have been enjoyed. The Government's intention is that for genuine life assurance they should continue to be enjoyed, but the new restrictions included in the 9th Schedule are of a complex nature indeed. The debates in Committee upstairs—and indeed what I have been saying today— showed that there must be many matters which, with the best will in the world, the Government's advisers have not thought of, and are therefore likely to cause grave difficulties until they are put right in subsequent legislation.
  In Committee we discussed two Amendments related to the point at issue here. Both Amendments aimed at giv-

  1357
  ing the Government room for manoeuvre where a policy broadly complied with the restrictions but where there might be some small extent to which it conflicted with the letter of the law as it will when Schedule 9 becomes law. We moved an Amendment about variations on policies, the purpose of which was to exempt insignificant variations. The Financial Secretary accepted it and undertook to introduce an Amendment on Report. He said:
  "I shall undertake to amend so as to define variations in a way that will restrict the variations to those of substance and not to trifling variations of no real materiality."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1968; c. 1288.]
  The second Amendment included a paragraph aimed at giving the Government some power of dispensation where there were insubstantial variations from what would otherwise have qualified under the Schedule, but there the Minister of State took a different view. He misconstrued what his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had said earlier. He told us that an undertaking had been given "to look at" the earlier Amendment. In fact, as I have said, the Financial Secretary undertook to table an Amendment. The Minister of State refused even to consider the suggestion that there should be some sort of locus penitentiae, some room for dispensation in the case of minor infractions of what would otherwise be a qualifying policy under Schedule 9. He said:
  "… there would be considerable danger that if this discretion were granted all sorts of schemes would be launched as a try-on to see whether the Revenue would treat them as special policies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd May, 1968; c. 1308.]
  He went on to argue that this would lead to an immense amount of extra work for the Revenue, and give rise to great uncertainty.
  I believe that the Minister of State took an unduly pessimistic view of the prospects if the Amendment were accepted. However, we have taken his point and redrafted the paragraph to make it apply to a lesser category of cases. The paragraph now contains the phrase:
  "… though conflicting with the provisions of this Schedule only do so to an immaterial or trivial extent."
  We have had experience of legislation which has been drawn in an exact form
  1358
  and which the Revenue has felt bound to interpret strictly in accordance with the language employed by Parliament in the Statute. Indeed, that is the duty of the Revenue, and I make no complaint about it, but it imposes on us an important duty to make sure that if we want to give room for manoeuvre our legislation is not drawn in too tight and circumscribed a form.
  One objection raised to the earlier Amendment was that it would give the Revenue a discretion. We said that the Revenue may grant a dispensation. We have dealt with that, and now we say that where there is a case of a trivial or insignificant variation the Commissioners shall approve the special policy. I believe that that is right. If the exemption comes within the paragraph as drawn, it should be mandatory on the Commissioners to allow the policy to qualify. The life offices give great weight to this Amendment, because the Revenue cannot be sure of having taken every possible variation into account. It is of the highest importance that Parliament does not put life assurance into a straitjacket which will affect the immensely valuable rôle which the movement performs in attracting savings and channelling them into investment.
  I repeat what I said in Committee about the enormous importance of life assurance to the economy. In 1967, £750 million of new savings were generated through the life assurance movement—the biggest single form of savings in the country. This is why we insist, and, mostly, the Government accept, that it is desperately important that nothing done in this Bill should affect these savings. The economy depends, as we have been told so often, on an increased flow of savings. The more we save, the less the Government have to raise in taxation. I beg the hon. Gentleman to look sympathetically at all the Amendments, but particularly at the last.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), because this has been the least acrimonious, if the most complex, aspect of the Bill. I have been filled with admiration at his complete mastery of the complex details and Amendments with which we have

  1359
  dealt, and it has been a source of great assistance to me in discharging my duty, as I have seen it, on this part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not the team of skilled assistants practised in this matter that I have, so I unstintingly compliment him on presenting his arguments in a way as knowledgeable as it was sympathetic, and which has enabled me to meet him wherever possible.
  If there be any friend of life assurance companies and similar institutions in their lawful avocations, I would say to him that my affection, regard and respect for these great institutions is no less than his. If, then, that friend demand why I am arguing the case for these restrictions, my answer must be that I believe that it puts life assurance on a firmer and sounder footing if we have, instead of a number of gentlemen's agreements to which not every life assurance company is a party, certain sound and clear rules acceptable to the Revenue and, basically, to the companies, which remove any uncertainty about which policies can be regarded as normal and reasonable and not tainted in the smallest degree with any charge of tax avoidance.
  The provisions are not intended to be, and are not, in the least penal. In seeking to eliminate the area of unacceptable tax advantages gained by some taxpayers, we have not removed the immense advantages which accrue to taxpayers by insuring themselves in this way, including many significant tax advantages not merely in terms of tax concessions on premiums but in other ways.
  I hope that the Committee will be aware that no hon. Member is more anxious than I to preserve intact the flourishing, growing, socially desirable— more than that: socially necessary— work of these great institutions. I would not knowingly support any measure which would damage their work and I have tried to take that approach up to now. If, between now and Report, anyone can press upon me any example of a failure by us to take into account the reasonable needs of the life assurance companies, I will consider it, even to the last moment.
  These Amendments do not all present much difficulty. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 are, in effect, drafting Amendments. The hon. Gentleman, despite my
  1360
  tributes to his mastery of this matter, seems to believe that clarification of what we all intended and for which he argued should be made. I accept his case. Our view is simply that the words would already achieve his purpose, while he thinks that we should make assurance doubly sure by clarifying them. If he and his hon. Friends would withdraw the Amendment, I am prepared, because I see no reason why we should not, to table an official Amendment on Report to remove any doubt as to the purport.
  On Amendment No. 165, also, we think that the words proposed are not required, but I understand that there is some feeling that this is not absolutely sure. Again, rather than leave anyone in uncertainty or doubt about our intentions, I will meet the hon. Gentleman and put that down. There is no reason why people should carry unnecessary anxieties; it is bad enough when one has to inflict necessary ones upon them.
  A more troublesome matter is Amendment No. 166, which deals with the case of a particular life policy which has been going for over 160 years, since 1806, and with which I am very reluctant to interfere. The difficulty is this. We have set the rules as simply and reasonably as we could, and one of them is that, within the qualifying ten years, no premium should be more than twice any other. Unfortunately, in this policy, after the seventh year, the premium begins to decline, and could conceivably be less than half the premium in previous years. Unhappily, with the best will in the world and starting from the principle that I must put the Revenue to a good deal of trouble rather than the citizen to a little trouble, I find that here we should have to make a significant breach of this basic principle to accommodate this ancient policy.
  The policy could be brought within the rule by a variation so slight that I hardly imagine that it would affect its commercial impact, although it might affect its aesthetic appeal to the company which has had it for so long—and I sympathise with it. Unhappily, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, not because I dissent from what my hon. Friend said previously—there is no question of avoidance here; this is a perfectly reputable policy—but because we have to rule by

  1361
  general principles and the principle must be preserved that no premium can be less than half a previous premium.
  Therefore, the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I assure the Committee that it is open to the company concerned, by deferring the initial decrease in its premiums until the eighth or ninth years instead of the seventh, as hitherto, to bring about conformity to our rules and bring the policy within them. It is a very small matter for the company, and, although I have started from the sympathetic wish to accommodate it even at the expense of our rules, I have not been able to find any way without a fundamental departure from the rules.
  Therefore, despite my genuine sympathy, I must ask the company to make the trifling variation which I understand that it would accept, and which would have no commercial effect on its dealings in this policy.
  6.0 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford rightly regards the principle of Amendment 169 as important. This proposal is intended to give discretion to the Inland Revenue, but in fact it would impose a mandatory obligation on it and it would, in effect, have to make up its mind whether or not to fight a case should anyone challenge its supposed mandatory obligation. This is not acceptable, first because I do not in principle like legislation the effect of which is to set out rules for qualifying policies and then to say, "Something not far from that will do." That is a blurred form of definition. We should not, on the one hand, say, these are the rules to be observed for a policy to qualify and go on to say, "If, however, there is a minor variation, it will still qualify." To pass legislation of this kind would place an impossible burden on the Revenue, since it would have to look at every scheme submitted to it and then, on a writ of mandamus, decide whether or not there was a trivial variation. That should not be invoked as a style of legislation, except when absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Perhaps I did not explain this fully enough. The hon. Gentleman should remember that Section 379 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, relating to superannuation benefit schemes, sets out the exact considerations with which a scheme must comply if it is to
  1362
  get relief, but goes on in subsection (3) to say, in effect, that any scheme which does not comply may nevertheless be approved, providing it complies with a number of other considerations. There are many other matters in which the Revenue has discretion. The Amendment is, therefore, not a novelty.
  Mr. Lever: As I explained, I would accept this sort of discretionary variation only where the circumstances of the case were absolutely compelling. In principle, one must be against it because one wants hard and fast definitions. Where possible, we should define these matters accurately and clearly. There are exceptions, and from his vast knowledge of these matters the hon. Gentleman has selected one concerning the approval of superannuation schemes.
  The point to remember here is that we are not dealing with a mass of unskilled people preparing policies but with a relatively small number of skilled insurance companies. There is, therefore, no danger of an accidental variation in a policy occurring; one would not, by accident, be saddled with a policy in which there is a trivial variation. The insurance companies, which have maintained excellent relations with the Inland Revenue on these matters—we are happy to cooperate and help them whenever possible —will, before issuing these policies, satisfy themselves that they are qualifying policies.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there might be a danger of a variation occurring. I have explained that we are dealing with insurance companies which are skilled in preparing these policies and which are checking them with the Inland Revenue to see if there is the smallest doubt. This is bound to be done before they are issued to the public in their tens of thousands. This would seem a reasonable precaution; and if there is a trivial error to which attention is drawn, it can be put right before the policies are circulated.
  The alternative is to leave the Revenue liable to have shot at it minor variations in schemes. I will not repeat the argument which was used in Committee, although it related to a somewhat different Amendment. While I am enthusiastic for every statement made by my colleagues, my degrees of enthusiasm vary

  1363
  according to the statement. I would not say that the approach adopted to this problem would have sprung to my mind. While the insurance companies would not set out to cause difficulty, if they were allowed the power to submit to the Revenue any sort of variation and ask, "Is this trivial?" and the Revenue replied, "No", the Revenue would then be liable in the High Court for deciding such trivialities.
  The rules which we are instituting for qualifying policies are singularly clear and are not complex. In any event, happily, the insurance companies are as erudite as the Revenue in dealing with this delicate question and they know what is required to comply with the rules. Partly due to the efforts of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford and partly because of the spirit of co-operation on the part of the Inland Revenue, every effort has been made in our discussions to satisfy the life offices that none of their business will be harmed in the slightest by these rules
  That being the case, and the rules being clearly understood—and remembering that these policies are issued by professionals—I cannot see that a case has been made out for encumbering the Statute and the Inland Revenue with this obligation to meet applications for variations.
  Amendment 167 deals with losses. There is a misconception here in connection with the reason for applying Surtax to certain non-qualifying policies. If the man is not a Surtax payer then he will not pay Surtax on the policy. That is not tautologous, since while a man might take out a £10,000 policy, he will not suddenly become liable to Surtax even if it is a Surtaxable policy; we will "top slice" the £10,000 and a non-Surtax payer will not pay Surtax. The reason why we Surtax is the reason why I must reject the Amendment; that when a Surtax payer has a Surtaxable policy— if the principle of the Clause is accepted —the capital would have been Surtaxed income. If he is in that category, then he must pay the Surtax, whether or not he has lost money on any other policy that he has ever taken out.
  The two matters are not in relation, although at first there seems a plausible case for saying that if a man has lost
  1364
  money on one policy he should be allowed to set it off against the Surtax to which he is liable on another. Although plausible, it does not stand up to examination because the two matters are not necessarily alike. A man is asked to pay Surtax on Surtaxable income, and in this case he is asked to pay Surtax on what should have been Surtaxable income. It appears in his pocket as a capital sum.
  What he loses on a policy could be any amount. One would need to go into all the combinations of policy on which a man could lose to see if it had any relationship to a loss of income. One can set against one's plus amount for Surtax purposes not a low return on money but the actual loss of income on an investment in any period. It does not follow that because one loses money in an insurance matter, one has what would be the equivalent of a loss chargeable against one's Surtaxable income. In these circumstances, while the Amendment is fair-sounding and plausible, I must reject it because it does not stand up to examination. If a man happens to lose money on a policy, which is a rare event, that has no relationship whatever to his Surtaxable income.
  I test it finally in this way. I appeal to the hon. Member, who is very fair-minded in these matters. If the loss of a policy is to be treated as the equivalent of something which one sets off against Surtaxable income, the Amendment does not go far enough. The hon. Member should claim the right to set it off against any other Surtaxable income. It is such a loss as would under our present legislation morally be justified to be set off against a man's Surtax liability. That is the only kind of loss which one could be entitled to be set off against this income.
  If a man has a loss which stands up as a relief against Surtax income he would get it against his policy Surtax just as against any other Surtax, but that is not a loss which would come through a loss of a policy. In those circumstances I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Nott: I am, naturally, interested to hear the Financial Secretary's answer to Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. I felt quite certain that the Government

  1365
  would not introduce any type of a bar or disability on family income benefit policies, because, clearly, those policies are now increasingly used by the young salariat to protect their family against the death of the breadwinner.
  I have one or two questions to ask on the hon. Gentleman's summing up in connection with Amendment No. 166. This is on the reduction of premium policies. Going the other way for a moment, what would happen in the case of a policy which might be taken out by a young man who has just started work? He takes out a whole life policy at the low premium of, say, £50 per annum and in that whole life policy there is an option to convert, say, in five years, into an endowment policy without another medical examination. That is quite a common type of policy. I had one myself at one stage.
  When a young man starts earning often his income is not adequate to enable him to pay the full premiums for an endowment policy but he can go for a whole life policy. In that case the premiums often treble when the conversion from a whole life policy to an endowment policy takes place. I do not ask the Financial Secretary necessarily to answer now, but if this is not covered perhaps it could be looked into.
  What happens in the case of a five-year endowment policy which again might be taken out by a 20-year old man who wants to provide for his children's education. This may have been discussed in Committee. There are instruments which are broadly known as educational policies and very often they are not very satisfactory. A much better way of providing for a child's education is often by a five-year endowment policy where the capital sum becomes available five years after the first premium is paid. I hope that that comes within the Amendment and if not I should like the Financial Secretary to bear it in mind.
  Another type of policy which is very common for young people is an indemnity policy which the building societies often require from a person who is purchasing a house on a mortgage for the first time. That person may not have quite sufficient savings to make the down payment required for the mortgage. The insurance company may demand 25 per cent. down and 75 per cent. of the total
  1366
  value of the property would be advanced in the form of a mortgage. If that young chap of 20 has not quite enough to pay the initial down payment he is able to go to a building society and take out a policy which indemnifies the building society against his premature death.
  6.15 p.m.
  As I read the Bill, this is nothing more than a single premium policy because a single capital sum is paid at the time when the young man goes to buy his house. This may be covered in the Bill. It is very common policy for those not able to afford the full down payment when they wish to buy a £3,000 semidetached house and the building society says that it wants a single premium indemnity.
  I do not wholly agree with the Financial Secretary's general point about variation of policies. Our life assurance industry has grown up through its ability to tailor policies to individual needs. It would be a shame if the Clauses and Schedules of this year's Finance Bill drew too narrowly the type of policy which could be issued in the future precisely because the constant variation and flexibility of life insurance from which we have benefited so much in the past would cease.
  It is fair to say that we might not have had a family income benefit policy today if a Finance Bill of this sort had been passed 10 years ago, because I do not suppose the Chancellor could then have foreseen the growth of family income policies. It is more than probable that such a Budget could have put a liability on mortgage protection policies, where again there has been a substantial growth to the benefit of the wage and salary earner.
  I have some doubt whether the Bill might not be unduly restrictive on the development of life assurance in future. I am grateful that the Financial Secretary is amenable, willing to help and generous in his understanding of the very real concern which we on this side of the Committee have. I have no doubt that in the few days before Report he will think of some of these matters and perhaps incorporate them in further Amendments; if that proves to be necessary.
  Mr. Harold Lever: I will relieve the hon. Member's mind as quickly as possible of doubt. A five-year endowment

  1367
  policy for education will not be exempt, but, of course, if the man is not a Sur-taxpayer that will not make very much difference to him, because he will receive the money tax-free. It is only the Surtax-payer who will be liable to the Surtax provisions. He may lose the reliefs, but the real question is whether he has to pay Surtax.
  On the whole-life policy being converted to an endowment policy, if the endowment policy which is then taken out conforms to the rules laid down in the Clause it will be in order, and no problem will arise. If not, not. So that an endowment policy should have tax relief and freedom for Surtax liability, that endowment policy should be within certain rules. It follows that one cannot by a side wind escape from those rules by having a whole-life policy converted to an endowment policy which does not conform to the rules. So long as it conforms to the rules, it is exempt.
  Mr. Nott: This may be the same policy —a whole-life policy is converted as the same policy into an endowment policy involving the trebling of the premium. The hon. Gentleman says that that is quite all right?
  Mr. Lever: One can quadruple, quintuple, decuple, or multiply a thousandfold the premium, provided that the policy is for the first time an endowment policy within the meaning of the legislation. One can do what one likes so long as it conforms in the new policy to the rules laid down for endowment policies.
  The further point was on mortgage indemnity. The kind of situation which the hon. Member mentioned is covered. If it is a policy intended to secure the payment of the mortgage debt, or thereabouts, on the man's death, it is free from all liability. That is the purpose of the policy.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that if we had enacted this Bill years ago without the power to vary we would be in difficulties today. I do not think that this is so. The principles applied would have taken into account every reasonable case. We are dealing with a vast number of companies with immense experience. They are liable to think up something new, but when they think up
  1368
  something new it has to be within these principles. If the variation is so trifling as not to be worth exempting there cannot be great difficulty in accommodating it to the rules which are sound in principle.
  If the hon. Gentleman says that a wholly new kind of policy might come into being, which would not be within the rules at all, this Amendment would not meet that point. If we have not covered by our rules one of the special kinds of policy which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned it would require new legislation to bring it within the rules and it could not be said to be a trifling variation. It would be a wholly new idea and if the Revenue did its work properly it would introduce amending legislation to put the matter into order.
  One of the difficulties is that when we legislate, and if something outside the legislation comes in, it cannot be accommodated by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the only remedy the House has if for any reason our legislation goes out of date is to act more promptly than we sometimes do.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I thank the Financial Secretary, first for his kind remarks about my own part in this, which has not been so great, and, secondly, for the attitude which he made clear once again in the Committee of the whole House, as he did upstairs, of the basic desire of the Government not to interfere with general life assurance. I can assure him that these will be taken at their face value by those who are concerned with assurance affairs outside the House.
  I must go on to say—and this is the point which the Financial Secretary has closed on—that we are not all-knowing in this. Certainly we do not, when we are legislating, take account merely of the established channels of communication and established institutions who are acting in a particular field. We must always have regard to the fact that many of the most valuable innovations come from what may loosely be described as the invader.
  Mr. Harold Lever: The point I made to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was that if one brings in a variable innovation that cannot be regarded as a trivial matter that could not be brought within the Amendment even if I accepted it.
  Mr. Jenkin: I concede that.
  In drawing up this Amendment we had in mind something which would fit in roughly with the insignificant variation Amendment which the Government accepted upstairs. I do not think that this necessarily detracts from the general thesis. Indeed, he was perhaps unwittingly echoing what had been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who has long experience in these matters. We do not know that we are covering every possibility.
  I was told the other day that even now possibilities are coming to life which had thought to be dealt with. I know the hon. Gentleman's advisers are in regular contact with the organisations outside, but the concept of the invader who can come in from outside in the sense of a rogue elephant—I do not want to reflect upon his integrity—are often most valuable in livening up and introducing innovations into a field which can easily become dominated by established interests. It is most important, in these circumstances, particularly here—and I emphasise, once again, where the whole economy depends so much on the attraction of saving from the people through life assurance—that nothing we do here in Parliament out of a desire to check tax avoidance should cast any unnecessary obstacles in the way of that.
  The Financial Secretary indicated the hope that everything had been dealt with and the hope that if it had not the Government would be prepared to legislate swiftly to put the matter right.
  Mr. Harold Lever: Certainly, it was not my intention to say that except in so far as the Report stage was concerned. I hope that we have taken into account even future developments which are likely to occur, though I cannot pretend to know what they might be. If we have not taken into account unknowable and unknown future developments, it is the obligation of the Government to legislate swiftly.
  Mr. Jenkin: I had not intended to say anything more. The language I used might have been open to misinterpretation. I would not wish to commit the hon. Gentleman to anything that he did not wish to be committed to.
  1370
  On the Surtax Amendment, I am bound to say that I found his argument very unconvincing, which is strange coming from him. This is not a normal Surtax provision. His argument that if the logic were right the Amendment did not go far enough, and that we should have to make allowance for every insurance policy which shows a loss as computed in accordance with the Schedule, is not right. He himself has said that what we are doing is applying Surtax to what is, in effect, a capital receipt. We are not surtaxing income; we are applying Surtax according to a special formula to something to which it would not otherwise be applicable, namely, to the increase in value of a policy proceeds over the aggregate of premiums paid to secure those proceeds.
  This is a highly artificial transaction. We have not voted against it. The general desire to prevent people getting tax relief for single premium policies is something we have gone along with, but it surely follows that when there is a transaction of the same sort, namely, an insurance policy which on the same rules of computation, artificial though they are, gives rise to a loss it must be right to strike a balance and only tax the difference.
  It may be that our Amendment goes too far and does not draw the distinction about policies which arise at the same time or in the same year. Where a policy has had to be surrendered according to the terms of the policy and there has been a loss, and in the same year one has surrendered another policy and shown a gain, I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman regards it as taking an unfair advantage that one should set off one against the other. This seems to be an immensely logical suggestion we are putting up and I am sorry that the Financial Secretary thought it necessary to reject it.
  Mr. Harold Lever: Can I try again to win the hon. Gentleman to an understanding of the position? What is being taxed is Surtax which is at present, as it were, received in the form of capital. The purpose of this Clause is, in effect, to undress that from its capital dress, which is a dressing artificially created by the concession we are giving on insurance policies, and to bring it out in its effect as crude surtaxable income. That is why the hon. Gentleman did not vote against the

  1371
  proposal. We should surtax as surtaxable income what is, in fact, surtaxable income, though it appears in the guise of capital.
  Once one concedes that that is a legitimate undressing procedure undertaken by the Inland Revenue, in which one brings this capital sum back into its true form for legal purposes as surtaxable income, the only thing one can allow against that charge is a loss of a character which would properly be chargeable in diminution of surtaxable assessment.
  6.30 p.m.
  I will give an example. If one had a trading loss which could be set off against surtax, that would be appropriate, and so one could set it off under the law as it will stand under the Bill. If I accepted the hon. Gentleman's proposal, he would be able to set off, against what is truly surtaxable income on the analysis I have offered, what is nothing more or less than a capital loss.
  I give another example—although I am thinking on my feet and am unprepared for it. Suppose I have two policies, one which will be allowable to Surtax in due time and another which, for some reason, after paying one premium, I surrender at the loss of the whole of the premium. The whole of the loss on the first policy, on which I claim to have sustained a loss allowable against my Surtaxable later receipt, is nothing more or less than a capital loss. I have taken out the policy I wanted and within a year have packed it up and made a loss on the premium.
  That loss is undoubtedly a capital loss, nothing less, and should not be set off against any form of Surtaxable income. Once one concedes that the only income we are to tackle under this policy is Surtaxable income, one must insist that the only losses one can set off against it are losses appropriate for surtaxable income and they are already taken care of.
  Mr. Nott: Why should it be a greater sin to offset surtaxable income so that it results in a capital aggregate at the time of maturity of the policy, and not a sin in the eyes of the Government to do a similar thing with non-Surtaxable income? What is the philosophical justification for treating these two types of income differently?
  Mr. Lever: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? I did not take it all in?
  Mr. Nott: I would rather not repeat it.
  Mr. Lever: These are two different types of income. We are not here dealing with the two types, but only with one —that is to say, Surtaxable income which appears in the form of a capital receipt. The hon. Gentleman cannot show me any other kind of income. What he can show is a capital loss of some kind sustained on an insurance policy, and it is that capital loss which it is hoped should be set off against what is truly Surtaxable income, although not appearing in that form.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I think that we must bring the debate to a close. The hon. Gentleman is engaging in sophistry which is untypical of him. It would be more typical of the Chief Secretary. He takes the capital sum if it is profit and converts into notional income and taxes it. But if it is a loss, he leaves it as capital and refuses to allow it to give relief against Surtax. It seems unfair. However, he has been kind enough to accept in principle most of the Amendments we have put in this group, and it would be wrong to seek to divide the House on the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, That this Schedule be the 9th Schedule to the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June] and agreed to.

  Clause 26
  CAPITAL GAINS TAX: EXEMPTION FOR SMALL AMOUNTS
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 22, line 22, leave out ' £50' and to insert ' £200'.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 133, in page 22, line 21, leave out from 'assessment' to end of line 22 and insert:
  'if the total market value of such of his chargeable assets as are disposed of in the year does not exceed £750'.
  No. 195, in line 22, leave out '£50' and insert '£75'.

  1373
  No. 134, in line 23, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
  No. 132, in line 24, leave out '£50' and insert '£200'.
  No. 196, in line 24, leave out '£50' and insert '£75'.
  No. 135, in line 38, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 39 and insert:
  'For the purposes of this section'.
  Mr. Baker: I should like to thank the Chair for selecting this series of Amendments. Similar ones were considered upstairs, so the arguments have been well aired. But one could say the same of all the Amendments selected in the last few days. Indeed, a characteristic of the Recommittal has been a series of encores with slight changes in cast. I believe that one of the characteristics of the London theatre season is the revival of musical comedies like "The Desert Song" and " The Dancing Years ", the tunes of which the audience know so well that they are attracted to go again. But I hope that this will not persuade the Government to get on the bandwagon of revival and repetition. I hope, however, that the West End impressarios are more successful in attracting an audience than we are tonight.
  We are grateful for the chance to try to persuade the Treasury again of the overwhelming advantages of our Amendments. Clause 26 seeks to give tax relief on capital gains. It is the first substantial measure of relief introduced since the Capital Gains Tax was brought in. It seeks to do so by saying that all capital gains of under £50 are exempt from the Capital Gains Tax, with a proviso for tapering relief from £50 to about £72 10s. Any gains above that figure are subject to the full tax of 30 per cent.
  In general, we welcome such relief, but we disagree with the method in which it is being given and also with the extent of the relief. The Government's case for Clause 26 is that there will be some saving to the Inland Revenue in administrative costs in that the tax inspectors will not have to bother going through the schedules of gains and profits from small investors to ensure that they have their sums right, but it is fair to say that the Government cannot put their ringer on how much saving there will be. We have repeatedly asked what it costs to collect the Capital
  1374
  Gains Tax and the Government have repeatedly said that it is impossible to give the answer and that they cannot isolate the tax within the general level of other taxations.
  However, the Chief Secretary, late one night in Committee upstairs, said that these figures would be revealed one day at an appropriate moment and I hope that this is it. We would like to know the cost of collection of the Capital Gains Tax so that we could judge whether there will be any material saving by the method of relief proposed in Clause 26. I feel that there will be a very small administrative saving to the Inland Revenue.
  In the first place, if a taxpayer who has a liability to the tax is carrying forward a loss from one year to another—let us say, of £100—and this year makes a gain of £25, he still has to send in a schedule and the inspector must check up, and the carry forward loss may be reduced to £75. So, in the case of the taxpayer carrying forward his loss, there is no saving on the part of the Inland Revenue. Last week, I tried to find out from the Treasury how many taxpayers carry forward losses from one year to another, but the figure is not available. Indeed, what is aggravating about the tax and the whole administration of the tax system is the relative lack of information about it.
  Secondly, it is ludicrous for the Government to say that they will make an administrative saving, but cannot quantify it. Any business which is to make an administrative saving by changing procedure knows how many man hours it will save and how many offices it will close, but the Government have no idea.
  The object of the Amendment is to give relief in an entirely different way. In the debate on the last Amendment we discussed the Financial Secretary said, " One of my first objects is to put the Revenue to a great deal of trouble and the taxpayer to as little trouble as possible ". That is exactly the purpose of our Amendments. What I should like is not to exempt a particular gain but to exempt the disposal of a certain value of stocks and shares.
  That would extend a principle which already exists in the law on Capital Gains Tax. The provision relating to chattels says that one can dispose of £1,000 worth

  1375
  in any one year. One could, in theory, make a capital gain of £999 if one were lucky enough to buy a chattel for £1 and sell it for £1,000, and the gain would be exempt from the tax. We should like to have stocks and shares treated in the same way so that the small investor is exempted—and in the Clause and the Amendments we are essentially dealing with the small investor—from having to go to the great trouble of keeping a full set of records of capital gains and losses over a year.
  The Government's proposal to give relief from Capital Gains Tax on the first £50 means that the small investor must keep those records and do the sums, which are exceptionally complicated. They are probably well beyond the ability of most small investors without a calculating machine. Some of the formula; in the Capital Gains Tax provisions involve equations with as many as four different numerators and seven different denominators.
  I should like to make one or two comments on Capital Gains Tax and the relief attempted to be given in Clauses 26 and 27. The tax is undoubtedly our most complicated tax. It yields about £15¼ million a year, and the Government estimate that this year it will yield about £44 million. I understand that the relief under the Clause is about £500,000.
  I believe that Capital Gains Tax will become the sort of Schedule A Tax of the 1970s, producing a relatively small amount of money with the maximum amount of annoyance and inconvenience. The short-term and ordinary Capital Gains Taxes should be simplified as a matter of urgent priority. The Clause does not simplify the tax at all. It introduces a new concept of relief on a particular value of gains and gives no relief to the small investor who must keep records.
  I also believe that because of the complexity of the tax there is a great deal of unconscious evasion through the sheer ignorance of the small investor. He simply cannot understand the complexity of the tax. Unless the tax is radically reformed, it will put too great a strain on the fiscal honesty of individual taxpayers. Fiscal honesty is a very rare flower which does not take root in many
  1376
  Continental soils. In our country it is on the whole a hardy perennial, but the Capital Gains Tax and the provisions which the Clause seeks to change—
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going rather deeply into the Capital Gains Tax. We are not on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. We are only debating the Amendment.
  Mr. Baker: I shall address my remarks to the Amendments, Sir Ronald, which range very wide, as they represent a substantial modification of Capital Gains Tax.
  We on this side of the Committee contend that this is not a sensible way to reform the tax. It is supposed to be administratively simple, but we do not believe that to be so. The whole structure of the tax at present throws too great a weight on the fiscal honesty of the individual taxpayer, on human nature. I think that it was Damon Runyon who said:
  "When human nature is concerned, the odds are six to four against."
  6.45 p.m.
  I do not believe that a great number of taxpayers return all the acquisitions they have made during the year, all the assets they have changed, and the gains or losses they have made. It is up to the Treasury to start reforming the tax. It is probably too much to expect that we shall see any fundamental change of heart by Report, but there are many ways in which it can be done. I should be out of order if I suggested any, but, as a start, I suggest that the Committee should give very careful consideration to our proposals, which in essence aim at relieving the enormous administrative burden on the small investor. We are not here concerned with the large investor, the large unit trust of the large investment trust but the small investor and the enormous burden the present tax puts on him.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), who was such a welcome reinforcement of the Committte when it met upstairs. He has fully covered many of the arguments which I should have advanced, and I shall not follow quite the same line.

  1377
  I should like to speak to Amendment No. 195, which is rather more modest than my hon. Friend's, not because I disagree with a word my hon. Friend said, or because I consider his Amendment to be less valid than mine. In fact, I would prefer his, because, as he said, it would result in a greater saving of time for the taxpayer.
  I had better explain why Amendment No. 195 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and myself is so modest. We seek merely to increase the limit by £75. The reason is the attitude consistently adopted upstairs by the Chief Secretary and other members of the Treasury team. He proved a very difficult man to persuade, though I still hope to appeal to him at the last gasp. Even if he had sympathy with something, at the end of the day he would argue that the country could not afford it at present, that this year about £900 million had to be raised, and that was it. It was a good long-stop argument.
  The right hon. Gentleman's argument about the necessity to raise that amount of revenue this year is powerful. When one considers the latest trade figures and the unemployment figures out today, one can see some reasoning behind it. At the same time, though no one would deny that the country's economic position is difficult, I still think that there is room for the Amendment. There is certainly room for the £50 exemption. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to go just a short step further. There is room for manoeuvre because not only would the Inland Revenue be saved much time and effort by the Amendment, but it would encourage the small saver.
  The small saver has recently been going in for unit trusts in a big way. Hardly a day passes—certainly, never a Sunday —without unit trusts advertising new issues. Money is obviously pouring in. This trend is to be encouraged, because these are small investors who are using their money to help industry. This is the first time this has occurred on such a scale.
  I want to refer to a difficulty which may well discourage many investors. Many of these schemes enable investors to pay a certain amount each month, with which units are bought. At the end of
  1378
  the year they have units which have been bought at different prices. This makes the completion of tax returns very difficult. After an investor has had some experience of unit trusts, he may decide that the effort involved is too great and he may switch his money to other forms of investment, which would be a bad thing in this stage of the country's fortunes.
  I will give an analogy which would be more suitable for the Financial Secretary, if he were replying, because of his great knowledge of the fishing industry. I would liken the Treasury to the fisherman who uses not a narrow mesh which catches all the small fish which he then has to throw back, but a broader mesh which allows some of the smaller fish to slip back into the sea, so that, when he throws in his net at a later stage, he gets a haul of very succulent fish. This is what might happen in the fiscal field if the Chief Secretary were to broaden the net and thereby let some of the small fish escape; in future, the Treasury would reap great benefits.
  People who make capital gains from unit trusts, or other small savings or shareholdings, do not do it by selling things so as to make a gain and buy other things. It is normally done for reinstatement. The reinvestment can grow and grow until it is of sufficient size for it to be worth the Treasury's while to catch it. At this very last gasp the Chief Secretary should think again and agree to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. John Hall: We must all be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) for having moved the Amendment in such an able manner. He was well supporter by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who has tabled a rather more modest Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton, a comparative newcomer to Parliament, joined our proceedings in Standing Committee at a rather late stage to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who fell ill during those proceedings. My hon. Friend appears to have fully recovered and I am sure that the whole Committee will be glad to welcome him back to the House.
  We now approach the end of the Recommittal stage of the Bill under the new procedure. It is interesting to note that

  1379
  this brave new experiment has produced a Recommittal stage at which, as we approach the Guillotine at 7 o'clock, the Government side is represented by two Ministers, one Whip, one P.P.S. and three back benchers. They are heavily outnumbered by hon. Members on this side. This illustrates the whole farce of the proceedings to which the Bill has been subjected.
  I hope that the experience in Standing Committee, and certainly the experience during the two and a half days of Recommittal, will dissuade the Government from trying the experiment again. Hon. Members from both sides who were unfortunate to be incarcerated in Committee Room 10 day after day until the early hours of the morning—indeed, until breakfast-time on one or two occasions— will not want to go through that experience twice.
  I do not think that the Bill has been examined with the care and attention that it would have received had it been taken from the very beginning on the Floor of the House of Commons. We are now on the first series of Amendments to Clause 26. There are 57 Clauses and 20 Schedules. Both sides of the Committee know that we shall be very lucky if we get beyond the new Clauses on Report. A very large number of them have been tabled.
  Mr. Nott: Is it not disgraceful that a completely new tax—the special charge —is being introduced, involving taxation of 27s. in the £ on some individuals, and that it has not been discussed once since the Budget?
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I have allowed a certain amount of latitude in view of the rather special occasion, but I must ask hon. Members to speak to the Amendment
  Mr. Hall: Mr. Irving, I should be trespassing on your good nature if I followed up the point which was very properly and cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I appreciate your Ruling and I will return to the Amendment. I felt that I had to make those points, and you have indicated that you appreciate that the special circumstances made it necessary.
  1380
  I am surprised at the way in which the Treasury has been constantly and consistently refusing to accept any of the Amendments on this subject, which have been moved with great eloquence by my hon. Friends, both this afternoon and in Standing Committee. It has been said time and again that, of the many necessary reforms to the fiscal system, the one essential reform is a reduction in the burden both on the Revenue, which is creaking and groaning under the burden placed on it by the Labour Government, and on the taxpayer. All of us know from personal experience—this is no party point—that more and more taxpayers find it impossible to find their way through the increasing jungle of fiscal legislation. All of us must have considerable sympathy with the problem facing the average taxpayer who, without professional assistance, has to read the Bill and try to understand the Clauses.
  I have often thought that when Parliament is discussing these matters, especially if the experiment of discussing the Bill in Standing Committee is continued, a large proportion of the Committee should be tax lawyers, because they are about the only people who can understand the incredible complications of fiscal legislation and unravel the jungle of Acts that affect our day-to-day tax affairs.
  One would have thought that a proposal such as this, either to increase the amount of exemption or to give the exemption to a specific sum of tax gains in a particular year, would appeal to the Government, because, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said, it would relieve some of the burden from the Treasury, but, above all, it would relieve the taxpayer of an immense amount of burden and relieve him of many complicated transactions.
  When, in Standing Committee, I moved a very similar Amendment, I pointed out that the last Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue which was available to us—that for the year ended on 31st March, 1967—shows that assessments of gains of up to £100 represented 55 per cent. of the total number of assessments in the year under review. Thus, if the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde referred, which would raise the limit from

  1381
  £50 to £75, a very large number of taxpayers who up to now have been caught by the Capital Gains Tax would be exempted. More than half of the total assessments would cease having to be met by the taxpayers or considered by the Inland Revenue.
  During the concluding proceedings on the Amendments upstairs, both the one which suggested the increase of the exempt gains from £1,000—
  It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Resolution of the Business Committee agreed to by the House on 18th June, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June], and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without further Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered Tomorrow.

  MEDICINES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my custom, my selection of the Amendments which we will debate. With the new Clause 1, I suggest that we take new Clause 4—Export of medicinal product—Government Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 18, 30 and 31, and Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: On a point of order. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, one question? I am not, of course, questioning the selection of Amendments by yourself, but I would mention one fact on which I would like your guidance. There was an Amendment on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and myself, which was Amendment No. 77. It was not discussed in Committee and, so far as I can see, the points which are raised by the Amendment are not covered by any other Amendment in the Notice Paper.
  I am a little at a loss to know whether there is anything that I can do, and if so what, to bring this matter to the attention of yourself and those responsible for selection, and whether anything can be done so that this point, which is an important one to the Pharmaceutical Society, might be raised in the course of the debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I can only reply to the hon. Member in as courteous a way as he has spoken by expressing regret that his Amendment has not been selected. It occasionally happens that an hon. Member's Amendment is not selected.

  MEDICINES BILL

    New Clause 1
    POSTPONEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS IN RELATION TO EXPORTS

    (1) Notwithstanding anything in sections 7 to 41 of this Act, in relation to anything done before such day (subsequent to the first appointed day) as the Ministers may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection (in this section referred to as ' the special appointed day ') those sections shall have effect as if in them—

    (a) every reference to exportation (in whatever form the reference occurs) were omitted;

    1383

    (b) any reference to the sale or supply of a medicinal product did not include sale or supply which involves, or is for the purposes of, exporting the product; and

    (c)any reference to offering a medicinal product for sale did not include an offer for sale where the prospective sale would involve, or would be for the purposes of, exporting the product.

    (2)The Ministers shall not make an order under the preceding subsection unless it appears to them to be necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement to which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party or will be a party on the day appointed by the order.

    (3)The following provisions of this section shall have effect where an order is made under subsection (1) of this section; and for the purposes of those provisions the relevant transitional condition? shall be taken to be fulfilled by a person in relation to medicinal products of any description if, in the course of a business carried on by him,—

    (a) substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description (that is to say, quantities exceeding those required for distribution as samples) were exported or procured to be exported during the period of twenty-four months ending immediately before the special appointed day, and

    (b)during the whole of that period further substantial quantities of medicinal products of that description were available, or could within a reasonable time have been made available, to be so exported or procured to be exported if required.

    (4) Unless the order expressly excludes the operation of this subsection,—

    (a) subject to any order made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection, section 7(2) of this Act shall not have effect in relation to a person in respect of his exporting on or after the special appointed day, or procuring the exportation on or after that day of, medicinal products of any description in relation to which he fulfils the relevant transitional conditions;

    (b) section 17 of this Act shall have effect in relation to paragraph (a) of this subsection as it has effect in relation to the subsections of section 16 of this Act mentioned in that section.

    (5) Where a product licence which is in force on the special appointed day authorizes the holder of the licence to sell medicinal products of any description, or to procure the sale, or procure the manufacture or assembly for sale, of medicinal products of any description, that licence shall have effect on and after that day as if—

    (a) it also authorised him to export medicinal products of that description, or (as the case may be) to procure the exportation, or procure the manufacture or assembly for exportation, of medicinal products of that description, and

    (b) it authorised him to do so subject to the like provisions as (apart from subsections (3) to (7) of section 41 of this Act)
    1384
    are specified in the licence in relation to selling or (as the case may be) procuring the sale, or procuring the manufacture or assembly for sale, of such products:

    Provided that, if the operation of subsection (4) of this section is not excluded by the order, a product licence shall not have effect as mentioned in this subsection in relation to medicinal products of any description so long as paragraph (a) of that subsection has effect in relation to the holder of the licence in respect of his exporting, or procuring the exportation of, medicinal products of that description.

    (6) Where on an application for a product licence made before such date as may be appointed by the order for the purposes of this subsection, which states that it is an application made by virtue of this subsection, it is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the licensing authority that the applicant fulfilled or will fulfil the relevant transitional conditions in relation to one or more descriptions of medicinal products, then (subject to the next following subsection) he shall be entitled to the grant of a product licence granted so as—

    (a) to be limited to exportation, or procuring exportation, of medicinal products, and

    (b) not to extend to medicinal products of any description other than those in respect of which it is so proved that the applicant fulfilled or will fulfil those conditions, and

    (c) not to extend to medicinal products of any description in respect of which, at the time when the licence is granted, a product licence is already held by the applicant.

    (7) If a person would, on making an application under subsection (6) of this section, be entitled to the grant of a product licence under that subsection in respect of medicinal products of a particular description, and he would at the same time, on making an application as mentioned in section 25(1) of this Act, be entitled to the grant of a licence of right in respect of medicinal products of the same description, he may apply to the licensing authority for a single product licence for both purposes, and he shall be entitled to the grant of a product licence having the same effect as the two licences, if granted separately, would together have had.

    (8) Subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of subsections (6) and (7) of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that section.

    (9) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may contain such provisions relating to proceedings on an application made under subsection (6) or subsection (7) of this section (whether by way of applying with modifications any of the provisions of section27 of this Act or otherwise) as the Ministers may consider appropriate.

    (10) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause relates to the postponement of restrictions in relation to exports. On 21st March, in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) moved a series of Amendments designed to exclude from the ambit of the licensing provisions of Part II of the Bill the activities mentioned in Clause 7 in relation to the exportation of any medicinal product.
    The hon. Member urged, in support of the Amendments, that the valuable export business of the United Kingdom in pharmaceutical products might be lost if exporters had in this country alone to go through a licensing procedure which their competitors in other countries did not have to face.
    Moreover, it was urged that in many cases the circumstances in which the products would be used in overseas countries were very different from the conditions in the United Kingdom and that, consequently, an assessment of safety and efficacy appropriate to United Kingdom conditions was not necessarily valid in relation to the country to which the product was to be exported.
    In particular, it might be entirely acceptable for a product to be marketed overseas where its properties and hazards were acceptable to the practioners and to the authorities in the countries concerned, but where the Clause 4 committee or the Medicines Commission itself would not recommend a licence for marketing in the United Kingdom.
    In general, we agree with this, but we are very conscious that discussions are now proceeding in the Assembly of the World Health Organisation with the objective of ensuring that the quality of exported pharmaceuticals is at least as high as is required for products to be marketed in the country of origin. This is a matter of importance to underdeveloped countries and others who have not the resources to test on a wide scale for quality when the goods have arrived in their country. We have felt, and we understand that the industry accepts, that if the United Kingdom is a party to an international agreement such as I have described to which other important pharmaceutical manufacturing countries
    1386
    are also party, the licensing authority in this country must be in a position to ensure that the obligations are fulfilled. This would be done by a reactivation of the licensing requirement.
    We undertook in Standing Committee to move Amendments postponing the licensing obligation, together with machinery for reactivating it later. Under pressure from the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and his colleagues I outlined, on 4th April in the Standing Committee, two alternative methods of securing this objective. I indicated which of them I thought I would prefer, and the Clause under discussion now follows the lines of that method. The substance of the Clause has been discussed with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and others, and I hope that now they have been able to examine the text of the actual Amendment they will feel that it fulfils the purposes that were outlined in the Standing Committee and on which I think there was a very large measure of agreement.
    I will very briefly refer to the contents of the Clause, which is inevitably long and somewhat complicated. Subsection (1) postpones the provision in Part II of the Bill requiring a product licence to be held for export products, by omitting, pending reactivation by an Order subject to affirmative Resolution, every explicit reference in Clauses 7 to 41 inclusive to exports and exportation, and provides that all references in these Clauses to sale or supply are to be treated as not including sale or supply involving or for the purpose of exportation. The omissions that I have just described cover also Clause 31 relating to clinical and field trials.
    Subsection (2) provides that a reactivation Order is to be made only for giving effect to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party. The rest of the Clause deals with the inevitable transitional matters that would arise when the Order is made reactivating the licensing obligation. They are roughly parallel with the transitional provisions that are included in Part II of the Bill for introducing licensing of medicinal products for marketing at home. The Amendments to Clauses 7 and 8, Nos. 8, 9 and 10, are all consequential to this new Clause.

    1387
    I would like to bring the attention of the House to important related matters. The first concerns certificates under Clause 31 of the Bill in relation to exportation for the purpose of clinical or field trials. The new Clause postpones the operation of Clause 31 in relation to exportation for clinical and field trials in just the same way as for licences for marketing by exportation.
    During our discussions in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Surbiton asked, in c. 395, that we should be cautious about imposing controls on the exportation of material for clinical or field trials overseas because such a restriction had led to complications in the United States, and it was by no means clear that the Clause 4 committees or the Medicines Commission in the United Kingdom were in a good position to pass judgment on proposals to conduct trials, for example, in tropical countries where conditions might be very different, or that controls of this kind of clinical trials in other countries were of real value.
    We have thought a great deal about this view, and we have come to the conclusion that it has force. When considering a marketing submission, the Safety of Drugs Committee had always been willing to consider on its merits data relating to clinical trials conducted in other countries, and I have no doubt that the licensing authority and the expert committee will do the same when licensing comes into operation. But there is not the same reason to screen proposals to conduct the clinical and field trials themselves when they take place overseas. Accordingly, provided that it is clear that such exportation would be for genuine clinical or field trials, I think that we need not provide for a certificate for this purpose or for reactivating the licensing provisions for this purpose.
    I have not yet put down an Amendment because it would affect the wording of Clause 31 and I have not yet been able to complete the review of Clause 31 which I undertook to do for quite other purposes in the Standing Committee. We have made considerable progress, however, but it seems likely that there will have to be some radical redrafting, and I propose to arrange for the necessary Amendments to be moved in another place. They will incorporate the relaxation to which I have referred
    1388
    in relation to export for clinical and field trial. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will bear this in mind when we come to a number of Amendments which they have put down on Clause 31, I think in most cases to remind me of my promise to review that Clause.
    The second matter to which I want to refer relates to the licensing for exportation of a limited range of products the manufacture for sale of which is at present subject to licensing under Part I of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, and Part II of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950. They are all substances the purity and potency of which cannot be adequately tested by chemical means, and include all vaccines, antitoxins and sera, whether for human or animal use, and a number of other substances covered by the Schedules to those Acts. Both Acts provide that the manufacture for sale shall not take place except in accordance with a licence issued in the first case by the Health Ministers and in the second by the Agriculture Ministers. This restriction applies now equally to manufacture for sale in the United Kingdom and for sale by exportation.
    Some of these vaccines require the most stringent controls—for example, polio vaccine and foot-and-mouth vaccine—and all these substances involve safeguards in manufacture which can only be applied at the place of manufacture. The country receiving them may be quite unable to apply all the tests necessary to the finished product to assure itself about the products. Therefore, we think that these produots must remain subject to licensing when the Bill comes into operation.
    Accordingly, it will be necessary to arrange for an Amendment to be moved in another place to exclude them from the postponement provisions of the new Clause. The point has been brought to the notice of representatives of the industry, and my understanding is that the need for an exception for these classes of products is fully recognised.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: On the agricultural side, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to live and not dead vaccines in this context.
    Mr. Robinson: I will check that, but I think that that is the case. These are the vaccines scheduled in the Diseases of Animals Act in the case of agricultural substances. It is my understanding that the need for an exception for these classes of products is recognised by the industry. As I have already said, licensing applies now, so that there is no question of introducing a new impediment to the export of British Pharmaceuticals.
    If the House agrees to the new Clause, I also intend to consider between now and the appropriate stage in another place, the consequences of the new Clause in relation to Clause 36, which deals with medicated animal feeding-stuffs. Here again, I have not put down an Amendment because we are reviewing a number of points in connection with Clause 36, and it would be more appropriate to deal with the consequences of this new Clause when that review is completed. I will undertake to arrange for any necessary Amendments to be moved in another place.
    This has been a long explanation, but it is probably the most important point discussed between the two sides in Committee, and I thought that the House would like a detailed explanation of what inevitably is a long and complicated Clause.
    Mr. Speaker: As I mentioned earlier, we are taking with this group of Amendments new Clause 4. It has occurred to me that I would be prepared to allow a Division on new Clause 4 if it were asked for.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of how far the Minister has gone, it would be churlish of me to wish that he had put his new Clause on the Amendment Paper earlier. As he suggested, it accounts for the appearance on the Paper of a number of Amendments, one or two of which are marked to be called, which the new Clause and his explanation now make unnecessary.
    Before he began his explanation, the only point that I had in mind was to ask him to clarify the position as regards clinical and field trials. I am, therefore, grateful for his assurance that this point also will be met in subsequent Amendments in another place.
    1390
    We on this side of the House accept the limitations imposed by the Therapeutic Substances Act and the Diseases of Animals Act and, since no new licensing provision is required, we would not quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    It only remains for me to thank him for meeting so fully the points which he raised in Committee and to welcome the new Clause and the consequential Amendments.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There is only one point which I wish to raise, and it concerns the animal feeding stuffs Clause and the Amendment which the Minister says that he will bring forward. I assume that he is talking in the context of the export of animal feeding stuffs—or is he talking about the revision of the whole of that Clause? Will the Amendment that he is to bring forward later be concerned purely with the export of animal feeding stuffs, or will it cover the whole subject of animal feeding stuffs?
    Mr. K. Robinson: No. We are considering a number of Amendments on other points, besides the export points.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker: We come now to new Clause 2, with which I propose that we take Government Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 63, 64, 65 and 105.

    New Clause 2
    EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF HERBAL REMEDIES

    (1) The restrictions imposed by sections 7 and 8 of this Act do not apply to the sale, supply, manufacture or assembly of any herbal remedy in the course of a business where—

    (a) the remedy is manufactured or assembled on premises of which the person carrying on the business is the occupier and which he is able to close so as to exclude the public, and

    (b) the person carrying on the business sells or supplies the remedy for administration to a particular person after being requested by or on behalf of that person and in that person's presence to use his own judgment as to the treatment required.

    (2) Those restrictions also do not apply to the sale, supply, manufacture or assembly of any herbal remedy where the process to

    1391
    which the plant or plants are subjected in producing the remedy consists only of drying, crushing or comminuting, and the remedy is, or is to be, sold or supplied—

    (a) under a designation which only specifies the plant or plants and the process and does not apply any other name to the remedy, and

    (b) without any written recommendation (whether by means of a labelled container or package or a leaflet or in any other way) as to the use of the remedy.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause, together with Amendment No. 16 and Amendment No. 105, replaces Clause 12. Subsection (1) of the present Clause is restated and expanded in the proposed new Clause, and subsection (2) of the present Clause 12, which is a definition of " herbal remedy ", is transferred to the general interpretation Clause, Clause 117. Clause 12 in its present form accordingly disappears. The Amendment to Clause 48, which is Amendment No. 63, is largely consequential to the proposed new Clause.
    These Amendments are tabled after consideration of criticisms expressed in Standing Committee of the provisions of Clauses 12 and 48—formerly Clause 47—and in the light of discussions held since then with representatives of the British Herbal Medicines Association, the National Institute of Medical Herbalists and the General Council and Register of Consultant Herbalists.
    One of the criticisms levelled against the exemptions in respect of herbal remedies as they at present appear in the Bill was that the wider exemptions for extemporaneous remedies allowed in Clause 12(1) and Clause 48(2) were available only when the individual attended personally at the herbalist's premises and the medicine was delivered on those premises.
    Another criticism was that as those wider exemptions were drafted the herbalist consulted by an individual was limited to the use of a product manufactured on his premises and could not supply a product which had been manufactured elsewhere unless it was both in pre-packed form and was either a product on the general sales list or one within
    1392
    the limited category described in Clause 48(1). In Committee we had undertaken to consider whether " assembly " could be added, provided that licensed ingredients were used. It seems reasonable, therefore, that where a herbalist has personally seen an individual and has been requested to use his judgment as to the treatment required, the limitations now in the Bill as to the place of consultation, place of delivery, and place of manufacture of the herbal remedy supplied are not essential. Subsection (1) of the new Clause accordingly extends the exemption at present provided in Clause 12(1) by removing the restrictions to which I have referred in so far as they are related to licensing requirements. In so far as retail sale and supply requirements are concerned, these restrictions are removed by the Amendment to Clause 48.
    The general effect of subsection (1 of the new Clause and of the Amendment to Clause 48 will be, therefore, that where a herbalist has seen an individual and has been asked to use his judgment as to the treatment required, he may prepare or assemble and sell or supply any herbal remedy which at the moment is not within a category restricted under Clause 43(3). In effect, the herbalist in these circumstances will be able to dispense either, first, a remedy which he has manufactured himself, or alternatively or, secondly, one which he has obtained in bulk from another manufacturer, or thirdly one which he has obtained elsewhere in prepacked form.
    Subsection (2) of the new Clause deals with a point which was not mentioned in the Committee stage, but arose from discussions with herbal interests to which I have referred. This new subsection relieves from licensing the processing, packaging and sale or supply of herbal products like fennel, raspberry leaves or ground ginger root where they are to be sold or supplied simply as much, that is purely by the botanical name, with a reference to the process used in manufacture but without any written therapeutic recommendation. The exemption is limited to the processes mentioned— drying, crushing and comminuting—and is not affected by a purely oral recommendation. In other words, a herbalist can say " In your case, you should have this, that, or the other " and it would not be contrary to these provisions.

    1393
    Closely coupled with the new Clause and the Amendments to Clauses 12, 48 and 117, is a further Amendment which we propose to arrange to be put down as soon as possible in another place. The effect of this Amendment will be to put manufactured herbal ingredients not already covered by Clause 116(1)(b) for use in the preparation of herbal remedies in the same position as the ingredients for use in pharmacies, hospitals, or by practitioners, all referred to in Clause I16(l)(b). The intention is that licensing control could be applied to bulk extracts —solid or fluid—tinctures and other substances, some of them very potent, used by the herbalist in the extemporaneous preparation of herbal remedies for the treatment of individuals who have consulted him.
    Having regard to the consultations that have taken place since the discussion in Standing Committee and in the light of views then expressed by hon. Members, I would have hoped that the House might feel that this was a reasonable clause that meets all reasonable requirements such as have been posed to us.
    Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I welcome this new Clause and I feel the Government have done the right thing in introducing it. As a doctor and a Member of Parliament I would not wish to do anything, either here or outside, to encourage the practice of self-medication, which I regard as unfortunate, and sometimes dangerous. Nor would I wish to encourage the practice of self-diagnosis which I regard as even more unfortunate and dangerous. On the other hand, however, if one places impediments and obstacles in the way of people operating a choice which they are entitled to make one creates a situation which is worse than that about which one was originally worried.
    I regret that some people sometimes seek—and I am not here commenting on all herbal remedies—remedies which are useless. I regret, too, that sometimes people rely on the kind of reassurance and advice: which I personally would regard as useless. At the same time we, in this House, ought to defend their right to do so. If we do not defend that right we may cast doubt even on the validity of the more orthodox methods of treatment which I, and I hope all responsible people, would wish to encourage.
    1394
    In this particular group of substances we are, on the whole, dealing with substances which I freely acknowledge are sometimes helpful and not with dangerous substances which, as the Minister has made clear, naturally must be dealt with in another way. Had he not done so I could not have supported him, because I believe that while the public are entitled to freedom of choice to consult anyone they wish they are also entitled to protection insofar as dangerous substances should not be offered for sale.
    At the same time, we are right in allowing this freedom and relaxing what is a rather strict control. In the White Paper it was made clear that there was no wish to place obstacles in the way of people seeking such remedies. But, at the same time, we must make clear that treatment should be sought from a professional source. Self-diagnosis can be desperately dangerous. Some who seek herbal remedies are able to seek them for conditions the diagnosis of which they know. But it would be dangerous to encourage people to seek remedies for conditions which have not been diagnosed.
    I believe the Minister has been right to introduce this Clause. I speak not only as a Member of the House but as a doctor. But, having said that I regret, frankly, that this kind of Clause should be so necessary and I hope the public will heed certain of the warnings that have been given.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I have not contributed to earlier debates on the Bill because, unfortunately, I was not in the House when it went through its previous stage. I must declare an interest in that I hold office in a leading pharmaceutical company, but I want to mention a particular point which has no connection with the pharmaceutical industry with which I am connected. I would like to congratulate the lobbyists on behalf of herbal remedies. Since I have been back in Parliament, I have had more letters on this subject than any other, save those which were occasioned by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in an entirely different connection.
    Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), I would

    1395
    not advocate people going in for self-remedy; and he has far more experience of the problems of self-medication than I have. Undoubtedly, a large number of people believe in self-medication, and this has been very obvious from the weight of the lobby which hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced. From the way that it put its case it went a long way towards convincing me that it was right to give it special consideration. It underlines the power and value of the Parliamentary lobby; that when people feel strongly enough they can press us and we can press the Government to try to put the Bill right. In those circumstances, I am grateful that the Government have decided to take action on this and I congratulate them on bringing forward this new Clause.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I tabled Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 64 and 65 before the new Clause had appeared. It seems to go a long way, if not all the way, to meet the needs of medical herbalists and to enable them to continue their practice and to use herbal preparations which they had done hitherto. I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) into his discourse about always consulting a registered medical practitioner, but will not do so because it is not the subject of this new Clause. I assure him that there is provision in the Bill for a herbal poisons list, and this provision, which is a fairly important one, has been universally accepted as a necessary precaution. I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends for having gone so far to meet the difficulties of herbal practitioners, and because of the new Clause I would not wish to press my own Amendments.
    Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The House is considering very ancient and cherished rights which many people have represented to us, and the House is rightly grateful to the Minister for having tabled the new Clause. I must ask for his patience in that I am not absolutely certain that I have rightly understood what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. My own inquiries from herbalists who have been in touch with me in my constituency suggests that there is something not quite satisfactory in the new
    1396
    Clause, and I thought from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that this was to be put right in another Amendment.
    I gather that the trouble with the new Clause is that it does not remove the restrictions from the herbal remedy where the process went a little further than drying, crushing or comminuting—where the herbal remedy was in the form of a liquid extract, a tincture or substance reduced to powder and a solid extract of the kind bought from a qualified supplier and made by a qualified chemist in his employ. I thought I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this was covered by another Amendment to a later Clause. Perhaps when he replies he can explain whether this point is covered. If so, it will go a long way to satisfy the doubts expressed, which are not set at rest by the new Clause as it stands.
    Mr. Paul Dean: We welcome this new Clause and the consequential Amendments. In Committee, it was felt that before the new Clause was introduced the Bill was unduly restrictive on herbalists and those who took herbal remedies. It is very satisfactory that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to deal with most of the points raised. I am particularly glad to see that he has dealt in subsection (l)(b) with the point emphasised very strongly in Committee, about a person who, through infirmity or for some other reason, could not get to the herbalist's house or consulting rooms. The herbalist can now take the preparation to the person in their homes. It is highly desirable that this should be so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred to herbal remedies not covered by subsection (2), that is where there is something more than drying, crushing or comminuting involved. I thought that I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it was the Government's intention to move an Amendment in another place to cover certain manufactured herbal ingredients, and put them in the same category as the exemptions which apply in the Clauses of the Bill as it stands.
    Another point concerns the health food stores. We covered this aspect in Committee, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that these stores are within the definition of herbalists who

    1397
    can sell herbal remedies over the counter. In Committee he said that he was advised that this was the case and, perhaps following consultations he has had with the herbalist representatives, he can clarify this point. He assured the House that there had been consultations with all the main herbalist bodies but he did not say whether they were satisfied with those consultations and the new Clause. Perhaps he could tell us now.
    Mr. Snow: On the last point, I can assure the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that to the best of our knowledge we believe that this new Clause meets the requirements of the herbalists. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), what I said was that it is the intention that licensing control could apply to bulk extracts, solid or fluid, tinctures or other substances used by the herbalist in extemporaneous preparation of herbal remedies. It has been pointed out to me that there are a number of ointment bases which are not of herbal origin but which are traditionally used by herbalists.
    My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider whether anything needs to be done so that the use of such substances is not excluded. We are anxious to help this traditional profession as far as we can, and it does not seem that this would prove difficult if we find that the other provisions of the Bill do not cover this point. I was tempted, but decided to resist the temptation, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), to refer to traditional attitudes that are not peculiar to herbalists. I am glad that he welcomes the fact that we are extending as far as we can within the bounds of safety the freedom to the particular form of medicine which is the subject of the new Clause. In those circumstances I hope that the House will agree to accept the new Clause.
    Mr. Iremonger: When the hon. Gentleman referred to bulk extracts, does he mean stuff we buy in a bottle and pour out a few drops for the customer from time to time as required; preparations ready-made and dispensed little by little?
    Mr. Snow: That is so. A herbalist who has a large trade would not buy 6d. bottles of tinctures. He can buy in
    1398
    bulk provided that he is adequately covered by licensing control when considerations of safety are involved.
    I forgot to mention that health food stores are in exactly the same position as any other retail outlets dealing in herbal remedies.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause
    MANUFACTURING LICENCE (REQUIREMENT)
    No manufacturing licence shall be required for any substance specified by order under section 96(1)(b), provided that any application is made for a product licence for that portion of the substance which will fall under the provisions of any order made under section 96(\)(b).—[Mr. Scott-Hopkins.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause flows directly from what happened in Committee on 21st May, when we were discussing what was then Clause 93. There are various substances which under the fresh Clause 96 can be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Order laid by the Minister. These substances can include such things as insecticides. Part of the substances may be applied in a confined space. If they are, they will rank as medicinal products because they will be applied to an animal or inhaled by an animal. Therefore, quite rightly, provided that the Minister introduces an Order under Clause 96, the provisions of the Bill will take effect.
    But, in fact, the same substances could well have other applications. The obvious example is the fly spray which might be used in a confined space for killing bugs or termites in a farm building and which could be inhaled by the animal. This would be brought within the ambit of the Bill if an Order were made under Clause 96. Such substances are frequently used in the home and outside for crop spraying, and so on. The bulk manufacturer of such a product would not require a manufacturing licence provided that an Order had been

    1399
    made and that the person making these bulk supplies applied for a product licence for that part of the bulk supply which would come within Clause 96(1)(b)
    The purpose of the new Clause is to exclude that portion of the bulk supply which would not come within the provisions of the Bill but include for the purposes of a product licence as opposed to a manufacturing licence that part which would rightly come within the ambit of the Bill.
    A mistake was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in Committee. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether a manufacturer would
    "have to get a product and manufacturing licence for the whole of the bulk production?"
    He said:
    "Yes, it will come under product licence".
    I then said:
    "For the whole bulk? ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May, 1968; c. 771.]
    The hon. Gentleman then indicated assent. I think that that was probably an error. I do not think that he meant to do that. Therefore, I ask him to put right what he indicated on that day by accepting the new Clause.
    I am not particularly wedded to the words which I have proposed. I have tried only to bring in that part of an insecticide or substance which comes within the Bill by the application of an Order made under Clause 96(l)(b). If my drafting is faulty, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to introduce a similar Amendment covering my point, namely, that a manufacturing licence will not be required in the circumstances to which I referred. If he were to do that, I should be more than willing to withdraw the Clause.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that if his drafting of the new Clause were faulty he would welcome our introducing a proposal to cover the point. There is a minor technical objection to the new Clause in that he refers to a "manufacturing licence" and
    1400
    not a "manufacturer's licence". I should not take advantage of that in rejecting the new Clause, but since the hon. Gentleman is very good at bringing me to order sometimes on loose drafting I thought that there would be no harm in making that point.
    Clause 96(l)(b) deals with substances which if used without proper safeguards are capable of causing danger to the health of the community or of causing danger to the health of animals generally or of one or more species of animals. The substances which might be concerned presumably would not be in a medicinal form and it is, therefore, unlikely that we should want to require the issue of a manufacturer's licence for a product controlled under Clause 96(l)(b). For instance, in the rare cases where a pesticide might be brought under control in this way, I cannot think of any case where this would not be so.
    Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that it would be rash of us to limit the factors which may be considered in relation to such substances should circumstances arise where they might be appropriate. The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware of the tremendous advances which have been made concerning substances used in agriculture and what he suggests might inhibit us in the development of other substances. It may be that some substances now being developed would fall into this category and we might be in some difficulty if we were specifically excluded from considering conditions of manufacture, which would happen if the new Clause were accepted.
    An Order under Clause 96 will not necessarily apply all the provisions of the Bill to the substances concerned. It must specify which provisions are to apply in a particular case and the power to make an Order also allows exceptions and modifications to be made to the provisions in question.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not seek to impose any provisions in the Bill which were not appropriate or relevant. A manufacturer's licence is only one example. Moreover, there is the safeguard that there would have to be consultations with the interested organisations before an order were made, and there will be the added safeguard that these will be affirmative orders.

    1401
    With these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied that his new Clause is unnecessary, and probably would create more problems than it would solve, and will withdraw it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: By leave, may I briefly thank the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. However, he has not quite covered my points.
    I accept what he said about the technical error in drafting. I apologise to him for not having taken more expert care on it. He said that the fact that exceptions and modifications could be made under the Order covered my point. I do not think that it does. I take his point about not wanting to be too restrictive and that developments concerning these substances were so rapid that a manufacturer's licence might be needed. But a product licence for that part which will fall under the conditions laid down by the Order introduced under Clause 96(1)(b) should be sufficient; there should be no need for a manufacturer's licence.
    The hon. Gentleman is storing up an enormous number of difficulties if he insists on the obtaining of a manufacturer's licence for the whole of the bulk production of which only a small part will be used and which will fall under Clause 96(1)(b) should an Order be made by the Minister. Although there may be exceptions and modifications, which I understand and accept, the Minister will have great difficulty if he insists on a manufacturer's licence being brought in. Reasonableness demands only that a product licence should be necessary in this case. Section 96(1)(b) should be used for those substances which are outside the definition of medicinal products, which is what we are discussing.
    Mr. Mackie: It is really a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover this point or not. As I said in my speech, this point is adequately guarded. We shall not rush in and demand a manufacturer's licence for everything. There are many products in bulk form which the farmer dilutes. I could mention a particular spray which can be used inside a poultry house. We want the power to bring some of those things under a manufacturer's licence, but the cases will be rare. As I say,
    1402
    it is a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover the matter or not. We do not want other things which may be developed in future to be inhibited should this arise.
    Question put and negatived.

    Clause 2
    ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICINES COMMISSION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Michael English: Before moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to raise two matters which partake of the nature of points of order in that they concern the Chair rather than my right hon. Friend.
    It should be brought to the notice of the House that the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT relating to the Standing Committee proceedings on the Bill has not yet been published. This is peculiarly unfortunate. Through no fault of the permanent HANSARD reporters, the Standing Committees are often reported by part-time reporters, as it were. In this case, in certain respects there were some inaccuracies which could have been, and no doubt will be, corrected in the volume if and when it is published. However, it is a bit late having it published after this debate has taken place.
    The other point is that Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments, which always appears in the No Lobby, used also to appear on the Ways and Means corridor. During the last few weeks this practice has ceased. I think that it ought to be reinstituted.
    Having said that, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'industry' to end of line 29.
    As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, mentioned, it is also convenient to take with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 29, at end insert:
    (f) so much of the pharmaceutical industry as relates to retail sale.
    The object of these Amendments, which are alternative to each other, is

    1403
    simple. I do not know what has happened with Clause 2. I suspect that during the course of drafting it was correctly believed that subsection 3(a).
    "the practice of medicine (other than veterinary medicine)",
    balanced subsection 3(b),
    "the practice of veterinary medicine",
    in suggesting the interests to be represented. This is correct.
    I suspect that it was also believed that subsection 3(c), " the practice of pharmacy ", was supposed to be balanced by subsection 3(e),
    "the pharmaceutical industry, except so much of it as relates to retail sale."
    Unfortunately, the practice of pharmacy is not necessarily the same as the retailing of pharmaceutical products. I do not propose to go into detail, because we may discuss this on a later Amendment. However, I suggest Amendment No. 1 as a minimum. In other words, to leave out the words,
    "except so much of it as relates to retail sale."
    From what my right hon. Friend said in Standing Committee, he might be reasonably sympathetic to this Amendment. I do not think that it is wholly intentional on the part of the Ministry that the Clause should be worded as it is. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept Amendment No. 1 and will give me an assurance that, when selecting the members of the Medicines Commission, he will represent the interests of retailing as distinct from merely manufacturing or merely the practice of pharmacy.
    A large section of the Bill relates, for example, to the advertising, labelling and marketing of products generally. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate if my right hon. Friend was advised by a Commission which had no representative of the marketing, advertising or other relevant interests. There are many subjects upon which my right hon. Friend will need advice. If the Commission is composed solely of the interests of manufacturers, doctors, "vets" and pharmacists, it will be incapable of advising my right hon. Friend as he should be advised.
    I prefer that one should add a new section, which is the reason for Amendment No. 2, saying specifically that one should add some representatives of re-
    1404
    tailers. However, I would be extremely pleased if my right hon. Friend would accept one or other of these two Amendments.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). There is a great need for the Medicines Commission to be properly balanced. All aspects of the work involved should be reflected. It is crucial to the whole exercise and vital that the people appointed should be acceptable to the public, to the industries and to the individuals concerned. If the Bill is to work harmoniously, to be carried on with the right kind of co-operation, and to gain the confidence of the public and industry, all these interests must be properly reflected.
    I hope that the Minister will pay great heed to the representations which will be made to him when the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has put forward a strong case in his own interest. We are concerned here with the representation on the Commission, the expert advice available to the Minister. One must be extremely careful, because there are several interests which will be affected. We had an instance a few minutes ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, when he spoke of types and kinds of substances which should be brought in where a manufacturer's licence and a product licence would be required. One could argue strongly that there should be a representative on the Commission representing those views, but they are not mentioned in Clause 2 at the moment. In Standing Committee, we argued extensively about the size of the Commission. One is getting into a dangerous position if one brings in representatives from any particular sector.
    Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. His comment applies to my second Amendment. I think that he would agree that the position is rather different in Amendment No. 1, because that relates to the portion of the Bill, as it now stands, which appears, although technically I believe it does not, to exclude retailers. This is unusual. It does not apply to any other case. It does not

    1405
    technically do this, but, on a quick reading in the Ministry at the time of appointment of members of the Commission, it might be taken to do so. I think that it would be better left out.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am directing my remarks to Amendment No. 2. I accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 1, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I am apprehensive about Amendment No. 2. If we widen the field and bring in all kinds of people that will be all right, but we simply cannot do that. We discussed this issue in Committee, and I was convinced by the Minister that we would get into an unmanageable position if this kind of proposal were accepted. I think that there are certain dangers here as I am sure both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman appreciate. I support the first Amendment, but not the second one.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. K. Robinson: We had a full discussion on this point in Committee on the basis of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) relating to the reflection of retail pharmacy in the membership of the Medicines Commission. My hon. Friend explained then, as he reiterated today, that there was anxiety that the words "the practice of pharmacy", in subsection (3)(c), were not specific enough, whereas the explicit exclusion of retail sale in subsection (3)(e) greatly increased his anxiety because there was no corresponding positive mention in subsection (3)(c).
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained that the phrase "the practice of pharmacy" covered retail pharmacy, although the words were not used; and he said—and I endorse it— that we should be extremely surprised if there were no person on the Commission with wide and recent experience of the retail practice of pharmacy. My hon. Friend went on to give an assurance about consultations with regard to the membership of the Commission, and made it clear that we would consult the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Company Chemists' Association, and the Co-operative Union, which are the three organisations representing all retail pharmacists, and also the Pharmaceutical Society.
    1406
    Although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West withdrew his Amendment in Committee, it was clear that he was not altogether happy, hence, no doubt, the tabling of these two Amendments which he describes as alternatives. I am anxious to be helpful, and I see no objection to accepting the first Amendment, provided it is understood that in relation to subparagraph (e) we should have only the manufacturing or wholesale aspects in view.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in Committee that it would be undesirable to insert an explicit reference to retail pharmacy in sub-paragraph (c), for the reason given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), that this would almost certainly stimulate requests for corresponding precision in relation to the practice of medicine, the practice of veterinary medicine, and so on. I gather from my hon. Friend that he was asking me to accept only one of the Amendments. I have pleasure in accepting the first one, and I hope that he will not press the second one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from ' committee' to ' established ' in line 39.
    The Amendment removes the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons from members of committees appointed by the Medicines Commission. This is because members of such committees will be appointed, not by Ministers, but by the Medicines Commission itself, which is specifically stated in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 not to enjoy any status of the Crown.
    The effect of Clause 2(6) as it stands is to insert the entry in question into Schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. As far as I am aware there are no other entries in that Schedule, or in any later editions, referring to committees appointed by the bodies named in the Schedule. There is clearly no question of patronage by the Crown, and in our view there is no ground for creating a precedent for disqualifying second-tier bodies such as these committees appointed by the Commission. This is a minor point, but I think that it would be an undesirable precedent.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3
    GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION
    Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out ' advice to the appropriate Ministers ' and insert:
    'to any one or more of the Ministers specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of this Act advice'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that Amendment we are taking Amendment No. 5, and Amendment No. 102, in Clause 115, page 100, line 29, leave out ' appropriate Ministers ' and insert:
    'Ministers proposing to make the regulations or order'.
    Mr. Snow: On 12th March, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we would examine the application and interpretation of the term used in the Bill "the appropriate Ministers". In consequence of that undertaking we re-examined the use of that phrase throughout the Bill to see whether the special definition in Clause 1(2) was appropriate.
    I said that Amendments would be moved to Clause 3(1), which refers to Ministers asking the Commission for advice and being advised by it, and to Clause 115(6), which was formerly Clause 113, which requires the appropriate Ministers to consult before making regulations or Orders. In both cases the meaning was "the relevant Ministers" rather than the special meaning attached to the phrase "the appropriate Ministers" in Clause 1(2).
    The first two Amendments result in making Clause 3(1) read:
    "The Commission shall give to any one or more of the Ministers specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1(1) of this Act advice on matters relating to … where either the Commission consider it expedient, or they are requested bv the Minister or Ministers in question, to do so."
    The third Amendment makes Clause 115 read:
    "Before making any regulations … the Ministers proposing to make the regulations or Order shall consult such organisations …"
    That fulfills my undertaking in Committee, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendments.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I can do no more than thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in introducing these Amendments. In doing so he has carried out his undertaking, and I am grateful to him. Both Clauses are now much clearer than they were, and I think that the purpose which we both had in mind has been achieved.
    Amendment argeed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 5 in page 3, line 5, leave out' those Ministers ' and insert:
    'the Minister or Ministers in question '.— [Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 4
    ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEES
    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 18 after ' names ' insert ' or other publication '.
    The Amendment is consequential to the new Clause inserted in Committee, and which now appears as Clause 93. As subsection (l)(a) of that Clause envisages that functions concerned with other publications will be performed by a committee established under Clause 4, it is necessary to provide in this Clause the power to establish such a committee. Once the power to establish a committee under the Clause is in the Bill, the effect of Clause 3(2)(e) is that the functions in question are brought within the functions of the Medicines Commission in so far as they are not for the time being assigned to a Clause 4 committee.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5
    SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO COMMISSION AND COMMITTEES
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 5, line 8, after 'function ', insert:
    'related to the safety, efficacy or quality of medicinal products'.
    This matter was discussed in Committee, and it is one to which we attach great importance. The Clause as it stands gives the Minister power to confer on the Commission by Order any new function. It

    1409
    does not specify to what the new function is to refer. It just says any new function which can be specified by Order, without any new resolution coming before the House. This power is far too extensive. It is a blank cheque to the Minister and could be used to alter the Bill's character. I do not suggest that this is his intention, but we are concerned not with his intentions but with what is written into the Bill.
    This is a clear phrase, the power to confer on the Commission "any new functions". This type of very extensive power is virtually without precedent. A number of Acts recently have set up various committees and boards and in no case has power been given to confer new functions on the bodies concerned. For example, the Land Commission Act contains no power to confer new functions on the Land Commission. Similarly with the Act which set up the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the Race Relations Act 1965, which set up the Race Relations Board. These are just three examples of bodies similar to the Medicines Commission, and on none is a similar power conferred.
    The Minister said in Committee that he had no additional functions in mind, but he also said, trying to meet the points put,
    "… I will consider the possibility of adding some words to subsection (4, c) "—
    what is now subsection (4)(b)—
    "to confine the scope of any additional functions that might be conferred on the Commission."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 21st March 1968, c. 149.]
    That is all that we are asking. The Amendment does not rule out any new functions, but only provides that they should be directly relevant to the Bill and its main objects. We have tried to meet the Minister's points by suggesting that the new functions will be acceptable through an affirmative Order so long as it is clear that they relate to the Bill's main objects. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. K. Robinson: It is correct that, in a discussion in Committee on an Amendment designed to preclude the making of Orders conferring any new functions on the Commission, which was defeated on a Division, I undertook to consider the possibility of finding some words to confine possible additional
    1410
    functions. We have considered that possibility since, but I am afraid that—since the only change which could reasonably be made in this provision is to insert some general words indicative of matters relating to the purposes of the Bill, and I am advised that, in any event, this power must be exercised within the ambit of the Bill—I have concluded that it is better to leave the wording as it is. New functions would have to relate to medicinal productions and to connected matters and purposes. I am advised clearly on that point. The hon. Gentleman skated over the fact that the affirmative procedure is required should any new function be added by the Government, and this is a valuable safeguard.
    8.15 p.m.
    To limit the new functions, as the Amendment proposes, to functions related to the safety, efficacy or quality of medicinal products would be far too narrow. There is a number of areas in the Bill which go beyond this. For example, there are matters of consumer protection. I can only repeat what I said in Committee—that we have no proposals in view for extending the functions. If I had had, I would have included them in the Bill in the first place, and I can see no advantage in confining the ambit of any potential Order in the way that the Amendment proposes.
    As we have the affirmative procedure, that should be a perfectly adequate safeguard, and there is the additional accepted doctrine that any accepted func-tion must be within the ambit of the Bill as it stands. So we would achieve nothing by merely adding general words which repeated the long Title of the Bill, and I suggest that it is right to leave the wording as it is.
    Mr. Tim Fortescue: I would like some more explanation about two points in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The main tenor of his argument was that any functions must be within the general ambit of the Bill and that he is advised to that effect, but he did not tell us why. He did not say by what say-so these functions have to be confined. Is this a general legal doctrine? The Bill does not say so. Would he explain that a little more?
    Second, when challenged as to why the new functions must not be confined to safety, efficacy and quality,

    1411
    which are the three pillars of the Bill, he gave, as an example of an exception, consumer protection. But surely consumer protection is a matter of either safety or quality. Any other off the cuff, ad hoc, example of powers which the Commission should properly have would be connected with one of these three matters. There is nothing else in the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman thought of another example in Committee, when he talked about the possibility that the Commission might want to run drug test laboratories, but that would surely be connected with the safety or quality of drugs. He will find that every example comes back to these three matters, which are the heart and soul of the Bill. I hope that he can reconsider this before Report.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Minister said that he thought that the affirmative procedure was a valuable safeguard, but it is nothing like as good as the need to introduce new legislation if the case arose. This Government are very fond of this type of legislation, and it is to be deprecated. In the hands of a future illiberal Minister—I acquit the right hon. Gentleman in this connection—these powers could be far too wide. I cannot understand why he resists this. His explanations are usually lucid, but today his remarks were unconvincing. The whole basis of the Bill is concerned with safety, efficacy and quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said, if one takes into account many of the other aspects of the Measure, they, too, are caught by those words.
    We can envisage a situation in years to come when a Minister might have a pathological hatred of the pharmaceutical industry and might use the Medicines Commission as a creature of his will to damage its institutions. I accept that there is a Parliamentary safeguard, but it is not strong enough.
    I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think about the matter again. So far we have had much agreement on the Bill and the Government have been reasonably generous in introducing Amendments to make the Measure more workable. The Commission will get off to a better start if it has good terms
    1412
    of reference instead of the present woolly drafting, which gives carte blanche at any time to any future Minister to introduce whatever he likes.
    Mr. Nigel Fisher: I cannot understand why the Minister is making such heavy weather of this very reasonable and moderate Amendment. When we argued this matter in Committee on 19th March the Parliamentary Secretary said—and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed this tonight—that he had no additional functions in mind but that there must be flexibility. "Flexibility" is a vague word in this context and this is a vague and a very wide Clause. It is unnecessarily and dangerously wide and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has said, it could be used to alter the whole character of the Bill. It could also be used to prejudice the position of the medical profession and that of the pharmaceutical industry.
    In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look at this section again. The right hon. Gentleman said the same. The Parliamentary Secretary gave that promise in answer to comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who was also anxious and critical about this aspect of the Bill. We are now told that, having considered the matter again, the Government are not prepared to accept this moderate Amendment. But we have been given only one reason, only one example, that of consumer protection, which the right hon. Gentleman considers is outside the scope of the Amendment. It was the weakest example he could have given because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gars-ton (Mr. Fortescue) pointed out, it is impossible to say that consumer protection does not fall within the definition of "safety" or "quality".
    I am not usually a suspicious person, but I cannot help wondering why more convincing reasons and examples have not been given for rejecting this Amendment. Why are these wide powers needed? I expected, following the assurances given in Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman would either have effectively studied the matter again and accepted our Amendment or, in view of the very long time that has elapsed between 19th March and today, that he would have done his homework and supplied us with more

    1413
    convincing reasons for not accepting the Amendment. Merely to advance the phrase ''consumer protection" is not enough. It is almost insulting to hon. Members:, who took a lot of trouble with the Bill in Committee and who went into the subject in depth, to be fobbed off with phrases like "consumer protection" and "flexibility" which, in this context, mean nothing and are totally unconvincing.
    We are only asking that the right hon. Gentleman should confine the operation of the Bill to the subjects with which it now deals and the safeguards and purposes which it is designed to secure. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still insist on these wide powers which he has given no real reason for wanting and which any successor in his job could use to alter the whole Bill. It is really not right to asked Parliament to accept a clause drafted in this way and I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a division.
    Mr. K, Robinson: It ill-becomes one of the sponsors of a starred Amendment to say that there has been a very long time since the end of the Committee stage.
    Mr. Dean: We waited for the right hon. Gentleman until the last minute before taking action.
    Mr. Robinson: I am prepared to accept that explanation. Nevertheless, there has not been a very long time since the close of the Committee stage.
    I explained that I have given thought to the matter and I told the House of the conclusions I have reached. I was beginning to wonder what had happened to the power, which was so much displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, to conjure up bogeys. I was beginning to think that they had lost it, but I am almost happy to find that they are as good as ever. Again we have had expressed that terrible thought that in the back of the mind of some hypothetical Minister of Health of the future will be the wish to use the Medicines Commission to dish the pharmaceutical industry.
    I cannot accept the Amendment, first in view of what I said earlier; that it is far too restrictive, and secondly because it is not true to say that consumer protection must include only safety, quality and
    1414
    efficacy. There is also the question of misrepresentation. If I could think of a valuable and useful function for the Commission to do at this moment, I would have included it in the Bill in the first place. It is no idle form of words to say that we need flexibility, because it is difficult to forecast the future.
    It may be that some function would be appropriate to the Commission, which everyone would agree would be appropriate, but for which no Government would feel the necessity of bringing forward a whole new piece of legislation. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the present Government are fond of legislation of this kind. All Governments are fond of legislation which gives delegated powers.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: This one especially.
    Mr. Robinson: That is a matter of opinion, and possibly of opinion coloured by party political prejudice. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked on what basis I was advised that any additional function would have to come within the ambit of the Bill. I am informed that there are decisions of the courts which make it abundantly clear that any exercise of statutory powers must be within the four corners of the Act conferring those powers.
    I am prepared to have yet another look at this matter between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, but even if I were able to find an appropriate form of words, it could be little more that a re-statement of the Long Title of the Bill. I will have another look to see whether something of this kind can be devised but, for the reasons I have given, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to have another look at this matter, I must ask the House to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby. I am still a little puzzled about the need for this refusal, because there seems so little difference between us when we think of what the Minister says that I am at a loss to see why he is reluctant to put this safeguard into the Bill. I always try to

    1415
    acquit him of having sinister designs and always very reluctantly become suspicious because of the explanations he gives for refusing to make Amendments of this sort.
    The Minister asked what had happened to the bogeys. He has been sufficiently forthcoming about other new Clauses and Amendments to allay some of our suspicions. I wish that he had not aroused them by what he said on this Amendment. It is difficult to see what objection he can have, because what else is the Bill about except "safety, efficacy or quality". If he is denying the relevance of those words to this Clause, he is beginning to cast doubts on whether this is the sole purpose of the Bill and the sole function of the Commission. I am not concerned, as the Minister suggested, with safeguarding the pharmaceutical industry in this context, or particularly in any other. It is the doctors rather than the pharmaceutical industry, who are concerned here.
    The Minister said that if he could think of any words which he could put into the Clause, they would be a repetition of the Long Title, and that the words we had suggested relating to "safety, efficacy or quality" do very much the same thing because they are concerned with the whole purpose of the Bill. He referred to medicinal matters and purposes connected therewith and quoted consumer protection. When challenged on consumer protection, he said that there was not only "safety, efficacy or quality" but the danger of misrepresentation. What could an advertisement or a statement about a medicinal product to misrepresent except "safety, efficacy or quality "? There is nothing else but the price.
    With the wording of the Clause as it stands the Commission, or one of its committees, by an affirmative Order of this House could take over the present functions of the McGregor Committee and thereby give them statutory effect. This is not my only worry. The whole range of new functions which this Clause, unqualified, allows and which have proved unnecessary for the Prices and Incomes Board, the Land Commission and the Race Relations Board, should not be necessary except insofar as they are needed for "safety, efficacy or quality" by the Medicines Commission. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends, indeed the whole House, to support our Amendment in the Lobby.
    Mr. Eric Ogden: I do not wish to raise the temperature of this discussion any higher than it has been raised by hon. Members opposite, but I was a little concerned at the efforts of my right hon. Friends to get this consensus between the two sides of the House. He gave an assurance to the Opposition that he would look at this matter again. He has proved his point and looked at the matter carefully between Committee and Report. He has given an assurance tonight—which, unfortunately, has been rejected—that he will see if a further Amendment can be made.
    I ask whether, in the present situation between this House and another place, the other House will be able to look at any Amendments.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 120.

    Division No. 226.]

    AYES

    [8.34 p.m.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Bell, Ronald

    Clegg, Walter

    Farr, John

    Biffen, John

    Cordle, John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Costain, A. P.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Blaker, Peter

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Foster, Sir John

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Crouch, David

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Body, Richard

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Braine, Bernard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Doughty, Charles

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Burden, F. A.

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

    Hawkins, Paul

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Emery, Peter

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    More, Jasper

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Holland, Philip

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Hunt, John

    Murton, Oscar

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Smith, Dudley (W'w ck & L'mington)

    Johnson Simth, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Speed, Keith

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kimball, Marcus

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Webster, David

    Kirk, Peter

    Pym, Francis

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Lane, David

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Worsley, Marcus

    McMaster, Stanley

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Macmillar, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Maude, Angus

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Mr. Anthony Royle and

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R.. J.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Horner, John

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Barnes, Michael

    Howie, W.

    Palmer, Arthur

    Beaney, Alan

    Hoy, James

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hunter, Adam

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Prioe, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Booth, Albert

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Boston, Terence

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Rhodee, Geoffrey

    Bradley, Tom

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Richard, Ivor

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Judd, Frank

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kelley, Richard

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

    Coleman, Donald

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

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Lawson, George

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Cronin, John

    Ledger, Ron

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Ryan, John

    Davies, Eclnyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Luard, Evan

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Dell, Edmund

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Dewar, Donald

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Dickens, James

    McBride, Neil

    Silverman, Julius

    Dobson, Ray

    MacColl, James

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Doig, Peter

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Slater, Joseph

    Driberg, Tom

    Mackie, John

    Small, William

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

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)

    Snow, Julian

    Eadie, Alex

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Swlngler, Stephen

    Ennals, David

    Marquand, David

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Rinn. James

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Ruck, Raphael

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Urwin, T. W.

    Forrester, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Varley, Eric G

    Fowler, Gerry

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wqlden, Brian (All Saints)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Molly, William

    Welis, William (Walsall, N.)

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Murray, Albert

    Winnick, David

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    O'Maltey, Brian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hilton, W. S.

    Oram, Albert E.

    Mr.JosephHarper and

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr.Ioan L. Evans.

    Clause 7
    GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO DEALING WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS
    Amendments made: No. 8, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'and'.
    No. 9 in line 38, at end insert:
    and
    (c) the provisions of section (Postponement of restrictions in relation to exports) of this Act'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 8
    PROVISIONS AS TO MANUFACTURE AND WHOLESALE DEALING
    Amendment made: No. 10, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'and (b)' and insert 'to (c)'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 9
    EXEMPTIONS FOR DOCTORS, DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 24, after 'herd' insert' not exceeding 100 animals'.
    Our discussions in Committee made it clear that veterinary surgeons can drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. I will not go over the whole argument again. The Clause relates to the important practice of getting together in a group practice. As the Clause stands, veterinary surgeons in a group practice will be exempted from the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8. Therefore, they will be able to manufacture and supply drugs for the animals under their control, and in addition they will be able to do it for their colleagues in another group practice, which may be in another part of the United Kingdom.
    8.45 p.m.
    We are talking about group practices which could manufacture drugs for a very large number of animals—over 1,000, and perhaps over 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle, and 10,000 to 30,000 head of sheep. I am not talking about products such as vaccines, serum or plasma, but solely about medicinal products specially prepared at the request of another veterinary surgeon.
    I know that many veterinary practitioners and surgeons and their professional bodies do not like the idea of having a number inserted, whether it be 100, 500 or 1,000. But unless subsection (2,b) is to make an absolute mockery of the Clause, there must be a restriction.
    The Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me explaining his views, and I am very grateful. Nobody wants to restrict the right of the veterinary surgeon to manufacture a drug he believes is right for a particular animal or herd. But when one comes to a group practice manufacturing drugs for a large number of animals, as could happen, then the whole purpose of Clauses 7 and 8 goes by the board.
    As he did in his letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary may rest his argument on a later Clause under which
    1420
    regulations and orders can be made to limit this provision should it be found that something has gone wrong in practice. That is the wrong way of going about things. It is closing the stable door after the horse has gone. When he finds that the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 are being flouted, the Minister will make an order to stop that happening. It will be too late, and it could be very dangerous.
    One short example is that an application could be made to the Commission for a product licence for a veterinary drug which is turned down on grounds of efficacy and even of safety. Yet under subsection (2)(b) a group veterinary practice could manufacture it for thousands of head of cattle, and if their neighbours wish to try it on their cattle as well they could be asked to manufacture it for them. So a drug turned down by the Commission could be manufactured by veterinary practitioners, with the help of pharmacists, for a very large number of animals throughout the country. That is not the Minister's intention.
    That is why I ask the House to accept the limit of 100. It is an arbitrary figure, but a limit must be fixed somewhere, and I ask the House to accept it as the best compromise that can be arrived at.
    Mr. John Mackie: The Amendment would restrict the preparation of medicinal products by a veterinarian for a colleague to the case where the herd to be treated does not exceed 100 animals. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, the figure in the Amendment is very arbitrary. The Amendment is impracticable. How would the veterinarian preparing the product know the size of the herd? He knows full well that it can vary as animals are bought and sold and so on.
    What is to happen when veterinarians in group practice or partnerships prepare medicinal products for each other? Why stop a veterinarian from preparing a product for his colleagues when any one of them could get the product prepared by a pharmacist? Or is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we must impose the same arbitrary restriction on pharmacists? The hon. Member will not be surprised if I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    The Amendment stems from a fear among hon. Members opposite that

    1421
    veterinarians, in particular, are going to start turning into large-scale manufacturers of all sorts of medicinal products. The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that. We do not share these fears. It is a question of balance between the practitioner's time-honoured freedom to prescribe what he thinks is right for his patients—animal or human—and the possibility of the practitioner becoming a manufacturer of drugs. We think that, in present circumstances, we have got the balance about right, and if it becomes necessary to change it we can do so.
    As the hon. Gentleman suggested during the Committee stage, we have consulted the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the British Veterinary Association, the Pharmaceutical Society and the National Farmers' Union, and they agree that Clause 9 seems a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the complex issues involved. They also think that it would be impracticable and unduly restrictive in present circumstances to attempt to control veterinarians any further.
    Another Amendment has been put down by hon. Members opposite to safeguard the practitioner's right to prescribe and to get his prescriptions dispensed. I am sure, therefore, that they will agree that veterinarians must be free to prepare what they consider to be the most suitable medicinal products for the effective treatment of any animals under their care.
    It follows that it is also right and proper for one veterinarian to be able to get one of his colleagues to prepare a product for him without having to go round counting the number of animals in the herd in order to ensure that there are not more than one hundred. For instance, a veterinarian acting as consultant to another might prepare some particular remedy which had previously been used successfully in treating the condition concerned.
    The hon. Gentleman said that veterinarians could drive a horse and cart through the Bill. I should point out that we have, nevertheless, carefully contained the veterinarian. To be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product has to be specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd and has to be supplied to a
    1422
    person having possession or control of that animal or herd. We must have—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has— faith in veterinarians that this is what they will do and that they will not go in for wholesale manufacture.
    Over and above that, there are severe restrictions on the preparation of vaccines, plasma and sera. No poultry vaccines may be prepared unless they have been licensed and the preparation of other vaccines is limited to those specially prepared for the treatment of a particular patient from material derived from the individual animal and must be administered to the same animal.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he was not thinking of autogenous vaccines but this is made clear in Clause 9 (2) (b). This exemption is necessary to allow the time-honoured treatment in this way of certain conditions such as warts in cattle and other localised infections to continue.
    We must also allow veterinarians who prepare a serum or plasma to treat certain conditions within a herd. In this form of treatment, it is important that the serum or plasma should contain antibodies against the particular strain or organism present in the environment. This means, in effect, obtaining it from apparently healthy animals in the herd which is exposed to that strain of organism. It follows that serum or plasma obtained from animals in one herd might well be useless for the treatment of animals in another, so that the exemption does not lend itself to the abuse feared by the hon. Gentleman.
    If, with the passage of time, a change is needed—if there are, for instance, further developments in inventivism—the exemption can be amended in accordance with Clause 15. In view of this explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. John Farr: I only intervene because it appears to me that the whole sense of this subsection depends on the interpretation of the term "medicinal product". That is interpreted at some length in Clause 116. I am not certain whether my hon. Friend's suggested amended figure of 100 on a herd basis is a correct one, but I call attention to the fact that many small farmers, who have difficulty in procuring

    1423
    drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin, which are identified in the Bill as medicinal products, often fear to call in a veterinary surgeon for the treatment of small animals, such as weaner pigs or lambs, because the yet may charge three or four guineas, which is almost the cost of the animal concerned.
    I intervene to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give further consideration to this point, which is of great concern to many farmers who breed pigs and lambs and who fear to call in a vet, with the result that the animal dies. This could well be prevented if the simple drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin were generally available for use by the farmer.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Parliamentary Secretary's answer was extremely unsatisfactory. He did not put forward a single reasonable ground for saying that my Amendment was impracticable. I concede that 100 is an arbitrary figure and should perhaps be 200, but he should have further consultations with the people concerned so as to fix a proper figure if he is not satisfied with 100. Whatever figure is fixed is always unsatisfactory, but a figure must be fixed, otherwise one is relying on the good sense and good nature of the veterinary profession. They are most honourable and reputable people, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that there have in the past been cases where live vaccine has been manufactured by veterinary surgeons and disseminated through the north of England. That happened not many years ago, and it could happen again, not with live vaccine but with other drugs.
    My submission is that the difficulties raised by the hon. Gentleman are covered. I am not trying to stop the veterinary surgeon from being allowed to prescribe and manufacture whatever drugs he wishes for any animal or small herd, or from asking a consultant to manufacture it. I am saying that some provision should be put into the Bill to stop the whole purpose of the Bill being flouted. The Bill deals with safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products, be those veterinary or human. If a veterinary surgeon, a vet in group practice or a consultant, is to be allowed to get round those provisions, I say that this is wrong and should be stopped,
    1424
    and I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.
    Mr. Mackie: I do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) comes under this Amendment, but I will take note of what he says. I appreciate the point, but I do not think that vets charge three or four guineas a visit.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) destroys his own case by saying, "Fix a figure, any figure will do." This is practically what he said. As he knows, needs are changing, there are small herds, large herds, and there are companies with herds up to one thousand. As I said in my opening remarks, it is impracticable and arbitrary to fix the figure, we have had consultations again and again, and I am sorry that I cannot follow his argument for this restriction.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I find it hard to realise that we are still talking about safety, quality, and efficacy. It seems to me that we are now discussing administrative convenience, which is not quite so important.
    We on this side of the House do not suggest that there is any reason why the veterinary profession should abuse this legislation, but why give its members an incentive to do so? Why show a bias in favour of those who might be dishonest or sensible enough to take advantage of a loophole which the Minister refuses to close?
    As it stands, the Bill allows a large group practice to become, in effect, a group of manufacturers. If they intend to market their products, no doubt they will require a licence, but if the use of the products is confined to the group practice, the manufacturing unit escapes all the licensing provisions. What is the effect when a group of veterinary practitioners in group practice set up such a manufacturing and importing unit, which I understand has happened, for reasons of efficiency and to serve their customers? I am thinking of a practice which covers a large area. Naturally, the veterinary surgeons concerned use the products which their unit produces, because they regard them as more efficacious, safe and of higher quality, and I suspect that they are also extremely competitive in price.

    1425
    Is the Minister happy in that such a unit escapes all the proposed licensing provisions? However unselfish and desirable the motives of those who set up such a unit, I do not see why they should be privileged in this way.
    Mr. Mackie: It appears that neither the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) nor the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) listened to the argument in the latter part or my speech. I pointed out that we have carefully contained the veterinarians by the fact that, to be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product must be specially prepared for administering to a particular animal or herd, and so on. If a group of veterinarians decides to set up a manufacturing unit and to market the products, they will
    require to comply with the licensing provisions.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The wording is to the effect that the restrictions do not apply to anything done by a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary practitioner which
    "relates to a medicinal product specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd which is under his care, and consists of manuacturing … the products to a person having the possession or control of that animal or herd."
    That is as wide as one could wish. There is no restriction. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 129.

    Division No. 227.]

    AYES

    [9.4 p.m.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Bell, Ronald

    Fietcher-Cooke, Charles

    Onslow, Cranley

    Biffen, John

    Fortescue, Tim

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Foster, Sir John

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Blaker, Peter

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Pym, Francis

    Body, Richard

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Braine, Bernard

    Grieve, Percy

    Rawtinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Rhyt Williams, Sir Brandon

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hirst, Geofirey

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Burden, F. A.

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Holland, Philip

    Scott, Nicholas

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hunt, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Clegg, Walter

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Cordle, John

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinetead)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Costain, A. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kirk, Peter

    Speed, Keith

    Crouch, David

    Lane, David

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    McMaster, Stanley

    Webster, David

    Doughty, Charles

    MacmilIan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maude, Angus

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Worsley, Marcus

    Emery, Peter

    More, Jasper

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Farr, John

    Murton, Oscar

    Mr. Anthony Royle and

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cronin, John

    Forrester, John

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Fowler, Gerry

    Barnes, Michael

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Beaney, Alan

    Dell, Edmund

    Gregory, Arnold

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dewar, Donald

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Blackburn, F.

    Dickens, James

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Dobson, Ray

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Booth, Albert

    Driberg, Tom

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Boston, Terence

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

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Eadie, Alex

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Ellis, John

    Hilton, W. S.

    Coleman, Donald

    Ennals, David

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Homer, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Hoy, James

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rosa, Rt. Hn. William

    Hunter, Adam

    Millan, Bruce

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Ryan, John

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Molloy, William

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

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Moonman, Eric

    Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Murray, Albert

    Silverman, Julius

    Judd, Frank

    Ogden, Eric

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Kelley, Richard

    O'Malley, Brian

    Slater, Joseph

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Small, William

    Lawson, George

    Oswald, Thomas

    Snow, Julian

    Ledger, Ron

    Owen, Wilt (Morpeth)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Tinn, James

    Luard, Evan

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Tuck, Raphael

    Lubbock, Eric

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    McBride, Neil

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    MacColl, James

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthorglen)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mackie, John

    Richard, Ivor

    Winnick, David

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

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

    Marquand, David

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Roebuck, Roy

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

    Clause 10
    EXEMPTIONS FOR PHARMACISTS
    Mr. Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'subsection (3) of this section' and insert 'the next following subsection'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient if we also discussed Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 25 and 26.
    Mr. Mackie: This Amendment paves the way for a new qualification to Clause 10(1). Amendment No. 13 is a new subsection (2) and is essentially the old subsection (3) applied now only to subsection (1). It qualifies the exemption relating to pharmacists in subsection (1), so that it does not apply to a poultry vaccine or to any other vaccine, plasma or serum for administration to an animal or herd unless:

    (a) for a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived; or

    (b) for plasma or a serum, it is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived, that is the same qualifications apply as in the case of veterinarians in Clause 9(3).

    In the case of either (a) or (b) it must be prepared in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.
    1428
    9.15 p.m.
    Amendment No. 14 paves the way for the next Amendments. Amendment No. 15 revises the old subsection (2) so that it has the effect of preventing a pharmacist from undertaking the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stockowner or herdsman.
    After further consideration of the points raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate for a pharmacist to undertake the preparation of vaccines, plasma or sera at the request of a stock-owner or herdsman, as would be the case as subsection (2) stands. On the other hand, we think that we must allow a pharmacist acting under subsection (1) to prepare vaccines, plasma or sera in accordance with a prescription by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner. This, of course, excludes the preparation of poultry vaccines which are all subject to the licensing arrangements. This procedure is in line with the position in Clause 9 under which one veterinarian may call upon another to supply him with these substances, and we see no added complications in his being able to call upon a pharmacist. Indeed, to fail to give this exemption would mean preventing a pharmacist from carrying out operations which his training equips him to do. These Amendments carry out these changes.

    1429
    I emphasise that the exemptions for both veterinarians and pharmacists refer only to circumstances in which the use of the vaccine, and so on, does not present a disease risk; that is to say, autogenous vaccines used in the same animals from which the material is derived or a plasma or serum used within the same herd from which it is derived.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, which go a long way to satisfying the anxieties which we expressed in Committee. I was, however, a little disturbed when he said that the exemptions would apply only to autogenous vaccines. I am grateful for his accepting that it would be wrong for a stockowner to be able to go to a pharmacist and say that he wants this or that and for the pharmacist to make it up. But I am still apprehensive, following the unhappy attitude of the hon. Gentleman to our last Amendment, about the possibility of a pharmacist being asked by a group practice to manufacture plasma, serum or vaccine on a very large scale. The Amendment still leaves this door open.
    However, that is not a point which I wish to pursue at this moment. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having met three-quarters of the case which we put forward in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 13, in page 8, line 13, at end insert:
    (2) The exemption conferred by the preceding subsection does not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administration to poultry, and does not apply to any other vaccine or any plasma or serum prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd unless—

    (a) in the case of a vaccine, it is specially prepared for administration to the animal from which it is derived, or

    (b) in the case of plasma or a serum, it is specially prepared for administration to one or more animals in the herd from which it is derived,

    and (in either case) it is so prepared in accordance with a prescription given by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner.

    No. 14, in page 8, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'those'.
    No. 15, in page 8, line 19, leave out from 'where' to end of line 34 and insert:

    (a) the product is prepared or dispensed for administration to that person or to a person under his care, or

    1430

    (b) the product, not being a vaccine, plasma or serum, is prepared or dispensed for administration to an animal or herd which is in the possession or under the control of that person.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 12
    EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF HERBAL REMEDIES
    Amendment made: No. 16, in page 9, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 10.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 16
    TRANSITIONAL EXEMPTIONS
    Amendment made: No. 18, in page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. K. Robinson.]
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 42, after 'description', insert 'other than veterinary drugs'.
    My purpose in inserting these words in Clause 16(4) is to try to close what I believe is an existing loophole for the importation of substandard drugs into this country from perhaps Eire and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt. If hon. Members will speak up a little it will help the reporters.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am very sorry. I will certainly follow your advice, Mr. Speaker.
    Sir Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is by far the best at speaking up on this side of the House.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to close an existing loophole in the transitional exemptions concerning the importation of drugs. I am anxious that no substandard drugs, particularly penicillins, antibiotics and the like, are brought into this country illegally, and which the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministry are unable to stop at the moment. I believe that this is happening on a large scale. I want to make

    1431
    certain that this practice ceases. Therefore, the Minister should have the power and the ability to stop it. I have moved to insert the words "other than veterinary drugs", because I believe that they will have this effect.
    Mr. John Mackie: This Amendment would have the effect of making all imports of veterinary drugs without a product licence illegal when, on the first appointed day, the licensing arrangements under Clauses 7 and 8 become effective.
    I appreciate the fears of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), but it is unlikely that the licensing authority would be able to deal with all the licences which would be needed and, irrespective of need or quality, some imports would therefore come to a stop.
    I assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to be able to prevent the import at the very first opportunity of any undesirable products. But, as I think they recognise, we are not aware in every case what these products are or in any case whether, having regard to their intended use, they are necessarily undesirable. This can only be discovered by considering each imported product on its merits, which effectively means the sort of considerations entailed in deciding whether to grant a product licence.
    This cannot be done overnight, as the hon. Gentleman must appreciate. Moreover, we have to avoid creating a chaotic situation in relation to the import of veterinary drugs. This is why we have transitional provisions. I think, therefore, that, although the object is a worthy one—and we know that there are often importations of these drugs about which we do not know enough—it really is not one that can be achieved in one bite.
    We must accept some transitional arrangements, and we believe that the ones devised are satisfactory for this purpose. Briefly, an imported product will be protected in the first instance by subsection (4), so that it will be new imports that become subject to the licensing procedure on the first appointed day. Later, in accordance with Clause 17, other appointed days will be fixed for specified classes of products, and for these the protection given by Clause 16 then ends.
    1432
    Clause 25(2) then entitles a person protected by Clause 16 to a licence of right. But such licences may be revoked, either as they come up for renewal or, as the need arises, at any time in accordance with Clause 28 and the following Clauses. Priority will be given to those products and licences which appear to deserve early attention, but it is impossible to accept that all these matters can be dealt with immediately the licensing arrangements come into operation. Because of that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that the present situation is undesirable. The main purpose of tabling the Amendment is to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention once again the fact that we are extremely concerned about these substandard and illegal drugs coming in, and we want their importation stopped at the earliest possible moment.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman exaggerated the impracticability of stopping the importation of these drugs immediately. I accept that it is difficult to insist that from the first appointed day a product licence will be necessary for every veterinary drug that is imported, but I hope that he will take note of what has been said about the need to stop these veterinary drugs coming in because they can do untold damage.
    So far, I have addressed myself solely to the veterinary aspect of this problem, but I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the danger of allowing the import of drugs of this kind which are used for treating human beings.
    I mentioned Eire and Northern Ireland as two sources for the supply of these sub-standard drugs, but they do, of course, come from other places, too. I should not like it to go on record that those are the only two places from which these drugs are originating.
    If the hon. Gentleman will watch the position carefully and use his best endeavours to ensure that this traffic is stopped at the earliest opportunity and that the product licence procedure is brought in as quickly as is humanly possible, I shall be satisfied, and shall not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Mackie: I said that priority would be given to dealing with these

    1433
    products which appear to deserve early attention. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if we were to accept the Amendment it would stop the importation of everything, good and bad. That is the difficulty. I appreciate what he has said, and we will keep a careful watch on the situation.
    Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is seeking leave to withdraw the Amendment?
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19
    FACTORS RELEVANT TO DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE
    Mr. Fortescue: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 13, line 5, leave out 'in particular' and insert 'only'.
    Mr. Speaker: With that we are taking the following Amendments: Amendment No. 22, in Clause 20, page 15, line 2, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
    ',or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality,'.
    Amendment No. 28, in Clause 24, page 19, line 16, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
    ',or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality,'.
    Amendment No. 46, in Clause 34, page 29, line 21, leave out 'expedient' and insert:
    ', or advisable on the ground of safety'.
    Mr. Fortescue: We now come back to the topic which we have already discussed this evening, namely, the importance of the three qualifications of safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs. The first Amendment stands on its own, but the other three go together and are relevant to the same point.
    In committee, we moved an almost identical Amendment to persuade the Minister that it would be proper for him to omit the provision that the licensing authority should have regard in particular to the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs in granting a licence, and should have regard only to those qualities.
    1434
    The Minister resisted the Amendment, but he yielded a little at the end, because he thought that the licensing authority should in no way be limited in its consideration of applications by being able to refer only to those three qualities. After some persuasive speeches he came to the following conclusion:
    "I have listened to what both hon. Gentlemen have said and I think that we might look at this again. I am not going to say more than that. On one side I feel we must not constrain the authority too much;"—
    and that was the point he was making throughout—
    "on the other side I feel that it is reasonable to say that without a clear prescription of its rules the authority might be prejudiced in its activities. We will see whether, somewhere between these two points of view, both of which are reasonable, we can achieve some degree of agreement.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th March, 1968; c. 273–274.]
    We have waited in vain for that agreement to be reached and for what the hon. Gentleman accepted as the reasonableness of our case to be translated into an Amendment. Finally, in despair, we have put down this Amendment, to see whether we can persuade the Minister to take some action on his hon. Friend's undertaking. This Amendment is very much on the lines of an earlier one to the effect that we believe that safety, quality and efficacy are the only criteria for judging applications for licences, and not the criteria by which "in particular" they should be judged.
    9.30 p.m.
    The other three Amendments seek to omit the word "expedient" and to insert other words. We pointed out gently in Committee that expediency is not a quality for which people are enthusiastic and that to accuse a Minister of expediency was not a compliment. We sought to have the word omitted altogether but the Minister said that the only criterion then left for the grant or refusal of licences in Clause 20, for decisions on variation or renewal of licences in Clause 24 and for decisions on clinical and field trial certificates in Clause 32 would be for the licensing authority to decide whether the issue or renewal was necessary. The words in the Bill are "necessary or expedient" and we sought to have the word "expedient" omitted so that the only criterion left would be necessity. The

    1435
    Minister said that this would make the whole thing inflexible:
    "If the reference to expediency were omitted, even in a case where the expert committee had advised refusal of a licence the Ministers, as licensing authority, would have to ask themselves, 'Do we therefore consider it necessary to refuse the licence, and has the expert committee established that there is no alternative?' The true position might well be that in a balance of considerations relating to safety, efficacy and quality,"—
    which is exactly what we are trying to say—
    "the committee thought it inadvisible that the product should be marketed. It is exactly what it was set up to advise on, and what the licensing system is set up to support."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd April, 1968; c. 304.]
    Therefore, in our ever-reasonable frame of mind, and in an attempt to help him, in these Amendments, instead of simply omitting the word "expedient", we propose that it should be replaced with the phrase "or advisable on the ground of safety, efficacy or quality", which is precisely what the Minister said he would like to see in the Bill. This co-operation from our side in his drafting must be unparalleled. We have been trying to do what he wanted to do. We know that he has been very busy, and we have done it for him. We hope that he will accept the Amendments, because they are exactly from his own mouth in Committee.
    Amendment No. 46 would provide for the consideration of grounds of safety only in respect of clinical or field trial certificates, where there can be no question of quality or efficacy but only of safety, because the trial has not yet happened and it is not known what the efficacy or quality will be.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is beyond dispute, making all other considerations in the Clause appear completely irrelevant. It is imperative that the licensing authority is absolutely sure of its terms of reference, and these should be completely and closely defined.
    In debating the last Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) referred to the activities of pirate drug companies, which are bringing in a tremendous amount of
    1436
    undercover material and putting it on the market for general sale. There is great need for the licensing authority to clamp down on these activities. I hope that, once established under the Bill, the authority will run these pirate drug companies out of business.
    It is important, therefore, that we get the authority's terms of reference absolutely right, which brings us to the three key words; safety, quality and efficacy. These are the bye words to the whole of the Bill and they have been often repeated in Committee and in the House. They are the three words governing the activities of the reputable pharmaceutical companies, which represent the vast majority of this industry. There are, however, some disreputable elements and it is against them that this legislation is aimed. It is in the Ministers interest to ensure that the Bill will work efficiently and give the right sort of backing to the Commission and those it chooses to carry out this task. His acceptance of the Amendment would enable him to ensure that the Commission does its work properly.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) moving Amendments with what appears at first sight to be impeccable logic. He is a skilled verbal prestidigitator. What he did on this occasion—not for the first time in the proceedings on the Bill—is to take an objection which I had made to a previous Amendment, frame a new Amendment to take that into account and overlook the fact that it might not have been the only objection that I had to the earlier Amendment.
    The purpose of this series of Amendments is, broadly, to make safety, efficacy and quality the only criteria for the grant or refusal of a licence in certain circumstances. The first Amendment would make them the only factors to be taken into account in considering a product licence application. The second would make them the only relevant factors for refusing to grant a licence. The third and fourth would make them the only factors for a refusal to renew a licence or decision to issue a new licence or clinical or field trial certificate instead of renewing the existing one.

    1437
    The first Amendment is subject to the same technical objection as one of identical effect moved by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) in Committee in that it is inconsistent with Clause 19(2), which requires further matters to be taken into account in relation to imported products. The provisions to which the second and third Amendments relate are concerned not only with product licences but also with manufacturers' and wholesale dealers' licences. As such licences are likely to cover a large number of descriptions of medicinal products, there would be doubt as to precisely to what the criteria of safety, efficacy and quality were intended to relate.
    In Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an example of a consideration other than safety, efficacy and quality that might be taken into account. It was that the licensing authority might have ascertained that something in the application for a product licence was false in a material particular. There is no reason why the licensing authority should be barred from taking such a consideration into account. On the question of renewals, it might be that the characteristics of the product no longer corresponded to those at the time of the original granting of the licence, and it would be desirable to issue a new licence instead of renewing the old one, or alternatively of refusing to renew.
    In so far as the Amendment relating to refusal or renewal would cover manufacturers' licences, the matters mentioned in Clause 19(4) on which the original licence was based might well have changed in a material way that would have given ground for varying or even revoking the licence. It would be onerous to show in all cases that safety, efficacy or quality was involved and also inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 28 which did not stipulate this.
    These are not necessarily technical points. I can see no reason why the licensing authority should be forbidden to take such factors into account unless at the same time it can be demonstrated that safety, efficacy and quality are also involved, and this would involve the expert committee. Of course the principal factors are undoubtedly these three, but it is being far too rigid to insist
    1438
    that only these factors should be relevant.
    No applicant or licence holder has any need to fear arbitrary refusals to grant a licence. The factors to be taken into account must not be extraneous to the general purposes of the Bill and in cases of refusal for the granting of a licence otherwise than in accordance with the application the applicant or licence holder has the right of representations under the Bill.
    We looked at this matter again, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook that we should, but without commitment. We still think the Bill is satisfactory in its present wording and I must ask the House to reject these Amendments.
    Mr. Fortescue: I speak again by leave of the House. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman regarded me as a prestidigitator, but if I am it must be catching. The right hon. Gentleman has repaid me in his own coin, because, when he was explaining to the House why the insertion of the words
    "advisable on grounds of safety, efficacy or quality"
    he omitted to say that these words are alternative to the word "necessary".
    If the Clause is not amended in the way we seek to amend it, the licensing authority could renew or refuse a licence if it thought it necessary or advisable to do so. We would retain the word "necessary". It would be perfectly proper for the licensing authority to say that a licence should be granted because in its view it was right for it to be granted, but to refuse a licence because it considered it was expedient to refuse it would be in the realms of the critical. We should like the licensing authority to have some terms of reference for its reference to expediency. What better terms could there be than the three qualities written into the Bill?
    If the grant or refusal of a licence is to depend on necessity or advisability on grounds of safety, efficacy or quality, the authority would be on firm ground, but since the criterion is the ground of expediency the sands begin to shift. I am sorry to have to advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of these Amendments.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 127.

    Division No. 228.]

    AYES

    [9.44 p.m.

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Foster, Sir John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Biffen, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Blaker, Peter

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pym, Francis

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Body, Richard

    Griffiths, Eidon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Braine, Bernard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Burden, F. A.

    Holland, Philip

    Scott, Nicholas

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Hunt, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Clegg, Walter

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Cordle, John

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Costain, A. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Speed, Keith

    Cradclock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kirk, Peter

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Crouch, David

    Lane, David

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Doddt-Parker, Douglas

    MacArthur, Ian

    Webster, David

    Doughty, Charles

    McMaster, Stanley

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macmlllan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maude, Angus

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Emery, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Worstey, Marcus

    Errington, Sir Eric

    More, Jasper

    Farr, John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fisher, Nigel

    Murton, Oscar

    Mr. Anthony Royle and

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Onslow, Cranley

    NOES

    Anderson, Donald

    Hilton, W. S.

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

    Murray, Albert

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Homer, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Barnes, Michael

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Beaney, Alan

    Hoy, James

    Oram, Albert E.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Huckfield, Lesile

    Oswald, Thomas

    Blackburn, F.

    Hunter, Adam

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Booth, Albert

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Boston, Terence

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Park, Trevor

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Coleman, Donald

    Judd, Frank

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Kelley, Richard

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Cronin, John

    Lawson, George

    Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Ledger, Ron

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Lestor Miss Joan

    Richard, Ivor

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Lewis, Arthur (W.Ham, N.)

    Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

    Dell, Edmund

    Luard Evan

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

    Dickens, James

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Dobson, Ray

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Roebuck, Roy

    Driberg, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    McBride, Neil

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Eadie, Alex

    MacColl, James

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Ellis, John

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Rowlands, E. (Gardiff, N.)

    Ennals David

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

    Ennals, David

    Mackie, John

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hanoton, N. E.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mackie, John

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Forrester, John

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Silverman, Julius

    Fowler, Gerry

    Marquand, David

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Slater, Joseph

    Courlay, Harry

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Small, William

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mikardo, Ian

    Snow Julian

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Millan, Bruce

    Swingler, Stephen

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Tinn, James

    Harper, Joseph

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Molloy, William

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Moonman, Eric

    Varley, Eric G.

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Wells, William (Wasall, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Mr. Speaker: We now come to a Government starred Amendment, Amendment No. 112.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 112 in page 13, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert:
    (2) In taking into consideration the efficacy for a particular purpose of medicinal products of a description to which such an application relates, the licensing authority shall leave out of account any question whether medicinal products of another description would or might be equally or more efficacious for that purpose:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the licensing authority, in considering the safety of medicinal products of a particular description, in relation to a purpose for which they are proposed to be administered, to leave out of account any question whether medicinal products of another description, being equally or more efficacious for that purpose, would or might be safer in relation to that purpose.
    Even if you had not introduced the Amendment as you did, Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that, having made an oblique reference to a starred Amendment in the names of hon. Members opposite, I intended anyway to apologise to the House for this solitary Government starred Amendment.
    No doubt hon. Members opposite look at lines 17 to 20 with a certain amount of retrospective glee, since they were inserted when we were caught napping at the very beginning of one sitting at 10.30 in the morning. In the debate on their Amendment at the previous sitting on 28th March, I assured the Committee, as I had previously assured the House on Second Reading, that it was not intended that comparative efficacy by itself should determine the decision whether to grant or refuse a licence. Nevertheless, efficacy must be taken into account in relation to toxicity, and the Amendment which was then under discussion and was subsequently carried would preclude taking account of comparative efficacy even where this was relevant to the safety of the product under consideration.
    The Amendment carries out the intention as I described it on Second Reading and safeguards the point about comparative efficacy in relation to safety which was the main ground of our opposition to the Amendment in Committee.
    1442
    I think that the Amendment carries out my undertaking, and I move it despite the fact that I felt that we should have been entitled perhaps simply to remove the words inserted in Committee.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I must admit that I see with a certain sadness the removal of the words which sneaked in at 10.30 one morning, but I thank the Minister for substantially meeting the point which they tried to make. The Minister's wording leaves out any question of relative efficacy but brings back the question of relative safety and makes it quite clear that where one drug is clearly safer than another, the fact that the other is equally efficacious does not force the Commission to license it. We have no quarrel with that.
    I am grateful to the Minister for rewording the provision and carrying out his undertaking, even if we see our words disappear with a certain amount of sorrow.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 21
    PROCEDURE ON REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION
    Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 23, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments No. 24, No. 108 and No. 109.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 17, line 2, at end insert:
    'or
    (d) propose, on grounds not relating to safety, quality or efficacy, to refuse to grant the licence, or to grant a licence otherwise than in accordance with the application'.
    When we discussed in Committee an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the principle underlying it, although he found that the wording was not entirely acceptable. We promised to put down different Amendments which would meet the same objective. This was to fill a gap in the procedure in cases where there had been representations to a committee or the

    1443
    Commission on questions of safety, efficacy or quality, but where it was proposed on grounds other than those not to grant the application, or not to grant it in full. Such other grounds would be of the kind that in the absence of considerations referable to the committee or Commission would have been dealt with under Clause 22(2).
    Amendment No. 23 adds these other grounds as paragraph (d) in subsection (5). Amendment No. 24 adds a provision to subsection 6 requiring the licensing authority, as under Clause 22(2), to state its proposals and—
    It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Medicines Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The cither two Amendments—No. 108 and No. 109— make similar Amendments to the corresponding provisions in Schedule 2 relating to suspension, revocation or variation of a licence.
    Mr. Fortescue: In the absence of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome these Amendments and are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for fulfilling his undertaking.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 24, in page 17, line 16, at end insert:
    'and in a case falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection (whether it also falls within any of the other paragraphs of that subsection or not) the notification shall include a statement of the proposals of the licensing authority and of the reasons for them'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 23
    SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO EFFECT OF MANUFACTURER'S LICENCE
    Amendments made: No. 25, in page 18, line 6, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to the next following subsection'.
    No. 26, in page 18, line 23, at end insert:
    (3) The exemption conferred by the last preceding subsection—

    (a) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, or

    (b) in so far as it relates to the manufacture or assembly of a medicinal product to the order of a pharmacist,

    does not apply to a vaccine specially prepared for administation to poultry.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 24
    DURATION AND RENEWAL OF LICENCE
    Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 18, line 40, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to the following provisions of this section'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Government Amendments No. 29, No. 45 and No. 47.
    Mr. Snow: These two pairs of Amendments fulfil the promise made in Standing Committee on 4th April to meet the intention of Amendments put down by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). Under these Clauses as they now stand, a situation could arise in which the licensing authority had not made its decision on renewal before the period of validity of the licence or certificate had expired, so that the holder would either have to carry on in breach of Clause 7, Clause 8 or Clause 31 or interrupt his operations pending the licensing authority's decision. Paragraph (a) of the new subsection (6) of Clause 24 and of the new subsection (7) of Clause 34 would keep the licence or certificate in force until the licensing authority's decision to renew or to refuse renewal.
    Further, paragraph (b) in these two subsections deals with a related point not covered in the hon. Gentleman's Amendments moved in Committee. If the licensing authority's decision is not to renew the licence or certificate or to renew with modifications, and a point is reached where the holder applies to the High Court under Clause 98, the Court has power to make an interim order under Clause 98(3)(a) suspending the licensing authority's decision pending the Court's determination of the application, but this is not enough to prevent the licence or

    1445
    certificate from expiring. The provision in paragraph (b) accordingly keeps the licence or certificate alive during the period of suspension. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he did his duty very well and that we have aided him in the matter.
    Mr. Fisher: I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for implementing the undertaking given by the Minister to me in Committee—for which we were obliged —in order to meet the gap revealed by my Amendments, but for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has moved his own Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 29, in page 19, line 32, at end insert:
    (6) Where an application for the renewal of a licence under this Act has been duly made—

    (a) the licence shall not cease to be in force by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section before the licensing authority have determined the application, and

    (b) If by an interim order made under section 98(3)(a) of this Act the operation of the decision of the licensing authority on the application is suspended, the licence shall not cease to be in force by virtue of those provisions so long as the operation of the decision continues to be suspended by the order.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 26
    SCOPE OF LICENCE OF RIGHT IN DIFFERENT CASES
    Amendment made: No. 30, in page 20, line 9, leave out 'subsection (3)'.
    Amendment No. 31: in page 20, line 19, leave out ' subsections (2) and (3)' and insert ' subsection (2)'.—[Mr. Snow.]

    Clause 28
    GENERAL POWER TO SUSPEND REVOKE OR VARY LICENCES
    Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 1, leave out ' not been complied with ' and insert:
    'to a material extent been contravened'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 48 and 49.
    Mr. Snow: In the Standing Committee on 4th April I accepted in principle, on
    1446
    behalf of my right hon. Friend, certain Amendments which had been put down by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), and promised to put down Amendments at a later stage in conformity with the drafting requirements.
    The first three Amendments introduce the concept of "to a material extent" into Clause 28(3)(b) and (c) and 28(4)(c). The two Amendments to Clause 35 amend Clause 35(2)(b) and (c) in a manner corresponding to the Amendments to Clause 28 to which I have referred. There is, incidentally, nothing in Clause 35 corresponding to Clause 28(4)(c).
    The amended grounds for revocation will, therefore, be that any of the provisions of the product licence or certificate has to a material extent been contravened; that products fail to a material extent to correspond to the characteristics by reference to which the licence or certificate was granted; that any of the provisions of a manufacturer's or wholesaler's licence has to a material extent been contravened.
    Our wording in Clause 28(3)(b) and Clause 35(2)(b) has not quite the same import as the Amendments put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston. His Amendments referred to non-compliance "with any material provision". We think that the relevant matter here should not be whether a particular licence provision is material but whether the non-compliance is a material matter. It could well be that a provision that in itself was important had been contravened in a technical way which was of no practical importance. In the case of a contravention of a less important provision, the importance of the non-compliance would be judged in relation to the importance of the provision.
    Mr. Fortescue: All I have to say is, "Thank you very much; thank you very very much". I agree entirely that the Parliamentary Secretary's edition of my Amendment is a great improvement. It is obvious that what I meant was a material contravention rather than the contravention of a material provision. I welcome the Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 33, in page 24, line 8, leave out 'do not' and insert:
    'fail to a material extent to'.
    No. 34, in page 24, line 45, leave out ' not been complied with' and insert:
    'to a material extent been contravened'.—[Mr. Snow.]
    Mr. Speaker: Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 fall on new Clause 1. We come now to Amendment No. 38.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I rise to ask leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 38, which is concerned entirely with the provisions for clinical and field trials in terms of exports, in view of the promise which the Minister gave in the debate on new Clause 2 that he will bring in some such provision at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Speaker: We have dealt with Amendments Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43. We come now to Amendment No. 44.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 27, line 10, leave out from 'be' to 'advantageous' in line 11.
    In moving the original new Clause, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that there will be a complete redraft of that part dealing with clinical and field trials. As a result, what I have to say now is not exactly relevant. If it is to be redrafted, there is not much point in trying to amend the existing wording. However, it would be useful if I tendered my advice to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in any redrafting, the words
    "my be beneficial to, or otherwise advantageous in relation to, the animal or animals"
    should be omitted.
    The reason is simple. After such a field trial, it may be that the animal or animals concerned will have to be put to death so as to find whether the trial has been successful, whether an organ has been affected in this or that way, and whether the drug which has been administered has had the desired effect. It is difficult to stretch the English language to pretend that the word "beneficial" means killing the animal concerned. It is on that ground alone that I suggest that the words be omitted.
    1448
    The whole concept of dealing with animals in the course of field trials is not the same as when one considers dealing with human beings. There are many excellent and wide-ranging regulations about cruelty to animals, but that does not come into it in this context, and I do not want it suggested that any cruelty should or could be practised. That is covered by existing regulations.
    At the end of field trials concerning animals, in many cases the animals will be slaughtered, and the use of the words to which I have referred is not only wrong but could inhibit a great many field trials which are vital if the development of veterinary drugs is to continue, both here and overseas. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept my Amendment straight away, I hope that he will bear in mind what I have said in any redrafting of that part of the Bill dealing with field trials.
    Mr. John Mackie: The words "beneficial to" are intended to indicate that the medicinal product itself may benefit the animal when administered to it. It has no bearing, for instance, on the possibility that the animal concerned may need to be slaughtered for the purposes of a post-mortem examination. This is not a direct effect of the drug itself on the animal.
    The object of introducing the concept of benefit is to distinguish between a field trial and pure experimentation in a laboratory where the effects of the substance are not known. With the exception of a case where produce from an animal is to be used for human consumption—and our proposed Amendments will deal with this—we have no wish to control the administration of a drug in the process of development until experimental evidence is available as to its possible beneficial effect.
    10.15 p.m.
    It is at this stage that the requirement for a field trial certificate becomes relevant. The reference to
    "advantageous in relation to, the animal or animals".
    is intended to cover administration of a medicinal product where the effect may be of advantage to an owner from the point of view of increasing productivity, etc., rather than directly to the animal—for example, preparations for de-horning cattle or something of that kind.

    1449
    As my right hon. Friend has said, and I would reinforce it, we are most grateful for the valuable comments about field trials made during the Committee stage. As a result, we are proposing to revise and expand the provisions relating to field trials on the lines mentioned by my right hon. Friend. These will also include a broader definition of field trial, appropriate measures for safeguarding the consumer of animal products, which is a very important point, and provision for a greater measure of flexibility.
    I am sorry that it is not possible to go into the details of what we have in mind but I hope that in the light of this explanation and since I gather that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was not going to press his Amendment and was seeking rather to hear our ideas on future Amendments, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he is going to do and for taking the points we have made upstairs, but I must register my protest for he has had plenty of time. The way he comes to the House at the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour and says he has not had time to finish his consultations and therefore will produce the Amendments in another place is treating the House with a great deal of contempt.
    It is not only in relation to field trials that we are in this difficult position. We are passing a Bill which the hon. Gentleman admits is defective in respect of field trials and he has rightly mentioned the important aspect of residual effects and the necessity for new trial provisions to safeguard consumers of animal products. That is, of course, right and necessary. The existing provisions of field trials are too narrow, but we should have the Amendment to discuss here rather than when they come back to us from another place. Exactly the same comment applies to the Amendments which I gather are to be made to Clause 36 of animal feeding stuffs.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's indignation must not carry him out of order.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My feelings of indignation carried me a little beyond what is right and proper. I accept that the hon.
    1450
    Gentleman will do what he has said with regard to this Amendment and we will see in due course what comes back from another place. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 34
    DURATION AND RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE
    Amendments made: No. 45, in page 28, line 41, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to the following provisions of this section'.
    No. 47, in page 29, line 39, at end insert:
    (7) Where an application for the renewal of such a certificate has been duly made—

    (a) the certificate shall not cease to be in force by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section before the licensing authority have determined the application, and

    (b) if by an interim order made under section 98(3)(a) of this Act the operation of the decision of the licensing authority on the application is suspended, the certificate shall not cease to be in force by virtue of those provisions so long as the operation of the decision continues to be suspended by the order.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 35
    SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF CERTIFICATE
    Amendments made: No. 48, in page 30, line 9, leave out ' not been complied with ' and insert:
    'to a material extent been contravened'.
    No. 49, in page 30, line 16, leave out 'do not' and insert:
    'fail to a material extent'.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Clause 39
    OFFENCES UNDER PART II
    Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 33, line 45, at end, insert:
    (2) Where any medicinal product or animal feeding stuff is imported in contravention of section 7, section 31 or section 36 of this Act, any person who, otherwise than for the purpose of performing or exercising a duty or power imposed or conferred by or under this Act or any other enactment, is in possession of the

    1451
    product or feeding stuff knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it was so imported shall be guilty of an offence.
    Before I start I should say I will bear in mind the strictures of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), which, it seems, gave him great pleasure to put forward.
    The first of these Amendments introduces into Clause 39 a new offence of being in possession of a medicinal product or medicated animal feedingstuff knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it had been imported without a product licence or clinical or field trial certificate or, in the case of a feeding-stuff, in contravention of Clause 36. Although the first three lines of Clause 39(1) in the Bill make the act of importation in contravention of Clause 7, 31 and 36 an offence, the enforcement procedure at the port can never be comprehensive and so lines 42–45 in page 33 of the Bill as drafted, enable action to be taken after a product has been illegally brought into the country by making its possession for sale, supply or export without a licence an offence.
    This part of the Clause would not cover the case of say, a farmer, who succeeded in importing illegally a feeding stuff. The present Amendment covers the position of a product or feeding stuff known or suspected to be imported in contravention of the licensing provisions.
    The second Amendment, for the same reason introduces into Clause 59 a similar offence in relation to medicinal products—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Amendment No. 51. There is nothing grouped with it.
    Mr. Mackie: The present Amendment covers the case of a product illegally imported. There is a saving provision for persons enforcing the Bill such as authorised officers, who may find themselves in possession of such products or feeding stuffs in the course of their duty.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman said that it gave me satisfaction that he had not done his homework.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman please speak up.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not get satisfaction, but it does make things difficult
    1452
    when the hon. Gentleman reads the wrong brief as he did just now. We are in a slight difficulty here, although I take the point in the Amendment about the feeding stuffs having come in illegally with the wrong type of medicinal product in them because it is difficult to stop them at the port of entry. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that people should be prevented from using them, but how does he intend to police this? It will be extremely difficult.
    The other point of difficulty concerns animal feeding stuffs containing medicated products. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say earlier that entirely comprehensive and new Amendments would be brought in concerning animal feeding stuffs containing medicinal products. If this is so, it is difficult to see how we can discuss this now if we do not know what we are talking about. Are we talking about those with amino-acid, trace elements, or minerals?
    The Amendments will be brought in in another place, and I must register my protest at the fact that we are being asked to do something which is quite wrong and in contempt of our procedure.
    Having said that, I repeat I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman expects the arrangement to be adequately policed. There is a great deal of anxiety about producing legislation which it is difficult to enforce or which can be contravened.
    Mr. Mackie: It is not a case of policing, it is simply a case of those people who are discovered in possession of these feeding stuffs committing an offence.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We are not in Committee; we are on Report.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Snow: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 34, line 44, to leave out '(4)' and insert '(6)'.
    This is a consequential numerical re-allocation resulting from the new subsection added to the Clause. Perhaps the House will excuse me for elaborating the point.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41
    STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR LICENCES OR CERTIFICATES
    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 37, line 10, after 'time' insert:
    'after the relevant regulations are made and'.
    Mr. Speaker: We are taking, at the same time, Amendment No. 55, in page 37, line 11, leave out 'the relevant regulations' and insert 'they'.
    Amendment No. 56, in page 37, line 23, at end insert:
    'with or without provision postponing the date as from which they are to be deemed to be so incorporated'.
    and Amendment No. 57, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
    (8) Without prejudice to any direction given under subsection (6) of this section, where such an application is made—

    (a) the operative standard provisions shall not be deemed to be incorporated in the licence or certificate to which the application relates before the licensing authority have made a decision on that application, and

    (b) if an application under section 98 of this Act is made with respect to that decision, those provisions shall not be deemed to have been or to be so incorporated before the application under subsection (6) of this section has been finally disposed of;

    and so much of subsection (7) of section 27 of this Act as relates to the time when an application is to be taken to be finally disposed of shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as it has effect for the purposes of that section.

    Mr. Robinson: These four Amendments arise out of a discussion in Committee on two Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). On that occasion I accepted that when application is being made under subsection (6) there might be a case for deferring the application of the new regulations to the licence until a final decision has been given under subsection (7).
    Clause 41(6) applies where a licence or certificate is subject to standard provisions and amending regulations are made altering the standard provisions. Subsection (4) postpones the operation of the altered provisions for three months and subsection (6) enables the holder of a licence or certificate to apply to the licensing authority before the end of this
    1454
    three months' period for a direction that the provisions should be excluded from applying to a particular licence or certificate or should apply subject to modifications.
    We have considered this matter further and agree that it would be right to amend the Bill in this way. Amendment No. 57, adding a new subsection (8), accordingly provides that where an application is made under subsection (6) for a direction excluding the new standard provisions from incorporation in the licence, or for modifying them, and the application is refused or not fully granted, the altered standard provisions are not to apply until the application has been decided; and if, later, the decision is challenged in the High Court under Clause 98, they are not to apply till the application has been "finally disposed of". Clause 27(7) uses this expression to cover various dates in relation to licences of right in comparable circumstances. This provision is applied for the purposes of the new subsection.
    The other three Amendments make further improvements in Clause 41(6).
    The first two Amendments have the effect of making it clear that an application under subsection (6) can be made at any time after the relevant regulations are made and before the end of three months from the date when they come into operation; that is, when the regulations are made, the applicant need not wait until they come into operation before making his application.
    The third Amendment introduces further flexibility by giving the licensing authority discretion to include in its direction a provision postponing the date from which the amended standard provisions are to apply. Such a postponement would be included where the holder of the licence or certificate in his application demonstrates that a further period is necessary before he can comply with the new conditions.
    Mr. Dean: I merely rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting in a more satisfactory way the points made in the Amendments which I moved in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 55, in page 37, line 11, leave out' the relevant regulations' and insert 'they'.
    No. 56, in page 37, line 23, at end insert:
    'with or without provision postponing the date as from which they are to be deemed to be so incorporated'.
    No. 57, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
    (8) Without prejudice to any direction given under subsection (6) of this section, where such an application is made—

    (a) the operative standard provision shall not be deemed to be incorporated in the licence or certificate to which the application relates before the licensing authority have made a decision on that application, and

    (b) if an application under section 98 of this Act is made with respect to that decision, those provisions shall not be deemed to have been or to be so incorporated before the application under subsection (6) of this section has been finally disposed of;

    and so much of subsection (7) of section 27 of this Act as relates to the time when an application is to be taken to be finally disposed of shall have effect for the purposes of this subsection as it has effect for the purposes of that section.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

    Mr. K. Robinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 37, line 37, at end insert:
    (8) The powers conferred on the licensing authority by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act to vary the provisions of a licence or certificate shall be exercisable with respect to any provisions which, in accordance
    1456
    with this section, are incorporated or deemed to be incorporated in a licence or certificate.
    Like Amendment No. 57, the last of the group we have just been discussing, this Amendment also proposes a new subsection (8) to Clause 41, but it has a quite different purpose.
    The Bill enables applications to be made by the licence holders under Clause 30 for variations of a current licence, and under Clause 28 the licensing authority can initiate the procedure for a variation. But I am advised that, as the Bill stands at present, these powers to vary would not extend to the variation of a condition which was a standard provision prescribed by regulations under Clause 41 and deemed by that Clause to be incorporated in the licence.
    This Amendment, therefore, makes express provision for such standard provisions to be varied by the licensing authority when exercising powers under Clause 28 or Clause 30 in relation to particular licences.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

  NURSES AND MIDWIVES (PAY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. loan L. Evans.]
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The House will recall that on 29th June, 1967, the National Board for Prices and Incomes was asked by the Government to examine the pay structure and the levels of remuneration and related conditions of service of nurses and midwives covered by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, with particular reference to the current claims then having been submitted by the staff side.
  As the House knows, the Board's Report was published as Report No. 60 in March this year. That Report covers a very wide field ranging from the recruitment of nurses, their training, wastage rates, shortages, management problems, local authority nursing services, and the pay claim, to mention only a few.
  I want to address my remarks in large measure to the pay recommendations, the Government's response to those recommendations, and the reaction of the profession. It is, of course, impossible to isolate the pay of nurses from all the other problems connected with nursing which I have mentioned, and I shall therefore content myself with asking a few questions on these other matters before passing on to the question of remuneration.
  The first one is a relatively minor point which is mentioned in the Report— but it is a not unimportant one—concerning the entry age of a girl into the profession. The Board recommended that the entry age should be lowered in Scotland from 17½ to 17, with a consequential review of pre-nursing courses, and I should be glad if the Minister would comment on that as well as on the other propositions contained in paragraph 160 of the Report on various aspects of the training problem.
  I pass speedily to the question of wastage rates, particularly among student nurses. The Minister may not remember that on 15th December, 1965, I asked a
  1458
  Question of the Secretary of State on this very point. His reply showed that more than one in five student nurses withdrew before completion of training, but the significant fact was that only a small proportion of that number, about one-eighth—I think the figure was 12·2 per cent.—gave marriage as the reason for giving up training. In other words, marriage was the cause of a relatively few students leaving. Has any attempt been made since then to ascertain the reasons why the other girls gave up their training, and, if the Government have made investigations, what steps have been taken to remove or diminish those causes?
  For instance, to what extent do these student nurses leave because of resentment against petty restrictions, because of unreasonable measures of discipline, because they are treated as children one minute and as adults the next, and perhaps put in charge of a ward? In December, 1965, and January, 1966, I received many letters from these girls, and it was clear that that kind of complaint was far too common for our comfort.
  Tempting as it may be to go into those problems, I want to concentrate the rest of my remarks on the pay recommendations. Let me say at the outset that I agree entirely with the view of the staff side that nurses pay is seriously out of line with pay for similar work, that a nurse gets insufficient reward for any added responsibility that she may take on, and thirdly that she has too little incentive to seek or to take promotion. It was in that context that the staff side made special claims for certain grades, for example, ward sisters, staff nurses, tutorial staff, and matrons, and I should like to examine how the proposed increases measure up to what seem to me to be a reasonable demand by the staff side.
  Paragraph 138 of the Report contains the overall recommendations. I need not enumerate them as the Minister is well acquainted with them. In the period between October, 1967, and March, 1970, there are varying increases from 9 per cent. to 14 per cent., with an overall backdated increase of 4 per cent. to 1st October, 1967, to be paid immediately, and the balance to be paid on 1st January 1969.

  1459
  Let us examine what that means to two of the grades which I mentioned, the staff nurse and the ward sister. To the staff nurse, the first instalment of 4 per cent. means 12s. 1d. gross increase per week. After deduction for board and lodgings, her net weekly increase will be 8s. 7d. Those figures were given in answer to a Question on 12th June, and are based on the means of the salary scales. The comparable increases for a ward sister are 16s. 2d. gross and 11s. l1d. net. A student nurse in her third year of training will receive a net weekly increase of 4s. 3d., or a little over a penny an hour.
  Before I become churlish, I would commend the increases recommended for those in psychiatric nursing and the introduction of an allowance for those nursing geriatrics and the chronic sick. No one will begrudge a penny of that and the Government are to be congratulated on, I hope, accepting that recommendation forthwith. I am also delighted that overtime will be paid for Saturday afternoon, Sunday and night work. I recall very well, during a previous Administration, that the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), when I put this question to him, said, in effect, "The nurses would much prefer the status symbol of being in a profession to being paid squalid overtime rates". This will now be rectified, and not before time. I should be glad to know the total cost of the initial 4 per cent. increase and the total annual cost of the full award.
  I turn now to one or two of the grievances expressed to me; I have a family interest in this which I should perhaps declare. The first is on board and lodgings. I realise that the Government will lean heavily on the side of the Board's recommendations, and it may be argued that these board and lodgings increases are justifiable. But, justifiable or not, the nurses feel a very strong sense of grievance that, whenever they manage to get an increase in their salaries, a large part of it is automatically and simultaneously taken away by an increase in board and lodgings charges.
  All Governments reply that these services are heavily subsidised, but—perhaps I have not been inquisitive enough—I have never been able to find out how much they are subsidised and what it
  1460
  would cost the Health Service if the whole cost were borne by the Exchequer, in other words, if the nurses, who are, in most cases, compelled to live in the hospitals, got those services as a necessary part of the job and did not have to find the cost from their salaries.
  The second point of grievance was not represented to me, but I read about it in an article in the Scottish Daily Mail, by Mary Cavanagh on 11th June, which quoted some harsh words used by Miss Elizabeth McLaren, secretary of the Royal College of Nursing in Scotland. She pointed to certain anomalies in the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, for instance a three-year trained staff registered nurse earns at her maximum £25 a year less than the two-year trained senior enrolled nurse. In other words, the more highly qualified nurse gets less than the less qualified.
  Again, she quotes the case of a night sister in charge of a ward who will earn, with her extra payments, more than the superintendent who is in charge of the whole hospital when the matron is off duty.
  I presume it will be for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council to iron out such anomalies as that if they exist. But I would ask my hon. Friend whether they will be allowed to do that if in so doing they go beyond the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board.
  I want to say this in conclusion. I suppose that in the context of the present economic climate it might be supposed that this was as generous an award as could be expected. Certainly it makes a welcome and favourable contrast to the behaviour of the previous Conservative Government, when nurses' pay was one of the first to be frozen. I remember attending big nurses' meetings and rallies up and down the country when that happened. But let not the Government preen themselves too much. It is my firm belief, and one which I have held for a very long time, that as a nation, as a community, we have been guilty for as long as I can remember of gross exploitation of what I think is the most dedicated profession in the world.
  Maybe if our nurses emulated the women of Fords and came out on strike, they might extract from the community higher and juster rewards, and maybe because we as a community play on the

  1461
  certain knowledge that they will not do that, that is the reason why they are where they are.
  So I say to the Government in conclusion, "Thanks very much for such generosity as you have been able to distribute on this occasion". But we must insist, as I certainly do, that if we are to maintain, let alone increase, existing standards of nursing care we must be prepared to pay much more for it than we shall be doing even after the implementation of all the proposals in the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board.
  10.49 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is an obligation on all of us who have responsibilities in this matter to see that our nursing staffs are adequately paid, and I want to say a good deal about the question of payment, and I hope to answer the points that my hon. Friend has raised, a little later.
  If I might put my remarks in the same order as he has put his, perhaps I could say something about the two additional points he raised at the very beginning of his remarks. On the first question about the entry age and the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, I think we should make it clear that the recommendations of the Board have been accepted by the Government so far as pay is concerned, but the same consideration does not necessarily apply to other matters, such as training, entry age and so on, which the Board covered in its Report.
  Of course all the matters which the Board recommended on are, in one way or another, under consideration, but it is the question of pay that was accepted by the Government very quickly after the Board had reported. But the question of entry age, in any case, is not a matter for the Government but for the General Nursing Council for Scotland, which is, of course, an independent body and not a Government Department. No doubt it will be considering what the Board said about this recommendation and the implications of it in the context in which the recommendation was made. However, my hon. Friend will accept that I cannot make
  1462
  a pronouncement on this matter because the question of the age of entry and other aspects of the training arrangements are subjects for the General Nursing Council and not for the Government.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that wastage is an extremely serious problem. The figures are, if anything, rather worse than he quoted. The wastage rate is probably in the region of 30 per cent., which means that for every 100 nurses entering training, only 70 eventually successfully complete their courses. This is, therefore, an extremely serious problem.
  I do not think that there is a simple answer to this problem. There is certainly no particular prescription for it which could guarantee success. Much of this is concerned with the whole organisation of nurse training, and some of the recommendations of the Report are in line with what is happening in Scotland. Indeed, the recommendation that there should be larger group nurse training schools is said by the Report to be a matter on which Scotland has gone further than England. That process will continue. It is in the general organisation of training that, more than anything else, the final answer to this question of wastage lies.
  I would not suggest that the sort of matters to which my hon. Friend drew attention—such as the general attitude of those in authority towards student nurses —are not relevant considerations. They are relevant and if my hon. Friend studies Appendix III of the Report and the circular which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health sent out in September, 1967, he will see that a number of the points drawn to the attention of those responsible for nurse training are designed to improve the efficiency of the training and the attractiveness of it from the personal and professional point of view.
  My hon. Friend explained the background to the recommendation on pay and I need not go over that ground. He asked what the total cost of the pay recommendations would be, when fully implemented. That figure is quoted in paragraph 143 of the Report—that is, if one adds up the various components in the recommendations—as being £40·9 million on an existing salary bill of £201 million, which represents a total increase of about 20 per cent.

  1463
  When one considers the details, it is possible, as the nursing organisations have done, to point out individual anomalies. It should be borne in mind, however, that this matter should be set in the context of what amounts to a substantial increase. It is somewhat misleading to look at this award simply in the context of what has been done by way of the 4 per cent. increase, which has been backdated to 1st October, 1967, because that is only a part—in some respects a small part—of the total recommendations of the P.I.B. Report. That increase has been made effective as from 1st October, 1967. At the same time there have been increases in the board and lodging charges. It has always been inherent in the system that when increases in salary are given equivalent increases are made in the board and lodging charges. This was taken into account by the Board in making its recommendations.
  The Board has made recommendations which would change the basis upon which these charges are made to student nurses. That is still negotiable. It is not something which operates from 1st October, 1967. At the same time, certain other increases have already been agreed. For example, the increase in the lead for nurses in psychiatric hospitals from £50 to £100 has been made effective from 1st April, 1968. That represents by itself for those concerned a substantial percentage increase. A similar allowance of £100 has been introduced for nursing staff in hospitals or units for geriatric assessment, long-stay geriatric, and/or the young chronic sick. This allowance is specifically designed, as is the mental hospital lead generally, to add to the number and quality of recruits to this field of nursing, particularly in areas where there are special difficulties in recruitment and where there are also very often particular strains and tensions involved in the work concerned. That recommendation has already been made effective as from 1st April. There is also the question of special duty allowances for working at night, on Sundays and on Saturday afternoons. These, again, are under consideration at present.
  I want to make a point about what my hon. Friend said as to the anomaly which might arise between night superintendents and night sisters. One important point
  1464
  about the special duty allowances is that the Board has recommended that they be extended to ward sisters. Although an anomaly can possibly arise between, say, a night ward sister and a night superintendent, there have already been anomalies between staff nurses, who were eligible for these special duty allowances, and ward sisters, who were not. I am not trying to justify an anomaly. I am merely pointing out that, taken as a whole, the extension of these allowances to ward sisters, who are the basic career grade in the service, is a considerable step forward.
  It has not been possible yet to get final agreement on this matter. Both sides of the Whitley Council have now referred this back to the N.B.P.I., indicating the reasons why they have not been able to reach an agreement on this. The difficulty is that, although the recommendations taken as a whole represent a step forward, for particular nurses they can, because of the peculiarities of the system, actually represent something which is not quite as favourable as what they have at present. I hope very much that this particular question can be settled between the Whitley Council and the Board, but my hon. Friend will recognise that it is not possible for me in these circumstances to make any pronouncement about it.
  A number of other things have already been done. For example, the leave entitlement for certain grades of local authority nursing and midwifery staff has been approved with effect from 1st April, 1968. There is an extension of overtime payments in psychiatric hospitals which will be effective from 1st October, 1968. The existing overtime provisions in psychiatric hospitals, which at present are limited to student and pupil nurses and nursing assistants, are to be extended up to ward sister level. Adding to this the increases in lead for mental hospital staff, it will be seen that for many nurses the increases proposed are quite considerable.
  A number of other matters are still being discussed in the Whitley context, for example, a general further salary increase which is recommended for implementation on 1st January, 1969, and which will be done by introducing scales on the basis of the structure recommended by the Salmon Committee. I

  1465
  am not able to comment on the details, but these negotiations are going ahead.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to another apparent anomaly between the recommendations concerning enrolled nurses and those concerning staff nurses. This is still subject to negotiation in the Whitley Council and I am not, therefore, able to make a final statement on that. It would be quite improper.
  The background is that the senior enrolled nurses grade represents the top of the career structure, whereas the staff nurse grade is the basic grade for registered nurses. So the two are not comparable. The number of enrolled nurses who become senior enrolled nurses is still comparatively small and there is quite a difference between the time at which the registered nurse, as a staff nurse, reaches the maximum, and the time at which the senior enrolled nurse would reach the maximum to which my hon. Friend drew attention. It is not for
  1466
  me to argue for or against the Board's recommendation. This is still with the Whitley Council and the apparent anomaly to which my hon. Friend drew attention will be considered.
  There are a number of other questions because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, this is a complicated Report with wide-ranging implications and I hope he will accept that I have tried to explain its total effect. I hope that one will not judge it on the particular implication of the 4 per cent. increase from 1st October, 1967, without taking account of the very substantial—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

WALES
  Local Authority Purchases
  Local Authority Purchases
  Welsh Council Meetings (Publicity)
  Welsh Council Meetings (Publicity)
  Planning Applications (Hotels and Boarding Houses)
  Planning Applications (Hotels and Boarding Houses)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Education (Nottinghamshire)
  Secondary Education (Nottinghamshire)
  New School, Norwood
  New School, Norwood
  British Film Institute
  British Film Institute
  National Film Archive
  National Film Archive
  Arts and Science Students
  Arts and Science Students
  Student Demonstrations
  Student Demonstrations
  Day Release
  Day Release
  Curriculum Development (Teacher Centres)
  Curriculum Development (Teacher Centres)
  Foreign Students
  Foreign Students
  School Swimming Baths
  School Swimming Baths
  Universities and Medical Schools
  Universities and Medical Schools
  University of the Air
  University of the Air
  Schools Council (Sub-Committee)
  Schools Council (Sub-Committee)
  Southall Comprehensive Schools Scheme
  Southall Comprehensive Schools Scheme
  Colleges and Schools (Co-operation)
  Colleges and Schools (Co-operation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dry-Cleaning Establishments
  Dry-Cleaning Establishments
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Bomb Incidents, Cardiff
  Bomb Incidents, Cardiff
  London Airport (Welfare Officer)
  London Airport (Welfare Officer)
  Indictable Offences
  Indictable Offences
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
POST OFFICE
  Postage Regulations (O.H.M.S. Envelopes)
  Postage Regulations (O.H.M.S. Envelopes)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Wales
  Wales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Personal Loans (Tax Relief)
  Personal Loans (Tax Relief)
  General Practice Finance Corporation
  General Practice Finance Corporation
  SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION
  SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION
  NUCLEAR WARFARE
  NUCLEAR WARFARE
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (COMMERCIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (COMMERCIAL APPOINTMENTS)
  INDUSTRIAL MERGERS (REDUNDANT WORKERS)
  INDUSTRIAL MERGERS (REDUNDANT WORKERS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE REPORT)
  CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE REPORT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lobster Pots
  Lobster Pots
HOSPITALS
  Rochdale and District Group
  Rochdale and District Group
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
HOUSING
  Rents (Strood)
  Rents (Strood)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nepal (East-West Highway)
  Nepal (East-West Highway)
  Tanzania (Expatriat Pension Liabilities)
  Tanzania (Expatriat Pension Liabilities)
SCOTLAND
  Grant Committee Report
  Grant Committee Report
BOARD OF TRADE
  Alcan Limited (Power Station)
  Alcan Limited (Power Station)
TRANSPORT
  Carriers Licences
  Carriers Licences
  Vehicle Testing Station, Huddersfield
  Vehicle Testing Station, Huddersfield
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossing (Falmouth)
  Pedestrian Crossing (Falmouth)
RAILWAYS
  Diesel Trains (Safety)
  Diesel Trains (Safety)
PORTS
  Salford
  Salford

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

GAS FIRES AND SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered a report of what was described by Inspectors of the West Midlands Gas Board as "a highly dangerous situation", in 30 Council houses built at Bilston, Wolverhampton, during the past twenty years, where gas fires were mounted in houses, back to back, without flues, so that toxic fumes were extracted straight into cavity walls and built up inside the roof; and whether, in the light of the comment of the Chairman of the Housing Committee that it was "quite unbelievable that this should have been allowed", they will have investigation made on this general subject of possible potential risk to the life and safety of dwellers in other Council houses.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, these houses were built between 1945 and 1947 by the Bilston Borough Council, which ceased as a separate authority on April 1, 1966. They are now in the area of Wolverhampton County Borough Council, who have advised the tenants not to use their gas fires and are replacing them by electric fires. The Council at Wolverhampton are also, I understand, getting in touch with the Walsall and West Bromwich Borough Councils, which incorporated very small parts of Bilston, so that they can see whether any similar action on their part is required. This matter was the responsibility of Bilston, and is now that of Wolverhampton.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I knew that Bilston had been taken over by Wolverhampton, and I thank him for the assurance that the rest of the Wolverhampton area is being looked at. Could the noble Lord say whether the rest of the country is being looked at so that the Department may be satisfied that there are no other houses with these cavity walls and with built-in gas fires?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, obviously the Department will bear in mind the possibility that this sort of thing can happen in future, because it has happened. But I do not think that, because some thirty houses were built in this way shortly after the war, it is necessary to check all other council houses—or indeed private houses—to make sure that the same thing was not done in any other case.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there is to be no official inquiry, at least some circular may be sent to the councils who built houses in that period, asking whether they are aware of the particular danger that has been discovered?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister has called for a report on this matter, and when that comes in and we know how the trouble arose, if indeed we ever can find out, he will consider the desirability of issuing some information or advice.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord and say that I will put down a Question in due course when the report has been received?

INDIA OFFICE LIBRARY
3.9 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 what is the present position of the former Indian Library for which Her Majesty's Government was and is responsible; and whether any portions of that Library have been transferred to the Indian or Pakistan Governments respectively.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the India Office Library is in the custody and control of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I can assure my noble friend that the Library remains intact: no portion of it has been transferred to the Indian or the Pakistan Government.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend appreciates that discussions have been proceeding with regard to this Library for some twenty years? A claim has been made both by India and by Pakistan that they should have a portion of the Library. Would it not therefore be equitable to divide it up, possibly in unequal portions, and allow portions to go to the Pakistan Government and the Indian Government?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my noble friend, if he is not already aware of it, may seek some reassurance from the fact that the question of the legal ownership of the India Office building and its contents is the subject of a tribunal which will comprise three members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In fact, the tribunal has not yet been set up, but this will be the matter discussed by it.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, as the old India House, which was first constructed and opened by the British Government, has been handed over to the Indian Government, would not my noble friend agree that this is a very good example that might be followed in this case?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are keeping under consideration modern methods of copying books so that the Library will not be altogether lost even if it is sub-divided and given away?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly give that assurance to the noble Lord. I will convey this point to my right honourable friend, though I feel certain that this is very much his concern.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying—I think she is, though I am not quite sure whether I am right in understanding it from her
846
Answer—that until the tribunal has considered this matter there is no question of disposing of any part of this Library?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, that is my understanding of the situation.

TEACHING OF WORLD RELIGIONS IN SCHOOLS
LORD SORENSEN: 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 what progress has been made in encouraging knowledge of world religions among pupils in the higher classes and forms of our schools; and whether representatives of such religions have been approached with a view to providing competent exponents and informative literature for this purpose.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it is for the school authorities and the teachers to decide whether their pupils should be taught about world religions and what methods and materials to employ. But many secondary schools include a study of world religions in their non-specialist courses for sixth forms and often also in their studies of history, geography and religious instruction, and there is little doubt that the presence of immigrant children in many schools has done much to arouse greater interest in the religions of other countries than our own.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask whether she appreciates that, as there are now quite a number of other non-Christian religions practised in this country as well as a considerable diversity of Christian religions, and also that both in the Commonwealth of Nations and in United Nations all kinds of religious faiths are there confessed, it is desirable that we should try to encourage sympathetic understanding of these faiths among the higher grade pupils in our schools? Will she give me a reply to the last part of my Question, where I suggest that there should be some conference of representatives of the various religions in this country for this purpose?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I have, of course, every sympathy with my noble friend, but I am sure that he will have heard the debate yesterday when we discussed the freedom which the universities must have, and I think that he would be the last to suggest that the Secretary of State should give directives to the school authorities and to the teachers. Many teachers and school authorities already make reference to the leaders of the other religions to which my noble friend has referred, but we have no real record of the extent of this. I know that there is a great deal of interest in this, and this will naturally increase with the increasing number of non-Christian children coming into the schools.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that there is already a directive regarding one religion? Therefore, could not the Government encourage an understanding of other religions?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will make this point to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should not like to enter into a debate with my noble friend at this time, but as we are a supposedly Christian country it seems reasonable that we should teach the Christian religion in our schools.

B.B.C. SALARIES
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the form of accounts presented annually by the B.B.C. is sufficiently informative about fees and salaries in the higher grades, and whether they will consider what steps should be taken by amendment of the licence, the Charter or otherwise to ensure that fuller information is available to Parliament and to the licence paying public.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General sees no reason for requiring the B.B.C. to publish this information, but if the noble Lord has any particular reason in mind, my right honourable friend will be glad to consider it, in consultation with the Chairman of the B.B.C.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will ask his right honourable friend to look into this matter again, because while there are references throughout the report to shortage of money and, on nearly every page, to the estimated sizes of audiences, there is virtually no information at all on the costs of programmes, and it is quite impossible for the licence-payers, who provide all this income, to judge between the costs of the different programmes, whether they are Westerns, plays, operas or other programmes?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, of course I will do as the noble Lord suggests and bring his second question to the notice of my right honourable friend, but I am sure that he has seen, from his reading of this report, that the B.B.C. give a great deal more information than the ordinary company report. I should have thought that he would be satisfied with that; but, if not, I will see my right honourable friend about it.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I admit that a large amount of information fills the report, but can the noble Lord point out any page where there is the sort of information which forms the basis of my question? Further, since he referred to company reports, can I ask him to explain this? When we were discussing the Companies Bill the Government produced every argument for more information being given in annual reports, among other things on the salaries of more highly paid executives, but different arguments now apply here.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the Charters of both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. were issued in the time of the noble Lord's Government before the Labour Government came into power in 1964, and the Companies Act was passed into law last year, and no question of this kind was raised by the noble Lord's friends either in this House or in another place.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the higher grades mentioned in the Question are not executive grades and therefore are subject to negotiations in the normal way between the B.B.C. and their trade union or staff association, and that this is not a matter for the annual report?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is quite true, and, as the noble Lord knows quite well, the Government do not interfere with the day-to-day working of the B.B.C. or of any nationalised industry. These things we negotiated on the usual commercial basis.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, may I ask my noble friend whether, when going into this matter, he would not consider that as the independent television companies are obliged to show the salaries of the higher grades under the Companies Act it would be much better for the B.B.C. to be brought into line?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the companies under the I.T.A. are companies, but the B.B.C. is not a company and therefore it is not subject to the Companies Act.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the implication of the Question is that programmes must be assessed on what they cost and not on their real value to the public?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords. I agree completely with my noble friend. If we published the salaries paid to the producers of these programmes it would play the B.B.C. rather unfairly into their competitors' hands—the I.T.A.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, however much people are paid, on the whole programmes are getting worse and worse, and can he do something about that?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has any real reason for concern. I hope that he himself is not contributing to the worsening conditions.

HOUSE OF LORDS POWERS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I indicated yesterday, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the House of Lords at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I would also inform your Lordships that dinner will be available to-night between 7 and 8.30 p.m.
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT NORTHERN LOND0N CEMETERY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.20 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in rising to move the somewhat complicated-looking Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should perhaps say that this arrangement has been made through the usual channels and that it is based on the precedent of the London Government Bill, when a similar Motion was made on May 2, 1963. I might explain to noble Lords, as it had to be explained to me, what the form of the Motion is. It enables the relevant Schedules to be considered at the same time as the various clauses of the Bill. This means that noble Lords who are interested in particular aspects of the Bill will be able to consider them when the clauses are called and not have to wait for them to come back again in the Schedule. I hope that this arrangement will prove for the convenience of all parts of the House in our consideration of the Transport Bill during its Committee stage.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the clauses and Schedules of the Bill in the following order, viz.:

Clauses 1–4

Schedule 3

Clauses 5–9

Schedule 5

Clauses 10–19

Schedule 6

Clauses 20–28

Schedule 7

Clause 29

Schedule 1

Clauses 30–32

851

Schedule 8

Clauses 33–53

Schedules 2 and 4

Clauses 54–65

Schedule 9

Clauses 66–93

Schedule 10

Clauses 94–102

Schedule 11

Clauses 103–111

Schedules 12 and 13

Clauses 112–129

Schedule 14

Clauses 130–138

Schedule 15

Clauses 139–156

Schedules 16–18

—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for moving his Motion and explaining to us what it is about. I agree with him that, so far as it is possible to say that anything is convenient in this Transport Bill, this arrangement will be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATER RESOURCES BILL
Read 3a and passed.

GAMING BILL
3.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recall that just over two years ago we had a valuable and far-ranging debate on the state of gaming in this country on a Motion moved by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester, whom I am pleased to see in his place to-day and from whom I am sure we shall receive wise advice during our discussions. Our previous debate was in the nature of a survey or diagnosis of the evils which uncontrolled commercial gaming had brought upon us. We are now faced with the much sterner and more intractable task of solving a problem which has always hitherto baffled the ingenuity of legislators. I do not say this in any spirit of pessimism. I believe that the Bill which I am now introducing to your Lordships, long and complicated though it is, holds out a very good hope of curb-
852
ing the evils that have grown up around us.
Your Lordships do not need me to describe in detail the situation with which we have to grapple. There have been some developments over the past two years, but very little change. A measure —the Betting and Gaming Act 1960—introduced with the best and most liberal of intentions, and with the most touching innocence, has been abused and perverted by commercial gaming interests of every kind, able to afford the best of legal advice and using every advantage that legal processes can offer. As a result, the 1960 Act has been riddled through and through and Parliament itself made to look ridiculous. The very thing that the 1960 Act was intended to prevent—the commercial exploitation of gaming for high stakes—has in fact been fostered by it, and in such a measure that there is no comparable situation anywhere in the Western World. In saying this, I do not exclude Nevada, because the gaming there is at least controlled.
Nor am I forgetting the important judgment reached by the House of Lords on the very day that this Bill was first introduced in another place, which effectively put a stop to the method which the gaming proprietors had found of exploiting the advantages in the bank at roulette. Admirable and salutary though that judgment was, we should, I fear, be deluding ourselves if we made too much of it, because the damage had already been done. The ingenuity of the gaming proprietors is endless and the whole fabric of the present law rotten. I could myself suggest a number of new and interesting ways through and round it, but understandably I shall refrain from doing so; but if the present law were to remain we should see them all.
My Lords, it may be that the chief criticism of the 1960 Act is that it allowed, indeed encouraged, commercial gaming to develop in a wholly uncontrolled way. If commercial gaming there must be—and I am afraid it has gone beyond the point where we could eradicate it—then we must ensure that it does not force itself upon society and propagate into a great social disease. But the law must recognise gaming before it can be treated and contained. If it is left uncontrolled then we shall get not only profiteering, cheating and fraud, but

853
criminality of every description, including blackmail, intimidation, violence and murder. We have had all these things, and the only wonder is that we have not had more of them. Many of the gaming clubs are responsibly and—within the limits of commercial morality—honestly run; the better known of them have managed to lend an air of respectability to the whole business; but all of us know the darker side.
There have been very similar developments in the supply of gaming machines. The 1960 Act legalised their use in clubs, which were to be allowed two apiece, but omitted any proper safeguards. There was a complete failure to realise just how addictive, and therefore profitable, these machines can be, and no attempt was made to regulate the odds they offered, which has meant that the machines are sometimes set to keep back as much as 40 per cent. of the money put into them. Profits like that were the magnet which attracted criminals into the business of supplying them—not on conventional terms or by ordinary commercial methods. Here again, the majority of the suppliers are, no doubt, entirely reputable, but a minority has been engaged in racketeering and strong-arm methods of every kind, and some very nasty scandals have resulted. The time has come to clamp down hard on the supply of these machines and to make proper safeguards for their use. Nor can this be done without dealing at the same time with the "amusement machines" which are supposed to give only strictly limited prizes and for that reason can he installed on local authority permit in public places. The two types of machine are often identical in design and retailed by the same people; the temptations to abuse are similar, in kind, if not in degree; and the distinction between them and the true gaming machines could easily become blurred.
It is in fact one of the difficulties of this subject that once we start to deal with a single facet of gaming we are compelled by logical sequence to deal with all; from the baccarat and cheminde-fer provided in exclusive West End clubs to the wheel of fortune at fairgrounds, and from the "one-armed bandit" to the pin table and crane-grab. If this Bill is lengthy it is largely because all these activities tend to shade into each
854
other, so that we are confronted inescapably with the whole spectrum. The Bill deals with all, but with each, I hope, in its correct place and in the right way.
My Lords, against such a background, which is not disputed, what are the objects of the Bill? First, we have been compelled, like it or not, to accept the fact of commercial gaming and to realise that it has now taken such a hold that if we do not grant legal recognition we shall drive it irretrievably into criminal hands. The one hope of controlling or even containing it is to make it lawful—but on our terms. This is far from saying that we believe the present volume to be irreducible; the number of commercial gaming clubs could be cut back sharply before any serious danger should arise of driving the activity underground; and indeed, unless their number is reduced to a manageable proportion, effective control will be impossible.
But here the Government make one important distinction. In the case of the casinos—that is to say, clubs offering "hard" games such as chemin-de-fer, roulette, black jack or craps— out object is to reduce the total number, perhaps to as few as two to three hundred; that is. to about a third or a quarter of those now operating; and, having done that, to discourage further propagation by imposing strict tests of demand, restricting advertisement, discouraging impulse gaming, slimming off surplus profits, and a combination of other measures. We shall allow the habitual or determined gamester to game legally, but that is all.
In the case, however, of the numerous bingo clubs we do not intend to go so far. This is—or should be—a relatively harmless form of gaming of a sociable and neighbourly kind, although to some of us it is a sobering thought that there are 10 million members of bingo clubs. But provided it is kept within proper bounds we have no wish to harass it unduly; and so, while it is brought within the general structure of control established by the Pill, certain small but valuable concessions are made: for instance, the concession that will allow a person belonging to one club in a large organisation to game at any other— and so when away from home on holiday or business to indulge his obsession. But these concessions will apply only to bingo clubs which are prepared to abandon absolutely

855
other and more serious forms of gaming like roulette and black jack, which have been popularised very largely because the bingo clubs have taken them up. And if that carrot does not work then there are powers in the Bill to apply the stick by forbidding the combination absolutely; and the Government are determined, if necessary, to apply it.
I turn now to the control system, which is the very essence of this Bill. There are broadly two approaches to this sort of problem: local licensing—as, for instance, with the betting shops and publichouses—and a single central direction as with the casinos and gaming houses houses in France and Nevada. We have blended the two methods with great care, so as to produce what we believe to be a particularly potent mixture. Basically the controls rest on a system of licensing of commercial clubs, and registration of members' clubs, by the local justices, on conditions to be enforced by the police; but only the more fundamental of the conditions are laid down in the Statute itself and a very large area is left to regulations.
If your Lordships wish to see just how strong and flexible these regulation-making powers are let me draw attention to Clauses 13 to 15 and then to Clause 22 of the Bill. You will find there, first, that the sources of profit in every game that may be permitted in a commercial club will be laid down in regulations, be it a table charge, a cagnotee on stakes or winnings, or advantages in the bank which the club will hold. You will see also that Clause 22 in particular contains certain novelties. Thus, the Secretary of State is empowered in subsection (2) to make regulations:
"for preventing the use of any indirect means for doing anything which, if done directly, would be a contravention of this Part of the Act or of any regulations made thereunder".
We do not intend to play any more cat and mouse games chasing the gaming proprietors through the courts.
And, among many other powers taken in this clause—to restrict the hours of gaming clubs, to prevent dishonest play and so on—there are also powers to require the justices to refuse to grant or renew licences in particular circumstances, or to attach prescribed conditions to licences. These powers could be invoked,
856
for instance, to prevent gaming licences from being given to cabaret clubs, which have played no small part in the popularisation of gaming, or to remove all "hard" gaming from the bingo clubs.
The general approach, therefore, is a blending of national and local responsibilities and interests in such a way as to reinforce each other. A system of this kind requires a strong linchpin, and this we have provided in the Gaming Board, which is to be established by Clause 10. Indeed, it would be scarcely any exaggeration to say that the whole efficacy of the system will turn upon the Board. On the one hand, the Board are required to be consulted on all regulations; on the other, they are empowered to advise the justices over the whole range of the responsibilities which they exercise and so, for instance, to guide them in assessing the demand for gaming, which may often transcend purely local considerations.
The Board are entitled, under Schedule 2 of the Bill, to appear before the justices to object to licences; they may appeal against their decisions to quarter sessions, and they may indeed take up and champion, on appeal, objections made by other parties, such as the police or local residents. To help the Board with these duties they will have their own permanent staff and also a small but, I am sure, effective body of inspectors, who will have equal rights of entry into the clubs as the police and will be available to assist the police with their knowledge and experience in any aspect of their enforcement duties.
These in themselves are highly important functions. But the Board will discharge other and even graver responsibilities. They are charged with the duty of vetting the character and antecedents of all applicants for gaming licences before they can present themselves to the justices, with a view also to the controlling interests, financial or other, behind them. No one will be able to act as a gaming manager or operative in a licensed club, or as a retailer of gaming machines, without the Board's approval; and in no case will the Board's decisions be subject to appeal. These are, as the Government recognise, arbitrary powers of an extreme and indeed unprecedented kind. They have not been conferred upon the Board without a great deal of

857
anxious thought. They are needed because of the paramount importance of excluding criminals from the field of commercial gaming, which may often have to be done on the grounds of reasonable suspicion rather than absolute proof, or on the basis of information which could not be presented in open court. And they are justified powers because nobody can claim a right to make a living from commercial gaming; it is a privilege, if a doubtful one, to be conferred only on the absolutely trustworthy.
There are some who may say that by these arrangements we have eroded the proper responsibility of the justices. The Government do not believe this. On all major issues of local concern—the demand for gaming facilities, the suitability of the premises, or their location, the conduct of the gaming, and so on—it is the justices or the local courts who will have the final say, though the Board will be ready to assist and advise them, as will the police. There are others, notably the Churches' Council on Gambling, who will claim that we should have given the entire work of licensing to the Board. Eight years ago when the 1960 Act was passed something of the kind might indeed have been possible; but not now. We are not in a position of trying to control and guide a new development, but of striving to restore order from chaos and if the number of clubs is to be reduced in a way which really conforms to the needs, and not merely to some a priori plan, it can only be done by a thorough sifting of demand and the application of general principles to a multiplicity of local circumstances. This is work for which the justices are uniquely equipped, and a proper answer can in the end only emerge from a whole succession of local hearings patiently undertaken.
If the Board—or any other central authority—were to attempt a task of this magnitude there would be three results. First, there would be an inevitable, and in the circumstances quite unacceptable, delay; second, there would be a danger of a rigid pattern being imposed on theoretical principles, but based on a necessarily imperfect or partial knowledge of the true facts; and third—since those who will be refused licences will be put out of business altogether and
858
those who receive them be left in the enjoyment of a local monopoly—there would be a most dangerous concentration of patronage. The number of commercial clubs cannot be reduced on Any artificial system but only through the application of general principles; and if these principles can be defined—as we believe they can— they should be judicially applied in open court so that the justice of the result may be apparent. For this reason the Bill restricts the absolute discretion of the Board to a single consideration only; the trustworthiness of the applicant and his sponsors.
My Lords, I have stated the problem and the methods we propose for dealing with it. Some would argue that this measure is paternalistic; protecting society from itself. If so I make no apology. Necessity makes the law. It made it on drink a long time ago. It is making it increasingly now with drugs. In some respects the drug of gaming is as great a menace.
I turn now to the structure of the measure itself. It is, I think, a logical and consistent one. Part I of the Bill deals with the general law as it applies to gaming of a casual kind, as within a family or between friends. It imposes no restrictions on the magnitude of slaking, but is designed, in Clauses 2 to 4, to prevent all possibility of gaining being promoted for profit outside the main control system instituted by Part II. It thus prohibits not simply charging or levying on stages but the playing of bankers' games or games of unequal chance—under whatever conditions which may be supposed to have the effect of equalising the chances—except in conditions of a strictly domestic character. Clause 5 perpetuates the existing ban on gaming in streets and public places, subject in Clause 6 to some enlargement of the present concession allowing equal chance games to be played without charge or levy of any kind in public-houses. The penalty provisions in Clause 8 place the onus for offences, not on the individual players but on those who have organised or promoted illegal gaming, or knowingly allowed their premises to be used for it, and who so stand to profit from the infringements. It follows that, while it is technically an offence for an unequal chance game such as pontoon to be

859
played, say, in a factory canteen, in practice when the play is purely casual and unorganised there will be nobody to whom the liability can attach. This, for common-sense reasons, has been deliberately contrived.
If Part I is as watertight as we believe it to be, the result will be that any gaming which is for profit, or which is in the least danger of becoming commercialised, will be safely shepherded into the control system established by Part II which—with its associated Schedules, 1 to 5—establishes the Gaming Board, lays down the procedures and conditions of licensing and registration, and so forms the very kernel of the whole Bill. The principles of the licensing system I have already described. The registration system as distinct from the licensing system is intended for members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes which want to provide unequal chance gaming for their members, or to make some small charge to recover the costs of the gaming facilities they provide, and no more. It is, therefore, essentially precautionary. The qualifications for obtaining registration—laid down in Schedules 3 and 4—are not in themselves onerous and the conditions attaching to registered clubs are designed chiefly to prevent any significant profits being made. The procedures to be followed in obtaining registration, in the way of advertising, the invitation of objections, and hearings before the justices are, however, almost as thorough as where a licence is being sought; because the credentials of the clubs must be fully examined to make sure that commercial interests are not attempting to operate through them. That is a matter of particular importance since these, unlike the licensed clubs, will not be subject to rights of entry by the police or gaming inspectors, except on warrant.
For the commercial or licensed clubs Part II of the Bill provides, as I have explained, chiefly a framework to be completed by detailed regulations of all kinds made on the advice of the Gaming Board. There are, however, certain important statutory conditions to which I should draw attention. Clause 12 of the Bill not only makes a reality of the club conception by requiring forty-eight hours' notice between application for, and
860
participation in, gaming, but it also imposes certain other checks.
Clause 16 places an absolute prohibition on credit being given for gaming in any form, but allows cheques to be accepted to obtain means for gaming, in money or chips, and the proprietors to sue on them if they are dishonoured. This is, we believe, an important reform, since it not only removes temptations to excess, but also all those incentives to intimidation and blackmail which exist where credit is allowed without the legal means for the recovery of debts.
Clause 17 prohibits absolutely not only play by young people in licensed clubs but their very presence in the gaming rooms—although this restriction is lifted for the bingo clubs, so that mothers can bring their children with them if they wish. And finally—since it has a more general application than to licensed and registered clubs—I should mention here the restrictions on advertisement imposed by Clause 42. This again is not quite absolute, since it allows advertisement on or in the premises themselves and for a fortnight after the licence has first been granted, but it is intended—and we believe it will be effective—to prevent stimulation of demand.
The requirements for gaming managers and operatives to obtain certificates of approval from the Board are contained in Clause 19, but the prior vetting by the Board of applicants for licences and their financial sponsors is dealt with in Schedule 2, since it forms an essential part of the whole licensing procedure there set I out. These—and the corresponding procedures for members' clubs and institutes in Schedules 3 and 4—are largely based on those now applying under the 1963 Act to the licensing of betting offices, except that for the licensed clubs the qualifications required are far more strict, there are wide powers for the justices to attach restrictive conditions, and the influence of the Gaming Board on the proceedings will be more direct and pervasive. There is one other significant difference. After the first, transitional, period all licences and certificates of registration will be granted and renewed at one period of the year only—in May—the better to allow the Gaming Board to plan their interventions, and to prevent the applications escaping the attention of potential objectors.

861
Finally, the sanctions will be strict and, I believe, effective. Behind the criminal penalties laid down in Clause 23 there will be the power of a court or the licensing justices to cancel a licence and disqualify the premises, and for the Gaming Board to reinforce this, if they wish, by revoking all certificates of consent. It is this, rather than any fines or penalties, that should be the chief deterrent. There is nothing in the least comparable in the present law.
My Lords, I now turn to the control over the use of machines, which is the subject of Part III. These are complicated provisions, but their general import is this. First, all those who retail or maintain gaming or amusement machines must, under Clause 27, obtain certification by the Board; and the terms of contract are, or may be, regulated under Clause 28. The strict control over retailers, and prohibition of forms of contract which allow pressures to be put on their customers, are the very essence of this matter; and we make no distinction here between the gaming and amusement machines.
Second, the use of gaming machines is confined under Clause 31 to clubs licensed or registered for general gaming, or to genuine members' clubs specially registered, so the use of the machines will in all cases depend upon some definite authority which can be withdrawn if the conditions are infringed. No more than two gaming machines will be allowed in any club—except in the special circumstances of Clause 32. No limit is placed by the Statute on the size of the "jackpots ", but power is taken to do this if abuses develop. The prizes offered, and the percentage payout, must be clearly indicated on every machine, and in respect of the licensed clubs there will be power to regulate them so as to put an end to the present, often extortionate, practices.
Much the same principles apply to the use of amusement machines, which are the subject of Clauses 33 and 34, and of Schedule 9. Many of your Lordships, when you think of these machines, will have in mind those installed on piers or on fair grounds, which are often truly just amusement machines. The law, however, is not concerned with a machine's design, but simply with whether it offers large or unlimited prizes
862
—in which case it is a gaming machine—or small and limited prizes, which makes it an amusement machine. And the majority of amusement machines now—especially those in pubs and cafes—are nothing more than the familiar "one-armed bandits" or fruit machines, adapted to give reduced prizes. They are gaming machines. Except in the case of travelling fairs, these machines can be installed only on permit issued by the local authority or, in respect of public houses, by the local licensing justices. And because the local authorities have complained that their wish to restrict the number of these machines has often been frustrated through appeals to quarter sessions, they are now empowered in Schedule 9 to pass policy resolutions declaring that they will issue no more permits.
Part IV of the Bill and the remaining Schedules are concerned with miscellaneous and supplementary matters. I do not think it necessary for me to deal with them now. There are in this Part of the Bill a number of general enforcement provisions, of which the most important are contained in Clause 43, which gives the police and gaming inspectors absolute rights of entry at any time into licensed (but not registered) clubs, and wide powers to inspect the equipment, records and accounts or 10 call for their production.
My Lords, this is not, in the nature of things, a comprehensive account of the Bill, which we shall have an opportunity of examining in greater depth in Committee which it is intended, I understand, to hold upstairs—using that word in a figurative sense. It will be subsequently recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. I do not think it necessary at this stage to go into any further detail about this as I understand that my noble friend the Leader of the House will shortly be putting down a Motion for the commitment of the Bill "upstairs", and that he will take the opportunity to explain to the House the procedure that will be followed in the Committee.
I hope that I have indicated the Bill's main features, and given your Lordships a clear idea both of our goals and of how we are hoping—indeed expecting—to achieve them. But there is one warning that I must give. A control system

863
as detailed and as elaborate as this cannot be erected overnight. When this Bill has become law there will still be a long period of transition—it may be as long as two years—before the provisions can be brought into full operation. Clause 54 of the Bill allows for this; and all I can undertake is that we —and, I am sure, the Gaming Board, when it is set up, which is the very first thing that will be done—will do everything in our power to see that the delays are no greater than the facts of the situation, and the great burden of work to be undertaken, necessarily require. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)

RHODESIA SANCTIONS VOTE AND HOUSE OF LORDS' POWERS
3.55 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission, I should like now to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been making in another place about the situation resulting from the vote in your Lordships' House on the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968. His words are:
"As the House will be aware, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968 (Statutory Instrument 1968, No. 885) dated the 7th of June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which was approved by this House on Monday, the 17th of June, was on Tuesday rejected in another place.
"I do not intend to enter into the merits of this Order, which were argued in this House at length on Monday, and accepted by this House.
"What the Conservative majority in another place, are arrogating to themselves is that this elected chamber, and the Government of this country in its international relations and international commitments, can be frustrated, and its actions nullified, by another place, on one condition, namely that a Labour Government is
864
in office. By a simple majority in another place they, accountable to none, have now, quite deliberately, sought to assert a power to put this country in default of international obligations solemnly entered into and particularly Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations which binds this country and all other members of the United Nations to implement decisions, having mandatory effect, of the Security Council.
"This decision was taken after the clearest warnings as to its meaning, and as to its consequences.
"No Government could for one moment tolerate action of this kind which was taken not in pursuance of any democratic objective, but in pursuance of calculated Party advantage.
"This House cannot accept what has happened and cannot but treat it as a denial of democracy and a total frustration of the spirit of our Constitution.
"This House will expect that the verdict of the elected Chamber will be given effect to. It is the Government's intention to advise Her Majesty to make a fresh Order in Council which both Houses will be asked to approve at the earliest possible moment.
"Sir, the House will recall the terms of the gracious Speech:
'Legislation will be introduced to reduce the powers of the House of Lords and to eliminate its present hereditary basis, thereby enabling it to develop within the framework of a modern parliamentary system.'
"The House will be aware that on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government constructive talks have been continuing for several months about House of Lords reform, talks which have been directed both to the powers of another place and to its composition, in the confident and not unreasonable hope that an all-Party consensus could be reached about the place, powers, and composition of the Second Chamber in the second half of the 20th Century.
"The deliberate and calculated decision of the Conservative Party to take the action they did on Tuesday was in direct contravention of the spirit in which these talks were being conducted. There is no precedent for the

865
voting down of a statutory instrument by the non-elected Chamber in which in present circumstances most of its Members sit not by the right of creation but by the right of succession from some near or distant ancestor.
"Not since the Parliament Act have they deliberately set themselves out to frustrate in this way the executive actions, and in this case actions to fulfil the international commitments, of an elected Government.
"Since this decision was clearly taken after the fullest consideration, and after every warning of the consequences, there can be no question of these all-Party talks, in these new circumstances, continuing.
"Although, the time has not been wasted, and valuable proposals have been put forward both about the powers and the composition of another place, I must tell the House that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at an early date of the Government's choosing, to introduce comprehensive and radical legislation to give effect to the intention announced in the gracious Speech."
3.59 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that this is the right occasion to argue the Prime Minister's Statement, but I should just like to say this: that I am saddened by it—indeed, I really cannot accept what the Prime Minister says. This House has done nothing unconstitutional. Nor have we put the country in default of its international obligations. This is untrue and it is a travesty of the facts. [Interruption.] I do wish the Liberal Party would keep quiet for one moment: they had their say all yesterday. Perhaps the Conservative Party may say something to-day. I am sorry to say that I do not think the Prime Minister can have read my speech, or he would not have used such extravagant language. I have the inescapable impression that he welcomes the opportunity to create a constitutional crisis where no constitutional crisis exists.
I am particularly sorry that the Government should have decided to break off the talks on reform when they had in effect all but reached agreement; and it is, indeed, quite contrary to what the Prime Minister himself said, because in
866
the speech that he made on the debate on the Address at the beginning of this Session he said:
"I hope that a broad measure of agreement can be reached on the means of giving effect to the principles laid down in the gracious Speech"—
that is, on House of Lords reform—
"and we do not intend to make detailed proposals unilaterally ourselves, unless the prospect of agreement in the consultations seems so unlikely or so remote in time as to rule out agreed legislation this Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 31/10/67, col. 291.]
May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House when it is the intention of the Government to introduce this legislation? For I still hope that wiser counsels I will prevail. We on this side certainly are prepared to continue these talks. I believe that on constitutional questions of this sort it is really important that all the Parties should be agreed and Governments should not legislate unilaterally; and I must say to noble Lords opposite that I think it is a great pity that the Prime Minister, in a fit of pique, is prepared to forgo an agreed solution.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, this really is not good enough. The Conservative Party cannot escape its responsibility for the crisis which has occurred. While sharing the anger, and indeed the bewilderment, of the Government at the irresponsible action of the Conservative Party on Tuesday, may I nevertheless plead with the Government not to give in to their extremists, as the Tories did when they capitulated to the Rhodesia lobby? We do not want two mistakes made in a situation as serious as this. I believe the Conservative Party will bitterly regret the action which they took last Tuesday. I hope the Government will not allow the chance of creating a workmanlike and defensible Second Chamber to be lost through the short-sighted stupidity of Tory reactionaries.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to turn this into a debate. I have, of course, listened most carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said and what the noble Lord, Lord Byers said, and I cannot help expressing my own regret at the consequences of the act of folly by the Conservative Party on Tuesday. I cannot accept that my right honourable friend's statement is a

867
travesty of the facts. I share the noble Lord's sadness. I also agree about the word "ridiculous", but of course the ridiculousness was in the performance of the Opposition in the debate last Tuesday.
I have the greatest sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition. He knows how many of his side abstained and how many of your Lordships' House in fact voted for the Government. The noble Lord has said that there is no reason not to continue the talks. If someone with whom you are in daily communication on a certain matter suddenly decides to cut your throat, even though he succeeds only in scratching it, you do not at that moment continue talking with him.
4.6 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will recollect, as indeed will my noble friend Lord Carrington, that at their request, I did not proceed to the Second Reading of my Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, in order not to produce any complications with regard to the discussions which were taking place between the two Front Benches. May I take it that I am now at liberty, and will be given facilities by Her Majesty's Government, to proceed without delay to the Second Reading of that Bill?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, and mine, too?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, while bitterly regretting the irresponsible folly of the vote on Rhodesia, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees that it would be a tragedy if we were to lose the best chance we have ever had, and ever may have. of reaching reform by agreement? And may I express the hope that the Government in their own plans will in any case proceed on the lines already discussed?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's feeling in the matter. I know how much he had contributed personally towards a rational solution of the problem of the House of Lords—and let me stress "the problem of the House of Lords". I am not unaware of the virtues of your Lordships' House and of the contribution that your Lordships have made on notable occa-
868
sions. But I think all noble Lords must appreciate that it is not possible to talk about proceeding at the moment.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and of my noble friend Lord Mitchison, and those who have Bills which they would wish to introduce, we are going to be a little short of time in the next few weeks, and the Government have indicated their intention to proceed with comprehensive and radical legislation. I cannot indicate when that will be introduced, and I think my best advice would be for your Lordships now to let the dust settle a little. That is my own personal feeling.
4.8 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the concern that some of us feel as to the international consequences of last Tuesday's vote, may I ask my noble friend whether, in order to remove any possible international misconceptions as to the result of the vote, Her Majesty's Government will utilise fully their Overseas Information Services to convey crystally clear their intention fully to implement the Security Council resolution?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to make this suggestion earlier. I can assure him that that has been done, but for the reasons I gave in my speech it is a little difficult to explain to other people in the rest of the world what the decision means or, indeed, to explain away the House of Lords. The point has been fully taken and I hope the damage will be undone.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, several times in the course of this debate, and on Tuesday, reference was made to an alleged agreement, or a close approach to an agreement, for the reconstruction—shall I put it?—of this House. Some Members of this House will, if they are like myself, be completely ignorant of what those proposals are. How, therefore, can we possibly judge what is the right course for those of us who support the Government to take, to see that the most constructive and best results occur as a consequence of this action of the Conservative Party on Tuesday? There are some of us who would like to see the total abolition of the hereditary element in this House. There are others

869
who believe that some system of representation on the Scottish principle might be acceptable. We are quite ignorant as to what is being talked about and we are being treated like children. We are being expected to reach some conclusion as to the right course for the Government to take without knowing the merits of the matter that has been discussed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think this is the moment to debate this matter, but if my noble friend has no inkling of what has been going on he must be one of a quite small minority in your Lordships' House. Most noble Lords have rather more of an inkling of what has been going on. When the Government have the opportunity to announce their proposals no doubt these will be the subject of debate. But we are not now being asked to judge upon any particular type of reform, or any particular solution, either those that have been canvassed or those that in future will be put before Parliament, and ultimately it will be for Parliament to decide.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the proposed legislation which the Government intend to introduce will have to pass both Houses of Parliament, with or without the help of the Parliament Act?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is one of the most notable qualities of the British Parliamentary system that legislation does, in fact, have to pass both Houses.

GAMING BILL
4.12 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, as an hereditary Peer who speaks rarely in this House and at long intervals, having heard the Statement from the noble Leader of the House I feel that this may be my last chance. I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for explaining this Bill to us so carefully and clearly, for it is, as he said, a complicated Bill. I was not at all surprised at his mastery of the subject, because I remember a few years ago in a debate on a Private Bill of mine
870
he showed a great knowledge of the ramifications of betting My noble friend Lord Derwent, I am sorry to say, is unwell—and I am sure we all wish him a speedy recovery—and therefore the task of following the Minister now falls on me at rather short notice. But I will do my best to deal with the points which some of us on this side consider need attention.
I am sure that this Bill will command general approval, except among those who disapprove of gambling in any form. Also, I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has faced the facts of life in seeking to control gambling rather than drive it underground. This Bill has been greatly improved since its passage through another place. I am sure this is not disputed. The Standing Committee met 12 times and, although it was inclined to say the same things 12 times over, did a thoroughly workmanlike job. At the last meeting of the Committee all congratulated each other, and I think a good time was had by all.
I could point out the main changes which have been made since the Bill was first published, and they are all to the good, but I do not propose to go over them again. There are, however, several points on which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention and which need attention either by way of clarification or amendment. The first is in regard to membership and admission. Under the Bill as originally drafted, all members of gaming clubs would have had to apply for membership in person on the premises where the gaming took place. This would have produced an absurd situation, whereby existing members would have had to resign and then re-apply for membership in compliance with the, new procedure. Happily, Her Majesty's Government introduced Amendments on Report which made it possible for members who wished to gamble to apply by giving notice in writing in person on the premises. They still had to wait 48 hours before they could take, part in the games, just as if they had applied for membership for the first time.
The result is two types of members are created, those who wish to game hand those who wish to use the club for social purposes. In practice this would require a club to seal off its

871
gaming, with a member of the staff stationed at the entrance to make sure that only the right people got in. This would present almost insuperable difficulties where the layout of the premises was not suitable for such an arrangement. I think this is an exceedingly cumbersome method of enrolling new members, but I suppose it is feasible. But there are two points which I think need clarification. First, is the requirement retroactive? If so, it means that existing members will have to give notice in person on the premises in conformity with subsection (3)(b) of Clause 12 when the new law comes into effect. I am told that the Home Office takes the view that that is the case.
Now may I give a personal illustration. I am a member of one of these clubs, which I visit infrequently. Under this Bill, if I wish to gamble, shall I have to give notice in writing in person on the premises and wait 48 hours before I can play? This seems to me to be absurd, especially for people who live in the country or abroad. Why cannot existing members be allowed to give notice in writing from abroad or from their homes in the country so that when they come to London and want to play they can do so without waiting 48 hours? My second point is in regard to the position of a club when it moves to new premises. Will it be necessary for all its members again to give notice in writing in person on the new premises of their wish to take part in gambling?
My Lords, I should now like to say a world about chemin-de-fer which is a game probably unfamiliar to a great many of your Lordships, although I know the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, knows all about it. Under Clause 12, the last three lines of subsection (2) create an anomaly so far as chemin-de-fer is concerned. One of the main purposes of the last three lines of Clause 12(2) is that no club should be allowed to participate in the game of chemin-de-fer. Now subsection (4) of Clause 12 is designed as a saving to permit clubs to hold the bank in games such as roulette, black jack and craps, in case the Gaming Board decide that this is necessary to the manner they may determine for the playing of all or any of these games. However, the effect of this on chemin-de-fer will be to permit the club to hold the bank when its turn comes
872
round, but not to play against the other players while the bank passes among them. Thus, the club would be able to play only when the odds were in its favour. The Home Office explanation of this is that in fact no players will play against the club in such circumstances and, therefore, the club would be unable to participate; and if it were in practice found that the clubs could continue to participate then the Gaming Board would step in and stop it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for a moment, because surely chemin-de-fer is the one game in which the club or casino is not taking part in the game; it is between the members.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am suggesting that a member of the management, in order to make up the numbers, can, under the existing law, take his bank but he cannot punt against the other players. I think it will be found that that is the case if one looks at the Bill. I am not clear whether or not the Board, even through the powers of the Home Secretary, will be able to do this, since subsection (3) clearly permits it. In any case, it seems hardly desirable that an anomaly of this sort should be allowed to go on the Statute Book, especially in view of the history of gaming legislation and its disastrous ambiguities. To my mind, there is no harm in the representatives of a club playing at the chemin-de-fer table, but it is an absurd position at the moment. He can take the bank when his turn comes, but he cannot punt against the other players.
My Lords, I said earlier that the Bill had been greatly improved during its passage through another place. But in addition to the shortcomings in requirements governing membership and admission, which I have just dealt with, there are a few other points which need attention. First, there is nothing among all these provisions which would allow a club to be closed down at once pending an inquiry. It appears that under the existing Bill there are only two courses open: one, a disqualification order made by the courts under Clause 23 which according to Clause 24 could not take effect until the end of the period within which an appeal can be made; or, two, a revocation of its certificate of approval by the Gaming Board, for which notice

873
of eight weeks has to be given. So as I read the Bill, if there were found to be cheating at a club, they could still go on for eight weeks. I feel that it is essential that there should be something in the Bill which would enable the Board to shut down a club immediately, where the circumstances showed it to be necessary.
A word about gaming machines. I refer to Part III of the Bill, which deals with those of a "jackpot" type, which come under Clause 31. I feel that the restriction in subsection (2) of the clause to two machines is unreasonable. There is a great difference between proprietary clubs and genuine members' clubs, where no question of private gain is involved and the machines often provide one of the clubs' principal sources of income. Therefore, I suggest that it be left to the Secretary of State to stipulate by regulation the maximum number of machines in both proprietary and members' clubs, probably allowing more to the latter. At the Committee stage we can put down the appropriate Amendment, but I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, comes to reply he will show some sympathy for the argument I have put forward.
I should like now to turn to the subject of bingo, which I do not know much about. The owners of the bingo halls have informed me that they are still unhappy on two points. They would like a maximum prize linked game of a modest figure of, say, £1,000, as opposed to a limit of £1,000 in one week. They would also like to be allowed time and place advertising and notification of social activities, which are precluded in the Bill as it now stands. I know that there have been discussions with the Home Office on both these points, but I thought it right that these views about bingo and the Bill should be put on record. As a gambler of many years' standing, I welcome this Bill in principle. I may put down a few Amendments on the lines that I have indicated, but I hope that all Members, on both sides of the House, will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.25 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, at the outset I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on
874
bringing forward this Bill, to thank them for it, and to welcome it—though possibly not for the same reasons as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jesse. I should also like to thank Her Majesty's Ministers, and the officers concerned, for the great sympathy and understanding with which they have received the many representations that have been made to them. Those who are skilled in understanding of these matters of gambling have very much appreciated the kindness with which they have been received, and the courtesy which has been extended to them, and it is only right at this stage to express that gratitude to all those who have been concerned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jesse', has pointed out, the spirit which pervaded the Committee stage of this Bill in another place was also very co-operative and had no Party spirit about it. I hope that a similar spirit may prevail in the considerations which this House will give to the Bill, and I hope that any points that I may make now will not be regarded in any way as critical, but will be regarded rather as probing points, designed to be helpful and possibly to strengthen still further this very important Bill.
I am sure that all Members of the House hope that the passing of this Bill will end eight years of humiliation and frustration. In 1960 the Gaming Act was passed with the clear intention and understanding that it would endeavour to contain gaming and that it would make commercial gaming impossible. It contained a fatal flaw, with the consequence, is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has pointed out, that it was possible to turn the whole intention of Parliament upside down and to do, in a very considerable volume, precisely the things which the Government had intended should be prevented. During these eight years we have had to witness the purpose and mind of Parliament being defied. We know that illegal games have been openly and shamelessly played in clubs. We have watched, as Lord Stonham described it, the cat-and-mouse activities between the law and promoters trying one gimmick after another in order to find out whether a particular game is within the law, a series of test cases which has wasted time; and we have witnessed the police having to confess that they were helpless and that the law was inoperable—until the Appeal Count gave a

875
good douche of common sense and said that the law was to be enforced.
I suggest that we have witnessed a very unpleasant and degrading eight years. Moreover, we have witnessed what we all knew would happen: that uncontrolled gaming and gambling draws to itself like a magnet all the most vicious and undesirable elements in society. Warning was given that this might be so; and as I say, we have had a very bitter experience. We have seen, as Lord Stonham has told us, that every kind of beastliness in society has arisen, as it always does whenever gaming is allowed to go on uncontrolled. So we hope that, before it is too late, this new Bill will put a stop to these things.
We sometimes hear that there are honest promoters and dishonest promoters; and we sometimes hear quoted that the honest promoters are asking for this, that or the other. I am quite sure that there are divisions between those who promote gambling, and I am sure that we respect the judgment of those who are experienced in these matters. But we should remember that the people who claim to be honest promoters are the people who have been driving a coach-and-horses through the intentions of the 1960 legislation. I therefore hope that, both throughout our own discussions and later, when the Bill becomes operative, we shall never forget what has happened and the people who have been responsible for it. We have learnt our lesson. We have a strong suspicion that people, if given half a chance, will again try to subvert the intention of the law, and therefore I hope that we shall be very tough in the way in which this Bill is administered. Indeed, I myself should have preferred an even stricter and clearer system of working.
Noble Lords may remember that when we debated this matter a year or two ago the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (whose absence this afternoon we very much regret, and we join in hoping that he will be well in the very near future), gave a detailed description of the system prevailing in France; and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made an appeal that the whole racing/betting system should also be brought into an overall system. I never thought that I should ever find myself in the position of pleading for a State
876
monopoly, but I believe the matter has become so widespread and so intractable that that would have been the best way to deal with the problem. However, Her Majesty's Government have, in their wisdom, decided otherwise, and we must do our best to help them make this Bill operative and effective.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has reminded us, the focal point, the pivot upon which this Bill will centre, is the Gaming Board. Here I would only say that the persons who constitute this Board will have to be people of great wisdom, great understanding, very shrewd and very tough, and I hope that the Minister will consider those qualities when he comes to appoint those who are going to be responsible for administering this system. Of course, the tools which they will have to use and upon which they will have to rely will be the inspectorate; and, again, those men will have a very difficult task indeed. They will have to be men of the utmost integrity. They will doubtless be subjected to every kind of blandishment and temptation, and they must be strong enough to stand up to them.
Moreover, they must be given a task which is practicable, and that means, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has reminded us, that there must be a drastic reduction in the number of clubs. It will be quite useless to set up an inspectorate if they have as their area of control so many clubs that it is impossible for them to keep an accurate hold over what is going on; indeed, I think they will almost certainly need to be helped by a crime squad or a gaming squad of the police. I wonder whether it would not be valuable for the Home Office to find out, first of all, how many people they could appoint to the inspectorate, to ask the police how many of their staff they could give to the specialised work of gaming control, and then decide how many clubs could be licensed. Because if there is not an adequate inspectorate and control, then the whole purpose of the Bill will fall to the ground and become largely inoperable.
I should like to put two questions to the noble Lord. First of all, is he satisfied that under the terms of this Bill it will be possible to reduce drastically the number of clubs? We are told that there are about 1,000 clubs at the present time and that they ought to be reduced to between 200 and 300. That is a very

877
drastic reduction but I believe it must be made. But can it be made reasonably quickly and effectively under the Bill? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, devoted a good deal of his speech to commending the system whereby clubs will be licensed. I ask him to look again at this, because it seems to me that the system proposed in the Bill is very cumbersome. As I understand it, a prospective licensee must, first of all, go to the Board with a certificate or good conduct and then go to the licensing authority. But if he is given his licence and the Board think that there are too many clubs or that there are some reasons why he should not have it, then I understand that the Board can appeal against the decision of the licensing authority.
It seems to me that that is a very cumbersome to-ing and fro-ing, and I wonder whether the noble Lord will look again at the possibility of the Gaming Board's having the authority to grant the licences. They could—as I understand the French system provides—have full consultation with the local authorities, but it would be simpler and more effective if one national authority had power to grant the licences. They would be able to see that the spread was fair and reasonable, and they would get away from the possible difficulty that licensing authorities may differ in their judgment so that there is a collection of clubs in one area because that licensing authority has a slightly different standard from another. I feel that when the Bill is going through Committee in this House that matter should he looked at again very thoroughly.
But I would also make my plea that, underlying all the machinery that is going to be set up the Board will watch the spirit which will be allowed to motivate and underlie this whole new system. In particular, there are two elements which I hope will be kept very much in mind. The first is the importance of reducing and containing the volume of gaming that is going on at the present time. I myself do not find it any matter of satisfaction that London has now gained the reputation of being the gaming centre of the world. I do not believe that it is good for society in general that there should be this great volume of gaming, even though it may be more strongly controlled in the future.
878
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive a word of autobiography. Recently I made a tour of some of the gaming clubs in London. I did so travelling incognito but with the full knowledge, and indeed at the invitation, of the promoters of the clubs to which I, with my companion, went. I found it an intensely depressing experience. I am not sure which was the most depressing. I went into one club where I suppose one could say there was democratic gaming going on; the sums of money were not very large. It was a huge room, filled with tables mostly of the simplified American form of roulette and black jack. The croupiers were all young people only recently out of their teens. I was given to understand that they needed very high "A" level qualifications, since they needed their wits about them, but they were extremely well paid. One watched those young people, hour after hour, dealing out the cards or turning the wheel, and one felt: what a dreadfully dreary profitless and uncreative activity at a time when we needed all the creative ability of our nation enlisted in things which will serve society better.
Also, I recollect a visit to the most lush and plush of the gaming clubs in London. The game being played was baccarat, and about every hall minute one watched some £6,000 or £7,000 passing hands. One watched people gaming with a sort of mechanical intensity, in chips of £1,000, £500 or less, and again one wondered how intelligent people could find any satisfaction from that, in the knowledge of what could have been done with the money which was being so lightly used in that way. No one would want to interfere overmuch with the freedom of people to do what they like with their own. Nevertheless, I cannot think that that is a good thing for society or does anything to add to the happiness of people in general. I recognise that this Bill contains a number of disincentives. The rules about no advertising, the rules dissociating gaming from cabaret and other entertainments, the rules preventing more sophisticated forms of gaming at bingo, are all good. But the situation needs to be carefully watched for I cannot think that it is healthy.
Secondly, I hope that the Board will bear in mind their responsibility and

879
duty, as I see it, of giving as much protection to the weak as is possible. We are very conscious of the need for controlling drugs of the body; we do our best to control the consumption of alcohol, through the purse; but here is a drug of the will and the mind, and there is a great deal of very heavy gambling and gaming going on by those who cannot afford it. Indeed, it is one of the phenomena of our age that it has been necessary to set up an organisation like Gamblers Anonymous to bring the techniques and the pastoral care of group therapy to help people who have become victims of compulsive gaming.
It is a pity, in a way, that we cannot, so to speak, receive evidence in this House. If so, members of Gamblers Anonymous could have told us of the very subtle ways in which those who are known to be victims of this compulsion are given opportunities, rather than discouragement, to indulge their uncontrollable emotions and activities. The restrictions on credit will do something to help here. On the other hand, if promoters are allowed to make their profit by taking a "cut" on the sums which are being wagered, then there will be a strong incentive to increase and to encourage gaming, and the people who will suffer most will be those who are the weakest. So I hope that the Board will remember those people and will do their best to control the situation and to protect them as best may be.
So, my Lords, I end as I began. We are, we hope, coming to the end of eight years of humiliation. We have now a chance to brine that to an end and to bring in a happier and more profitable era. It will need a new approach by the Government and by the public. It will need strictness, and it will need a firm grip on the part of those who are responsible. I hope I am not being impertinent when I say that in the speech by the Home Secretary on the Third Reading in another place I welcomed a note of humility when he said that he hoped this Bill was going to achieve what was required of it though in the light of the failures of his predecessorss there was always a matter of doubt. Let that warning be heeded, because, as in so many other branches of social legislation, this legislation for the control of gambling and gaming is bedevilled by the
880
old fault of "too little and too late". One hopes, therefore, that the new Gaming Board will possess both the power and the flexibility to act immediately and firmly should it appear that there is any flaw in this Act of which unscrupulous people are going to take advantage. Let it be that the Board will have that power and that flexibility, so that the will of Parliament may not again be denied.
4.44 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in giving a very warm welcome to what I think is a splendid piece of legislation. It started off in a first-class way, and I think it finished up even better than first-class when it left the other place. I would also say that the comments I make will be made in the same spirit as those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester; that is to say, they are probing questions rather than necessarily points of criticism.
I think we might first of all pause to see whether there is not perhaps some kind of Parliamentary moral for us all in what has happened because, as we have heard from two or three of the speakers so far, this Bill has been brought in as a direct result of the failure of an earlier Bill to do the very job which this Bill is trying to do. It is rather strange that a Bill which goes through both Houses of Parliament, and is subjected to all kinds of criticism in Committee, nevertheless brings about a result which is entirely the opposite of the intentions of the Government of the day—and that is what happened with the 1960 Act. It is rather like a man who brings home an Easter egg as a present for his wife, only to find that it hatches out into an alligator and eventually snaps his head off. I think that in future Parliament should look very carefully at its eggs. It may be that perhaps a couple of days ago we laid an egg—and Heaven knows how this one is going to hatch out in the future!
LORD STONHAM: It is addled, anyway.
LORD WILLIS: There is another point which the right reverend Prelate made and which I should like to emphasise. We should have no illusions about this Bill, or its effect. I think it does everything

881
humanly possible at this point to contain large-scale gaming. But, my Lords, we have to face the fact that "large-scale gaming" is another phrase for "private mint". These operators were given, as was said in another context, a licence to print their own money, and huge sums are at stake. This Bill is an attempt to put the alligator, if you like, on a chain, or to put it back into captivity. I think it will help to restrain it; but I have no doubt at all that in three or four years' time we shall have to review the Bill and bring in new legislation, because men who have been handed such an easy way to make fortunes do not give up too easily, and they will find ways round even the enormous restrictions that are being placed upon them by this particular Bill. That is why I want to emphasise yet again the point that was made earlier: that the new Gaming Board and their inspectorate must be prepared, with the full backing of Parliament and the Home Office, to be absolutely ruthless in their operation.
I regret very much that we have not decided, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, to nationalise gaming, or at least to bring it under some degree of public ownership. I think it would have been better to take this step now, because I am perfectly sure that we shall have to take it in the next ten years. If the object is to reduce the number of clubs, I think this Bill will be partly successful, but I do not think it will achieve it altogether.
Part of the reason for this lies, I believe, in the issuing of licences and in the fact that local justices are to be allowed to grant licences on certain conditions and with certain qualifications. I think this is wrong, and I agree very much with the point that has just been made in this respect: that local justices cannot be expected to see the overall national picture and that, whatever we may say about it, they are sensitive to local pressures. if one town has a couple of successful clubs and the town next door has none, in the town without any club there may be great pressure generated publicly and through private conversations, over a period of time, to demand that they, too, should be allowed one or two clubs, and applications may be made to the justices for those clubs. Such an application may seem on the
882
surface to be a perfectly just and reasonable one, yet in the national context it may not be reasonable. It may be wrong for all kinds of reasons which the local justices may not be able to see. I therefore think it would be much bettor if the Gaming Board themselves were given the last word in this respect, and I support the point which has been made on that. I hope that the Government will perhaps look at that matter again.
In any event, it may be a tall order to ask that the work that is involved should be carried through by a small Board of three. I am all for economy; I am all for streamlining and trimming the fat off public bodies of this sort, but I think that a small board of three may be not enough. It is possible that one, or even two, or them might be ill at one particular time, and if that happened the Board might be largely inoperative. I wonder whether the Government have thought of that, and whether they would be prepared to extend the number of members of the Board —perhaps to a maximum of five or, if necessary, seven.
I support the point made about advertising, so far as bingo is concerned. I think that there is some justification in this. There are huge memberships of bingo clubs. I am not thinking of the operators, I am thinking of the inconvenience to those members after some change of location has been made which the clubs are prohibited from advertising. It may be that I am wrong about that; but it seems to me that more flexibility should be allowed so that a reasonable service to the public can be provided. If the bingo venue is changed at very short notice from the local town hall to a hall, say, a hundred yards away, then some advertising should be allowed to let the customers know about the change.
Then I should like to hear from my noble friend Lord Stonham about the provision for closing clubs. It seems to me that if, despite all the precautions in this Bill, a club is being run in a violent, crooked or bad way, it should be possible to suspend it from operation at very short notice—say, within an hour or so. As the Bill now stands, there may be ways round this so that the clubs might be able to continue to operate in a crooked way for another eight weeks without there being any possibility of

883
closing them. Therefore, I think that this is a point that should be looked at.
My Lords, I do not want to spend any more time on this Bill. I give it a warm welcome. I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, through the intricacies of chemin de fer but if he ever want a lesson in penny-blanket brag then I think I can help him. I support the point made about restricting the growth of compulsive gambling. When I was in Sydney, Australia, some time ago I was made an honorary member of the journalists' club there. It was supported by some of the most highly paid journalists in Australia. In the main bar, all round the wall, there were something like 50 gaming machines, "one-armed bandits", which, in those days, one plied with florins or half-crowns. That gaming room was thronged night after night with highly-paid, intelligent editors, reporters and so on from the Sydney newspapers. They used to put their stools beside the machines; they would get £5 or £6 worth of half-crowns or two-shilling pieces and sit there and feed these machines. Their wives would join them, bringing along another stool by the machine, and they would spend the entire evening feeding in their coins. At the end of the evening they might have lost £5 or £6.
Perhaps this was not the kind of large-scale gaming that we are talking about here, but I entirely support the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester when I say that I found this experience profoundly depressing. After a while, I had to move away from this club. All that one heard the whole evening was the crash of the "one arm" going down, the occasional tinkle of a win. About all that was in this smoke-filled room were the crowds of men in shirt sleeves with their wives or girl friends sitting at the machines and spending an entirely wasted evening. It seems to me that if we do nothing else in this Bill but restrain the weaknesses of human nature by removing temptation we shall have achieved a great deal.
4.55 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, particularly in view of the alligator's egg mentioned by my noble friend Lord Willis, a concept that I do not myself subscribe to at all, I wish to begin by considering—and I think this is relevant
884
—why, and not whether, this Bill should be necessary. As has been pointed out by the right reverend Prelate and others, eight years have gone by since Parliament for the first time legalised certain games of chance—games which were carefully described—and when unequal chance games were specifically forbidden. It was supposed to be only the innocuous game of "chemmy"—although I, myself, have found it far from innocuous—which would be permitted. I think that within five years every known casino game was being played openly all over London and the rest of Britain.
How did this come about? Was it due to an addled, or an active, alligator's egg, or to bad draftsmanship in Parliament? It seems to me that the Acts of 1960 and 1963 were absolutely clear. When this Bill came up for the Second Reading in another place, it was suggested by no less a person than Mr. Quintin Hogg that the principal reason for the failure was
"the contradictory, unrealistic and erroneous decisions of the courts…"
He put the blame on the courts, including, he told us, the Court of Appeal. He wondered whether it had crossed what he called the innocent mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—I am not suggesting that Lord Denning has a guilty mind; but I do not think it is innocent in the ways of the world—that it was the judges who had been most responsible for the failure of existing legislation.
I do not know how the right honourable gentleman could have made such a suggestion. At the time that he was speaking, ten relevant cases—that is to say, cases of unequal chance games in licensed and registered clubs—had come before the magistrates; three had gone on appeal to the Divisional Court and one to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. In all but one of these 14 occasions convictions were secured. The exception was when what was known as the Kursaal No. 2 case came before the Divisional Court. This case was very extraordinary. The appeal succeeded largely because the appellants maintained that it was possible for a member of their club to take the bank in roulette and to restrict his maximum loss at any one spin to 2s. Any noble Lord who has ever played the game may

885
find that rather odd, since if only 1d. is staked on a number the banker pays out 3s. But it was accepted by the Court; and this would mean that taking a bank (and therefore having the built-in advantage that goes with it) would be within the reach of any member; so that there were chances of alleged equality for all. It happened that this extraordinary conclusion was not accepted when the prosecution appealed to your Lordships' House. With that one exception the courts have always convicted when any club has been brought before them on gaming offences.
How can courts conceivably be held responsible for the failure of the 1960 and 1963 legislation? I was sorry that Mr. Taverne in the Second Reading debate in the other place seemed to agree that the courts are to some extent responsible when he said that the police faced conflicing court decisions and implied that this excused their inaction by adding that until the House of Lords' decision last December
"the way in which roulette was played at the Kursaal had been ruled legal by the Divisional Court."
But, in fact, the way in which it was pretended that roulette was played at the Kursaal—I cannot believe that it was ever really played that way—was certainly not the way in which it was played anywhere else. I cannot imagine going into Crockfords and saying, "I want to take the roulette wheel for a few spins, and I am limiting my maximum loss to 2s. on a spin." Therefore I can think of no excuse of any kind for the fact that the police took virtually no action, only in the cases I have mentioned, throughout the whole period. They left the big clubs alone and never prosecuted the same club twice, in which case much higher penalties, including imprisonment, could have been imposed; and (although this I rather welcome) they never prosecuted any club members who were taking part, which would have acted as a very severe deterrent. Incidentally, I notice in the present Bill that the right to imprison, or to summons, those taking part in the play is no longer permitted.
My Lords, I want to follow this point of police inaction a little further, because so far from prosecuting, a confidential instruction—and I have here a copy of it—was issued by the Metropolitan
886
Police in April, 1966, to ensure that no further prosecutions for illegal gaming would be brought in the Metropolitan area, and clubs could therefore play all games with complete and perfect impunity. This instruction was issued—and here I quote from an affidavit filed on behalf of the Police Commissioner in ex pate Blackburn—because the Assistant Commissioner, who is now the Commissioner, Sir John Waldron,
"considered that in view of the uncertainty of the law, the expense and manpower involved in keeping gaming observations were not justified unless there were complaints of cheating or reason to suppose that a particular club had become a haunt of criminals.'
He goes on:
"At the time when this decision was taken the Kursaal case above referred to was believed to be going to the House of Lords on the point certified by the Divisional Cowl."
Yet, my Lords, on the clay that it struction was issued no appeal had been lodged, and, moreover, the period of time during which an appeal could be 1Ddged had already expired. How, therefore, could the Assistant Commissioner have referred to the "uncertainty of the law" on gaming which caused him to issue this confidential instruction to the effect that no club would be prosecuted for playing roulette, baccarat or dice when, at that time, no prosecution brought by the police in any court in the country had ever failed to secure a conviction'' Indeed, I would say that the ease with which convictions have in general been secured—because only one has failed—shows no sign of any "alligator's egg" or faulty draftsmanship in Parliament.
My Lords, the intention of Parliament has been shown by the decisions of the courts to be absolutely and manifestly clear, and I am forced to the conclusion that the failure has been due solely to the extreme reluctance, and later in fact the refusal in a confidential instruction, of the Metropolitan Police to make any attempt whatever to enforce it. It is only now, to-day, by what I think must be described as a real irony, when this new Bill is at a very advanced stage, that the police are at last, largely w the result of the personal efforts of a private citizen, beginning to take some strenuous action. I do not know whether Tour Lordships saw the announcement in The Times (another pillar of the Establishment) this morning that 39 London clubs

887
are now facing prosecutions for illegal gaming under the existing Act, the 1963 Act, for playing games of unequal chance. Another 43 have recently been visited by the police and a prosecution in many cases may be expected. Incidentally, among the 39 that face prosecution 14 are major clubs and papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions; so a position of extraordinary uncertainty prevails and will continue.
The opinion has been put about that under the present Bill games of unequal chance will become legal. That, of course, is not the case. Games of unequal chance are specifically forbidden in fact, unless regulations are made by the Home Secretary under Section 13(2); and until such regulations have been made (and they cannot be made without consultation with the Gaming Board which has to be established) roulette, craps, black jack and baccarat all remain illegal. We have heard an estimate to-day, I think from my noble friend Lord Stonham, that it may be two years before the Bill becomes operative. It now seems perfectly possible that all clubs may be forced to close their doors, particularly if those that are now found guilty of contravening the law are prosecuted a second time and heavier penalties imposed; and above all, if an injunction is sought in relator actions against those that are convicted, which would prevent them from continuing to play, even if they were appealing by case stated to the Divisional Court. And one can well imagine that if the police continue to take action against almost 100 clubs, a great many others will be unwilling to go on with these games for fear of being prosecuted. So if the Act is going to become fully operative in a year, or eighteen months, or two years, and if by then gaming has ceased, which, so far as I can see, is now quite possible, is it really the Government's intention to open up the clubs again?
My Lords, it is in these most unusual circumstances, which I thought it wise to set out in quite considerable detail, that we have to consider to-day's Bill. My feeling is that I welcome it. I think it may be a very good Bill. It gives very strong powers, very arbitrary powers, to the Secretary of State, the Gaming Board,
888
the licensing authorities and the inspectors. My principal objection to it is that we who have to vote on it—and I have no doubt, of course, that it will be approved—have no way of knowing how those powers are going to be exercised. So much is left to the Minister, the Board, the inspectors and the licensing authorities. It is for the Minister to decide which games may be played and subject to what rules, and that has always been the heart of the controversy when these matters have been discussed. It is for the Minister to decide what charges may be made for taking part in the play. And there are a dozen other matters for which orders or regulations of various kinds are required. Perhaps even more important, it is left to the licensing authorities (who may be advised by the Gaming Board though they need not accept the advice) to decide which of the existing clubs shall be allowed to continue.
We have had various estimates of the number of gaming clubs and casinos at present operating in Britain. A figure of over 1,000 was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester; I have heard 1,500. Much depends on how big a club has to be before it is recognised as a gaming club. My noble friend Lord Stonham indicated that the number was to be reduced to something between 200 and 300. In my opinion, even 200 to 300 is far more than is necessary in this country. I would say that 30 to 40 in the Metropolitan area, and about the same number again in the Provinces should be adequate, and to control that number would be far simpler. Even France has fewer than 150 casinos and many of these are open only during the tourist season. I should have thought that 60 to 80 in the United Kingdom would be more than enough.
On what criteria will these clubs be selected in the first place? This point has already been touched on, and I feel that it is extremely important. Once we have 200 to 300 clubs, the renewal of licences and granting of new licences is less important. It is the way we get this nucleus that is going to be difficult to work out. It stands to reason that if the number of clubs is going to be divided by x, then the profits made by those that survive and are given licences are going to be multiplied by x or a little bit more. These

889
profits are going to be very big. I have spoken to the owner of a casino in London who told me that the winnings from his tables that he admitted to were £850,000 a year, and that outgoings (including bad debts, which were the most important debit item) were something under £250,000. So that one man, and not the biggest in London, is making a clear profit of over £600,000 a year. Therefore the way in which these clubs are chosen is extremely important.
As my noble friend Lord Willis said, licensing a club is giving the club owner a licence to print money. And how is the licensing authority to choose between club "A" and club "B" in deciding which should be given a licence? All I can say is that the authority will have an invidious task; that intolerable pressures may be brought to bear on them, and that an equitable solution may be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find.
Finally—and I apologise for detaining your Lordships—may I consider the question of the inspectors who will be appointed under this Bill? Their duties are onerous and extremely important. I understand that there will be about 15 of them and they will be responsible for 400 or 500 clubs. Is it really possible that these 15 inspectors, however conscientious, hard working and incorruptible, will be able to succeed, with about 30 clubs each, when the entire Metropolitan Police Force has so ignominously failed to exercise any control at all?
I want to make a suggestion to the Government. At first, it may seem that the cost will be completely prohibitive but I hope to show otherwise. The suggestion is that there should be a resident inspector permanently on duty in every club. Many of us tend to agree with what has been said about these clubs being owned by the State or by municipalities, but if they are in private ownership why should not a resident inspector be permanently on duty? Such inspectors would have to receive £2,000 or £3,000 a year. It would have to be a sufficient income to make them less susceptible to the corruption to which they would be exposed, and they would have to be men of unassailable integrity.
If there were only 60 or 70 clubs, the cost would be almost £250,000, which is a considerable figure. But there are two
890
considerations that might make my suggestion feasible. The first is quite simple: that the Excise duty payable by the clubs should be increased by £3,000 or £4,000 a year, so that, in effect, the resident inspectors will be paid by the extra Excise duty, which the clubs are well able to afford.
The second point is that the inspectors should also be trained accountants and made responsible for personally supervising every penny in the club's accounts. Enormous sums are being lost to the Inland Revenue because it is quite impossible at present, and no attempt is made, to keep any check on what is won or lost in these casinos. My £50 just goes down and disappears for ever into eternal night. No one has any account of it, least of all the Inland Revenue. I feel that it should be a highly important part of the resident inspector's duty to keep a thorough check in detail of the account, of every club, and regulations could make this perfectly feasible. The additional Inland Revenue received, from even two or three major clubs, which otherwise might be evaded, might well pay the salaries of all the inspectors appointed under the Bill.
I do not wish it to be thought that I oppose the Bill, which has been greatly strengthened in Committee in another place, and I hope that it will be strengthened still further in its passage through your Lordships' House. I welcome many of the provisions, in particular those relating to cheques and credit, which are important. It is clear that great thought has been given to the Bill, that grave inherent problems have been tackled manfully, and that safeguards have been provided which can be adequate if they are fully used. My Lords, I hope that they will be.
5.18 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to declare an interest. I happen to be a director of Crockford's, the well-known London club, which as your Lordships doubtless are aware offers facilities for gambling to its members. But I should like to say right away that this in no way influences the short remarks I wish to make this afternoon. I personally welcome this Bill and con rider that the Government are going about things in the right way. I think that the idea of having the men on the Board

891
detached and uninfluenced is an acceptable one and can have only the most meritorious effects.
If people wish to gamble, one wishes them to do so in a controlled, supervised atmosphere and so far as possible one wishes to stop them from frequenting undesirable clubs of an unsavoury nature. However, there is one aspect of the Bill which disturbs me to a certain extent, and it is on that point that I should like to make a few remarks. It is the question of overseas visitors. I understand that it is intended to introduce a regulation in the Bill whereby overseas visitors will have to register in writing on the premises if they desire to gamble in any particular club. They will then have to wait for a period of 48 hours before they are able to play in that club. Of course, some rule of this nature exists already, in that everybody is supposed to register 24 hours before becoming a member of a club, although they do not have to do so on the premises. This is all very fine, but surely what will happen, in practice, will be that visitors coming to this country and only staying for perhaps two or three days will be greatly inconvenienced by these new regulations.
Let us try to follow what will happen in practice. A man comes to England he knows there is gambling in London, and he wishes to gamble. Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing from a moral point of view is beside the point. If he wishes to gamble, he will inevitably do so, because facilities are available. He goes to a reputable gambling club, and is told that he must sign an application form and then wait for 48 hours. He says that he is leaving in two or three days, and he is told: "We are sorry, but there is nothing that can be done, because this is the law." Obviously, he will then make inquiries as to where he can gamble right away, and he will be sent by the porter of the hotel, or an acquaintance possibly, to a less desirable and shady gambling club.
The Government may think that when the new Bill is brought into effect all shady and undesirable gambling clubs will cease to exist. But in practice one cannot be sure of this. Where there is a demand, unfortunately there is a supply. I understand the thinking about
892
this 48-hour ban on visitors gambling. I think the Government are anxious to avoid large groups of people coming to this country for the sole purpose of gambling—I believe the technical term for these people is "junkies". I agree that this is undesirable, but it is something that ought to be dealt with by the Gaming Board.
The Gaming Board will be a strong organisation which will have strictly to supervise the running of clubs. The Board will have power to revoke the licence of a club if they consider that it is operating in an undesirable way; so that if such clubs should encourage "junkies", groups of people coming to this country expressly to gamble, they will be in danger of losing their licence. Surely, this should be a matter for the Gaming Board rather than for the making of a general administration rule of a 48-hour ban. This seems to me to be unfair and also financially undesirable—and I will come to that point in a moment.
I should like to make the point that, in practice, any visitor who is personally known to a member of a club will be brought into that club as a genuine visitor. This, again, seems to me to create a bad situation, because people will be invited to clubs on the flimsiest pretext: you know somebody who knows somebody and, therefore, you come in as a visitor, and in that way get round the 48-hour embargo. This seems to me to be undesirable, and likely to lead to malpractice.
Another aspect of this particular point is that we want foreigners in this country to spend money and bring, in foreign currency. I do not wish to bore your Lordships with facts and figures, but there is an association of gambling casinos called the Casino Association, consisting of five well-known gambling clubs, and one of those happens to be Crockfords. Figures are available as to how much foreign currency has been spent in those clubs. One knows that approximately 50 per cent. of money used by foreign visitors is foreign currency. As I think the rough figures are that about £5 million worth of money was gambled in those five clubs in the London area, it means that about £2 to £2½ million in foreign currency was brought into the country and used in

893
that way. It seems that if foreigners are to be restricted in this way a great deal of this money will be lost. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in another place that he would rather that no person came to this country purely for the purposes of gambling; and I understand his view. But I think this particular point should be looked at again and I would ask the Government to reconsider their views on this clause in the Bill.
5.26 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in company with other noble Lords who have taken part in this short and extremely interesting debate, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Stonham for introducing this Bill and explaining its clauses so clearly. As my noble friend has said, it strengthens the 1960 Act, and closes many loopholes in that Act. May I say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Willis in hoping that this really is the last Bill. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has said, this is such a complicated subject that legal experts are able to find many loopholes. Indeed, it is so complicated that I often wonder whether the kind of control that is envisaged is the right way of tackling the subject. I incline to the view put forward by the right reverend Prelate, that probably it would be better to have nationalised casinos run on a municipal basis: in fact, I think this is something we shall have to come to one day.
I have always been most impressed at the way in which casinos are run in France. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, there are only about 150 casinos in France. There are no casinos in the centre of Paris. They are restricted mainly to the seaside resorts, and they have the further advantage that the nature of the game allowed to be played depends on the resort. While baccarat may be permitted in a large city in the South of France, probably a small watering place in Normandy would only be allowed to play boule or a game of that kind. The other advantage is that they are supervised by the police and have their own staff of private detectives. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, you then have the great advantage that you have supervision inside the house itself. With the type of people that one is dealing
894
with under the Bill, I can envisage that the word will soon get around: they will have a man on the street corner, and as soon as the well-known inspector appears, what is going on in the club will not be going on when the inspector gets there.
The Government have opted for the club system and strict control of it, and in my view this Bill is the best way of effecting it. It closes loopholes, prohibits certain games which have been going on in the past, and brings in stricter control of the people running the clubs. One hopes that the effect will be a reduction of from 1,000 or so gaming clubs to about 200 or 300, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Kilbracken that probably even this number is rather too many.
I support entirely what the right reverend Prelate has said about the problem of gambling in this country, and also the Report of the Churches Committee on this subject. I remember being told recently by the manager of a large well-known bank in the West End of Landon what a great problem this was, particularly among the younger generation—those who have possession of large fortunes. Indeed, I believe the days of the Regency bucks were absolutely nothing to what goes on to-day. It really is a social menace and evil, and one that has to be cut down so that temptation is not put in people's way.
I wonder whether we are going to, have enough inspectors. This, of course, is left open in the Bill under Clause 43, but I understand that the Government have in mind about 25 to 30. I hope that this number will be sufficient, but if it is not that the Government will then increase it. I also agree entirely with what was said previously, that these inspectors will need to be of very high calibre.
Clause 10 gives the Board the right to advise the local licensing authorities and to review the whole pattern, but I agree with the Church Committee on Gambling and with what the right reverend Prelate said: that it would really be much better for these licences to be awarded by the Board themselves. I think that the local authorities will, of course, consider this fairly, but there is always the risk of local pressure, campaigns boiling tip in the local Press, and so on, and I think it would be much better if we went for the French system and considered this on

895
a national basis. I would submit that only a central court can do that.
I should like to say a few words about bingo—and here I must declare an interest, since I am connected with a film company which has converted some of its cinemas into bingo clubs because of the demand for this game and also because of the decline in cinema audiences. In these clubs only bingo is played, and there is no "hard" gambling. It is, of course, a very popular game, which appeals mainly to people over 35. I believe that about 5½ million people play bingo regularly. It is indeed the poor man's game of chance. It is of course the only game allowed in the Forces, where, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, it is known as "housey-housey".
When this Bill was first drafted there was no place for bingo in it at all, because the provisions of the Bill would not have permitted bingo in any form. This was recognised by the Home Office, and certain concessions have been made. I should like to pay tribute to the Government who, in their wisdom, have conceded that bingo is a special case. Clause 20 has been included, indeed, to cover this game. Persons under 18 will now, under the Bill, be permitted to enter bingo clubs, unlike the "hard" gambling clubs, provided that they do not play. The joining period has been reduced from 48 to 24 hours, which is of benefit to people on holiday, and the principle of the linked game has been conceded.
There are, however, I suggest, two clauses which still need further consideration in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I think mentioned two matters, and I do not want to go into these in any detail beyond saying that I agree with everything he said. The clause relating to linked bingo will, I think, need looking at very carefully, because I believe that, with the way it is worded at the moment, the mechanics of the game are not going to work. It will be necessary, I agree, to have the prize money of a limited amount but based on the session rather than on the week. But that is a matter we can go into in more detail in Committee.
Also, I am not happy about the fact that bingo is included in the clause which prohibits advertising. I concede that
896
there is a strong case for forbidding advertising in any "hard" gambling, but I think it would be very difficult for owners of bingo clubs to notify their members about the times and places of play, and also about certain facilities and social activities, and I think that there is a case for making an exception for bingo and for simple notification advertising of this kind. Bingo is, after all, a very useful outlet. It is a fairly harmless game, as I think the right reverend Prelate said, and I believe that if we make it too difficult for people to play, if we drive clubs out of existence, then the great danger is that people will move over to "hard" gambling. Apart from those two reservations, my Lords, I welcome the Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
5.36 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I propose to address your Lordships for only a few minutes, mainly I would say to echo some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, with regard to bingo. But, apart from that, I give a most hearty welcome to this Bill. Perhaps one of the reasons why I do is that I lived for a number of years in France where gambling is very effectively controlled; and I would agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Strabolgi, that perhaps there is more merit in gambling at a casino than in gambling at a gaming club.
To come now to this question of bingo, although there has been a proliferation of both gaming and bingo clubs throughout the country since the 1960 Act was passed, bingo differs fundamentally from "hard" gaming. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, the amount of money which one can lose at bingo is comparatively small. It is now a social activity played by some 8 million people. The noble Lord referred to 5½ million, but that is the number of people, I understand, who play regularly. I believe that the others play about once a month.
I understand that throughout the country there are some 2,250 clubs licensed for this game only, and it was estimated that in 1967 there were 260 million admissions to commercial bingo halls, against an estimated 250 million cinema admissions. So one can see that bingo seems to-day to be more popular than cinema, though for my part I am rather more

897
keen on cinema. If, however, one includes the admissions to working men's clubs and other places where bingo is played as part of the evening's entertainment, I understand that the total bingo admissions is a figure probably of the order of 1,000 million per year. So it would seem to be an increasingly popular game. The people who play it, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, are the lower socio-economic groups, mainly people over thirty-five years of age; and they are mainly women. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be aware of the trouble the Government can get into if they do not take into consideration the wishes of women.
With regard to this new clause which the Government inserted in the other place, Clause 20, I believe, like Lord Strabolgi, that it will be impossible to operate the linked games; and thereby members will be deprived of a very popular part of their evening's entertainment. The two points in the clause which make the game impracticable are, first, the fact that the total pool is limited to £1,000 in any week, because this, I believe, will cause severe administrative problems. I cannot see how in effect it can be limited. Do you limit the number of books that are sold, or do you say to people who are queueing outside, "I am very sorry. You can't come in now"? I am just wondering how in effect this provision can be achieved.
Also, it seems to me to be a difficulty, in so far as the winner of a game must be declared before proceeding to the next game, which in effect means that there would have to be an open telephone line between the halls. I should have thought that that was not very practicable. One organisation has, I believe, asked the Home Office to regulate the game by means of fixing a maximum prize per game, which would be paid out, as opposed to a maximum pool. This would be a far more effective way of limiting the prizes and at the same time ensuring easy control in regard to meeting legal requirements in relation to stake money.
In conclusion, I must say that I have come rather to the same conclusion with regard to bingo as that reached by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi: that if people are deprived of this facility of playing a linked game. and also have no opportunity of collecting a reasonable
898
amount—that is, a sum of up to £1,000, which in effect is modest by comparison with premium bond prizes—there is a possibility that they will be tempted to involve themselves in "hard" gambling which would thus defeat the object of this Bill. With those few remarks, my Lords, I certainly welcome this Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I wish to speak for only a moment or two. I regard myself as wholly unqualified to participate as a normal contributor in this extraordinarily well informed debate. I lack the personal experience alluded to by my noble fiend Lord Jessel, the right reverend Prelate and by virtually all the other noble Lords who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Derwent fully intended to make a speech, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, from this Dispatch Box, welcoming the Bill, asking a number of questions and promising his co-operation and the cooperation of my noble friends in improving the Bill in Committee and, where necessary, strengthening it. A day or two ago he was here in his place, but yesterday he was taken ill and it became quite impossible for him to fulfil his intention. If no one were to speak from the Opposition Front Bench in the circumstances it might be supposed, quite wrongly, that we were not sufficiently interested to take part. That is why I am speaking now.
I became Home Secretary not so many months after the 1960 Act came into operation. I quickly made up my mind that amending legislation to recast the gaming part of it was going to be a necessity. It was equally clear to me that up to that time we had not enough experience to see for certain what form the amendments of the 1960 Act should take. Moreover, there were a number of cases awaiting decision in the courts; and this was another factor rendering it impossible to take early decisions. It does not surprise me at all that it Las taken from then until now for the present Government to see on what lines they should prepare legislation for presentation to Parliament. I would only say that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was overestimating when he said at the end of his speech that there might be two years' delay after the

899
passing of this Act before it came into full operation.
I was taken with the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to the alligator, and perhaps I may just add this to the allegory of the alleged alligator. It is a well-known characteristic of both crocodiles and alligators that if you put a young one into a fairly small tank it will grow to the size of the tank and no larger; but if, even when it has reached a considerable age, you let it out of the tank it will then surprise you by growing rapidly to its full size of 10 or 12 ft., or longer. Let us remember that characteristic of the alligator. If the alligator gets out again I trust that the Gaming Board will be both knowledgeable and swift enough to check its further growth, because we must not make a mistake a second time.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the 1960 Act had been introduced with the most touching innocence. I know what he meant, but I should like just to put this gloss on those words of his. The Bill which became the 1960 Act was introduced by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who has been a personal friend of mine for a great many years. He has been described by many adjectives in his Parliamentary career, but I cannot remember that ever, as a Parliamentarian, he has been described disparagingly as "innocent" The truth is that officials, Ministers and Members of both Houses of Parliament were outwitted in 1960. In this field, where very large profits can be made, certain people set their wits against Parliament and they have won. Now we have got to defeat them.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his references to his noble friend Lord Derwent. I very much regret the reasons why Lord Derwent cannot take part in this debate to-day, and we all wish him a speedy recovery.
There have been nine speeches in this debate and every speaker has welcomed the Bill—eight of them warmly, and my noble friend Lord Kilbracken (for quite good reasons) lukewarmly, but it has been generally approved. In the last
900
two or three years I have been described in your Lordships' House as an expert on a good many subjects, including abortion and sexual offences. I have had no personal experience of either£ I have no doubt that within the next hour, when dealing with the Theatres Bill, I shall be described as an expert on obscenity; and now the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said that I am an expert on gambling. I think horse racing is a wonderful sport—better over the sticks than on the flat—but my last visit to the Derby was in 1931, when I saw Cameronian win. Indeed that was the last and only visit. I have never played bingo, although when I was a Member of another place my constituency Labour Party tried to inveigle me in; but somehow bingo has not for me the fascination it has for other people, and I can only hope that my lack of knowledge of this fascinating subject does not reflect too much in what I now have to say.
In moving the Second Reading I referred to the fact that we should be dealing with this in a new form of Committee—a form new to your Lordships' House—and we shall then have an opportunity not only for detailed discussion but discussions in a special atmosphere which will encourage investigation in a detailed way, and in a completely non-partisan and objective way. Therefore, because we have such a big programme of Business still to get through to-night, it would not be doing a service to your Lordships if I attempted to deal in any great detail with points that have been raised. At the same time, I think I should say one or two things in answer to the questions that have been put to me.
The noble Lord. Lord Jessel, raised the question of club membership and asked whether the practice that we now propose would be retroactive. The answer is, Yes, because in our view membership, so-called, of a gaming club is very largely a fiction, and we want to bring firmly home to the clubs their responsibility for scrutinising members for whose good behaviour they will be responsible. He raised a point about chemin-de-fer. It is essentially a player's game, as he himself said, and there is no need for the club to take part; and we do not believe the players would agree to club representation, especially as in the circumstances it would occur only when the proprietors

901
were, as it were, holding the bank. But in any case if the practice developed we would stop it by regulation under Clause 13.
A point was raised about delays. I think my noble friend Lord Willis spoke about the possibility of very bad cases where a club, as it were, drags on for a period of eight weeks. With regard to immediate closure of clubs, application can be made by the police at once for cancellation of the licence, and if people are not warned by that, pending hearing of the application, they certainly should be. But in our view closing without a hearing, without them being allowed to say anything on their own behalf, would be wrong because it would be a prejudgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, also raised a question about the limitation of two gaming machines in. as he called them, bona fide members' clubs. We think possibly two is at least one too many, and we are already overdoing it with two—and if for no other reason because I think of the dreadful picture which my noble friend Lord Willis painted of that hot smoky room in Australia with people standing fascinated. I was going to say that I have never been in a gaming club myself, but I had forgotten that ten days ago I went into one on the Isle of Man. I went at three o'clock in the afternoon, when they were not playing. It was a special visit, because I am responsible under the Home Secretary for the Isle of Man. The one thing that depressed me more than anything was the long row of machines against the wall. They did not seem to much sinister as unutterably stupid. I think, despite the fact that the machines make money, two is enough.
A number of noble Lords in addition to Lord Jessel raised the question of bingo, and particularly linked bingo. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi referred to the fact that in another place we had already made concessions with regard to bingo since the Bill was originally introduced. We think that this £1,000 prize is already a considerable concession, because linked bingo—let us face it—is not a game, it is a lottery; it is far more of a lottery than a lottery itself. And indeed the £1,000 allowed for linked bingo is already more than the maximum we allow for charitable lotteries. Again,
902
this linked bingo, which enables many thousands of people to join in a single so-called game, is simply with the object of enhancing the prizes. That is the negation of what bingo was originally conceived to be, which is a friendly, modest, intimate neighbourly game. You cannot call it a game when there are perhaps 5 million people up and down the country just drawing a number. That is not a game.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said that if we limit the prize to £1,000 it will cause severe administrative problems. It might also cause less people to spend a shilling on it and less people to have the pseudo pleasure of competing for one of these prizes. This is something which would leave us not considerably disturbed. Bingo has been going on for a long time. Linked bingo is a comparatively recent innovation, if I can call it that. It was enjoyed by many before, and I hope will continue to be enjoyed in a friendly way by many in the future after this Bill becomes law.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He said that linked bingo was a lottery. I cannot understand what is wrong with a lottery. If I understand it aright, the Government, provided they get the approval of both Houses of Parliament, are proposing to introduce a Bill which will make it possible to run a lottery as a lottery is run in France.
LORD STONHAM: That may be another Bill, another day and another set of circumstances. And if the noble Lord is referring to the terms of the Private Member's Bill which was introduced in another place but did not make progress, I must say that. I think it will be a very different thing indeed, even if it is a national lottery, and even what he hopes comes about the end product of that lottery will be very different indeed. I think, however, that on this question of bingo we have conceded as much as we can, and in fact, within the limits imposed by this Bill, it will be more a companionable and friendly and sociable game. I have seen people pouring out of bingo halls, which were formerly cinemas, and they are obviously happy; they obviously enjoy it. But I do not think they enjoy only the excitement; they enjoy—particularly a great many women—the company, too. But

903
one cannot enjoy the company of linked bingo; it covers the whole country.
With regard to the question of advertising bingo, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Willis, there will not be the need to advertise if the great prize is no longer there. And there will certainly be no difficulty about the organiser of a local affair informing his customers because that will not be advertising and will not come under the restrictions of this Bill. I think this is a perfectly satisfactory division.
I am sure we were all very impressed with the very thoughtful and knowledgeable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I must say, however, that I found it a very intriguing picture of the right reverend Prelate going incognito, as he said, into a gaming hell: I wonder if he was as incognito as he thought. The right reverend Prelate (who mentioned to me a few moments ago that he might not be able to stay, as he had to catch a train) asked me two very important questions.
The first was whether I was satisfied that it would be possible drastically to reduce the number of clubs, and to do it reasonably quickly. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also put to me, when he referred to my mention of a possibility of a period of two years. I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, licensing can hardly be completed before the end of next year, 1969, and therefore we could not bring in the controls before then. That is about 18 months from now. Other restrictions, on machines and so on, will take a further six months. So we think that if this Bill becomes law it will take about two years to implement it entirely.
The right reverend Prelate also asked me to look again at the licensing system, which he regards as cumbersome. He feels that our proposals leave too much room for "to-ing" and "fro-ing", and he asked how we are to avoid having too many clubs in one area. This was the main matter raised by many noble Lords on this Bill. My noble friends Lord Willis and Lord Kilbracken, and others, regard this as a vital question, because at least three of my noble friends, and indeed the right reverend Prelate,
904
thought that we ought to have nationalised gaming houses. Others admired greatly the French system.
But, my Lords, there is an enormous difference between the situation with which we are confronted and the situation which started in France. They started virtually de novo. They were not confronted with a situation covering at least 900 gaming establishments My noble friend Lord Kilbracken said 1,500. He may well be right. We say about 900. In our view, without grave risk of driving gaming houses underground, we could not nationalise this industry now. It is possible that if my noble friends are right, and if in ten years' time we have failed to achieve what we think we have achieved by this Bill, we may have to take other measures. But for the present we believe that we are adopting the right method; that is, of first legalising and then controlling, and we believe that our control measures in this Bill are likely to be much more effective than noble Lords apparently suppose.
The question has been raised of the number of inspectors. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken suggested that we should have an inspector in every gaming establishment, and he put forward the most interesting suggestion that we should increase the Excise charge for a club to cover the extra cost that this would involve. He also suggested that, in effect, every inspector should be a qualified accountant who would keep a close watch on the books. These are points that we might look at, but, I would submit, not now, not in connection with this Bill, and not until we have had experience of how these proposals work out. We agree that the inspectors must be of high calibre and well paid, and we shall depend a great deal on them. But they will not be alone. They will be backed by the Board. They will be associated and assisted in their work when assistance is necessary, by the police. In fact, in some respects they will assist and advise each other.
The central point which the right reverend Prelate put forward is that we should have made the Gaming Board the sole instrument for licensing; that it should not be a joint effort between the Gaming Board, which will, as it were, yet the applicants as well as those behind

905
them, for character, and the local justices who, having regard to the framework of advice which they will receive from the Board, would then grant licences to those who had been certified, as it were, by the Board, as being trustworthy and honest people.
First of all, we think there is going to be a great shake-out and reduction of clubs by the operation of the provisions of the Bill itself. For example, the restrictions in the Bill on cabaret clubs, which are also gambling clubs, will in our view reduce the number almost at once by as many as half when they are no longer permitted—
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to intervene, may I say that they will give up the cabaret rather than the gaming.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is so. But the people running these clubs are in it for the money. They are in it for the profit, as my noble friends fear. This is a part of the Bill where we shall attack them. When my noble friend spoke of one man—and not the largest—getting £650,000 net profit, he may well be right. There may be others who are making larger profits. But in this Bill we have powers which will enable us to make serious inroads into those profits first of all, by setting out the rates of profit per game which will be possible or allowable, and the charges on them. The operators will be mulcted in a good many ways. I agree that there must be control in regard to the end product. The tax man will come in, and the operators will be dealt with in various ways. If they are a corporation they will be subject to corporation tax, and the relevant provisions will apply in regard to limited liability companies. I agree that there are enormous profits in this business. That is an aspect that we have to look at carefully.
But the main and important thing that we are looking at, the central purpose of this Bill, is to reduce the volume of gambling, to cut down the number of clubs by 70 to 75 per cent. Although it is true that this will make those who have the licences, those who are left, virtually in the position, in the graphic phrase, of "having a licence to print money", we shall also take care of that. The other way in which I hope the
906
numbers will be reduced will be by the prosecutions that will be taking; place under existing legislation. There is no need for me to detail them. The Times gave details to-day, and my noble friend repeated them.
We expect these clubs to use the whole machinery of appeal. We cannot prevent them from doing so, of course. The proceedings are likely to be protracted, and if one device is declared illegal there are no doubt many others which they will be prepared to fall back on and which, in turn, will need to be tested. The situation may be rather more harassing for the existing clubs; but if experience is a guide they, or most of them, will continue to spin matters out in one way or another, until they see whether or not they are to be licensed and the new dispensation is brought in under the Bill. Nevertheless, we think that because of these prosecutions there may be a considerable shake-out of clubs during this interval, and in our view this will be no bad thing.
On the question of powers of the Board, as your Lordships are aware the Bill requires the Board to make an annual report to Parliament, and we should want those reports to be as comprehensive and informative as possible. I should be willing to consider it Committee any ways that may be thought requisite for strengthening the Bill on these lines. As to the question of demand, my noble friend Lord Kilbracken committed himself to the view that we needed only 30 or 40 gaming clubs in London and some 60 to 80 in the United Kingdom as a whole, compared to the 200 or 300 I have mentioned. He may well be right, but whether it is 80 or whether it is 200 or 300 it must be related to demand, and it is the justices who will be in the best position to say, on the advice they get from the Board—and on this the justices will be advised by the Board, and they will certainly take heed.
We think that the attitude which was expressed by the right reverend Prelate, supported by at least half the noble Lords who have spoken, is influenced by current practice, particularly in France, but as I have already indicated that is liable to be dangerously misleading in the quite different circumstances which are now in existence here. For example,

907
with the Board coming new to this work, it would take months and months to prepare a credible and reliable scheme of distribution of licences for the whole country in consultation only with the local authorities and the police. Therefore, we do not think this is something that could, or even should be attempted, because of the long delay, but it is for the Board to advise the justices and the justices, within the framework of that advice, to do their work. If the Board had to do the whole job, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, the inspectors would not be numbered in tens, they would be numbered in hundreds and hundreds.
The noble Lord, Lord Foley, mentioned that he was a director of Crock-fords, and he gave a personal welcome to the Bill. He thought that the Government were on the right lines, but he strongly questioned the rule in the Bill about overseas visitors, which requires them to register in person with a club 48 hours before they are allowed to play. Well, my Lords, we feel very firmly about this. The noble Lord. Lord Foley, is quite right we wish to discourage the junketing gaming trips organised from the United States, and we have no wish to have London regarded as the gaming centre of the world. The noble Lord mentioned earning £6½ million in foreign currency by this means, and earnings of foreign currency are, or should he, welcomed but in our view to earn it in this way would be paying too high a price. It might be regrettable if visitors who are coming here from overseas for four days are inconvenienced for two days. That is too bad—they will just have to wait for two days before they can gamble if they are going to comply with the law.
My Lords, I hope that I have answered at least all the important questions addressed to me. I am most grateful for the very considerable, in fact complete measure of support which the House has given to the Bill. I look forward to discussing in detail in Committee Amendments to meet the points which have been suggested, and I know that we shall all do our best together still further to improve this very good Bill.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him
908
whether he has any comment to make about the actual size of the Board. I did mention the point about the three members.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I noted what my noble friend said, and certainly this is something which we will consider in the later stages of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

THEATRES BILL
6.15 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of censorship Of the theatre]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: There is a point I should like to raise on Clause 1 with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I would ask the noble Lord what is the position with regard to, for instance, some universities? Under, I think it was, Section 10 of the Theatres Act 1843 the Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge Universities were given special powers in regard to theatres in their respective cities, but those powers, of course, will be abolished. Before we let this Bill be enacted I think we ought to be clear in our minds as to the position at the universities with regard to the performance of plays by the theatrical societies in different colleges. I do not know whether there is one at Balliol, but if there is the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I am sure, will be anxious to see that the Fellows of Balliol are not liable to prosecution under this Bill for having connived at or consented to or permitted the performance of a play which does not conform to the requirements of this Bill.
I have made that observation and it may appear somewhat facetious, but there is, I understand, real concern about the position of the university authorities if this Bill is enacted in its present form. Presumably the police powers will be

909
exercised, or excercisable, in relation to theatrical productions of universities just as they are in relation to any other theatrical performance. I can see in these days some universities being liable to a considerable amount of difficulty. In that respect, perhaps the position has not changed so radically since the days when the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I were both at the university—the incursions of the police, legitimate though they may have been, were bitterly resented when they embarked upon university territory.
I do not want to press this matter now to any great degree, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, would say that between now and the Report stage he will look into it with a view to seeing whether anything can be done to clarify the position, and in particular to clarify the position of the university authorities in relation, for instance, to the production of plays at places such as the Oxford Playhouse. Perhaps similar considerations apply to all amateur dramatic societies. I shall be grateful to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has to say about that, but I have risen to my feet to draw attention particularly to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, where I think a special situation arises by virtue of the repeal which is effected by this particular clause of the Theatres Act 1843.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Viscount first asked me the question as to what I thought would be the position supposing that the Bill in its present form passed into law. The advice that I would respectfully offer the Committee on that matter and the answer I should make to the noble and learned Viscount would be this. The Bill as now drafted, and in particular Clause 2 and the other relevant clauses, would apply to, say, repertory companies and amateur companies at Oxford and Cambridge, and the effect would be that the powers of enforcement contained in the Bill would be operative in relation to the universities. That is the advice that I would give "off the cuff"—I think that it is right. The matter to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred has come to my notice only in the last day or two, but I accept at once that it must be carefully considered. The noble and learned Viscount asked if between now
910
and Report I would give thought to it, and of course I will. I will go into the matter, although I do not give an undertaking that I shall be able to put forward any specific proposal. I will certainly study the matter, and I think that is all the noble and learned Viscount asked for.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should like him to deal, perhaps more precisely than is done in the Bill with the responsibilities of the university authorities in relation to the production of such plays. I have not all the words of the Bill in my mind, but as it stands at the moment I think that the extent to which university authorities would be responsible in relation to the production of a play produced at particular college is open to great doubt. They are bodies corporate which have particular responsibilities. I am not critical of the Bill in this respect., but it may be desirable to insert words to make clear to what degree they are to be regarded as principals when a play is produced in a theatre under university control or by a dramatic society in one of the colleges.
LORD STOW HILL: I suppose that the question would be one of fact, to be decided in each case, as to whether the particular Fellow of a college concerned could be said to have directed or presented a play within the meaning of Clause 2. The answer to that question would differ according to the actual circumstances of the case; but I accept that the matter should be clarified at least and that thought must be given to it.
LORD GOODMAN: Would the noble Lord, in clarifying the point, be good enough to consider the wider considerations in regard to the position of the amateur theatre? It would be unfortunate if it were suggested that one feudal institution was being put into difficulty by the removal of another feudal institution.
LORD STOW HILL: I agree, Obviously the matter has to be considered in a wider context. One cannot single out particular feudal institutions for investigation. I should have thought that amateur performances would be subject to the scope of Clause 2, but clearly the matter which the noble Lord has raised must be carefully considered.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not want to draw any invidious distinction between feudal and non-feudal institutions. I am concerned to see whether we can get some degree of precision because of the particular relationship of colleges and universities. There may be great doubt how the question of fact would fall to be resolved in particular instances.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful for what my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, has said; but I think I should say that the Government's understanding of the Bill as it at present stands is that universities would be in no different position from anybody else and that dramatic societies would be expected to comply with the Act. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Stow Hill that the question of who presents the play will depend entirely on the facts of a particular occasion or situation.
LORD STOW HILL: I hope I may leave the matter in a clear situation if I say that my undertaking is to study it, and I do not go any further than that. I say that to both noble Lords who have addressed the Committee on these two matters.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has rather fogged the issue. I am not suggesting that dramatic societies themselves should not be responsible like any other body under the Bill. The point which is of difficulty is the degree to which the university itself or the college itself is responsible in relation to a play produced in a college or in a theatre. It is a question of fact and depends on the meaning given to the word "presentation". That is what I asked to be looked at, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will do so. I understand, of course, that it is without any commitment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prohibition of presentation of obscene performances of plays]:
6.27 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD moved, in subsection (4)(a), after "morality" to insert "or for a conspiracy to corrupt public morals". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with what I ven-
912
ture to think is a rather unfortunate situation which has already arisen under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Unless the words which I put forward in this Amendment are inserted in Clause 2 of the Bill, it seems quite clear that a similar, and I think, unfortunate, result will occur in this Bill.
The purpose of the 1959 Act was to substitute a new statutory offence of obscenity for the old Common Law offences and the Act of 1857 which was at the same time repealed. Unfortunately, in the celebrated case known as the "Ladies' Directory case"—the proper title is Shaw v. the Director of Public Prosecutions—which was decided by this House in its judicial capacity in 1962, it was held that there is an offence known to the law as a conspiracy to corrupt morals, and, moreover, that that offence was not excluded by the terms of Section 2(4) of the 1959 Act, on the ground, no doubt quite correctly, that the real offence in a case of conspiracy depends on the agreement and not on the publication.
That decision was widely criticised at the time on the basis that it involved a rather unwarranted form of judicial legislation, and there was a very strong dissent in the case by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, who pointed out that the offence of criminal conspiracy was a creation of the Star Chamber and that this was not a very secure foundation for developing our modern law. He also pointed out that there is a wide difference of opinion as to how far the law ought to be invoked to punish immoral acts, and that, in any event, Parliament was the proper place to settle this question.
The point that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is that, if these words are not added to the Bill, the result will be that the offence of conspiracy to corrupt morals will equally be applicable under this Bill; and, in the result, the carefully worked-out safeguards to try to protect the theatre against unwarranted prosecutions will go by the board. Those safeguards are principally three in number: under Clause 2(1) by the new definition of "obscenity", which is in line with the 1959 Act and which, for instance, involves the notion that the work must be taken as a whole; under Clause 3, which introduces the definition of "public good", which is not applicable to the

913
Common Law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals; and under Clause 8, which provides for the prior consent of the Attorney General. So the position would be that if the authorities saw fit to rely upon the Common Law offence, all the carefully devised safeguards of this Bill would not be applicable in such a prosecution.
I therefore submit that it would be right and proper to exclude the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and that that is fully in accord with the intention of this Bill which, by the provisions of Clause 2(4), purports to exclude offences at Common Law but unfortunately, as I have said, in the same terms as were employed in the 1959 Act and, therefore, in terms which are inadequate to exclude this offence of conspiracy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, after ("morality") insert ("or for a conspiracy to corrupt public morals")—(Lord Lloyd of Hampstead.)
LORD GOODMAN: I should briefly like to support this Amendment very strongly. The whole purpose of this legislation is to procure as much certainty as is possible after the replacement of the Lord Chamberlain. The great merit of the Lord Chamberlain, whatever arguments there may be against the exercise of his office, was that there was absolute certainty. If you had a licence you knew that you could produce a play and there was no argument about it. If you did not have a licence you knew that you could not produce the play and were exposed to a prosecution if you did. That was an absolutely clear-cut position. If that certainty is being removed, anyone concerned with the production of plays should at least know that the measure of his offence is contained within this Bill and that there is not lurking somewhere some weird Common Law offence that has, as it turned out, been devised in the House of Lords and not at all found as a matter of Statute or been deemed to have existed before the judgment of the House of Lords in the case to which the noble Lord has referred. I think that on any principle there might be strong objections to the creation of new criminal offences at this stage, unless created by both Houses of Parliament. But that is quite a different question.
914
My reason for supporting this Amendment is the simple one of certainty. People should know where they stand. They should know that on reading this Bill the position will be clear-cut and that their situation is defined by the Bill. They should not then have to look elsewhere to ascertain, with the assistance of very recondite research, what other offences they might happen to commit. I do not think there is any sufficient virtue in retaining this offence that can compensate for the loss of certainty that will remain by preserving it in this context.
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, have raised a point of extreme importance and difficulty. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he says that one should do one's best to achieve certainty here. Your Lordships' house approved Clause 2 on Second Reading, and the whole basis of Clause 2 is that a new offence is created in it—the offence of producing a play which is obscene within the meaning of that clause—and the playwright, the producer and the person who directs it is to be at risk of that criminal liability. As a compensating factor, in subsection (4) the clause exonerates him from liability to prosecution for the rather analogous Common Law offences. Your Lordships would probably find no difficulty in agreeing in principle that, the clause being so worded and having been approved in that form, it would be extremely unfortunate if, owing to an omission, the playwright, the producer or the person who directs could find himself, notwithstanding the protection which he thought he was getting under subsection (4), faced with the risk of a prosecution for conspiracy for doing precisely the thing; for the doing of which subsection (4) purported to excuse him.
I think that the proposal that both noble Lords have put before the Committee is one which has a great deal to commend it. What I ask my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to do, if they would be so good, is to accept my personal undertaking that I will give anxious thought to this point between now and the Report stage of this Bill. If they will allow me to do so, I shall

915
leave the matter in this state: that, personally, I feel that their arguments cannot be answered except by a change of some form introducing into the scope of the Bill that which they have in mind. It seems to me that, without that, the Bill is incomplete.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill for his most helpful suggestion. Speaking for myself, and I hope your Lordships will take the same view, I find his proposal entirely acceptable and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should not like to part with this clause without expressing my deep regret that, once again, one finds in a Bill a definition of "obscenity" which, to my mind, is most unsatisfactory and most unrealistic. I know it is based upon the observations of a learned judge in a case decided in, I think, the 1880s, but to say that the meaning of the word "obscene" is that it tends to deprave or corrupt is, with the greatest respect, not a very accurate definition. It was bad enough when that definition was put into a Statute in the Obscene Publications Act, but now we are extending it to apply to theatrical performances.
If you are dealing with obscenity generally, I think no one would say that a statue which everyone would regard as obscene ever had the slightest tendency to deprave or corrupt. I wonder whether you will ever be able to establish that a particular theatrical performance has that tendency. I have always doubted very much, certainly until the Moors case, whether the reading of pornographic books by depraved persons could have a tendency to deprave or corrupt, or whether they were depraved anyway. But here we are applying this test to theatrical performances. I doubt whether that burden of proof will ever be capable of being discharged, and I wanted to take this opportunity of expressing those doubts and my regret that what I regard as an unsatisfactory definition of the word "obscene" should once again be inserted in a Bill.
916
Again, I am disappointed at the contrast between subsection (1) of Clause 2 and subsection (1) of Clause 3. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said on Second Reading that this was taken, as it is, from the Obscene Publications Act 1959. He said that it had been on the Statute Book for nine years and had been used on a number of occasions, and by general consent had been found to be eminently workable. I am afraid that the general consent does not include me. Nothing can be more uncertain than the operation, linked together, of those two matters in determining whether or not there should be a conviction. If you start with the assumption that the play is obscene, as tending, taking its effect as a whole, to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to attend it, can it really ever be said in fact that it is for the public good that that obscenity, that play with that tendency, should be produced? Yet by subsection (1) of Clause 3, despite the fact that the play is obscene within the definition in subsection (1) of Clause 2, it is to be a defence to prove that that obscene play was acted
"for the public good on the ground that it was in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning".
I know that we have not the Bishops here to-day as we had them a few days ago, but one knows from past experience how it is possible to get some reverend gentlemen to give evidence in the most surprising circumstances that they think that certain pieces of literature, which have been regarded in the past as of a pornographic nature, are published for the public good. I have always found that very difficult to believe. But here again, in this Bill, which is modelled on the Obscene Publications Act, if you start with the assumption that it is established that the play is obscene, and so cannot be for the public good because it tends to deprave or corrupt, then the court has to say, "Yes, but it is a defence if, not-withstanding that, it was
"for the public good on the ground that it was in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art or of literature or learning".
Can it really be for the public good, on any of those grounds, to produce something which in fact has the tendency to deprave or corrupt?
But what I think is much more serious is this. It is impossible to balance the one against the other. They do not

917
really balance. In some cases a court will take the view that the defence prevails; in another part of the country, in, say, another magistrates' court, you will get the view, perhaps in relation to the same play, that it does not prevail. One of the real difficulties (and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to it just now) is that the correlation between these two tests involves, as I see it, a very great degree of uncertainty; and one advantage—and I support what the noble Lord said—of the Lord Chamberlain's having the onerous burden, which he has discharged so successfully for many years, is that once he had discharged it people knew where they were. I cannot help but feel that if this Bill is passed in its present form a great many people will regret that the Lord Chamberlain has ceased to perform his functions, and a great many people connected with the theatre will feel extremely uncertain as to their position should they venture to put on a play which might be regarded by some as obscene within the definition with the uncertainty that they can ever establish that something which was obscene was in the public good in the interests of drama.
It is too late for me to seek to amend this—indeed, I do not think I could at short notice—but I do not think it right to let this Bill pass without making these observations, and particularly was I tempted to do so by the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that it was by general consent found to be a satisfactory test. If it is a general consent, I am again in a minority.
LORD STOW HILL: I am very sorry indeed to have tempted the noble and learned Viscount to such distaste for this definition. He made, as he always does, a speech which was backed by the great authority of his learning and experience. It was a speech which possibly your Lordships might think would have been, if I may say so with respect, rather more appropriate on Second Reading. Your Lordships' House has approved Clause 2. Clause 2 is foundational to the Bill. The whole point is that in place of the decision—the ipse dixit, as it has been rather irreverently described—of the Lord Chamberlain, Parliament has substituted —or is, I hope I may say, in process of substituting—a definition of what a play-
918
wright, a producer, may put upon the stage and what he may not.
I always hesitate very greatly before I express any difference in view from the noble and learned Viscount, but I must say that I am very sorry he has formed the view he has. I totally disagree with him. I think that this scheme, which is, as it were, adapted from the Obscene Publications Act 1959, has been Shown to work well. It is an endeavour by the community to answer an extremely difficult social problem. One must consider the desire of the artist to express himself and the effect upon society of the method of expression which he chooses. Simply to state the problem in that form indicates its difficulty. It seems to me—and I still am of the view, although I have listened most carefully to the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount—that Clause 2(2) does its task most admirably, and I think I should persist in that view
Looking at subsection (1) it is true that you have to show a lot before you can establish that, within the meaning of subsection (1), a play is obscene. So you should, because, as has been said over and over again, both inside and outside Parliament, people differ so very much as to what is permissible in that regard and what is not. There has to be something which cannot be easily, as it were, overstepped by accident. When inhibition is put upon the exercise of free speech in this country it should go only as far as is absolutely necessary.
What Parliament is in process of doing here (I hope I may say "in process", because I very much hope that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament) is to say, "You, the playwright, you who produce plays, may put upon the stage what you think appropriate so long as it does not actually harm society". That is the effect, as I understand it, produced by the words of which the noble and learned Viscount was so critical—that a play is obscene if:
"taken as a whole, its effect was such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who were likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to attend it".
You have to envisage the audience. You have to envisage the effect on them, and upon society as a whole, of what is produced on the stage.
As I understand the motives of those who have put this Bill before Parliament,

919
it is not enough simply to say that somebody does not like a play or that somebody's taste is offended. If people's taste is offended, there are other ways in which they can give expression to their dislike. There is the Press; there are the columns of the critics; there is the opportunity to stay away from the play if you do not like it. But what Parliament is in process of forbidding is the putting on the stage of something which will actually harm society; and surely that is where the line should be drawn. Short of that line it must be a matter of public controversy as to what the playwright may do and what he may not do.
Human genius would have been very much impoverished if, over the centuries, the clamps on the expression of human genius had been too great. We are a highly civilised society now, in 1968, despite some of our manifestations, or those of some of us, from time to time, and it seems to me that it is not putting too much upon the taste of society to say that so long as you put something on the stage which does not actually do harm to society as a whole—that is to say, impair its instincts to behave itself and to repress its anti-social inclinations, such as they may be—then you are not transgressing the law.
The noble and learned Viscount expressed doubt as to whether that definition could be married in, in effect, with what is said in Clause 3(1). Of course, it is a matter of balance. You may get something which, looked at by reference to the test whether it may have a depraving effect, may seem to have such an effect. But it may be a work of very great merit; and what the courts are required to do, and what the jury is required to do, is to weigh up the difference. It is a balance—so many of these things are. If you have a play or something which has very great artistic merit, for whatever reason it is thought to be of great value, one has to ask the question propounded in Clause 3(1) and say, "Looking at its depraving effect on the one side and considering, nevertheless, the inspiration and possibly the genius that inspired it on the other side, should we regard it as something the production of which has transgressed the criminal law?"
I respectfully put it to the Committee that those who framed both the 1959 Act
920
and this Bill have taken a notable step forward in trying to put to rest this difficult and perplexing problem which faces every society in every age. I think this is a most workable—and, if I may say so, I would add the word "admirable"—definition of what society can and cannot allow upon the stage. I greatly hope that the noble and learned Viscount as the years go by and this Act is put into operation will find that he is able to modify the adverse views to which he has just given expression.
LORD GOODMAN: I think this is a matter entirely appropriate to the Second Reading and that it is, in a sense, an indulgence that we should proceed with it; but in view of the turn of the debate there is one word which ought to be said for the record by some of us who are concerned with this matter in other fields. It is that in the extraordinarily effective and felicitous reply that the noble Lord has just made, he has left out an important consideration. It is not whether the 1959 Act was or was not the pluperfect means of devising this matter, but that it would not have been practicable to produce an Act for the theatre at this stage that did not follow the pattern of the 1959 Act. My view is that there are grave imperfections in the 1959 Act. I sympathise with many of the things that the noble and learned Viscount said. There are considerable illogicalities and inconsistencies in trying to establish that a work alleged to be depraved and corrupt can, at the same time, have social merit. I think that this is logically impossible, despite the persuasive words of the noble Lord. It is an impossibility.
The fact remains that this Bill is based on the previous Act. If it had not been so based, then what we should have needed to do was to review obscenity across the whole field of media of communications. That might well have taken many years. It is very sensible indeed that what we do for the moment is to follow the pattern of the 1959 Act, bearing in mind that it has shortcomings and that the time is perhaps not too far off when those shortcomings need to be repaired.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I did not speak on Second Reading: I do not think I was able to be present at the time. I make no apology for making my protest at the Committee stage on what are

921
Committee points. I listened with the greatest attention to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I have not put down any Amendments to this clause. But I wanted to make a serious protest in relation to the drafting. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said: my protest applies with equal force, if not greater force, in relation to the wording of the Obscene Publications Act. I think the time has come when over the whole medium of communication the whole question should be examined as to what ought to be the correct interpretation of obscenity.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, did not dissent from the interpretation that I put on these particular provisions. He sought to justify them. I am sure that he holds his view sincerely. I adhere equally sincerely to the criticisms of this particular form that I have made and which I have held ever since the passing of the Obscene Publications Act. It seemed to me wrong then, as it does now, that no matter how corrupting the play or the publication may be, still there will be an acquittal if the jury or the court can be convinced that, notwithstanding the great degree of corruptive influence, none the less the pornography was well written or the play well produced.
LORD STOW HILL: I rise only to say that I hope that the noble and learned Viscount did not think for a second that I was suggesting that he was not sincere in the views that he expressed. Nothing was further from my mind and I hope that no language I used gave that impression.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Defence of public good]:
6.56 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD moved to add to subsection (1), "or of other objects of general concern". The noble Lord said: In the context of this Amendment I am not called upon to say anything about the very interesting and important point that has been raised by the noble and learned Viscount. Speaking for myself, I feel considerable sympathy with the point he raised. I say this with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because there seems to be an inherent illogicality in the position under the Obscene Pub-
922
lications Act. And, of course, this same illogicality is repeated in the present Bill.
But, equally, it seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman pointed out, it is not for those who are seeking to amend the law relating to censorship in regard to the theatre on the point of obscenity to try to reconstruct the whole law of obscenity in the context of this Bill. If they attempted to do so, clearly they would, if I may use the term, "bog down" in this difficulty, and the result would be that one would not get a Bill at all. One would have to reconstruct the whole law of obscenity, including as the noble and learned Viscount so cogently pointed out, the very unsatisfactory definition of "obscenity" which perpetuates, with only slight modifications, the definition in the Hicklin case decided in 1867 which has, for some obscure reason, become almost like a provision in a Statute.
But the odd thing is that whenever a committee has been assembled to consider the law, after all the learned and elaborate consideration they have always come to the conclusion that they cannot think of any other formula. I have not the least doubt that if the noble and learned Viscount were to give the benefit of his profound knowledge, learning and experience in these matters to some future committee then some more satisfactory formula would be devised. I should be happy to see that formula introduced; for the whole conception of depraving and corrupting is fundamentally an unsatisfactory one. But my concern is purely in the context of this particular clause; and for this purpose my complaint, as the Bill now stands, is that the clause as drafted is not in line with the Obscene Publications Act; and there seems, as I would submit, no justification for this.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that in Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 the defence of public good can be pleaded on the ground that a publication is justified if it is:
"… in the interests of science, literature, art or learning or of other objects of general concern".
As your Lordships will see, the words in Clause 3(1) of this Bill in its present form are:
"…in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning."

923
In other words, the vital general words "or of other objects of general concern" are omitted. The situation is that, under the 1959 Act, these general words have performed a valuable service from the point of view of the operation of the defence, because they have enabled the defence to rely not merely on literary merit or scientific merit but on such matters as ethical and sociological merit. This kind of defence has been raised in a number of leading cases under the 1959 Act—for example, the cases of Lady Chatterley's Lover and Last Exit to Brooklyn.
If it is suggested, as it may be, that there is some difference between the theatre and general literature, I would submit to the Committee that this is not so. You may, for instance, have a play which might not be of outstanding literary merit, but it might have considerable value, for instance, as a social document. Or it might put forward a significant case for some ethical or social viewpoint. It might be, for instance, a play dealing with such problems as homosexuality or drug addiction and, if one may give historical instances, we know that plays, such as Ibsen's Ghosts and Bernard Shaw's, Mrs. Warren's Profession, which were regarded in their day as obscene, are now regarded not only as plays of literary merit but as plays making a significant contribution to particular social and moral problems.
Therefore I suggest that this defence of public good, framed as it is, is incomplete without the general words; and, so far as I can see, no explanation has so far been vouchsafed. There is no reason why one should depart from the form of words in the 1959 Act. After all, the object of the present Bill is to try to rationalise the law and assimilate the position to that in the 1959 measure. In these circumstances I submit that there is no reason why these words should be omitted, and I hope your Lordships will agree that they should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end insert ("or of other objects of general concern").—(Lord Lloyd of Hampstead.)
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend has raised another point of great interest on the drafting of this measure. I con-
924
fess that in this case the advice which I would respectfully tender to the Committee is not to accept his proposal. I will try to explain the reasons which actuate me. I hope that in propounding the argument which I propose to propound I may have the support both of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, because my anxiety about the proposal to introduce the words, "of other objects of general concern" is that it seems to me they begin to lead to some uncertainty.
One is, after all, dealing with similar, though not identical, matters, when one speaks of books, newspaper articles and so on, on the one hand, and plays, on the other. Both noble Lords objected to the definition in Clauses 2 and 3, one of their grounds being that the playwright did not know where he was. It is a matter of degree, and I am quite sure they will accept that from me. But at least if you say, as we do in Clause 3(1), that the grounds of public good which may be relied on by way of defence are that the performance was
"in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning"
you are circumscribing the ground (and indeed this was the argument which my noble friend propounded) considerably, I think; and you would be enlarging it into a very uncertain terrain if you added words of such very doubtful and general import as the words which my noble friend seeks to introduce.
I can understand its being said that if you are asking on what ground a book, which may have a tendency to deprave, can, nevertheless, be justified because it is in the public interest, you may point to a propagandist aspect of the book; that it draws attention to squalor or misbehaviour, or that it has value for some reason of that sort and therefore, although it might at first sight be thought depraved, it should nevertheless be excused in the eyes of the criminal law because it serves, for example, some propagandist purpose of the sort I have indicated.
When one is speaking of a play which is put on the boards, it seems to me that the case for enlarging the scope of the justification is not so strong. It is reasonable for those who drafted this Bill to say that a play which may from

925
one point of view to be thought to have a depraving effect nevertheless is not to give rise to a criminal conviction if it can be said that it is for the public good, in the sense that it is really a very good play or a very good opera; that it has great artistic value; that it displays great inspiration. That seems to me a not illogical way of going about the framing of the definition. On the other hand, when you are talking about a play, it seems to me of doubtful wisdom to enlarge the scope to the extent it is enlarged in the Obscene Publications Act which, as the Committee know, deals with books, newspaper articles and that sort of thing. It seems to me that from that point of view it can be said that there is a difference.
I would add, and pray in aid, the argument used by both noble Lords to whom I have referred, that it introduces a measure of uncertainty where it ought not to be or, rather, ought to be in the least possible degree. A playwright should be made as certain as one can possibly make him. I do not think that he is made too uncertain with the clause as it is drafted, and I have so argued. I hope that the Committee will feel that there is force in the argument, but I think we should be nearing the danger line if we enlarged the justification contained in Clause 3(1) in the sense in which the noble Lord proposes it. Therefore, while I am impressed, as I always am, with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the contrast he drew in the drafting between this Bill and the Act of 1959, my respectful advice would be that we should not be improving the present measure if we accepted his proposal, but rather, in point of fact, would be doing some damage to it, in that we should be introducing a measure of uncertainty which should be absent.
I have one other observation to make. I have always been puzzled by the phrase, "or of other objects of general concern". In ordinary reading I should have thought those words meant "or of other objects about which the public is worried, anxious or frightened". That seems to me to be the primary import of the words, "objects of general concern". I cannot think that that is what the phrase is meant to mean in the
926
Obscene Publications Act, because it would be wholly out of context if that is what the words were construed to mean. That, I would respectfully put before your Lordships, is a drafting objection in any event, but, as I say, for the reasons on the merits which I have ventured to put, I hope your Lordships will come to the conclusion that while my noble friend's arguments are always weighty, nevertheless they ought not to prevail in this case.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I also feel that the Committee should reject this Amendment. This debate seems to me the "freehold" of the legal profession, and rightly so. I have not the honour of belonging to that high strata of society. I was merely a newspaper man; but in my newspaper days I always tried to impress on my subordinates (shall we call them?) that they must be precise in their use of words. This is just the opposite. What precision is there in the phrase, "other objects of general concern"? There are millions of objects which generally concern every one of us as human beings.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead mentioned the possibility of a play being regarded as a social document. Before he used those words, one particular aspect of society had occurred to me, that of prostitution. Prostitution is an object of general concern, if not perhaps of universal concern. Are we therefore, in the interests of art, to justify a play which portrays a prostitute plying for hire, which portrays that prostitute taking somebody to her flat and rendering what I believe is known technically as her personal service? Are we to justify that on the fact that it was artistically portrayed on the stage?
I know that under Clause 2 it may be said that such a portrayal comes within the definition of obscene, but Clause 2, which would be a fairly commonsense clause in those circumstances, is now to be altered by Clause 3, which definitely exempts from the Clause 2 definition of obscenity something which might be of general concern. I think the phrase is far too loosely drawn and would allow far too many undesirable things to be shown on the stage for your Lordships' House to agree to it. We are now coming up against one of those difficulties which

927
some of us foresaw when the proposal was originally made to abolish the censorship function of the Lord Chamberlain. The Lord Chamberlain in a very commonsense way said Yes or No to plays of many kinds. We have thrown that aside and decided to depend upon the law; and if the law is to incorporate phrases like this, no playwright, no producer, would ever be safe.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: If I may be allowed to add a codicil to what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has just said, I have impertinently noted down on my copy of the Amendment five things which seem to me of general concern, of which prostitution was the third. They are: commerce, finance, prostitution, the establishment of the Anglican Church and the hereditary principle in your Lordships' House. If I am right, following the noble Lord, any play is justified, however obscene and indecent and loathsome, provided it made out a good case for the hereditary principle in your Lordships' House, for the Anglican Church, for prostitution, for the export trade or for finance. Is that the meaning which the words would give? I ask as a layman, because it would affect my vote very much.
LORD GOODMAN: There is much to be said for the persuasive reply from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and for the plea made by the noble Lord behind him, and by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. But the point is that here we are reopening the whole of the law of obscenity, which would be a very wide divergence from the Bill. The Joint Committee, of which there are three members in your Lordships' House now, reported that it did not intend that the defences available under the 1959 Act should be reduced in any way. The fact that some draughtsman has had the bright notion that a particular part should be kept out is not a valid reason for leaving it out.
In logic, we should either decide that we should follow the 1959 Act, because that is bound to fit in all matters of obscenity, or we should branch out on our own and radically alter the law of obscenity. I am very much in sympathy with everything that has been said about the uncertainties and possible disadvantages of introducing this defence, but if
928
it is a defence available under the 1959 Act, and if the Joint Committee intended it to be in the Bill, as I firmly believe they did—any member who thinks I am wrong will no doubt correct me—it should not be changed by the omission of these words. There are important areas in which the words would have effect.
We have the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. He may remember a play called The Connection, which may have given him great difficulty, concerned with drug addiction, which I think would have an extremely moral effect in persuading people from taking drugs. On the other hand, it was extremely audacious, and many people might have thought that certain details were obscene. But I think the overall effect was for the public good. This is a strong instance of a play that would legitimately have had a defence if these words were included, and would not have had a defence if they were omitted. I could multiply that instance by many. We ought to introduce legislation which follows closely on the 1959 Act; and because that was the intention of the Joint Committee, I think these words ought to remain. I wonder whether the noble Lord would reconsider this position.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on this point. I have listened with great interest to everything that has been said. One point on which I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is this. If the play to which he referred had the effect he said it had, it certainly could not have come within the ambit of the Bill at all because it could not be said as a whole to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who saw it. Therefore, the considerations in Clause 3(1) are irrelevant in relation to that play.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, had no alternative but to model Clauses 2 and 3 upon the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. While criticising those provisions, I have not suggested any alternative, because if we are going to put in an alternative scheme it has to cover both. But that does not mean that we should not

929
seek to make minor improvements of the Obscene Publications Act so far as that Act relates to plays, and I think that the omission of these words is an improvement of considerable importance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was understating the matter considerably when he said that the addition of the words proposed added a measure of uncertainty. I can hardly think of a more uncertain phrase. What content could be given to it in court, I simply do not know. How do we test "general concern"? How many people have to be "concerned" for it to be general? They are almost meaningless words, and it seems to me that if these words are added we are piling Pelion upon Ossa, uncertainty upon uncertainty.
I am tempted even now to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to explain to me and to define in the Bill what exactly is the meaning of the expressions, "interests of drama", "interests of opera", "interests of ballet", or of "literature or learning". We are supposed to be using precise language. We can test whether a play is good or bad literature, well written or badly written, but we are not using that test by talking about the "interests of drama and opera". That again is modelled on the Obscene Publications Act. I shall not complain at all if the noble Lord does not respond to my invitation. I do not want to hold up the passage of the Bill, but I want to draw attention to defects in the language, even though it is because this Bill has followed the other because I am sure that this is going to give trouble in the future.
LORD STOW HILL: I have listened anxiously to the arguments on both sides of this problem. I confess that, so far as my mind is concerned, the additional doubt which would be imported if these words were added weighs the balance. I should not feel disposed to depart from the advice which I tendered to your Lordships when I spoke before.
With regard to the question put to me by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, as to the meaning of the words "in the interests" in that context, I would, as he draws attention to the point, accept that they are not ideal; but I think they are workable. "In the interests of art" and "in the interests of drama",
930
I should have thought would be construed by the learned Judge before whom the matter came, and who had to direct a jury upon the point, roughly in this sense. He would say: "Can you look at this performance and say that it has such merit"—if, for example, the word "drama" is in question—"that it is a dramatic piece? Is the author in the course of his production displaying such tact that if this were not allowed it would be a clamping down upon the full and desirable development of dramatic art?" That is how in a general sense I should have thought it might be interpreted by a Judge to a jury. And I should have thought, if I may say so with respect, that to ask a jury to decide, especially with the assistance and the advice of experts, whether the answer to that question should be "Yes" or "No", would not be putting an intolerable burden upon them, and that they could say one way or the other, with advantage of the advice of experts, whether this in their view established that in the sense I have indicated the dramatic piece was one that should be excused in the eyes of the criminal law. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount thinks that is some answer to the question he has put to me.
I know that my noble friend Lord Lloyd is not content with my answer—at least, I think I heard him say so. But it is a question of balance, and I hope he will accept that, on balance at any rate, there is a good deal to be said for the view that I propose. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, there is a third possible limb to the dilemma which he posed. He said: "Either accept the 1959 Act working, or make a completely new departure". I should have thought, as the noble and learned Viscount said, that there is a middle course, that is, to adapt it, which is what has been done, and I should have thought that the omission of those words was a wise measure of adaptation to the new material with which the present Bill is dealing.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I have listened with great care to the arguments that have been adduced by noble Lords against this proposed Amendment. I am bound to say that this particular form of words is not one of my choosing; it is simply reproducing some words,

931
which I respectfully agree are rather unsatisfactory, from the 1959 Act. This goes back to what we were discussing before namely, criticisms of the general structure of the law in that Act. But one must not lose sight of the fact that this Bill is merely aiming at reproducing the structure of that Act in the context of the theatre. Therefore, I should have thought that the only argument that was of any relevance was the argument of whether, in the context of the theatre, there was any case for saying that one ought to have a different formula. On this, I venture to submit to your Lordships that no case has been made out. If one takes, for example, the instance of the play mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, or the two plays that I mentioned, if it is assumed that those plays have not sufficient literary merit to qualify on that ground, nevertheless there seems to be no reason why such plays should not be entitled to the benefit of the public good defence just as much as in the case of the written text.
I do not propose to dilate at any further length on this matter. I do not wish to do more than ensure, as I think I have done, that this point be adequately ventilated before your Lordships. I propose not to press the Amendment to a Division, but ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of law of defamation]:
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNEmoved, in subsection (1), after "defamatory" to insert "or seditious". The noble and learned Viscount said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee—
LORD STONHAM: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am glad to have the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, even before I have finished the sentence. It is a remarkable experience, and I hope that it may occur frequently. It might be convenient to consider this Amendment together with Amendment No. 5, because they really deal with the same point. The reason I put these Amendments down is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said in his excellent speech on Second Reading, one
932
of the matters that concerned him was the destruction of the protection that now exists for persons who, from their position, cannot have recourse to the ordinary law of the land. There is, of course, quite a category of these. Lord Chancellors sometimes have been defamed, but no Lord Chancellor can properly sue for libel or seek to obtain an injunction; at least, it is not at all easy. But I was not thinking of Lord Chancellors, because the law of sedition does not apply to them. If you are going to remove the existing protection from members of the Royal Family, however, it is important to remind people that this Bill does not affect in the least degree the law relating to sedition.
Therefore, I thought it would be an improvement to the Bill not only to make the Amendment to the law of defamation in Clause 4, but to make it an offence under Clause 6, subject to Clause 7,
"if there is given a public performance of a play involving the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, any person who (whether for gain or not) presented or directed that performance shall be guilty of an offence under this section if—(a) he did so with seditious intent or with intent to provoke a breach of the peace".
If those words are included in those two places, then it will bring to people's notice quite clearly when they look at this Bill that sedition will continue to be unlawful. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, cited the definition of "sedition" from the well-known work, Russell on Crime. It is, as he said, defined in these words:
"Generally speaking, any words, acts or writing in respect of the public acts or private conduct of the Queen which tend to vilify or disgrace the Queen, or to lessen her in the esteem of her subjects, may be punished as sedition."
I feel that it would be a desirable improvement in this Bill to make these two Amendments which, if they are made, make it clear beyond doubt that the general law of sedition is not affected by this Bill, and, furthermore, that certain conduct may bring the person who is guilty of that conduct within the ambit of Clause 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, after ("defamatory") insert ("or seditious").—(Viscount Dilhorne.]
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Viscount, although he proposes an Amendment, argued the case that he puts before the Committee on rather more general grounds. I should like in a moment to respond to him on those more general grounds, but may I just raise what seem to be purely technical difficulties in the proposal that he makes. He argued his case on Clause 4 and Clause 6 together, with the agreement of the Committee, and I should like to say one word with regard to his proposal on Clause 6. If he introduced the words into Clause 6 they would have the effect, I submit, of slightly limiting the ambit of the crime of sedition, because for the purpose of Clause 6 there would have to be not only seditious intent but also the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. I agree that often the utterance of words with seditious intent would be accompanied by words of that type; they would be abusive or insulting. They would not necessarily always be, however, words which fell within that description. Therefore, if the noble and learned Viscount put the words which he proposes in Clause 6 it might have the effect, I know quite unintentionally, of slightly limiting the ambit of the existing Common Law offence of seditious utterance.
May I make my technical answer on his proposal with regard to Clause 4? I have made some study of the matter, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the conclusion I came to with regard to the proposal as to Clause 4 is this. The words in the brackets,
"(including the law of criminal libel so far as it relates to the publication of defamatory matter)",
are essential because there is, as I understand it, no such thing as a criminal offence consisting in the utterance, a speaking of defamatory words. Therefore it is essential to convert the utterance of defamatory words on the stage, if you wish to make that a crime, into libel, as it done by the words in the bracket. But there are clearly two separate offences. One is the offence of uttering the seditious libel; that is to say, using written words with a seditious intent. That is one offence. The other offence is speaking words with a seditious intent.
934
They are two separate, recognised offences, and they are clearly specified, for example, in the well-known case of the Queen v. Burns (the late John Burns, the well-known statesman), which was decided towards the end of the last century and from which I should like to cite in a moment. Therefore there could not have been any drafting justification for inserting into the words in the brackets the word "or seditious", which could have no effect and would lead only to uncertainty as to what the existing law is. That is the technical answer that I would give.
Now may I give him what seems to me the more important answer, which is the answer I think he was asking for, on the substance? It is of course the case that the Sovereign herself, whatever her strict legal rights may be, in practice could not come down to her own courts and ask for damages or for other redress in relation to some contemptible defamatory reference to her. It would not be practicable and it would be indeed unthinkable. I see and very well understand the argument and feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that there should be adequate protection, in ample measure, to safeguard her. My respectful submission to the Committee is that that exists in the Common Law. I know that all noble Lords will start from the position that they do not wish to inhibit the expression of whatever people wish to express unless they must, and they would, I think, agree with me that if the Common Law adequately put a clamp upon unjustifiable references to the Sovereign in sufficient measure it should not be disturbed. My respectful submission to the Committee is that it most certainly does.
The noble and learned Viscount reminded the Committee of the quotation that I gave from Russell. I agree that Russell's work is not that of a judge sitting in the seat of judgment and it has not that degree of authority. On the other hand, noble Lords in this House who practise the law will agree with me that it is a book of the highest authority and that great attention would be paid to it. It seems to me that if one looks for actual judicial authority one finds it in the case of the Queen v. Burns, which was decided in 1886, and I should like to cite one passage which is another form of statement of the ingredients of the offence of seditious utterance.

935
The learned judge is quoting there from Mr. Justice Stevens, whom he cites as saying:
"A seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, Her heirs or successors."—
The passage then goes into a matter which is not relevant to the immediate purpose—
"…Therefore it is part of the Common Law, and has been for centuries, that it is a criminal offence to give utterance to words with the intention of exciting either hatred or contempt—and I find upon the word 'contempt' —against the Sovereign; indeed the Sovereign, His or Her heirs and successors.
That, I would respectfully submit, is very wide, comprehensive and far-reaching law, and the liege who embarks upon a scurrilous, unjustifiable attack upon the Sovereign places himself seriously at risk of criminal prosecution.
Happily it is the fact that the courts of this country rarely have cases of sedition brought before them. Sedition is, as is blasphemy, rarely an offence which is brought to public notice and thought worthy of prosecution in the courts. That, perhaps, is something upon which we should congratulate ourselves. But if the offence is committed it can be prosecuted, the law is there, and I feel the Committee will agree with me without difficulty when I recommend to them that we should cling to the old Common Law which has been accepted by the good sense and judgment of our public and our judges in the evolution of our law, and not tamper with it or change it unless we must. The respectful submission that I make to your Lordships is that it is in this particular context extremely effective; it is very strong and can be used with great effect in an appropriate case.
There will, I suppose, always be, unhappily, the people who from some jaundiced motive will permit themselves extravagancies of utterance. Very often our good sense has told us that it is best to ignore them and take no notice of them. But if they step beyond limits and indulge upon conduct which is wholly unacceptable, there is the criminal law which can be used to punish them. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will feel that the proposals made by the noble and learned Viscount are not really necessary, for the reasons I have given.
There are, in any case, technical difficulties in the way of the proposals he
936
has made; but the more substantial argument, which I hope your Lordships feel I have made and placed before your Lordships for consideration, is that because of the existing provisions of the Common Law, accepted in the courts and well established, it is not necessary to go further; and that if the Common Law is adequate it is in principle not desirable to tamper with it by Statute unless one must. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that it is best to leave the matter as it is and that in any event the proposals of the noble and learned Viscount would not in themselves be acceptable. But I put it before and impress upon your Lordships that the Common Law is adequate for this purpose. It is very strong and can in a proper case still be used without any inhibition at all.
7.39 p.m.
LORD COBBOLD: As the noble and learned Viscount said, this is a point that has been worrying me considerably and I referred to it at some length—not only the matter of the Sovereign and the Royal Family, but living persons in general in those categories who could not easily in practice take advantage of the laws of libel and slander. I quite understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. He finished by saying that the existing Common Law was extremely strong. May I ask him to confirm what I think he said earlier: that the effect of putting in these two Amendments would be not only not to strengthen the existing Common Law but in certain respects perhaps to tend to weaken it?
LORD STOW HILL: The answer I can certainly give to that question is, "Yes". It would create doubt if it were put into Clause 4, and it would actually limit the ambit of the existing Common Law offence if it were put into Clause 6.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am not going to reply to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on the technical grounds of these Amendments. I am not sure that I entirely agree with his comments about the insertion of this into Clause 6, but that is really beside the point. As to his general observations with regard to the law of sedition, I of course agree with him, and I am glad that he has put them on the record. I

937
believe our purpose is the same—to see that the law is enforced.
I should like something to be inserted into the Bill to draw the attention (and that is what I sought to do) of the people reading this Bill to the law of sedition. I think there is a real possibility that a number of people, when this Bill is enacted, will think that if they comply with the requirements of the Bill that will be all that is required of them, and they will run no risk. They are perhaps even more likely to do that because in the past, when they have had the Lord Chamberlain's licence that has been the end of the matter. Now they will not get that licence; they will look at this Bill, and I fear that many may think that if only they comply with the requirements of this Bill they will run no risk. But the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has made it clear that this will not be the case; that if they are seditious they will run the risk of prosecution for that very serious offence. I should like inserted somewhere in this Bill a sentence, which might be only declaratory, to draw attention to the fact that the law of sedition remains unaltered by the Bill. If, between now and Report stage, the noble Lord could consider the insertion of some declaratory provision of that kind, it would serve a useful purpose.
I see that I have got up too soon in an endeavour to say something, because the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, wants to speak, and then my noble friend Lord Dundee. I apologise for rising too soon.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Your Lordships need not be afraid that I am going to say very much. Indeed, I want only to say one word in support of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I entirely accept the legal arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and others who know far more about the law than I do, that it is not legally necessary to put this into the Bill at all. But it seems to me that a great many people who write plays will not know that, and it might be to their assistance if it were declared in some way in this Bill, although not necessarily in the form of this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am quite sure my noble friend will take account of what has been said. I intervene briefly only
938
because of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. I entirely agree with, and support, the answer given by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill.
In his first speech the noble and learned Viscount made it clear that his Amendments were designed to bring to public notice the fact that sedition is still a crime—I took down his words as near as I could. In his subsequent speech he asked my noble friend to consider whether it might be possible to introduce some words for the removal of doubt.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No; not for the removal of doubt, but just so that people who read the Act shall be alerted to the fact by a perfectly innocuous provision to the effect that "Nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the law relating to sedition". It is merely a signpost to them; nothing more.
LORD STONHAM: With that further clarification from the noble and learned Viscount all I wish to say—and this is addressed particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold—is that, so far as the Government are concerned, there is no dispute whatever, and we are agreed in our anxiety to protect the Sovereign. But so far as the law is concerned, the view of the Government is, first, that these Amendments add nothing to the law, and secondly that the present law is quite adequate and sufficient.
LORD COBBOLD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he has said. I am sure we are all trying to arrive at exactly the same thing. Nevertheless, I welcome the last intervention by the noble and learned Viscount. I would not enter into any legal dispute in this company, but having some knowledge of the way that the minds of theatrical producers work, I feel certain that it would be a tremendous advantage if some allusion could be introduced into the Bill on the lines suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. If that could be considered between now and Report stage I would support the suggestion.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: We have had a useful discussion which I hope will lead to something being done that will meet

939
the desires of everyone. There is no disagreement at all about the objective, and in the hope that this will happen I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and at the same time I give notice that I shall not move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to add to the clause:
"( ) It shall be lawful for the widow, child, or personal representative of any dead person to bring proceedings for an injunction to restrain the publication of any words concerning the said person spoken in the course of a performance of any play which if the said person were still alive would give rise to an action for defamation at the suit of the said person, provided that no such injunction shall be granted unless the court is satisfied that an injunction would have been granted if the said action had been brought during his lifetime by the said person."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises an important point, and I shall probably receive the answer that it ought to be an Amendment made in relation to the general law of libel, and not an Amendment in regard to the production of plays and matters of that sort. I do not personally attach a great deal of weight to that argument—if it is advanced—because I think perhaps there is special need for a provision of the sort that this Amendment seeks to make in relation to the production of plays, and so on. At the present time, of course, although one has one's rights—most people have—of getting an injunction, and maybe damages, if one is defamed in a play, those rights cease to exist immediately upon death. Yet the production of a play defaming a dead person may cause the greatest degree of unhappiness to members of his family. It seems to me to be wrong, and a defect in our law as it stands at present, that there should be no power in the family to put a stop to that happening.
I have drawn this Amendment rather carefully. If the Amendment were accepted, a widow, children and personal representatives of the deceased person would not be able to obtain damages from the producer of the play, or from the people responsible for it, for the defamation, but they would be able to obtain an injunction to stop the performance going on—the performance which could cause (and sometimes I fear does
940
cause) a great deal of suffering to the relatives.
In my view, it would be a good thing if a provision of this sort could be extended to the whole field of libel. I remember years ago, when I was a Bar student (and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, may remember the case), an action was brought by the descendants of Mr. Gladstone in respect of the publication of a book which made some very offensive and defamatory observations in relation to him. That action took several days. It was a test case and it failed. I have thought from then until now that that was a defect of our law which ought to be remedied.
When the noble Lord, the Lord Chamberlain, exercised his functions, I have no doubt that he had very much in mind the need to protect the living relatives from defamation of the dead. That protection has now gone. Ought we to leave the family exposed to the possibilities of such suffering being inflicted upon them, and without their having any redress? I do not think we should. And I do not myself think that it is any answer to say, if it be said: "Do not give the family this right to obtain an injunction in respect of a play; do not give them the right in this Bill; wait and make an Amendment to the general law of libel".
In some cases, of course, it is far best to ignore the scurrilous attack upon a dead man and not to draw attention to it in any way by embarking upon legal proceedings. But in other cases the defamation may be so malicious and so serious, and so wounding, that the close relatives may feel a great desire and a great need to secure redress. As I say, I am not suggesting here that they should have an opportunity of obtaining damages for the defamation. What I do suggest is that they should have the right, if they can satisfy the fudge that the dead man, if living, would have had the right, to say that that particular piece of defamation must be stopped and the right to obtain an injunction from the courts to stop it. That is the simple point of this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, spoke very movingly, I thought, on Second Reading on this subject. I think it would be a great improvement to this Bill if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill,

941
would accept this Amendment. I can appreciate, the Bill having gone through another place, that there may be a certain reluctance to accept any Amendments of this measure in your Lordships' House because that would perhaps mean delay and the Bill having to go back to be reconsidered. Nevertheless, I urge that this would be a desirable improvement of this Bill, and if it is desirable as an amendment to the general law of libel then that amendment of the general law of libel could be made later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I wonder whether I may add one word to the appeal of my noble and learned friend to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to give particularly favourable consideration to this Amendment. I think that probably all your Lordships will agree that it is in principle right, and in the interests of society, that the widow and children of a deceased person should be given this protection against defamation. My noble friend has anticipated the objection that this Bill might not be the right place to do anything of the kind, because if it is to be done in regard to the stage it ought equally to be done in regard to literature, which this Bill cannot do. But in many years of listening to Parliamentary debates I have known many cases in which it has been generally agreed that although a change in the law in relation to one kind of activity is desirable, it ought not to be done until an omnibus Act can be brought in applying it to all kinds of activity, and then, when the Amendment is withdrawn in the hope that a more general Act will be introduced the matter is forgotten and nothing is done. It seems to me that if this Amendment could be incorporated in the Bill now it would perhaps be a spur or inducement to those who initiate the changes in our law to deal with the general law of libel in relation to other kinds of expression, not on the stage, a little more quickly.
My noble friend has mentioned the case of the defamation of Mr. Gladstone by Captain Wright—a very long time ago, I think nearly 40 years ago—which I also remember. No satisfaction could
942
be obtained. But I think the sequel was that Mr. Gladstone's son had to write a flagrantly libellous letter to The Times about Captain Wright, who had defamed his father, of such a very derogatory nature that Captain Wright simply could not help bringing an action for libel against Mr. Gladstone's son. I am not sure whether it was Lord Gladstone or one of the other sons.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It was a nephew.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to my noble friend. When either the action against the nephew was lost or contemptuous damages were awarded (I forget which), honour was held to have been satisfied.
I think there is also a difference between the spoken and written word: because, after all, the written word is written only once and is not repeated every day, whereas the purpose of this Amendment is to stop something which can be repeated, and will be repeated when a play has a long run, night after night for three months, six months or a year. It therefore seems to me that there is a difference which makes it reasonable that we should deal with this particular matter in this Bill, and not wait for a general Act which will deal with defamatory words in other forms of expression than the stage.
LORD GOODMAN: May I say that no one could fail to sympathise with the spirit behind this proposed Amendment. Nothing is more hideous than to vilify the dead, and those of us who professionally have had instances of it, and felt total impotence in the state of the English law, have had the same sort of feeling as the noble and learned Viscount has. But my own feeling is that the practical difficulties in this matter are insurmountable. I think one has to analyse the state of the law and see what practical results would ensue. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the point of this remedy would be to arrest the production at an early stage, and that would involve interlocutory proceedings. It would not be possible to wait for the action to come to trial, which might be a year or two years, or even three years.
It has been an absolute principle of the English law of defamation that you cannot obtain an interlocutory injunction

943
in matters of defamation where the defendant says that he is going to plead justification. The reason for that is supported by another very high principle of our Constitution; that is, the right to prevent a man from stopping free speech. If by threatening an injunction you can prevent a man from saying something he thinks he has a right to say, then indeed a very injurious and dangerous state of affairs is brought into being. And it is for that reason that the courts have always applied the principle that if the defendant says he is going to justify publication they will not grant interlocutory relief, except in the rarest case when the judge takes upon himself the mantle of the jury and says, "In my view it is impossible that he could succeed in this case". In all other cases no such relief would be given in the case of a living man.
How then is it possible, with the best will in the world, to introduce a principle of this kind in respect of a dead man? How can we, if a living man could not get such relief, introduce the principle in respect of a dead man, since the acid test is, "Are the words to be justified?". In almost every case, the defendant so abandoned that he would indulge in scurrility about a dead man would have no hesitation in saying "I am going to justify the words". If he says that, how do you deal with the plea of justification in the absence of the only person who can answer the allegation—the dead man? In my view, it is an impossibility. I do not think you can bring a libel action, or an action for defamation, on behalf of a person who is dead. As I have said, I think the practical difficulties in the way are insurmountable. I believe that these are matters which must depend on canons of good taste and good public behaviour.
We recently had an instance out of which perhaps this Amendment arises. There was a play which many of us will recall, which created a good deal of controversy. It related to the late Sir Winston Churchill. Many of us thought that it was perhaps inappropriate that a play of that kind should be considered for production in the National Theatre; the persons in control of the National Theatre also thought so, and it was not produced. It was a play that made certain allegations, and apparently suggested that you
944
could make the allegation now and vindicate it some 50 years hence, on the basis that there might perhaps be some evidence deposited in a Swiss Bank. This is an odd proposition. The point of the matter was that there were people of sound sense and judgment who did not accept these rather outrageous proposals, who thought that a suggestion of this kind was, on the whole, a disreputable suggestion, and that whomsoever may want to put on such a play in the commercial theatre—whether the production itself in the commercial theatre should be stopped seems to me an arguable proposition—it certainly should not appear on the boards of a National Theatre.
I do not believe that you can legislate for these matters. I think they are matters that must be left to the criteria of good taste and decency. On the whole, I do not believe that audiences will go to see plays that vilify the dead. If it is brought to their notice that the play is a social outrage people will stay away. If people will not stay away, I do not think any amount of legislation or any other remedy that one seeks to bestow on them will be of the slightest use. If people are so removed from standards of decency and so abandoned that they want to go and see a play, I do not think legislation will stop them. I do not think they do. I do not think that this is a matter that can be legislated for and that decent standards will prevail. I think it is a matter that should be left to that sort of standard and cannot be left to the courts.
8.3 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has just said with so much force and cogency. I would remind your Lordships that this whole question has been fully investigated as recently as 1949 by the Porter Committee on Defamation. They reached the conclusion that the law on this matter should not be altered, first of all, for the sort of reason that Lord Goodman adduced, and also on the ground that it would create a serious restriction on the publication of historical material.
I would point out to your Lordships that as it stands at the moment the Amendment is not limited in any way in

945
point of time. You might have cases where an action is brought thirty or forty years after an individual has died when, assuming at any rate the general law had not been changed, you would have biographies being published about a public man, giving full details of these defamatory allegations. You could have plays on the television, you could have the matter fully discussed in the Press, and there would be no restriction. You would simply have this curious anomaly that you could not make it the subject of a play on the stage.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment, though one naturally feels great sympathy with its objectives, really would lead to so many anomalies that it ought not to be admitted. One exception, perhaps, is the sort of development that has occurred in the United States in the law of privacy. It may be, in regard to non-public men or matters which concern the private lives of public men, that some protection ought to be afforded by the development of the law of privacy, a branch of law which, unhappily, has received no, or but little development in this country so far.
One would have thought that the law of defamation seems an inappropriate instrument in regard to deceased persons. The law in its wisdom over the centuries has steadfastly refused to extend that law to protect the relatives of a deceased person and, on the whole, on sound practical grounds, although in some marginal cases one may naturally feel tremendous sympathy for the widow or children of a recently deceased person who is being traduced in this way and with no legal remedy available. But as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, these are matters basically to be left to good taste, and cannot adequately be dealt with by the cumbersome machinery of the law.
8.6 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: In spite of the cogent arguments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, I think that this question is by no means simple. I was greatly troubled, as I think many others were, by the particular case to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred. The difficulty seems to me to be that, if we do not do some-
946
thing in this matter, it may be most attractive for some of the less talented playwrights, who may not otherwise get great attention for their plays or great popularity, to publish some rather foul libel on some great man recently dead, thinking that they can thus produce a great commercial success. In the particular case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as he rightly said, those responsible for the National Theatre came to the right conclusion and refused permission for its production. What was the result? A number of eminent actors and producers and others said that this was an outrageous attack on artistic freedom and all the rest of it.
I quite agree that it is extremely difficult to deal with this matter by the law of libel. Hitherto, so far as the theatre is concerned, we have got along without having such an extension of the law. But then, of course, we had a censorship. If we are abolishing the censorship, it seems to me that we may have a quite considerable evil, since this form of disreputable production of libellous plays may become quite attractive.
In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, of course you could not get an interim injunction if justification was going to be pleaded. I entirely agree with that. But, if there were such an amendment of the law as my noble and learned friend has suggested in his Amendment, those concerned would not risk such a production unless there were some basis for their contention. In this particular case, had the proposed Amendment of my noble friend been the law of the land I think it is inconceivable that they would have risked defaming Sir Winston Churchill in the way proposed in the play, because I do not think that a court of law would have had much difficulty in finding that this was defamation, without the necessity of the evidence of Sir Winston. I think it might have been possible to prove aliunde the falsity of the allegations that were made.
I am not saying that this Amendment is the right remedy. But I think we may be driven to the view that some remedy is necessary, if the result of our not fashion without a shadow of evidence. There was another recent play that did having any remedy is that we have plays defaming the dead in quite monstrous the same, I believe, about Queen Victoria

947
and Florence Nightingale. This sort of defamation is becoming quite attractive to some playwrights, and I think it may do much more injury than a similar libel in a book.
There is a further reason—and I agree that the point I am now making may tell both ways, both in favour of my argument and against it. If censorship is to be abolished (and in view of the unanimous report of the Committee I think few people would dispute the case for that; indeed, it has been admitted by the unopposed Second Reading that this Bill has had) and that abolition is to be followed by a number of these outrageous libels of the dead, then I think people will say that censorship was much more necessary than had hitherto been supposed. In that event the abolition of censorship may be by no means the permanent thing that no doubt we all hope for if this Bill is passed.
For these reasons, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, which I found very persuasive and with which in many ways I agree, I think there may be something to be said for such an Amendment as my noble and learned friend is putting forward, because, unless there is some remedy, the evil may become intolerable.
LORD COBBOLD: I do not wish to interfere with the discussion on this Amendment. I said what I had to say on the subject in the course of the Second Reading debate. But to put the Record straight, I should like just to say there has been a good deal of reference to one particular play, but the words I used in the Second Reading debate arose from a number of plays over a number of years and not over one particular play.
LORD ILFORD: This is certainly not a very straightforward matter, but I think we are all agreed on this: that if it is possible to devise legal procedures which would restrain defamation of this nature, we should all welcome such an arrangement. I think that such an arrangement might be possible if the Amendment were redrafted in a way that would get over the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out, as is perfectly true, that if a defendant proposes to plead justification, pleads that the words were true in substance and
948
in fact—which is the plea of justification—the court will not grant an injunction. It is perfectly true that they will not grant an injunction before the trial, acting, rightly I think, on the view that if the words are true a person ought not to be prevented from speaking. But the court always grants an injunction, if an injunction is asked for, after judgment and the plaintiff is successful.
It is perfectly true that if an action were brought for an injunction alone under this Amendment the action might have to take its course before the injunction was obtained. But I see no reason why the injunction should not be granted after the action had successfully shown that the deceased person would have been entitled to damages for defamation had he still been alive. I would not accept altogether the noble Lord's view based on the conduct of a normal action for defamation in the courts. I think I can see some ways in which this Amendment might be redrafted. In view, I think, of the universal desire of us all that it should be given the effect of law, I hope that my noble and learned friend will be willing to consider another Amendment on the Report stage.
8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: I am no lawyer. When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, tell us that no action of the kind foreseen in this Amendment could possibly have any success, I naturally, though reluctantly, accept his word for it. But I wonder whether that is the question, or the only question that we need to ask ourselves. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when he says: should we not also ask ourselves whether the presence of an Amendment of this kind, even if it did not really enable any action to be taken in the courts, would at least deter possible producers, presenters, actors, playwrights from putting forward a play of the type we are talking about. If there is any hope at all that such an Amendment would have this deterrent effect, then I should think this Amendment is well worth having.
I think that possibly there may be a case for putting in some sort of time limit —possibly 20 years, or something like that, after the death of the person concerned. I am also a little worried about the phrase "personal representative",

949
which I do not quite understand. But these are minor points, and basically I should have thought there was a very good case for keeping this Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble Lord who has just sat down suggested a possible 20-year time limit. My noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead pointed out that in the Amendment there is no time limit. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, pointed out that there were difficulties about interlocutory injunctions. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, said that if you cannot get an interlocutory injunction you can get an injunction, when the action comes to trial on its merits, at the hearing. I refer back to those points, if I may respectfully do so, to indicate that this is not a simple matter—it is extremely complex. I think we are all extremely sympathetic to the motive which has prompted the noble and learned Viscount to put this Amendment on the Order Paper. It is contemptible, when a person is dead, that his relatives have to stand by and watch his reputation shattered by irresponsible attacks upon him. On that we are all agreed.
Nevertheless, the answer, or the advice, I would respectfully offer to the Committee is that which the noble and learned Viscount foreshadowed that I might give. It may well be that the existing law of defamation is incomplete. It may well be that we ought to alter it so as to protect the reputation of deceased persons; and the arguments, I should have thought, as we have listened to them round the House, seemed to preponderate in favour of so doing. But what I would respectfully press upon the Committee is that it surely cannot be right, as it were by a side wind, and without mature consideration, to include such a matter—which is bristling with difficulties, some of which have been indicated by noble Lords in the course of our quite short but extremely interesting discussion—in this Bill.
The name of the present Lord Chancellor will be remembered for his admirable wisdom in setting up the Law Commission. I should have thought that this was just the sort of problem which might well be submitted to them. I had forgotten, until my noble friend Lord Lloyd reminded us, that the Royal Commission over which the late Lord Porter presided had actually pronounced on this particu-
950
lar point. I forget the reasoning, except in so far as he reminded us of it, which led to their conclusion, but I would respectfully ask the Committee not to seek that this Amendment should be made. In itself it is, as I have tried to point out, not wholly adequate, if for no other reason than that it does not say what limit in time, if there is to be any limit, is to apply. If somebody has been dead 70 years and his daughter is still alive, is there to be an action to protect his reputation? There is a lot to be said for it, but it is not a change in the law that one would make lightly. One can make it only after prolonged and mature consideration.
May I advert to one point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee? He said that it is useful to prompt the Legislature to make a more radical change by making a beginning with plays. He went on to say that a play is produced night after night and that a book is printed once and for ever. Therefore he submitted that it was reasonable to make this change in the case of plays, whereas it would be reasonable at the same time to reserve for further consideration the question of books. Is that a right way of looking at it? Let us take the case of a best-seller. One can think of a dozen best-seller whose books are on sale in every town of England and are to be found on bookstalls in this country, in the United States, in Australia where I was last summer—in fact, one sees these works all over the world. Suppose such a Person selects as his theme somebody w ho is known to the public and who has recently died, or who died some years ago and, faintly disguising his name, attributes to that deceased person the most detestable qualities. Surely the harm and the wickedness done by a publication of that sort infinitely transcends the very worst that could be done even by a prolonged and successful play.
It seems quite illogical and quite unreasonable to make a change of this sort only in the case of plays—even if one could take the chance of getting it right without mature consideration. And if, by chance, we did get it right and managed to skate round the difficulties which have bristled during the course of our discussion this evening it would be quite unreasonable to leave the law applying to books, newspaper articles

951
and other written publications wholly unchanged. It may be that the law should be changed, but if it is changed I submit that it should be done after careful consideration by Parliament as part of a major and radical change of the law of libel in this particular respect. I say sincerely that I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Viscount's motives, and not a single noble Lord has spoken on this matter in any contrary sense, but I submit that it would be unwise to accept his proposal. I hope that it may be a matter which the Law Commission will take into consideration, to see whether the views arrived at by the Royal Commission over which Lord Porter presided require revision and whether Parliament should now come to a different conclusion than that which was recommended by the Royal Commission. What I am asking your Lordships to say is that, whatever the right way of going about it, the way which is proposed by the noble and learned Viscount in his Amendment is not one which ought to be regarded as acceptable by this Committee. I hope that in the circumstances he will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, sought to draw attention to the serious consequences that might follow from the publication of a best seller which was defamatory of a dead person. I do not wish to try to assess whether publication of a book could be more harmful to the feelings of the family of a dead man than the production of a play. It may well be that there is a strong case for altering the law of libel in relation to all forms of publication. But that is not the question that we have to consider to-day. The question we are now considering is whether, when censorship is removed, there should be full liberty, perhaps restrained only by public opinion, to injure the feelings of the family of a dead man by making money out of the production of a play, or the production of what at present is commonly called "satire". In relation to that question, when one takes away the protection which now exists it does not seem any answer to say, "Leave it to the Law Commission to report upon. Leave it until we alter the whole law of libel or until that law has
952
been examined". There is a case for taking a step forward, albeit a limited step, on this particular matter, and the need for it arises because of Clause 1.
I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, but I think he was wrong in one respect. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, did not say that if this Amendment was carried an action brought could not be successful. What he said was that one cannot get an injunction if the defendant puts forward a plea of justification, and he was quite right. But the plea of justification must surely have some reality. In relation to some of the satire which is portrayed nowadays (it is called "satire" but it is really defamation) in considering what is published nobody would for one moment think that it was capable of justification at all. I agree that if this Amendment were carried it would give a limited remedy. It may be that one should go further, but I should be content with this as a start.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, made a most interesting speech and referred to the time limit. If this Amendment were carried, I should be willing to make a further Amendment on Report to insert a time limit. I had in mind a much shorter period than 20 years. Is not the publication of various documents now withheld for 30 years lest publication may injure the reputation of some living statesman? Yet directly upon his death that reputation can be injured by any playright who seeks to make capital out of publishing stuff which is not only defamatory but which is almost certainly false. Therefore I feel that I could meet one of the main points put forward by Lord Lloyd. He drew attention to the historical features, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of the Commission presided over by Lord Porter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I had forgotten the reason for that Commission.
I believe that the case between biographies and books and the case we are considering can be carefully distinguished. We have had a most useful discussion. I should like to consider what has been said. I am in the difficulty that if I divide the House the consequences might be that proceedings on this Bill at this late hour would be suspended. I do not want to risk that, but if it could be recognised that I could put

953
down this Amendment or a similar Amendment on Report—I hope that would not be regarded as contrary to the practice of the House—I will withdraw this Amendment so as to give everybody a further opportunity to consider this most important principle. If that is understood, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exceptions for performances given in certain circumstances]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.30 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I think I can take this point very shortly. This is what is sometimes referred to as a probing Amendment, and the reason why I have asked that your Lordships should omit this clause is that I am puzzled as to what purpose it serves. Perhaps I may indicate very briefly what seem to me to be the difficulties about it. Subsection (1) says that Clauses 2 to 4 are not to apply to a performance of a play given on a domestic occasion; while subsection (2) says that Clauses 2 to 6 shall not apply to a performance given solely or primarily for a rehearsal or a recorded performance.
The position seems to be that, if this clause stands, a number of the apparently desirable reforms which are introduced by this Bill in regard to theatrical performances are excluded in those cases, such as the new definition of "obscenity". Again, instead of having offences under this Bill, there would simply be the old Common Law offences still applying—the Vagrancy Act and matters of that kind. Again, the defence of "public good" would not be applicable in the case of such performances, and one would have to treat a case as slander and not as libel. One finds difficulty in seeing what disadvantage there is in treating all such utterances in the course of the performance of a play as libel rather than slander, which in any case is generally recognised to be a rather unsatisfactory distinction. So it seems to me that there is no great
954
advantage, if any advantage, in this rather complicated clause, and I submit that the law would be simpler and better if it were omitted so that the general reforming law introduced by this Bill would apply to all theatrical performances, including domestic performances, rehearsals and recorded performances.
LORD STOW HILL: I quite follow that the desire of my noble friend is really to see why a further step was not taken, as it were, to simplify and codify the law. May I indicate to him the reasons which, as I understand them, precluded that course? May I take the different types of performance in sequence?
First, it is provided that nothing in Clauses 2 to 4 relating to obscenity and so on should apply to a play given on a domestic occasion in a private dwelling. It was thought preferable to leave that as it is, subject to the existing law. It may be said, "Yes, but that means that you leave the persons who before in those circumstances were liable to be prosecuted for a criminal conspiracy to corrupt public morals still so liable". I suppose that anything is possible in this weird world, but if one considers what might happen in a drawing room at a Christmas party when the children and grandchildren arrive, and one thinks of some real likelihood of a prosecution for conspiracy to corrupt public morals in a case of that sort, the likelihood diminishes into the invisible so rapidly that I hope my noble friend will agree that it is best to leave that as it is at the moment.
After all, if you wish to make Clauses 2 to 4 apply to private social functions of that sort, then I suppose, logically, you must also make the enforcement provisions applicable to parties of that sort. You have to make the provisions of Clause 10, which enables a police officer to require scripts to be furnished to him, applicable to private parties of that sort. That would be quite unthinkable. Equally, I suppose you have to make Clause 12 an enforcement clause applicable to parties of that sort, which again is unthinkable. I am quite sure that my noble friend will agree that to change the law so as to involve the possibility of invasion of private social

955
functions, family gatherings, almost charades, liable to a visitation by the police to see the script used by the children participating in the party, would be quite unthinkable.
Now may I come to the other points? The reason for the exclusion of a rehearsal was this, as I understand it. A rehearsal consists of the practising of the constituent parts of what later on becomes a play as a whole. You rehearse Scene 1, Scene 2 and so on, perhaps on different days. The play is then being worked up in different sections, but ultimately it is conglomerated into a complete whole. The whole point of Clause 2 is that the performance is obscene if taken as a whole its effect is such as is likely to corrupt.
What was thought by those responsible for the framing of this measure was this. It is illogical and contrary to the purpose and scheme of the Bill as a whole to seek to apply the provisions of Clause 2, which ex hypothesi are applicable only to the completed final product as a whole, to performances of what are really integral and separate portions of it. That is why it was thought hardly fair to those conducting a rehearsal. After all, rehearsals are conducted in private, and the whole purpose of this clause is to apply to productions which are public, or public in the sense that they are performed in a club or something of that sort. I hope my noble friend will think that a satisfactory reason for excluding rehearsals.
With regard to those types of performance listed in subsection (2)(b), the reason why they were excluded was this. There are already existing provisions, not all of the same sort, which provide, as it were, partly a voluntary censorship and partly a statutory one—a statutory one in so far as the Television Act 1964 is applicable. That imposes a standard of conduct in the formulating of television displays. Apart from that, in regard to the broadcast and the cinematograph film, there is a voluntary system of censorship in operation at this moment. Therefore, this clause was framed in this way—I do not want to repeat myself—because of the general considerations which I have sought to outline. While I shall be delighted to try to answer any additional questions which my noble
956
friend may like to put, I hope he will think that that is, at any rate, a rational framework upon which to construct this clause.
LORD GOODMAN: So far as the majority of the matters in this clause are concerned, they are not really of great importance because I do not think that a recording or the production of a film could be considered a performance of a play. But I am a little disturbed about the question of rehearsals, for reasons which I invite the noble Lord to consider sympathetically.
It is true that ordinarily the beginning of the rehearsal is rather disjointed. A small portion is acted in various places and as the play goes on larger portions become assembled and the jig-saw is put together. Finally, there is the dress rehearsal of the whole play with a great number of people present. I am sure there is nothing sinister behind the drafting of this clause, but it would be possible—and I think it is undesirable that the possibility should exist—for an adroit prosecutor to decide, having heard of the existence of a prospective performance that he did not like, to invade that performance and to prosecute in relation to that performance, in circumstances which would not leave available to the defendants a defence which they would have had if he had waited another day for the first public performance. This seems to me, if I may say so, to be wrong. It does not seem to be right that if a prosecution arises out of a rehearsal there should not then be available to the defendants precisely the same defences as would be available if the play had been produced in public.
On the point made by the noble Lord, that you have of course to consider the work as a whole, it seems to me no hardship to anyone that what you have to consider is that work which was in fact performed. You consider as a whole that portion of the play upon which the prosecution was based. I do not think there is any logical reason why, on that account, a rehearsal should not be afforded precisely the same protection and come within the same section as an ordinary public production.
8.41 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: May I seek to give such answer as I can to the points

957
which the noble Lord has made? His real anxieties, I think I am right in interpreting him, are about the dress rehearsal stage, or the stages immediately before that. I should like to put these considerations to him. The Bill is really designed for public performances in the sense I have described—performances in public before an audience, or performances in a club, or something of the sort. At the dress rehearsal stage, one is still in private.
If you are going to apply the provisions of, say, Clause 2 to the rehearsal, as I ventured to submit when I was answering my noble friend Lord Lloyd, logically you have also, I suppose, to provide the enforcement provisions. It would be unreasonable, I should have thought, that when the actors were still in the stage of preparation—and they still are even when the dress rehearsal has arrived, though admittedly at an advanced stage of preparation—a police officer should be entitled, if a warrant were issued for him to do so, to insist on going in to watch a dress rehearsal. It is not ready for public presentation then, although it may be nearly ready. I would therefore respectfully submit to the noble Lord that it is not a desirable change to make, and I hope he will agree that, on balance, it is best to leave it.
Quite apart from that, what is the risk? If one considers what is the Common Law, it is largely, I suppose, that which is stated in the case of Shaw v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, to which reference has been made. Is there any real likelihood, in practice, except in the most rare circumstances, of a rehearsal constituting anything which could remotely come within the scope of the Shaw case? Therefore, I will answer the noble Lord by submitting to your Lordships' Committee, in the first place, that the likelihood of the Common Law applying is very small in the case of a rehearsal; and, secondly, that if one did assimilate the rehearsal to the public performance one would have to annex to the rehearsal a liability for enforcement procedures which are really quite inappropriate to it. I hope the noble Lord will feel satisfied by that answer.
LORD SOMERS: I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, and I quite
958
agree with what he says about the question of rehearsals. For one thing, if a play is considered to be harmful in any of the ways which are listed under this Bill the rehearsal presumably will not in any case take place, since nobody is going to try to produce a play without making quite certain that it is going to get a public performance.
But what I want to emphasise is another part of Clause 7, the part which relates to making the play into cinematograph films, broadcasts or records. I do not know what the law is as regards plays produced either on television or on sound radio, but I have many times wished that it could be a little tighter, and I think that to exclude from this Bill the broadcasting of plays would be a very great mistake. One must remember that only a comparatively minor proportion of the population go to the theatre and see a play, whereas practically every house in this country has either a television set or a sound radio, or both. What is more, of course, young children are there looking at television the whole time; and one has to remember that the potential of the B.B.C. to do harm of the kind implied in this Bill is very much greater than that of the theatre. That is why I feel that it should not be excepted, as it is under Clause 7, from all the liabilities to which theatres are subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I had a talk, after the Second Reading of this Bill, about various subjects concerning the education of children, and I agree with a great deal that he said. I do not think one should keep children in a sort of cloister, where they hear nothing at all about the outside world. But what I think is harmful is when things like terrorism, immoral actions and so on are glamorised; in other words, made to seem desirable and adventurous. Those are the occasions when they are going to do children some harm, and I am afraid there is too much of that ort of thing on television to-day. I should be very grateful indeed if I could see that part of Clause 7, at any rate, taken out of the Bill.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble Lord's anxiety—and I know very well how strongly he feels about this sort of question—is really directed to what I may call the finished product, the television performance or the broadcast performance,

959
whereas the clause to which he is speaking really deals only with the preliminary steps to the creation of that finished product. To take an example, it deals with a performance given
"to enable … the performance to be broadcast;…",
as the noble Lord will see if he looks at subsection (2), paragraph (b) (ii). But if and in so far as effect should be given to the anxieties which the noble Lord expresses, surely this particular clause is not the place for it. It may be—and I say nothing either way with regard to it—that there should be some more comprehensive control. I do not express a view about that; but, if so, it could not be in this particular clause. What this clause does is simply to single out certain types of performance—namely, those which are listed in paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—and say that the new provisions contained in, for example, Clause 2, creating the new criminal offence, shall not be applicable to them. But it does not exonerate them from the existing law. The existing law is left intact in its application to performances of that type.
So, if I may sum up, I would say to the noble Lord: first, Clause 7 does not exonerate those performances from the existing law. If they are criminal under the existing law they remain criminal, despite the provisions of Clause 7. Secondly, in any event, those performances are only the preliminary steps taken to the finished product which causes anxiety to the noble Lord as to its possible effect upon children who view the performance of either the broadcast or the television display. So I hope he will think that, so far as his anxieties are concerned, no change is necessary in Clause 7.
LORD SOMERS: May I say a word in reply to the noble Lord? I quite understand what he says; but I have seldom known of a preliminary step being taken in broadcasting which did not become a finished product.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill for his careful explanation of this clause. I can quite well see that it appears to meet certain points that I had not fully appreciated, but I am bound to say, equally, that I fear it does create certain difficulties. As I indicated at the
960
outset, however, I have no desire to press this Amendment, which was really intended as a probing Amendment in order that we could understand, or that I could understand, what was the precise objective of this Clause.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Restriction on institution of proceedings]:
8.52 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved to add to the clause:
"(2) In exercising his functions under this section the Attorney General shall be advised by a Committee consisting of not less than three members selected by him from a panel of six persons appointed by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as being persons having a wide knowledge of the arts and representing informed public opinion.
(3) The Attorney General shall not institute a prosecution under sections 2, 5 or 6 of this Act in relation to a play without first obtaining the advice of the said Committee."
The noble Lord said: One is treading on delicate ground with this Amendment. I was not present at the Second Reading debate but I read the report in Hansard and I observed that even the most gentle and mildest of men, such as the noble Lord who is conducting the proceedings in relation to the Bill, seem to grow incensed at the suggestion that the Attorney General ought not to have complete, unfettered and absolute discretion in these matters. May I hasten to say, for fear that he may become incensed with me, that I do not intend the slightest reflection on any Attorney General or upon that lofty and important office; but I unapologetically say that I do not think that this is a job for lawyers without advice. That is in no way a disparagement of lawyers. It would be rather absurd for me to say that I have no great respect for lawyers. Indeed I have, but I think that this is a specialised function. It is not without significance that, so far as I can remember, no Lord Chamberlain has ever been a practising lawyer.
Lawyers are people who have a particular job to do and who approach it with a particular state of mind. I think it can do nothing but good if we adopt the very moderate proposal that I have incorporated in this Amendment, which is simply that there should be an advisory committee and that the Attorney

961
General should ask their advice—not that he should act upon it or that he should be inhibited from instituting any prosecution without that advice, or that there should be any disqualifying consequences of his failure to take the advice, but simply that an advisory committee should be established and that he should resort to that Committee before instituting proceedings.
This is a matter about which one could talk at great length. I do not intend to do that; but there is one observation I should like to make regarding this matter. There have been two prosecutions which have been the most significant prosecutions in this matter in relation to books in recent years. The first was what is now the historical Lady Chatterley prosecution. In that prosecution, which ended in the acquittal of Lady Chatterley, the vindication of that lady and her return to a vacant place in the collected works of D. H. Lawrence which had long been empty, not a single expert witness was found available for the prosecution to say that the book was obscene. The only people who launched the prosecution and who maintained the prosecution, with enormous vigour and positive ferocity, were lawyers. No witness could be found in rebuttal of the expert evidence launched in avalanches by the defence to say that the hook ought not to be considered obscene. That is very significant. It justifies at least the tenor of the Amendment that I am proposing this evening.
The other matter I would advance in support of this Amendment is in relation to Last Exit to Brooklyn. This was a much more difficult book to deal with, but, in my view, it was not obscene in any sense of being designed to titillate or bring about promiscuity. It was, I think, a hook of a singularly unattractive and ugly character, but, nevertheless, in ray view not obscene. In that case, when the Home Secretary consulted his experts, when it was a question initially of a prosecution by the Director of Prosecutions his experts told him not to prosecute. That prosecution would not have taken place had the experts been consulted in the matter. That seems to me to vindicate the suggestion that this is not a matter for lawyers. I know that in the Last Exit case there was no reason to suppose that the Attorney General would
962
have prosecuted unprompted or that he wanted to prosecute. He was compelled to do so by the private prosecution instituted in the court below through the activities of a particular Member of Parliament who, I have no doubt, acted in accordance with the dictates of his conscience——and no-one can be critical of that. But it is significant in those two cases there would have been no prosecution if persons who are literate in the sense in which literacy is important in these matters had been consulted. I think it would be complacent for lawyers to say, "We know best. We can deal with these matters. It is unnecessary for us to take expert advice when we are dealing with these matters". It is important that lawyers should be not only willing but ready and willing to accept such advice and to show that they are prepared to be immensely co-operative in fields where they cannot claim expert knowledge.
I have been going to the theatre for many years. It was a regular pastime and it almost became a matter of routine for me. No occupation gives me greater delight. I hope it will not be regarded as invidious if I say that I cannot remember ever having met an Attorney General at any of those theatrical productions. That, too, is a matter of some significance. It is not in the least a reflection on Attorney Generals. It is simply the fact, I think, that they need some assistance in dealing with these matters. I venture to invite the noble Lord to consider this proposal as a moderate proposal and one which he should be very forthcoming in meeting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert the sail subsections.—(Lord Goodman.)
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: May I add one brief word in support of this Amendment? As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman indicated, and as we all know, the Attorney General, all Attorney Generals, can be relied upon to be admirable lawyers, men of complete integrity and men who will bring a completely dispassionate mind to bear on the issues with which they deal, but the fact is that Attorney Generals may (and sometimes do) know little of literature. They may have little knowledge of the theatre and may be out of touch with contemporary trends in it. All that this

963
Amendment seeks to do is to impose upon them the duty of consulting an expert Committee. They are not bound in any way to accept that advice but, at least, it provides that useful safeguard that they will seek proper advice.
Even under existing conditions, as one knows, the Director of Prosecutions or Attorney General does, in fact, take advice, and no doubt takes advice from proper and suitable quarters. The main advantage of the Bill, if amended in this way, would be that it would provide adequate and proper machinery for the purpose and one in which the theatrical world as a whole and the public could have some confidence. And it would go far not only to fortify the judgment of the Attorney General but also to give him considerable aid and comfort in reaching what must often be a most difficult and invidious decision. Therefore I would urge upon the Committee that it would be of value to introduce this Amendment into the Bill.
LORD STOW HILL: I must say at once that I am sorry I cannot go with my noble friend or with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his proposal. I feel that it is a proposal which is not really helpful. May I give some reasons? I take it—I do not know but I assume—that the noble Lord intended his Amendment to apply to the functions of the Attorney General in regard both to instituting proceedings himself and to giving consent to other people to institute them. I say that I am doubtful about it, because it is contrary to what he said.
I listened to his speech and he said that in the case of the prosecution of Last Exit to Brooklyn the Attorney General decided not to institute proceedings without having the advice of any extra committee of this sort. Then he gave consent to somebody else to institute proceedings, that being something which is not covered by the noble Lord's Amendment. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (3) he will see that it states:
"The Attorney General shall not institute a prosecution under section 2 of this Act in relation to a play without obtaining the advice of the said Committee."
That is perhaps just a defect in the drafting which the noble Lord did not intend, and would wish to change—I see that he is nodding his head. At any rate, the
964
Amendment would not have prevented any prosecution of Last Exit to Brooklyn. Not having read the book, I say nothing about whether that was or was not a well-justified prosecution.
The noble Lord said he had a poor opinion from some points of view of Attorney Generals. I once had the distinction of holding that office, and I can only say that I am very surprised that I have never had the privilege of meeting the noble Lord at the theatre. I adore going to the theatre, whenever I get the chance. Perhaps one of these days I shall have the privilege of meeting him there; and the same could be said of all the other Attorney Generals that I have known. After all, what has the Attorney General to do? He has to look at the book, or the play, or whatever it is that is in question; he has to read it and consider it, and use his judgment, and then ask himself the question, "Is it in the public interest that there should be a prosecution here?" If he cannot read a book or see a play and answer that question to himself, he ought not to be Attorney General.
I very respectfully protest against the view that Attorney Generals are as ignorant, in a literary sense, as the noble Lord seems to think. I have known them all intimately since the war, and I honestly do not think that his judgment on them is well-founded. So far as I know, they have been cultured, intelligent persons, and when they have time—which may not be as often as they would like—they enjoy reading literature. I certainly did. I have much more time now, more than I want, and I read a great deal of literature—I have always done so.
I should always be delighted to consult this expert committee of three persons out of six,
"appointed by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as being persons having a wide knowledge of the arts and representing informed public opinion."
If there is any real doubt as to the decision I should come to about a particular work, there is nothing to stop me from asking people. There are plenty of people of that sort around. I have always found them extremely accommodating and kind if I have asked their opinion, and I should hope that any Attorney General would find no difficulty, if he felt uncertainty, in ringing up a friend and saying, "Have you read this book? What

965
do you think of it?" It might be a friend who was a professor of English literature at Oxford, or something of the sort.
How is this committee to be appointed? Who are the people to be appointed as representing informed public opinion? I take it that ex-Attorney Generals would be ineligible for such an appointment—and I see that the noble Lord nods his head. I am sorry, but I cannot quite agree with him on that. Regarding "wide knowledge of the arts" I think that a good many of them would qualify for that as well. But what does the Amendment do? It puts an obligation on the Attorney General, before he institutes a prosecution, only to ask such people what they think, not to act in accordance with their views. He may cordially disagree with them.
What is the effect of asking them? Is he then, in the exercise of his discretion, to say to himself, "I am probably wrong, they are probably right, and therefore I will not do what I am convinced that I ought to do"? How on earth is this going to work? How is the Home Secretary to go about selecting six people who have these qualifications which, I should have thought, are happily, possessed by a very large section of intelligent and educated persons in this country?
I really think that the noble Lord and my noble friend, if they consider this Amendment, ought not to press it. It cannot do any good. Any Attorney General who has any common sense, if he wants to know what people think about a book, can ask them. It is not worth while taking statutory space and printing these words into a Statute to require a sensible person to do what he would probably do anyhow if he wanted the information. In any event, he would be. I should hope, a person who (and may I say it, I hope, not too immodestly), if he had reached the position of Attorney General, would have some education and would be able to form a judgment about a hook or a play, and answer himself the question, "Should a prosecution in the public interest be launched here?"
9.5 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: I should like to thrust, if I may, in support of this Amendment, not necessarily in its present form entirely, because I believe there are some weaknesses in it. But I urge the noble
966
and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, not to throw it away quite so easily as he appears to be doing and to listen now, not to an expert panel, but to some people who have some very deep feelings about this matter. I think the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, never met an Attorney General at the theatre is because it is true, is it not? that Attorney Generals cannot nowadays afford to sit in the stalls and lawyers can. I think that might be one reason.
If I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has painted a rather rosy picture of the ideal Attorney General. One would like to think that such Attorney Generals would always exist and one would always find them. But is it not true, and cannot we find, taking the period of the last twenty years, many instances of eminent men in public office, in the judiciary and in other places, who have a blind spot so far as literature is concerned'? And, so far as some aspects of literature are concerned, cannot we find people who do not act in the informed and intelligent way in which we would hope that all Attorney Generals might act?
All this Amendment does is to make a very mild suggestion, and lay upon the Attorney General the obligation of consultation. It has been suggested that he would consult anyway, if he were an intelligent man, and that is quite true; but it seems to me to be inadequate that we should rely on his ringing up a professorial friend who he knows is interested in literature and saying, "What do you think of this book, old boy?" Or, "What do you think of this play, old boy?" Or, "Will you pop clown to Leatherhead and see this new production for me? I should like your view". That, if I may say so, seems to me a tremendously cack-handed way of taking what appears to be a rather important decision. Suppose there is an occasion when the Attorney General feels that he would like advice, and he rings up a friend at midnight. If the Attorney General is in that state of doubt and wishes to consult someone, would it not be better if he had a panel of people upon whom he could call officially? What is wrong with that? I would ask the noble Lord not to be quite so reluctant about this but to see that it does have strong advantages

967
and would help the Attorney General to provide a small safeguard in another direction. It does not upset the balance of the Bill and it seems worth while, though, as I said at the beginning, not necessarily in its present form.
I think it might be invidious if these people were named—I do not know. It may be that six are not enough. And it may be difficult to find people who, having a wide knowledge of the arts, are also in touch with informed public opinion. In my experience, people with a knowledge of the arts are sometimes not in touch with public opinion, and vice versa. But I think that this proposal would help and not hinder. Why not accept the principle?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I married into a literary family, and no one has greater respect than I have for the literary man, but I have always had the greatest objection to making the literary man official, to putting his literary talents to the service of a panel appointed by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. To my mind, that is a real prostitution of the literary profession.
May I, while I am about it, point out one grievous disadvantage that will flow if this Amendment is accepted? Some of the distinguished literary men who would be on this panel would be in a most awkward position if they were called upon as witnesses for the defence against a prosecution by the Attorney General, who was supposed to have consulted them.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I would oppose this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I think that anybody in the position of Attorney General is well used to consulting whenever this is necessary, and I am sure that if he were not well experienced in the arts himself he would realise that this was one area where he should and could obtain expert opinion. My second objection is that when a panel is appointed, presumably its members are expected to give a unanimous decision. Experts frequently disagree, and if the Attorney General really wants the best advice he can get, the best thing he can do is to consult two or three people, hear their opinion and then form his own decision. I think
968
it would be the greatest mistake to have a panel who are expected to reach settled decisions to advise the Attorney General. No, my Lords, it will not work.
LORD STONHAM: I would hesitate to intervene between the conflicting opinions of "literary gents" in this matter, but I believe that it would help to put the point of view of one who would be on the receiving end of this sort of proposal. I am not suggesting that I would appoint this distinguished committee, but sometimes I am asked my opinion about certain people. On behalf of the Home Secretary I submit that this Amendment would put on him an obligation and responsibility which it would be unjust to place upon a Minister of the Crown.
My noble friend Lord Willis said that he supported this Amendment, though not entirely in its present form. I am glad that he did not support it entirely, because this Amendment contains three defects. I have been brought up to believe that no Amendment which was defective could be pressed, though it would perhaps be put right in another place; certainly it could not be supported entirely. My noble friend said that people have deep feelings on this matter. Quite true; and I hope that from the people who have deep feelings on this matter my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and I are not excluded. There seems to be a curious belief that when one becomes a Minister one ceases to have ordinary feelings about matters of this kind. But we do have radical feelings. My own feelings in this matter have not changed.
In regard to this proposition, one has to ask: is it practical? Is it possible? Is it right? On all three questions with regard to this Amendment the answer is, No. It has been said that there is some difficulty in suggesting who will decide what is "informed public opinion". I should like to know what "informed public opinion" is. What do we mean by "informed public opinion" about literary works, plays, works of art?
LORD GOODMAN: May I tell the noble Lord what I regard as "informed public opinion"? In theatrical matters, I should regard "informed public opinion" as the people who would not have banned Ghosts and other Ibsen plays

969
at the time when they were banned here, and the people who would not have banned Bernard Shaw's plays at the time when they were banned here. I am absolutely satisfied that the Attorney General of the time would have banned both.
LORD STONHAM: In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would suggest that those who can decide what is "informed public opinion" would only be selected for negative reasons. All the reasons that he gave were negative ones. We have to be positive about this, and even now the question is not answered. What is "informed public opinion"? Does it mean informed about plays, informed about public reaction, informed about public opinion? The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, indicated that he would not accept an ex-Attorney General. Presumably he would not accept the Lord Chamberlain. Would he accept an ex-Lord Chancellor in the shape of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne?
LORD GOODMAN: I should unhesitatingly accept this present Lord Chamberlain, if I may say so.
LORD COBBOLD: He is not a candidate.
LORD STONHAM: I did not say the ex-Lord Chamberlain.
LORD COBBOLD: He is not the ex-Lord Chamberlain.
LORD STONHAM: He, I submit, has as much experience in these matters as almost any man. These are real difficulties. It is all very well to say: "This is what I should not like, and this is what I should." But I am considering appointing these people. What would be the position of the Attorney General with, as it were, a jury on both sides? It would be an impossible position.
The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is wholly right; namely, to ensure that the existence and importance of literary or dramatic merit in a play is fully appreciated before the charges are made. We are all in agreement about that. If this committee was appointed, if we could come to agreement about it (and I do not think for one moment that we could), we should virtually be asking the committee to advise on the extent to which a defence
970
of public good could be raised. In my submission, it would be quite incompatible with the normal processes of justice to ask the very questions which might negative the issue before the court.
LORD WILLIS: How does my noble friend square what he has just said about its being incompatible to consult a duly appointed panel with the statement that the Attorney General anyway would consult quite unofficially with other colleagues in this field, and presumably would ask their same opinion on this matter? Where is the difference?
LORD STONHAM: I think there is a considerable difference because, presumably, the committee would have to have a hearing in public.
LORD WILLIS: No.
LORD STONHAM: All right, then. If they did not have a hearing in public, there would be the belief that it was not fair and right, and it was something secret.
LORD WILLIS: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I think he is making this a little too big. I do not conceive that this Amendment demands that all members of the panel who are consulted should be unanimous. They could all be consulted individually, and their reports submitted individually to the Attorney General merely in the way of advice. All this does is to compel them to do something in this respect.
LORD STONHAM: In other words, the Attorney General, at the end of the day, if he consulted three people in the form of a panel, and got three different opinions, would be no better off. I heard what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said when he was Attorney General. But as the Bill now stands, it is a law officer who would make a decision, and he has, or should have, the qualities which enable him to make a decision not only on a matter of law but on what is "informed public opinion ". Whether or not your Lordships agree with me on this, the fact is that the inherent difficulties, the virtual impossibility, of setting up the kind of panel that is asked for so that it would not only serve a useful purpose but carry "informed public opinion" with it, are so great that I think

971
this is an Amendment which should not be sustained.
LORD STOW HILL: I intervene for only one minute, primarily because I committed the chief sin of advocacy in over-pitching my case and letting my feelings carry me a bit further than they should carry me. May I just try again. Many noble Lords have come to my rescue, including my noble friend Lord Stonham, but may I put just shortly what I think is in a way rather a difficulty. What has the Attorney General to do? He has first to look at Clause 2. He has to make up his mind whether the effect of the play is as described in Clause 2(1). That is largely—I do not say entirely—a lawyer's province. He has to consider that definition, apply it to the situation as he sees it, and answer the question: Is the play likely to currupt as a whole or is it not? Then he has to consider Clause 3 and balance the two together.
What in fact would the Committee be likely to help him about? I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and my noble friend Lord Willis, who I am afraid I greatly provoked—I apologise—
LORD WILLIS: On the contrary.
LORD STOW HILL: They would say, and I think they would agree with me about this, "You, the Attorney General, no doubt can bring your mind to bear on these legal problems, but what you might miss" (I do not know whether I report correctly the views of the noble Lords) "is this. You, with your approach, which might be a little over-legalistic, may fail to detect what might be described as a hidden virtue, a hidden merit, in the particular piece under consideration, to which your attention could be drawn if you consult the Committee". I do not know whether that would really be, roughly speaking, an accurate summary of the views of both noble Lords who spoke.
Now, is the likelihood of that really sufficiently strong to make this proposal justifiable, bearing in mind the difficulties which were so cogently and clearly put, I thought, by my noble friend Lord Stonham? I can only say that I hope that an Attorney General who tries to do his duty would be particularly keen to
972
try to see whether there were merits in it. He would study it and analyse it in order to make certain that he had not missed hidden merits of the particular performance that he is looking at. I hope that he would bring a commonsense point of view to bear on it, and that he would not allow himself to fail to take into account the sort of thing that he ought to think about when trying to assess the value of a performance.
On some occasions, I suppose, it might be the case, unless his attention were drawn to it, that he might not sufficiently appreciate a particular merit in a particular work. I can only again say that I think any Attorney General, if he were in doubt, would take the trouble to inform himself, and he would have resort voluntarily, without the compulsion of any Statute, to such advice as he could, get and he would see to it that he had really prepared himself for the decision. Therefore, if I may, on what I would describe as a calmer and less provocative note, put my answer, I would say simply this. There really is not sufficient ground in the circumstances of the case for the setting up of the machinery which Lord Goodman and my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead propose. That really is the view which I am putting to the Committee and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lords whose names appear on this Amendment will feel that that really is the case.
9.24 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: This question presents a difficulty. I regard this as a matter of very high importance. I thought that the Chatterley prosecution was a disgrace to a civilised country. I regard it as of exceptional importance to try to devise a means of preventing such prosecutions in future. This Amendment was what I thought was one means of avoiding them. If I may say so, this matter is not to be dealt with by the sort of argument that has been very elegantly and eloquently deployed by the noble Lord, which was rather what I expected.
First, we have of course the presentation of the Attorney General's viewpoint, but happily I have not provoked him into the anger and rage that emerged in the Second Reading debate, because I have made it clear that no reflection at all is intended at all on Attorney

973
Generals. But they have a remarkable power of self-deception. If I may say so, I noticed it when I was a member of the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry. We had a stream of witnesses, and one of the questions to which we addressed ourselves was whether the Attorney General ought to present the evidence on behalf of the Government in a matter of public importance under investigation. Without exception every legal witness of any distinction—Lord Chancellors, Judges, and so on—said "No, they should not"; without exception every Attorney General and ex-Attorney General said, "Yes, they should". Plainly, of course, they should not, and the Royal Commission arrived at that conclusion.
The second point is the unhappy one that where matters of the mind in the Humanities are concerned there is the odd attitude that learning and experience count for nothing. If we were discussing some scientific subject and I had proposed that the Attorney General should not institute a prosecution on whether water was polluted or whether gas was polluted, or whether rockets should be sent into the air without taking the advice of a scientific committee, no one would think it at all odd. But when you come to at least as important a question, a knowledge of the Drama going back over the centuries, the Attorney General (who knows nothing at all about the subject and makes no pretension to knowing anything) and some of his colleagues, who may have been to a theatre occasionally, suggest that he is quite qualified to undertake this task. If I may say so, that is a complacent attitude which does very little credit to lawyers.
What to do? I cannot press this Amendment to a Division, because if I did we might do some damage to the Bill. I withdraw it reluctantly, and with an invitation to the Government to consider whether there is not a formidable case for taking these matters out of the hands of non-specialists and giving them to writers and dramatists who feel keenly about the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said he felt keenly, but if I may say so he has nothing to lose. He is not a writer of plays, and his play is not going to be prosecuted. There is no reason why he should feel keenly, but a writer will feel keenly since he may
974
find that he is prosecuted with little or no reason, simply because somebody does not understand the trend of current drama.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Lord therefore suggesting that his panel of informed public opinion should be a panel of writers?
LORD GOODMAN: I am not suggesting that; nor is there the slightest difficulty in assembling a panel of people who would have the necessary qualifications to fulfil the functions. I am sure if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had the job to do he would do it perfectly satisfactorily in a morning. However, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, though reluctantly and with an invitation that it be regarded as a serious matter for reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
9.28 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
"Defence, to prosecution under section 2 of omission from play of words specified in notice served by Attorney General.
Before instituting any prosecution under section 2 of this Act in relation to a play the Attorney General shall serve or cause to be served a notice on the persons presenting the performance of a play out of which the proposed prosecution arises specifying the words or other part or parts of the play which are alleged to be obscene and it shall be a defence to any prosecution under section 2 of this Act in relation to any performance of the play that that performance omitted all such words or part or parts as aforesaid specified in the said notice and contained no new matter rendering the play obscene.
Provided that no such notice need be served by the Attorney General if in the opinion of the Attorney General the nature or extent of the alleged obscene matter is such that it is not practicable to specify the same by way of notice."
The noble Lord said: I will try to move this Amendment with considerable speed. I can do so briefly, although I think it is an important Amendment and, if I may say so, I have to change my tack completely. My previous Amendment and the arguments I deployed in favour of it were addressed to rather loftier considerations. This is directed almost entirely to commercial considerations.
What I want to do is to try to mitigate the risks in the minds of producers, managements and other people who will now be putting on plays, of the disappearance of the insurance factor that they enjoyed with the Lord Chamberlain. Until the Lord Chamberlain disappears a management putting on a play, or an author having his play produced, had the certain knowledge that the play was safe from prosecution. It had the effect that the play could be invested in, and this is the factor with which I am very much concerned. Investment in a stage play to-day in London is a very serious matter; the ordinary stage play—not a musical—might quite easily involve an investment of between £25,000 and £50,000 if there are not too many people in the cast—certainly £25,000, up to £50,000. A musical play may involve an investment of up to £150,000. It has to be borne in mind that until this Bill becomes law anyone who makes that investment will know that it is subject to the ordinary commercial risk that the public may not come, but will equally know that he is not subjected to the special risk that the only people who are concerned to pass through the doors are members of the police force; and that the play may be closed on the first night of the production.
I think this will inevitably have a discouraging effect on commercial managements. It will therefore have an effect going beyond concern about plays which are actually marginal. I think a number of the plays which have been licensed by the present Lord Chamberlain (who has I think in many instances shown a very progressive attitude towards the theatre, although there have been causes for complaint in certain instances but very few) would not be put on by commercial managements after this Bill comes into effect until they become sure of the climate of opinion prevailing. My Amendment is designed to ensure that before a summons is actually issued there should also he served a notice which specifies obscenities of which the prosecution will complain, if it is possible to specify. If it is not possible, if the play is shot through and through with obscenity or they are not of a character to be put into a notice, there is no obligation to do so. If he serves a notice and if a version of the play is then put
976
on which omits the matters of which complaint is made that should not thereafter constitute an offence.
This is a naked commercial purpose. The management will recognise if there are passages in the play about which there might be doubt; he will know he can save his investment and allow the play to continue if he is prepared to make the changes required by the notice. The objection may be raised by noble Lords—it may be raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—that he does not want management to make changes in his play. I think the answer is that he will control the situation contractually. Ordinarily management cannot make changes without the author's consent. The author can retain his contractual right, and if the notice is to be complied with it would require the author's consent. If the author says, "This complaint is preposterous; let us fight it", that would be done. If both parties agreed that it was reasonable to make the changes until it was established whether or not the prosecution was validly launched, the changes could be made and the investment would be secured for that period of time. This is the sole and solitary purpose of this Amendment. It is not in the least designed to detract from the whole principle of the Bill. It is not designed to change the decision that we are doing away with the Lord Chamberlain in these matters—and I think rightly. It is designed as a simple measure to try to instil a higher sense of security in managements and to avoid the refusal of plays of a progressive kind during the transition period until we know what things are about. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Goodman.)
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: At this late hour I am not going to make another speech. I should simply like to say, in support of this Amendment, that it is designed to relieve the management in certain cases of the appalling dilemma of either having to close down the play or possibly face financial ruin. I would submit it would introduce a very useful safeguard and one which is deserving of very careful consideration.
LORD STOW HILL: I would respectfully advise the Committee not to accept

977
this Amendment, and I know that my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will be disappointed in my answer, as they were disappointed in my last answer. But I really feel this is the right answer. I would ask the noble Lord exactly how this Amendment is proposed to work. May I read a portion of the Amendment? Halfway down the first paragraph it says:
" … it shall be a defence to any prosecution under section 2 of this Act in relation to any performance of the play that that performance omitted all such words … as specified in the said notice … "
Either the performance contained the words or it did not contain the words. If it contained the words why on earth should there not be a prosecution? If it did not contain the words, how on earth could there be a prosecution? It seems to me that there is some slight confusion of thought in this.
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt, but it is important at this time that we understand what we are talking about. I think that legitimately there is some confusion of thought, but I do not think it is on my part. I think the Amendment is perfectly clear. The point is that the management will not know what to take out unless they are told by the prosecutor what it is that he complains about. The notice therefore specifies the matter of which the prosecutor complains—not matter which is necessarily obscene—and upon which the prosecution is based. If that material is expunged from the play it is a defence thereafter to any suggestion of obscenity that subsequent performances did not contain that material.
LORD STOW HILL: It seems to me that if that is the effect it is supposed to have, then it is a thoroughly undesirable Amendment. I do not think there is the least confusion of thought on my part about this. I think it is a bad Amendment, and I will explain why. If the proposal is that somebody may put on a play with as much filth in it as he likes, in the secure knowledge that he may in due course before any proceedings are taken against him, receive a notice saying, "Take out the following passages to which we object", and that he knows that if he then takes out those passages
978
he will not be prosecuted for having put them in I can only say that that is a form of brinkmanship which does not—
LORD GOODMAN: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again, but it says no such thing. There is no suggestion that he will not be prosecuted for the original performances which contained the material. That would be quite wrong. All it says is that, notwithstanding that he may be prosecuted for the performances which contained the obscenities, he can continue to perform the play if he removes the obscenities after the summons has been issued.
LORD STOW HILL: Then what on earth is the point of the notice? It does not seem that the notice has the slightest point. If he puts on an indecent clay, an obscene play, and he then gets a notice saying, "Will you leave out the following passages", and there is then a prosecution in respect of that play, what on earth is the point of saying that if thereafter, he leaves out those passages he will not again be prosecuted for continuing to produce the play? It seems to me completely pointless. I cannot understand what the guarantee which is supposed to accrue to the playwright, is supposed to consist in.
In point of fact, as the Bill is worded at the moment, he has the security that the Attorney General will not prosecute in a frivolous case. All this Amendment proposes is that when a play is put on and it contains objectionable passages, if the Attorney General serves notice and starts his prosecution the prosecution shall go on and the playwright or the producer shall run the risk of conviction or imprisonment, of whatever may happen to him; but thereafter, if having had a prosecution launched against him, he takes out the indecent parts of the play so that it is no longer indecent he will not be prosecuted again. That is a statement of the obvious, and a result which must necessarily ensue even if this Amendment were never thought of. I do not see what the Amendment does to improve the situation. I should not have thought it gave the least security of mind to the person who is thinking of putting on a play. If a person puts on a play which is indecent,

979
then so far as this Amendment is concerned he is prosecuted. All that happens is that he has the additional advantage of getting a notice saying the words which are objected to. But he is prosecuted just the same, and if he takes them out he is not prosecuted again. He would not be prosecuted again anyhow because the play would not contain anything indecent.
LORD WILLIS: If my noble friend will allow me, may I say that I think that his answer so far only reinforces the argument made in regard to the previous Amendment that has been withdrawn. The point really is not this. The point is that a considerable investment in time, labour and money has been put into a play. It may be judged, in part and in single passages, to be obscene and to offend.
All we are saying is that if it is so classed as obscene and a prosecution is going to be taken against it, at that point it will be closed, all the money will be lost, all the actors will be out of work, all the work will be wasted. But if the author and the management and the directors knew at the point of the serving of the prosecution what was considered offensive about the play and were prepared in the interim, while the prosecution about the original production was going on, to remove the matter the Attorney General thought was offensive, then the play could continue to run, the actors continue to work, the investors continue to earn their money, and the theatre continue to be occupied. As the Bill stands at present, the moment the prosecution starts the actors are out of work and the play is finished. The Amendment may not be perfectly worded—I am sure the movers of the Amendment would agree with that—but there is an important principle here which I think should be considered and, late as it is, I do not think we should hurry it on and have something which is inadequate.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: It seems to me there is a perfectly simple answer to this one. If the play has been put on and is considered by the Attorney General to be obscene, I think that whoever has put it on must play safe and must take out anything that they think could be reasonably objected to so that they do not get prosecuted again. I do not see why one should go out of one's
980
way to see them so that they can keep the play as dirty as possible. That is really what this Amendment is asking us to do.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sympathetic with any proposal which will bring a feeling of justified security to a person who wishes to put on a play, and if I could co-operate with the noble Lord I would gladly do so, but I honestly do not think that he has produced any machinery which might have that result. Somebody produces a play, it is put on the boards, it is then seen and it is thought to be obscene within the meaning of the Act. The Attorney General then decides to prosecute. If this Amendment is accepted, he serves a notice setting out, if he can do so, the parts of the play to which he thinks objection should be taken. I am quite sure that the noble Lord agrees with me so far. Then the prosecution starts. The prosecution is not stopped; it starts, and the summons is served and the ordinary proceedings take their course. In due course it gets to the Central Criminal Court, or wherever it is to be tried.
Once that has happened, once the summons is served or at any time, even without notice from the Attorney General, it is perfectly open to those who produce the play to remove from the play those parts which may offend against the law, and they can then carry on with their play, just as if it had never been objectionable at all. Their investment is saved. I am saying perfectly seriously to my noble friends Lord Willis and Lord Goodman, that I do not think they have, by the Amendment they have devised, produced any machinery which will produce any useful result. This can be done, notice or no notice.
There is, I think, a subsidiary difficulty. I know the Amendment does not require that there shall be notice if it is not practicable to specify the particular parts, but, after all, we all knew from the very beginning of our consideration of this Bill that it is the effect of the play as a whole that is relevant, not specific parts. So even if the Attorney General did his best to comply by giving a notice of that sort, it might be to take out Act 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, I do not suppose it would be very informative, as the issue which would come before the court would be not whether some

981
particular passage was objectionable but whether the play as a whole was objectionable.
That is not my main objection to this proposal. My main objection, if I may respectfully repeat it once and for all, is that it just will not improve the situation. It will give nobody the least security. It will simply mean that the Attorney General serves a piece of paper on those concerned which has not the slightest effect. It does not stop a prosecution, nor does it enable them to remove what they could have removed, notice or no notice.
LORD GOODMAN: I have never been so conscious of the inadequacies of my exposition as I am this evening. It is quite clear that I have totally failed to explain the purpose of the Amendment, which is very simple. The man prosecuted will not know what it is that the prosecution are complaining of unless they tell him. It displays no tremendous knowledge of the theatre to believe that, with a contemporary play, the management, having been informed that he is about to be prosecuted, would run through the material and of his own decision excise those parts which he thinks will make him safe. This would be a great nonsense. He can only be safe if he is told what it is the prosecution is complaining of, not what he thinks the prosecution is complaining of. If a notice of this kind is served, that notice gives the management a chance to continue with the play. If it is not served, he can make a brave effort as regards some plays, but as regards other plays he will not do so.
There can be no harm, so far as I can see, in accepting this Amendment. In fact it would do a good deal of good and might save money for the theatre in the transitional period. I should like on this Amendment to adopt the course followed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in withdrawing his own Amendment, and withdraw my Amendment on the basis that I might like to consider whether it would be permissible to put it down on Report. It might benefit from a little polishing, but I think that it is an Amendment which requires to be pressed a little more in the interests of the theatre. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
LORD STOW HILL: We have made fair progress on the Bill. I know your Lordships have a great deal more business to transact this evening. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to adjourn further consideration of this particular Bill. In the hope that your Lordships will think that is a convenient course, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
9.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Gas and Electricity Bill be read a second time. The principal purpose of the Bill is to enable the gas industry to secure finance for its development programme in the natural gas era. I will, with the permission of the House, deal first with the minor clauses concerning powers to borrow overseas and to give technical assistance. These concern the electricity industry as well as the gas industry. I will come later to the main purpose, the extension of the gas industry's borrowing powers.
Clauses 2 to 4, relating to borrowing in foreign currencies, take up a great deal of the Bill's space. Both the gas and electricity industries have expressed interest in being able to borrow in foreign currencies, believing that from time to time this might be beneficial to them. The House will know that the Air Corporations were given in Section 6 of the Air Corporations Act 1966 a power to borrow in foreign currencies, and that the Greater London Council has been given a similar power.
I would emphasise that no borrowing by the gas and electricity industries in foreign currency is intended at present. But Clauses 2 to 4 have been included in the Bill so that the power will be available for use if needled. In view of the great size of their investment programmes, it is unlikely that either of the industries will ever be able to raise any

983
great part of their requirements for new money in this way. Apart from this practical limitation noble Lords will note that control is asserted by the Government through the requirement in the clauses that the borrowing must be from persons and on terms specified by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury. There is, of course, no intention of either industry issuing securities with voting rights. I hope that the House will welcome this extension of the industries' possible sources of capital.
I now turn to technical assistance overseas. The opportunity of the Bill has also been taken to seek a power for the gas and electricity industries to make available their special experience and skills to developing countries through agreements with the Minister of Overseas Development. There is nothing in Clause 5 that obliges the industries to give assistance if they do not so choose, or to incur any expense on their own account. Their technical eminence makes our gas and electricity industries well placed to give help in this way, and I hope the House will welcome the removal of the legal impediment—which I am surprised to find exists—to the flow of their technical assistance.
I now come to the main purpose of this Bill, which is to raise the Gas Council's power to borrow money by an additional £1,200 million. The reasons for this are set out both in the Memorandum on the Gas and Electricity Bill and in the Gas Council's brochure Investment in Natural Gas. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I explain the position briefly. The last Act to extend the borrowing powers of the gas industry was the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Act 1965. That Act set a limit of £1,200 million. It was expected at the time that this would suffice until 1970, but of course, no North Sea gas had been discovered at that time. Now that we have this gas—and it should be of great benefit to the British economy—it is of great importance to develop its use as rapidly as possible. It offers advantages in terms of relatively low cost industrial fuel, savings of up to £100 million per annum in balance of payments, and security of supply. The more quickly the gas is introduced the greater will be the gains to the economy.
984
This means a very great increase in the size of the industry. I shall spare your Lordships the statistics, but in simple terms the effect of the Government's plans is to double the sale of gas by 1970–71, and this would be doubled again by 1975. This great increase will necessarily involve large increases in investment, since it will require a very substantial programme of work to expand the industry's system and services.
The main element of all this, however, is the creation of a national gas grid, which is known technically as the main transmission programme. First of all, we have to complete the feeder mains from the North Sea coast. The main pipeline system from Canvey to Leeds has already been supplemented by a feeder from Easington to Sheffield, and a second is due to be commissioned this year, from Norfolk to near Rugby. A third (from Norfolk to near Hitchin) is being laid, while two more are planned, to make a capacity to take an average of about 3,000 million cubic feet a day. The backbone main is also being extended to the remaining four Area Boards so that North Sea gas can be supplied to all of them by 1970. This main pipeline system is to be operated by the most modern techniques involving computers and radio telemetry. It involves a radical shift in the nature of the industry's capital investment. Two years ago nearly half its investment was on gas-making plant and only 5 per cent. on bulk transmission. Next year these proportions will be reversed; that is to say 50 per cent. on transmission and 5 per cent. on gas-making plant.
May we turn to the Area Board programmes? The quickest way for the Boards to use North Sea gas is to take it into gas-making plant at present fed by oil. This enables them to supply it to the consumer as towns gas, for which of course no conversion of appliances is needed. This substitution of oil feedstock by the new gas will also be especially helpful to the balance of payments in the next few years. In the longer term, however, it will be cheaper to convert everybody to take North Sea gas "neat" rather than to put up the additional reforming plant which would be needed to convert all this gas to town gas. Moreover, because of the higher calorific value of the natural gas, the capacity of mains

985
and storage is greatly increased. It is to enable the industry to carry out these plans that this Bill is being presented.
Perhaps your Lordships will be interested in a picture of the overall investment and borrowings. The Gas Council estimate that the rate of investment is likely to average just over £300 million a year for the period up to March, 1973. This compares with only £50 million a year in the ten years up to and including 1961–62, though of course the trend has risen since to the present level. Total capital requirements in the five years up to March, 1973, are expected to be about £1,600 million, of which about £500 million will be met from the industry's internal resources, leaving about £1,100 million to be met from external borrowing. The industry's self-financing ratio is expected to increase from under 20 per cent. as at present to about 50 per cent. in 1972–73—an average of 31 per cent.
I might conveniently deal here with a point which was raised in another place about the industry's financial target. Because of the standstill in prices and incomes introduced in July, 1966, and then the uncertain position pending the issue of the Fuel Policy White Paper, it was decided to leave unchanged the financial objectives of the gas and electricity industries. However, preparations are now in hand to agree with the industries on fresh objectives for a period of years beginning in 1969–70. Three-quarters of the estimated capital requirements of £1,600 million—that is, £1,200 million—comprises expenditure on fixed assets. Of this, almost half, £546 million, is on hulk transmission and on storage; almost another half, £532 million, is on distribution and consumer service; about one-sixth of the total, £276 million, is for the conversion of consumers' equipment to burn natural gas instead of town gas; and the remainder, about £250 million, comprises provision for North Sea exploration and development by the Gas Council, for increased working capital, for residual gas manufacture and for offices, land, vehicles and the rest. This seems very precise, but in point of fact these are long-term forecasts.
I should like to talk about the flexibility which lies behind the figures I have given your Lordships. The fact is, however, that this vast expenditure is far from being fully committed. If it became clear that more or less natural gas would be avail-
986
able or sold than has been assumed, the programme would have to be adjusted accordingly. The industry makes broad five-year plans, but firm plans are made only one year ahead with provisional plans for a second year. The programme can therefore be reviewed by the industry as it rolls forward; and, subject of course to Ministerial approval, the industry may only commit itself to expenditure in the light of the most recent knowledge.
In view of the need for flexibility, however, there are in the Bill two special provisions about the borrowing limits. On the one hand, to allow for tilt possibility that expenditures and borrowings may exceed the current estimates, there is a margin for contingencies. The sum chosen (which is a slightly "phoney" one, due to rounding of other figures) comes to the precise-looking £237 million, and is a large contingency allowance by any standards. But it is not out of line with the length of the period, five years, which the borrowing provision is aimed to cover, or with the scale of the gas industry's operations. On the other hand, an interim borrowing limit is proposed, equivalent to only £400 million of new borrowing, which should ensure that the finances of the gas industry come under consideration by Parliament within two years of the passage of this Bill.
It will be possible to decide then precisely what provision should be made for borrowing in the ensuing three years or so. In addition to the control exercised through the borrowing limits, the industry's capital expenditures are subject to control by the Minister annually through the Government's annual review of the investment programmes of the Gas Council and Area Boards. Moreover we have the National Board for Prices and Incomes looking into the industry's efficiency, and the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is at present examining its plans for natural gas. It is perhaps unfortunate that this Bill could not await the Select Committee's Report, but there is no doubt, on any likely future, about the industry's need for a higher borrowing limit than the £400 million mentioned.
May I now turn to the industry's plans for selling gas? In order to double its market by 1970/71, and double it again by 1975, clearly an immense effort will

987
be required, especially to penetrate the industrial market. It expects to make most progress in the premium markets where the special qualities of natural gas (that is, its cleanliness and high calorific value) are of most value. This is where the gain to the balance of payments is greatest since the fuel displaced is likely to be oil. But other industrial outlets will also he required to help secure a good load factor and rapid build-up. In order to make the most rapid possible progress on marketing, the industry has been strengthening its marketing staff, in particular the Marketing Department of the Gas Council has recently been strengthened.
I now come to Clause 6 of the Bill which deals with an alteration in the organisation of the Gas Council. It gives power to appoint up to another two full-time members of the Gas Council. This clause needs to be considered as part of the process of development of the organisation of the industry to cope with the major change to natural gas. Under the 1948 Gas Act the industry took over about 1,000 separate gas undertakings. It has welded them into large supply systems in each Area supplied from large and efficient gas-making plants. Then came further change, the purchase of Algerian liquid gas amounting to about 10 per cent. of this country's supplies. And then something of a revolution, the making of gas by new cheap processes from oil. The industry was in the midst of this revolutionary change before North Sea gas was discovered.
I think it is fitting to pay a tribute to the gas industry for the way in which it has adapted to these changes—and, indeed, promoted them. But as the industry becomes basically a distributor of North Sea gas—and that is really its future—so the manufacturing functions of Area Boards must gradually be phased out. Therefore, it will become more and more important, and indeed essential, for decisions to be taken on a national basis and not Area by Area. Within the present statutory framework the industry is itself strengthening its machinery for such national decision, by reorganisation at the Gas Council. At the same time, the Government are giving very careful
988
thought to the question whether any statutory changes are now called for.
As the Minister announced in another place, we now have in mind changes intended to strengthen the central powers and duties of the Gas Council but at he same time leaving the Area Boards with their continuing and essential roles of bringing gas to the consumer and of providing the accompanying services. The Gas Council will need to have responsibility for the main policy decisions of the industry. These would include the industry's investment decisions and financial performance. In those matters the Area Boards will need to become responsible to the Gas Council. The Area Boards will remain as statutory bodies with their responsibilities for supply (subject to the general policies of the Gas Council) and for safety. Their chairmen would remain members of the Gas Council and would be appointed by the Minister.
These changes will require legislation, and it is hoped a Bill will be included in the programme for the next Session of Parliament. The two further full-time members of the Council for whom provision is made in this Bill are a further immediate step in the evolution of the organisation of the industry following the strengthening of the Council by the 1965 Act. The Bill will enable the Minister to appoint at once, without waiting for the more far reaching legislation which I have outlined, new Council members to fill key posts at the centre, for example, to take charge of the industry's finance and economic planning. My Lords, that is a brief, and rather fast, outline of the scope of the first six clauses of the Bill; I hope it clarifies to a certain extent what is intended.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Winterbottom.)
10.5 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his extremely detailed, and very rapid, explanation of the rather complicated provisions of this Bill. I have two reservations only on the policy behind this Bill and they are both connected with the main provision, the raising of the money for conversion to natural gas. With our present limited

989
knowledge, can we be quite certain that it is wise to decide now, irrevocably, to go over exclusively to natural gas?
"The scale and nature of the markets for gas inevitably depend to a large degree on the selling price."
Those rather obvious words are not mine, they come from the Ministry of Power White Paper Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 3438) page 7, and perhaps the noble Lord will keep at that page because I shall be returning to it later.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give me that reference again?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is page 7, paragraph 14, line 30. Industrial gas sells at present at 20d. per therm. Can the noble Lord tell us how favourable will be the price of natural gas, in relation to that figure, by the time it gets to the user? In other words, if industrial gas sells at present at 20d. per therm, and if a few years ago we had converted to natural gas, what would be the estimated price per therm of natural gas based on present-day prices?
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said, the gas industry has recently re-equipped with new plant to go over from the use of coal gas to naphtha gas. I believe that at present two-thirds of the gas comes from naphtha and one-third from coal. Therefore, in addition to the price of the new equipment needed for natural gas, the accelerated depreciation of the good plant already existing must be taken into consideration, and this is going to be depreciated over the next ten years, which will add to the cost of the natural gas. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord could say what is the cost of the natural gas in present-day terms.
My second question is this. Will the rate of production of natural gas be big enough to cope with our needs, or are we liable to run out of natural gas too soon? To go back to page 7 of the White Paper, at the end of paragraph 13, it reads:
"Though there can be no certainty as yet, it is a reasonable assumption for planning purposes that production from the United Kingdom part of the North Sea could reach 4,000 million cubic feet a day in 1975."
990
How sure is that assumption? And if that assumption is proved to be wrong, are we going to be "up the creek"?
Secondly, stocks of North Sea gas are calculated to last for something like 25 years. After 25 years, will there be more? And if there is no more in our part of the North Sea, shall we have to choose eventually between buying from abroad, with the risk to our balance of payments, or reverting to naphtha or coal gas at a great deal more capital expenditure?
I quote from the Blue Book again, from paragraph 14:
"But, particularly for the longer term, much more needs to be known before it will be possible to establish precisely the role to be played by natural gas in our energy supplies. It will take time to assess the ultimate reserves; …"
Again:
"… because of the uncertainty about them the longer-term strategy for absorption must allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate fresh knowledge as it builds up."
And again:
"… only provisional conclusions can be reached."
Are we right in putting all our money in natural gas at this moment, when there are so many uncertainties?
The second reservation I have about this Bill is with regard to the borrowing powers. Are we right to give what is virtually an open-ended cheque to the gas industry against the background of the current economic situation? Way are we allowing in this Bill for an eventual borrowing of £2,400 million when only £1,600 million is thought to be necessary? There seems to be a very large contingency fund on the way. I know there is a safeguard in the Affirmative Resolution procedure before borrowing powers are extended too much, but the difficulty is that if the Gas Council and the Boards know that they can plan on a limit of £2,400 million they are liable to do so. The present limit of borrowing powers has been reached earlier than expected, and can anyone believe that the whole £2,400 million will not in fact be used?
What would be very much better would be to introduce natural gas more slowly. Her Majesty's Government could have extended the powers by £400 million in this Bill alone for the next two years. The industry could have gone over to natural gas for industrial use

991
only at first. After two years the position could have been reviewed yet again in the light of the knowledge that had then become available. It might then, for instance, prove a better proposition to reform natural gas to town gas at source rather than adapt all gas-burning equipment to take natural gas direct. Although it would not be proper to hold up this Bill at this stage, I thought it only right to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the reservations that I and my noble friends—I should say at this time of night my noble friend—have to this Bill.
10.15 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for the constructive approach that he has taken to this rather technical Bill. I apologise for having gone at a rather rapid rate, but I tried to slow down when I thought it was complex. I have another equally complex Order to discuss with the noble Lord in a few moments, and I thought that perhaps any time saved would be of value.
The noble Lord made various reservations on this Bill, and I think quite rightly so. We are moving into a new era, which has come upon us unexpectedly. I believe that this is one of the strokes of luck, unexpected and unearned, but very welcome, that this country has received in the past few years. The gas industry, which started as a Cinderella, and in fact with half a shoe and which has become one of the more dynamic of the nationalised industries, has grasped this opportunity with both hands and, I think quite rightly, is taking every step it can to make the largest possible use of this new source of wealth that we have discovered off our coast. I am fairly certain that although the gas industry is pushing ahead as fast as it can, it must share to a great degree the noble Lord's reservations.
The point the noble Lord made was: Will there he gas after 25 years? Is the rate of production sufficient for our needs? These are factors that I think we can only take as an act of faith. I obviously believe that it is so. Experience in our generation has been that there has always been more oil and more natural gas than we ever thought was there. We
992
know, for instance, that there are traces ' of gas North of the present field, and also maybe, in the Irish Sea. For all we know, we may be floating on some vast bubble of natural gas. Nevertheless, I think the noble Lord is right to ask the question and to try to look a little distance ahead.
Of course, if we found that natural gas reserves ran out at the end of this period, then we should have to go back to other systems of gas production, which I would guess in 25 years' time will be technologically far in advance of anything that we are doing now. I am reasonably certain, although I do not have any hard facts on the subject, that research into other sources of gas will continue during the last years when the gas comes in from the North Sea.
Again, there is the reservation about the very large sum earmarked for the development of the programme as now foreseen, and the questions: Would it not have been better to have gone more slowly, not to be forced to accept accelerated depreciation of new plant—which obviously might have to come—and perhaps to feel our way a little more carefully? I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that we are doing that. We are not committing the full additional £1,200 million immediately. We are committing £400 million, and we shall then come to the House of Commons again to ask for permission to take up the next draft. This two years will be a substantial part of the period of development, and I suggest to noble Lords that at the end of that time we shall have a much clearer idea of what the market will be, what the reserves are, and what the alternatives will be if the bonanza is not quite so big as we think it is.
The noble Lord asked me a technical question on prices, and how really favourable the present price of natural gas is. I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer at the moment. It is a highly technical subject. I have figures, but I do not think they would help the noble Lord, and I would not put them forward with any confidence. He has been good enough to indicate to me that we shall not, in fact, be taking the next stages of the Bill "on the nod", but I will make certain that the information he requires

993
is available to him at some appropriate point in our discussions on the next stage of the Bill. I am not certain when that will be. We shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss the borrowing facilities of the Board. Perhaps I may be able to give the noble Lord the exact information he requires on the Third Reading of the Bill. I do not know if this is a satisfactory way of doing it.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope I did not give the noble Lord the idea that I was going to raise Amendments on this Bill because I think probably I shall not. What I meant was that the later stages would otherwise go "on the nod". If the noble Lord could give me that in-
994
formation at some future stage, I should be very grateful to him.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will most certainly undertake to do so on the Third Reading, which I think might be a convenient point. Having said this, I feel that at this stage there is very little that I can add. I shall lie very glad to expand various other aspects of the Bill on the Committee stage of our discussions, when I think we could go into greater detail into borrowing abroad and the exact borrowing programme of the Gas Council as a whole.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS (PAYMENTS SCHEME) ORDER 1968
10.21 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order, a Draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on May 28, be approved. This Order establishes the scheme provided for by Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1967 for making payments out of public funds to mineworkers aged 55 or over and made redundant between July 17, 1967, and March 28, 1971. It is an important Order affecting as it does the interests of a large number of mineworkers. The need to make such provision arises out of the fact that the coal industry is currently undergoing a programme of reorganisation and contraction. We are confident that this contraction, carried out by the National Coal Board with the co-operation of the unions concerned, will result in a highly productive, economic and competitive industry concentrated on low-cost pits.
However, certain social consequences inevitably stem from such a contraction as considerable numbers of men leave the industry. So far the rundown in manpower has been managed by the Board with marked success, but the time had to come when we were faced with some degree of redundancy. Since the majority of redundant workers are, or will be, aged 55 and over, living in development areas where the prospects of further employment are not all we should wish, it was felt that special measures were needed to alleviate the difficulties they might experience.
It is impossible to forecast precisely the number of workers over 55 years of age who may become redundant during the period from 1967 to 1971, which will be the period of greatest difficulty. The original estimate of 26,000 has now been raised to 33,000. It is equally hard to forecast the cost to the Exchequer of the measures to be taken, since this will obviously depend, among other things, on how many redundant workers find new employment. However, a figure of £28 million has been calculated, with
996
some possibility of upward revision. That is a large sum of money, of course, but it does not in fact represent a gross additional cost to the Exchequer. Since many of the men who will receive benefit under this scheme would otherwise have been in receipt of State supplementary allowance, the net cost to the Exchequer will probably fall between £11 million and £12 million.
In brief outline, my Lords, the provisions of the Scheme are as follows. It will apply to workers made redundant between July 17, 1967 and March 28, 1971, who are aged between 55 and 65 years, have been employed in coal mining or certain related occupations and have a record of ten years' service, the last two being continuous. The aim of the Scheme is to build up a worker's post-redundancy income to about 90 per cent. of pre-redundancy take-home pay, including overtime. This aim is achieved by supplementing those State benefits such as unemployment benefit or sickness benefit to which the worker is entitled. When those benefits cease the Scheme supplement is increased to offset the loss. The table which makes up Appendix 4 of the Order shows the scale of supplementary payments.
However, where certain other State or industry benefits are increased because of the redundancy—for instance, a special hardship allowance—these will be offset against the supplement. Scheme benefit will be payable for three years from the date of redundancy, or until age 65 if sooner. It will cease on re-entry into the coal industry (though it will recommence if the worker once again becomes redundant), but will be payable at a reduced rate if the worker enters outside employment. The object of this, of course, is to encourage men to seek new jobs. Payments will in any event cease in March, 1974.
Scheme benefit is taxable but not State benefits, and allowance has been made for this in calculating a worker's post-redundancy income. Due to the fact that the composition of this income, although not its total, will fluctuate over the three-year period, there will also be fluctuation in the incidence of tax.
During the drafting of this Scheme it was necessary to consider the position of

997
workers as regards their entitlement to pension. Normally, those workers who have the necessary contribution record under the Mineworkers' Scheme receive their pension at the rate of £1 a week at the age of 65. However, it has been decided that workers declared reundant at age 60 or over may receive at once the pension to which they are entitled, although it will be deducted from their Scheme benefit while they are in receipt of this. As for the men in superannuable grades, they may opt either for immediate lump sum and pension on redundancy, or for Scheme benefit first followed afterwards by lump sum and pension. There are special arrangements for those who may already have taken pension on redundancy without having this option put to them.
Certain workers declared redundant before this Order is made may have been in receipt of State supplementary allowance, due to the fact that Scheme benefit was not available to them. Such supplementary payments will be offset against their arrears of Scheme benefit. There is a rather special benefit for the occupiers of coal-industry houses whose rent may be increased when they cease to be connected with the industry. Generally speaking, payment of benefit under the Scheme will cease where there is (apart from the fact of its exhaustion) no entitlement to State benefit. Claims for Scheme benefit must he put in within 26 weeks of the Order taking effect or of the date of the redundancy, whichever is the later. However, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power is empowered to extend the claim period if he considers that there are good grounds for so doing.
The National Coal Board, who have agreed to administer the Scheme, have done a tremendous amount of preliminary work for which we are most grateful. In the preparation of this Scheme there has been close and frequent consultation with the unions concerned and the welfare departments. I may say that the Board and unions have each prepared a simple "Question and Answer" guide to the scheme, which I am sure claimants will find of great assistance to them in what is inevitably rather a complicated matter.
998
Many technical problems have had to be overcome to achieve this apparently simple objective of supplementing the pay of elderly redundant mineworkers, and there has been some quite unavoidable delay between the first announcement of this Scheme and its laying before Parliament. However, now that we have finally reached our goal I trust that your Lordships will agree that we are making generous provision to relieve the plight of a group of workers who well merit both our sympathy, because they now find themselves deprived of the work which has been their life as well as their livelihood, and our gratitude for their great contribution towards our country's economy. I have pleasure in asking your Lordships to approve this Order.
Moved, That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1968, laid before the House on May 28 last, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as I had to speak technically, critically and at length on the last Order, I am delighted to be able to say that we welcome this Order. As a general rule it is better to pay generous redundancy payments than to keep mines open to produce coal which we cannot sell.
10.31 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSEIELD: My Lords, I cannot let this Order pass without saying a few words, although the hour is somewhat late. It is a complicated Order but it is more than that; it is unique and unprecedented in that for the first time, so far as I know, in the coal industry it seeks to cushion the effects of the social consequences arising from pit closures and the contraction of the industry. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the provisions of the Order, which arises from the Coal Industry Act passed in 1967, almost a year ago.
There has been some delay in the preparation of the Scheme to make these payments. I am informed that there has been consultation between the interested parties to get the greatest measure of agreement and satisfaction, so far as the payments of these benefits are concerned. Even so, it seems an unconscionably

999
long time that twelve months should elapse from the passing of the Act and the announcement by the Minister of Power before the Order comes before both Houses of Parliament, and it is my information that as a result of this delay there has been a lot of irritation in the coalfield among the miners who have been made redundant since July, 1967, although it is the case that the operative date is from that particular date of July.
However, I welcome this Order and I congratulate the Government on the action proposed to alleviate the social consequences for some of the persons who have been made, or will be made, redundant consequent upon the closure of collieries. My only regret is that this process of contraction began at least twelve years ago, and in that period of time many pits have been closed and many miners made redundant, many of them of such an age that there is no hope, or very little hope, of their getting any kind of employment at all. Because this Order makes not only some provision but, as my noble friend said, generous provision for those who find themselves in these particular circumstances, I congratulate the Government most sincerely on this Order.
There are only three matters that I want to mention very briefly. One could say a good deal about them, but I think my noble friend may well have anticipated the three points I want to put to him. The first concerns payments in kind. He mentioned that, in addition to the cash benefits that will be paid, an allowance of up to 20s. will be paid to those whose rent is likely to be increased. There is a long story to that matter; it has been going on for generations—perhaps more than a century. In some areas, miners have lived in houses rent-free, or at a much reduced rent, and the point has been conceded that, in addition to the cash benefit of 90 per cent. of their pre-redundancy earnings, they will be given an allowance to meet any increase which may take place in their rent as a consequence of the fact that they are no longer employees.
There is another payment in kind which I must mention, and that is the
1000
question of concessionary coal. The question of rents applies more in the older areas, but so far as this payment in kind is concerned, I would remind your Lordships that those who have had some connection with mining for many years have always regarded both rents and concessionary coal as part of their wages. While the point of rents has been conceded in the Order, there is no mention of concessionary coal. I will leave the matter there, because the Minister might like to make some comment upon it.
Then there is the question of pensions. Clause 4 of the Coal Industry Act provides that moneys can be paid into coal industry pension funds to reimburse them for any pensions paid before normal retirement age to men who have been in receipt of benefit under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. That is this Order. The only question I want to put, without elaborating upon it, is this. Does this mean that everybody who gets a payment under this Scheme is entitled to premature pension? Because it will be the case that if some men come on to this redundancy payment at 55 it is limited to three years. That will bring them to 58, which is two years below the normal retirement age so far as a claim for a pension from the Coal Board is concerned. My noble friend may like to make some observations on that particular point.
The only other matter I want to raise is: Will there be any appeal procedure? I think this is most necessary. My noble friend said that the administration would be carried out by the National Coal Board. One can have confidence in that system, confidence that the right thing will be done at the right time; but in view of the generous nature of these payments—there has never been anything like this in the Coal Industry before, so far as benefits for redundancy is concerned—I think that an appeal procedure is essential for the reason that I have just mentioned. Further, it is well within the realms of possibility that disputes may arise over the calculation of pre-redundancy earnings. There may be a question as to whether a particular place is a "prescribed" place. The prescribed places are all set out in the Order. There may be some dispute about that; or about whether a man, redundant at a prescribed place, is redundant as a result of a

1001
colliery closure or as a result of rundown.
I respectfully submit to my noble friend that in the administration of a Scheme of this kind, it is necessary not only to give justice but that justice should appear to be done; and that it would be advisable for some procedure so far as appeals is concerned. With those few remarks, I welcome this Order, and say once again that I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken in this field.
10.38 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his generous acceptance of this Order. May I now turn briefly to the points made by my noble friend? As he realises, this is a most complicated measure. The objectives of the Order are quite simple, but carrying them into effect is most difficult. The hard fact is that after the decision to carry through such a Scheme, which needs legislation, it was only six months before we got the law on the Statute Book, by the end of last year; and it has taken hard work by all concerned up to Whitsun to get the Order "licked into shape".
I think we are all as anxious as my noble friend to get this Scheme into effect, and I tell your Lordships frankly that the whole thing is not yet "run in". A great many elements are still under discussion. One of these is, of course, the question of mineworkers' pensions, the pension for the three years running from age 55 leaving a gap of two years up to 60. This is one of the things that are not yet settled and still under discussion. There is still dispute over the position of the men aged between 55 and 59 whose contribution record will be rather small. This is being discussed within the framework of this Order, but, as I have said, it is not yet settled.
My noble friend mentioned appeal procedure. I think it is a tribute to the good labour relations existing within the Coal Industry that it has not been considered necessary to start any statutory appeals procedure. What has happened is that the unions have agreed to non-statutory arrangements, such as those which exist in disputed cases under the
1002
Fatal Accidents Scheme. We also hope that, if the Department of Employment and Productivity agree, members of the industrial tribunals will consent to act in a non-statutory capacity. Their statutory duty is in relation to the Redundancy Payments Act, and the Minister will act as the final arbiter. On those two points I hope that my noble friend will now feel reassured.
I cannot reassure him, however, over concessionary coal. The National Coal Board have conceded that redundants aged 60 or over may continue to receive their coal, with the Minister paying two-thirds and the National Coal Board one-third of its cost. But the Coal Board have firmly resisted the suggestion that the concession may be extended to men aged 55 to 59. Therefore I regret that in this field I cannot give my noble friend any reassurance. In the main operations of the scheme, as set out in the Order, however, I think he will in the end receive satisfaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY) BILL
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should tell your Lordships I am not proposing to move the Second Reading of this Bill this evening. This is not for the usual reason of the lateness of the hour, but because there has arisen a matter in the Bill which I think requires a considerable amount of discussion, and it would only consume time in your Lordships' House unnecessarily, and possibly, wastefully, if it were to be discussed this evening. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will allow me not to move the Second Reading this evening but to consider further some of the points in the Bill and bring it back to your Lordships for a Second Reading on a later occasion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, so far as the Government are concerned, I am aware of the circumstances to which the noble Viscount has referred, and I agree that it is likely the time of the House will

1003
in the end be saved if the noble Viscount does not move the Second Reading tonight.

ST. KITTS AND ANGUILLA
10.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement concerning recent Press reports of the imminent invasion of Anguilla by armed forces from St. Kitts. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I regret having to raise the affairs of these Islands again in your Lordships' House. We discussed them in some detail on another Un-starred Question which I put down last year and which we discussed also rather late one night in July. Our remarks then centred around the arbitrary and dictatorial way in which certain British subjects had been imprisoned, and I think there was general agreement on all sides of the House that the arrest and treatment of these British subjects, as well as the nature of the emergency regulations introduced in St. Kitts, gave your Lordships considerable cause for concern. Unfortunately, after a very careful study of what had happened up to that time, and in the light of replies given in another place, I had reluctantly to conclude that the Government in this country had repeatedly misjudged the likely course of events, had played down the situation with some complacency, and also that the course of events had been predictable and avoidable.
Dr. Herbert, the leader of the Opposition in these Islands, had already told the Government here what was going on in February last year, some 16 months ago. I hope this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who replied on the previous occasion—and I am glad he is with us tonight—will be a little more appreciative of our concern on this side of the House and, I think, on the other side of the House, than he was on the last occasion, and that he will be able to give answers to the questions I am raising and of which I have given him notice.
The fact now is that since Anguilla voted to be independent and the success of the Fisher-Chapman mission, Press
1004
reports have appeared in The Times and the Daily Telegraph to the effect that an invasion of Anguilla by special armed forces from St. Kitts was imminent. It was reported in the West Indian paper the Democrat of May 25—I have given the noble Lord a copy of the cutting from this paper—that the Premier of these Islands, Mr. Bradshaw, had spoken as follows:
"Anguilla is temporarily in rebel hands. This will not be allowed to continue. When the time is ripe Anguilla will be brought back under the civil rule of this state."
Then a few days later, in a speech which he delivered on May 29 in the Assembly, he spoke as follows as reported in the Democrat of June 1:
"I repeat in this House that if arms are taken up against law and order in this country the evidence will be put on the ground in blood, and let the jurors say Not Guilty. The evidence will be put on the ground washed in blood."
I have never met Mr. Bradshaw so I find these remarks a little difficult to interpret, but I hardly find them reassuring.
Noble Lords will recall that in another place on January 30 this year—that is nearly four months before Mr. Bradshaw made these statements—the Secretary of State said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1074) that St. Kitts Government had agreed
"that the people of each Island would refrain from hostile actions against individuals or property of the other during the interim period and that efforts would be made in good faith to restore friendship and harmony."
That was said nearly four months before Mr. Bradshaw made these more recent statements. I ask the Minister to say whether the Government have recently been in touch with Mr. Bradshaw to get confirmation that he still intends to respect this undertaking not to invade Anguilla which he evidently gave to the Government at the beginning of this year.
The people of Anguilla are, with some justification, very nervous about possible invasion. There have been reports of arms being shipped to St. Kitts and of a gunboat being prepared. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me a positive assurance that Mr. Bradshaw either has been, or certainly will be, approached on this important matter. I should also like an assurance that our aid to St. Kitts, which I think comes to some £272,000 a year, is not used to purchase

1005
arms which might in turn be used to invade Anguilla. I hope also that the noble Lord may be able to refer in his Answer to the matter of Sergeant Ellis, who is said to be training St. Kitts special forces—and all this is to be paid for by the Ministry of Overseas Development.
Frankly, I am very worried indeed about the good faith of the St. Kitts Government, and I am not alone in this. The British Government are responsible for the external defence and external affairs of a territory about which the following has been said. First of all, the International Commission of Jurists, referring to the recent trials, stated:
"The indictment against the St. Kitts Government is a long one: it has repeatedly shown contempt for the courts, has refused to accept their decision and has flagrantly attempted—by threats and the misuse of the mass media—to use the courts as an instrument of its policy. When the courts proved to be instruments of the Rule of Law, it resorted to government by emergency resolution and trial by 'Commission of Inquiry'."
Then, as your Lordships may know, the whole West Indian Bar has condemned the St. Kitts Government for its disregard of the rule of law, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Associated States, Mr. Allan Montgomery Lewis, has criticised Mr. Bradshaw's Government in what I think must be quite unprecedented terms. The statement which he made is rather long, and I cannot quote it all, but I am sure that the full text must be available to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. The following is the text of two short paragraphs, paragraphs 3 and 4:
"The Court cannot but take note of the fact that these trials are in a real sense political trials, a leading member of the Opposition Party being the central figure, and that the introduction of the resolution and the debate in the House follow immediately upon verdicts of acquittal by the jury in the first two of the trials.
"The Court deprecates the fact that in these circumstances the debate was used by Ministers of Government for the purpose of criticising the conduct of the two trials by the trial judge and of impeaching his integrity, no other reason being stated but that of Government's dissatisfaction with certain rulings made by the trial judge … and comments by him in the course of his summings-up."
Lastly, the Premier of these Islands was reported in the Democrat of May 25 as accusing Mr. Stuart Roberts, the British representative for the Associated States,
1006
of lying and of allowing arms to be smuggled into Anguilla. Such was the serious nature of this allegation that Mr. Roberts had to issue a statement repudiating these charges.
It may well be that the noble Lord, in his Answer, will say that under the terms of associated status internal problems in these Islands are the responsibility of the Government on the Island. But the fact remains that we in Britain are responsible for external affairs and defence. How can we present to the world the views of a Government which has been condemned by its own Judiciary as well as by a body of international lawyers, as interfering with fundamental human rights; a Government, furthermore, which has accused our British representative of lying? Is it not high lime that Britain looked again at this associated status; looked again at the aid which we are giving this territory; and, above all, looked again at the possibility of an invasion of Anguilla—a territory which, according to its Rector, Canon Carleton, who is respected by everyone, in a very recent letter to The Times, is managing to live perfectly well without any assistance from St. Kitts?
The Government ignored our warnings on the last occasion I spoke, and I sincerely hope that they will take heed this time. I am of course aware that representatives of Anguilla have recently put forward certain proposals. I should like to receive an assurance from the Government that those proposals are being seriously studied. I find that certain proposals were contained in a telegram which was sent to London from Anguilla, and it was reported in another West Indian paper, the Beacon, which is independent Anguillan. The telegram which was apparently sent to the Government here reads as follows:
"In view of the announcement made … in the House of Assembly in St. Kitts that a State of Emergency shall be continued in Anguilla for the next seven months"—
of course, the State of Emergency no longer holds in the other two Islands—
"and that every effort would be made to bring Anguilla back to the State before the end of that period, we, the Anguillan Council, hereby request Her Majesty's Government to send to Anguilla without delay Messrs. Nigel Fisher and Donald Chapman, or other fit person or persons with full authority to bring to an end

1007
the Interim Period, and to make further proposals whereby Anguilla's independence from St. Kitts may be recognised, and to devise for her a new status under the British Crown".
My Lords, it is that new status which I hope the Government will think about. What can be done? The present associated status has brought only misery and suffering to people, and is certainly unsatisfactory. It makes us wonder what steps the Government here will take, because I do not think the present highly unsatisfactory state of affairs can continue.
10.57 p.m.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I rise to support every word that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has spoken this evening. Anybody who has been to these marvellous and beautiful Islands must feel unutterably depressed by the events that are occurring there at this moment. So far as I was concerned, when I saw these Islands I was quite content to settle there and regard them as paradise—or at least they would do until paradise came along! Somebody once said to me that these Islands had been touched by the finger of God, they were so beautiful, and I believe there is a great deal in that.
It seems a tragedy that these hardworking, kind and charming people should be subject to these trials and these anguishes, and I urge the British Government to think about this as seriously and as cogently as they do about Rhodesia. Because Anguilla is a small Island many thousands of miles away—"a distant place of which we know nothing" is a phrase which may find an echo, perhaps, among some of my friends—it does not mean that it is any the less important than the big issues which we fought over for a couple of days in this House on Monday and Tuesday. It seems to me that there is here a fundamental issue of freedom, and I believe that the Government ought to take as strong a stand here as they believe, quite rightly, they should take on the other issues I have mentioned.
Here we have a situation in which, for quite artificial reasons, Anguilla was associated with St. Kitts some years ago. It is an Island which is 60 miles away from St. Kitts. It has really no natural links, but because it is rather small it was
1008
considered in somebody's mind that it was a good, tidy idea to lump the two together. That is as may be, but the fact is that the Anguillan people have decided now that they want nothing to do with St. Kitts at the moment—and for good reasons. Because there has come to power in St. Kitts a black Napoleon called Bradshaw, who has cast himself in the role of a mini Papa Doc and has introduced a rule of terror and contempt for law. What is more, he is using British aid, the British grant, which is going there in relatively considerable quantities, to arm police and other people and to train them for an invasion of this tiny Island 60 miles away in order, as he says, to restore the rule of law and order, which is the equivalent of a butcher saying that he wants to suppress the killing of animals. I submit that we ought to stop shadow-boxing about this matter and do something really very serious to protect a small people who may be overwhelmed and certainly may be the subject of terrible bloodshed. It is as important as Biafra or Rhodesia. The principle is the same.
My Lords, it seems to me that we have some trump cards in our hands. First of all, we are giving this rather large sum in aid. In relatively normal circumstances it may not be considered large, but we are giving something like a quarter of a million pounds in aid to Anguilla. First, I think we must make noises about that to Mr. Bradshaw, and make them immediaitely and strongly. Secondly, we should indicate what other measures, we could take by sending a delegate on a very high level to these Islands to intervene and to see what can be done. Thirdly, I do not think it out of place for the British Government to make an announcement and give an assurance that, however the problem between St. Kitts and Anguilla is solved, we will not allow it to be solved by force and that we shall intervene to prevent it being solved by force. That may be outside the agreement or treaty that we have just signed; but nevertheless here are a people who are appealing to us for help, and I think this is an avenue we should explore.
Certainly I think that we should take any steps necessary to prevent any invasion of Anguilla with the bloodshed that might follow pending some kind of

1009
settlement; and a settlement that seems to be to be a reasonable one. We should agree to the Anguillan people's request that they should enjoy independence and get their share of the grant; because it is as true now as it was in the past that the path to true association is not in the artificial putting-together of States but in giving them true independence and true national freedom that they find their own way eventually to association on the basis of true equality. It is quite clear that in the West Indies, in these scattered Islands, it is impossible for countries to be truly economically independent and that some association must come; but it must be an association between equals and not one that is imposed through force by one side or the other. I urge the Government to take the words of the noble Earl very seriously and to act as swiftly and surely in this matter as they would if these were big troubles nearer home.
11.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for raising this question and showing the concern that I think we very properly feel in regard to an Island, however distant it may be, with which we have been concerned, one way or another, for some 300 years and whose course of life we have necessarily affected considerably. It has just set out on a new course and we cannot ignore that what is happening is of very considerable importance. We have tried once to set up a Federation in the Caribbean; and that failed. We have now tried a new experiment, the experiment of Associated States. I believe that it is of very great importance that this should succeed, with all the combination that that means—whether it be in education, currency, justice or communications.
If what is now happening to these Islands brings a bad reputation to the Caribbean it will have an adverse effect on the whole area. I think that that is an aspect that we should on no account leave out of consideration. We have an officer in the area and his duty is to help administer and find a long-term solution and to make recommendations both to the United Kingdom Government and to the Government of St. Kitts. In that sense we have a locus to see what
1010
is happening. It seems very difficult to know exactly what is happening, and I hope that the Government will be able to tell us something of it. The general picture that one has is that very odd trials are taking place, to which my noble friend has referred, and as I think we still have an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, this may not be a matter wholly without concern to ourselves.
My Lords, I understand that no mails are getting through to Anguilla, and that medical supplies are not getting through. These are difficult concerns, and what is perhaps even more important is that one of the fundamental points of association between these two Islands was the appointment of local Councils in Anguilla, St. Kitts and Nevis. At least, so far as Anguilla is concerned, that has never happened, though it was a fundamental point in the agreement. I do not want to underestimate the difficulties in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves. The Act of Parliament under which the Associated States were set up tried to make clear that internal affairs was a matter for those on the spot and not for Her Majesty's Government, and I realise that. From a legalistic point of view we could probably repudiate any form of responsibility. But I think that would be an extremely dangerous course to take because of the wider repercussions which might well follow.
It is open to us, to take certain drastic action—though I hope it will not be necessary—but it would be wrong lo say that there is no course of that character which we could pursue. We could, of course, withdraw association. We are free to do that on our own initiative, according to the Act of Parliament, when we wish to. We could cut aid, and the point of the recognition of the independence of Anguilla is another matter. I hope it will not be necessary to adopt any of these courses, but to avoid having to do so, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government must take some action. Otherwise they may well be forced to adopt one or other of these highly undesirable courses.
My Lords, I am sure Her Majesty's Government are watching the situation—at least I hope they are—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will indicate how fully informed are the Government about what is happening there,

1011
because it is difficult for us to be informed. I would suggest the possibility of calling a Caribbean conference of the territories in the area who might be willing to form a judgment on what would be the most peaceful and stable way in which the evolution of these islands could take place.
I recall that we had a year, extending to the end of this year—which leaves not much more than six months—during which the two territories have agreed not to interfere with each other. If we take longer we may be unable to see how we can help. Six months of the year has elapsed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to tell us that real progress has been made towards reaching a settlement to which we can look forward and which will bring stability to the area.
11.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I seem to be the only occupant of these Benches but I will keep your Lordships for only one minute. I should be very sorry to allow these questions to be asked without comment. I think they are important questions and I shall be very interested in the answer. I wish I knew more about Anguilla. The few things I know include the fact that it has a mountainous range of volcanic origin—or St. Kitts has, I believe—and that there is an island called Sombrero, which I associate with a hat but not a hat big enough to keep a question of this importance under. I believe that this is a question which should be ventilated, and if there were anyone on these Benches who knew more about it I am sure that that is what he would say. I should like to take personal responsibility for saying it on my own behalf, and nobody else's.
11.10 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I personally should have preferred that this matter had been raised at a somewhat later date, and there are good reasons why I should have wished that. For one thing, I would prefer that my noble friend Lord Shepherd who now has a closer responsibility for these matters, had been in this country and able to answer himself.
The noble Earl was good enough to refer to remarks which I made when we
1012
had a discussion about the events in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla in July last year, at which time I was attached to the Commonwealth Office. I do not intend to analyse the accuracy of what he or I said on that occasion, but I recognised then, as I do now, both the genuine anxiety and the sincerity with which the noble Earl, my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, concern themselves with developments in that part of the world.
There is another reason why I would wish that discussion were delayed, because of those proposals from Anguilla to which the noble Earl referred. I assure the noble Earl they are being studied with care and attention. But it is not possible for me this evening either to discuss their nature nor, of course, what action will be taken upon them. Without going into details, I can say that we are now working out the best way to take further steps without delay towards a peaceful solution in that area.
The noble Earl, I know, recognises the limitations upon our responsibility in this matter, and of course anything that is done or said concerns not only ourselves and Anguilla but the Federal Government of that Associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. It is not possible for us to take unilateral action in these matters.
The noble Earl has however referred to reports about an imminent invasion, and I hope that I can dispel some of the anxieties which he feels in this connection. The reports which we have received show that the rumours are exaggerated, if not unfounded. For example, the Anguillan leaders in April stated:
"Last month St. Kitts acquired a gunboat from Britain which is reportedly modified to permit installation of three 0·50 calibre guns".
This story turned out to be based on the fact that some time ago the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla Government quite legitimately acquired a police launch, but it has in no way been modified to mount guns of any calibre. Nevertheless, if we were to believe certain opposition Press reports, from which the noble Earl quoted, this is to be the capital ship of the invasion fleet. We were also told that St. Kitts has been renting and conducting military exercises with a helicopter. The truth is, I understand, that this machine has been lying

1013
abandoned in a shed without maintenance or a pilot for some months. It is also suggested that the State Government is withholding funds supplied by the British Government for development purposes in Anguilla, and using them improperly for the acquisition of arms.
The facts are that it has been agreed, sensibly, that development projects should continue in Anguilla under the direct administration of the Senior British Official and funds are channelled directly to him through the British Development Division in the Caribbean for this purpose. So far as budgetary aid is concerned, it is certainly our expectation that the St. Kitts Government will make provision for resuming such payments as salaries of teachers and other recurrent costs of Government on Anguilla out of the State revenue as supported by budgetary aid from Her Majesty's Government. One obstacle to this is claimed to be the lack of any properly elected Council in the Island. This, I hope, will be an obstacle which can be removed.
The noble Earl asked about the acquisition of arms, with funds provided by us. Any such expenditure on weapons other than small arms for police purposes would be contrary to our policy. I understand that Premier Bradshaw is reported as denying in Trinidad last week that his Government is using British aid fund to buy guns and, so far as we know, what he said is borne out by the facts.
With regard to allegations that Her Majesty's Government paid the salary of an officer to train special forces in St. Kitts, the facts are as follows: Mr. G. S. H. Ellis was employed under technical assistance terms to advise the State Government on the training of their police force, from July, 1967, to January, 1968, when he resigned from that appointment and was transferred to advise in a similar capacity other Governments in the area. He was at no time engaged on the training of special forces in St. Kitts.
We have tried to help in the difficulties which have arisen since Associated Statehood because we are responsible for the external affairs and defence of the States, and there are points where internal affairs impinge on the external. The noble Earl,
1014
Lord Selkirk, rather suggested that we had taken no action in these matters, and my noble friend Lord Willis was asking that further action should be taken. But solutions lie in discussions across the table, and when the noble Lord suggests that there should be a conference with representatives of neighbouring countries, this has been done. My noble friend Lord Shepherd, together with Ministers of independent Commonwealth Caribbean Governments, sat down with the State Premier and with Anguillan representatives in July last year to work out an acceptable agreement. When this Barbados Agreement, as it came to be known, later proved incapable of being put into effect we sought other ways of creating a climate in which constructive discussion could be resumed.
That is why we complied with the request of the Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla last autumn to send a Parliamentary delegation to Anguilla, and why we are keen to give the interim solution, which that delegation achieved, a fair trial. The interim settlement was originally intended to run for about a year. So far, on the credit side, its achievements have been that tension between the two Islands has been reduced; mails, despite what the noble Earl said, are running and development aid from Britain to Anguilla has been actively resumed. On the debit side, there has been virtually no progress towards a return to constitutional government in Anguilla, and there is in Anguilla itself a feeling that foreign investment in tourism is being deterred by uncertainty as to the future of the island. These are unsatisfactory elements in the situation, but, in Her Majesty's Government's view, they do not justify scrapping the interim settlement before we have something adequate to replace it. It was agreed in the interim settlement that Her Majesty's Government must receive and consider the recommendations of the Senior British Official, the man on the spot, and then they must call a conference or ascertain by other means the views of the State Government on the one hand, and of representatives fully empowered to speak for the people of Anguilla on the other.
This, I should have thought, was in line with what the noble Earl said should be done. But it has been done, and we

1015
are now waiting for this report from the man on the spot. Unilateral agreement between the Anguillans and ourselves would not be practicable because under the West Indies Act 1967, Her Majesty's Government may not split up or join together Associated States except at the request and with the consent of the States concerned. That is the position, and we really must abide by legislation which we passed in this House so recently. There is another party to any settlement, as well as the Anguillans and ourselves; that is the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla Government. We hope that the Anguillans will understand that the legal position of the State Government cannot simply be ignored. Equally I agree with the noble Earl that we must persuade the State Government that a realistic view demands that they come to some accommodation with the Anguillans in order to put an end to a situation which is impeding the progress towards prosperity of St. Kitts and Nevis, as well as that of Anguilla.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I understand that it was fundamental to the agreement that a local council would be set up in Anguilla. This was never done. In that sense it might be open to us to say that the agreement was not fulfilled on the side of the Associated Caribbean States.
LORD BESWICK: But the interim settlement was designed to create an atmosphere in which, among other things, a local council would be elected. I quite agree that that council has not been elected. Part of the report which we expect from the man on the spot will, I hope, carry us some distance further towards the election of such a council. It has not been achieved, as yet, but that does not mean to say that before the twelve months is up we should despair that it will be achieved. There are difficulties on both sides. We must consider these sympathetically and try to find a way of overcoming them.
On the State Government's side there is the fact that under the West Indies Act 1967 Anguilla is constitutionally a part of the Associated State and cannot be split off, and it is doubtless the consciousness of this constitutional position which has led Mr. Bradshaw to make
1016
public statements such as those mentioned by the noble Lord opposite. But, so far as I can, I have checked some of these statements and I must say that it really depends upon how they are presented and the context in which they are placed, as to the impression that they create. For example, when Mr. Bradshaw used those words which were quoted about writing a solution in blood, they followed on his speculation about the possibility of another attempted invasion from Anguilla. It was only then that he spoke about bloodshed. We hope, of course, that there would be no question of another attempted invasion from the small Anguilla towards the seat of the Federal Government.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that this is extremely important. Can the noble Lord therefore give an assurance that the Government are satisfied that the undertaking which I mentioned, and which was quoted by the Secretary of State in another place on January 30, still holds good, despite the quite extraordinary remarks made on more than one occasion towards the end of May this year by Mr. Bradshaw?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords; I am going to mention that. I have only another one or two sentences to say, and I shall mention that. What I was going on to say is that an essential prerequisite to a solution is an atmosphere of calm, in which no grounds are given for, and no credence is given to, the sort of rumours about invasion and counter-invasion that we have had in the Press.
The noble Lord asked me about the undertakings given by the Secretary of State on January 30 of this year. Those undertakings still hold good; we still expect that the undertakings given by the St. Kitts Government and the Anguillans to refrain from hostile action against each other also stand. And I am sure that noble Lords will all agree that to act on any other assumption would be quite impossible. We cannot accept that the Government, on the one hand, and the people of Anguilla, on the other will conduct themselves, or their relations, other than within the undertakings that they have given. And, so far as we are concerned, if they do not abide by their undertakings, for our part we shall abide by ours; namely, those that were given

1017
on January 30 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord has voiced, understandably, some anxieties, and I hope I have gone some way to dispose of them. I know that he, like Her Majesty's Government, would wish to help restore the friendship and the harmony that were the agreed aim of all the parties to the
1018
interim settlement. I should not like to say anything this evening that would in any way hinder the creation of that atmosphere; and out of that interim settlement we still hope that a permanent solution will come.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.