Sitting of 12 February 1969

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act, 1969.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BOARD OF TRADE

    Trade Figures
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish details, including the relevant computer programmes and flow charts, of the methods used each month to produce the seasonally adjusted trade figures from the recorded figures.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 20th November last year, a revised article describing the seasonal adjustment methods will be published in due course.—[Vol. 773, c. 287.]
    Mr. Macmillan: But will not the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the computer routine? Does he realise that his explanation, which we shall be grateful to see in due course, while covering manual methods and the general system, will not necessarily provide enough information to academics and others who wish to examine the figures more closely?
    Mr. Dell: The computer routine, which is a technical tool used to fulfil certain principles of seasonal adjustment, would not greatly help in providing the public with information. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come again to
    1288
    the Board of Trade to look at the computer routine, I shall be perfectly ready to let him see it.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will include each month in the published trade figures the recorded total for the 12 months up to and including the month in question.
    Mr. Dell: No, Sir. I see no advantage to be gained from including this which, if needed, can be compiled from published figures. It would, however, be misleading because, as the Notes to the Accounts explain, amendments are incorporated in the "cumulative" totals and not in the monthly figures.
    Mr. Macmillan: Will not the Minister consider publishing something which gives us a clearer indication of general trends as well as merely past trends, and will he accept the difficulty, as stated in the words of the O.E.C.D. Secretariat, of applying "very complex techniques in some cases to data which have already been smoothed by a moving average, without a full grasp of the implications of this"?
    Mr. Dell: I am sorry that, unlike his father, the hon. Gentleman seems to be interested in last year's Bradshaw.
    Sir C. Osborne: Who thought that one out for the Minister?
    Mr. Dell: If recent trends are wanted, the best method to use is the three-month moving average based on seasonally adjusted figures. If one wants the longer-term trend, the best thing is what is published in the Press notice, that is, the Spencer 15-term weighted moving average, again based on the seasonally adjusted monthly figures.

    G.E.C.-A.E.I.-English Electric (Redundant Workers)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the new management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for the reorganisation and rationalisation of their operations; and what proposals he has put forward for the re-employment of men, women and plant made redundant by such reorganisation.
    Mr. Hefferasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the General Electric Company-English Electric Company about its proposed reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he had with the management of the General Electric Company-English Electric Company before the recent announcement of their proposal to close down plants belonging to this group in Witton, Birmingham and elsewhere.
    Mr. Ormeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he has had with the management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for reorganisation and the effect this will have on employment.
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the management of General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries and English Electric regarding the implication of the merger between the companies for the employment situation.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The company notified my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State before announcing its recent proposals for redundancies at certain of its works. I understand that it will shortly have further discussions with the trade unions. Depending on the timing and phasing of the redundancies, my right hon. Friend does not expect that any serious difficulties will arise in the redeployment of those affected. None of the four factories mentioned in the company's announcement is in a development area, but I shall, of course, watch closely the effect of any closures on our distribution of industry policy.
    Disposal of surplus plant is a matter for the company.
    Mr. Ogden: But what part did my right hon. Friend play in the decisions before they were announced? The Gov-
    1290
    ernment will be blamed for any short-term redundancies, regardless of the need for rationalisation and reorganisation, because they have approved the merger. What we are asking my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to do is to take part in decisions, not merely receive decisions which are made by the companies.
    Mr. Crosland: I take the point which my hon. Friend makes, but the redundancy problem is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. She can answer for herself, but I understand that she is satisfied that the company has fulfilled the pledge which it gave when the merger was approved to consult her about its rationalisation programmes in relation to redundancies.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that there is sufficient emphasis on the part of the new merged firm on exports in certain directions? Is he aware that many of the workers believe that Mr. Weinstock is so mesmerised by the concept of a high margin of profit that certain aspects of the present production may be eliminated because the margin of profit is not so high, and this could well affect exports which are so important for the country's economy?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend raises a rather more general point than the one in the Questions. As regards exports, which are my concern, I can only say that we are in touch with the company about how it sees the development of its exports, and I would not as of now accept the implications of what he said.
    Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the plant in my constituency at Witton these are the second major redundancies announced within 12 months? This is bound to have an extremely serious effect on the local employment situation, especially on the sort of highly-skilled labour employed there, which may have difficulty in finding alternative employment. I know that; this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but will my right hon. Friend persist in his approach to the company to see that full advantage is taken of the opportunities for diversification and export?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer Questions.
    Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the position at Witton, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend. But I would emphasise that all these proposed closures—they are still only proposals, which are to be discussed with the trade unions-are in areas of low unemployment. I do not at present see the likelihood that in consequence of the closures we shall have a serious unemployment problem in any of these areas.
    Mr. Orme: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the large private combines now being created do not have sufficient public accountability to both the nation and the workers within the industry concerned? What are his views about the speed at which mergers are developing, and about whether they necessarily serve the country and the rationalisation programme that he supports?
    Mr. Crosland: The question of accountability raises very wide issues which it would be hard to discuss at Question Time. My hon. Friend will have noticed from certain recent actions I have taken that I do not share at least the current uncritical view that all mergers are good under all circumstances.
    Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most damaging things for the morale of workers is uncertainty about whether their firm is to close? In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, rumours are spreading that a particular factory will close. I know that this is not my right hon. Friend's direct responsibility, but could he bring what influence he has to bear on the management of the company at least to make an announcement and give some sort of certainty to workers in its employ?
    Mr. Crosland: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot take on the responsibilities of another Department. This is entirely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, and I know that she is well aware of the considerations my hon. Friend has just mentioned.
    Sir C. Osborne: Why is the right hon. Gentleman's Department pushing mergers so hard generally throughout industry? What does he hope to achieve thereby?
    Mr. Crosland: It does not seem the general opinion of Press commentators at any rate that my Department is engaged in pushing mergers as hard as it can on all sides.

    British Motor Industry (Singapore)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the President of the Board of Trade what official action is being taken to support the establishment, extension and operations of the British motor industry in Singapore.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I have received no specific request from the British motor industry for official support for its operations in Singapore. The normal range of Government services under which advice and assistance are available for firms engaging in overseas activities is at its disposal.
    Mr. Ogden: Does my hon. Friend always wait to receive requests? Does not she offer encouragement as well? In view of the offer of the Prime Minister of Singapore, extending a very hearty welcome to British industry, should not she make special efforts to encourage British industry to go to a place where we are welcome and there is great potential?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept my hon. Friend's strictures, although I was brought up to believe that ladies waited until they were asked. But I hope that it will be a matter for the commercial concern of the companies, who will be aware of the remarks of the Prime Minister of Singapore, and who, I hope, will actively follow them up.

    Christmas Holiday Period
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade if, to avoid the present variations in industry observing the industrial breaks at Christmas and the New Year, he will initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the possibilities of having an eight-day national holiday week covering Christmas to New Year's Day.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The question of the duration of the Christmas holiday period is a matter for negotiation between the employees and the

    1293
    employing firm. Any such negotiation should have the closest regard to the criteria of the incomes policy.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we as a party are in power to provide an expanded life and expanded luxury for workers—[Interruption.]—the anti-worker party is on the opposite side of the House—and that the gesture of a mid-winter holiday would be rewarded by an increase in productivity which would more than offset any days lost?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's views on what would lead to a rise in productivity, but I am sure he will accept that this is a matter that as yet must be decided by individual firms.
    Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Lady, after dismissing the humour of the last supplementary question, consider whether it would not be more appropriate for her Department to try to do everything to encourage British people, whether management or workers, to take fewer unofficial holidays and increase the general productivity of industry?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country, in spite of the sort of publicity various hon. Members insist on giving it, has a very good record in the number of days lost through strikes. It is not only up to individual workers but to management to see what they can do about productivity levels.

    Industrial Development (Bromsgrove)
    Mr. Danceasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dependence of the Bromsgrove area on the motor trade, he will consider issuing industrial development certificates to encourage alternative light industry to the district.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Unemployment in Bromsgrove is fortunately very low and there are more unfilled vacancies than unemployed. While I take full account of local circumstances, I must continue to look critically at I.D.C. applications there, particularly from firms outside the area.
    Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Lady aware that representatives of the trades council
    1294
    saw me recently and expressed great concern about the industry having so many eggs in one basket? If there were a recession in the motor industry, there would be very high unemployment.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that obviously one does not wish to have no diversification in an area, but he will be delighted to know that in the three years from January, 1966 nine I.D.C.s were issued for the Bromsgrove employment exchange area for a total of 104,000 sq. ft. Only one application was refused.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend consider this suggestion on a quid pro quo basis? For example, if major sections of the motor manufacturing industry could be transferred to South Wales we would be prepared to transfer some of our new light industries to the Bromsgrove district.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are doing everything we can to move industries out to the development areas. One can hardly be content with a situation where 4·1 per cent. is still the unemployment figure in the development areas. If there were some way of organising such a quid pro quo as my hon. Friend suggests, I should be delighted to hear about it.

    World Trade
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the President of the Board of Trade how the rate of growth of world trade in 1968 compared with the rate of growth of British exports on an equivalent basis during the same period; what is his estimate of the likely growth in world trade in 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Crosland: The relevant comparison is for exports of manufactured goods. In terms of volume, British exports of manufactures in 1968 were 14½ per cent. greater than in 1967, while world exports of manufactures are provisionally estimated to have increased by something over 14 per cent. The latest figures indicate that we are now securing a larger share of this increase. While I expect world trade to grow rather less fast in 1969, I confidently expect a strong growth this year in British exports.
    Mr. Boardman: Whilst I pay tribute to the efforts of British industry in achieving these exports, may I ask to what extent the right hon. Gentleman thinks that they are attributable to the growth of world trade? What are the probable consequences if the forecasts of a down-turn in world trade in 1969 turn out to be true?
    Mr. Crosland: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Nobody expects a down-turn in world trade. What we expect is merely a rather slower rate of increase than occurred last year. I think that that was a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman.
    As to the explanation of these matters, we must remember that the British share of exports of world manufactures has been consistently falling for the past decade and a half. Last year, for the first time, we began to hold our own. Next year, when the full advantage of devaluation makes itself felt, I have no doubt that we shall for the first time probably for 20 years increase our share of world exports and manufactures.
    Mr. Higgins: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the full effect of devaluation will take place only next year? To what extent does he think that the price-cost advantage of devaluation has already been eroded in relative terms?
    Mr. Crosland: I expect the full effects to be felt only next year because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of many heavy engineering goods, aircraft and ships there is a very long time lag between order and delivery—in the case of ships probably two to three years. That is why the full effects will not make themselves felt until 1969.
    Sir K. Joseph: Not 1970?
    Mr. Crosland: In the case of ships and aircraft it will often be 1970 also.
    As to the erosion, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman suggested in the latter part of his supplementary question.

    Industrial Development Certificates
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to revising the system of
    1296
    allocation of industrial development certificates.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The I.D.C. control is reviewed from time to time as circumstances require.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Report of the East Anglian Regional Council confirmed up to the hilt the miserably low earnings in Norfolk and, therefore, the vital need to get more industry there? Will my hon. Friend use her good offices to ensure that inquiries at an early stage, before I.D.C. applications, are channelled towards that area?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept my hon. Friend's worries about Norfolk. I am sure that he realises that we consider I.D.C. applications very sympathetically, for North Norfolk particularly. In 1968 I.D.C.s were issued for 4·7 million sq. ft. We refused only three. We shall do all we can to channel inquiries in that direction.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What is the view of the hon. Lady's Department on the finding of the C.B.I.'s survey that the very restrictive attitude to I.D.C.s in the developed parts of the country may actually be hampering the expansion and regeneration of the under-developed parts of the country?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I totally reject that view. It is frequently based, not on objective surveys, but on subjective opinions. We should try to emphasise that there is a continuing propaganda campaign building up in some more over-populated areas to say that this is a highly restrictive policy, which is not true. We are allowing firms which carry out modernisation schemes to go ahead in the South-East and in the Midlands. It is very important that people should realise that what we are doing in the development areas is just not important to those areas: it is important to British industry as a whole.

    Exports
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the increased opportunities for British exporters in the light of the effect of the recent increase in world sugar prices on the purchasing power of sugar producing countries.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It would be difficult to make a separate estimate for this one factor among the many which influence the level of world trade.
    Mr. Page: Does not the fact that Britain has signed the new agreement, whereas the Common Market countries have not, give us a moral right to expect a large slice of the extra trade which will accrue from this agreement? Will my hon. Friend do everything she can to draw the attention of British exporters to the fact that these sales will not fall into their lap and that they will have to go out and sell in places like Jamaica and Cuba?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not accept that we have a moral right to expect anybody to trade with us. It is about time British industry learned that it has got to sell all over the world.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the proposed takeover of English Calico Limited by Courtaulds Limited, and into the eventual structure of the textile industry as a whole; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the proposed merger between Courtaulds and English Calico.
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to refer the bid made by Courtaulds for English Calico to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: As I announced in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, Courtaulds has agreed at my request to withdraw its current proposal to bid for English Calico. I shall examine the future structure of the industry in the light of the forthcoming Productivity and Efficiency Study and in close consultation with the industry and the Textile Council. In particular, I shall have the advice, not only of the Chairman of the Textile Council, but also of the Chairman of the I.R.C.—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.1
    Mr. Barnett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not allowing the industry's
    1298
    future to be decided in an arbitrary fashion. However, is there not a need for further rationalisation of the industry? Is it not a fact that the Textile Council, by the very nature of its membership, is not really fitted for this type of examination? Would it not be better to have an inquiry other than a private Departmental one, the results of which could later be published so that we could all consider them and debate them fully in the House?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that further rationalisation is necessary. On the other hand, I do not agree with him that we need still one more outside independent study. This industry has been endlessly studied and endlessly reported on; and now that we know the facts it is a matter of making up our minds.
    Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the right place to decide upon rationalisation is in the Board of Trade. Does he not think that in this confusion which we are all getting into, with the welter of monopolies and mergers which are taking place, it would be much better if the matter were reviewed under a procedure similar to the American anti-trust laws, and the matter could then be heard by a court which was independent and these very important matters would not be decided by the say-so of officials or Ministers?
    Mr. Crosland: The main difficulty about doing that is that we do not have the American anti-trust laws. If we were to have a court of the kind that has been suggested, it would involve elaborate legislation and the court could not possibly exist until a year or two years had elapsed. I personally—I am sure that the industry will fully agree with me here—am not prepared to accept that further degree of delay.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When the President speaks about the inquiry, is he referring to the inquiry that has been going on for some time by the Textile Council? If so, when does he expect the report? If not, is there a new inquiry as a result of the bid that has recently been rejected by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Crosland: There is, on the one hand, as the House well knows, the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study, which I daily expect

    1299
    to receive. There is, on the other hand, what I am now proposing in the light of that study and other reports on the industry. I am now proposing to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to lead a team, which will consist of officials from interested Departments, which will have access to the Textile Council and its staff, and which will draw on the advice of the Chairman of the I.R.C. and any other outside advice which may prove to be necessary, to make recommendations on further rationalisation in the light of the Council's study.
    Sir K. Joseph: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that if the results of this private Departmental and relatively academic inquiry are not acceptable to industry he will have to introduce legislation?
    Mr. Crosland: This will certainly not be an academic inquiry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, may, for all I know, have academic qualities, but he also has plenty of non-academic qualities. We intend this to be a very realistic and commercially orientated study. As to what will happen if the industry does not agree with the conclusions we reach, I think we had better wait and see what happens.

    Pension Funds (Trustees)
    Mr. Barnettasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate legislation preventing directors being trustees of their own company's employees' pension funds.
    Mr. Dell: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Barnett: Is it not wrong for directors to use their powers as trustees of workers' pension funds when mergers are taking place to take decisions which will affect the interest of those workers and when, by the very nature of things, the directors are clearly not able to take an objective view? Should not some action be taken by the Board of Trade in this connection?
    Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, legislation would be required to achieve that, but we shall certainly consider whether it is right to take the action he recommends in the context of further companies legislation.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be reasonable to exclude the employees as well as the directors of the firms in question?
    Mr. Dell: Directors are in a special position, because there are possible conflicts of interest in such take-over situations.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most cases a very good job is done for workers' pension funds by directors and employees? Does he also realise that when workers are members of an investment panel they are often very careful to select companies which will not be taken over?
    Mr. Dell: I entirely accept that in general pension funds are very well administered. Nevertheless, there may be a problem when the whole or a substantial part of a pension fund is invested in the employees' own company, thus increasing the risk to which the employees are exposed.

    Exports and Import Saving
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what deficit in United Kingdom balance of payments, excluding capital account and related only to current account including invisibles and re-exports, occurred in 1968, compared with 1967 and 1966; what improvement in exports occurred in 1968 and how the policy of imports substitution helped trade balances; and what further measures he proposes for export promotion and imports diminution during 1969.
    Mr. Crosland: The full current account balance of payments figures for 1968 will not be available until March. Exports in 1968 were 23 per cent. higher in sterling terms than in 1967, and 14 per cent. higher in volume. This strong increase in exports, together with import saving, contributed to the steady improvement in the current balance during the course of 1968. As to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave him on 6th November last.—[Vol. 772, c. 864–5.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: As there is this strong rise in exports, what evidence has the right hon. Gentleman that in 1969 we shall not have an even stronger rise in

    1301
    imports, notwithstanding the discouraging effect of the import deposit scheme which so far appears to be nugatory?
    Mr. Crosland: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have said more than once, it is too early to judge the likely effect of the import deposit scheme. I think that it is absolutely clear from present trends that the increase in exports generally in 1969 will significantly and substantially exceed any possible increase in imports.

    Investment
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the trend of the investment intentions in the distributive and service trades in 1969; and how these compare generally with the investment intentions of manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of manufacturing industry's investment in 1969; and how this compares with the actual level in 1968.
    Mr. Hordernasked the President of the Board of Trade what he estimates will be the increase in the level of manufacturing investment during 1969.
    Mr. Dell: The information available was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 24th January, 1969.
    Mr. Jenkin: Would the Minister of State be prepared to reconsider the classification of one industry now regarded as a service industry, namely, the scrap reclamation industry which has an enormous potential for import saving? Would it not be a good idea for something to be done to encourage the investment, expansion, and prosperity of this industory in the national interest?
    Mr. Dell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the classification of the industry in the investment intentions forecast made by the Board of Trade or for investment grants. I dealt with the subject of investment grants in answer to the hon. Gentleman last month, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister of State discuss with his right hon. Friend
    1302
    and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the making of a comprehensive policy statement by the Government about their attitude towards stimulating investment, as every hoped for increase in industrial investment appears to be frustrated before it occurs?
    Mr. Dell: We have every expectation of an increase in industrial investment this year. There are already substantial incentives to manufacturing investment which compare favourably with those available anywhere else in the world.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of investment overseas by British manufacturers, and of investment by overseas manufacturers in the United Kingdom in 1968, respectively; how this trend differs from previous years; and what he estimates will be the position in 1969.
    Mr. Dell: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Osborn: Further, as successive measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the years have made such a poor return on investment at home inevitable, and in view of the Reddaway Report, what steps will the Minister take to encourage British investment overseas? Secondly, is he encouraging American investment in this country?
    Mr. Dell: On the latter part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will know that inward investment in this country has been very high this year. On the first part, he will, again, know that there are certain criteria against which overseas investment is judged. If it meets those criteria it is permitted. Nevertheless, as the Reddaway Report shows, overseas investment can mean a serious cost to the balance of payments which outweighs its benefits.

    Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will order an investigation under the powers conferred by section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the affairs

    1303
    of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited and allied and associated companies.
    Mr. Dell: On 13th January the Board of Trade under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, required the production of the books and papers of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Ltd. As a result of preliminary inquiries, the Board on 29th January appointed inspectors under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of the company and of Curtis & Co. Ltd.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not this very late in the day? Has not the bird flown? Will not the Minister accept that reputable pharmaceutical companies gave the Board of Trade information about this concern two years ago and more? Why has the Board of Trade been so dilatory?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of Section 109 of the 1967 Act, the Board of Trade now has powers which are important in this regard and which we did not have before the Act was passed.
    Mr. Ogden: May I thank my hon. Friend for having set up this inquiry, as I asked him to do three weeks ago? Will he bear in mind that the legislation available to the Board of Trade and other Ministries is totally inadequate to meet this kind of extraordinary situation? Can he give an assurance that there will be consultation with the Ministry of Social Security and other Ministries?
    Mr. Dell: I think that my hon. Friend will find that Section 109 and Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1967, have considerably improved the situation in this respect.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman had this power in 1967. Why has it taken so long to do anything when, according to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), information was available two years ago?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Act came into force at the end of 1967 or early 1968. Action has now been taken to pursue this investigation.

    Cotton Textiles (Exports)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations he is conducting with overseas countries concerning the renewal of their quotas for textile goods after the expiry of the present arrangements.
    Mr. Crosland: None, Sir; the Cotton Textiles Agreement does not expire until 30th September, 1970. The G.A.T.T. Cotton Textiles Committee will be meeting this autumn to decide whether or not to extend the Agreement for a further period, and I shall meanwhile be considering the Government's policy in the light of the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When we last discussed it, the President of the Board of Trade accepted that there was some urgency in the matter. Is it not surprising, therefore, that his Answer today shows that he is not conducting any negotiations? Is not the right hon. Gentleman in danger of getting up against the buffers of time unless he gets on with it?
    Mr. Crosland: We must all be wary of coming up against the buffers of time. I have repeatedly said that I would not consider a future long-term policy for imports until I had had the productivity and efficiency study. We shall have this within a matter of days. Of course we must pay close attention to the timetable, but the present quota system under which the industry is operating does not run out until the end of 970, and so we still have two years to consider the matter.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the cotton textile industry would have more confidence in the review which he has mentioned if it knew what sort of market it had to cater for after 1970? Should it not at least appear to everybody that the review is taking that into consideration?
    Mr. Crosland: There is not the slightest doubt that the productivity and efficiency study will contain a long and thorough analysis of the present place of imports in the industry and the rôle they should play in future.

    Printing and Publishing Firms (Census of Production Forms)
    Mr. Sharplesasked the President of the Board of Trade to how many general printing and publishing firms census of production forms were sent on 1st January, 1969, on behalf of the Business Statistics Office.
    Mr. Dell: 11,742 forms were issued on the 1st January, 1969, to firms in the general printing and publishing industry.
    Mr. Sharples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this form contains more than a hundred detailed questions requiring such vital information as the number of jam pot covers and bottle caps sold during;: he previous 12 months? What estimate has been made of the number of hours of non-productive work required in small firms to produce these answers? Is not this an example of Bureaucracy gone stark staring mad?
    Mr. Dell: Of the number of forms I mentioned nearly 8,000 were simplified questionnaires sent to establishments with fewer than 25 persons employed. The forms have been sent out as part of the 1968 census of production. There have been censuses of production in this country at intervals since 1907. They provide both the Government and industry with essential information which industry needs as much as the Government.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that these forms were prepared by qualified statisticians who presumably evaluated the questions to be asked? Would he not further agree that a great number of man hours and a lot of unnecessary labour was due to a high proportion of these forms not being returned forthwith? Can he tell the House what proportion of these forms were returned?
    Mr. Dell: The forms have only recently been issued and we would not expect a significant proportion of them to be returned yet. This is essential information, and I would have thought it the common view of the House that it is important to have statistical information for the use of industry, comparable with that available anywhere else in the world.
    Mr. Higgins: As the hon. Gentleman has been talking about last year's Bradshaw,
    1306
    can he tell us when this census will be available for industry?
    Mr. Dell: I hope that it will be available in the course of the next few years. I entirely agree that there is a very considerable delay in the production of cen suses of production. The 1963 census of production was very badly delayed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now introducing a new and improved system for this purpose, which will combine quarterly returns with annual returns, and make information very much more speedily available than has been the case in the past.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would it not be better if the Minister allowed industry to decide what kind of information it wishes to collect, through its own associations, instead of the Government coming in?
    Mr. Dell: We consult with the industries concerned before we put out these census forms. In the case of the general printing and publishing firms, we had consultations with the industry, as we always do.

    Hotels
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's latest estimate of the likely shortage of hotel beds in Great Britain in 1970.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I regret that there is insufficient information about hotels in this country to provide a basis for a meaningful estimate.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that the British Travel Association is able to make such an estimate? If the Government think that their hotel grants and loan scheme will be effective in increasing hotel accommodation, why have they waited until now to introduce it? Would it not have been better if it had been put in effect a year ago when the previous loan scheme expired?
    Mr. Rodgers: There is not a great deal of enthusiasm on the other side of the House for collecting certain sorts of information. If there was, I might agree that we need more than we have. Some estimates have been made, but I do not think that they are sure enough to be

    1307
    a basis for policy making. As for the proposals, we are introducing a Bill which will be published sooner rather than later. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find it a good one.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has carried out some extremely useful work in this connection? Will he confirm that, in considering the future areas of responsibility of the Board and the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands Board already has a useful record which should be built upon?
    Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Corfield: Is the Minister really telling us that he proposes to allow B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to invest very large sums of money in hotels without knowing what the need is?
    Mr. Rodgers: This is certainly not what I said. There is a need for more hotel accommodation, which is not disputed on either side of the House. I hope that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be able to make a full contribution to the need for newer accommodation and thus play their part in encouraging the tourist industry.

    Imports and Gross National Product
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the factors causing the 8 per cent. increase over 1967 in the 1968 volume of imports compared with the 4 per cent. increase in the gross national product between the same years.
    Mr. Crosland: Imports generally rise faster than the gross national product, particularly in years of above average growth like 1968. There were also exceptional imports last year of diamonds and silver.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands the volume of their imports over the 10 years up till 1967 increased faster than the volume of our own imports? Does this not suggest that the solution to our problem is to be found not so much in cutting down imports, but rather on the export side?
    Mr. Crosland: I would broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is peculiar about our balance of trade, compared with other advanced industrial countries is, as he rightly says, the failure of exports to rise as fast, not the fact that imports have risen unduly fast.
    Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the document, reported to be circulating round his Department, about the reason why imports have been increasing steadily over recent years? Would he care to publish the document for the benefit of the public?
    Mr. Crosland: A great number of admirable and carefully thought-out documents circulate round the Board of Trade at all times. In so far as there is any document, or might be a number of documents, on this subject the Answer which I have given this afternoon crisply summarises their arguments.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be particularly careful about the use he makes of the term "gross national product", as this is one of the terms by which the Prime Minister is now affectionately known?

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Emeryasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to publish a White Paper on Government policy on monopolies and mergers.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has to take steps to alter the powers and the composition of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: As I told the House in November, I am reviewing the working of the Monopolies Commission. Meanwhile I have decided to take administrative steps to strengthen both the membership and the staff of the Commission, and to improve the arrangements for deciding on references to it. I shall consider whether to make a further statement when the review is complete.—[Vol. 772, c. 88.]
    Mr. Emery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer is quite unsatisfactory? Hon. Members and the

    1309
    Press realise that a draft paper, an interdepartmental inquiry, has been in existence in his Department for a number of month;;? Is it not right that the House should have sight of that document, even if it is only placed in the Library if he will not publish it? We should like to know not only the Department's views but the right hon. Gentleman's views on strengthening the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: I have already given my views on the strengthening of the Monopolies Commission at this stage in the review which we are undertaking. As to draft documents circulating in the Board of Trade or elsewhere, if we were to publish them, or put them all in the Library—every draft document circulating in Whitehall—the hon. Member would have no time for anything but reading.
    Sir K. Joseph: Do not the Government need to make up their own mind on these importait matters and to publish their views? Why was the Minister, if he was to refer Unilever and Allied Breweries to the Monopolies Commission, so indecisive as to wait eight weeks before doing so?
    Mr. Crosland: On the first point, I entirely agree that the Government and the Opposition and each one of us must make up our minds on what is an extraordinarily intricate subject. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me express my view briefly at a dinner at the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, which he was good enough to attend, only two weeks ago. As to Unilever and Allied Breweries, this was the first reference made to the Commission under the size criterion of the 1965 Act. In terms of size it was also by far the largest reference ever made to the Commission. I thought that this raised a number of exceptionally serious problems which I was determined to take time to consider before giving a view one way or the other.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Emeryasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of visible overseas trade for November, 1968, excluding figures relating to imports of United States military
    1310
    aircraft; what was the balance including such figures; and what has been the total payment in respect of United States military aircraft in the last available 12 months.
    Mr. Dell: The visible trade deficit in November, 1968, was £16 million, excluding both imports of United States military aircraft and exports of British engines for them; the trade balance is not calculated including these transactions, but imports in November were valued at £41 million. Total payments in the 12 months ended December for United States military aircraft were £109 million.
    Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that by excluding our payments for military aircraft and equipment we are giving a very different view about the balance of payment figures to many outside this country, and that when, as is often the case, they wake up to this differential of something like £110 million overall a year, it makes the situation very much worse for the Government?
    Mr. Dell: It is necessary to distinguish visible trade from the balance of payments. The payments account in respect of these aircraft appears in the balance of payments figures published every three months in Economic Trends. There is therefore no concealment and no lack of information.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can my hon. Friend say whether the £109 million expenditure on United States military aircraft is contained under the Ministry of Defence or some other Department?
    Mr. Dell: This is certainly part of this Government's military expenditure.

    Liquidations
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of compulsory and voluntary liquidations of private and public companies, respectively, and in total in 1968; and if he will tabulate how these numbers compare with those for previous years, indicating the value of the assets involved.
    Mr. Dell: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that Government measures have caused considerable stress among the medium companies because of the credit squeeze? What steps will the Minister take to keep medium and small businesses in business and operating?
    Mr. Dell: I do not think that that is a reasonable interpretation of the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see when they are published. For some years, including from 1959, the figures have been showing a rising trend. That is due to a number of factors, partly the fact that there are a larger number of companies registered. But most of the voluntary liquidations are owners' liquidations and do not imply that the firm concerned was insolvent.
    Following are the figures:

    THE NUMBERS OF COMPULSORY AND VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATIONS COMMENCING IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN EACH OF THE PAST TEN YEARS WERE:—

    Compulsory Liquidations

    Year

    Public Companies

    Private Companies

    Total

    1959

    …

    7

    393

    400

    1960

    …

    —

    525

    525

    1961

    …

    —

    612

    612

    1962

    …

    4

    714

    718

    1963

    …

    9

    720

    729

    1964

    …

    8

    716

    724

    1965

    …

    12

    793

    805

    1966

    …

    5

    929

    934

    1967

    …

    17

    1,213

    1,230

    1968

    …

    8

    1,109*

    1,117*

    Voluntary Liquidations

    Year

    Public Companies

    Private Companies

    Total

    1959

    …

    128

    3,330

    3,458

    1960

    …

    147

    3,580

    3,727

    1961

    …

    22

    4,055

    4,077

    1962

    …

    73

    4,118

    4,191

    1963

    …

    129

    4,326

    4,455

    1964

    …

    142

    4,292

    4,434

    1965

    …

    159

    5,710

    5,869

    1966

    …

    179

    10,333

    10,512

    1967

    …

    142

    7,001

    7,143

    1968

    …

    111

    8,080

    8,191

    * Provisional.

    Statistics of the total annual value of assets involved in liquidations are not available.

    United States Companies
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average yield per cent. which United States companies obtain on their original capital investment in Great Britain after five years and after 10 years.
    Mr. Dell: The only information I have relates to 1965, when the average yield, after United Kingdom taxation, on the net assets of British affiliates of United States companies established in 1956 and in 1961 was 12½ per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. These figures are based on small numbers and are not necessarily representative.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonplace for American companies to draw 100 per cent. profit per annum on their original investment? Does not this make clear that the Government's policy of restricting credit for British investment in British industry is highly disadvantageous?
    Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the current Board of Trade forecasts, we expect that investment in this country will rise during the current year. I must emphasise that the figures which I have given are based on a very small sample.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the total annual cost in dollars to British-registered companies of their obligations to United States companies for know-how agreements, royalties and patent rights.
    Mr. Dell: About 135 million dollars in 1967.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Minister feel that the growth of American proprietary rights over British industry is contributing favourably to our balance of payments in the long run?
    Mr. Dell: These royalties are in respect of information which is valuable to industry in this country. Forty per cent. of it is in respect of British subsidiaries of American companies. But the hon. Gentleman will know that, taking this country's royalty income and payments as a whole, in 1966, which is the latest year for which figures are available. we were in surplus, not in deficit.

    Textiles (Productivity and Efficiency Study)
    Mr. Biffenasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the recent report of the

    1313
    Monopolies Commission on cellulosic man-made fibres.
    Mr. Hordernasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibre.
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now arrived at a decision on the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce his decision on the report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibres.
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reject the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.
    Mr. Crosland: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, I expect to receive the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study in the course of this month. It would be wrong to take major policy decisions about the industry, including decisions on the Monopolies Commission's report on cellulosic fibres, until I have completed a thorough examination of the industry's structure in the light of the Textile Council's study,—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.]
    Mr. Bitten: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general mystification that Sir Frank Kearton has so abruptly and arbitrarily fallen from grace? Would he therefore bear in mind the necessity for the Board of Trade to express a clear view at the earliest possible moment on its policy on reorganisation in the textile industry and which horse it will back, Courtaulds or I.C.I.?
    Mr. Crosland: The first part of the supplementary question is the most pure and mischievous nonsense. The Board of Trade is neither pro nor anti Courtaulds, I.C.I., Viyella or any other firm in the industry, as the hon. Gentle-
    1314
    man must know, and as Sir Frank Kearton knows perfectly well. In the study which we shall carry out we shall start from a position of neutrality.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is something odd about the Monopolies Commission's report being followed by such a deep and total silence on behalf of his Department lasting almost a year? I wish to say nothing unpleasant about Sir Frank Kearton, but he seems to have had a hypnotic and anaesthetising influence on the Department. Something should be said fairly soon.
    Mr. Crosland: The relations between Sir Frank Kearton and my Department seem to bear two quite different interpretations by two hon. Members opposite. The reason why I have not taken the view expressed in the Monopolies Commission's Report and why I have waited for the Textile Council's study is perfectly simple. I do not propose to take any more piecemeal decisions about the future of this industry. In the past few years, far too many unthought-out and piecemeal decisions have been taken about it, and I do not propose to repeat that mistake.
    Mr. Barnett: As the Textile Council reported as long ago as 1967 in its annual report that this study was being made, why is the Minister now expecting something different to come out of it, particularly bearing in mind that the members of the Committee which is doing the study are all active directors of companies which would be affected by such rationalisation?
    Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is not correct. The membership of the Textile Council also includes trade union representatives and independent members, who are quite firm and independent enough to make their own independent views known if they happen to disagree with the owners.
    Sir Frank Pearson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he receives the study from the Textile Council the House will have an opportunity to debate it?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member knows that I can give no undertakings about debates, which are a matter for the Leader of the House. All I can do.

    1315
    which I now do, is to undertake that as soon as we can publish it we shall, so that the House can read it.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), on Question No. 32, and his reference to a later Question on Edinburgh Airport, Mr. Speaker, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Questions Nos. 45 and 46?
    Mr. Speaker: The point of Order might have been raised a little later, but I have had no such request.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister promise that at the earliest opportunity he will publish the Report, and will he say how soon that will be?
    Mr. Crosland: I have already said that I expect to receive it in a matter of days. I have not checked on how long publication will take, but as soon as I can publish it, I will do so.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that Courtaulds appear to be floating a large loan in Germany, and cannot something be done to persuade patriotic businessmen in Britain to put up money instead of going to Germany for it?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I am not aware of the fact which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Chairman of Courtaulds is in my view an extremely patriotic industrialist who has done great services to the country.

  AVIATION

    London Airport (Duty-Free Shop)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) why he has declined to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fact that Fortes duty-free shop buys gin at 5s. 2½d. per bottle and sells it at 16s. 6d. per bottle, a profit of 217 per cent.;
    (2) why he has declined to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fact that Fortes duty-free shop at Heathrow buys whisky at 9s. 2d. per
    1316
    bottle and sells at 22s. 6d. per bottle, a profit of 145 per cent.
    Mr. William Rodgers: These goods are sold only to people about to leave the United Kingdom. They are, in effect, therefore, exports and do not influence the domestic cost of living.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is not the whole principle of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be obeyed by the British Airports Authority like everybody else? Is not the Minister of State aware that the Authority charges exorbitant prices for the concessions and then compels the concessionaires to charge equally exorbitant prices to the public?
    Mr. Rodgers: This arrangement ensures that goods are cheaper to the consumer than they would be in the ordinary shops. It is an arrangement valuable for exports. It is rewarding to the public purse. It is one which seems acceptable to private enterprise. It seems fair enough to me.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why should people who are leaving Britain for a short absence have this privilege while those who stay here have no such privilege? Could my hon. Friend arrange to have a duty-free shop in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Rodgers: My wish is certainly to extend rather than restrict privileges, but that is not a matter for my Department.
    Mr. Bessell: Does the Minister of State consider it reasonable that the Authority should insist upon high prices in this manner? Is he aware that these prices compare very unfavourably with those at other airports throughout the world? Does he not consider that the whole matter is a disgrace?
    Mr. Rodgers: I know the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the British Airports Authority and the persistent way in which he has been pursuing certain matters which he has previously believed to be wrong. I do not think that this is a disgrace. It is a proper management matter, and the present arrangement is beneficial to a number of people, including the public at large and all those who have an interest in the Authority as a public enterprise.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. May I give notice that I regretfully will have to raise this matter on the Adjournment, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply?

    Independent Airlines
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have now been made for British European Airways and Independent Airlines to take over routes formerly operated by Transglobe and British Eagle, now withdrawn from service; and whether he will make a statement concerning future policy for the operation of independent airlines.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Exemptions were granted last November to enable certain of British Eagle's domestic routes to be served pending decisions by the Air Transport Licensing Board on the applications now before them. Transglobe did not operate scheduled services. Future policy must await the Edwards report.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Notwithstanding the unfortunate occurrence with these two independent airlines, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he does not propose that his policies in future will be soured by this occurrence and that there will be no bias against the development of independent aviation?
    Mr. Rodgers: They certainly will not be soured. There is no bias. We shall make our decisions as rapidly as possible after we have received the Edwards report.
    Mr. Fortescue: What is the latest date by which the Government expect to receive the report of the Edwards Committee, and how soon after its receipt will it be published?
    Mr. Rodgers: We still expect to have it by the end of March and we shall publish it as soon as possible after that date.

    Glasgow Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) in view of the effect on air traffic control of lengthening the main runway at Glasgow Airport, what consideration he is giving to plans for this development;
    (2) If he will ensure that Glasgow Airport will be as well equipped in respect of
    1318
    air traffic control facilities as airports of the same type in the rest of the country.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No formal proposals for extending this runway have been received but we are ready to deal with the situation if, as a result of such an extension, the instrument landing system has to be moved. Glasgow is well equipped with navigational facilities and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Rankin: Does my hon. Friend's Answer mean that Glasgow Corporation will have the fullest power to develop its airport to meet the needs of Glasgow citizens equivalent to the powers which Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have in developing their municipal airports?
    Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had a very satisfactory meeting with Glasgow Corporation last Friday. Certainly we want to see the development of this airport consistent with my right hon. Friend's statement of 22nd February last year which took into account all the facilities available in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the latest position concerning the urgent negotiations with Edinburgh Airport?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to anticipate another Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a strong opinion in the West of Scotland that too much money has already been spent on Glasgow Airport? There are two big airports within a short distance of one another. Prestwick is not closed by fog as Glasgow Airport is. Will my hon. Friend be very careful before spending any more public money on Glasgow Airport?
    Mr. Rodgers: Prestwick is also an admirable airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had discussions with the Ayr County Council about its future, too.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of that intervention, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Later—
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the urgency of the negotiations on Edinburgh Airport, have you, Mr. Speaker, had any request for an answer to Questions Nos. 45 and 46?
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

    Aberdeen Airport
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his plans for the future ownership of Aberdeen Airport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about plans for Dyce Airport.
    Mr. William Rodgers: There is no immediate prospect of the Board of Trade relinquishing the ownership of Aberdeen airport, although our policy in the longer term is to relinquish control of such few civil aerodromes as remain in our charge.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the meantime, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that services at that airport will not deteriorate but will be developed and maintained? If the City of Aberdeen is not prepared to take over the airport on its own, is he willing to consider approaches from a consortium of local authorities in that area to keep control of the airport on a local basis?
    Mr. Rodgers: The answer to both parts of the supplementary question is "Yes".
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Can the hon. Gentleman say why productivity agreements which are now under discussion with the men involved at the airport were not suggested before the recent strikes took place?
    Mr. Rodgers: That raises a much larger issue about which there is a later Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that, in view of its geographical position in relation to, not only the rest of this island, but the Continent, Aberdeen airport is essential for the maintenance of trade, industry, commerce and employment for the whole of North-East
    1320
    Scotland? Will he ensure that it receives the utmost attention?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's forceful view.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your guidance. I know that you have no control over Ministerial replies, but in a supplementary question to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, I asked whether the £109 million expenditure on military aircraft in the United States would appear in the Defence Estimates or in the Estimates of some other Department. The Minister replied that this was Government expenditure. Is it possible for the President of the Board of Trade to amplify the statement and to remove my mystification?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman answered his point of order at the beginning. It is not for Mr. Speaker to decide in what way a Minister will answer a Question; indeed, he need not answer.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. The Minister of State declined to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on the very proper grounds that there were further Questions on the matter. In view of his Answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, Mr. Speaker, may I again, through you, ask that the Minister of State may be able to comment on this urgent matter?
Mr. Speaker: A repetition of a request that a Minister should answer a Question that he has given no indication that he wishes to answer does not make him answer it.

PRIVATE BILLS (OBJECTIONS)
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you may remember that a few days ago I drew your attention to the fact that when an objection was made to a Private Bill it was not recorded in HANSARD. I made an objection to the Brighton Marina Bill on Tuesday and there is no reference to it in HANSARD.

1321
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that when I made that point you said something to the effect that it was not customary to enter such objections in HANSARD because a number of hon. Members had objected to a number of Bills.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, an objection of that kind is a public matter, of importance to the House, to the promoters of the Bill and to the objectors.
I made that objection on Monday, it is not recorded in HANSARD, and when I previously raised this point of order you said words to the effect that it should be referred to the appropriate Committee. I am sorry to detain the House, but surely it is a matter of importance that such an objection should be on record in the appropriate issue of HANSARD.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. I hope that he would not ask Mr. Speaker to rule on the same point again and again. I ruled when he raised this point of order last Tuesday week. I hope that he will not raise it every time the Brighton Marina Bill comes before the House on Tuesdays. The position is exactly as I ruled a week ago.

BILLS PRESENTED
  DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM
  Bill to provide for the establishment of a British Tourist Authority and Tourist Boards for Scotland and Wales with responsibility for promoting the development of tourism to and within Great Britain; to provide for the giving of financial assistance out of public funds for the provision of new hotels and the extension, alteration and improvement of existing hotels; to enable provision to be made for the registration of hotels and other establishments at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr Anthony Crosland; supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. George Thomas, and Mr. William Rodgers; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
  Bill to amend the law relating to children and young persons; and for purposes
  1322
  connected therewith, presented by Mr. James Callaghan; supported by Mr. William Ross, the Attorney-General and Mr. Elystan Morgan; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (REV. N. SITHOLE)
  Mr. Judd: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
  "the conviction of the Rev. N. Sithole by the courts of the illegal régime in Rhodesia and his sentence to six years' imprisonment."
  I submit that this is specific because it refers to one man, the Rev. N. Sithole, who is a key and vital political leader in Rhodesia. It is important because the result of this trial and the verdict following the trial may have important implications for the future of race relations within Rhodesia, without Southern Africa and within the world, and may call into question the competence of the Rhodesian courts to deal with a matter of this kind.
  I further submit that the matter is urgent because it is a verdict and sentence which have been announced today.
  I have already said that I believe this verdict may call into question the competence of the illegal régime and its judicial system but, further, it seems possible, on the reports which are so far available, that the case may have disturbing implications in the possible intimidation of witnesses by the illegal régime and the fact that the main witness throughout the case, Mr. X, has not yet been identified.
  One of the most important points brought forward by the prosecution as incriminating evidence has been reference to Mr. Sithole's denunciation of the terms put forward as a result of the talks in "Fearless". This denunciation is not limited to the lips of Mr. Sithole. It is something that has been—
  Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot debate the subject on which he is seeking an emergency debate.
  Mr. Judd: Then may I conclude by saying that the matter is urgent and deserving of immediate attention by the House, because, as a result of the case, Her Majesty's Government should consider immediately reviewing their commitment to the "Fearless" proposals. It calls into question the Government's commitment to those proposals because it makes it more difficult than ever to get a genuine test of opinion within Rhodesia.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
  "the conviction of the Rev. N. Sithole by the courts of the illegal regime in Rhodesia and his sentence to six years' imprisonment."
  As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
  I have listened carefully to the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
  Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before making a final decision on this matter, would you consider one fact which seems to have emerged from the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking Mr. Speaker, If he rules me out of order, I will accept his Ruling.
  Mr. Sithole is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth and he has been tried by an illegal court. Does that not bring the matter within the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Everyone in the House has the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not usual, when Mr. Speaker has ruled against a Standing Order No. 9 Motion, to question his Ruling. I have taken every factor into consideration.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I wish to raise a matter concerning the selection of Amendments. It questions, first, the exclusion of certain Amendments and, second, the joining together of others, some of which have no relation to each other.
    Probably better than anyone else in the Committee, Mr. Irving, you know that the rights of hon. Members depend very much on the kinds of Amendments selected for debate. Although that is true of any Committee stage, it is much more true when we are dealing with an extremely important constitutional Measure such as the one before us today. Any point that does not receive due consideration in Commitee does not receive it when the legislation is framed and appears on the Statute Book, to be obeyed for many years to come. It is of crucial importance for all Amendments to be selected so that they may be tested in debate and by the Committee's vote.
    I submit that, on previous occasions, we have taken a much less restrictive view of Amendments, even when dealing with matters less important than the ones before us today. To quote a recent example, when we considered the Finance Bill last year, about 60 Amendments were tabled to one Schedule, of which no fewer than 29 tabled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite were selected. The point at issue then was a very minor matter of life assurance and the qualifications for it. If we can be so generous on a relatively unimportant matter, surely it is essential that we should be allowed to discuss a greater number of the Amendments which have been tabled to this very important Bill.
    The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. The Standing Orders give complete discretion to the Chair in the selection of Amendments. If the hon. Gentleman or any

    1325
    other hon. Member has private submissions to make to me, I will be glad to listen to them, but I cannot allow a debate on the selection.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. I have looked through the list, and I see that Amendment No. 163—in Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end add:
    (5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any Prince of the Blood Royal, being a Peer, to receive as heretofore a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords—
    has been selected and grouped together with a number of others. However, that Amendment is in complete contradiction to the others in the group. It seems to me that it ought to be taken separately, or that there should be a separate vote on it. Some of the other Amendments in that group ask for the elimination of the hereditary peer from the House of Lords—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising much the same point about which I have ruled—
    Mr. Heffer: Oh, no—
    The Chairman: Order. I have said that if any hon. Member wishes to make submissions to me about separate Divisions, or about any other matter concerning the selection of Amendments, I will be glad to hear them, but I cannot accept them in Committee.
    Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. How can we make representations to you, unless we do it at this stage? We are beginning this debate immediately, and Amendment No. 163 is included in the first group for consideration. At what other point in time can I or anyone else raise this question?
    Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. Is it not in order for the Committee to be suspended, so that submissions can be made to you?
    The Chairman: No. I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you at least consider this? Apart from Amendment No. 2, perhaps, most of these Amendments are not con-
    1326
    sequential, and there will be no opportunity to consider them at a later stage. Would you agree to taking separate votes on each of the Amendments?
    The Chairman: I cannot give a blanket undertaking to accept a submission of that kind.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. I submit that the discretion of the Chair, upon which you have just said that you rely, should not be exercised without reason. This Amendment shows that the Clause contradicts itself—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is questioning the selection. I cannot allow him to do that.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you rule whether the list of selected Amendments which some of us have is exhaustive of the whole Committee stage, or does it merely take us to the end of Clause 3?
    The Chairman: The selection, which I should remind hon. Members is provisional, is up to the end of Clause 3.
    Mr. George Younger: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you advise the Committee about the way in which the Preamble will be treated in considering the Bill? As the Bill is drafted, the Preamble is of more than usual importance. I understand that the correct procedure is that, normally, the Preamble to a Bill is amended only if an Amendment to the Bill made subsequently makes it automatically necessary to alter the Preamble. On the Notice Paper there appear quite a large number of proposed Amendments to the Preamble which I am sure it would be the wish of the Committee to consider. What will be the method of doing that?
    The Chairman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's submission about the complexity of the Bill. The procedure is that the Preamble will be considered at the end.
    Mr. Younger: Further to that point of order. With respect, that is not quite my point. Will it be in order, therefore, when we come to the Preamble—assuming that the Committee agrees—to amend

    1327
    the Preamble in respect of the Amendments specifically tabled and not merely in respect of Amendments to the re mainder of the Bill which may have been agreed in the meantime?
    The Chairman: That is a difficult point on which to ask the Chair for guidance. If the substance of the Bill, as amended, requires some amendment of the Preamle, technically it is possible to amend it.
    Mr. Younger: I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but could you not consider this point now? Where a large part of the intention of the Bill, for understandable reasons, is in the Preamble, it is not satisfactory that the ability to amend the Preamble should be restricted to Amendments made in other parts of the Bill. Will it be in order to move a substantive Amendment to the Preamble, when the time comes, and have it considered like any other Amendment to any other part of the Bill?
    The Chairman: The scope of the Bill is determined not by the Preamble, but by the Clauses. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to amend the Preamble, he must put down a substantive Motion to that effect now.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Further to that point of order. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Prime Minister, introducing Second Reading, laid rather more special emphasis on the Preamble than is usual in the case either of a Long Title or of a Preamble. It was to have a mystic middle effect irrespective of the body of the Bill. That being so, surely the rules of order are somewhat different in this case from what they are normally.
    For that reason, I support my hon. Friend's submission that we should not be restricted in our amendment to the Preamble, when we get to it in a few weeks' time, by what has in the meantime been included or not included in the Bill, but that we should be allowed to amend the Preamble as we wish because it has this independent life indicated by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Michael Foot: On that same point of order. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. and
    1328
    learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It appears that this is a unique situation facing the Committee and it is a unique form of Preamble in the sense that some of the main matters discussed on Second Reading will appear only in discussion on the Preamble. It is possible that many matters that were fully debated on Second Reading would be excluded altogether unless we could have a separate approach to the Preamble.
    Therefore, may I suggest, Mr. Irvine, that at a later point in the proceedings, either today or when we renew discussion on the Bill, you make to the Committee a special and considered statement on the Preamble? I believe that it would greatly assist us. Indeed, it might speed up some of the preliminary discussions, because the view of many hon. Members is that one of the major debates which will have to take place will be on the Preamble in some form or other, and we would like to be clear about the form that it will take.
    The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for being so helpful. I will consider making such a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Is this strictly accurate? Surely the rule is not that Amendments cannot be made to the Preamble. Is not the rule that Amendments must not be made to the Preamble which are inconsistent with the body of the Bill? This is something different from all the points which have been made so far.
    The Chairman: This is perfectly correct. As I indicated, in general an Amendment to the Preamble must be determined by Amendments put down to the Bill, because the scope of the Bill is determined by the Clauses which eventually determine the Preamble. I will seek to cover this matter in my statement.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: Would it not solve the problem if we altered the order of the proceedings and debated Amendments to the Preamble first? It is open to the Committee—it is often done on the Finance Bill—to take certain Clauses out of order. Would it be in order, if I moved an Amendment to the Preamble, for the Committee to consider that Amendment to the Preamble before considering the others?
    The Chairman: That is contrary to the practice of the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with it in the way suggested. I will endeavour to help the Committee as much as I can.
    Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. To return to Amendment No. 163, may I ask whether you will consider having a separate vote on that Amendment?
    The Chairman: I cannot deal with it in Committee. If the hon. Member cares to make a private submission to me, I will listen with great attention.
    Mr. Heffer: Why do I need to make a private submission when I am making a public one? There is no point in it. I am asking now whether we might have a separate vote on Amendment No. 163. Possibly the Chair does not wish to reply at this stage, but may we, at least before the end of the debate, know whether we can have a separate vote on Amendment No. 163 and on other Amendments which are not consequential to each other?
    The Chairman: I have already answered that point of order. Incidentally, I have not had a submission from either of the hon. Members whose names appear above the Amendment on the Notice Paper. I cannot discuss the question of selection or matters of that kind in Committee.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As one of the sponsors of Amendment No. 163, I am sure that we will be delighted to have a vote when we come to it. But may I refer back to what you, Mr. Irving, said about the Preamble? The Preamble raises certain important matters of principle that affect the whole Bill. Therefore, I should think it more logical to discuss the Preamble before coming to some of the individual Clauses. When you make your statement, will you bear in mind that the Preamble really goes to the whole root of the Bill before we discuss the Clauses?
    The Chairman: I will endeavour to consider the convenience of the Committee within the Standing Orders. I shall certainly bear that in mind.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Irving, you said that it is the practice not to have the Preamble first. But
    1330
    surely that is a bad practice. The logic of the English language is that the Preamble comes first. Can we not make it logical on this occasion, whatever the practice has been in the past?
    The Chairman: The Chair, whether in Committee or in the House, is guided by the practice, conventions and usages laid down in Erskine May. One does not abandon the usual practices very easily. But I bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Michael Jopling: I think that we are in some difficulty when you, Mr. Irving, say that you will take private representations on points of order which have been raised. It is absolutely essential that the Committee should know in what way it is to proceed as soon as possible. It would be a great mistake to start our proceedings in any great detail unless we know what your final views will be after these private representations have been made.
    I wonder, therefore, whether you will reconsider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the Committee should be adjourned until you have made up your mind finally on these matters and the private representations have been made or vacate the Chair and allow another Chairman to take over until you have received these private representations.
    The Chairman: I will seek my own convenience in that respect, if necessary. In pursuance of the provisional selection which is upon the Notice Paper, we are about to start on what is likely to be a lengthy discussion on Amendment No. 1 and the other Amendments selected with it. I will certainly seek to hear any representations that are made to me about separate Divisions or other matters as quickly as possible, and certainly before the end of this debate, so it should not deprive any Member of having proper consideration given to what he wishes in this respect.
    Mr. Reginald Maudling: Further to the point on the first group of Amendments. Is it not the familiar practice of the Committee that where Amendments which have a slightly different purpose are grouped a separate vote is

    1331
    accorded? Surely, without in any way questioning in public the selection, it is possible for the Chair to announce now that there will be a separate vote, if Members wish, on particular Amendments.
    The Chairman: The Chair is in great difficulty. I have ruled that the Chair does not discuss its selection in Committee. If I pursue that point I am, in fact, doing exactly what I ruled I ought not to do. I should, nevertheless, like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the rule that he is seeking to submit to the Committee has been pursued, because Amendment No. 1 is for debate and Division and Amendment No. 2, which seeks to cover another major group of Amendments, is also down for Division. This covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. I will, of course, hear any other submissions, but I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed with the debate.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I think that you have been extremely patient, Mr. Irving. The whole Committee, I am sure, feels very sorry that you have been placed in this position. But I understood you to say just now that you would receive representations, and I gathered that you might vacate the Chair and take representations while the debate was taking place. That will place some of us in a difficult position, because we wish to be here to take part in the debate. If the Committee were to adjourn for 30 minutes while representations were made, we would know where we were going.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, but we have a large number of Amendments before us, and I cannot believe that we shall proceed very quickly with these during the next hour. I shall seek to hear representations, and I feel that the convenience of the Committee will be served if we proceed in that way.
    Mr. Barnett Mr. Barnett rose—
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not ask me to rule on a point of order on which I have already ruled.
    Mr. Barnett: No, Mr. Irving. I thought you said that because Amendment No. 2 was being taken with Amendment No. 1 that tended to deal with the matter. Amendment No. 2 is consequential to Amendment No. 1. That is the only Amendment in this group which is consequential. All the others are quite different.
    The Chairman: It is often the practice of the Chair to select even Amendments of substance for discussion, but not for a Division. This practice stretches back a long time, and, therefore, the Chair is not doing anything but following the usual practice by selecting in this way
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: I wonder, Mr. Irving, whether you will help us a little further by reminding us in what sense this selection is provisional, and to what provisos it is subject.
    On the question of the Preamble, I wonder whether you can say whether at some stage you will entertain a Motion that the Preamble stand part of the Bill? Shall we be able to have a Division on that?
    The Chairman: The selection is provisional. It is a selection made under the powers given to the Chairman by the Standing Orders, and can be altered at any time. It is marked "provisional" at the top of the list of selections.
    It will be possible to have a Division on the Preamble if the hon. Gentleman seeks to have that.
    Mr. Birch: In my experience this is unique. We are told that the Bill is based on a White Paper. Certain parts of the White Paper are in the Bill. The only reference to other parts of the White Paper is in the Preamble. I have never known a situation like this, where a Preamble dealt with matters which were not in the Bill. This seems to be unique, and it ought to be dealt with in a unique way. If you can give us any precedent for the similar conduct of a Bill, I shall be grateful to hear it. I do not believe that there is any such precedent.
    The Chairman: I cannot pursue this matter now. I have undertaken to consider the matter urgently, and to give what guidance I can to the Committee. I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed to the Amendments.
    Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Irving, you said earlier that you would be prepared to receive submissions. What I wish to say relates to Amendment No. 104, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'received such a writ' and insert
    'attended the House of Lords',
    and to Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'the date of the commencement of this Act' and insert '31st October 1967 '. These Amendments have not been selected. They cover points of substance on which no debate will be possible.
    You said that you would be prepared to receive submissions. It so happens that after the discussion on the first group of Amendments we shall be past that part of the Bill on which these Amendments arise. I find it difficult to understand when you can receive submissions during the Committee stage of the Bill. I further ask for a general ruling on the kind of Amendments which you will not be selecting on this Bill, where we are considering vital constitutional changes.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is asking me to deal with a point of order with which I have already dealt. I do not think that any Chairman is required, nor do the Standing Orders require him, to explain his selection, or the principles on which it is based. I think that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make such representations as he wishes, and I hope that he will now allow the debate to go forward.
    Mr. Sheldon Mr. Sheldon rose—
    The Chairman: Does the hon. Member wish to pursue a point of order with which I have already dealt?
    Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Irving, you said earlier that you would be prepared to receive submissions. Will those submissions have to be made before it is taken, or after?
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will make his submission before it is taken, inasmuch as it is practicable to do so in relation to the first Amendment. I have sought to give what help and protection I can to the hon. Member, by saying that I shall determine my view on any submissions which are made before we come to the end of the discussion on the first group of
    1334
    Amendments, and therefore before the Committee is required to vote.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Irving, you have been extremely patient, but I wish to follow up a request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Amendment No. 163, which is grouped so strangely, cannot be regarded as a provisional selection, because, as you have insisted that we get on with it, it ceases to be provisional the moment it is opened. It therefore becomes definitive, and it is necessary to make one's objections now, unfortunately in public. We cannot make our submissions in private because there is no time so to do.
    Amendment No. 163 deals with Princes of the Blood Royal, and is different from Amendment No. 1, on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is so keen, but which I regard as very bad. I think that we ought to be allowed to have a separate Division on the Princes of the Blood Royal, because this is quite a different matter. Although it may be too late to prevent it being discussed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, what is the objection to you telling us now that on this totally separate Amendment we can have a separate Division?
    The Chairman: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about that Amendment, and its importance, but it is open to any hon. Member to make submissions to me. It may be that there are other hon. Members who wish to make submissions about other Amendments included in this group. I should, therefore, rather not make a decision now. I have indicated that I shall seek to protect the hon. and learned Member's interests about a Division by indicating this before that time arrives.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the Amendment to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has referred stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), I wonder whether I might say that I am content for my Amendment to be discussed in the earlier debate, because it affects Princes of the Blood Royal as hereditary peers and members of the other place.

    1335
    I am content with that, but if, as a result of the submissions made to you, you decide in your wisdom that there should be a separate debate, and a separate Division on this Amendment, will it be in order for the matter to be discussed again in a further debate? If not, it seems that what my hon. and learned Friend has said is right, that the matter has been pre-judged.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Further to that point of order. To be quite frank, and with due respect, I say that we seem to be getting into rather a muddle. I should like to propose that the proceedings be adjourned for half an hour, to give you time to consider this very important matter of the separation of Amendment No. 163 from Amendment No. 1 and the whole Preamble.
    I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is moving a dilatory Motion, which I cannot accept and which I am not required to accept, under the Standing Orders.
    In reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), may I say that Amendment No. 163 has been selected, and that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) is right. Once the debate has started it is no longer a provisional selection, it is a definitive selection, and cannot be changed.
    What I undertook to consider if representations are made to me is whether, having debated it, there can be a Division on it. I certainly could not give any undertakings on this, because it would be open to any hon. Member who has an Amendment in this group to make a similar submission. Therefore, I must reserve my position on the question of consideration. But I should certainly consider this, if the hon. and learned Gentleman made a submission. This is the common practice of the House. Mr. English.
    Mr. Onslow: Would it not be better to find some Amendments on which there is no dispute—
    The Chairman: Order. I called Mr. English.
    Mr. Michael English: Could you advise us, Mr. Irving, whether Amendment No. 163 is in order at all? Amendment No. 163 includes a term "Prince of the Blood Royal", which is quite unknown to English law. There are such things as royal dukes, which includes the Duke of Edinburgh, but the term "Prince of the Blood Royal" would exclude that estimable individual from having this right at all. Therefore, is the Amendment in order at all?
    The Chairman: If the Amendment were out of order, it would not be selected for debate.
    Mr. Onslow: Might it not meet the point on these first Amendments which we are not yet debating if we shelved them for the time being and found a later Amendment, on which there is no dispute, and debated that for a while while this wrangle is being sorted out behind the Chair?
    The Chairman: I cannot accept that ingenious suggestion.
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—
    The Chairman: Order. I have ruled and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this matter.
    Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. If the Committee were to decide to reject Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, this would inevitably mean that there could be no vote on Amendment No. 163, concerning Princes of the Royal Blood. These are totally separate points. Whether there is a right to vote for peers who inherit peerages by succession is a different matter from whether princes of the royal blood should be allowed to vote or not and it would preclude the Committee from considering the latter point if we disposed of the Amendments in the first group. Could they not be separated?
    The Chairman: Whether they are separated is a matter for the Chair and any submissions made to me about this matter. As for the point that, if Amendment No. 1 were decided and fell, this would automatically knock out Amendment No. 163, that is not so.
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. It would be a great convenience to many hon. Members if you, Mr. Irving, could say where and when it would be possible to make private submissions. Would you prefer hon. Members to approach you in the Chair during this immediate debate? There is some confusion about when these private submissions might be made.
    The Chairman: I would make arrangements at the earliest possible moment to hear submissions which have to be made to me.
    In view of the time which has elapsed, I will indicate my selection. With Amendment No. 1, which we are about to discuss, we will consider also Amendments No. 2, in Clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out "by succession"; No. 3, in Clause 1, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2); No. 4, in Clause 1, page 2, line 22, leave out "by succession"; No. 157, in Clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (3); No. 158, in Clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4); No. 103, Clause 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out "within one year after the commencement of this Act".
    No. 163, in Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end add:
    (5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any Prince of the Blood Royal, being a Peer, to receive as heretofore a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords.
    No. 13, in Clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out "peers of first creation" and insert "life peers"; No. 19, in Clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out "peer of first creation" and insert "life peer";
    New Clause 2—
    The power of the Crown to create hereditary peerages conveying rights of membership of the House of Lords is hereby abolished.
    and new Clause 6—
    One month after the coming into force of this Act, no holder by succession of a hereditary peerage, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom shall have the right to sit in the reformed House of Lords by virtue of his hereditary title.
    An Hon. Member: Too fast.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will find the list of selection in the No Lobby.

  Clause 1

    EXCLUSION OF PEERS BY SUCCESSION
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out:
    "Except as provided by subsection (2) below ".
    This Amendment seeks to ensure that the holders by succession of hereditary peerages, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom,
    "shall not in right of that peerage receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act."
    A number of us, notably on this side, but many on the other side also, regard it as almost self-evident that there should be no rights to those by virtue of their birth. Not long ago, we tried—and were largely successful—to remove the stain which arose from illegitimate birth, and we have long accepted that birth by itself should offer no privileges and that only what the man or woman does throughout his long life should be a token of the esteem or the importance that he or she should be accorded in our public life and elsewhere.
    What I seek to do by this Amendment is to question why successionist peers should have any advantage over anyone else in the United Kingdom. It is not easy to see what these individuals have to offer the country either in the advice they give or in the way they act having some sort of bearing upon their contribution in the House of Lords.
    The hierarchy of birth, which was once a dominant feature in our national life as it was in so many other countries, has been diminishing and should diminish still further. This hierarchy was rooted both in the mysticism and the false analogies of very primitive societies who understood very well how certain agricultural products owed a great deal to those which were planted to yield the kind of produce required. They perceived that this relationship existed and transferred it rather too readily to human beings, who are subject to much more complex laws and much more to the laws of environmental change rather than purely the laws of heredity.

    1339
    Therefore, over these long years, we have seen an excessive attachment to birth and the individual's background which slowly, as the ideas of democracy and equality grew throughout the country, became attached to the individual and the need to maintain the rights of the individual as stemming from his own personality and not that of those who produced him. But we know that it was not even as simple as that, that the laws and ideas of succession as well as the mythology of succession were not determined by one's parents or even one's grandparents. All too often, they were determined by what happened to one individual many hundreds of years before.
    Although, in primitive societies, it might have been accepted that what happened several hundred years before to an ancestor had some contribution to make to that individual who came at the end of many generations, the most elementary reader of the popularised science books knows that a relationship as tenuous as this is something which we can for the most practical purposes entirely ignore, even if it were shown to be completely beneficial and had some ability to transmit these qualities throughout the generations. It has no such ability and even if it had, it would be too thin by the time it reached the present peers in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: There is not only the transmission of qualities, but the question of the environment to which children are subject.
    Mr. Sheldon: I agree that environment is now seen to be the most important determinant of our time. This is something to which we have started to pay, rather belatedly, more attention.
    This mythology, which was responsible for the creation of the House of Lords and for so many other factors of medieval society, still finds its last roots in the Upper Chamber. It is this aspect with which the Amendment is concerned.
    Leaving aside the question of advantage, it must be accepted that these people are well represented as a class or body. We recognise that Parliament should be a forum in which wide ranges of opinion may be expressed. We accept
    1340
    the need for that, even when the range of opinion in question may happen to be a very narrow one. Every shade of opinion should find some sort of representation in Parliament.
    We know, however, that the extent of the representation with which we are concerned needs to be very small indeed because the numbers concerned are very small. Despite this, an entire House is dedicated to this type of representation; and the Bill will exclude only a small number of those who should be excluded.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that he will support later Amendments designed to secure a limited representative body of hereditary peers in the Upper House?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am thinking of the body of representation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman must bear that in mind when he uses the word "limited". It should be obvious that throughout the country—in industry, in the Upper Chamber as it will be reformed and in this Chamber—the representation of these people is already extraordinarily high. One might argue for that representation even in these other spheres to be reduced, but I will not go into that in detail now. We are not dealing with a problem of the under-representation of the aristocracy in Britain. This problem has never weighed heavily with me; not from the under-representation point of view.
    The problem with which we are concerned is the direct opposite; the question of the over-representation of such people in all parts of our public life, and particularly in the so-called reformed House of Lords. I emphasise "reformed" in this context because such a reform is an insult to a word which I am proud to use on many occasions. I would call it a change, and a change for the worse. We are, therefore, dealing with a question of the over-representation of aristocracy in our public life, and, in particular, in the Upper Chamber.
    An encouraging aspect of our economic life are the changes that are taking place in industry. The old succession of managers breeding sons and taking them into the business is altering. The whole

    1341
    question of an automatic right to take responsibility for a company because of the advantage of birth has been called into question in recent years. At first, it was questioned. Now, the old succession theory is in considerable decay.
    As a result of these trends, we are now seeing an understanding, even in quite small family companies, of the fact that birth is not enough and that industry needs the right people to manage, run and control its affairs. The sons, and particularly the elder sons, of business owners are finding opportunities outside those businesses. They are realising—or perhaps boards of directors area realising—the limitations which are imposed by management selection in the old way. That method of recruitment is falling into disrepute.
    Mr. William Baxter: Would not my hon. Friend agree that considerable benefit has accrued from even that method of selection? The onus of proof is on him to show that that method has not been effective. After all, most of our great industries have been built on the simple basis of son following father. There is nothing unreasonable about this method of selection, as long as the son is of the necessary quality. Even in this House we find sons following fathers, brothers following brothers and sometimes a selection being made by a Prime Minister based not necessarily on ability but on relationship.
    Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which was certainly valid in the middle of the 19th century, when gifted sons followed their fathers. The next generation failed in this matter of succession. They failed so miserably that they left their industries to languish while they moved into the City to live more comfortable and lucrative lives. As long as the factory or mill owner lived near his industry, his establishment flourished. Living nearby, he had knowledge of the industry, as did his son. The next generation, however, did not live according to the same tradition. They moved to London and the City, away from the factory or mill, and were, therefore, responsible for so much that later proved to be wrong with the British industrial system.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter on a broader
    1342
    basis and considers, for example, agriculture, he will see that some of Britain's best large farms are run by the fifth and sixth generation of the same families and that these farms are run far better now than they were years ago, particularly as a result of the scientific training which farmers' sons now receive.
    Mr. Sheldon: That, too, is an interesting point. I wish that I had time to deal with every aspect of the matter. I concede the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says in connection with agriculture, although there are no statistics in agriculture to reveal the true picture.
    While I might be willing to accept that a number of farmers have raised their sons close to the soil and have given them an understanding of the land—have made them understand that it is necessary to put in as well as take out; this applies in all walks of life—I question whether that sort of relationship can be applied to large sections of industry generally.
    While knowledge was passed from father to son in agriculture, that was not the case in industry. It was also not the case in connection with the House of Lords. We are, therefore, dealing with matters of a very different scale.
    Mr. Victor Goodhew: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the position in a country like Saudi Arabia, in which all the Ministers are sons or brothers of the King and where the balance of payments position is much healthier than ours?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points relating to multi-filial relationships of the kind that are indulged in in Saudi Arabia. The connection between father and son there is a little more tenuous than that to which we in this House are accustomed. I appreciate the point of his intervent, however, and while there may be some validity in it, I do not have time to go into it.
    We are here dealing with the value that is attached to the relationship between ancestors and descendants ranging over a period of very many years. We are dealing with the amount of representation that is accorded the aristocracy, not only in Parliamentary affairs but in industry, although I agree that some important changes and improvements have been

    1343
    made. Unfortunately, this representation is still not on the basis of merit; certainly not nearly to the extent that it should be. In other walks of life—the Church, the Army, and so on—nobody should argue that the kind of representation that exists is valid.
    If the argument is that those who are in the House of Lords bring something to bear on the discussions which is not immediately available in the House of Commons, clearly we need there not those who happen to be able to look back many generations to our past glories, but more a cross-section and even people who do not come here to debate matters in this House.
    4.30 p.m.
    I have on the list of Amendments a new Clause suggesting that the House of Lords might be empowered to invite up to three individuals from outside that House to take part in their debates even though they are not Members. Such outsiders coming in with certain expertise in particular narrow areas of experience could bring a widening of interests and direct practical experience to bear in a way which we in this House are not able to do as much as perhaps we should because of the demands on our time. Because peers served the country at some distant date very well, usually in military fields, it is felt that their dependants—
    Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Would not the hon. Member agree that a great many of them were chosen for their political services? Many members of the House of Lords or their fathers were distinguished Members of this House.
    Mr. Sheldon: I accept that. The contribution of the Cecils is an obvious case. I question, however, whether experience at an Elizabethan court, even if it were transmitted through 300 or 400 years and still survived could be of relevance to the House of Lords now. This kind of background is not particularly relevant and it is over-represented. What we have seen in the life peerages is a move—I do not think that it is much more—towards bringing in levels of ability more in keeping with those which we see in the country today.
    Mr. Gower: Many of us would accept many of his arguments about the hereditary
    1344
    principle as such, but would the hon. Member not agree that a House composed solely of nominated people could be even more objectionable?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member will find that I am in total agreement with that, as I shall seek to show on other matters which, if I discussed them now, I should probably involve myself in questions of order. The point we are discussing now is not whether a House of Lords consisting of nominated peers is objectionable, but whether peers of succession should join with them. It is this which I find very bad and to which I strongly object.
    During recent years we have seen a number of father-son relationships in the aristocracy which perhaps in the debate to follow may be referred to by hon. Members. The difficulty about all these things is that in the nature of such a discussion brilliance of this kind will tend to be more commonly known. The case of the father who did not have a brilliant son is all too common. We may not know whether the son has any particular brilliance or gifts. Those in a distinguished family impinge themselves on our consciousness in a way which I suspect hon. Members opposite might tend to recall with considerable affection, since they have this attitude towards the aristocracy. The only way to look at this objectively and dispassionately is by looking at the position of the members of families and the numbers of successes, but we have no such way of looking at families.
    The point I wish to emphasise is that of the all-too-frequent case of a great man not being followed by particularly brilliant children. We recall all too well people who tried political careers because they had certain advantages. Certain great men with political advantages had children who wished to enjoy such advantages, but were not so successful. In all walks of life a parent knowledgeable in a profession or occupation or having a particular interest is in a very advantageous position to influence the future of his son.
    No doubt we all in our limited, perhaps modest, ways try to assist in this situation. Yet we also know that given this sort of initial advantage the success which might attend the son, other things

    1345
    being equal, is greater than if that attention were not so given. If this is so it is not surprising that we see Members of the House of Lords being able to rear families whereby a certain level of ability is shown just because they have that kind of background.
    Perhaps this is something of the background to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) drew attention in connection with agriculture and the relationship between parents and children in that industry. They enjoy these advantages and perhaps when we praise families all we are doing is praising this kind of connection which obviously exists and must exist, but as a statistical principle we are unable to gauge its extent. We have also seen the ability of those who were called "Born to rule".
    This kind of ability was much praised before the war and especially in the 19th century when certain political families were said—although I do not believe it—very largely to control the destinies of the country. That was something which they used to arrogate to themselves, this power which I do not think they possessed. They used to arrogate the power because they had a great interest. It is only natural that out of this came certain individuals who made their mark both in this House and in the Upper Chamber.
    The ability of certain individuals, fostered as it was from early years in contact with their parents, gave them a very great advantage compared with the individual whose life was spent in the back streets say of Manchester. He realised to the full extent the real problems of the world only in his twenties or thirties. Lacking the advantage of the possessor of great understanding enjoyed by the great families of those days, he suffered the disadvantages of birth and the struggle to earn a living and finally of coming to this House—as some did—rather late in life. They made their particular mark, it was grounded in the very experience which this House should have cherished and understood perhaps more on some occasions than it did. The advantage of the aristocracy was that it had young people with very great advantages in life. The trouble today is that without such advantages, to which everyone is prepared readily to defer, on many
    1346
    occasions one has to make one's mark entirely by one's own ability.
    The kind of society that we are, in which we respect a man only when he reaches 40 or 50, makes it difficult for someone to achieve things which were more possible for the young aristocracy in the past and are so to a limited extent even today. Having the advantages of success, having the advantages of wealth, and, most important of all, in many cases having the advantages of responsibility at an early age, they were able to develop the great characteristics which are needed to produce a leader in society.
    They had so much thrust upon them at an early age in a way that does not apply to people who do not have the advantages of birth. It is a feeling in all countries that we do not pick out some of the great talents and advance them as we should if we are to develop the kind of leadership that we need.
    Mr. Ridley: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman think that this is a form of vocational training which has some use in the context in which he is talking?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am not thinking in terms of vocational training in the House of Lords. I am thinking of bringing out people's latent abilities for the spheres, in particular, of industry and other aspects of national life. There can be no training for the House of Lords, unless it is life itself. One needs to have lived a life, to have lived it as fully as possible, and to have learned a number of important things about people and the world.
    I believe that there are many present in the Chamber who consider that the advantages of aristocratic birth give the young an opportunity which is not easily attained in any other way. However, I believe that great progress has been made towards a conscious understanding of the need to select such individuals. A number of schemes have been initiated by enterprising firms. There have been projects like the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, which is even more modest, but which perhaps covers an even wider aspect of national fife. Such schemes can make people more aware of their latent possibilities than their modesty might allow them to entertain.
    Such an approach is needed today if we are to employ what is, after all, our

    1347
    only valuable raw material, namely, the talents of our young people. The talents of the small number who sit in the House of Lords form only an infinitesimal part of the ocean of talent which the country has and which is not utilised to anything like the extent that it should be. If full use is to be made of our greatest natural resource, there must be a great extension of this type of approach to our young people.
    The succession peers had certain qualities which marked themselves in the past. They had certain standards of behaviour which were emulated by others. We in Britain were perhaps rather more fortunate than people in many other countries, in that the standards which these people set, at least in some respects, were of some value and percolated through to the community at large.
    As we approach the demise of the peers, let us spare one word of consolation for what they did. They were always realistic. One of their great characteristics was their astonishing realism and their ability to step back in the face of overpowering force which would otherwise have obliterated them, as it obliterated most of Europe's aristocracy.
    Our aristocracy had the great advantage of having leaders who understood the way these forces worked; and, apart from disastrous errors of the kind which were perpetrated in 1910, they have always known at the crucial moment to what extent to yield, understanding that by so yielding they were holding on to far more ground than they could reasonably lay claim to.
    4.45 p.m.
    This realism has enabled the peers to remain almost into the 1970s. This is astonishing, in view of the ending of aristocracies throughout the whole world. The aristocracy is now to be found only in remote places—in places such as Saudi Arabia and Britain. It is found in such places still because some of the places where it still exists are under-developed and because in Britain it has been rather intelligent in making the greatest use of its power and understanding the limitations of its power.
    This very advantage which the peers had, and this understanding of the political
    1348
    system they developed, was, in its way, a disadvantage to the Lords. An important point to remember in any discussion on reform is that it is the successionist peers who set the style. It is those in possession at any one time that tend to set the pattern to which people who enter that society correspond. Some of it is highly anachronistic, but this is how it works.
    We all know the case of the working-class son who becomes a doctor and begins to see himself as the descendant of the great medical authorities of the 17th and 18th centuries. He feels that he is not revered in the same way as they were—he has acquired their characteristics. Such a man complains about the problems of professional men, forgetting his past, though he should not forget it. This is found in all walks of life. People acquire the characteristics of the society they enter. It happens in the Lords even today.
    Mr. Heffer: And in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Sheldon: It is easier to overcome such difficulties here, for reasons which perhaps I will discuss with my hon. Friend later.
    In the Lords, the life peers, once they get the feel of ermine on their cheek, or wherever it touches them, become part of the mythology of the aristocracy and try to emulate it. Britain has a tradition of slight change—we are always changing, but never by much. There is always somebody there to tell what has gone before. As a moderate, I wholly accept this and think it of great value that there should be this kind of transition.
    For example, we should not get rid of the Tories all at once; there should be a lingering remnant of them for a time. We have seen this lingering remnant in the Lords, but the gradual approach has fewer advantages in the Lords because new entrants have been influenced by successionist peers and have adopted their standards. This is not wholly desirable, in view of what might have been expected from a reformed House of Lords taking in people of ability.
    Although the successionist peers may not be large in number, the greatest influence which they have is the influence

    1349
    of continuity whereby the new life peers and the nominated men are still expected to carry on—and very likely will in practice carry on—the traditions set by the successionist peers. Therefore, it is a question not just of numbers, but of the tone of the House of Lords largely set by the successionist peers.
    Another aspect of the matter to which I draw attention is that at one time the peers felt that they as individuals really represented Britain. That belief persisted almost until the present century, the belief that this country was represented by the peers and that the working people, those who lived to make the whole thing work, were interested only in themselves. It was believed that there was a fundamental division between the peers who owned the land and felt that they had continuing interest in the country as a whole and the working classes who, so it was thought, had no such continuing interest but wished only to be fed, to be clothed and to look after themselves.
    The task of the peers, as they themselves saw it, was to run the country and to manage the land, and also, if they were generous enough or far-seeing enough, to feed the masses and make sure that their interests were not wholly neglected. One had an interesting example of this in the attitude of Lord Raglan and Lord Lucan in the Crimean War. They regarded themselves as representatives of England, largely because of the Wellingtonian tradition that, if one wanted an absolutely safe Army, it had to be officered by those who really had something to lose.
    It was reckoned in those patrician days that the people who had something to lose were those who held rights in land. One had to make certain that the person who just had a rag on his back, living from meal to meal and having nothing to lose, ought never to be responsible for any important part of this country's fortunes. It was held that only people who had a continuing interest in this country because of their continuing interest in land and wealth should have responsibilities of that sort.
    Looking back to those days, without the advantages of foresight or of birth, one must admit that that attitude might have been acceptable to quite a number
    1350
    of people. But it did not take account of the nationalism which has since grown to be the most important factor in modern international politics. It was not understood that people who lived in and off the streets could fight for their country in as great a way or a greater way than, for example, Lord Raglan and Lord Lucan, not because they were protecting their own wealth, of which they had none, but because they were protecting their country, of which they were inordinantly proud.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is not giving to these gentlemen even the credit to which they are entitled. Ninety years or so ago they could well have sought out a cosy corner in some equivalent of the Ministry of Supply. They did not. They went out and led their men into battle.
    Mr. Heffer: With disastrous results.
    Mr. Sheldon: With disastrous results, as my hon. Friend says.
    One must remember the background. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has considered motives rather than results. In fact, the motives were not quite so altruistic, for that was the great road to glory. In those days, for a peer of the realm the road to glory was largely through military action, and action of a highly competitive sort, as anyone knows who has studied the Crimean War, the part of history of which I was thinking when I made those observations.
    The disastrous results to which my hon. Friend referred are known to all. These people were not selected for their ability, but because they represented an interest. Even today, more than 100 years later, it is held that people should be selected for the House of Lords not on their ability, but according to succession, according to the accident of birth.
    At the time of the 1964 Election, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the Prime Minister at that time as the 14th earl, he received the rebuttal that my right hon. Friend was the 14th Mr. Wilson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The interesting fact now is that the 14th Mr. Wilsons, Mr. Smiths and Mr. Joneses have won. They are the majority, and the 14th earls have

    1351
    lost, because they represented only one aspect of our life. This is the big change which has come into our political life, and it will be represented more fully in the House of Lords if some of the excellent Amendments which I and my hon. Friends have put down are adopted.
    I have spoken so far only about Amendment No. 1 and have not had an opportunity to discuss any of the others which are being taken at the same time.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case against succession by heredity. Does the same apply to the monarchy?
    Mr. Sheldon: The monarchy is not covered by the Amendment. Moreover, I do not entirely agree that the two are interdependent. The monarchy, in my view, does a job satisfactorily and economically well, and at a higher level of ability than one might be likely to find elsewhere. So long as that state of affairs remains, it will, obviously, be acceptable to the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. Since it is not under discussion now, I shall not take that aspect of the matter further.
    I was saying that I have directed my remarks so far to Amendment No. 1. At a later stage, I shall hope to catch the eye of the Chair and, perhaps, mention some of the others.
    [Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the course of his introductory speech to this part of our proceedings, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whose remarks I shall not at present attempt to emulate in respect of length, among much other highly mythical history founded his argument upon an entirely false assumption. That false assumption was that the so-called hereditary principle on which the House of Lords is at present constituted is the principle of heredity.
    The hon. Member spent much of his time demolishing a structure which, in fact, did not exist—his assumed House of Lords founded on the principle of heredity. If the House of Lords were founded on the principle of heredity, a peerage would not descend to the eldest
    1352
    son. It would descend to all sons, since there can be no ground for selecting in respect of ability or other characteristics one rather than another of the offspring of a sire.
    Secondly, the descent of peerages would universally be, as it is called, in tail general, that is, through the female as well as through the male, since there is equally no reason for supposing that whatever virtues may be transmissible hereditarily are not just as transmissible through the female as through the male.
    But, of course, all this has nothing to do with the constitution, or the principles of the constitution, of the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a prescriptive House. It consists partly of members who are nominees in that they are peers of first creation; but it consists also and preponderantly of members by hereditary succession who are there by prescription, because prescriptive right to succeed in a certain way to a seat and to a writ of summons to the Upper Chamber has come down in the course of our history.
    The fact that the elder son succeeds arises from the convention—an old convention, but still a convention, and an arbitrary convention—of primogeniture. The fact again that some peers and peeresses sit in the other place by descent through the female arises from a long and tangled story in the 14th and 15th centuries, when the Parliamentary barony was superseding the feudal barony and the old feudal baronies which still survived had to be interpreted in terms of those Parliamentary baronies by creation with which men were then predominantly familiar. These are matters of convention which, in the course of time, have come to be the prescriptive right on which the institution is founded.
    The argument which the whole Bill raises is whether we shall be the gainers by replacing an Upper Chamber partly consisting of nominees and partly consisting of peers by succession but constituted on the principle of prescription, by a Chamber constituted by nomination in obedience to a formula which is not even written into the Bill. Here, in the very first debate on the very first Amendment, the Committee comes right up against the difficulty that the heart of the Bill, any sense there may be in it— and I think that there is not a great deal—is in the Preamble and what lies behind

    1353
    the Preamble. It is only if one accepts the scheme alluded to in the Preamble that the Bill becomes intelligible, and that it becomes possible to argue about it at all. It is in order to clear the way for the scheme there hinted at that the Clauses, on the first of which we are engaged, are drafted.
    The first two Clauses represent three actions; they carry out three jobs. First, in Clause 1, they demolish the existing House of Lords; the House of Lords by prescription is abolished by Clause 1. It is then replaced in Clause 2 by a different second Chamber, a Chamber by nomination. Although the terminology partly conceals this, this is the reality. The existing House of Lords is done away with and an entirely new second Chamber, a nominated second Chamber, is invented and put in its place.
    Then, thirdly, in Clause 1(2), as introduced by the words which the Committee is now considering, a transitional bridge is erected for the time being between the House of Lords destroyed and the Chamber of nominees created.
    Therefore, in the debate which the hon. Member has inaugurated we are really considering three things at the same time. I suspect that our difficulty in doing so is setting a pattern which will be followed right the way through these debates. The desirability of the words, which are technically the subject of the Amendment, and which the Amendment proposes to leave out, must go back to the whole question of the desirability of what we are not allowed to debate at all—at any rate for a long time—the scheme referred to in the Preamble.
    That is the first point. Second, we are invited to consider at one remove the new structure inaugurated by Clauses 1 and 2 taken together. Only then, but, by this queer inversion of order, first, can we come to consider whether there should be some transition from that which a majority of Members probably do not wish to be disturbed in this way to something which a majority of Members certainly do not want to have at all. That is really the scope of the debate on the Amendment.
    It is in general monstrous that we should have to approach this fundamental constitutional question sideways-on, crablike. It is nonsense that we should have
    1354
    to debate it at all in this way, in this order and in this style. But if we must, then we should recognise, and I ask my hon. Friends to recognise, the value of the hereditary principle in a prescriptive House by insisting on the retention of these words and thus of the transitional provision in subsection (2).
    The value of that prescriptive institution is that it provides a second Chamber constituted on a principle basically distinct from that of this House, a principle which does not enable it seriously to defy the wishes of this House, but which also enables it on many questions to take a different point of view from this House. It can often be a point of view which reflects just as well and importantly what is being felt and thought in the country, and deserves to be taken into account by the legislature.
    So, as we are inevitably debating on the Amendment that hereditary principle which has come to give us the prescriptive second House of today, I suggest that the Committee should reject the Amendment and retain the words that the Amendment would leave out.
    Mr. Heffer: I support the Amendment. If subsection (1) were amended as I would like, it would read:
    "The holder of a hereditary peerage, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, shall not in right of that peerage receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act."
    That commends itself to me and, I am sure, to most of my hon. Friends, even those who are nevertheless falling for the idea of some sort of nominated Chamber rather than an elected Chamber or even those who believe in the elimination of a second Chamber. I can see no reason why most of my hon. Friends should not support this very moderate, sensible and intelligent Amendment.
    We are being asked to bring ourselves into the 20th century in the Government and Parliamentary system of the country. In the other place we have a very strange organisation. In a very short statement in opening the debate, my hon. Friend made it clear that in the other place there are a large number of people whose right to be there derives only from the fact that they were born of certain

    1355
    parents in a certain bed at a certain time. It is true that others in another place were nominated for membership by successive Prime Ministers, but the overwhelming majority of the Members of another place are there because of birth rather than because of ability.
    I am not suggesting that many of them have not immense ability. Of course they have. But if we are to have people in the House of Lords purely on the basis of ability deriving from birth, I suggest that we have in the House of Lords the dockers from the Port of London because of their ability deriving from their birth. We could have there the joiners who are employed in the building industry. They have as much right to be there, on the basis of birth and of their contribution to the country over the generations, as have those who presently frequent the House of Lords.
    We could take this to its logical conclusion. We have all made a contribution to the country. I do not know whether I am the 14th Mr. Heffer. In fact, I can trace my ancestry back to a Sarah Heffer, in Cambridge Churchyard who died in 1647. My ancestry may go back long before that and I may be the 101st Mr. Heffer. But that did not give to my family—those who ploughed the fields and built the cities of this land, those who plodded behind the soldiers in chainmail in France when we were fighting those battles—the right at any time to sit in the House of Lords and to deliberate on the future laws of the country. Certain people were given the right to sit in the Lords because they were born in a different bed from that in which I was born.
    This is a ridiculous situation. We are living in the 20th century. If people are to deliberate on the laws of this country, they must arrive either in this Chamber or in the other Chamber on the basis of their ability and their support in the country—and on the basis of the democratic principle of election. That is the only way in which anyone can acquire the right to determine the laws which govern the people. It cannot be done on the basis of his birth or succession. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that this was a long and tangled story of the 15th century.
    1356
    That is the point. That is why we say that it is about time that we got out of the 15th century and into the 20th century.
    5.15 p.m.
    It has been suggested that if we continue to have representatives of the aristocracy in another place, they will bring to it their understanding of agriculture and industry and the immense knowledge which they possess. Let us look at our agriculture and industry and see where we have reached following the efforts of the aristocracy. Let us then look across the Atlantic towards the United States and see what the throw-outs from this country have done, those who came from the working class, who did not get on here, who were persecuted and forced to cross the Atlantic Channel.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Channel? "]—It is now a channel. It was an ocean. These people built the greatest industrial complex in the world. They did not say, "My father was Lord So-and-So". They said, "I am John Smith" or "I am Bill Brown". Look what they have done, despite the fact that they have no aristocracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They now have a new aristocracy, but that does not give that new aristocracy the prescriptive right to sit in the second Chamber in the United States. They may get there by finance, but they still have to fight their way to the second Chamber. They do not get there automatically and they have no prescriptive right to be there. Nor should the aristrocracy have that prescriptive right in this country.
    All our Parliamentary and constitutional rights in this country have been gained by an immense struggle by the people below the aristocracy to get those rights. The House of Commons was not given to us. The House of Commons has a long history, but it has changed through history. In order to ensure that all the people were represented in the House of Commons, as they are, there had to be a great democratic struggle in this country. People fought for the rights which we have—and they fought against the representatives of those who presently sit in the House of Lords and against the monarchy, too. Hon. Members should never forget that we have our rights because of past struggles to eliminate the power and influence of the aristocracy.

    1357
    The aristocracy are no longer in that position. I feel a little sorry for them, poor pathetic creatures that they are. They welcome the Bill because they know that it is beneficial to them, but they will not welcome it if my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted, because there will then be no benefit in it for them. The transitional bridge will have been destroyed—and a very good thing, too. I ask the House to support the Amendment.
    In discussing the Bill we are talking in terms of advancing the whole concept of democracy. If we are not talking about that, what are we talking about? What is this debate about, if we are not here to advance the concept of democracy? Like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am against the idea of a nominated Chamber. I do not like a nominated Chamber. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, unfortunate that we have to discuss these issues the wrong way round. If we get the first part of the proposal eliminated, the Bill will have gone, but we have to start at the back and work through to the front, which is very strange.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J, C. Jennings): Order. The Committee must realise that this matter is under acute discussion in another place within the precincts of this part of the Palace. Hon. Members should not waste time in for ever going back to the question of the Preamble but should stick to the Amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Will you tell me, Mr. Jennings, where the acute discussions are taking place, because I should like to take part in them? If there are to be acute discussions about the way in which the Bill is to be debated, surely that is a matter relevant to all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
    The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the discussion of points of order—
    Mr. Ridley: I was.
    The Temporary Chairman: Good. The hon. Gertleman must therefore appreciate that the discussions are taking place within the Palace at the instigation of
    1358
    the Chairman of Ways and Means. With his knowledge of the geography of this House, the hon. Gentleman must know where to find the Chairman of Ways and Means if he wishes to make representations.
    Mr. Birch: On a point of order. Who has been asked to join these discussions?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. I do not know who is in the league at the moment.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am prepared to hear points of order, but do not let us waste time. When I have given a ruling, let us not pursue it.
    Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. I should like to know who has been asked to take part in these discussions. Can you tell me, Mr. Jennings, how I am to pursue my Parliamentary duties which seem to require my presence in two separate places at one and the same time?
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman asks my advice. If he wishes to catch my eye, I advise him to pursue that course which will enable him so to do.
    Mr. Heffer: I accept your Ruling completely, Mr. Jennings. It is a wise thing to have discussions going on elsewhere in the building on this subject of the Preamble.
    The whole argument is about democracy and equality of opportunity. The Amendment is precisely along those lines and would extend democratic rights and give greater equality of opportunity. It is quite wrong in our society that all men should be equal, but that some, because they happen to be born peers, should be more equal than others. The Amendment would help to eliminate that from one aspect of our society—the legislature. I therefore ask hon. Members to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Ridley: I am extremely glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who put their case in a wider context than it required. The Amendment seeks to remove the right of existing peers of succession to attend the House

    1359
    of Lords when they are already precluded from voting in the House of Lords by other parts of the Bill. So the point we are discussing is narrow. It is whether they should be precluded from attending the House of Lords while still the holders of hereditary peerages.
    The Amendment goes much further than is either necessary or desirable. Even granting the two hon. Members their case, which I do not for a moment, that all hereditary peers should be precluded from taking part in the affairs of the House of Lords, it seems wrong to say that they may not continue to attend and speak. The reason is that they have, as it were, a right, almost a contract, by virtue of the writ of summons which they have received and which, after all, is perfectly constitutional and proper, to attend and to vote, and the Bill proposes to take away the right to vote. That is going far enough. We cannot discuss at length whether they should have the right to vote, but to go as far as is suggested in the Amendment and say they cannot even attend in the House of Lords seems to be almost a breach of faith.
    It is often said that one of the main reasons for justifying the present House of Lords is that the standard of debates, the standard of contribution of knowledge and experience to the affairs of the nation is much higher even than the standard of the contributions from some hon. Members on some occasions in this House.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Tripe.
    Mr. Ridley: What authority has the hon. Gentleman for his opinion that the contributions which this House has made, especially in terms of dealing with our national difficulties and dangers, are all that excellent?
    The need to have informed debate, often on minor, technical and rather narrow issues, is advanced as a reason for keeping the House of Lords in its present shape. Whatever may be said about voting, it would be wrong to exclude the hereditary peers, who have spent so much of their time and experience discussing matters to which, in the calmer atmosphere which prevails in another place, they have often been able to bring
    1360
    a greater degree of expertise than we have in the Commons.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Nonsense.
    Mr. Ridley: The burden of the case which the two hon. Gentlemen have put forward is that they are against the inheritance of political power by succession, and they argued cogently in favour of their view, but when I asked the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne whether he would like to abolish the hereditary monarchy he rather sidestepped the question. But it requires answering, because if the hon. Gentleman is against the inheritance of political power directly through the accident of one's birth, he cannot continue to support the hereditary monarchy.
    Mr. English: The hon. Member will recollect that the monarchy was elected for rather more centuries than it has been hereditary. It has been hereditary only since 1215.
    Mr. Ridley: That only strengthens my case that it is difficult to be selective about which forms of hereditary political power one is prepared to support. One can draw all sorts of conclusions about past dynasties of monarchs who have ruled this country, all of them hereditary, in the history which we learned at school. But, whether one thinks that they have been good or bad, the one thing that emerges from such a study, as it emerges from such a study of the present constitution of the House of Lords, is that they all became monarchs by accident, just as hereditary peers—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the hereditary monarchy. While a passing reference may be made to previous struggles in history, we cannot discuss the merits or demerits as such.
    Mr. Ridley: I come immediately to order and I will not mention the monarchy again. I wish only to say that there are many things in our lives which are hereditary, and the political power of the peers is one.
    5.30 p.m.
    The skills which we inherit, money which some inherit, those who live in more prosperous parts of the country—all these are derived from accidents of

    1361
    birth. It would be extremely difficult and unwise to try to eliminate all those factors in our lives deriving from what are called accidents of birth. This is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do. It will not be possible. It is the fact that accidents of birth occur that has enabled the peers to carry out their functions over the centuries.
    There are many political families in the country who do not have a peerage. They are examples of generation after generation who have attended in this House, families who have wielded great privilege and political powers. They have this, not through the right of succession to a peerage, but simply because they were families which, by nature, were inclined to be interested in politics and the future of the country.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out that it was not simply by right of a peerage that many families had played such a dominant and continuing part in the political history of the country; it was by accident, the fact that the families were landed, wealthy, interested and public-spirited. Over a period of years this had happened. Of itself it is no bad tiling. There are hon. Members opposite who have succeeded their fathers in this House, there are family traditions of representation here sometimes for three, four or five generations. One can say that the hereditary political principle has been established in the Labour Party too.
    I do not criticise it, in a way I welcome it. There is an element of training, or environment, about the way this has sprung up and it is all to the good. One could say the same thing about plumbers or electricians. Son succeeds father and it is a good thing, because it imbues the whole of the family with an interest in the trade. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talked a lot about the American situation. He said that the Americans had no aristocracy. After hoots of derision from this side of the Committee he admitted that they had, but that it was a very different one, one founded on wealth. Political power is founded on wealth and financial strength in America.
    Mr. Paget: Would it not be a plutocracy?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has the better of me, it is a plutocracy. What surprises me is that the hon. Member for Walton, seems to prefer a plutocracy to an aristocracy. It seems an extraordinary basis, that one should select those who wield political power not by some completely impartial accident such as that of their birth, but by the more partial accident of whether they can make money. The ability to acquire large sums of money is not necessarily—in fact on the whole tends not to be—a good concomitant to using large amounts of political power.
    Mr. Heffer: I agree entirely with the hon. Member, that wealth in itself by no means signifies that one should have political power. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that there was this new type of plutocracy in America, but it does not have the prescriptive right to sit in a second Chamber, whereas in this country, on the basis of birth, people now have the right to sit in the second Chamber. This is wrong.
    Mr. Ridley: Are we talking about political power or the right to sit in another place? If the hon. Member was interested in political power, I am sure that he would not be interested in a peerage himself so that he could sit in the right place. Political power means that one can secure the supreme nomination in the country, which is what the Kennedy family has done through the last decade. There are other political families in America who have reigned for generations. They have no right to vote in the Senate, but they have very much more power than those who have a right to sit in another place.
    Instead of chasing the shadow of constitutional rights the hon. Gentleman would be much wiser to concentrate on the substance of real political power. That brings me to the right way of constituting any second Chamber. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, we are abolishing the existing second Chamber and, for good or evil, this is the proposition before the Committee. Before we agree to this it would be wise to discuss what we put in its place. If we are to have a second Chamber there are several ways of constituting. We could have direct election by the people,

    1363
    election by hon. Members of this House, we could have some form of regional selection, whereby county councils and city councils would elect someone and send him to the second Chamber.
    Later on, it might be based upon some reform arising out of the Maud Commission, whereby there would be true regional Governments, which would, in turn send representatives to the Upper House. It may be by appointment, by patronage, which is the present proposal, by the appointment by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Or it could be by some chance process of selection.
    The reason why the existing second Chamber has worked, not marvellously, not ideally, but on the whole tolerably well, is because the chance selection of one man to a hereditary peerage with the right to sit in the other place has produced something which is not an interest group—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are objections to all the other ways. If there is one group of people who do not necessarily stand for any particular interest, be it trade unions or big business or the professions, or any pressure group such as bombard hon. Members, then it must be those who sit in the other place. We have in this Chamber representatives from all the main interests in our society. It is all right because we know them, identify and accept them.
    We have a second Chamber where none of these pressure groups appear to exist. This has been because selection is by accident. It is not even by accident of birth alone. I am the son of a peer but I am, call it good luck or bad luck, the second son so I am able to sit in this House and not the other place.
    This is an accidental element which produces the sort of impartiality which on the whole is accepted by the people. If I may instance something rather curious to back up my argument, it would be that people are very Socialist-minded in regard to wealth and its inheritance. The making of money is very much criticised by the people. If by a pure fluke, one wins the football pools or £25,000 on the Premium Bonds, people are on the whole quite tolerant. These windfalls are not taxed because, on the whole, people do not feel that one person
    1364
    in a million should be selected for certain privileges irrespective of merit or hard work. This is one reason why the present composition of the House of Lords has been tolerated.
    Mr. W. Baxter: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument about how the other House should be selected. Is he advocating a lottery system?
    Mr. Ridley: I am merely discussing the alternatives. I have a certain amount to say on them. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my argument, he may find his question answered.
    I have dealt with the present system. Working back up the scale—
    Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of order. I have been listening with care to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He is dealing with how the other House should be constituted. I am not sure whether that is dealt with in these Amendments. However, may we have your guidance, Mr. Jennings, on whether we shall be able to follow this line of argument?
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has been putting the obverse side of what we are discussing in the Amendments. We are discussing a change in the method of constituting the other House. The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the alternative. I considered this point while he was speaking and found, to my satisfaction at any rate, that he was perfectly in order. If he is in order, then as long as I am in the Chair, for the next few minutes, everyone else who speaks on the same subject will be in order.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Would you, Mr. Jennings, accept a Motion that you should stay in the Chair for the rest of the debate?
    The Temporary Chairman: That is hardly a point of order, but it could be considered, provided I had suitable breaks.
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to you. Mr. Jennings, for your Ruling, which coincides with your predecessor's Ruling on speeches made before you occupied the Chair.

    1365
    I come to the question of what would be a better basis for constituting the Upper House. No hon. Member seriously advocates that there should be direct elections by the electorate for the Upper House. We have direct elections to this House and it would be meaningless to duplicate such elections, which would add nothing to the powers of the House of Commons. Nor does there seem to be any point in the House of Commons electing a second Chamber by means of direct elections from within itself. This system is practised in certain countries, but its relevance to our constitutional position is hard to see.
    I therefore come back to the method proposed in the Bill, which is the main reason why hon. Members on both sides are united in objecting to the Bill and to the proposed method of composition of the Upper House, namely, the system of nomination by the Executive. This is why the Bill is not acceptable to a very large number of hon. Members on whatever side of the Committee they sit. It is curious that as our debates continue more and more back bench Members are joining in an alliance against right hon. and hon. Members who tend to sit on the Front Benches.
    5.45 p.m.
    Here is yet one more example. We had another example during last night's debate and, to some extent, during Monday's debate. This represents quite fairly the reaction of Parliament against the desire of the Executive to control and nominate the other House. The Secretary of State for Social Services is in his place. If he had been here last night, his ears would have burned because many hon. Members paid tribute to his reforming zeal when he was Leader of the House earlier in this Parliament. But I am sure that he must have doubts about the wisdom of allowing the Executive to nominate the members of the other House, because that could only strengthen the power of the Executive in relation to the Legislature. The proposal that the Executive should nominate the members of the other House has caused the unity among otherwise unusual political running mates on both sides of the Committee.
    All that has happened—and this is the answer to the intervention of the hon.
    1366
    Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter)—is that the Government have talked down the hereditary peerage and caused it to lose its nerve and determination by continually describing it as a threat to the government of the country. I do not know of any instances of the hereditary peerage having challenged this Government or any other Government in the last 30 years. It is a complete bogey in their minds that at some awkward moment in the political life of the nation they will find themselves frustrated by the hereditary element in another place. That has never happened. This is a non-problem because if the Government were to reform the other place, however they were to reform it and nominate, elect or select its members, they would still be open, and indeed might be more open, to the possibility of having their measures blocked by the other place.
    Therefore, for the Government to say, "We are prepared to have our measures blocked by our nominees" is a contradiction in terms, because by nominating the members of the other House they would be destroying the likelihood of their blocking the Government's measures. As a result of this bogey, this dream in the Government's mind, they have persuaded the conservative-minded hereditary House of Lords to abandon its position in the Constitution, small though it is, and to give up the struggle. This is a terrible thing to have done.
    If the Government were to bring down the House of Lords in a running battle, we would at least know that we could establish a better basis. But to bring down the existing system without working out and justifying what is to replace it is merely asking to bring about a situation of uncertainty and continual alteration which will not give us constitutional certainty and peace but destroy the whole basis of the British Constitution.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has opened up a very wide ranging debate, which I suppose was inevitable in view of the fact that he has tabled a dozen or so Amendments and new Clauses. My new Clause No. 6 is specific in seeking to get rid of all the hereditary peers within one month of the passing of the Bill. There can be nothing more definite and specific than that.

    1367
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing political power. Some of these Gentlemen can and do wield political power outside as well as inside the second Chamber. There are powerful forces in the City of London and elsewhere who never see inside the Houses of Parliament but who wield much more power than the back bench Members of the House of Commons. To that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we are not discussing that; we are discussing the composition of the second Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that the assumption was that if one attacks and seeks to destroy the hereditary element in the second Chamber, one is by inference attacking the hereditary element of the monarchy. The monarchy is not included in the Bill, but I would like on another occasion to debate that problem because the two might well be linked.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have ruled that no reference should be made to the hereditary monarchy, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that.
    Mr. Hamilton: I think your memory is a little short, Mr. Jennings. You said that only passing references could be made to the monarchy, and I was just passing on to my next point.
    The Temporary Chairman: Then I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass to it immediately.
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman referred to impartial accidents of birth, and I will deal with that in a little detail.
    According to the White Paper there are 736 hereditary peers by succession who are entitled to sit in the other place, a great proportion of whom do not attend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, some of them are quite young men with considerable ability. If the Bill were passed in its present form they would continue to sit in the other place for the rest of their lives, which might be for another 30 or 40 years. It is true that they would not be voting members, but we make the mistake of thinking that voting is more important than speaking, than moving Amendments and Motions, or introducing Bills. These powers are much more important and
    1368
    more influential on public opinion than trooping through Lobbies. If these young and able people are passionately interested in party Parliamentary politics they should be given the chance, in fact they should be compelled to take the chance, of getting out of the second Chamber and on to the hustings.
    Their sons will be able to do so, since they will not be allowed to enter the other Chamber and will be able to hawk themselves round the local Tory constituency parties for candidatures. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) foresaw that the Tory benches in the House of Commons would be full of Peers and the Labour benches in the other place would be full of retired Members of this House. This is a situation which one would like to avoid—
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. I merely said that I thought that the benches on both sides of this House would be full of hereditary peers and on both sides of the other place full of life peers.
    Mr. Hamilton: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there would be rather more on this side of the House than on his side. However that may be, if the hereditary peers were removed forthwith, or within a month as suggested in the new Clause, not only would that be a blow for the modernisation of Parliament, on which my right hon. Friend is so keen, but it would be a blow for democracy. It would reduce the House of Lords almost immediately to just over 300 members, 26 of whom would be bishops, whom I am seeking to remove, 23 would be serving or retired Law Lords, whom another hon. Member is trying to remove, 155 would be life peers and 122 peers of first creation. That would be about the size which the Government have suggested in the White Paper. In any event, there can be no democratic justification for allowing hereditary peers to sit for the rest of their lives, if they so wish, in the Upper Chamber.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no democratic justification at all for the Bill?
    Mr. Hamilton: We have a mandate for it. It was contained in our election manifesto, and if hon. and right hon.

    1369
    Gentlemen opposite choose to make this an issue at the next election, if the Bill does not go through, I would be happy to fight the next election on the basis of what we do, if anything, about the second Chamber.
    The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has an Amendment down, No. 163, on dukes. There are 26 dukes left, not counting the royal dukes. No new dukes have been created since 1874. They are all allowed to sit in the House of Lords. The Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Devonshire—I say nothing about their present incomes—got their wealth from the sacked monasteries in the period of the Reformation. That is their only justification for sitting in the other Chamber. Four dukes are descended from the bastard sons of Charles II; the Duke of St. Albans by Nell Gwynn, the Duke of Grafton by the Duchess of Cleveland, the Duke of Richmond by the Duchess of Portsmouth and the Duke of Buccleuch by Lucy Walters. Only two dukes in the Upper Chamber received their titles through military merit, the Duke of Marlborough and the Duke of Wellington.
    The House of Fitzclarence sprang directly from the amusements of Charles II. He is credited with 12 bastard children. Henry I beat him; he is credited with 19. The Earl of Munster is the descendant of George Augustus Frederick Fitzclarence, who was the son of the Duke of Clarence, who was later William IV, and Mrs. Jordan the actress—they were not married. The story of the Fitzclarences is one of the more interesting among those Royal romances which always seem to involve birth on the wrong side of the blanket. The Earl of Munster was the eldest of 10 children, all of whom were probably bastards. The Duke of Clarence was one of the seven dissolute sons of George III, but he at least remained faithful to Mrs. Jordan. In 1831 the eldest son was made Earl of Munster.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is sailing pretty near the wind. He must be very careful in carrying out his historical researches and propounding them here that he casts no aspersions upon living persons who are also members of another place at the present time.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hamilton: Oh, yes, Mr. Jennings. I would not for a moment dream of doing that. Earlier in my remarks, I made it quite clear that I intended to cast no aspersions on any living Member of the other place. However, I took the view that it was important to discover the qualifications for membership of the other place, and I was attempting to establish what they are.
    Mr. Paget: I am surprised that my hon. Friend is astonished and, apparently, innocent about the origins of many English peerages. Let him compare them with some of the Scottish peerages, where he will find some real villains.
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend is forestalling me a little. I was coming on to some of them in due course, though to do it fully would take me a long time.
    The facts that I am giving the Committee come from one of the historical lectures which I used to give a long time ago—
    Sir A. V. Harvey: I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman has it in for illegitimate children of the past, when, apparently, it is his Government's intention to give present-day illegitimate children equal rights with every other human being.
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has it quite wrong. I am objecting to illegitimate children having a particular right by virtue of going into the other Chamber. That is all.
    If I may resume my lecture, in 1831 the eldest son was made Earl of Munster. He was determined to cash in on the royal connection, and he married Mary Wyndham, who was the natural daughter of the Earl of Egremont. The double representation of bastardy on their combined coat of arms must have been quite unique.
    I come now to the case of the Duke of Richmond and also that of the Dukes of Lennox and Gordon. That family stems from Charles II and Louise de Kéroualle, who was made Duchess of Portsmouth by the grateful King. The Royal arms used by Dukes of Richmond, who can and under the Bill will still sit in the Lords, are shown in the Scottish manner of denoting bastardy, and I think that

    1371
    some of them are quite proud of their coat of arms.
    I come finally, since my hon. Friends encourage me, to the Duke of Montrose. His ancestor was Sir William Graham of Kincardine, who subdued Scotland for Charles II when that monarch apparently was busy elsewhere. The seventh duke is now a farmer in Rhodesia. He went there about thirty years ago. but he has the right still to come and sit in the House of Lords. He is quite wealthy out there and is one of Ian Smith's set-up at the moment. I remember putting a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking him to take steps to stop that gentleman coming to sit in the House of Lords. At the moment, he is entitled to sit there, and would still be under the terms of the Bill, once he applies for the necessary warrant.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is being immensely helpful to the Committee in producing this most interesting statistical evidence. Would he not agree that such statistical evidence is only of value when it is produced with comparable figures against which to set it? Will he give some statistics about his own antecedents and those of his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Hamilton: They may be equally disgusting, but they do not entitle me to sit in the other place. That is the only point that I am making. I dare not look into my own ancestry. I do not know what I would find if I did. I dare say that the same applies to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Nevertheless, I think that the point is made.
    I mention these dukes only because they can sit and vote in the Lords. Three of them did so on the Rhodesian Order which partly inspired this Bill. The Dukes of Atholl, Rutland and Westminster came and voted with the Conservatives against the Government on that Order.
    Incidentally, when the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury says that there are no pressure groups in the other place and that its members are completely impartial and safeguard the rights of the individual, he is talking through the back of his neck. He must remember the Burmah Oil affair. I did a considerable amount of research into Burmah
    1372
    Oil, and I mentioned the names of 38 peers, one of them even taking his seat on the day, who came to the other place to vote millions of £s to the Burmah Oil Company. To say that there are no pressure groups in the other place is nonsense.
    Right from the time of the Reform Bill of 1831 to the present day, the hereditary element in the House of Lords has opposed all kinds of progressive measures. I have referred to some of them in this Chamber time and again. As recently as 1957, the then Conservative Government introduced the Rent Bill to allow private landlords to charge what rents they liked. Rachmanism was given a great fillip by that legislation.
    The Bill had not been mentioned in the Tories' election manifesto of 1955. There was no mandate. The Lords passed it through all its stages—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading—in 19 hours. That seems to be the argument to show that, although the other place seeks to give the impression on occasion of being an impartial objective debating Chamber of very high standards, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the high standard of debates is another myth. In general terms, the standard of debate there is no higher than it is in this place. It is a masoleum. It is possible to debate at great leisure and for Members to say what they like simply because they are not answerable to the electorate. The quorum is three. The result is that on occasion three 90-year olds can be debating the destinies of the country. It is quite absurd.
    To suggest that we gradually transform it by allowing the hereditary element slowly to recede is nonsense. We ought to end it very quickly. My suggestion is one month, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
    [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: We have listened to attacks on the hereditary principle from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I would point out to them that, in the British Isles as a whole, the hereditary principal goes a good deal

    1373
    further than they suggest. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) pointed to the number of families who farm the same land for generation after generation, where fathers pass on their skills to their sons, who are all the better farmers for having fathers who were farmers. As anyone who lives in a mining area knows, much the same applies co the coal mining industry, where generation after generation of miners are proud for their sons to go into the pits and teach them skills which otherwise they would never learn.
    Mr. John Hall: Another example which may be in the minds of some hon. Members occurs in one section of the meat trade. The same principle applies to bummarees, who have to inherit their jobs.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: The docks, too, provide a number of examples of this principle.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the hereditary skill of a coal miner is passed on to his son?
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Fathers talk to their sons about the dangers of the pit and how to avoid them. They guide them in their first trips down the mine, showing them the ropes and teach them haulage as a start. As a result, the sons are better miners for their fathers having been miners before them. It is obvious that the son of a miner makes a better coal miner than anyone who is just the son of a Member of Parliament. So the hereditary principle goes much deeper than one thinks.
    6.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne admitted to me that environment came quite strongly into this matter. The son of a peer is brought up in public life and learns something from his father. He sees his father in action in the House of Lords. The activities of these families in public life are carried on by generation after generation—the Cecils, the Salisburys, the Churchills, and families too numerous to mention. Now we see the growth of this aristocracy on the other side. We see Labour families growing up, such as the Greenwoods and the Foots. It may be that the Jays and the Callaghans will produce offspring who
    1374
    will go into public life and will no doubt be successful.
    My plea is that we should recognise that there is merit in the hereditary principle and that, therefore, it should to some extent be recognised in the House of Lords. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), myself and other hon. Members have Amendments coming along which will seek to allow for some proportion of the House of Lords to be made up of those who happen to be the sons of members of the peerage.
    There is another factor why keeping the hereditary principle is in some degree important. The original peers were selected by their kings. They held positions as tenants in chief of their kings year after year, generation after generation, because in such positions they were defenders of the monarchy. To get rid of the hereditary principle, which the Bill seeks to do, is to take away one of the props of the monarchy which, after all, is and will be, as far as I can see, based on the hereditary principle. To disallow the sons of peers to have voting rights in the House of Lords is a retrograde step. Some rights should be given to hereditary members of the House of Lords to elect members into that body.
    My plea today is that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been slashing at the hereditary principle, and have brought out a few examples to its discredit, should remember the years and years in which great families of the State have given, and today give, public service in the House of Lords just as their fathers and grandfathers did. In fact, the sons of some have been Members. The hereditary principle should not be lightly cast aside, either in the peerage or in any other state of life to which a man is called in this country.
    Mr. Stanley Henig: Many on this side have long dreamt of the day when there would be a Labour Government and we would get up with a proposal to abolish the House of Lords as such and the hereditary element in it. The Bill goes some way to meet that dream. But in discussing these Amendments we are discussing the kernel of the objection which many of us have long felt to the second Chamber as it has been

    1375
    in this country. The object of the Amendment that we are principally discussing is to make certain that we get rid of that kernel once and for all rather than let it have a lingering death.
    I should like briefly to put as strongly as possible the reasons why many on this side support the Amendment and will vote for it later, unless the rest of the Committee agrees with us and it becomes unnecessary.
    Among the families that have served in the House of Lords over generations there have been cases where the son has been as able or more able than the father and his son more able still, and so it has gone on. I do not think that anyone, unless he was being completely churlish, would deny that this has happened in some cases. My point is that in those cases, surely the individuals who later made their mark in the House of Lords would have made their mark anyway without the advantage of this chance accident of birth. They might have got themselves, on their own merit, to the House of Lords, or perhaps to this House, and, therefore, had no need of the advantage of being made, as it were, designate Members from birth.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) mentioned political families in the Labour Party. There are also political families in the Conservative Party. But perish the day when somebody in the Labour Party can get up and say, "My father was a Member of Parliament and his father before him. I therefore claim my seat as of right." He has no right, and he should have no right, either in the House of Lords or in this House. The only right that he has is if, on his own merit, he shows that he deserves to be placed in a position of public responsibility. He will do that by getting himself elected to this Chamber or by the appropriate mechanism for service in the other Chamber.
    I take the point about Members of the House of Lords not being an interest group. Not an interest group indeed! Surely hereditary peers are an interest group. The moment that the son of a duke or an earl has the right to sit in the House of Lords, he becomes part of an interest group. It is no coincidence that he happens to represent a thin segment of society.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under the provisions of the Bill there will probably be two dukes in the House of Commons before long and none in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Henig: We are not discussing the provisions of the whole Bill at the moment. If any duke or other individual can persuade the electorate of a constituency in this country that he should represent it in the House of Commons, I defend his right to be here. However, in my opinion, he ought to be elected because he is Mr. So-and-so who has done, and can do, good work—not because of the blood that is supposed to flow in his veins.
    I was about to make the point that those who are now in the House of Lords on the hereditary basis are there because of what their fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers did. They may have technical skills to offer. But why not go out into the street and select at random the first 500 worthy citizens and say that they and their descendants for all time should be in the new House of Lords? It would be just as absurd. Yet many of those people will have equal skills to offer. In an age when the people of the country decide who shall have control, individuals should get to positions of power and responsibility only if they can convince the electorate that they deserve that trust. They should not have an unequal start because of birth. Therefore, there can be no justification for continuing in the House of Lords with any hereditary principle at all.
    I go further. I think that it is an insult to say in effect to those who get to the House of Lords on the hereditary basis, "We are not quite certain whether you will be able to get anywhere on your own, so we will put you in the House of Lords to make certain". This is an absurd and unjustifiable state of affairs.
    I move now to another point which has not so far been discussed, but which is equally serious. If we leave in the subsection that the Amendment seeks to delete, we will have two classes of Members in the House of Lords, the voting and the non-voting Members. I am not clear about the precedent in other legislative bodies for voting and non-voting Members. It may be that when my right

    1377
    hon. Friend winds up he will be able to explain in what Assembly it has been used and with what success.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Even if the subsection is left out, there will still be the two categories of voting and non-voting Members.
    Mr. Henig: Provided that the rest of Bill is left as it is, but we will have to debate that later. We are dealing with the subsection and I am making a frontal assault on the idea that we should have two classes of Members. In any legislative body where people presumably act and work as colleagues in the work of legislation and checking the Executive, there is room for only one class of Member—the Member with the right vote.
    It is absurd to say that somebody may contribute to a debate, but cannot vote on it. I am prepared to recognise that there may be debates in this Chamber, or in any other, when some of those who vote have not heard all the debate, but by this provision we shall enshrine that practice as part of the rules of the House of Lords, and that seems to me to be a bad principle.
    We are debating more than one Amendment, and one of our difficulties is that not all these Amendments deal with the same thing. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is not here. I do not know whether he intends to speak specifically to Amendment No. 2, which has been chosen for debate as well as for a Division.
    That Amendment is something which perhaps goes rather further than the points I have been making, and perhaps goes against them in principle, because by this Amendment we would exclude from the reformed House of Lords those who have been made hereditary peers in their own lifetime, because of meritorious service to the country, often at a time before the concept of life peers, which is the only concept we should be dealing with in a democratic age. For this reason I should be dubious about agreeing to Amendment No. 2, unless when my hon. Friend speaks to it, if he does—
    Mr. English: I think that my hon. Friend has mistaken the difference between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 excludes virtually all the existing peers by succession.
    1378
    The object of Amendment No. 2 is to make useless the creation of hereditary peerages for the future. Any person can be created a life peer and sit in the House of Lords. The Amendment does not affect that. It affects the creation of future hereditary peerages.
    Mr. Henig: I am delighted with my hon. Friend's explanation, but that was not how I read it.
    We are in an age when, for the first time, one would like to think that people's work is recognised on its merits, that everybody can be given due recognition for what he has done for our society. We are discussing a House of Lords which, in my opinion, should be able to make a contribution to the constitution. At the moment, three-quarters of the nominal Members of the House of Lords are there by virtue of what past generations have done, and this is unacceptable. It is, moreover, a relic, and a rather nasty form of class prejudice because of who these people are, and because of the small segment of society from which they come.
    For those reasons, it seems to me that if we are to reform the House of Lords, we must grasp the nettle. We must break once and for all the whole hereditary set-up. We must leave no lingering remnant of it. Accordingly, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: By courtesy of the Chair we have been having an extremely wide-ranging discussion on this Amendment on the whole question of the place of heredity in the constitution. We have been proceeding at a pace which I think is appropriate to the aeons of time over which our constitution has evolved.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is not here. If I understood him correctly, he said that what we were striving to do was to make our democracy work better. I think that here there is common ground between all hon. Members of this Committee. What we have to determine is whether there is any place at all for the hereditary principle in the workings of modern democracy, and in the democracy of Britain as we hope to see it in the future.

    1379
    As I referred to the aeons of time over which our constitution has evolved, perhaps I might give a tiny historical sketch—in the course of a few sentences—of the process by which we have retreated from the power of blood ties and the hereditary principle. In ancient times, as we read, humanity tended to group itself into tribes. In ancient Greece, the tribe concentrated on the city. By the time we reach ancient Rome, we see that the development of law tended to concentrate round the rights of the family and in particular of the paterfamilias; and now we are working more and more towards the evolution of the individual human being as a person in his own right.
    The hon. Member for Walton adverted interestingly to his own heredity. Were he here, I should have liked to have developed this matter more fully. Possibly it is his heredity which has given him the capacity to become a Member of this House, and to be a useful and influential Member. Possibly the forces of heredity working in their different mysterious ways might also make it suitable for a man, by heredity, to make an equally valuable and influential contribution in another House.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on having travelled from one end of the landscape to the other without leaving out a single point in his summary of the arguments against the hereditary principle, and without at any moment putting his foot in the middle of the road. The hon. Gentleman referred to popular science as one reads it in the magazines. I do not think that any scientist or any biologist, however popular, would try to pretend that heredity is not a factor in evolution. Many people place increasing emphasis on the importance of environment. Without being tangled in the controverisies over the inheritance of acquired characteristics, may I say that biology does not suggest that heredity is not a force in the development of human capacity, or indeed in the capacity of any form of life.
    If we are thinking seriously about what the new second Chamber should be, I think we ought to agree that it should be a conspectus of all the best elements in British life. I hope that in the course of our discussions on other Amendments
    1380
    we may be able to bring forward reasons why the Bill should contain more specific references to what the composition of the new House should be.
    Under this Amendment it is appropriate to consider whether the family as an institution is one of the elements in British life, and whether it ought to be represented constitutionally in the Palace of Westminster. It may be that the family is not what it was in our national life and possibly that it is, in the words of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, becoming only a lingering remnant. But this remnant does linger still, and I daresay that families will continue to exist in our society for 100 or perhaps 1,000 years to come.
    The family is an organism which recognises the importance of heredity. I think that the new second House, Senate, Upper House, call it what one will, ought to recognise it, too. It ought also to acknowledge the force of continuity as an element in life. In changing this institution, or in seeking to change it by the Bill, I think we should not forget that continuity is a very important element in all organic life. At the moment the House of Lords, in spite of changes which have been made since the war, and particularly in the last decade, is predominantly an hereditary House. As was said in The Times, in an extremely able article by Mr. Cecil King, this is possibly not because heredity was the reason for the choice of the Members of the Upper House, but rather that they earned their places there by virtue of primogeniture and the ownership of land.
    Of course, with the Industrial Revolution and all the changes of the last 100 years, ownership of land no longer confers great authority or power. Therefore, I am not entirely opposed to the idea that the hereditary principle should be diminished in determining the composition of the Upper House. I hope that we will be able to dilate on this on the next Amendment.
    6.30 p.m.
    We should, however, oppose the spirit of this Amendment, because it involves too sudden and too drastic an exclusion of the hereditary principle. Of course, it is said in that treasure house of constitutional orthodoxy, "Iolanthe", that the

    1381
    hereditary peers do nothing in particular, but they are also said to do it very well. The British people have a soft spot in their hearts for the hereditary principle and would not support a sudden or dramatic move at this time.
    I do not want to deny that what a man may learn from his environment is becoming increasingly important and what he may learn by the forces of heredity and through his family is becoming increasingly unimportant in our national life. A man may learn a great deal through his schooling or his professional training which he should later give back by constitutional means to society. He may learn a great deal through his experience and through his own insights and there should be a place in our Upper House for all these gifts.
    But if we abolish the hereditary principle altogether, we are saying that it is now impossible for a man to learn anything at all from his father. This is going further than we need. In my view, a reform as radical as the total exclusion of the hereditary principle is too sweeping. We would be allowing certain hon. Members to over-compensate for their fixations if we went so far as to accept these Amendments. I do not want to leave the people with a new constitution which is visibly at variance with the basic institutions and motive forces in their lives. It would be wrong to exclude heredity altogether as a factor of our national life. We should also be arguing against the facts of life in all the senses in which those words are commonly used.
    Mr. Goodhew: I oppose the Amendment because I am strongly opposed to the idea of removing the hereditary peers at once, as I am to removing them at all—but I will debate that on another Amendment. I am opposed to being left, as we should be, with a House of nominated peers. I do not know who the hon. Members who support the Amendment imagine will be sent to the new Upper Chamber when they have deleted subsection (2) and got rid of the hereditary peers. I cannot imagine that any Prime Minister, of either party, will send young men to the new Upper House. This is something from which it has benefited for many years as a result of the hereditary principle.
    1382
    On the contrary, I suspect that we shall have a lot of people who have been good lobby fodder in this House sent up there, who are nearing the end of their days here and can manage on the allowances there, added to a pension—since it seems that, for the moment, these nominated peers will not be paid.
    We heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) that we must have in the Upper House people who have proved their worth and that, in a democracy, the people should have control over those who rule them. What control does he think people outside will have over those who are nominated? Does he suggest that the electorate will benefit from being hereafter able to control those who served in the Upper House? All of us know that this is not so, that this is patronage which will be in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I am not content to see an Upper House dependent on that, whichever party is in power—
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member must surely accept that the elimination of this subsection does not mean the automatic acceptance of nomination. There are other subsections to be eliminated as well.
    Mr. Goodhew: This may be so, but we can only take the Bill one Clause at a time. Therefore, if we are to accept the Amendment, we must face the proposition that we may be left with a House of nominated members only. I do not accept that this is a good arrangement, whichever party is in power.
    I agree that pressure groups do not exert the same pressure on the hereditary peers. They are no one's servants, but it is clear that anyone who was in that House as a nominee of the Prime Minister of the day would feel under an obligation to him and I cannot accept that.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was rather disparaging about some of the peers who, in the past, have fought in battles for this country, and, in rather a cavalier fashion, dismissed their courage. He should remember—
    Mr. Heffer: I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that, while the aristocracy were going around in chain mail and mounted on horseback, the

    1383
    people that I come from were marching with bows and arrows. I said nothing about the courage of either.
    Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman did mention that, but he also said that the aristocracy did it for honour. He should remember the bowmen of Agincourt and also that the aristocracy have constantly fought and been out in front on these occasions, even in recent times. So to talk as though they only fought for the honours which they might receive is quite unnecessary.
    The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) thinks it right to retain non-voting Members in the Upper House, but not voting Members. He said that political power lay with those who could speak and not those who could vote and suggested that this was where the influence lay, in being able to speak and influence people outside. If this were so, if political power did lie in speaking and not voting, this Government would have been out of office long ago. Their back benchers have talked against them constantly over the last three or four years, but they always hold back from voting against them. So I am not convinced of the hon. Member's proposition, and this is just the trouble. One knows that, in a nominated Chamber, nominees would be expected to vote in return for the places that they have been given; that is why I oppose it.
    Much has been said about the hereditary principle and the way that heredity and environment affect people's upbringing. It is a mistake for this House lightly to dismiss the value of the environment in which people have been brought up over generations of service to the nation—whereas here, we are supposedly paid for it, there, they have never been—this service must have its effect on a person.
    This has always been accepted, as witness the fact that the eldest sons of peers have the right to sit on the steps of the Throne in another place so that they shall be able to get the feel and the atmosphere of the Chamber and thereby prepare themselves for the duties which they will finally inherit on the deaths of their fathers. We should, therefore, be wrong to dismiss too lightly the value of this.
    1384
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) could not understand why the Government were so frightened of the hereditary members. He said that the Lords had never used their powers to prevent any Government from having their way and had not, in that way, defied the House of Commons.
    However, the Government have one big fear. It is that at some stage the Upper Chamber will prevent them from doing something which they might one day want to do, and that is to lengthen the life of a Parliament. In other words, when the time comes for a General Election to be held, the Government may find that they have become so unpopular that they may wish to elongate the life of Parliament so that the Labour Party and hon. Gentlemen opposite may remain in power. The House of Lords could prevent that. This is the bogey which the Government see behind the present Upper Chamber and why they are anxious to get rid of the voting rights of hereditary peers.
    I hope, therefore, that the Committee will defeat the Amendment, which seems to be playing into the hands of those who wish to have a purely nominated Chamber.
    Mr. English: I have listened for some hours to a turgid waste of oratory about heredity, a subject which seems to inspire passions of deracination among my hon. Friends and passions of adulation among hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    There is little to be said about heredity, except that, in biological terms, it is a regression towards the mean; which, translated into everyday language, simply means that a pair of brilliant parents will probably have a less brilliant child than themselves whereas a pair of dimwitted parents will probably have a more brilliant child. That is the biological law.
    Mr. Mendelson: Or is it the "English" law?
    Mr. English: I do not know the intelligence level of my parents or of the parents of any of my hon. Friends. Perhaps that is a good thing.
    We have been wasting a great deal of time primarily because of the way in which the Bill has been constructed. It

    1385
    is drafted on the basis of a package deal. Part of the package is to exclude altogether from consideration the whole question of peerage. This has resulted in the series of tortuous and twisted Amendments which appear on the Notice Paper. This part of the package has been inserted, I understand, at the behest of the Opposition; and it is notable how hon. Gentlemen opposite have been conspicuously silent on this subject up to now. If I am wrong about this, I will no doubt be corrected.
    It is hardly likely that the Government would have carefully kept the question of peerage out of the Bill voluntarily. One must assume, therefore, that the Bill appears in its present form because it is a part of the package presented to the Government by the Opposition and, in turn, presented to us by the Government. It should be made clear that the Opposition desire to keep what an hon. Gentleman opposite earlier described as something created in the fifteenth century.
    Miss J. M. Quennell Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield) indicated dissent.
    Mr. English: I assure the hon. Lady that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made that observation. He was perfectly right, for the majority of peers hold their rank by a patent of creation, a procedure dating back to that period. The result is that many of my hon. Friends are perhaps being somewhat unjust—indeed, one might say merciless—in wanting to exclude from the House of Lords many men who may have sat there for 20 years or more.
    I am with my hon. Friends in saying that people should not walk into the Upper Chamber merely on the basis of their paternity. However, those who may have been there for 20 years might as well remain there until death removes them or until, in due course, there is an age limit which prevents them from remaining there.
    For this reason I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is not on the strongest ground in arguing against the existing hereditary peers as distinct from the hereditary principle of succession to the Lords. That principle is totally indefensible, whereas it might be possible
    1386
    to defend those who, under the existing law, sit in the Lords.
    6.45 p.m.
    I would have wished to have seen the Government introducing a Bill which altered the whole conception of peerage and abolished it at the same time as abolishing membership of the House of Lords. Two hon. Members of this House have a good chance of becoming the first dukes to sit in the House of Commons, something which would have somewhat perturbed our predecessors. On the other hand, the four honest men who, under the 1963 Act, resigned their titles—three of them in this House and one, Victor Montagu, outside—are the only four who should have succeeded to peerages, but who will not be entitled to keep their peerages merely because they were honest. As a result of being prepared to be so honest and to give up their peerages, they have become the only second-class peers in the United Kingdom. It seems that all these illogicalities stem from the simple desire of the Opposition, accepted by the Government, that we should have a Measure dealing with the Upper Chamber which does not touch the principle of peerage.
    It was pointed out earlier that our system of descent of peerages is unusual compared with that applying to continental aristocracies, where the descent appears to apply to everybody. That point was weakened when one hon. Gentleman opposite who is literally honourable by prefix as well as by the terminology of this House—I refer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—spoke shortly afterwards. One remembers that he would, under the present law, take precedence over every knight except a Knight of the Garter merely because he is the youngest son of a peer. He might possibly not take precedence over my right hon. Friend who is a Privy Councillor. There is something archaic in these rules and it is obvious that the situation needs altering.
    The same right hon. Member who said this—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—went on to point out that peerages normally only descended through males. Would my right hon. Friend explain the effect of the Bill in relation to that famous United Nations Convention on the Status of

    1387
    Women which, we were told, we could not ratify for various reasons, one being that the Upper Chamber was a body which did not conform to the requirements of that Convention? If a peerage descends only to an eldest son as distinct from an eldest daughter, that seems likely to be true.
    Since we are, by this part of the Bill—which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wishes to remove—retaining hereditary peers and since we are, by other parts of the Bill, retaining the possibility of creating hereditary peerages anew, would my right hon. Friend explain whether, as a result, it will still be true that we will be in breach of that United Nations Convention which the House of Lords has caused us to break in the past?
    Would my right hon. Friend explain why, in this day and age, we are debating a Bill which is designed to allow the creation of new hereditary peerages and which carefully provides that those which are created shall entitle their holders to sit in the House of Lords as full members of the Upper Chamber? There may be arguments for treating gently existing peers by succession and I would be more lenient than some of my hon. Friends towards existing peers. They might as well continue to sit in the Lords until they die off. However, I would not allow this situation to be perpetuated. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) pointed out that the whole tendency of modern society is towards the creation of law based on the individual and the merits of the individual. I therefore see no reason for allowing this archaic system to continue. The hon. Member was the first to say this in explicit terms and I think he was entirely right.
    Can there be any reason, apart from what may have been agreed privately between the two Front Benches, for the creation of new hereditary peerages? I know that Her Majesty's Government do not do this, but it would be possible for the Opposition to do so through the capacity to appoint peers by the Leader of the Opposition or if and when hon. Members opposite became the Government. Surely we have passed the time when we should wish to create peerages for the next few centuries. Surely in this
    1388
    day and age we wish to create the possibility of people going to the House of Lords if they merit it and leave aside the question of whether their children merit it until they grow up and prove that they do.
    Mr. Birch: I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) as well as the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). They are so very well informed on precedents and on the peerage. The point about the exact precedence of the younger son of a viscount is one which very few on this side of the Committee would be able to answer. It is not easy, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West would know, for he would know the exact place in the table of precedence of a Master in Lunacy. I am sure that the two bedside books of the hon. Member are Burke's Peerage and the Almanac de Gotha. I doubt sometimes whether he has read anything else.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) pointed out with what alacrity so many noble Lords have leaped on the tumbrils. That is perfectly true, but many of them, including some hereditary peers, may assume that they will become voting peers. They may assume that their particular tumbril will not reach its destination until they are 72, and meanwhile ample free refreshments will be provided. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.
    I have already declared my view that the Upper House should be indirectly elected by Members of this House on a regional basis. I suggest a possible compromise between this Amendment and the one which is to follow. The trouble about a nominee House is that the nominees would not have very much credit. They would be bound by the Whips who appointed them, as it were, to vote one way or another, or, in the case of the "Don't knows", not to make up their minds. They are the "captive balloons." I should think that they are bound to be pretty shop-spoiled when they rise into the air.
    What shall we do about this? If this Amendment is not carried, as I hope it will not be, we shall have the hereditary

    1389
    peers, who have built up a reputation for independence. We shall have independent peers who can speak and others who can vote. The Abbé Sieves, who produced some interesting resolutions, following the French Revolution, said that those who spoke could not vote and those who voted could not speak. Could not such a system be introduced? It would mean that only the independent-minded hereditary peers would speak and the "captive balloons" would vote. The advantage would be that they would often vote against their consciences, but they would not have to speak against their consciences. I should have thought that this had everything to recommend it. There would be an honest debate which would get across to the country and then the "captive balloons" would vote. I recommend that.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Amendment No. 1—if it is accepted by the Commmitee, as I hope it will not be—would totally eliminate the hereditary element from the other place. This was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as a breach of contract and of faith. I shall not go into that moral argument and I do not want to anticipate later Amendments, although I think that there has been a certain amount of anticipation already.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) referred in general terms to the sort of second Chamber which some of us would like to see if there is to be a change in the composition and powers of the House of Lords. I make no complaint about his not being present now, but I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not in the Chamber. Some time ago we debated this matter privately by means of the Order Paper. The hon. Member put down an Early Day Motion, entitled "House of Lords future", which began with a quotation from Mr. Winston Churchill speaking in 1909 about the peaceful demise of the House of Lords, which Mr. Churchill then favoured.
    I put down an Amendment to the hon. Member's Motion and quoted something else from Mr. Churchill in his Romanes Lecture of 1930, in which in discussing
    1390
    "the economic problem for Great Britain … as urgent, vital and dominant "—
    as it still is—he commented that
    "there exists at the present time no constitutional machinery for dealing with it on its merits, with competent examination and without political bias and antagonisms ".
    I suggested that
    "a bicameral Parliament is a necessary check on the power of the Executive, and its patronage which has increased and is increasing "
    I went on to
    "urge all-party consideration should be given … to a reform"
    designed to put into another place representatives on a more systematic basis than we have at present of the economic religious, cultural and professional life of the realm together with the Princes of the Blood Royal—that is the subject being discussed in this debate—
    "and a proportion of the hereditary peerage elected by their order."
    That enables me to make quite clear that I am opposed to Amendment No. 1. What is suggested in the Amendments which we have put on the Notice Paper would carry forward the idea which I described in my Amendment to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, West. We would like to see an element of election, representative of interests—I hasten to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the trade unions would be one—an element of nomination, because we do not want the Upper House to be exclusively composed of great interests and estates and, thirdly, a traditional and prescriptive element of hereditary peers because we recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, who made an admirable speech, the force of continuity in the development of our constitution and our national life. What is more, there is some evidence from recent inquiries, although I do not attach too much importance to the polling of public opinion, that considerable working-class opinion in Britain desires the retention of a hereditary element in the British legislature.
    7.0 p.m.
    I do not suppose that we shall get our way and be able to sit down and shape a reformed second Chamber. If we cannot, I should have preferred to leave it as it is rather than to turn the Lords into what my hon. Friends have called a

    1391
    House of nominees. This is repulsive to me. I do not think that it has anything to do with what the hon. Member for Walton called the advancement of democracy.
    Amendment 1, if carried, and if certain other Amendments are not also carried, would convert a House of nominees with a residual hereditary element into a House totally nominated. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South quoted the very interesting article in The Times by Mr. Cecil King, who is a supporter, as we are, of bringing
    "into Parliament the powerful individuals and institutions at present outside."
    Mr. King said this about turning the Lords into a House of nominees, or making it much more a House of nominees than it is at present:
    "The declining prestige of Parliament has been hastened by the use of the House of Lords by succeeding Prime Ministers as a refuse bin for ministerial failures, awkward back-benchers, party hacks and personal friends."
    That has an element of truth in it.
    I understand that as a result of all the clandestine meetings to which your predecessor in the Chair referred, Mr. Gourlay, there may be a separate Division—I think that is the least there should be—on Amendment 163, which concerns the princes of the blood royal. They have not been mentioned so far. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have."] They have been mentioned today, but they are not referred to in the White Paper.
    As I understand, if the Government's proposals are enacted the princes of the blood royal will retain their seats, but not vote. They do not vote now, but they have the right to do so. I think that that would be the formal position. There would be no provision for their successors.
    Here again, we touch upon the hereditary principle and the hereditary element in the Legislature. I do not take the view which has been taken by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and which has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, that an hereditary Upper House or an hereditary element in the House of Lords must be retained because, if it is not retained, it would strike at the monarchy. After all, there
    1392
    are hereditary monarchies in other realms of the Commonwealth and hereditary monarchies in Europe and other parts of the world where there is no hereditary element in Parliament.
    Mr. Ridley: Would not there be real danger in the monarchy's being appointed by the Prime Minister on the basis that is proposed in the Bill?
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not sure whether to answer that would be in order, but it is a suggestion which is entirely unthinkable and monstrous. In Belgium, for example, there is a monarchy and the Senate is elected and co-opted, but—here we come back to the Amendment about the princes—the king's son sits in the Belgian Senate of right.
    I do not propose that we should welcome a return to the days when members of the Royal Family or the Royal Princes actually took a controversial part in debate and voted in the House of Lords, but I am anxious to preserve this traditional thread in the tapestry of the constitution. I do not see why Amendment No. 163 should be divided upon, because I hope that the Government will accept it. I repeat that I do not want any change in the present situation in which the Princes of the Blood Royal are entitled to sit and to vote, but never do so.
    The hon. Member for Fife, West had done some interesting research about Princes of the Blood Royal or Royal Dukes who took part in debate and voted in the Upper House. I wonder that he did not tell us about the speech made by the Duke of Clarence on the Adultery Prevention Bill. I came across this in a book called "Royal Dukes" by a Liberal, Roger Fulford. It is appropriate that somebody should at least quote something by a Liberal, because the Liberal Party has believed so passionately in the reform of the other House and the removal of the hereditary element as a matter which brooks no delay. But where are the Liberals?
    Roger Fulford has written this fascinating book, "Royal Dukes". He thought that the Duke of Clarence excelled himself by a lack of self-consciousness and tact on the Adultery Prevention Bill, which he opposed. This was a Bill which sought to make it impossible for

    1393
    the guilty party to a divorce to marry. Mr. Fulford writes that the Duke
    "began by remarking that not even the Bishops were stronger opponents of adultery than he. The Bishops remembering that he was fresh from the arms of Mrs. Jordan, may well have thought his remark a little personal. He continued his speech unabashed, and his knowledge of the subject was so intimate and his views so humane that it was generally believed that Mrs. Jordon had written the speech for him."
    I do not suggest that I want anything like this ever to be repeated in the Legislature. This is an undeferential age, but Amendment No. 163, in which I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, is an unashamedly deferential Amendment. I do not think that we in the House of Commons are over-generous towards the Royal Family. I am not referring to the occasional sneers and snide crypto-republicanism which we sometimes encounter in debate here, often disguised as a great zeal for public economy. Parliament and the taxpayer have driven a pretty hard bargain in the past with those whose exemplary devotion to the public weal and public service we have come to take for granted.
    It is therefore, I repeat, in an unashamedly deferential mood and in a desire to recognise the part played by the Royal Family in the national life, that the traditional right, which they do not exercise, to sit and to vote in the House of Lords should be retained.
    Mr. John Lee: As my right hon. Friend knows, I disapprove of the Bill altogether, and I have no intention of voting for it at any stage during its passage. I think it an irrelevant Bill. The proposal that any of it should come into force before the end of this Parliament is, in my view, grossly improper constitutionally. The House would be far better engaged on matters of greater relevance to the economy.
    Having said that, however, I am presented with a dilemma. Should those of us who oppose the Bill aim to make it more or less ridiculous? It is a little difficult to make it more ridiculous than it is at present, so I suppose I take the alternative as my main motivation for signing Amendments which, at least in some measure, are designed to make it a little less ridiculous, if the Bill ever becomes law.
    1394
    The Amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and myself are aimed at taking the hereditary concept right out of our Parliamentary system. Several hon. Members have spoken of the absurdity of giving a person a right to have any kind of legislative franchise merely on the basis of paternity. If ever there was a reason for having primogeniture, there might just as well, on genetic grounds, be a reason for having ultimogeniture, as there is in some tribal systems and some obsolete forms of tenurial law.
    There is just as much reason for giving anyone, male or female, who is descended from a peer of hereditary creation the same right, but only in recent years have peeresses in their own right been allowed to sit in the House of Lords, whether they received the title by descent or by first creation, and there have been very few of these.
    The hereditary principle, in relation to legislation was for many reasons indefensible, but that is not the only ground on which I urge upon the Committee the Amendments which would take the hereditary principle out of the system. Unfortunately, the nature of the Bill is such that we cannot expunge the hereditary concept altogether. We cannot destroy it as a system of title or nomenclature. The most we can do is to make it as unattractive as possible, to deprive it of as many of its perquisites as we can, in the hope that, if this Government remain inhibited from abolishing it altogether, as they ought, at least any successor Government will have less reason than hitherto for creating any more peers.
    Before I enlarge upon that, I remind my hon. Friend of what happened regarding baronets under the Attlee Government. He will recall that the Attlee Government refrained from creating any baronets, save, rather quaintly, the current Lord Mayor of the City of London. That did not destroy the existing baronetcy; it merely gave it an enhanced scarcity value, and as soon as the Conservatives returned to office in 1951, they promptly resumed the creation of that class of title. Therefore, no good had been done merely by abstaining from creating that title.
    There is every reason to believe that, if the Government persist merely in

    1395
    refraining from creating hereditary peerages, without actually abolishing them, the same will happen with hereditary peerages when there is another Conservative Government, and meanwhile the existing hereditary peerage, whether of first creation or by succession, will have acquired a certain enhanced scarcity value.
    If the Government intended to indulge in mass creations such as we have had since 1964, it would have been far more sensible to create an absolute riot of marquises and dukes, helping thereby to ridicule the whole thing out of existence. However, as they have failed to do that, there remains a more sophisticated and, perhaps, more permanent way of proceeding, namely, to abolish the peerage altogether.
    The Bill does not provide for that, and it would be outside the scope of the Long Title to put down Amendments to that effect. The least we can do is to put the peerage more and more in limbo, hoping that it will be less of an attraction to hold merely a title which carries with it no rights of franchise whatever. Although it is true that the direct legislative influence of the peerage has not been very great for quite a time, the possibility that one can be a Member for life of a luxurious club, which has the right of debate and also the right of vote, though with limited powers, is a not inconsiderable attraction to a fair number of people. In saying that, I am not forgetting that there are many peers of first creation who never take their seats in the other place at all.
    7.15 p.m.
    I remind the Committee of how ludicrous the hereditary peerage has become as a recognition of merit, quite apart from questions of its relevance to the Constitution. First, no non-royal dukedom, with one rather doubtful exception, has been created this century, and that doubtful exception concerned the royal marriage of one of Queen Victoria's granddaughters. Even Sir Winston Churchill did not have a dukedom, though I am told that the Letters Patent for a dukedom were drawn up but he decided of his own volition that it was not worth having.
    1396
    Of the marquises created, a rank senior to the earldom which had been the normal reward of retiring Prime Ministers and a few other Cabinet Ministers of seniority and distinction, the last was that of a man call Willingdon, who is remembered as a rather undistinguished Viceroy of India, far less distinguished than a number of others who held that office but have not been granted that particular peerage, for example, Lord Wavell and Lord Mountbatten.
    Let us consider the example of Lord Mountbatten; in many ways, I suppose, one of the most remarkable and versatile of men in public life this century. I imagine that that is an uncontroversial remark which hon. Members on both sides will accept. His father, a less distinguished man though in many ways a worthy one, received a marquisate. The present Earl Mountbatten who, one would have thought, if these things counted for anything at all, would have qualified for such distinction, has to put up with an earldom—presumably because the Attlee Government thought that earls were democratic and marquises were not.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Amendment which he supports would prevent Lord Mountbatten from even voicing his views in the House of Lords?
    Mr. Lee: He never does voice them, so I do not think that that matters. He has never sought to voice his views in the House of Lords.
    With the example of Lord Mountbatten in mind, I am reminded of others who gave distinguished service during the war years. On the other hand, those wretched and incompetent generals of the First World War, of whom Haig was the most notorious example, had earldoms. On the other hand, what was Lord Montgomery's reward in the Second World War? A man who, whatever my hon. Friends may think of his record on the question of South Africa, for example, or whatever hon. Members opposite may think of his views on Red China, is probably the greatest British general since the Duke of Wellington? He is given merely a viscountcy? One compares that with the earldoms given to Haig, to Jellicoe, or for that matter, to Beatty. To take naval examples, an earldom was given in the last war to Jellicoe and to Beatty,

    1397
    but not to Cunningham. It all shows how absurd the thing is.
    One can take other cases. We all know that a viscountcy has been the usual reward for a sacked Cabinet Minister. In other words, a man has a viscountcy the sooner the more incompetent a Minister he is, since his Prime Minister wants to get him out of the way. One would hardly regard that as reasonable ground for giving anyone a reward, and certainly no good reason for giving him an earlier reward.
    My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Technology, who spent a long time trying to divest himself of the absurd encumbrance of his viscountcy, which he did not want, once used the analogy that, if we award a man the Victoria Cross, we do not expect his successors in title to wear it. Why, therefore, because a person is given a reward of distinction for civil public service, should his sons or daughters bear that honour merely because they happen to be the first of the litter, as Lloyd George so aptly described them?
    I do not know how much hope I have of persuading my right hon. Friend to accept this clutch of Amendments on the question of succession. But I hope that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West and I have advanced may make some impression on the Government, and that the timidity which has characterised them in dealing with such matters hitherto will perhaps at any rate abate in the future.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: The principal of the Amendments would remove even the voices of the hereditary peerage from the Upper House. I would not claim more than an average working knowledge of the House of Lords, but during my 12 years in this House it has not escaped me that some valuable work is done in the Upper House, much of it by hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage has also made a great contribution to public life outside Parliament.
    I do not like the idea of a wholly nominated House. We should examine what we shall lose from the Upper House if the principal Amendment is passed. The hereditary peerage will not be able to have any voice by virtue of its hereditary position in the Upper House.
    1398
    I have in my hand a roll of the House of Lords. I shall not read it all, but there are certain members on that roll to whose qualities I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, hereditary peers not of the first creation but peers now seated in the House of Lords by virtue of their hereditary position who have rendered great distinction and public service, and are a valuable voice in Parliament.
    After certain great officers of State and the Royal dukes, one comes to the Duke of Norfolk, who has a great position and has discharged his duties as Earl Marshal with distinction over many years. He needs no defence here, but he would be excluded. We have the Duke of Richmond, whose services to the motor industry and motor racing, an important aspect of national life, are well known. The Duke of Grafton's son, the Earl of Euston, is a very able custodian of our ancient buildings, and as the President of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings would be a valuable Member of the House of Lords, he is just the sort of person the Government would like to see in the Upper House. He is doing a valuable public service in that direction which would be available to Parliament but for the Amendment.
    I cannot pass over the name of the Duke of Beaufort without saying how much all of the West Country values his services. He is Chancellor of our University in Bristol, and no Chancellor just in name but real Chancellor in every sense of the word, whose services to youth are well known and have been appreciated for many years.
    The Duke of Bedford may be a figure of amusement to some, but his services to tourism and his attraction of paying visitors to this country are of immense value. It is true that he has not taken a large part in Parliamentary proceedings, but, with Britain lacking the wealth with which to carry on, the tourist industry is a valuable help. The Duke of Devonshire served as a Secretary of State, making a valuable contribution to public life. The Duke of Atholl, whom I count as a contemporary at Oxford, is one of the most energetic young Members of the Upper House. The Duke of Northumberland has a fine record of public service in his part of the country, and the present Duke of Wellington is an architect of considerable distinction.
    Mr. John Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman like to mention the Duke of Argyll for his services to the divorce law?
    Mr. Cooke: That is an intervention with which I will not trifle.
    I am not making out a case that there are not some hereditary peers whose public services are perhaps less distinguished or valuable than others. I am merely making the case that there are a number of distinguished hereditary peers whose services in Parliament would be of great value to the country, and whose public services will be lost if the Amendment is carried.
    There is a long list of marquesses. I shall mention only one, the Marquess of Exeter, whose services to the world of sport and to youth are well known. The Earl of Derby has been a leading figure in his part of the world for many years.
    I might, in passing, mention the present disclaimed Earl of Sandwich, whose voice is a great loss to Parliament, and whom some of us would like to see included in a reformed House.
    The service to the arts of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres is also well known. We would lose his voice in Parliament. Lord Waldegrave, a Minister and an agriculturalist of considerable distinction, would also be excluded. Lord Bathurst might be put in the same category. There are the Earl of Harewood, with his musical talent, and the Earl of Verulam, who was a Member of this House and is an engineer of considerable distinction.
    Lord Halsbury's services are valued even by the present Government in connection with decimal currency, and Lord St. Aldwyn, who is the grandson of a predecessor of mine in West Bristol, has rendered Parliamentary service over many years.
    There is even the present Lord Attlee, a hereditary peer, who is surely a valuable Labour voice in the other House. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is probably not Labour."] It is true that certain hereditary peers lose the party enthusiasms of their fathers, but the thought is there.
    Lord Esher is a distinguished architect. Lord Brentford is active in the world of motoring, protecting the interests of the
    1400
    motorists, and Lord Maugham is a distinguished writer.
    I could give a long catalogue, but I will not. Some of these noble hereditary Lords should receive at least a passing mention in the debate.
    The world of music is represented in the form of Lord Somers, and there is Lord Auckland's distinguished work for youth.
    The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can continue with his catalogue of reference to Members of the Upper House, because other Members of the Committee may wish to answer some of his points and come up against the Standing Order which precludes them from casting any reflection on Members of another House.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Surely my hon. Friend is entitled, under the rules of order, to argue that hereditary peers should be maintained in effective membership because they include large numbers of people of high quality? Surely he should not be debarred from doing that because other hon. Members might be tempted to go out of order in answering him? Surely, Mr. Gourlay, you would prevent it if there were such a breach of order?
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not entirely out of order for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his catalogue, but it puts temptation in the way of other hon. Members, and it might be unwise for him to pursue it at great length.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it, Mr. Gourlay, that you are ruling that my hon. Friend is in order, though you have expressed an opinion as to his wisdom. Is that the correct interpretation of your Ruling?
    The Deputy Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a correct appreciation of this point.
    Mr. Barnett: May I take it, Mr. Gourlay, as we are listening to this catalogue of dukes, earls, and so on, who might be fitting members of the other House, that I would be in order if I listed a series of aldermen and councillors from my constituency who would be equally fitting for the job?
    7.30 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman: That would depend upon the relevance of the observations which the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mr. Cooke: I cannot say that I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, because, frankly, I do not understand it.
    I do not wish to detain the Committee over long, or to read out the whole rôle of peers and use it as an obstructive instrument in the debate. I have mentioned the names of a very small fraction of those hereditary Members of the Upper House who have distinguished service to their credit and who would bring distinction to any Parliamentary assembly. I had, in any case, nearly finished. But those I have mentioned could well defend themselves whatever any hon. Member opposite might care to say about them.
    I have spoken about the arts. The present Lord Methuen is a Royal Academician, President of the West of England Academy and a painter of considerable merit. He even produced the House of Commons Christmas card last year. The present Lord O'Hagan is one of the most active younger Members. A person of his rare experience and enthusiasm would hardly find his way into the Upper House except by the hereditary principle. The present Lord Grenfell is also much interested in youth work.
    Lord Kennet is that rare bird, an hereditary Socialist peer, but all the same a valuable Minister, much interested in the preservation of amenities and ancient buildings and a valuable ally to those on this side of the House of Commons who care about these matters. Young Lord Windlesham is experienced in the world of television. These are just a few. There is also Lord Sandford, a clergyman in the House of Lords and not a bishop, perhaps an advantage.
    Mr. Edwin Brooks: On a point of order. Do I understand that the rules of the House permit a virtually endless catalogue, although a select one, of peers whose qualities are estimable, as an argument in favour of maintaining an hereditary peerage, whereas they do not permit an equally almost endless catalogue of those who have been suffering for many years from too much hereditary in-breeding?
    The Deputy Chairman: It might not lead to a very good debate, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is in order.
    Mr. Cooke: There was never any intention in my mind to give an endless catalogue. I have given but a brief selection and I have only one more name to give.
    I was about to mention the young Lord Trefgarne, the second baron, whose father sat in this House in various parts of the Left-wing, if I can put it that way. I gather that the late Lord Trefgarne belonged to a number of parties, but he was none the worse for that. His young son is one of the most enthusiastic and active members of another place. He is another example of the young men who would not have found their way to Parliament but for the hereditary principle. The thoughts of these young men are surely of some value in Parliament. I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long and my speech would have been shorter if hon. Members opposite had not sought to interrupt and protest.
    The value of the contributions and experience of the people I have mentioned would be lost to Parliament if the Amendment were carried. Perhaps the Committee might care to reflect on this and to think about how one could hope to represent such a wide spectrum of interest and public service in the Upper House by any other method.
    [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]
    No doubt the Government will say that the process of selection—nomination by the Prime Minister—could achieve the same thing, but I do not believe that that would be the case. For a start, it is bound to happen that, on the whole, older men will be selected. Very few in active middle age and no young people will be selected. There will always be a tendency for the Government of the day to go for establishment figures, the men who have worked their way up in their professional associations, probably very worthy men some but not all particularly sparkling in their approach to life. It will be a very dull House if it is entirely nominated.
    The Committee should reflect on some of those noble Lords I have mentioned. There are others hon. Members can recall to mind. Of course, some noble

    1403
    Lords have let down the side and I often wish that some of the glossy magazines lying about the place were not produced because they draw attention to some of the less fortunate antics of some Members of the Upper House—and, indeed, of Members of the House of Commons, because we, too, have our failings. If the Committee cares to reflect for a moment, I think it will agree that a great deal of value will be lost to Parliament if the hereditary element is entirely removed from the Upper House, simply because the Government's proposals will not replace it by anything half so good.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Some of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) may have misunderstood, particularly if they had not been following the whole debate, that his speech was addressed to supporting the Government's position, and the Government, I think, should acknowledge the suport they have had from him. The list he read out were all names of men whose services will be retained in the Upper House under the Government's proposals. I do not wish to cast any reflection on any individual, but as I listened to the list I was reminded of what Junius said when he saw the list of a Tory Administration in the eighteenth century. He said that it read to him like a satire on all governments. In one sense, the recital of the hon. Member was a satire on all our constitutional arrangements. Some of us would have been very happy if we could have said that at any rate this part of the farce was going to come to an end with the proposals for reform of the other place, but that is not to be the case.
    Many of us are in great difficulties in this debate, because, of course, those who are root and branch abolitionists like myself do not favour a nominated Chamber nor a hereditary Chamber. It is difficult for us to present the whole of our case according to these Amendments. So my right hon. Friend may well say to us, "If that is the case, why do you not just keep quiet?"
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Oh, no— not to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has to bear responsibility for his misdeeds today.
    1404
    I think that it is very hard on him in many respects. He is the most naturally productive of all the members of the Government. He does not need to take any political fertility pill to produce the kind of legislative quintuplets which he has given us. I think that is about the right number, although, looking at him at the moment, there may be more to come. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we get on to the rest of the litter, the better.
    However, as I have listened to the debate, I have found an argument as to why I should intervene. I am not very enthusiastic about these Amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I have put down new Clause 6—"Exclusion of peers by succession"—which would deal with the situation effectively, simply and clearly. It does not meet our general attitude to the Bill, but it would have a satisfactory result. If we were to pass the Amend-men, moved so peremptorily by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), we would upset the package and the reception of the Bill in the other place would be slightly less enthusiastic, and it is even conceivable that there might be a few recruits to our side.
    Tactically, therefore, the wise course for those who are opposed to the Bill, for whatever reason, would be to vote with us on each of these Amendments, even those who wish to sustain the hereditary principle and who wish to kill the Bill, for this is the best way in which to do that. If we were to wipe the varnish from the rest of the Bill, what would be left would be a simple, crude vulgar, nominated Chamber, a proposal which might even be thrown out in the other place, although I doubt it.
    I might even ask for support from my right hon. Friend on this occasion. I assure him that the enthusiasm for the Bill in the other place is so overwhelming that the peers would swallow anything so long as they could keep the power, which is what they want. They would prefer to have all this sweetening which my right hon. Friend has given to them as a result of the negotiations and they want to keep this hereditary part if they can, and they want all the fancy work as well, but what they want more is the central power which the

    1405
    Government propose to leave the other place, and therefore even the Government might not be too alarmed if the Amendment were passed.
    I see that I am carrying the whole Committee with me; the Government can accept the Amendment. At any rate, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services cannot produce a single argument for continuing the remains of the hereditary principle which are left in the Bill, apart from the bargain which he made with right hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to get the Bill presented at all.
    As a root and branch abolitionist, I have a simple remedy, but the difficulty which I have found is that we have to apply our minds to the marginal question of whether a nominated House is better than a hereditary House. I must say that this has been a very tender balance all though the evening. Whenever the spectacle of hereditary peers is presented lo us, I veer in favour of the nominated Chamber and, whenever the evils of the nominated Chamber are emphasised, I am forced to consider the possibilities and advantages of retaining the hereditary principle. This is a most awkward dilemma.
    When I heard the hon. Member for Bristol, West, I became passionately in favour of nomination—for a few minutes at any rate—but when I think of some of the others up there, particularly some of those with whom we have had to deal, I veer away from real peers, or life peers, or any new breed of peers. Those are the people to whom, under the Government's proposals, we are to surrender our obligations, a thousand years of history into these quivering hands, the Cromers, the Cobbolds the Caccias, the Brookes, the Bridges, the Hankeys and the Pankeys. Those are the people who want the dominant power in our constitutional arrangements.
    I am absolutely staggered that my right hon. Friend should have introduced such a proposal. There may be a case for having the system which was proposed by the Abbé Sieyés, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). If such a proposal were inserted in the Bill nobody would notice it. At least it would introduce a note of constitutional rigour into the whole ramshackle arrangement. Therefore, if my
    1406
    right hon. Friend proposes what might be called the Abbé Sieyés Amendment, I shall vote for that.
    7.45 p.m.
    I want the Committee to apply itself properly to the discussions which we have in Committee. We all know that the Bill which we are supposed to send to the other place was ridiculous to start with, but if we can pile on a few more absurd Amendments, if we can push on to this ship a few more cargoes which are calculated to sink it, we will have done a good night's work and we will send such a Bill to the other place that even the worms there will begin to turn and even those who are already slavering at the lips for the extra power which it is supposed to give them for the next 20 or 30 years may take a different view.
    We may make jokes about this, because the whole thing is ridiculous, but in fact it is an extremely serious matter. What we are doing is to ensure that for the next 20, 30 or 40 years the constitutional balance will be heavily weighted on the side of reaction, the elderly and the Establishment, those who in the main have exhausted the contribution which they can make to the political life of the country and who wish to sustain all the old institutions.
    That is not what my right hon. Friend really wants. He is a born reformer; he wants to change things; he does not want to alter the constitution in this fashion; but that is what he is doing, and I am very sorry to see it. What we have to do is to rescue him from his own errors and to ensure that he can triumph over this mistake and go ahead to all the future triumphs which he may have ahead. Therefore, every hon. Member who votes for the Amendment will be helping to wreck the Bill and helping to save the Government.
    Mr. Birch: I think that you would agree, Sir Myer, that it would be only right for the Liberal point of view to be expressed [Laughter.] Here I stand surrounded by eager, young, well-washed faces. Unfortunately, they have not been bold enough to speak; so I shall say what I think the Liberals would be saying.
    The Liberals would say that many members—I should not like to say how many, but some hundreds—of another place are there because of an implied

    1407
    contract with the Liberal Party into which they entered with certain considerations to apply, to put it in a nice way. Having entered into that contract, and having given certain solid advantages to those who supported them at the time, the Liberals would say that it was absolutely wrong that those men who supported the Liberal Party with due consideration should be deprived of the rights of office.
    Mr. Crossman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene briefly to state the view of the Government. I do so now partly because of the temptation to intervene after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who spoke with his usual brilliance. He has a quality, which I sometimes share, of speaking with simplifying candour. He told us willingly what he was up to—he was having good fun—and he said that he did not believe in reforming the other place and he therefore asked all hon. Members to join him in supporting what he consciously described as a wrecking Amendment. It was a very nice speech.
    Those who are concerned with the reform of the other place, with the rights and wrongs of it and what should and should not be done, have to consider the group of Amendments before us, which we have now considered for a long time. It might be convenient if, first, I summarised the point of the Clause. Its object is to exclude from a reformed House of Lords all hereditary peers who may succeed to peerages in future.
    The point of this group of Amendments, I will not go into them in detail, or refer to their drafting, is to exclude future peers by succession from the reformed House immediately and completely, and to remove the provisions under which those who are Members, or entitled to be Members at the time when the reform comes into effect would be allowed to remain as non-voting Members. This is an important Clause and it has been well worth lengthy discussion.
    To some extent I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but I would say that one has to begin somewhere in the Bill and it is logical to start with the principle of removing the hereditary element from the House of Lords.
    1408
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me, in all sincerity, why was there a Clause in the Bill which not only suggested that hereditary peers might be created in future, but made provision for such a possibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) also asked this question. He wanted to have explained to him why the Government accepted the view that it was not their task on this occasion to abolish the peerage. This was not a matter of agreement or disagreement between the parties,—there was no potentiality of disagreement between the two sides.
    The conference was established to study the reform of the institutions and composition of the other place, not to study the peerage, not to deal with it. The Bill has been drafted and framed on the assumption that, after it has been passed, a peerage will continue and the Prime Minister will be entitled to create both life and hereditary peerages, although from our side it is unlikely that such a nomination of the latter kind will take place. However, the Bill makes provision for the possibility.
    The second matter put to me by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is one which I hope that he will not press to a Division. From his own point of view that may be misunderstood. Technically, his Amendment is defective. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West was correct. It is, strictly speaking, meaningless, but I do not want to be niggling. However, the phrase "Prince of the Blood Royal" really means nothing, and it would mean nothing at all if it were passed. I understand his intentions, and can tell him that under the Government's proposals all members of the Royal Family who are at present created peers, would be eligible to take voting membership, but I think it would be extremely unlikely that they would wish to do so. As to the future, all members of the Royal Family who are created peers will be eligible for voting membership of the House, but, again, it would be expected that they would opt for a non-voting rôle.
    This issue remains completely unaffected, as the rest of the problem of the peerage does, by the Bill. We have not affected the power of the Crown to create a hereditary peer; we have not affected

    1409
    the relationship of the Royal Princes or any other member of the Royal Family. They will be entitled to vote, but will not normally do so. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that assurance.
    I deal now with the single remaining substantial issue. Let me explain briefly why the Government and those who support this reform regard the defeat of this Amendment as essential. It is true that it will be perfectly consistent for someone who was pledged, as we were at the election, to remove the hereditary element and reduce the effective powers of the Lords, to do it in such a way that in future every hereditary peer, every peer by succession, would automatically and totally be excluded from the Lords. That would be fully compatible with the principles laid down in our election manifesto. It is equally true that it is compatible with the manifesto to do it in the way we have chosen.
    I might be asked why we have chosen this way, why have we said that we will have a two-tier House in which peers by succession who are there now will be entitled to serve their life out there if they wish, although their sons will not be able to do so? Why have we tapered off the presence of the hereditary principle in the Lords instead of cutting it off clean? It is a matter of taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading does not have exactly the same taste as myself in this. When I look at the work in the other place I will not deny that the hereditary peers add an element of youth and energy which it would miss. Many of them will become life and voting peers for that reason, but it is true that others will go.
    I was prepared to reach an agreement, and it was part of the agreement we reached on both sides, that this would be a fair and reasonable method of dealing with the problem. Having reached an agreement, as often happens, the agreement was, I thought, better than that which either side had brought to the conference. I have no doubt whatever about the desirability of this part of the Bill, and the need to maintain the structure, and therefore of seeing these Amendments defeated.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpem): Order. The right hon. Member has sat down.
    Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: This is the first time I have uttered on the Bill or the White Paper. I share the views expressed in the opening sentences of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), but I cannot agree quite so strongly with what he went on to say. I regard this as an atrociously bad, irrelevant Bill. The speech we have just heard by the Secretary of State for Social Services shows how he is trying to do two incompatible things at once. He has endeavoured to show to us that this was not a peerage Bill, but a Bill to reform the House of Lords.
    The more the right hon. Gentleman went on the more abundantly clear it became that what he was seeking to do will really make a peer in the true sense of the word meaningless. We are starting from completely the wrong end in this matter. I share with the right hon. Gentleman the characteristic that I am an ardent Parliamentary reformer. On this matter I would say that I was holier than he. The pity of all this seems to be that we have got so indoctrinated with the theory that we in Parliament are the only people who can put forward suggestions as to how Parliament can be reformed that, as a result, we do not dare do what we ought to do.
    We shall never make sense, with this Bill or any other dealing with the reform of the House of Lords or our own House, unless we get down to an objective study of what sort of Parliament is necessary in the body politic of today and then decide what powers are necessary for it to have to do its job, and who should have them. Until we work on those lines I say a murrain on legislation of this kind.
    I would bring a little atomic argument to this one, perhaps to the surprise of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he knows what a spectral shift reactor is. It is one which is moderated by a mixture of heavy and light water. As the fuel is burned up the mixture is progressively diluted with light water. This changes the degree of moderation and releases excess reactivity until at the end of the useful life of the

    1411
    core the moderator consists mainly of light water.
    If the right hon. Gentleman would substitute the word "talker" for the word "water" in that sentence he will find that it is not untypical of Parliament today. I would say that we are too far into this Parliament to enter into this sort of exercise, and I propose to take no further interest in the Bill whatever.
    Mr. Powell: Might I intervene again, briefly, to take up two points arising out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Referring to royal peers, I understood him to say that the position of royal peers in another place would not in practice be affected by the Bill since, as peers of first creation, in future they would still have a right to sit, although not necessarily to vote. I wonder whether this is necessarily true, since I think I am right in saying that certain of the royal peerages are not conferred but are automatically inherited—for example, I believe, the Earldom of Chester. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman would not quite be accurate in saying that the position of royal peers would be unaffected in practice by the Bill.
    8.0 p.m.
    The second point is perhaps more substantial and arises out of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the continuation of a non-Parliamentary peerage, possibly life, but possibly also hereditary, after hereditary peerage had ceased to form part of Parliament. The idea of a peerage continuing in vacuo outside Parliament after its function in Parliament has been destroyed is an abomination. There have been many references in the debate to continental aristocracies. I believe that hon. Members on both sides, whatever their view of the Bill and the present situation, would agree that our aristocracy, however one defines it historically and at present, compares very favourably with that of any other country.
    One of the reasons for that—perhaps the real reason—is that it has to this day been a functional aristocracy. There have been duties and functions associated with title and with hereditary succession. It would be utterly to pervert the notion of peerage if we were to sever title, and what social status there may come with
    1412
    title, from any working function in the Constitution. More than that, the peerage of this country is, in a sense, quite different from the peerage of any other country, a Parliamentary peerage. It is true that there are some relics of pre-Parliamentary times in our present peerage, the survival of what are called the baronies by writ, which pre-date the Parliamentary peerage of the fourteenth and subsequent centuries.
    However, the peerage as we know it, the functioning and working peerage of this country during the last 500 years, has been an emanation of Parliament. It has been created to serve in Parliament, and its status has rested upon its function in Parliament. Speaking only for myself, if the Bill or anything like it goes through, although I appreciate that the talks and the background to the Bill were not concerned with anything non-Parliamentary, it would be contrary to the spirit of the historic peerage if it should survive as an effete floating institution with no roots, no standing place and no function.
    Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for his stimulating and interesting contribution.
    On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. There is a group of peers of the kind to which he refers. In those cases, I understand from my brief that for their lifetime they would serve as non-voting peers. A certain number would die out. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point that out for the record.
    Secondly, we shall have plenty of time to debate some of the larger issues about the future of the peerage. I was careful to say that in this Bill we did not think it was for us to determine the attitude of future Prime Ministers to the problem of the hereditary peerage; we had to leave the matter open. We do not create hereditary peers. Therefore, they would die out. On the other hand, if there were those who wanted to do so the Bill leaves that decision to be taken later. Not all right hon. and hon. Members opposite would fully agree with what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said about the peerage, but,

    1413
    whether they agree or not, the issue of peerage has been deliberately left open and not decided in the Bill.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not give way to me earlier, because I wished to ask him a question arising out of what he said.
    The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the energy and youth of certain hereditary peers whose services we enjoy in the other House. He conceded that with the wiping out of the hereditary principle the services of these young people would be lost to the Upper House. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will allow me to finish what I wish to say and then he can give a complete reply. I suppose that they might continue to have a voice and no vote, but in the fullness of time they would be excluded altogether unless they were nominated for life peerages.
    I wonder how the Government of the day would be able to pick and choose. It would be very difficult and hazardous to get tie young element in by that process. How would a Labour Government, perhaps disinclined to consider hereditary peers for selection, introduce an element of young men, or young women for that matter, into the Upper House? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer that question if he finds the others somewhat distasteful. How will young life peers be discovered by a future Labour Administration. Surely we are hoping that we shall not have an Upper House consisting entirely of old men.
    Mr. Sheldon: I was surprised at the tribute which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) paid to what he called the functioning and working peerage over the past 500 years. That is not how I interpret it. The functioning and hard-working peers were in the House of Lords to protect their own interests. When they worked hard, they did so, by speaking for perhaps a few hours a year, to make sure that the laws of the land protected those interests. I see no reason to pay the sort of tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to people acting in this way.
    If the right hon. Gentleman was saying that after 500 years the place is coming to an end and that it is right to
    1414
    pay some tribute, I might be more generous, because, as Doctor Johnson said about an epitaph, in these matters one is not inevitably on oath. If I were to write an epitaph, I would concede that among the aristocracies throughout Europe ours was perhaps a shade more enlightened than most. Perhaps their best quality would be that they knew when to retreat and did not fight to the last ditch. This is why we still have them—because they had enough wisdom not to do that. I would find it hard to say very much more by way of tribute to the other place.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman reflect on how high Lord North's stock now stands?
    Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there were some peers who were more incompetent than others, I agree with him entirely. That is invariably the case, as with any body of people.
    Amendment No. 103 is a probing Amendment which seeks to clarify subsection (4), which deals with the situation which arises when the
    "holder of a hereditary peerage … may by notice in writing given to the Lord Chancellor within one year after the commencement of this Act, disclaim his membership of the House of Lords ".
    I am not sure why he should be allowed one year after the commencement of the Act to disclaim his membership. If he does not write, his membership presumably, will continue until the end of that Parliament. Why should he not be able to disclaim? We should be delighted if successionist peers who did not wish to attend the House of Lords would be prepared not to assert their rights. It would reduce the numbers and the amount of speaking. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will elucidate this point.
    Mr. Crossman: The aim of the Clause is to give one year after the passing of the Bill so that a peer would have the right to disclaim, but that he should be excluded from the possibility of choosing a convenient moment in his political career, such as a by-election, and finding himself a right to become a commoner in this way. It was generally felt that, although this period should be given, after this the Clause should lapse.
    Mr. Will Griffiths: My right hon. Friend, in response to the short intervention made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), said that the Bill left open the possibility of a future Government, if they so desired, creating a new crop of hereditary peers. The Bill is based upon party discussions and, therefore, contains a considerable degree of compromise, but what was said by my right hon. Friend convinces me of the absurdity of these whole proceedings.
    My right hon. Friend said that we are all completely opposed to the hereditary principle, we have created no hereditary peers and it is unlikely that we shall create any. My right hon. Friend, who is a member of the Government, is seeking to bring about considerable constitutional reforms because he has accepted compromises which have arisen from all-party discussion. Together with his colleagues in the Government he is abdicating responsibility and is not reforming the other place in the way in which he tells the House of Commons the whole if this side would wish. The result is that we shall have a protracted Committee stage, at the end of which important matters of principle, which my right hon. Friend says are accepted on these benches, will be achieved only in part and for an indefinite period. That is the most extraordinary exhibition of government that I have seen for a long time.
    Sir John Rodgers: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is true that one of the major reasons for the inclusion of Clause 1 is that it allows the second Chamber to go on under the title of the House of Lords? If we are to reform Parliament we must first deter mine whether we want a second Chamber If we do, we must determine what its powers should be and how it should be elected or selected. It was a macabre dance of death that the House of Lords will go on, the hereditary peers being allowed to live out their lives in dismal splendour under the pretence that the principle of heredity has been abolished. A strong case could be made out for a legislative chamber not being composed on the basis of who one's father was. The Clause is the most disingenuous that I have seen in any Bill. The other place
    1416
    will still be called the House of Lords. Many life peers will be created, but would it not be far better to create senators? Why go through the mumbo-jumbo of creating life peers and calling their sons Honourable? This is the most reactionary proposal to have come from a Government of any persuasion since the end of the war. It is appalling that the Government Front Bench should be so reactionary—
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Mendelson: Both Front Benches.
    Sir J. Rodgers: My Front Bench are not as revolutionary as I should like them to be. The Labour Party pretends to be the party of revolution, the great reformists, looking at things afresh and bringing modernisation into our constitutional and national life. This is the opposite. It is a subterfuge to enable the other place still to be called the House of Lords—
    Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must not overlook his own Front Bench in this. These were bargaining negotiations. It is his side that insists on these things and, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend agreed with them.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman must also not overlook the terms of the Amendment under discussion.
    Sir J. Rodgers: If I may respond to that intervention, I do not exonerate my right hon. Friends, I have the greatest admiration for them, but I can think of no occasion when the country has benefited from the consensus of opinion between the two Front Benches. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Bill, particularly at Clause 1, as it is an insult to this House and to the Upper House.
    Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question I asked earlier? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out the peculiarities of our system of inheritance of peerage; I asked my right hon. Friend whether this conflicted with the United Nations Convention on the Status of Women and caused us for a long time not to ratify, and whether the Bill

    1417
    will still be in conflict with that Convention merely because our system of inheritance is biased towards males?
    Mr. Sheldon Mr. Sheldon rose—
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 207.

    Division No. 64.]

    AYES

    [8.18 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mendelson, John

    Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Newens, Stan

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Orme, Stanley

    Barnett, Joel

    Henig, Stanley

    Paget, R. T.

    Bessell, Peter

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Howie, W.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Booth, Albert

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sheldon, Robert

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Kerr, Russell (Feitham)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Tomney, Frank

    Davits, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Dickens, James

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lubbock, Eric

    Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Faulds, Andrew

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Mr. William Hamilton and

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marquand, David

    Mr. Eric Heffer.

    Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Ennals, David

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Archer, Peter

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

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bence, Cyril

    Eyre, Reginald

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Biffen, John

    Finch, Harold

    McBride, Neil

    Biggs-Davison John

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McCann, John

    Binns, John

    Ford, Ben

    MacColl, James

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Fowler, Gerry

    McGuire, Michael

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mackie, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Maclennan, Robert

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Gardner, Tony

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

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Manuel, Archie

    Boardman Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Marten, Neil

    Body, Richard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Boyden, James

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mawby, Ray

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Gower, Raymond

    Mayhew, Christopher

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

    Gray, Dr Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Millan, Bruce

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Buchan, Norman

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Monro, Hector

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hannan, William

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Harper, Joseph

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Charnnon, H. P. G.

    Harvie Anderson, Miss

    Moyle, Roland

    Chapman, Donald

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Coe, Denis

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Coleman, Donald

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Murray, Albert

    Conlan, Bernard

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Cooke Robert

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Airey

    Crosland, RS. Hn. Anthony

    Hilton, W. S.

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

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hobden, Dennis

    Oakes, Gordon

    Crouch, David

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Ogden, Eric

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Hoy, James

    O'Malley, Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hunter, Adam

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hynd, John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, Thomas

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Dell, Edmund

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Dempsey, James

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

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jopling, Michael

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Pentland, Norman

    Eadie, Alex

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Eden, Sir John

    Lane, David

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Probert, Arthur

    English, Michael

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Randall, Harry

    Snow, Julian

    Whitlock, William

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Rees, Merlyn

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Rentan, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Swingler, Stephen

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Richard, Ivor

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Urwin, T. W.

    Winnick, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Waddington, David

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)

    Woof, Robert

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wallace, George

    Younger, Hn. George

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Slater, Joseph

    Wellbeloved, James

    Mr. Charles Grey and

    Small, William

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

    Mr. English: I beg to move formally, for the purposes of a Division, Amendment No. 2—
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Not at this stage. It will come in its proper place immediately after we dispose of the next group of Amendments.
    The next Amendment is No. 72 and, grouped with it, are Amendments Nos. 68, 74, 73 and New Clause 12—
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Your predecessor in the Chair, the Chairman of Ways and Means, told us at the beginning of the debate that he would make a statement about the Preamble and the point in our proceedings at which we could debate it, whether we could amend it, and various other matters. We have been told since that discussions are taking place on these points.
    I can understand that it may have been difficult for Mr. Irving to make a statement to us before the end of the previous debate. However, hon. Members will remember what he said, and it is to be hoped that he will be able as soon as possible to make a statement about the outcome of the discussions which he has had in private with various members of the Committee. It will be very difficult for us to continue unless we have that statement as soon as possible.
    The Temporary Chairman: That is hardly a point of order. However, I was present when the Chairman of Ways and Means occupied the Chair, and I heard him make reference to the Preamble. I am not the occupant of the Chair who gave that promise. I dare say that he is busily engaged in preparing his statement. But, whatever the hon. Gentleman
    1420
    may think, he may rest assured that the Chairman of Ways and Means will implement the promise that he made earlier.
    Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. Would not the Committee be helped if you reconsidered that decision? We were advised earlier by Mr. Irving that the selection of Amendments was provisional. We pointed out that, once we had embarked on the first group of Amendments, that ceased to be a provisional selection and became definitive. If we are not to have a statement on this subject, which has a bearing on the grouping of Amendments, as we come to each succeeding group, the selection ceases to be provisional and becomes definitive. It would be to the advantage of the Committee if we could be told when Mr. Irving will be making his statement.
    The Temporary Chairman: The selection of Amendments is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Chair. In no way can the present occupant of the Chair brook any criticism of that selection.
    In the meantime, I am concerned to proceed with the business before us, and I suggest—
    Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. I am not sure, Sir Myer, whether you were present at the time that Mr. Irving made that statement.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have said that I was present when it was made.
    Mr. Sheldon: That helps considerably, because you will recall that the Chairman stated that he would be returning to make a decision on this matter. You have said that you have not heard about the present situation. If you had heard that he made this decision, clearly you would be right in carrying it out. I submit that

    1421
    if you have not heard of the decision, the best way to handle the matter might be to find out what that decision is.
    The Temporary Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means will be returning to the Chair very shortly. It will be for him—as a matter of fact, he is here—when he takes over the Chair to indicate whether he has a statement to make. In the meantime, we will proceed with, I hope, Amendments Nos. 72. 68, 73, 74 and new Clause 12.
    Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of Order. As the Chairman is present in the Chamber, may we ask whether he can give us at this precise moment the result of the discussions that have taken place? We can then happily go on with the business. If we do not get such a statement, and the Committee proceeds, it will proceed very uneasily indeed.
    The Temporary Chairman: The point raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with in due course. I think that there is undue haste in asking a decision to be made on this point. I ask hon. Members to bear with me. But, as it happens to coincide with the time that the Chairman of Ways and Means is to resume the Chair, I gladly give over—not through any sense of defeat, but because I wish to observe the timetabling.
    [MR. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. I wonder, now that you have rejoined us, Mr. Irving, whether you are in a position to tell us anything further on the subject of the Preamble about which earlier this afternoon, you promised us a statement?
    The Chairman: I apologise for keeping the Committee waiting. I had hoped that I might have a little more time. I have taken the opportunity to consult at least one or two of the hon. Members who raised the matter to be sure that I was seized of the point. I ask the indulgence of the Committee to leave a fuller statement, if necessary, until later.
    I ought, first, to say that I am completely bound by Standing Order No. 45:
    "In a committee on a bill, the preamble shall stand postponed until after the consideration of the clauses and of any schedules."
    1422
    So it is ultra vires for me to go beyond that Standing Order.
    On the other hand, the Committee may like to look at my selection. Amendment No. 140, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) seeks to amend a Clause in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member also has an Amendment down to the Preamble which, in my provisional selection, I had decided to allow to be debated with Amendment No. 140, So, while the Chair cannot rule on Amendments to the Preamble or to other parts of the Bill before proper consideration can be given, the Committee will see that the principle is accepted by the existing selection.
    If a Member puts down an Amendment to a Clause and also an Amendment to the Preamble, the Chair will consider calling these together, thereby allowing, at the same time as the debate on the Clause, a debate on that section of the Preamble.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I take it, Mr. Irving, that the same Ruling will apply to Amendment No. 128, when we reach it, which is similar to Amendment No. 67 on page 1068, which seeks to amend the Preamble? I take it that you will allow a discussion both on the Amendment and on that part of the Preamble?
    The Chairman: I am not quite clear about the point that the hon. Member raises with me. Amendment No. 128 has been provisionally selected with new Clause 11, which is not concerned with the Preamble, as I understand. But if the hon. Member puts down an Amendment to the Preamble which relates to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, I should consider selecting it for debate with the Amendments already selected.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Irving, it is possible that we shall not reach Amendment No. 128 today, so you may have time to consider this in the morning. This Amendment refers to the election of representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, and so on, and new Clause 11 sets out how those representatives should be elected. I have also tabled an Amendment to the Preamble, referring to the same point, and I take it that we shall be able to discuss that new Clause in conjunction with Amendment No. 108.
    The Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand the point that he is making.
    The hon. Member's Amendment to the Preamble has not been selected. As I said, the Chair cannot, in advance, give an indication of its selection, nor can it give an undertaking to select an Amendment to the Preamble, but, from the selection, it is procedurally possible for an Amendment to a Clause and an Amendment to the Preamble to be selected for debate together. I cannot go further than that in this kind of ruling.
    Mr. Younger: Mr. Irving, I apologise for delaying the Committee, but there is a further point which I do not think is covered by your statement. As I understand, the Preamble can in any event be amended only if an Amendment accepted to some other part of the Bill makes it necessary for that Amendment to the Preamble to be made. This will be all right if certain Amendments which are suggested to the Bill are made, but if the Committee decides not to accept certain Amendments, and if it is still the view of some hon. Members that the Preamble should be amended, will there be some procedure whereby it will be possible for the Preamble to be amended?
    Could you also tell me whether, even if that is now allowed to be done by a Member of the Committee, it will be in order for the Government, if they wish, to introduce an Amendment to the Preamble which may not be connected with any Amendment which has been made to the rest of the Bill? This is the real problem which faces us. As certain parts of the intention of the Bill are being carried out only in the Preamble, and apparently cannot be carried out in the body of the Bill, I should be grateful if you would look into this. I know, Mr. Irving, that you may not be able to answer my question now, but I think the Committee will need to know exactly where it stands.
    The Chairman: I want to help the hon. Member, but I am aware of the danger of giving hypothetical Rulings. What the hon. Gentleman says about an Amendment to the Preamble once an Amendment to a Clause has been disposed
    1424
    of is correct. If an Amendment to a Clause is rejected, the same matter cannot be brought in by way of an Amendment to the Preamble. Further than that I really could not, and would not, wish to go tonight. The whole question of the Preamble has to be considered, and that is debatable.
    Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. Mr. Irving, what you have just touched on is a matter of capital importance, because when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was speaking, at a time when you were unavoidably absent, having consultations, he said that with a Bill one has to start somewhere. That sounded like an innocent remark at the time, but it is not quite so innocent in the light of the discussion that is taking place now.
    Although much of the meat of the Bill is in the Preamble, the Government have started with the Clause dealing with composition, and not with the Preamble. This means that if we are prevented from moving Amendments to the Preamble we shall not be able to amend one of the most crucial parts of the Bill. I therefore urge you to reconsider the matter to try to find a solution which makes it possible for hon. Members to make such Amendments to the Preamble as they think necessary.
    Mr. Onslow: I understand that at some stage the Chair puts the Question, That this be the Preamble to the Bill. I am not clear, and I do not know whether the Committee is clear, whether any Amendments can be moved to that Question. I shall not press you to go into this tonight because it may be, this being the odd Bill that it is, there is no precise precedent on which one can rely. But I hope that, after reflection and having taken advice, you will be able to come before us again soon and elaborate on this point, since it is of considerable importance.
    The Chairman: This is why I had hoped that the Committee would allow me further time and allow me to make a statement at the beginning of the next day's business. As I understand, at the moment—unless I am further advised—although it is not possible to amend the Preamble in respect of a matter which has been rejected on a Clause, it is possible in this case to amend the

    1425
    Preamble in respect of other matters. It is not possible to amend the Question which is put to the Committee, That this be the Preamble to the Bill, but that is debatable.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me further than this. It is possible to amend the Preamble and I should like to reserve my position a little and have the sympathy of the Committee in allowing me to make any further elaboration of this on our next sitting day for the Committee. I believe that it is possible to amend the Preamble and discuss the Question, That this be the Preamble to the Bill, but not to amend it in respect of any matter which has already been rejected in the Bill.
    Mr. Younger: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I could be specific to help you, Mr. Irving, in your considerations before the next day. Suppose that no Amendment is accepted in this Committee stage referring to regional representation in the new reformed House. This is merely an example. Are we then bound, as the only action that we can take when considering the Preamble, to reject it lock, stock and barrel or may we then say that, because no Amendments about regional representation, about which hon. Members may feel strongly, or anything else, have been accepted or put through in Committee, we have then only one option—to throw out the Preamble altogether or to accept it as it stands? It seems to me that that would be a most unsatisfactory situation and I should be grateful if you could look into that specifically.
    The Chairman: I will certainly look into that. This is why I confined my original statement to suggesting that there were ways and means of having sections of the Preamble considered with the Clauses in the Bill. I feel that this would meet the hon. Gentleman's need more effectively than anything else that I can suggest. However, I will certainly look into the matter that he raises.
    Mr. Stephen Hastings: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 2, line 14, after '(2)', insert 'and subsection (5)'.
    I understand that we are discussing, at the same time, Amendments No. 68, in page 2, line 38, at end add:
    1426
    (5) Holders of hereditary peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom up to a number of 20 elected by a majority of the holders of such hereditary peerages shall not be excluded from receiving a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act, and such elected holders of hereditary peerages shall be known as representative peers;
    No. 73, in page 2, line 38, at end add:
    (5) In any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act all peers by succession shall elect from their number 75 peers who shall possess full voting rights for the duration of that Parliament and who shall henceforth be described as peers by succession with voting rights;
    No. 74, in Clause 2, page 2, line 43, after first 'of', insert:
    'peers by succession with voting rights and';
    and new Clause 12—Election of representative Peers,
    At the commencement of each Parliament the holders by succession of a hereditary peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom shall meet together according to a procedure to be laid down by a resolution of the House of Lords and shall elect not more than 20 of their number to serve as voting peers in the House of Lords for that Parliament.
    It will be clear, I think, that Amendment No. 72 is consequential upon No. 73. Although there is no difference between the principle behind my group of Amendments and that behind new Clause 12 and Amendment No. 68 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and others, an important difference of method is involved. We seek to enshrine the hereditary principle by enabling all peers who receive a writ of summons to elect from their number 75 to serve in all Parliaments as from the acceptance of this Bill, and the new Clause is concerned only with 20 elected in more or less the same way.
    If the Amendment is carried, I will be happy to leave the method of selection to the peers. It is perhaps a minor point, but I would take issue with my hon. Friends on their version. I believe that 20 is too few to protect an efficient and able peerage from now on, very much for the reasons so clearly put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Only 20 in the new House would mean that the peerage as a whole will no longer function as such and would gradually become effete. So I prefer the

    1427
    figure of 75, which I grant is an arbitrary one. It is difficult to work out, from the White Paper and the Bill, exactly how many peers there will be in the new House, and perhaps the Minister will comment on this. My figure of 75 is designed to be between one-quarter and one-third of the total, as I understand it. That would be an important proportion in any decision which the Lords would have to take in future.
    8.45 p.m.
    I should apologise at the outset for the fact that I am in some danger of covering ground which was covered in the debate on the previous Amendments. It was due to the courtesy of the Chair that that debate ranged wide. It dealt mainly with the heredity principle. In this debate my hon. Friends are concerned precisely with the hereditary principle, and it is therefore inevitable that we will cover some of the ground, perhaps in some detail, previously covered.
    Perhaps I need not apologise too much because this matter is at the heart of the Bill. To remove the hereditary principle would be to remove the House of Lords in any historical and meaningful sense. One could refer to it as the "House of Nominees", as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested, or the "House of Members of the M.C.C." or "House of Members of the Football Association". It would be just as relevant to call it that as to go on calling it the House of Peers. Should the Amendment not be accepted we will no longer be debating the House of Lords but a second Chamber of a different description.
    I plead with hon. Members in considering the Amendment to take the matter seriously. There have been times earlier this afternoon when, understandably, a note of levity has crept in. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have made it plain that they wish to treat the matter lightly. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made it clear that he thinks that the way to achieve his objective is to treat the committee stage as a joke. I suppose that that is one way of approaching it.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The hon. Gentleman is moving the Amendment in moderate
    1428
    terms. I assure him that I will not treat the matter with levity. When I reply I will try to adopt the spirit which he is adopting in explaining the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will not stress this aspect of the matter too much.
    Mr. Hastings: I have no intention of stressing it any more, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I merely wish to register the fact that there is a tendency—perhaps it goes wider than the House of Commons—to regard a defence of the hereditary peerage in these terms as simply a waving of some banner from the mediaeval past. It is not. I assure the Committee that I am concerned with what I believe to be the two primary values of good government. They are individual liberty and the limitation of man's power over man. It is in regard to those two values that I seek to make my case.
    I remind the committee that the hereditary principle in Parliament is not as old as the peerage. The writ of summons to the Model Parliament of 1295 did not carry with it the right to be summoned to Parliament to the successors of those who were on that occasion. Some sort of hereditary peerage existed in the reign of Edward I, but there was no automatic right of Parliamentary summons then either. The principle emerged in the reign of Henry VII. Thus this system is not the result of some aboriginal custom. It grew, was found acceptable and advantageous, and was formalised as part of the Constitution as the Constitution itself evolved. There have been several assaults on it as early as the eighteenth century and several times since then.
    I suggest, in all seriousness, that the present objections to the hereditary principle functioning as it would under this group of Amendments are based mainly on two grounds or two assumptions, both of which I hold to be false. Of the first we have heard several times this afternoon. The argument runs that we have "progressed" in this country or society to a point where inheritance and legislative responsibility have become an anachronism. We hear the phrase "in this day and age" that "in this modern age it is ridiculous to argue that such a thing should continue". The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) used the phrase more than once.

    1429
    We see it in the newspapers and hear it on television almost every day.
    I want to examine precisely the nature of this so-called "progress". I grant that over the last 150 years, to take a somewhat arbitrary span of time, there has been vast technical progress. We live longer than people used to and we are surrounded with all sorts of mechanical marvels. Some, not us, alas, are preparing to land on the moon. These things would have been wildly beyond the expectations of those who lived a century ago. Material goods and economic wealth are more widely distributed, and in that way there has been progress. Education, some better than others, is universal, and to that extent there has been progress.
    But none of these considerations relate directly or necessarily to the aims of good government or to a sound constitution. One could represent the same consideration with regard to the people of the Soviet Union, but I do not think anyone in this Committee would suggest that they have achieved good government. Considering the converse side of the argument about progress, there are those, not only in this House but widely in the country, who I think would agree that this is an age of diminishing virtue and failing courage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in which we tolerate any manifestation of atavistic excess anywhere in the world provided it does not upset our convenience or our illusions. It is an age in which we view with apparent indifference and lethargy the growth of a tyranny bent on destruction of all the values we should hold dear.
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is making a debating point, but I should have thought that in the thirties opposition to the aims of one of the most evil régimes in the world, that of Nazi Germany, would disprove what he is saying.
    Mr. Hastings: Of course I concede. That was an encouraging example on the other side, but I am seeking to show that we can take two views about this famous "progress" at present. I think there would be those who would advance the idea that in this country now disorder is tolerated virtually to the point of reverence. I do not lay that at the door of the Government, but I think it is broadly true. This is an age in which
    1430
    practically every moral and ethical conviction and standard has slipped. Many would say that our society at present is sick, and many would hold that this conviction about progress is misplaced.
    The second ground or assumption on which it is argued that the hereditary peerage should be done away with is that heredity is bad because it is undemocratic. What I am about to say may be unpopular and unfashionable, but I think that it can be justified in the context of the argument. We idolise democracy. This fashion for regarding democracy as the only form of good government stems, of course, from the Jacobin movement originally and to a great extent was supported by the forces of the Marxist historical analysis, the impact of which has gone far to conceal its own sinister implications and the glaring nonsense of its own conclusion. But, political analysis did not start with Hegel's dialectic or with Marx. Aristotle made a far more enduring and lasting contribution to political analysis ages before.
    Democracy is just another form of government. It can be good or bad. There is hardly a country which does not claim to be democratic in one form or another. Democracy in the Soviet Union is impeccable; 99 per cent. of all the people there always vote Aye and they claim to be democratic. I contend that democracy is good only in proportion to the extent that it rests upon liberty. Liberty, in turn, is based upon the concept of property and upon the rule of law.
    I would assert, to finish this section of my remarks, that it is possible for these foundations to be eroded and for liberty to be confined under a democracy, as under any other form of government, if there is no check upon that excess.
    Mr. Henig: On a point of order. If the remarks which have already been made were in order, as presumably they were, when other hon. Members speak in this debate will we be allowed to discuss Plato in more detail, Hegel in more detail, Marx in more detail, and many other philosophical concepts in more detail, because I think that to do so would make for a most interesting debate?
    The Chairman: I think the answer is that the hon. Gentleman saw that I was edging forward on my chair and about to intervene, but I

    1431
    postponed that moment because the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that he was coming to the end of that part of his speech. I am having great difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.
    Mr. Hastings: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) would welcome such a widening of the debate, because I understand that that was his business for years, anyway, before he came to the House of Commons.
    I finish here. Under this new Constitution, without the hereditary principle, if this hereditary group of peers is not preserved in the House of Lords, there will be no independent check of the kind that exists now over the democratic system, which in fact could develop—there are historical parallels—by degrees into tyranny. By this Amendment we seek to preserve this important check of the existence of 75 independent peers.
    Throughout the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth century—this is an important constitutional Measure, and I am convinced, Mr. Irving, that a short investigation into our history is not irrelevant—the two great merits of our Constitution, as I understand it, were held to be "the separation of powers" and what was known as "mixed government". This was recognised by such notable authorities as Montesquieu, Blackstone, de Lolme, Paley and Burke, all of whom spoke and wrote with great relevance upon what we are engaged in discussing tonight.
    "Mixed government" consisted in an equipoise, which they believed to be brilliantly conceived, between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Each Estate, in their view, had its merits and its demerits. Each worked as a check upon the other. Together they ensured stability and a peaceful evolution for the British people. We do not have to delve very deep into history to trace how the weight of power here has shifted. It has been foreseen—
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is really making a Second Reading speech. He must be more precise
    1432
    in addressing himself to the Amendment than he is at the moment.
    Mr. Hastings: Mr. Irving, I am seeking to show the danger if the hereditary principle is dropped and there is no hereditary element left in the House of Lords. With deep respect, I think that to trace how this power has steadily left first the Royal Prerogative and then the House of Lords itself and passed to the House of Commons alone is, in an important respect, relevant to my general argument.
    The Chairman: Order. The Amendments are addressed to doing certain precise things. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to how he would bring these things about.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hastings: I conclude, on this aspect of the matter, by pointing out that the power of the majority, that is, the power of the Commons, will be unchallenged if we do away with the hereditary principle altogether. We seek by our Amendments to preserve some check upon it through the independent peers.
    At any given time, only a proportion of hereditary peers—this would apply in the future, too—are effective as legislators. But it is fair to suggest that we are not all necessarily so effective in this place, despite our hallowed democratic origins. A group of 75 elected within the existing peerage would contain a high proportion of effective legislators. They would, furthermore, be motivated—this is a legel mate point—by the need to legislate for posterity at least they would not be impelled so much as this House to legislate for immediate popularity. There is an important difference there. They would be answerable, as they are today, to no one but their own conscience, and not one of us can in honesty claim that that is so in our case, for we are answerable to our constituents, to the Whips and to a number of other influences which would not apply to them.
    I admit that heredity is unfair. All accidents of birth are unfair. Life itself is unfair. It is unfair for a politician to get himself elected and become Prime Minister on a set of promises and pledges which, afterwards, perhaps, he has no intention of carrying out—even sometimes doing the precise opposite of what he said he would do. That is unfair.

    1433
    There is another important aspect of the matter, I would remind the Committee of a dictum of Montesquieu:
    "Nobility is essential to a limited monarchy. Neither could survive without the other. Abolish the nobility and either a despotism or a republic would result."
    Under the Clause unamended, a long step would have been taken towards just that situation, whether we recognise it at present or not. And I am well aware that there are hon. Members opposite who would wish precisely that.
    The case for heredity has not been put better in a sentence or two in recent, months, since the present controversy started, than in a letter in The Times from Garter King of Arms. I shall quote one passage:
    "Is there nothing to be said for containing the great force of 'family first' in political forms stronger, because closer to its own biological nature, than those dictated by the optimism of the 18th-century enlightenment or later rationalism?"
    Yes there is plenty to be said. The prejudice against heredity and against this Amendment is a compound of fashion and of fear. A fashion of politics which has grown since the end of the 18th century, which has distorted history and has created an arrogant illusion of progress which does not in reality exist. A fashion for popular Government for the sake of its appearance, and, at times, at the expense of the true objectives of good Government as I have tried to describe them.
    That fashion is the work of a political movement which, in its extreme form, has for too long been the curse of Europe and of the civilised world and which, again in extreme form, has brought untold misery to countless people, and with which many hon. Members opposite, consciously or unconsciously, are in some measure, infected. It is the result of fashion I said and of fear, the fear of appearing to be unfashionable. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular that we have nothing to be afraid of. Fashion is by definition changeable, and to fear it is too often to compromise with our convictions. There is some danger for us in that at present.
    Finally, we are told that a merit of the Bill is that it has been agreed between the two principal parties, and that concessions
    1434
    are naturally necessary to any agreement of this kind. Presumably the abolition of a functioning hereditary peerage is one of those concessions. Which of us has ever concluded a satisfactory agreement, commercial, legal or whatever, on the basis that we started determined above all to reach agreement? If that is our frame of mind, we are lost; yet that seems to me to be the frame of mind in which this Clause was conceived.
    Let us not fear what we know to be wrong. Let us change it. I do not say that my suggestion of a group of 75 is precisely the best way, but it would go far to improve what at present is an appalling hash of a Bill.
    Mr. Heffer: We should be most grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for giving us a first-class exposition of extreme Right-wing thinking about the whole question of the reform of the House of Lords. In a sense, this is the traditional Tory attitude to the other place.
    We should be grateful to the hon. Member for bringing it out as he has, because it is obvious that he is still living very much in the 15th century, about which we talked earlier. He has not advanced, except in certain directions which are somewhat sinister in a sense. By that I mean that we have heard before the talk about decadence, the sickness of society and the lack of virtue in society. It all has a very familiar ring. I can remember, as a young boy coming into the democratic Labour movement, hearing such things emanating from people in central Europe, who said that they would put Europe and the world in order, but established one of the most horrible dictatorial regimes ever known.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman precisely what he meant when he said that Nazi Germany was an encouraging example on the other side. I may have misunderstood him.
    Mr. Hastings: I was replying to the Minister, who quoted this as an example of what society has achieved in comparatively recent years. I was conceding it without reservation.
    Mr. Heffer: I accept that, but at the time it sounded rather bad to me. I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman

    1435
    by no means meant what I thought was implied in that statement.
    I find the Amendments fascinating. One suggests that the hereditary peers should elect 20 of their number who will then be permanently in the reformed House of Lords. The other suggests that we should have 75. For the purposes of what I think we should do if we are to extend this principle, 75 would be very satisfactory.
    We should perhaps think of taking the principle a little further. Let us see what we can do with it. Let us decide, for example, that, in the new, reformed House of Lords, we should allow the dockers to elect 75 of their members to it and that the agricultural workers, the carpenters, the joiners and the bricklayers should elect 75 each from their own ranks. I will even concede that the lawyers should elect 75 of their members, and also the university teachers and the students.
    Mr. Albert Booth: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the lawyers might have to deduct some members so as to bring their representation down to 75?
    Mr. Heffer: That is an interesting thought.
    Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that the important thing is to have continuity—for example, that the son of a coal miner makes a good coal miner because his dad was a good coal miner and so the son of a peer makes a jolly fine peer and is very good in the House of Lords because his dad was a peer.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that the hereditary peers should have 20 or 75 Members to look after their interests. I am suggesting that all these other sections of the community should have 75 representatives each to look after their interests. Let us get them all in. On that basis, the new, reformed House of Lords would perhaps have about 75,000 Members. Then we could erect a great marquee on Clapham Common for the representatives of all these various sections of the country.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I hope that, later, I shall have the hon. Gentleman's support for Amendment No. 128, which proposes that one-third of the House of
    1436
    Lords should be elected from societies, associations, trade unions and other bodies so that there will be a genuine election of the great interests of the country.
    Mr. Heffer: I will be happy to discuss that later. It has great possibilities as well. Indeed, I see immense possibilities in the Bill. It may be that, if we discuss the Bill for the next two and a half months, we shall never arrive at a conclusion as to what we should do.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a serious speech. I have been humorous up to a point, but there is a serious side to this and we should treat it seriously—although I must admit that I find it a little difficult to do so. However, I will do my best. The hon. Member says that he would be happy to leave it to the House of Lords to decide who they would elect. He wants to give the peers a privileged position again. Going through the history of our country, he rightly said that the Royal Prerogative has been whittled away and, with it, the power of the peers. If we understand the history of our country, we know full well that, to expand and extend the democratic principle of involving wider and wider sections of our people in government, there has always had to be a struggle against the privileged minorities. The fight for democracy has been the struggle against the privileged minorities.
    9.15 p.m.
    In a sense, the English Civil War occurred because of the rise of the middle classes in the cities, who complained of being excluded from having a say in the running of the country, although the country's wealth was being built on their efforts and no longer on the efforts of the landed aristocracy. But the landed aristocracy were intelligent people. Although they nearly upset the applecart by fighting strenuously against the cities and towns during the Civil War, they later recognised their mistake and compromised and made certain that they intermarried with the industrialists of the towns. But, in a sense, that, too, was a struggle for the extension of democracy.
    It was still rather like the Greek democracy of the days of Aristotle; it was a democracy of the slave owners, and for the slaves there was no democracy. Although the Civil War extended

    1437
    democracy, the mass of the people who worked in the factories, the fields and the mines were still excluded. To use the modern American expression, they said, "We want a bit of the action". As a result there was a fight which ended in the great Reform Bill of 1832, and that was another extension and expansion of democracy and an attack on the powers and privileges of the other place. We have now reached a stage in our society when we have to say that the powers and privileges—
    The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has reached the stage when he can come to the Amendment.
    Mr. Heffer: I am coming to the Amendment now. I am suggesting that the Amendment would mean that, instead of taking that further step towards democracy, the complete elimination of the last vestiges of the privileges of the peers—and, unfortunately, the Bill does not take that final step—instead of removing the last vestiges of the powers and privileges of a class which feels that it is born to rule, the Amendment will continue the privileges of the class which is clinging to some vestige of power.
    The Chairman: With the exception of the first Amendment, which is a paving Amendment, each of the Amendments in the group relates to the right of hereditary peers to elect a certain number to be peers as provided by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to that issue.
    Mr. Heffer: With due respect, Mr. Irving, although you may think that I have not been addressing myself to this question, I can assure you that I think most hon. Members know precisely that I have been doing so for the whole of my argument. This is what it is all about.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been addressing himself to the Amendment, but not in a sufficiently precise way for Committee stage. He is really making a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Heffer: I am not making a Second Reading speech. I am talking about the Amendment. It says that the hereditary peers will elect from among their number either 20 or 75 hereditary peers, who will then sit in a reformed House of Lords, and will be permanently in on the basis
    1438
    of the new Measure which will give them this right. If this is accepted it means that this class which the 20 or 75 will represent, will be clinging on to their last vestiges of political power, to which they have no right to cling.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that the hereditary principle goes to the heart of the Bill, and I agree. This is why it is such a mess; it is neither one thing nor the other. It is neither the abolition of the House of Lords and the hereditary principle, nor the acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is something in between, which satisfies no one, and that is why, in a sense we are allies in this battle against the Bill. It does not satisfy either the landed aristocracy or the proletariat. Neither principle is acceptable.
    I would like to quote from Robert Barnabas Brough, who wrote a poem called "My Lord Tomnoddy". It says:
    "My Lord Tomnoddy is thirty-four;
    The Earl can last but a few years more.
    My Lord in the Peers will take his place;
    His Majesty's councils his words will grace.
    Office he'll hold and patronage sway;
    Fortunes and lives he will vote away;
    And what are his qualifications?—
    ONE!
    He's the Earl of Fitzdotterel's eldest son."
    Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps I can begin by assuring you, Mr. Irving, that I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in a somewhat inaccurate discourse of historical events. I must make one comment however. When he referred to the hereditary peerage as a privileged minority, I am bound to say that I can think of many sections of the community who are much more privileged than the hereditary peerage, but who use their privilege far less responsibly.
    We have debated the principle and basis of the hereditary peerage for a long time. It would be absurd to suppose that the two groups on either side of the Committee can agree about it. Of course we cannot. What we probably can agree upon is to respect each other's point of view, it being a point of view held sincerely.
    The group of Amendments before the Committee now, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), do not suggest that the House of Lords

    1439
    should be composed solely of hereditary peers. It is not now. They do not suggest that the reformed House of Lords should be composed mainly of hereditary peers. It is not now.
    I am entirely in favour of reforming the House of Lords, partly because I can see no point in the present Chamber having powers which it cannot use.
    But I see no point in replacing the present Chamber with a newly-constituted Chamber and giving it powers which, if it uses them, will be taken away, which was the most unwise threat made by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. That would be an absolute farce. I have a feeling that the Home Secretary will live to regret that remark. What my hon. Friends and I suggest is that the hereditary element in the House of Lords should not be eliminated, but should be elected by their fellow hereditary peers.
    I am not wedded to the figure of 75, or 20, as is proposed in another Amendment. We could argue for a long time about numbers. There is no law of the Medes and Persians about 75. I am concerned that the hereditary element should not disappear completely. Election by their fellow peers worked very well with the Scottish peers. No one has said that it did not. I have always thought it a great pity that in the last legislation put on the Statute Book changing the composition of the House of Lords election by their fellow peers should have been taken away.
    Hon. Members opposite may say that the hereditary peerage is an anachronism. Perhaps it is. I am not so sure. I have a feeling—and probably I am as accurate in my history as the hon. Member for Walton—that the hereditary element in government, in this country at any rate, has lasted a great deal longer than the elected element and goes far deeper into history. I also have the feeling—and this was put very well in the article in The Times, to which reference has been made—that the principle of one man, one vote is not necessarily the universal cure or protection against all forms of oppression.
    The Leader of the House knows that I am making a serious point—whether he agrees with it is neither here nor there—when I say that in its anachronis-
    1440
    tic way the hereditary system in the House of Lords has produced, in generation after generation, men of great integrity, of great ability and, above all, of independence. I would put the last of those qualities almost at the top, because in any reformed second Chamber, with whatever powers it is given, it is extremely important that, however constituted, it should have ballast. One cannot run any legislative chamber without ballast. The ballast is far more reliable and far less likely to be influenced by undesirable elements if it is weighted on the side of the hereditary element rather than on the side of the nominated element.
    I would far rather have the ballast, or safeguard, whatever one likes to call it, with a small element of hereditary peers elected by their fellow hereditary peers than rely on the cross-benchers in the House of Lords who, by their very nature, can rarely agree among themselves about anything.
    There is a second reason why I am in favour of a small elected hereditary element. As I say, it is important to have ballast in the second Chamber. It is equally important to have a proportion of youngish men. By "youngish men" I mean men between the ages of, say, 35 and 45, which is a very elastic age group. If it does not contain youngish men, the second Chamber will consist of a lot of older people of 60 years of age plus, nominated from elsewhere, who are coming to the evening of their lives. The second Chamber cannot function unless there is an element of youngish men in it.
    I do not know a better way of finding younger men, between 35 and 45, than through the hereditary system. The Prime Minister of the day will not be able to write to the Trades Union Congress and to big commercial firms asking whether three, four or five men of ability, halfway up the ladder, are prepared to drop their careers to come into the second Chamber and be voting peers, perhaps for a couple of Parliaments only, and unpaid. That is sheer nonsense, and I suspect that the Government Front Bench know it.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: What about the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench?
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Lastly, an element of hereditary peers elected by their fellow peers, while not being perhaps the tidiest way, might be one way of solving the problem—at present unsolved—of the great officers of State, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Duke of Norfolk has a seat in the other place for as long as he lives. He can function as Earl Marshal on great State occasions and he can be a voting peer until the age of 72. When he dies, which, I hope, will not be for a very long time, his successor, who happens to be a cousin, would succeed to the dukedom of Norfolk and to the functions of Earl Marshal, but would not necessarily have a seat in the House of Lords. The office of Earl Marshal has been in existence for about 600 years. I am a traditionalist and consider that the Earl Marshal should have a seat in the other place so that he can function properly on great State occasions. One way of solving the problem would be for peers to be elected by their fellow peers.
    Will the Minister say what is to happen about the great officers of State? Is their future secure, or are the Government hoping that something will turn up to put right this anomaly? For these reasons and others I strongly support my hon. Friends in this Amendment.
    Mr. Henig: I will for a moment follow on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). One of our objections on this side is that the other place has become a museum and many of us would feel in the matter of the Earl Marshal and other officers of State that the nation could at a pinch survive if we abolished the lot. If maces were needed for ceremonies perhaps one of my hon. Friends would be willing to participate. To suggest that this vital constitutional reform should be held up because of the Earl Marshal and other officers of State is the worst argument I have ever heard.
    Whereas the my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was poetic, may I be prosaic and tell a story which I believe to be true, although it may not be. It concerns a lord of the manor who, when riding round his estate, came across a serf standing in the way. He asked the serf to move. The serf said, "Why should I?" The lord of the manor replied,
    1442
    "Because this is my land". The serf then asked him, "Why is it?" The reply came, "My ancestors fought for it". The serf retorted, "Well, get off your horse, take off your jacket, and I will fight you for it now".
    When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) introduced his Amendment, it may be that we could be excused for thinking of him as an exponent of the divine right of kings. He spoke about the monarchy and its need to be supported by a strong and thriving aristocracy. However, amongst the surviving constitutional monarchies of Europe, in Sweden, for example, there is no aristocracy on the kind of pattern that the hon. Gentleman would preserve. Moreover, Sweden combines a monarchy with a reasonably socially democratic system. I should have thought that that disproved the arguments in support of the Amendment.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the separation of powers which is, he said, inherent in the British Constitution and, therefore, is another reason for making the Amendment. I submit, however, that the idea of the separation of powers being inherent in the constitution was irrelevant in the days of Montesquieu and is now a relic on the wall. Montesquieu was wrong when he analysed the British Constitution, though it was a good effort, and, in following him, the Americans have adopted the wrong model. But perhaps to some extent they are stuck with it.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What safeguard, if any, has the hon. Gentleman in mind against a uni-cameral dictatorship? If a majority in the House of Commons was dominated by a despotism—
    The Chairman: Order. I think that both hon. Members are getting wide of the Amendment. We are concerned with the composition of the other place in respect of the election by hereditary peers of certain members to sit in the reformed Chamber.
    Mr. Henig: I take the point, Mr. Irving. I was dealing with the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Amendment. If they were all out of order, as I suspect, presumably the Amendment itself is out of order.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) was the first to urge me to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order. I hope that he will rely on his own judgment and not go wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Henig: I accept that, Mr. Irving, and I will do my best to observe your Ruling.
    The fundamental objection to the Amendment is that it upsets the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to reform the House of Lords as it exists today, where the majority of members are there by the principle of hereditary and for no other reason.
    It is deceptive to talk about 20, 30 or even 75 hereditary members being there to provide some sort of ballast. In the kind of streamlined second Chamber proposed by the Bill, an extra group of 75 hereditary peers clearly will make a considerable difference. In supporting the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, I am bound to observe that those 75 will not be there for any intrinsic reason based upon their merit. Apparently it is being argued that the existing House of Lords based on hereditary members can be trusted to use the one man one vote principle in the same way as any other citizen. However, they should not be given anything like the weighting suggested that for every ten hereditary peers there should be one representative. After all, we as Members are used to representing 50,000 or 57,000 electors.
    Then I want to deal with the point which has been made about young men. This is the argument which was used when the House of Commons was being reformed. It was said that young men could come into the House only as representatives of rotten boroughs and, therefore, if the House of Commons was reformed and the rotten boroughs were got rid of, we should never have any young men. I think that we on this side of the House have disproved that theory in recent years, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to reform their party they can do the same. The same applies to the House of Lords.
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: There is one essential difference between this House and the other place. It is that hon. Members of this House enjoy salaries.
    Mr. Henig: They also have to fight elections. My point is that young men have been able to work themselves into this House without the advantage of birth to help them. Similarly, young men can be, and are, eligible for appointment to the other House. In industry and in other walks of life young men in their 20s and 30s are making tremendous contributions. I think that it would be possible for the Government to find young men to serve in the other House, whether they were paid or not. If these young men were not making a contribution in other walks of life they would not be good enough to be in the other Chamber.
    Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend should be clear on the matter of pay. Great objections were raised within the Labour Party to payment and the Government were forced to drop it, at least temporarily; but this was the original intention of the agreement between the Opposition and the Government.
    Mr. Henig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important point on record.
    Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his advice. How will a young man living in Scotland, with no means of his own be able to serve in a reformed House of Lords without pay?
    Mr. William Hamilton: By fighting to get into this one.
    Mr. Henig: What chance do I stand with my hon. Friend in such sparkling form ! The way for someone wishing to make a political contribution to this country is to fight, like everyone else, to get into the House of Commons. The idea of a reformed House of Lords is to have a Chamber consisting of people who have contributed, or are contributing, to the country in other ways and, in the capacity of a second Chamber, contributing to legislation being passed. I am saying that if there are young men who fulfil these qualifications, then it is right that they should be appointed as Members of a reformed House of Lords.
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is meeting the point. If he will meet it properly perhaps the

    1445
    Committee will understand. Is it his contention that some one living in a remote part of the country without private means could afford to come and work in the House of Lords without pay? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how it is done?
    Mr. Henig: I am putting forward the contention that the rightful objective of a person in that position would be to serve in this House. I hardly think that a young man in his 20s or 30s would make it his lifetime's ambition to work in the House of Lords when there were such happier pastures in this place. My point is that that person would be doing something else. The Government would be right to pay certain expenses if he came down and participated in it, and it may—
    The Chairman: Order. Incidental references to pay may be in order, but to go any wider would be out of order.
    Mr. Henig: You are right, Mr. Irving, to bring me to order at this point, because it may be that we are straying rather wide of the considerations. My point was that it was wrong to say that there would not be young men in a reformed House of Lords, just as it was wrong 130 years ago to say that a reformed House of Commons would mean there would be no young men in it.
    The idea behind the Amendment is to resurrect as a special class that group of people whom we are trying to stop being a special class. The word "class" here has a double significance. Hereditary peers are not a comprehensive section or selection of the population. They are concentrated into certain income groups and into certain geographical and occupational groups as well. They are in no sense representative. That is why the Bill is put forward. We now have this back door suggestion of allowing several hundred totally unrepresentative people to benefit from a representative principle, which they are apparently against, by sending 75 of their number to prejudice the reformed second Chamber from its beginning. We on this side, cannot accept that.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) in moving the Amendment, referred to the relationship between democracy and liberty. I am
    1446
    sure that everyone will agree that democracy can only be founded on liberty, but liberty is the enemy of entrenched privilege, and so long as entrenched privilege exists both liberty and democracy are impossible.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Though I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) in my concern about the position of the Great Officers of State, I think that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) was very ungracious in his reference to the Earl Marshal. Those who have had experience of these matters admire enormously the skill and care with which the great ceremonies of State have been organised by the Earl Marshal.
    Mr. Peart Mr. Peart indicated assent.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House agrees with me.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Henig: I should like to make it clear that I was not impugning anything personal against the present Earl Marshal. I was suggesting that we could dispense with some of the offices of State, and appoint ordinary individuals to carry out those duties.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has explained that. His reference to "anybody can hold a mace" seemed to be an extraordinary reflection, in the direct context of the present Earl Marshal, on the man who organised Sir Winston Churchill's funeral, one of the most splendid bits of ceremonial this country has ever seen. Those who have seen how much better ceremonial is done in this country than in any other have cause to be grateful to the present Duke of Norfolk for the devotion to duty that he shows. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up what he meant, because I wanted to get it clear that no one here was casting a reflection on a public officer who has shown so much regard for his duties even though these duties are hereditary and perhaps particularly because they are duties which have come to him by right of heredity.
    I am concerned with nothing on this Amendment except the practical question of how to get the best possible Upper Chamber. I do not think that we should

    1447
    confuse this by reference to privilege. Indeed, privilege seems an odd word to describe the doing of a considerable amount of arduous public duty, particularly when it is to be done, if we believe the Prime Minister, for nothing. It seems an odd description of privilege.
    Surely what we are concerned with is to get the best possible composition for a Chamber, accepting, as the great majority on both sides of the Committee accept, that we want to have a second Chamber. I am with the Government in rejecting the idea of any form of popular election for a second Chamber. I am certain that that way lies great danger to this House, that a second Chamber fortified by a popular mandate would seriously affect the position of this House.
    For practical purposes, one is driven back to a membership based on either nomination or some modified degree of heredity. If one is being fair, one has to admit that both those sources of membership have their disadvantages. I do not think the Lord President of the Council would deny that a House based entirely on nomination, whether by the Prime Minister, or by my right hon. Friend, or even by the Leader of the Liberal Party, if he was sufficiently interested, which he does not appear to be, to exercise his right in that way—in fact he would not nominate anybody, because he would not be here to do it—there would be a loss of independence, however one tried to do it, or whatever device of crossbench peers one used.
    Equally, I accept that in our present stage of thinking there are difficulties about heredity. Perhaps I might say in parenthesis that when most of our fellow countrymen think of entrusting their money to a horse or to a dog they are very much interested in the heredity of that animal. But is not there a case for, as the Amendment proposes, a mixture of the two? Would not we get a more balanced second Chamber if, accepting for the purpose of this Amendment the Government's proposal and the proposal made by some of my right hon. Friends for a House largely nominated, we also have a separate section dependent on election by the present peerage? There we introduce an element of greater independence, possibly offset in the views of some hon. Members by the hereditary basis but
    1448
    existing as a counter-balance to the excessive dependence of the nominated element.
    Is there not, if one is constructing a second Chamber which one hopes will work well without challenging the position of this House, something to be said for a mixture? It would have an advantage in a particular circumstance which I referred to on Second Reading. I mentioned the situation which could arise in the event of a Government with a majority in this House desiring to perpetuate its majority by extending the life of a Parliament. I said that no constitutional safeguard of powers is an adequate protection if the composition is such that the Government are in control of the second Chamber. It does not matter if legally the second Chamber can resist this House if the Government here have an effective majority there.
    If we introduce, as the Amendments propose, an element nominated neither by the Prime Minister nor by my right hon. Friend nor even by the absentee Liberals—
    Mr. Birch: Oh, no: I spoke for them
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon Friend would do the Liberal Party far too great a compliment by acting on their behalf. I saw him impersonating the right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party. My only reflection was how much more handsome the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) had suddenly become.
    To come back to the point that I was putting when my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) saw fit, in his characteristically kindly way to assist me, if there is another element not nominated by any party but based on this system of election by the present peerage, that is a substantial safeguard against any majority in this House seeking to perpetuate itself by extending the life of a Parliament. I put considerable importance on this, because most students of our constitution take the view that one of the major arguments for a second Chamber is to provide a safeguard against just that. This is an additional argument in its favour.
    But to take the practical point with which I began, of trying to create a Chamber which will be a good Chamber,

    1449
    it cannot be disputed that the present peerage could and almost certainly would, from their membership, elect a number of people whose personal distinction, ability and experience would be of very great value. Indeed, I only wonder whether, in suggesting 75, my hon. Friend is not unduly limiting a very good source of recruitment for the Upper House, but I leave that point. Seventy-five excellent people could be selected.
    Are we going to be so rich in talent and ability at the other end of the corridor that we can forgo this source of supply? It has already been said that this system worked very well in respect of the Scottish representative peers, and there is the advantage in a comparatively small electorate of this sort that, on the whole, they know one another and they know the possibilities of the candidates perhaps better than any other electoral body knows the people that it is electing. For that reason, they can be relied upon not only to elect suitable people but—this is equally important—not to elect unsuitable ones.
    I therefore ask the Government not to be so bound up with the idea that nomination is the only method as to reject out of hand these proposals. We are in Committee and one has, for that purpose, therefore, to accept the main picture of the Upper House as the Government see it. But would it not be a better House if it had this further element in it which would be of high personal quality and would possess a degree of personal independence of political parties, of Governments and Oppositions, which the rest of the Chamber would not?
    The Government are introducing what the Prime Minister rightly told us was a major constitutional reform. They want, not only because they want to do their best but because their reputation is very much tied up with the success or failure of this exercise, a really impressive and effective second Chamber. I ask the Leader of the House to reflect on whether he is not likely to get, and get the credit for creating, a better second Chamber if he adds this additional element than if he closes his mind and, for purely doctrinal reasons, rejects it.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr.
    1450
    Boyd-Carpenter) will recall his Second Reading speech in which he spoke of the Prime Minister's motives in rejecting the proposal in the White Paper concerning pay. He said on that occasion that that was duplicity on the part of the Prime Minister to placate his Left wing and to get the Bill on to the Statute Book. He also said that the Prime Minister would immediately afterwards bring in an Order to give the peers the salary which he now says they will not get. That was also the gist of part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
    On Second Reading, I said that that was my fear. If, however, that happened, and they were given a salary, the position which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) posed would not arise, because the young gentleman without independent means would have a salary; and, simply by virtue of having a hereditary title, he would go to the House of Lords. If there is such a young man without independent means, then, by definition, he would be quite worthless and would not deserve a seat in any legislature; that is, unless he fought a General Election and got here by the democratic process.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must have made a slip of the tongue. Did he really mean to say that a young gentleman without private means must, by definition, be worthless?
    Mr. Hamilton: A young man without private means is, by definition, not entitled, simply because he has a title, to go to the other place. That is the point I wished to make. If he has no private means and wishes to enter politics, this is the place for him to come.
    Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the position of State officials, such as the Earl Marshal. I have no disrespect for that gentleman. While we could do without him, he does a reasonable job. That is not prejudice one way or the other as to whether he should have a seat in the House of Lords. After all, he need not have a seat there to do his job, and the same applies to his successors.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames spoke of the threat under the Bill of this House prolonging the life of a Parliament because the Government of the day were assured of a majority. He assumes that this danger will be more

    1451
    prevalent with a Labour than a Conservative Government. If the Amendment were accepted—remembering that the hereditary peers are predominantly Conservative—and 20 or 75 of their number were elected in the way described, then presumably those 20 or 75 would be predominantly Conservative peers, and there would still be a built-in Conservative majority when a Conservative Government were in power.
    There would then be nothing to stop that Conservative Government from extending the life of a Parliament, so that the danger of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke would be more real under a Conservative than under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That sounds convincing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult those who have had the problem of managing the Conservative peers. He may recall the saying of a former Chief Whip of that House, "It is easy to get them there, but deuce difficult to get them into the right Lobby."
    Mr. Hamilton: It was not difficult to get them there on the Rhodesia Order, the
    Burmah Oil Measure, or the Rent Act, with which the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, concerned.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman was talking about extending the life of a Parliament.
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply in his remarks that heredity produced quality. He mentioned dog or horse racing. I suggest that there is more selectivity on a stud farm than there is in the hereditary peerage.
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put:—
  That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]
  The House Divided: Ayes 155, Noes 50.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

  Archer, Peter

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

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bence, Cyril

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Binns, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ellis, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Blackburn, F.

  English, Michael

  Lawson, George

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Ennals, David

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Booth, Albert

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Boyden, James

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  McBride, Neil

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McCann, John

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

  Finch, Harold

  MacColl, James

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McGuire, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington, E.)

  Mackie, John

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

  Ford, Ben

  Maclennan, Robert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fowler, Gerry

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mal1alieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

  Coe, Denis

  Freeson, Reginald

  Manuel, Archie

  Coleman, Donald

  Gardner, Tony

  Marquand, David

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gregory, Arnold

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)

  Cutler, Mrs. Alice

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Hannan, William

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Delargy, Hugh

  Howie, W.

  Oram, Albert E.

  Dell, Edmund

  Hoy, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hynd, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Whitlock, William

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pentland, Norman

  Slater, Joseph

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Small, William

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Probert, Arthur

  Swingler, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Randall, Harry

  Taverne, Dick

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Rees, Merlyn

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Winnick, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Urwin, T. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Richard, Ivor

  Varley, Eric G.

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mr. Charles R. Morris.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Biffen, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John

  Jopling, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Cooke, Robert

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Temple, John M.

  Crouch, David

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mawby, Ray

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Monro, Hector

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Eden, Sir John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Farr, John

  Neave, Airey

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Sir Gerald Nabarre and

  Goodhart, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
[MR. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]
Question again proposed.
Mr. Hamilton: I was saying, before we were interrupted, that there is more scientific selectivity on the stud farm than there is in the hereditary peerage. Therein lies the basic objection which we on this side have to the bunch of Amendments now before us. If any one of them were accepted, it would enshrine the principle that a special status and special rights attach to hereditary peers. We should simply be underlining it.
It is significant that the only poll conducted among the peers themselves was carried out some time ago by Professor Peter Broomhead, of Bristol University, and that the idea of selection or election of peers by peers to serve in the other House was the only proposition which received general support among all sections of Members of the other place. That seems to me to be the soundest of reasons why we should reject it.
Miss Quennell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Fife, West
1454
(Mr. William Hamilton), and I am glad that chance has enabled me to speak after the interruption at 10 o'clock rather than before. However, I shall follow not the hon. Gentleman's arguments. It seems to me that this group of Amendments holds within it a fundamental principle of great concern to the country.
The question before us here is whether there should be in the newly reformed upper House a group of men and women utterly independent of the party machine and party Whips, people capable of acting independently and without fear of the Front Benches and the usual channels, as they are commonly called in this place. Of latter years, the country has been concerned that Parliament is not sufficiently strong to control the Executive. The country wants both Houses to be able to exert greater pressure on any Government at any time.
I think that I speak for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we feel ourselves to be diminished by the pressure of Government business perpetually encroaching on the rights of Private Members. What the country wants is that both Houses should exert control over expenditure. But what have we got? We have the power of the modern Whipping machine. Let us make no bones about it.

1455
Hon. Members opposite have referred to their election manifesto. It is true that in 1966 they spoke of the reform of the other place. But let us face facts. In the public mind reform means strengthening, not weakening. One reason why the other place is not popular with either Front Bench is that, by the very nature of its hereditary personnel, it possesses an independence which we here do not possess, independence of the party machine. There are hon. Members on both sides who have had the experience of being requested by their Executives to explain certain little matters which are troubling the Executives. There are also the Whips.
Therefore, the other place is looked at askance by the two Front Benches, and with some alarm by the party machines and Whips. I see my hon. Friends in deep collusion at the moment, and the Patronage Secretary is absent. I do not blame him. So we get the spectacle of this unnatural cohabitation between the two Front Benches, the constitutional conspiracy and collusion which has produced the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 1 provides for the creation of political "Hush Puppies" that will go trapsing up the corridor as a result. Let us consider who these dear people will be. We have it from the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that the younger men will come here. We can understand what they expect will go to another place. Those "Hush Puppies" will be sensitive to the party machines and the Whips. They are the people who must never, never change their minds. They will be balanced by others who will never, never make theirs up. What a way to strengthen Parliament! What a thing to introduce when what the country wants is a stronger Parliament and not a weaker one!
What the second Chamber needs, as does this Chamber, are men of independence who can make up their minds fearlessly, and only by the introduction of some such device as my hon. Friends have suggested in the Amendments will that be secured.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) wants the in-
1456
dependence of the House of Lords to continue. But she should remember that its independence has been shown on some very peculiar occasions and in some very odd ways. When it comes to matters of self-interest, their Lordships have not always shown that kind of independence that comes from a neutral attitude.
The debate has given me an interesting outline of current reactionary views, which have proceeded unknown to me until now. I have not heard current reactionary views for many years. During the discussion of the merits of the Earl Marshal and various people whose duties and performances I did not fully understand, I was brought up to date with what is a small number of people, both in the House and the country, are trying to defend. When I heard the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talk about the poor Highland crofter going to the House of Lords and not being paid to go there, I found it very difficult to imagine his full plight.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) asked for a certain amount of ballast to be found in the other place, which he considered to be one of its great merits. "Ballast" is a word that sounds very good. It gives the impression of stability, and so on, but when we analyse it we find that it means what it very often used to mean when spoken by Tory politicians. It means men basically of reactionary views, men who are solid in their opposition to change. If that is what ballast really means, there is not a deficiency of that kind. To me, at any rate, there is a surfeit of this sort of reaction.
Then we have heard, as we always do when discussing the abolition of certain aspects of privilege, the plea for the young, because no one will accept somebody who is basically immature unless he is the product of a privileged society. Amongst these immature young men who have the enormous advantage of birth handed to them, it is obvious that one will find here and there those with talent. We find that sort of situation in every nursery or kindergarten in the country. But these young men with a little more talent than their fellows possess are cited as examples of the need for youth, produced from an inner egalitarian society.

1457
If there is so much to be said for youth, we can surely find better ways of producing these young men. I believe that we have not even begun to tap the levels of ability in young men who would be delighted to give something in the interests of public life. We need to look in that direction.
Sir Douglas Glover: Of course they want to make their abilities known to the public. They want to come to the House of Commons.
Mr. Sheldon: I could not agree more. If we are to have the House of Lords proposed in the Bill—and I am opposed to it—I concede the case for some younger people than perhaps the 60-year-olds who look like going there. We can surely find a better method of making use of the talent available in the country and which is only too ready to be harnessed to public life.
The Amendment deals with the election of hereditary peers by their own fellows. Clearly, the crucial part rests on the basis that these people have something to give to public life that cannot be given by others in selecting a group of people to represent particular interests. If these people had something extra to give than is available to the commonalty of the people, the argument might be acceptable, but one of the most striking features about those who have had privileged upbringing resulting from privileged birth is that the kind of understanding they have of the world is not particularly valid.
They have suffered little. They have struggled hardly at all. Although no one wants to increase struggle or suffering, nevertheless we understand that some of our basic attitudes are largely based on a certain amount of suffering that is inescapable in life and on a certain amount of struggle which is also part of the process of reaching understanding and reason. The ordinary day-to-day problems—the worries of earning a living, of feeding and clothing children—which are the bread and butter of politics because they concern people so deeply, are essentially the problems from which the peers are very largely exempt.
Of course, they have different kinds of suffering, based on the struggle of per-
1458
sonalities, but they do not have the problems of earning their living and knowing full well that, if they fail, there is the dole queue, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit, and "little more on which to depend. That is the sort of situation which the vast majority of our people have to face and the peers are exempt from feelings of this kind. That is their shortage of experience. But such things are essential if they are sensibly to discuss the life of the people.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I agree 80 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman that suffering and struggle are a great purgative, and we have all in the House of Commons gone through this fiery furnace: but does not the hon. Gentleman concede that it is possible that it is a good idea to have, perhaps in minority proportions, certain people who are above this struggle and who therefore have an independence of mind and who can look at the thing more objectively than either the hon. Gentleman or I can?
The Deputy Chairman: Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case for those people to speak on matters about which they know very little. I suppose that a case of sorts could be made for people not knowing anything of a subject about which they are trying to influence opinion, but it is certainly not a case which we should discuss seriously. As they do not have the kind of understanding of the problems presented daily and weekly to all sections of the community, the need for their representative voices on these problems strikes me as being of rather less importance than has been made out.
One thing that strikes me most strongly about the influence wielded by the other place is that the best example is this very Bill. It came about as a result of the pressure on the peers. It was they who decided this Bill. Why does it have anomalies and why are we discussing peers of succession? Does anybody seriously think that my right hon. Friend had this at the back of his mind as the great social reform which he wanted? He bowed to pressure and we all know that he did, and the pressure came from the House of Lords itself. That is where agreement had to be made, and that is

1459
where concessions had to be granted, and I believe that to be wholly wrong and wholly unacceptable. When we are discussing
1460
important matters like the very constitution, the House of Lords itself and its attitude to its reform need to be questioned and questioned vigorously.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not think that we shall get a great body of men traumatically seared by suffering from the elderly superannuated M.P.s who are to be pushed into the House of Lords after the next election, a body of nominated men of about 60 to 75. I believe that the wishes of hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will be met by the Amendments suggested by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Fife, West wants younger men in the other place and we are more likely to get them from the representative peers elected by their own peers than from any nomination. The hon. Member for Walton made a powerful plea for democracy, but we shall get more democracy and more injection of independence from the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friends than we ever shall from the Government's proposals.
I accept that there has to be a large number of nominated peers in the reformed House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] A certain number anyway. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] One has to be realistic.
I put forward a suggestion for a balanced House of Lords, which is what we want—a package deal. I accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which puts it at 75 peers to be elected by their co-peers. When it is taken with the suggestions which I will make, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for elections by the associations and societies, men of science and industry, trade unions, agriculture and commerce, we shall get a large body of men who will be independent. It is imperative that we should adopt the principle of having a certain percentage of Members of the House of Lords independent, and not just nominated by the Prime Minister of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) called them "Hush Puppies". I would call them lap dogs.
Mr. John Hall: Would not these independent peers be nominated by the Prime Minister of the day?
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Not those who are elected. About 50 per cent. of the House would be independents of one sort or another. Why should the hereditary peers have the right to select some peers for the House of Lords? I put it on these grounds—that for 600 or 700 years the hereditary peers have been the backbone of the House of Lords. There have been life peers, bishops and lawyers, but by and large the great body of the peerage has been the hereditary peers. Of the present peerage, over 70 per cent. are hereditary.
I do not put it too high, but to get rid of the hereditary element altogether is striking a blow at the principle of our hereditary monarchy. That is a point which should not be overlooked. We should keep a definite but fairly small element to mark the principle that we have had for the last 600 or 700 years. Our Amendment is a more modest proposal, which, taken with the one-third elected by the outside organisations, would mean that nearly half of the House would be independent. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire puts it at 75, and I am ready to go along with that. The guts of these Amendments should appeal to the hon. Member for Walton. We are offering him independent voting peers, who will be free from the influence of that horrible Front Bench opposite.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Gourlay, that this group of Amendments is tabled by a number of my hon. Friends and myself, all of whom voted against the Bill on Second Reading. We hope that in Committee, by making positive suggestions, we can make this a useful Measure. I would have preferred that some of the rather broader and more constructive Amendments which we have tabled might have been taken before this one, which has a controversial element about it. Let me outline the basic thinking that has gone into it.
My hon. Friends and myself feel that we have a serious gap in our constitution and that the Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it. It is a commonplace in the Press, at public meetings and in the country, that there are elements in our national life which

1463
are unrepresented at Westminster. It is dangerous for democracy that people should think that, and it is extremely dangerous if it is true. I think that it is. I hope that the Committee stage of the Bill will be an opportunity to fill some of the breaches in our constitution which have developed by drawing up a clear and workable basis for the establishment of a new House of Lords.
Sir D. Glover: There are many people not represented here. Looking round the Chamber, when we are debating one of our biggest constitutional problems, a lot of people on both sides are not represented tonight.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Not only is there a gap in our constitution to be filled, but there are certain undesirable trends which ought to be corrected. One problem is the over-mighty Prime Minister. I am not trying to be personal, but it is a matter of common observation that the power of the Prime Minister in our constitution has become too great.
Mr. Eric Lubbock: We have a lot of hereditary peers at the moment. Can the hon. Gentleman say in what respect they have managed to curb the power of the Prime Minister?
Sir B. Rhys Williams: The argument that I am trying to develop, if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will allow me, is that we have an opportunity to do something about undesirable trends which the existing House of Lords is not able to do or has not done—
Mr. Lubbock: In what way?
Sir B. Rhys Williams: —and which the Bill, as envisaged by the Government, will not do either. This is the reason why we are putting forward a series of what we hope are constructive Amendments.
I have referred to the problem of the presidential Prime Minister. I think that there is also general agreement that we are facing increasingly the problem of the unmanageable civil service.
The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing Amendment No. 72, along with Amendments
1464
Nos. 68, 73 and 74 and new Clause 12, concerning whether we should have 20 or 75 hereditary peers elected to the new Chamber.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Surely it is relevant, in deciding what sort of legislature we have, whether that legislature will be able to control the Civil Service.
The Deputy Chairman: I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the Amendments under discussion are concerned with the numbers which should be elected to the new Chamber.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On a point of order. In fact, the question of the independence of the hereditary peerage is directly related to the power of the Prime Minister. Anyone who has any instruction in this matter must see that. Therefore, I urge that my hon. Friend should be allowed to proceed with this line of argument.
The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) had already left that point. The point on which I stopped him was different.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: I will explain it more clearly. I believe that the Upper House, as envisaged in the Bill, will not serve to correct any of these faults. But the Upper House, as my hon. Friends and I envisage it, might be able to do something about it. One feature that I hope we might ultimately have in a reformed Upper House will be a body of people who are absolutely above party influence and absolutely above the influence of the Prime Minister of the day.
I feel that another of the undesirable trends in our constitution is the decline of the monarchy as a corrective. Perhaps 100 years ago in a situation such as we have at present, where a Government has repeatedly been shown in by-elections to be out of touch with popular sentiment, the monarchy would have had power to dismiss the Prime Minister of the day and to ask another man to come forward who could command the confidence of the Houses of Parliament. I am assured that that would not be possible today. This is why I say that

1465
the monarchy has declined in status, and this is giving rise to undesirable strains in our constitution.
Finally, I should like to refer to what I might call the horrid triumph of the party system in the conquest of the individual thinker. Here I feel that we have an opportunity to do something. I hope that as a result of our discussions, which I expect will be lengthy, but I do not think they will be any the worse for that, we shall be able to evolve, first, a House representing all the best elements in our national life which are not able to be represented in the House of Commons.
Secondly, I hope that the reformed House will be based on what might be called "constituencies" of our national life, other than the purely regional constituencies which are the basis of the representation in this House, constituencies which would confer on the people chosen authority as real as that which is conferred on Members of the House of Commons.
What I have in mind is a House elected not on a purely territorial basis, but able to bring to bear on the Government forces which correspond to the views of broadly based movements among the people at large. I hope that the new Chamber will not be merely what, in electronics, is known as an echo chamber. I do not want it to be a nominated Chamber. I should like it to be a meeting place for men and women who have a contribution to make of popular origin, but unable to be represented in this House.
We have, through the courtesy of the Chair, dealt at length with the question of heredity on the previous Amendment. To those who, on this group of Amendments, spoke very strongly, and I think perhaps rather irrationally, against the hereditary principle, it is worth pointing out that on those Amendments the Committee showed by an overwhelming vote that it respected the value of the hereditary principle. Whether they like it or not, hon. Gentlemen opposite should accept that respect for the principle of heredity exists in Britain as an element in our society, and that it should also be an element in our constitution, albeit perhaps a small one.
1466
I am not enamoured of the two-tier system, of making two different classes of peers, which the Government have put forward in their White Paper and in the Bill. I feel that this will create a degraded class of representative in the Upper House. Words like "soft-shoe shuffle" and "Hush Puppy" have been used. I envisage a sort of macabre dance of the eunuchs when serious issues are being debated, with what Disraeli called "transient and embarrassed phantoms" taking part, but not able to contribute anything of any substance to the debate in the other place.
What is here envisaged really a kind of tontine, which, I believe, is a word for a group of people which constantly diminishes until, ultimately, only one person is left, and I cannot help foreseeing that one day the last survivor of the 1969 vintage of peers may still be seen occasionally in this Palace, shuffling about, a sort of voteless wonder, as a reminder of something which has long since past. I would prefer to see some peers who are entire members of the House of Lords, senate, call it what one will, and have the same rights and privileges as all the other members.
I am not committed to the number. The Amendment to which I have put my name suggests 20. This figure occurred to me because it is about one-tenth only of the number of peers which is envisaged in the White Paper. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made an extremely good point when he said that there would be a shortage of talent available to be recruited to the other House. If, therefore, the Committee decides that it would like to have more than 20 such people, I should not be against that, but in the hope of getting agreement to the Amendment I would not wish to pitch the number too high.
Nor am I particularly convinced as to the method of election. Whether it is desirable that they should be chosen by the hereditary peers or by a Committee of the Privy Council or by a third method is a minor consideration. But I hope that there could be a certain number of peers who could maintain the continuity and sense of organic development in our constitution and that there will not be this macabre element surrounding the

1467
hereditary peers, making them creatures of no substance, there by grace so long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves.
It is worth remarking also that many peers are likely to be present in a reformed House by virtue of their other merits and not simply because they have been chosen as representatives of the peers as a whole. I am not recommending the precise wording of the Amendment, but I hope that the Government will take note of the concept. Even if they will net accept any of these Amendments, I trust that they will bring in one of their own in the same sense.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. David Winnick: I have no wish to join in the general argument about age, because I do not consider it to be a great factor in the consideration of the second Chamber or even of our own House, but I should like to take up one or two arguments. First, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the greatest protection against any future tyranny will come from some hereditary peers in the reformed Chamber—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is getting rather excited. Perhaps he could try to contain himself—
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: I am rather hard of hearing. Would the hon. Gentleman put his false teeth right smack up in his kisser? Then I could hear what he is saying.
Mr. Winnick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made one of his characteristic remarks, which needs no comments from me.
The point about protection from tyrrany is important. If we are to have some protection against a possibility, which, I hope, will not arise, it will come in protecting the democratic rights which the country has at the moment and not from hereditary peers in the House of Lords. As a democratic Socialist, I am all in favour of maintaining our democratic rights and extending them—which is not something about which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very concerned, I believe.
1468
We have also been told that the hereditary peers, selected or elected, will be independent. But time and time again, hereditary peers have defended the narrow class and property interests. It is surely foolish to say that such people will become, after all these hundreds of years, independent. When it comes to property interests, there is no real division on the Tory side in the House of Lords. It is impossible to accept that for independence, for the neutral voice, we shall have to rely on some hereditary peers—
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member shows a complete lack of appreciation. In my constituency, about three years ago, we asked a noble lady to come and open our fete, and she won a moped in our big draw, much to our anger. And three months later, she and her husband joined the Labour Party.
Mr. Winnick: I am always pleased when people join the Labour Party, regardless of their motives.
One only has to remember the Rent Act of 1967 and the Leasehold Reform Act to recognise that it is impossible to accept that the hereditary peers will ever be independent when it comes to property interests. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know full well that what I am saying is basically correct. They know what the result has been in the other place during the last 10 or 20 years when a Labour Government have put forward Measures that were regarded as anti-property.
Mr. John Biffen: Is it, therefore, the hon. Member's proposition that it was concern with property interests which led the House of Lords to indicate the view that it did on the Stansted airport proposal?
Mr. Winnick: That point does not basically contradict what I said earlier. I quoted two examples, the Rent Act, 1957, and the Leasehold Reform Act.
I turn to the quality of hereditary peers. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite have spoken on the Amendment, they have implied that, somehow, people who have inherited a title are better than the vast majority of ordinary citizens who have never inherited one. I do not accept that. Also implied in some of the remarks of hon. Members opposite in

1469
support of the Amendment has been a dislike of democracy. One hon. Member said that the movement of progress of the last 200 years was to be deplored. I do not deplore it. The movement of progress in the last 200 years towards greater equality and greater democracy is something which I welcome. If anything, I hope that that movement will continue at a far greater pace.
I cannot accept that simply because a person has inherited a title, no matter how far back the title may go, he should have special rights and privileges in our democracy. I am a believer—obviously, some hon. Members opposite are not—not in one man one vote, but in one adult one vote. One of the reasons why I support the Bill is that it takes away some of the privileges which should not continue to exist in a modern and up-to-date democracy. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be defeated.
One extremely useful point, however, which has emerged from this debate is that there are still right hon. and hon. Members opposite who basically dislike democracy and the idea that each individual should exercise a right to vote.
Mr. Lubbock: Having sat here from 10 o'clock and listened to what has been said since—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past three."] I deliberately did not come in from 3.30 till 10 o'clock, because I cannot imagine how an assembly which is meant to represent the nation can spend so long dealing with such a trivial issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If the speeches to which I have listened since 10 o'clock have been typical of the debate since 3.30, Mr. Gourlay, I cannot imagine how you have managed to stay awake. I have heard nothing but piss and wind all the time I have been in the Committee.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Will you tell the hon. Member since when that expression "piss" was a Parliamentary expression?
The Deputy Chairman: The Chair would deprecate the use of such language.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Lubbock: Since the expression has been challenged, Mr. Gourlay, I can do no better than quote one or two sentences which I jotted down during the time that the hon. Member for Kensing-
1470
ton, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has now left the Chamber, was speaking. The hon. Member said that he was not enamoured with the two-tier system and that he envisaged a macabre dance of the eunuchs. What sort of language is that?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"] That is what I would call piss and wind.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. You have already said, Mr. Gourlay, that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that expression. He has used it again.
Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order. Is it appropriate that an hon. Member who hopes to become a Liberal peer should use such an expression?
The Deputy Chairman: I have already indicated to the Committee that the Chair deprecates the use of such language. Perhaps we can now get on.
Mr. Lubbock: You may have deprecated the use of the term, Mr. Gourlay. but you have not forbidden me to use it. I therefore feel entitled not to withdraw it.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Lubbock: No.
Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: It must be Liberal language.
Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. Would you care to give the Committee a somewhat more detailed Ruling on the use of an expression which I prefer not to repeat, Mr. Gourlay?
Mr. Heller: Let us get on.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Jopling: The Liberal Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) used a disgraceful phrase. Would you ask him to withdraw it in the interests of decency?
Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Before you reply to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay, may I ask you if it is right for an hon. Member to challenge a Ruling which you have already given? While you deprecated the use of the term, you did not instruct me to withdraw it. Now

1471
an hon. Member is trying to get you to reverse a decision which you have already made.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already said that the use of the words in question is deprecated by the Chair. I hope that they will not be used. I think that the Committee would now like to proceed with the debate on the Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock: I have noted your advice, Mr. Gourlay.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order.
Mr. Lubbock: Not again.
Sir D. Glover: This is a very important point. The Chair has ruled in the kindest language that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the phrase which he uttered.
Mr. Lubbock: That is not so.
Sir D. Glover: You did not actually say that, Mr. Gourlay, but may I ask you to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?
The Deputy Chairman: I have not asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the particular words concerned, but I said that the Chair strongly deprecated the use of such words. I hope that we may now proceed with the debate.
Mr. Lubbock: I hope that I will be allowed to proceed with my speech. I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, and I will be very careful in deciding whether to use that expression on future occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] As long as the content of the debates in which I may take part in future do not justify the use of that expression, as this debate has done, I—
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Are we to take it that although the Chair has deprecated the use of the expression used by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), hon. Members are at liberty to use it if they feel so inclined? In other words, are we to understand that it is a Parliamentary expression which we will not be asked to withdraw if inadvertently, it slips into one's speech?
The Deputy Chairman: The point at which an hon. Member is asked to withdraw something is when accusations have been made against an hon. Member or hon. Members. I hope that we can now proceed with the debate. I do not wish to hear any further points of order on this issue.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] May I appeal to hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to make his speech? We are all anxious to hear the views of the Liberal Party on this matter. After all, we have not heard it all day. The Liberals have not been here.
Mr. Lubbock: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to me he would have heard me explain why I have not thought it necessary to take part in the discussion between half-past three this afternoon and ten o'clock tonight. The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that I have been engaged on a Select Committee this afternoon. That work has, I think, been of considerably greater importance than the matters that have been discussed in this Chamber.
Mr. Heffer: What about the other Liberals?
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should not be made from a seated position.
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
The Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Heffer: Where have all the other Liberals been?
Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) really believe that the future of the House of Lords is more important than science and technology?
Mr. Heffer: Well—
The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will now address himself to the Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock Mr. Lubbock rose—
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Peart: I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that this is an important debate, which raises great issues of principia. I do not want to delay or prevent any discussion, but I should like to reply to the various points that have been made. I am not seeking to place an obstacle in the way of any hon. Member who may wish to speak, should he catch the eye of the Chair, but, as Leader of the House, I should like to reply to the Amendment.
Mr. Lubbock: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would allow me to proceed. He knows that I would not absent myself from the Chamber unless I had important business elsewhere. I have already explained to him that I have been engaged on a Select Committee this afternoon, which, in my opinion—
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Lubbock: May I be allowed to finish my sentence?
I have been engaged in a Select Committee which, in my opinion, is of greater importance to the country than the question whether we have 20 or 25 elected hereditary peers in the second Chamber.
[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
Mr. Heffer: I accept that the hon. Member considers it more important to serve on a Select Committee than in this Chamber. But there are 12 Liberal Members in the House of Commons, and not one of them has been here to consider a Bill of great constitutional importance to the future of the country. I should also like to remind the hon. Member that it was the Liberal Party which raised the whole question of peers against the Commons. They are the people who—
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Some of the difficulty which has arisen, from what I have seen, is that hon. Members forget that they should address the Chair and not each other across the Floor. I hope they will remember that.
Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Walton realises that the speech that I am attempting to make, without very much success, is against the Amendment, because I believe that it is
1474
quite improper that the hereditary peers should be allowed the privileges which are suggested for them by hon. Members on this side of the House. So perhaps I will take him with me that far, at any rate. I do not think that this is a great constitutional issue. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup. I am shocked and astonished that the House of Commons should waste so much of its valuable time discussing what to me is essentially a very trivial issue.
I was present on Monday evening for the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, and I can see tonight in the Chamber many hon. Members who were not present on that occasion. If I were asked which is the more important of those debates, I would say—
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Sir Myer. What has the Housing Bill on Monday got to do with an Amendment about hereditary peers?
The Temporary Chairman: Precisely. That is exactly what the Chair has been wondering. I ask the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to address himself to the substance of the Amendment, to address the Chair and not to look directly opposite to provoke opposition.
Mr. Lubbock: Surely the Chair should allow me to defend myself and my party against the accusation that we have treated this debate lightly. I am trying to explain to you, Sir Myer, that I consider that this is a light matter in comparison with many others that have been discussed in the House this week, and, in particular, that I did not notice the benches as crowded as they are this evening when a matter of far greater importance to the country was under discussion on Monday afternoon.
I did not notice the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Ouennell)—
The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington will respect the Ruling of the Chair. I am satisfied with his explanation for his absence this afternoon. Will he please proceed to deal with the Amendment?
Mr. Lubbock: I understand that while I was not in the Chamber this afternoon, but was engaged in a Select Committee, a number of hon. Members from this side of the Committee attacked me for

1475
my absence, in particular, the right hon. Member for one of the Flint constituencies—I cannot remember which, but it must be a very funny place if it sent him here.
Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has been addressing the Committee for the last quarter of an hour, but he has not mentioned the Amendment for a moment. Could you, Sir Myer, direct him that he should come to the point quickly?
The Temporary Chairman: I know that the hour is late, which may account for some of the behaviour of hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Member for Orpingion, with respect, that if he intends to persist in defending himself for his absence this afternoon, which I think he has abundantly done, I shall have no option but to ask him to cease making his contribution.
Mr. Lubbock: I am delighted, Sir Myer, to hear that I have convinced you. I hope that hon. Members who have not allowed me to make my speech in an orderly and effective way will agree to withdraw the scurrilous remarks which they have made both during my speech and prior to my entry into the Chamber at 10 p.m.
I was attempting to show that the issue whether we have 20 or 75 hereditary peers elected by their fellows is of no consequence. I cannot understand why the Committee has spent so much time on it. Surely if we decide as a matter of principle that we intend to eliminate the hereditary peers from another place, the faster we reach that situation the better.
Why do hon. Members on this side of the Committee try to delay the implementation of a principle on which all sides are agreed, unless it is that they realise that hereditary peers are inclined to support the Conservative Party and they want to preserve the shrinking vestiges of their power in another place? That, I believe, is what motivates hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as it has all along, in considering the powers of another place—ever since 1910, when the Parliament Act was passed. In this debate we have had echoes of the reactionary speeches made 50 years ago.
1476
To talk of this as a big constitutional issue, as did the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), is a gross exaggeration. If the Committee agrees in principle to eliminate the hereditary peers from another place as quickly as possible, then, in logic, it must reject these Amendments. The speeches of Conservative hon. Members on this side will be taken for what they are—an attempt to preserve the party political power of the Tories in another place for as long as possible.
Sir D. Glover: I will try to reduce the temperature of the debate and to bring the Committee to the Amendment. We had a most interesting and vitriolic speech from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), but he did not mention the Amendment once in 20 minutes.
I want to make my position quite clear. I voted against Second Reading of the Bill. I do not like the Bill, because it is not the right answer to the problem. If it were not for the jealousy of the Lower Chamber—on both sides—of having a second Chamber with any power, we should probably be debating this issue in a totally different atmosphere. But we are so hag-ridden with 500 years of history that we are not prepared to let anybody have any power to control us.
It would be far better if we were to debate this matter in a totally free atmosphere—although that cannot be done in politics—and tried to produce a second Chamber with equal, or semi-equal, powers to ours, but we are not doing that. The Bill has had a Second Reading, but some hon. Members on either side of the Committee do not think that this is the answer to the problem. We are not happy that the Prime Minister of the day, whether he is the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) or the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) or some other person at present unknown, should with the then Leader of the Opposition decide on how to produce a second Chamber.
What influence would a second Chamber created under those conditions have? It would be bound to be a lap dog or a "Hush Puppy" Chamber and would certainly not have authority. The present second Chamber has a great deal of authority because it is independent of

1477
anything the Prime Minister of the day might do. Of course, it works much better when the Tory Party is in power than when the Labour Party is in power. I do not say that there should be no alteration in the composition of the Chamber. If I were on the benches opposite, I would want radical change of another place, but being in favour of radical change does not mean that we should produce an even greater nonsense than we have at present.
Many hon. Members opposite who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill do not actually support it. Many on this side did not vote because a free vote was allowed on the Opposition side. There is no great enthusiasm for the Bill. I admit that this Amendment is open to much objection from people who take an egalitarian line, but it is far more logical and would give another place a far greater feeling of independence than do the Clauses of the Bill as it stands. As the Bill stands, we would have a so-called second Chamber basically appointed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the day, but if this Amendment were carried there would be a microcosm in the second Chamber independent of anyone. That would be a good thing to have in a second Chamber which, if it has any relevance in our constitution, should be there to control the House of Commons.
The whole discussion about the composition, appointment, or election of a second Chamber is that the House of Commons, Tory, Labour or Liberal, after 500 years of Parliamentary government would hate like hell to have another Chamber with power to control effectively what we do in this place. It is rather like shadow boxing. The Front Benches have got together and said, "What can we produce which will have a facade of decency, which will be a revising chamber, but which will have no power and which will not be a nuisance to anybody in the House of Commons?" I should prefer an elected Chamber which had nearly the same power as we have, with perhaps not the same powers on finance.
11.15 p.m.
The Amendment merely seeks to give some small percentage of election to the second Chamber which is not controlled by the Establishment of the day—not
1478
the Establishment of the Labour Party at that particular moment, nor the Establishment of the Tory Party at that particular moment. I accept the weaknesses in our argument. We want an element of election by a group of people who are not excessively wise and who are not excessively stupid. It would have a hereditary principle behind it, and I know this is not acceptable to the other side. This group would elect people who would not be controlled by the Whips or by the machine, whether it be Labour, Liberal, or Conservative. In other words, we want a really independent element in the other place.
Mr. John Ellis: Why have hereditary peers in the Lords? Why not hereditary butchers, bakers and candlestick makers?
Sir D. Glover: I said that I oppose the Bill. It is a bad Bill. The basis of selection for the other place is thoroughly bad. The Amendment tries to bring a small degree of independent election into the Lords. I do not object to the view that candlestick makers, butchers and bakers should have some right in the election, but that is not the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to give the hereditary peers the right to elect some people who at that moment would not be under the control of the then established thinking of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party.
If we are to have a second Chamber which is worth a damn, a degree of independence there would be a very' good thing. The Amendment is a serious one, not a wrecking one. I do not think there would be a majority on this side for the Lords to be elected in toto by the hereditary peers. Knowing that there is an enormous majority in the House of Commons on a free vote against the privileged appointment by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of people to form the second Chamber, we are trying to produce a very small but very important independent element. If this Committee could forget its prejudices about hereditary peers, within the context of the Bill it would make the second Chamber a better second Chamber if it-accepted the Amendment.
Mr. Peart: We have had a good debate. I put on record at the outset that I do not accept that this is a trivial

1479
matter. I say that especially to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). [Interruption.] That is my opinion. We can be judged together. The hon. Member for Orpington is entitled to his opinion, but I would rather he stood if he wishes to interrupt. That is not being pompous. I hate to be a school master, but I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will regret his contribution to the debate tonight.
There are differences here of great principle. I accept the view of some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) concisely portrayed the whole development of our democracy, and I hope that hon. Members will look carefully at his speech. I respect the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for the way in which he put the Amendment to the Committee. I disagree with him fundamentally, but I believe that he is sincere in what he proposes. I never complain when hon. Members are sincere in their views, although I may disagree.
The hon. Gentleman sought to defend the hereditary principle and showed how important his Amendment is in raising a fundamental issue. It is on the question of principle that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendment. for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and others gave.
We could have a substantial debate on whether the second Chamber should be elected or nominated. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) put his view, but I would argue that that is not the fundamental issue behind the Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: I said that we had given a Second Reading to the Bill and that we were now dealing with a narrow point.
Mr. Peart: Yes, but the question whether there should be an elected second Chamber or a nominated second Chamber is not raised by the Amendment. I do not say that it is out of order, but it raises another major issue which divides hon. Members, and not just on party lines.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, in defending the hereditary principle, said that his figure of 75 peers as
1480
stated in the Amendment was not an arbitrary figure. In my view, he was right when he said that this question went to the heart of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman put to us a series of interesting philosophical and political arguments, the relevance of which I do not deny, and I certainly take his Amendment seriously, as he asked us to do.
The hon. Gentleman argued that there had been great assaults on the hereditary principle, and he went into the history of the matter. We had an interesting discussion about the qualities and benefits of the system in the Soviet Union and other countries. It would be wrong for me to follow that line, but I must express disagreement with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are living in an age of diminishing virtue. I intervened to refer to the development of Nazi totalitarianism in a sophisticated Western European country in the 1930s. I believe my view to be right. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman is, though I should be trespassing on the time of the Committee if I were to go into the reasons now.
The hon. Gentleman argued that since this is an age of diminishing virtue, it is necessary to go back. That was the impression which he gave to me of his argument. But the Amendment, by defending and sustaining the hereditary principle, would frustrate the desire to have a reformed second Chamber, a desire which has been accepted in principle by many people of all parties who believe sincerely that the time has come for reform. The Bill and the White Paper elaborate this; we are now dealing specifically with this immediate point.
The intention of the Amendments is to provide for the permanent representation of the hereditary peerage by 75 peers elected to sit, with voting rights, in the reformed House of Lords, irrespective of age or attendance qualification. It is not clear whether all peers by succession, including peers of Scotland and Ireland, are to take part in that election. It is to be presumed that the Scots would do so since they have all been members of the House since the Peerage Act, 1963, and that the Irish would not.
Schemes for the reform of the House of Lords based on election by the hereditary peers or a proportion of their

1481
numbers have been frequently brought forward both before and since the reform of 1911, but they have never found favour with the parties on my side, on the left, and those who believe in a radical solution.
The Amendment would conflict with the three basic principles of reform stated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper:

"(a) the hereditary basis of membership should be eliminated;

(b) no one party should possess a permanent majority;

(c) in normal circumstances the government of the city should be able to secure a reasonable working majority;"

Most hon. Members opposite who have spoken tonight have taken a contrary view. They defended the hereditary principle fundamentally and rejected the philosophy that I am putting forward. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), whose views I always respect, strongly supported the Amendment.
Sir D. Glover: This is a very serious matter. When one puts down such an Amendment one is not saying that the figure of 75 is sacrosanct. We would probably accept 25. The question is whether there should be a principle of election among the hereditary peers. The right hon. Gentleman has been rather pedantic in his arguments.
Mr. Peart: I conceded the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I said that his figure of 75 was not arbitrary. I said that he was arguing the principle. I am not keeping him to the figure of 75. The main argument is that there should be in a new reformed House of Lords a certain element which would be based on the hereditary principle. I am not being pedantic, and I am taking the argument seriously. It is a matter of major principle.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Windsor very strongly argued that we should have a kind of ballast. I think that he later used the words "a balance" between different sections and the parties in a reformed second Chamber. He argued that this element of hereditary peers there would be preferable to cross-benchers. There is virtue in his argument if one accepts the hereditary principle, but I reject this.
1482
The hon. Member also argued that if the Amendment were carried there would be more opportunities in a reformed second Chamber to have a greater proportion of younger members. I do not accept this. The argument was rejected by my hon. Friends the Members for Walton and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and others, who said that if younger people wished to enter the hurly-burly of politics there are opportunities in this House.
But the hon. Gentleman also developed another point which is important. It quite rightly roused the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to defend some of the great hereditary titles we have and the great positions in the State—the Earl Marshal, the Lord Great Chamberlain and other great public figures responsible for our ceremonial. I agree with him. They have done wonderful service for the country and both sides will acknowledge it. In rejecting the Amendment, I do not mean any disrespect to the Duke of Norfolk and the others. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give a specific answer, but I cannot do so now. This is something which the Lord Chancellor should perhaps examine. I certainly appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman and I join in his tribute to these public figures, whom we should not denigrate.
Mr. Crouch: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the place of youth is in the House of Commons and not the House of Lords? I hope that he will correct that view if that is so.
Mr. Peart: I said that a young, ambitious politician has his opportunities to use the normal processes of democracy which we have all enjoyed ourselves.
Mr. Powell: In what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the great officers of State, he appeared to be conceding that there was some force in the point made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he said that this was a point which the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor might well consider. Can he explain more fully what he has in mind? Does he mean that consideration might be given to the question whether ex

1483
officio these great officers should be Members of the new House of Lords? If not, what was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's expression?
Mr. Peart: I would not like to be committed precisely. Nothing has been decided. All I am saying is that I think that the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston-upon-Thames made a very important and valid point. I said that this should be considered sympathetically and that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor should perhaps look at it. I am speaking off the cuff and I promise the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that I will follow this up.
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. We are now dealing line by line with the Committee stage of the Bill. The Leader of the House tells my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that he will give consideration to the point he raised, but he does not say that, on Report, he will bring in an Amendment. How do hon. Members decide how to vote if he does not know the answer to the argument?
Mr. Peart: I am surprised at that intervention. I am not departing from the Amendment. I am resisting it. There was an intervention by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, whose views I respect, as I respect views of the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I hope that the right hon. Member will realise that the reply I gave was right in the circumstances. I have gone as far as I can and I therefore recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendment for the reasons I have given.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: The debate to which the right hon. Gentleman has just replied embraced Amendment No. 68, standing in my name. It is similar to the Amendment eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman decided to reply to one Amendment and not the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman should have spoken earlier."] I would have spoken earlier, but the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak and I was unable to do so.
1484
Some of the objections which the right hon. Gentleman made on technical grounds to the excellent Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire would be met by the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and others of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not clear whether we were including certain categories of hereditary peer, and he referred to the constitutional change whereby the peers of Scotland had become peers in another place.
Amendment No. 68 suggests that the holders of hereditary peerages in England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom up to a number of 20 would be enabled to continue in the House of Lords. The number is not important. My hon. Friend stressed that the principle was important. We are trying to establish the principle of the retention of a proportion of hereditary peers.
An hon. Member opposite asked why hereditary peers should have representation when there were not to be representatives of other avocations. The difficulty about dealing with that understandable question is that we are confined by the rules of order to discussing this Amendment, but later Amendments would provide for exactly what the hon. Gentleman wanted, namely, representation of different interests and professions within the realm. What we are asking by this Amendment is that the body of hereditary peers should be treated as an estate or interest and have a modest representation.
We ask that partly for the sake of continuity, partly to have a younger element in the reformed House of Lords, and partly as a salutary corrective to the exaggerated claims which are made for the process of democratic election. [Interruption.] In this country we have an elected House and we have a hereditary House. It is only hon. Members who say that everybody who comes here by election is more intelligent, more able, more worthy than any member sitting in another place. It is only hon. Members who are so insulated from reality and so cocksure of themselves that they can say that. It is not so. All systems of Government are imperfect, but my last

1485
reason for saying that a proportion of herditary peers should be retained in Parliament is as a salutary corrective to arrogance of that kind.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)
rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 139. Noes 32.

Division No. 66.]

AYES

[11.39 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Fowler, Gerry

Moyle, Roland

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Murray, Albert

Bence, Cyril

Freeson, Reginald

Oakes, Gordon

Bishop, E, S.

Gardner, Tony

Ogden, Eric

Blackburn, F.

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

O'Malley, Brian

Blenkinsop Arthur

Gregory, Arnold

Oram, Albert E.

Booth, Albert

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Orbach, Maurice

Boyden, James

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Oswald, Thomas

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hannan, William

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Brooks, Edwin

Harper, Joseph

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Pentland, Norman

Buchan, Norman

Henig, Stanley

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

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

Hilton, W. S.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hooley, Frank

Rees, Merlyn

Carmichael, Neil

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Howie, W.

Richard, Ivor

Coe, Denis

Hoy, James

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Conlan, Bernard

Hunter, Adam

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crawshaw, Richard

Hynd, John

Silverman, Julius

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

Slater, Joseph

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Janner, Sir Barnett

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Judd, Frank

Swingler, Stephen

Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Lawson, George

Taverne, Dick

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lubbock, Eric

Urwin, T. W.

do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Varley, Eric G.

Dell, Edmund

McCann, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Doig, Peter

MacColl, James

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Dunnett, Jack

Macdonald, A. H.

Wellbeloved, James

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

McGuire, Michael

White, Mrs. Eirene

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

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Whitlock, William

Eadie, Alex

Maclennan, Robert

Wilkins, W. A.

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Ellis, John

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

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

English, Michael

Manuel, Archie

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Ennals, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Winnick, David

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Millan, Bruce

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Woof, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Fernyhough, E.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Finch, Harold

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Ford, Ben

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Neil McBride.

Forrester, John

Morris, John (Aberavon)

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

Glover, Sir Douglas

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir peter

Biffen, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Biggs-Davison, John

Hastings, Stephen

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Jopling, Michael

Scott-Hopkins, James

Cooke, Robert

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Waddington, David

Crouch, David

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Ward, Dame Irene

Crowder, F. P.

Neave, Airey

Dalkeith, Earl of

Osborn, John (Hallam)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Eyre, Reginald

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Farr, John

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Sir Charles Mott-Radelyffe.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
Mr. English: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'by succession'.
This Amendment is consequential, for Division purposes, on new Clause 2—Hereditary peerages not to convey right to membership of House of Lords:
The power of the Crown to create hereditary peerages conveying rights of membership of the House of Lords is hereby abolished.
The Committee divided: Ayes 27. Noes 144.

Division No. 67.]

AYES

[11.47 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Goodhew, Victor

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Biffen, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. SirWalter

Jopling, Michael

Russell, Sir Ronald

Cooke, Robert

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Crouch, David

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Waddington, David

Dalkeith, Earl of

Neave, Airey

Ward, Dame Irene

Farr, John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. John Biggs-Davison and

Clover, Sir Douglas

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Mr. Stephen Hastings.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Fowler, Gerry

Moyle, Roland

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Murray, Albert

Bishop, E. S.

Freeson, Reginald

Oakes, Gordon

Blackburn, F.

Gardner, Tony

Ogden, Eric

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

O'Malley, Brian

Booth, Albert

Gregory, Arnold

Oram, Albert E.

Boyden, James

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Orbach, Maurice

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Oswald, Thomas

Brooks, Edwin

Hannan, William

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Harper, Joseph

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Buchan, Norman

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Pentland, Norman

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Henig, Stanley

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Hilton, W. S.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Carmichael, Neil

Hooley, Frank

Rees, Merlyn

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Coe, Denis

Howie, W.

Richard, Ivor

Coleman, Donald

Hoy, James

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Crawshaw, Richard

Hunter, Adam

Sheldon, Robert

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Hynd, John

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

Silverman, Julius

Crowder, F. P.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Slater, Joseph

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

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

Small, William

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Spriggs, Leslie

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Judd, Frank

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lawson, George

Swingler, Stephen

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lever, L, M. (Ardwick)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lubbock, Eric

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Dell, Edmund

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Urwin, T. W.

Dickens, James

McCann, John

Varley, Eric G.

Doig, Peter

MacColl, James

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dunnett, Jack

Macdonald, A. H.

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

McGulre, Michael

Wellbeloved, James

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

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Eadie, Alex

Maclennan, Robert

White, Mrs. Eirene

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Whitlock, William

Ellis, John

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

Wilkins, W. A.

English, Michael

Manuel, Archie

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Ennals, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Millan, Bruce

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

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

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Winnick, David

Faulds, Andrew

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Fernyhough, E.

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

Woof, Robert

Finch, Harold

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ford, Ben

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Forrester, John

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Mr. Neil McBride.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Committee is acquainted with the business with which it has to deal—
Sir D. Glover Sir D. Glover rose—
The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman until I have concluded this Question.
The Question is, that the Amendment be made.
Hon. Members: No.
Hon, Members: Aye.
The Chairman: I think the Noes have it. The Noes have it.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. Several hon. Members distinctly called out "Aye," in response to the previous
Question. Surely this means that there must be a Division.
The Chairman: I endeavoured to collect the voices. I heard some "Ayes", but I was not aware that the "Ayes" were persisting—
Mr. Heffer: Yes, they were.
The Chairman: Order. As I appear to have misheard, I think that I should declare a Division.
The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes, 143.

Division No. 68.]

AYES

[11.57 p.m.

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Ellis, John

Lubbock, Eric

Booth, Albert

Faulds, Andrew

McNamara, J. Kevin

Brooks, Edwin

Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Gardner, Tony

Silverman, Julius

Crawshaw, Richard

Heffer, Eric S.

Dickens, James

Henig, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Dunnett, Jack

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mr. Robert Sheldon and

Mr. Michael English.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Oswald, Thomas

Biffen, John

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Biggs-Davison, John

Hannan, William

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Bishop, E S.

Harper, Joseph

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Blackburn, F.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Pentland, Norman

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Boyden, James

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hoy, James

Pym, Francis

Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

Hunter, Adam

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Brown, Bot (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. W.)

Hynd, John

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Buchan, Norman

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

Rees, Merlyn

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Janner. Sir Barnett

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Carmichael, Neil

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

Richard, Ivor

Coe, Denis

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Coleman, Donald

Jopling, Michael

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Conlan, Bernard

Judd, Frank

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Cooke, Robert

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lawson, George

Scott-Hopkins, James

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crouch, David

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Slater, Joseph

Crowder, F. P.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

McCann, John

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

MacColl, James

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Davidson. Arthur (Accrington)

Macdonald, A. H.

Swingler, Stephen

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

McGuIre, Michael

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Maclennan, Robert

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Dell, Edmund

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

Urwin, T. W.

Doig, Peter

Manuel, Archie

Varley, Eric G.

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Miltan, Bruce

Wadding ton, David

Eadie, Alex

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Edwards, Willam (Merioneth)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Ennals, David

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

White, Mrs. Eirene

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Whitlock, William

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

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wilkins, W. A.

Eyre, Reginald

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)

Farr, John

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Fernyhough, E.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Ford, Ben

Moyle, Roland

Winnick, David

Forrester, John

Murray, Albert

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Fowler, Gerry

Neave, Airey

Woof, Robert

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Oakes, Gordon

Glover, Sir Douglas

Ogden, Eric

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Goodhew, Victor

O'Maltey, Brian

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Oram, Albert E.

Mr. Niel McBride.

Gregory, Arnold

Orbach, Maurice

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Callaghan.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Mr. Russell Johnston discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure; Mr. David Howell added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
12.6 a.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: There is general agreement that Britain needs a national exhibition centre. However, controversy has raged long and wide about the type of centre required and particularly about the raising of the necessary finance; how it should be raised and from where it should come.
On 14th June, 1968, the Board of Trade issued a statement indicating the progress that had been made on the subject to that date. It pointed out that in August 1967 it had been announced by the President of the Board of Trade that, following the decision that the Crystal Palace site was unsuitable for a national exhibition centre, a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Brown had been set up to study the problems of finding an alternative site and of establishing an exhibition centre. That committee, which consisted of representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the British National Export Council, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Greater London Council and representatives drawn from interested Government Departments, drew attention to a possible site in the London Borough of Hillingdon.
I do not wish to concentrate too closely on the question of a site. I will confine myself to the principles involved, the need for speed and the value to Britain of siting an exhibition centre at an early date. As the Board of Trade statement pointed out:
"The next step is to solve the problem of finance as the Government cannot in the light of the general economic situation undertake on its own the considerable capital expenditure involved."
1492
I will come to that later. First, however, I wish to draw attention to the history of the subject from the point of view of exhibition sites in Britain.
British industry has been seeking the best way of exhibiting its wares since the closing of the British Industries Fair in 1957. Many trade associations and firms are dissatisfied with the existing facilities for mounting trade fairs in this country. The F.B.I. report of 1959 stated that the existing facilities in London were out of date and compared unfavourably with those abroad. At the same time, the general conclusion was reached that trade fairs could and would play an increasingly important rôle in the promotion of exports, particularly in Europe. It is that aspect of the exhibition centre that I particularly want to deal with tonight.
In 1962, as the Board of Trade said, the new exhibition centre at Crystal Palace was financially viable. Something like £12 million to £15 million was considered necessary and would have been raised by the Government, the L.C.C. and private enterprise in equal shares. For a variety of reasons, Crystal Palace fell out of favour, one of the reasons being the unsuitability of the access roads. Then a committee under Lord Brown suggested Northolt as a possible site, with reasonable proximity to London Airport and good rail connections.
One must bear in mind that there were powerful pressures against the need for an exhibition centre and, no doubt, the Board of Trade was pressurised. Arguments are advanced against the idea of an exhibition centre. There is a school of thought—I hope we shall hear more about this later—that jet transport and technical journals have drastically altered the situation and have in some way diminished the need for exhibition centres. It is felt that specialist buyers have all the access they need to learn what is available in the markets in which they operate and where they can obtain the articles they require.
This is in some ways a follow-up attitude of the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now, safely or otherwise, in another place, and who said that he would not be justified in supporting the organisation of a general international exhibition in this country. It is a pity that this attitude was taken, for the British Industries Fair, which had an

1493
honourable history and did a tremendous amount of good for the export trade and the prestige of this country, was a good and cheap scheme not only for larger firms in the Castle Bromwich area but for many of the smaller firms in this country.
What is even more important, and what we have to consider against the background of the traditions of the British Industries Fair, is that a new exhibition centre must have these same standards. The British Industries Fair provided a very careful check, and I have been told that firms were proud that their products were good enough for that fair. Exporters and customers, too, recognised this fact. Indeed, particularly in the consumer field, we could do with a check of this kind at the moment, because the rigid standards set for goods and firms at the British Industries Fair would not only enhance our reputation abroad and improve our export figures, but would also be the means of giving the home consumer a higher standard of product.
It is therefore to be deplored that Britain has lagged so far behind the Continent in the last few decades in providing exhibition facilities comparable with the best in Europe. Powerful voices have been raised in this matter. At the end of January the Chairman of the British Export Council asked Lord Brown to give the exhibition project "a good hard shove", and the Director-General of the same Export Council said that
"Britain must be able to offer the world's finest exhibition facilities in or close to London. Nothing else will do."
I hope that these words will be heeded—and heeded quickly. It therefore seems to me, after weighing up the arguments on the matter, that the question—Do we need on exhibition centre?—has been overwhelmingly answered in the affirmative.
That brings me to the point of what form should that centre take. I have talked with firms in my constituency and throughout the northern region about this matter—to people who have had and still have considerable experience of trade fairs and exhibitions and of selling abroad From talks which I have had with firms and their representatives, it seems imperative that the building for an exhibition centre or fair should be similar in style to that of the Hanover Trade Fair.
1494
Confusion exists in many quarters, and there are different viewpoints on the type of permanent site which would be required, but I am told on reliable authority that to the planners an exhibition site simply means a permanent building which can be used from time to time for various trade exhibitions. That simply is not good enough. I hope that we shall not get this type of exhibition centre for reasons of financial stringency. It is no solution to the problem which we are discussing.
In my view the word "permanent" should mean not only a permanent exhibition building but also a permanent exhibition of products which are available to the trade throughout the year. I will try to give some idea of the layout which would make that possible. Firms in the region moving into London could use this permanent exhibition of products in order to meet overseas buyers. It would be possible with a site of this description and a layout of this description, when overseas buyers are in London, for a firm to move from Newcastle, Edinburgh, Liverpool or Birmingham into the London site in order to meet the overseas buyers at the showrooms where they have this permanent exhibition.
Although I have not discussed this matter with the Export Council, I have discussed it with firms in my constituency and elsewhere. It is felt, I believe, by the Export Council and by many prominent industrialists that the exhibition should be in two sections. The layout which seems to be generally envisaged is that on such a site could be built three or four large halls suitable for exhibitions such as the Motor Show, the Dairy Show, the Ideal Homes Exhibition and other similar ventures. Surrounding the main hall should be a series of buildings of seven to ten storeys high, on a corridor principle, with showrooms on either side, similar to Halle 18 at the Hanover Fair. Variations in space in this part of the building would enable different types of trade to exhibit. Each of the halls in this series of buildings could be specified and categorised on the type of product sold. The various trade associations could move into sections of a building of this description and there would be a permanent exhibition centred on the main hall. For the success of a centre of this kind, it would be necessary

1495
for both British and overseas firms to take part, because this should be an international fair, although primarily and predominantly British in its set-up.
A vital aspect of the whole idea of an international fair is its timing. Here again we can take advantage from the timing of other major fairs in Europe. We could arrange for a British Fair to avoid any of the dates of other international fairs and draw advantage to a British fair by this arrangement. I will not list the dates of the various established fairs in Frankfurt, Leipzig, Milan and other places, but I suggest from a look at the list of fairs in Europe during the year the proposed British fair should be in early February. World trade buyers who regularly attend the fairs I have mentioned would find a 10 days fair in Britain at the end of February ideal timing for a variety of reasons, not least the availability of accommodation and transport in the London area.
Earlier today my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced a Bill on tourism. This represents one of the invisible exports which could flow from a fair of this kind. I do not need in a short debate of this kind, even if I had the time, to enumerate the advantages of invisible exports which would flow from a venture of this nature. Deciding on an international centre now—this is why speed is imperative—would mean that firms already participating in exhibitions and fairs could have a complete image very soon of what the centre sets out to be. They could then lay plans accordingly.
Talking with representatives of firms which have participated in existing exhibitions, one gets the impression of a great deal of waste of capital involved in ventures of this kind. One knows of various fairs held throughout the country at which stalls have to be erected and cleared away and of fairs being held in unsuitable surroundings. The advantages of a permanent fair are obvious. Already there is sufficient amount of this type of activity within trade to make the fullest possible use of buildings of this kind. It is also essential that from the start the Government should have a stake in such a centre and the Board of Trade and the British National Export Council should be well
1496
represented on an overall committee. In many ways, it would be easier to raise finance than might appear at first glance.
I noticed in The Times the bank aid is being sought and merchant bankers are being approached on this matter. I hope that the door will not be closed to this type of venture because I think financing of an exhibition of this kind can be done in other ways. I do not ignore this factor but it should not be the dominant one. British Weeks for instance, some of which have been reasonably successful, are coming to an end. I do not have at my disposal details about what has been spent on British Weeks, but this sort of expenditure could be directed towards investment in the centre.
Investment by the Government is a vital matter. The Government have staked the whole of their future and that of the country on winning the balance of payments battle. I do not need to demonstrate exactly what a fair could do in this direction. As with the Hanover Fair, firms could sign a lease for seven years, thus guaranteeing the rent and the firm's participation in the fair for that period. To a large extent the fairs could be self-perpetuating. Friends have told me of their visits to Hanover Fair in the mid-fifties when they saw the potential particularly against the sad background of the decline of the British Industries Fair. They said how intrigued they were with the financial methods adopted by the fair authorities and the German Government. The success and history of this fair show how, Phoenixlike, it rose out of the rubble of postwar Europe and, further, how it was assisted to do so by British finance. Today it is acknowledged to be one of the largest and most successful fairs in the world.
Many of my friends in the North-East may express surprise at my advocacy of a southern centre, but the advantage of an exhibition centre in the South is obvious and is accepted by those in the Northern Region. I am sure that this would be of enormous assistance and benefit to the firms now settled in and around the Blyth constituency. When one examines, for instance, the excellent Buyer's Guide for 1969, which has been issued today by the North-East Development Council, and which lists about

1497
4,000 firms with national and international repute, one realises the value to be gained from such a venture by those of us in the Northern Region if only we can get on with the job at the centre and if we can get the Government Department concerned, along with industry and along with the other Government Departments, to get a move on in this matter. We cannot wait until 1972. It would also take many costly showrooms out of London and reduce the costs for many businesses. Time is not on our side. I hope, not only that my hon. Friend will give us a satisfactory answer, but that the Department will get moving and will treat this matter with the urgency that it deserves.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has raised a matter on which the Government have given considerable thought. Hon. Members will have read no doubt the recommendation of the Estimates Committee in its Sixth Report that
"The Board of Trade should produce estimates for a national exhibition centre building at Northolt as soon as possible, and should take the earliest subsequent opportunity to discuss with industry how the necessary funds could be raised for the project "
and the observations of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the White Paper presented to the House.
From the earliest times trade fairs have played an increasingly important rôle as places where the products of many industries and of many countries may be seen, inspected, compared and bought. The Government's policy of supporting British firms taking part in collective group displays at important trade fairs overseas emphasises the encouragement which the Government give to British exporters to use these trade fairs as a feature of their marketing activities.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, be interested to know that in 1968 5,300 firms were supported by the Board of Trade at 239 events in 38 countries. There is also the considerable support, both financial and direct, which the Government provide in organising British weeks and special store promotions of British goods in cities abroad. These are ways in which the products of this
1498
country can be taken to the buyers. The growth of these activities over recent years is evidence of their value to our exporters.
The other side of the coin is getting foreign buyers to come to see the products in this country. Many of the trade fairs which take place here are internationally renowned, and many thousands of buyers come to see them. Information about these trade fairs is published in a four-language booklet prepared by the Board of Trade and widely distributed by the Government's commercial representatives abroad.
There is, in addition, the Missions Scheme administered for the Government by the British National Export Council. Under this scheme considerable financial assistance is given towards the cost of bringing selected parties of foreign businessmen here to see the goods we have to offer. And, in the reverse direction, we assist with the cost of sending groups of British businessmen abroad to seek out export business.
There is no doubt that considerable export business results from these arrangements, but there is still a gap to be filled. We recognise that exhibition facilities are not sufficient to accommodate all the trade fairs, particularly those featuring large industrial equipment, and of the size such as are now held in some European exhibition centres. This is a situation which we should all like to remedy as quickly as possible. Industry has rightly and repeatedly emphasised the need, but no means have yet been found by which the undoubted interest in firms, in trade associations and in Chambers of Commerce can be translated into a form of tangible support.
A few years ago, as my hon. Friend said, when the proposal to build an exhibition centre at the Crystal Palace was under consideration, it had been supposed that industry would contribute to the costs, with the Government and the Greater London Council. This proposal failed, first because the Government were advised that the terms of the trusteeship of the land made it impossible for it to be used as a security for a debenture, and then because of serious problems with regard to costs and, particularly, road access.

1499
In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade decided that an alternative suitable site must be sought. The result was a site in the vicinity of Northolt which, in the view of the experts, is particularly suitable for a national exhibition centre. It has convenient access to Central London both by road and by rail, and it is not far from London Airport. Moreover, it is conveniently placed from the point of view of bringing in exhibits, particularly heavy and bulky industrial products, from the Midlands and the North.
I welcome the unselfish attitude of my hon. Friend towards the placing of such a centre in the South. However, the problem remains one of finance, and it is a large problem. We had hoped that some contribution towards the capital costs would have been provided by industry, but in this we have been disappointed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently had discussions with the Confederation of British Industry concerning proposals which have been made by a private developer; these proposals are now being considered. The Government hope that some way will be found to bring about this desirable addition to exhibition premises in this country.
My hon. Friend suggested that, perhaps, jet transport had altered the need for specialist exhibitions, yet he later mentioned the Hanover Fair. He knows that other large exhibition centres have been developed at Frankfurt, Cologne, Paris and Brussels, to mention only a few. Their success and growth is evidence not only of the important part which they play in promoting trade, and particularly the export trade of the host country, but also of the valuable and
1500
substantial foreign exchange earnings which result from the participation of foreign exhibitors and the influx of foreign visitors to these events. I have no doubt that a national exhibition centre comparable with those centres in Europe which have been developed since the last war is not beyond our resources, given the wholehearted support which their industry has given to these exhibitions in those countries.
In present circumstances, when the Government must consider very carefully any proposals involving the use of public funds, the evidence of a substantial and firm commitment of support by those sectors of industry which urge upon the Government the need for a national exhibition centre is vital to any further progress.
My hon. Friend has tonight outlined a most interesting and highly detailed scheme, on which he has obviously spent a great deal of time and study. I know that he will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely into a detailed discussion of the type of centre which he has in mind, but I assure him sincerely that we in the Board of Trade are well aware of the difficulties which are faced by many of our exhibitors, who frequently would like to welcome as hosts trade exhibitors to this country but are unable to do so. We shall not just note what my hon. Friend has said. We shall actively consider it, because he has given us tonight a detailed examination of an interesting development. We are at one. What we must now do is find a means of accomplishing what, I am sure, we are both aiming for in the very near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday, 12th February, 1969
[MR. JOHN ROBERTSON in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Mr. John Robertson (Chairman)

Bossom, Sir Clive (Leominster)

Maude, Mr. Angus (Stratford-on-Avorn)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Maydon, Lieutenant-Commander S. L. C.(Wells)

Channon, Mr. H. P. G. (Southend, West)

Concanaon, Mr. J. D. (Mansfield)

Mitchell, Mr. R. C. (Southampton, Test)

Davies, Mr. G. Elfed (Rhondda, East)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar (Peterborough)

Fletcher, Mr. Ted (Darlington)

Price, Mr. Christopher (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Harvie Anderson, Miss (Renfrew, East)

Iremonger, Mr. T. L. (Ilford, North)

Royle, Mr. Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Jenkins, Mr. Hugh (Putney)

St. John-Stevas, Mr. Norman (Chelmsford)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Minister of State, Department of Education and Science)

Short, Mrs. Renée (Wolverhampton. North-East)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)

Whitaker, Mr. Ben (Hampstead)

Mr. K. A. Bradshaw, Committee Clerk.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
10.30 a.m.
Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the National Theatre Bill are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Miss Jennie Lee.]
10.31 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Theatre Bill ought to be read a Second time.
In preparation for this morning I thought that I would refresh my memory of the debate which took place 20 years ago. My guess is that quite a number of hon. Members have done the same. I
1502
found it fascinating in the extreme. I doubt whether a single argument will be advanced today that had not been thought about and discussed 20 long years ago.
I notice, for example, that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Glenvil Hall, moved the Second Reading and warned the Committee:
"… it is estimated that it will cost about £1 million to build a memorial theatre of the kind we contemplate, worthy of the name of Shakespeare and worthy of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 440.]
We all know how money values have changed since then. Equally fascinating is to read his hope that
"everyone, regardless of the state of his pocket, will be able to enjoy the plays that will be put on in this theatre. I would like to see many seats sold at sixpence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 442.]

1503
One cannot buy a pop record or a paperback for sixpence today. However, I am sure that we endorse the sentiments that the National Theatre must be a place which gives a warm welcome to the young and all others with modest incomes.
Following the Financial Secretary came a speech by Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos. Everyone reading it will be touched by his opening remarks, where he said that he had a vested interest to declare. He went on:
"My father and mother were both concerned with the original project nearly 40 years ago, and I am very glad to think that my mother lived long enough to know of the introduction of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 443.]
Lord Chandos is Chairman of the National Theatre Board and a member of the South Bank Theatre Board. I hope that not only will he live to see the National Theatre, which he and his family have cared about so much, erected and occupied; I hope, too, that for many years he will have the pleasure of enjoying the fruits of this very important national project which he has worked so hard to establish.
The whole debate 20 years ago reflected not only the concern that the National Theatre should be truly national and should welcome all kinds of people of all classes and ages, but also that it should mean something not only to Londoners but to people all over the country.
In the financial provision which we are considering the Government are asking permission from Parliament to contribute £3¾ million, with an equivalent amount to be contributed by the G.L.C. which, in addition, is providing a valuable site. When it comes to the running costs of the National Theatre, I might point out that, in the past five years that we have had the National Theatre Company, for every £1 contributed by the Greater London Council, £4 has been contributed by the Government, channelled through the Arts Council. I underline that point to make it clear that we are not discussing a municipal theatre but the National Theatre, and we hope that that National Theatre will spend even more time than now in visiting other parts of the country and making frequent tours abroad.
1504
When this great National Theatre is established, there may not be two companies but certainly there will have to be a much enlarged company, and those who have a special responsibility for the development of the arts in Scotland, Wales, the North and elsewhere, will join with me in rejoicing that, at long last, the National Theatre is to become a reality. It is not something which will detract from the efforts to establish first-rate theatres in other parts of the country. On the contrary, it will stimulate those activities.
I cannot resist making one more quotation, and it is from the speech of Captain Bullock, the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo. He enlivened the proceedings by pointing out the dangers of political interference or nepotism of any kind. One cardinal feature in the preliminary years during which I have been the Minister responsible has been that this project should be essentially non-party and non-political. However much the activities of certain theatres and actors may be unwelcome in terms of our personal tastes and prejudices, one feature which sets us apart from other countries is that we are totally opposed to political control or direction in this kind of activity. Captain Bullock put the point amusingly and warned the House:
"I have seen in European State theatres foreign Cabinet Ministers making little arrangements for their friends to walk on in small parts, or to be given bigger ones for which they were not fitted. I have seen it amongst the Nazis, when a tenor was removed from the Vienna Opera and a fine actor was removed from the Burgtheater to make room for a good party member who could neither act nor sing. That sort of thing must be avoided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 454.]
I think that we would agree whole heartedly with that sentiment.
I have mentioned with gratitude and appreciation the tremendous support and help that I have had from the National Theatre Board and from Lord Chandos, its Chairman. In addition, there has been a wonderful and close liaison between County Hall and Whitehall, between those entrusted with the government of London and the government of the country.
In 1964, I was obliged to appeal to Sir William Fiske when I wanted help in many ways. I was most fortunate. He

1505
responded with generosity and great sensitivity. Already we have begun to establish the same kind of relationships with his successor. However, before either of those two gentlemen led the Council, for many long years Sir Isaac Hayward was the guiding spirit in the old London County Council. A fitting tribute which everyone appreciated came when it was decided that a gallery on the South Bank should be called the Hayward Gallery.
We are very fortunate in that what we are discussing has the blessing of both the national Government and the Greater London Council. I venture to say that all civilised Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, will want the project to go ahead. Of course, there are only civilised hon. Members in this Room today.
I do not want to take hon. Members too far back into history, because we hope to make progress in the Committee this morning. However, I would remind hon. Members that this project is not a new idea. A certain London publisher named Wilson was doing his best in 1848 to win support for this concept, and it s obvious that a great country like ours wants a National Theatre.
However my dilemma in 1964 was that, two years' earlier, in agreement with the London County Council, the Government of the day set up the South Bank Theatre and Opera Board to plan and build on the South Bank a national theatre and a new opera house to replace Sadlers Wells. It was made clear to the Board in its terms of reference that the sums available to it were not to exceed £2·3 million, £1 million contributed by the Government under the terms of the 1949 Act, and up to £1·3 million by the L.C.C., which was also contributing the site under an arrangement made in 1946. In 1965, I saw sketch plans which were produced by Mr. Denys Lasdun, the architect. At that time, the estimated cost was over £14 million, exclusive of fees. That was a very very long way from the £2·3 million within which we hoped that the National Theatre Building Committee would operate. The Government made it clear that we could not contribute to the cost of the opera house, and the London County Council said that it could not go ahead on its own. Happily, a solution to the problem of Sadlers
1506
Wells has been found in the Coliseum Theatre—
Mrs. Renée Short: Only in the short term.
Miss Lee: Yes, only short-term, but we have to live from hand to mouth in this world. It is short-term, but it is satisfactory at the moment. It means that London is doing quite well.
Coming to the National Theatre proper, we had to find means of bringing the cost down to within what we could reasonably hope to get from County Hall and from Whitehall. The agreement is that both will supply £3¾ million.
We have had to make sacrifices to keep within that figure. To begin with, there will not be a restaurant, but there will be space made available for one. Again, a small experimental theatre has to be sacrificed. But in the main, we look forward to a splendid theatre.
Twenty years ago, it was the building which was being discussed, but, even with all our love and respect for the Old Vic, we did not have a great National Theatre Company of the distinction that we have today.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Lady said that the experimental theatre is being dispensed with, but there are two theatres, are there not?
Miss Lee: I will come to that in a moment. Mr. Denys Lasdun originally planned for three. I will define that more clearly later.
We have had a distinguished National Theatre Company for five years, and at this point in my remarks I want to pay tribute to Sir Laurence Olivier. I received a very moving letter from him the other day. It was an S.O.S. for the setting up of a temporary theatre where a Young Vic company could operate. He pointed out that the great stars come and go, but that the essence of a national theatre is the ensemble. He went on to say that he dared not expose his young company straightaway to the full glare of the National Theatre stage. I am sure that we all appreciate not only his personal distinction but his sense of continuity and, above all, his emphasis on the fact that, however important the great

1507
stars are, it is the quality of the ensemble and the opportunities that its members are given which is the very heart and core of a national theatre.
I doubt whether anyone in the Comittee needs to be persuaded that the Old Vic Theatre is not adequate for present needs. I should like to put on record, because there may be some who wonder whether this is an undue extravagance at such a time, that the Old Vic was not designed for the presentation of full-scale repertory of the high standard expected of a National Theatre Company. It lacks the necessary technical amenities. There is an inadequate lighting system and switchboard, insufficient wing space on stage, insufficient rehearsal rooms, and storage space for only two or three productions. Dressing room conditions are primitive and inadequate for the number of the company required to play both in London, the regions and abroad. From a number of the seats in the theatre it is impossible to see the stage properly. The public cloakrooms, bars and foyer space are both cramped and uncomfortable. Finally, the number of seats, even allowing for those where the vision is inadequate, is not much more than 800. This, of course, leads to a great deal of complaint from the public, especially if there is a performance which they particularly wish to attend.
On the other hand, what are we preparing today? We are making our contribution to the building of a new National Theatre which will have two auditoria, one of the proscenium type seating 900 people and one of the open stage type seating 1,165 people. That means that the total seating capacity of the theatre will, therefore, be over 2,000. The National Theatre Company considers the two auditoria are strictly necessary in order to present plays of wide variety which a National Theatre must include within its repertoire within the type of auditorium most suited to those plays. It can be said that the more intimate type of production will be staged in the proscenium auditorium and the more spectacular production within the open stage type auditorium.
Equally important, backstage facilities including dressing rooms, production department, wardrobe department, rehearsal rooms, etc., will be to the
1508
highest modern standards, while the facilities available to the public will be of the type which they have the right to expect in a capital city which is a major centre of the arts.
I have already indicated the relative contributions of the Government and the Greater London Council, but, in addition, there is a sum of about £100,000 remaining from the Shakespeare Memorial Trust. As I have said before, with this amount of financial backing, and, I hope, moral and every other kind of backing as well, we are confident that we can have a very great theatre worthy of London, worthy of the whole of Great Britain, and occupying a leading place throughout the world.
I will conclude almost at once, because I do not think that the Bill will be hotly contested between the two sides of the Committee, but I would just say that in 1949 there was a cri de coeur that we could not, in the then financial situation, go ahead with this kind of plan. There will be those who ask now whether we have our priorities right, whether this is not one form of expenditure which could very well be put back to some future date. I hope that we will not take that view. I hold that a country which cannot find a place in its thoughts and in its provisions for the highest form of the arts, a country which loses that inspiration and that solace, has no real claim to be called great. There has never been a time in history, in any part of the world, where the great arts have been able to flourish unsubsidised. In a mixed economy we still hope to get private money, trusts and the rest, but I think that we would all agree that it has now become urgent, and, I hope, one of the most pleasant duties of Government, to see that we honour our great country by ensuring all the encouragement that this theatre will give, not just in London, but in Scotland. Wales and throughout the country. This is our privilege and our pleasure this morning. We are now ready to move forward into the final stage of creating a new building in which London and the whole country can take pride. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
10.51 a.m.
Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I join with the right hon. Lady in commending the Bill to the Committee. Like her, I would have been a

1509
great deal happier this morning if all that she and I and others wish to say had not been said already some 20 years ago. I suppose in a way that the Committee of Selection ought to be congratulated, because there are many Members of the House who took part in that debate, but none has been selected to serve on this Committee. I imagine that it would have been too much to have made them go through it again 20 years later when their previous efforts have not, alas, so far been successful.
I agree that the first resolution that the Committee should set itself is to be absolutely certain that we will get a National Theatre and not be sitting here in another 20 years still talking about the problem, by which time the cost will have gone up to £10 million if costs escalate at the same rate as they have in the last 20 years.
I do not intend to go through the history of the National Theatre. It is a very long history. But I think that the Committee would like to pay tribute to all the people who, for so many years, have fought against sometimes overwhelming odds to get this project successfully completed. I was glad that the right hon. Lady used those kind words about my noble Friend, Lord Chandos, who has been connected with the project for so many years and who will be a very happy man when it is completed. He told me that he had been connected with the project for 40 years and was determined that it would not be another 40 years before he went to the first performance.
The right hon. Lady quoted from the 1949 debate. I should like to quote a passage from the speech of Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, as he then was, because I think that he set the case best for a National Theatre. Indeed, it was appropriate that he should do so. He said:
"I have often been asked, as a sponsor of this project, what is the necessity for a National Theatre? This, of course, is a question which perhaps only the Secretary of the Philistine Society, if there is such a body, could approprately ask. I usually reply in a rather conventional way by asking what is the need, come to that, for the National Gallery, for St. Paul's Cathedral, 'Lycidas' or the 'Eroica' Symphony of Beethoven. These works are not necessities in the sense that the President of the Board of Trade and others use the term when speaking about
1510
clothes, food or houses. In fact, we only begin to enter the realms of art when we begin to leave the realms of necessity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c 446.]
I strongly support the plan for a National Theatre, which is long overdue here. The French have had a national theatre for 300 years, and most civilised countries have a record over centuries and considerably greater than ours of supporting their theatres and opera. It is particularly appropriate that we should have a National Theatre because, in the arts, drama has been the great British contribution. The works of innumerable playwrights spring immediately to mind in considering a National Theatre-Shakespeare, Marlowe, Shaw. However, it is interesting that Mr. Shaw was not keen on a National Theatre, at least on the proposed site that we have now suggested. Nor was J. B. Priestley, for that matter. I do not know why it is always these Left Wing playwrights who are against the idea. Everyone else seems to be in favour.
Miss Lee: It was the site to which J. B. Priestley objected, not the theatre.
Mr. Channon: It was the site to which Shaw objected; but J. B. Priestley was against the whole idea.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: George Bernard Shaw was happy with Malvern. I am the Chairman of that theatre.
Mr. Channon: I am sure that he had every reason to be.
At the time that this matter was debated in 1949 there was criticism in distinguished quarters against the idea of a National Theatre. Many people thought it was unnecessary. I think that that thought has now gone completely, and that the National Theatre is welcomed enthusiastically by all in this country who love drama. Perhaps the real reason, as the right hon. Lady said, is the magnificent work done by Sir Laurence Olivier and the National Theatre Company in their difficult conditions during the past five years. I hope that all hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing some of the performers of the National Theatre Company. The only trouble seems to be that it is almost impossible to get in. However, that is probably a good thing. I have some doubts whether it will be

1511
easier to get into the new National Theatre. This is a fault of success, about which we cannot complain.
It is also a matter for congratulation and happiness that both sides of the Committee can join enthusiastically in supporting the project. Indeed, at different times both major parties have given the National Theatre support when they could. The Government, despite economic difficulties at the moment, are supporting the National Theatre. In 1962. when we also had economic difficulties, though nothing like so severe as those we have been through recently, support was given by the Conservative Government to the National Theatre. It has been an interesting example of co-operation between the Government and the London County Council, and now the G.L.C. In 1949 we had a Labour L.C.C. and a Labour Government. Then we had a Labour L.C.C. and a Tory Government. Now we have this new partnership between the Tory Greater London Council and a Labour Government. My guess is that when the National Theatre is completed the fourth permutation will be the one which will shortly rule our affairs.
Miss Lee: No politics, please.
Mr. Channon: Should that turn out to be the case, I am sure that the National Theatre will have nothing to fear.
I am grateful to the Greater London Council and to the Government for the £3¾ million which they are both to provide for this project. It is understandable that neither side wishes to go further—indeed, they are not committed to anything further—if the Theatre cannot be built for the £7·6 million—because there is the extra £100,000 which has been promised. This goes to show, and it cannot be emphasised too strongly, that the sooner we can get on with the project the more chance there will be of its being completed. If we cannot do it fairly speedily, costs will rise and it will not be possible to build it within the figure of £7·6 million. I would hope and think that that large sum of money is sufficient.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady could tell us what is now the proposed timing of this project? Will it take from now, 12th February 1969, to 1973 or 1974 before
1512
the National Theatre is built? There is every incentive to hurry as fast as possible with the project if we are to get it at all. We cannot afford the risk of building costs escalating again so severely. I think it is a project with which any contractor would be proud to be associated, and there will be an enormous incentive to build it speedily and on time. I very much hope, therefore, that we may have some information about the likely timing of the project.
I expect that most hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing the distinguished plans which Mr. Lasdun has drawn up. I am sure that Sir Laurence Olivier and all those connected with the project were right to insist that the National Theatre, if it was to be built, should be built to the highest standards. It is dangerous for a layman to express views on the architectural merit of the theatre or on the proposed layout inside as prepared by experts, but I think that it is an exciting building and it seems to have met with general approval.
What criticisms could be levelled against the idea for a National Theatre? Why have a National Theatre at all? I think that few people ask that now. Most people interested in the project think that the criticism really is that we have not had a National Theatre in the past.
I should like to put forward an economic argument, too, which was not touched on by the right hon. Lady. The theatre today provides an enormous asset to our invisible exports. We have an enormous number of tourists attracted to London. I think that the theatre is one reason why they come. If an American tourist is asked why he is here, he invariably says that one reason is to visit the theatre. This is the reason why people go to New York also. I hope that the National Theatre will be an additional reason why people will come to London. This will, of course, mean that it will be even more difficult than it is now to get tickets. Very often our actors and playwrights do not get the credit which they deserve for the earnings which they bring to this country. They do not get credit for their distinguished record in the theatre, not only in this country, but on Broadway, and in all parts of the world. I think that in the long term the National Theatre will prove to be of increasing benefit to our balance of payments.

1513
There are those who ask why the National Theatre should be in London. It is inevitable that it should be in the great capital city of this country. I suppose it is inevitable that Londoners will get more of the benefits than others will, but they are putting up half the cost, and they are entitled to some extra benefit for that.
I hope that when the new Theatre is built the company will seriously consider doing what it can to help the regions. We all know what a tremendous problem the theatre is facing outside London. I hope that the National Theatre will stimulate people into going to the theatre in general. This may be the greatest service it can perform. I know that at the moment the National Theatre Company tours the regions for a minimum of eight weeks every year, and sometimes more than that. I hope that, without imposing too much of a strain on the Company, it will be possible to increase this minimum of eight weeks to, say, twelve weeks, or whatever is considered appropriate, so that the regions may feel that they are getting their share of the money which the country is putting up towards the cost of this Theatre.
I do not consider that the National Theatre will have a bad effect on the commercial theatre. I shall be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) who knows so much about this problem. I hope that it will encourage new audiences to the theatre, and create more interest in it, both outside London and within it.
There may be some people who, in general terms, are in favour of having a National Theatre, but say that the present appalling economic climate is not the moment for it. There will never be a right moment to go ahead with a theatre. There will never be a time when everyone says, "This is the moment when we should press ahead". There will always be some reason why it is an inconvenient moment. There has been very little critiism, either in the House or outside, along those lines.
Considerable long-term economic benefits can be gained from the National Theatre, but perhaps the right hon. Lady will confirm some details about the short-term expenditure. I imagine that there will be comparatively little expenditure
1514
this year, and perhaps not very much next year, either, and that the bulk of the expenditure will be in 1971 or 1972. Surely by then we can expect some improvement in the economic climate? If there is not, it will be a disaster.
I was a little depressed when I read the report of the Press conference which the National Theatre gave in 1967. Sir Laurence Olivier said then:
"The Prime Minister has promised us a boom in about a year—just the right time to start building."
I am afraid that his forecast was out.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It was not Sir Laurence's forecast.
Mr. Channon: We all know that life is full of disappointments. It is not necessary to remind my hon. Friend of the words of King Lear:
"Get thee glass eyes;
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not."
That was what the Prime Minister was doing in that forecast. We all hope that when the bulk of the expenditure for this theatre comes to be made the economic climate will be more favourable.
I think that this great project deserves the enthusiastic support of the Committee and the whole House. I think that it deserves the enthusiastic support of those interested in promoting the theatre. I hope that it will be able to go forward with speed and vigour, and that the National Theatre will be built in the comparatively near future. If it is, it will be an achievement for both sides of the House, and they can take credit for it, because it will be a project which will grow and to which all people can look forward.
11.5 a.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: If I may also quote from our national playwright, I do not wish either to paint the lily or to perfume the violet, but I should like to join in the congratulations which have been given by the right hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to those who have played a part in bringing this project to fruition. I congratulate, too, both the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend on the civilising influence, if that is the right word, which they have exercised in the House.

1515
I do not know whether that civilising influence is necessary among our colleagues, but they certainly have exercised it, and this is an encouraging day, for them in particular, and for those who are interested in the theatre.
It is true that the theatre is the one field in which we are pre-eminent. We have an unbroken tradition of English drama, which goes back to the medieval morality and mystery plays, and is carried on not only on this side of the Atlantic, but on the other, where there is a flourishing, vigorous tradition. In the past the flow of talent and inventiveness has not needed a National Theatre. For better or for worse, the age of Royal and private patronage of the theatre is over, but we are in the age of State patronage of the arts, and that being so it is right that the theatre should have its legitimate share.
I have one reservation about the Bill, and that is whether the sum of £7½ million will be enough. It sounds a large sum, half of which will come from the G.L.C., and half from the Treasury, but costs are bound to rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said, most of the building is likely to take place, not in the next year or two, but at the end of four years, and by then costs will have increased considerably. By an extremely ingenious effort the architect has managed to reduce the projected cost from £7½ million to £7·4 million, without interfering with the facilities—in fact he has improved them in some ways—but that leaves only £100,000 to play with. I wonder what will happen by 1972 or 1973. Will the money which we are voting now be sufficient?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I should like to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is a good friend, not to encourage the people who will carry out this project to ask for supplementaries. They will come. Supplementary grants will be asked for. I do not think that we should encourage people to ask for them.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take the point. but my point is not contradictory to that. My hon. Friend and I never disagree on any important matter. My point is that to avoid the need for supplementary estimates we should consider whether, to
1516
get it past the Treasury and the House, this figure is being fixed rather low. We should consider whether it is being fixed at that low figure to avoid opposition now. This is a legitimate political device, but in the long run it may prove to be more costly, in more ways than one.
My second question is, what is going to happen to the Old Vic when this Theatre is built? What plans are there for that? One suggestion which I have seen, and which I support, is that the present National Theatre should be used for putting on plays at low prices, particularly for the young. I suggest to the right hon. Lady that it should be used also in conjunction with what used to be called the University of the Air, a project which I wish well, and regret that my party voted against, or indicated its displeasure about, or its opposition to.
Mr. Channon: The criticism of the University of the Air was the choice of priorities, when there were so many other pressing needs. There was no violent opposition to the project itself.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not say that there was violent opposition to the project. My very measured words seem to have produced a violent response from my hon. Friend. I regret that that was the order of priority. I should give it a higher priority, but I suggest that the Old Vic might in future be used in association with programmes there.
It is true, also, that this is a National Theatre; it is not a London theatre, even though it is based in London. The right hon. Lady mentioned the importance of regarding this as a theatre based on the nation as a whole. I agree with that, because I imagine that one hopes to develop at the National Theatre—indeed, to a certain extent it has been developed already—a troupe of actors similar to the troupe which exists at certain continental centres, such as at the Comédie Francaise in Paris, or the Berlin Ensemble or the Moscow Arts Theatre. If we are to create that sort of company, we must get people from the provinces as well as from London. It is, therefore, important that the provincial theatre should flourish at the same time.
I see that the right hon. Lady agrees with me. I hope that she will help the Chelmsford Theatre in particular, which at the moment is in need of money.

1517
My final point concerns a rather delicate subject, but I think I must make it. It is that if Parliament grants this large sum of money to the National Theatre those who dispense this money for building the theatre, and those who use the theatre for putting on plays, must have some sense of responsibility to the nation as to what they put on in that theatre. I am not in favour of any form of censorship of the theatre. Indeed, I was one of the sponsors of the Bill, along with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), to abolish the theatrical jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. If the National Theatre is to command the support and confidence of the nation, there must he certain restraints, and Parliament is entitled to ask for certain assurances of restraint from those responsible for the administration of the National Theatre.
I have in mind the recent proposal to put on at the National Theatre the play "Soldiers", by Hochhuth. That play would have been put on had it not been for the intervention of the noble Lord Lord Chandos who quite properly intervened, exercising his function as Chairman of the Board. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord for his far-sighted action in that matter. I have seen the play. It is a very bad play, but that is not the point. My suggestion is that it is unacceptable at a national institution like the National Theatre to put on a play which insults one of the greatest Englishmen, when his widow and relatives are still alive. This was a gross error of judgment and taste. The Prime Minister himself commented on it only yesterday when he described the play as "scurrilous".
When Parliament is giving these large sums it is entitled to ask that this theatre will not put on plays which insult revered individuals and institutions in this country, such as the Monarchy. Such plays should not be put on at the taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend about the play by Hochhuth at the National Theatre, but is he not putting forward a dangerous proposition? Who in future is to decide what is restrained and what is not? I fully accept that the decision of Lord Chandos was right
1518
and sensible, but is my hon. Friend saying that, in future, Parliament must dictate to those who run the theatre what they should and should not put on? This would be totally unacceptable to me. It is a very dangerous philosophy that Parliament should in any way censor the productions of the National Theatre.
The Chairman: Order. I have no objection to interventions but hon. Members must keep them rather shorter than that.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but whether it be a dangerous philosophy or not is not for me to say, because it is not my philosophy that Parliament should control the day-to-day running of the theatre. I was saying that, unless there were a high standard of responsibility, Parliament would have to intervene, which I would regret. But that is different from my hon. Friend's point.
There must be freedom in the theatre, as throughout the arts, but not without a sense of responsibility. No free institution—that includes Parliament—can flourish without some self-discipline. The wider the freedom, the greater the need for that discipline. When censorship of the theatre has been to all intents and purposes abolished there is a need for a responsible censorship in the theatre as a whole and in the National Theatre in particular. We cannot legislate for good taste: it is difficult to acquire by experience; some are lucky enough to be born with it, and others unfortunate enough to lack it. This is a substantial point which should be made when these large sums of money are being given to an important institution.
Mr. Ben Whitaker: When the hon. Gentleman said that, for some reason, the Monarchy must be exempted from critical plays, would he have applied this if he had been living at that time to half the historical plays of Shakespeare, for relatives were living of some of the people whom Shakespeare criticised in his plays? Which should have priority—restraint or artistic plays?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would reply, Autres temps, autres moeurs. The Elizabethan monarchy was regarded differently from the Monarchy today. The historical background was different. Kings and queens were executed in those

1519
days fairly regularly. We must take into account public feeling on certain matters and not outrage it in a National Theatre.
I am sorry to have injected a note of controversy into these proceedings, so I want to end on a more harmonious note. The achievements of the Director of the National Theatre and those responsible for the direction have been considerable. There has been a wide range of plays, ranging from "A Flea in Her Ear", to "The Dance of Death", beautifully produced and worthy of our national theatrical tradition. The future of the National Theatre, although bright with promise, rests in its own hands, as is true of all free institutions.
11.21 a.m.
Mr. Ben Whitaker: Although I generally agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) I would strongly dissent from his attempt to put any strictures on the plays which are produced at the National Theatre. It is ludicrous for Members of Parliament to try to arbitrate in artistic matters. There are perfectly good legal provisions governing any defamation, and, as someone who generally agrees with my honourable constituent, I regret that he should contend that there should be any less artistic freedom in the twentieth century than there was in Shakespeare's day. If we were to have a worse state of affairs than that in Elizabethan England, that would not be the right climate in which to launch a National Theatre.
I support what my right hon. Friend said, that there should be complete freedom from political control. When the hon. Member for Chelmsford tried to dress up his penchant for censorship as matters of good taste, he must realise better than anyone that what is good taste to him is poison to many other hon. Members. It is not good enough to say that this is a question of self-imposed censorship, because these are his own particular prejudices.
Many of us would like to pay a short but strong tribute to my right hon. Friend for her strong efforts on behalf not only of the National Theatre but of the arts generally. We are all conscious of the ludicrous situation that the foundation
1520
stone of this theatre has been sitting in solitary state a few yards from where we are now. It is a deplorable saga, equalled only by the state of the Burrell picture collection in Glasgow, which has been neglected year after year equally indefensibly.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will give us a target date for the first performance. When is the estimated "curtain up"? She might be well advised to include a strong penalty clause in the contract for the building of the theatre and an incentive bonus for prompt completion, so that there will be every reason for the winner of the contract to stick to the date.
Many hon. Members would regret it if there were any penny pinching. If we are to have a National Theatre for Great Britain, let it be something we are proud of. It would be lamentable if there were no restaurant, as is proposed, and if there were not adequate car parking facilities or adequate facilities both for the players and for the staff behind the scenes, who are often neglected in British theatres because the public do not see the terrible conditions in which they work.
Therefore, could she launch a public subscription? If the Treasury and the Greater London Council have refused to pay a penny more, why should not enlightened contributions come from industry or from trusts and foundations, so that this really is a national theatre of which we can be proud. Many private companies disburse funds to political parties. Might they not contribute to something more estimable, such as a non-party national theatre? A public subscription list might be a very good form of advertising for companies, and some of us might be persuaded to patronise those which spend money in such an enlightened direction, rather than in much less enlightened directions. I hope that this project will go forward as soon as possible.
11.26 a.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I believe in the continuity of debate so should like to comment on the pebble thrown into the pond by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Of course Parliament would always be able to bring back censorship if that were thought right. It was

1521
Parliament which gave the Lord Chamberlain the power in the first place and Parliament which took it away—I think rightly. If those responsible do not attain a level which is just, sensible and clean, Parliament would have to step in. If the self-discipline which my hon. Friend describes is not forthcoming, this might have to happen. I hope that it will not, but the theatre might get into the hands of cranks. Those with the power should remember that at this stage all of us interested in this form of art do not want the censor and hope that he is finished for good, but that is not to say that we have net the power to bring him back, if we thought fit.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) suggested, more in his tone than this words, that industry and the trusts were not contributing to the arts. They are very generous. If they were persuaded to divert considerable funds to the National Theatre other institutions might suffer. There are theatres throughout the country which are always making appeals. They get a very generous response, considering the economic situation. Although I am wholeheartedly in favour of this power under the Bill, I hope that this glamorous National Theatre, with all the headlines it gets, will not attract all the money from those sources, to leave other institutions, in the provinces, to drop out of existence because they are denied their source of funds. The right hon. Lady will have more information on this than I, but it is known that industry and the trusts which it has set up have been generous patrons of the arts. We put out an appeal to them from the Malvern Theatre recently. They have not much money for that today, but we hope that their past generosity will show itself again.
One thing is clear from the speeches this morning—that we want this National Theatre quickly, not just because it is a good thing in itself but also because, if we delay, we shall not be able to afford it. Time is of the essence. I do not entirely follow the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. We should tell the people who have to give effect to the idea of the Bill that they must keep within the limits laid down and the budgets explained to us by the right hon. Lady. This may mean doing with
1522
out restaurants and other facilities for the time being, but it should not be beyond the capacity of a good architect so to plan that when happier times come we can have the full bloom that we want.
Talk of such figures as have been mentioned this morning might frighten people. Members of this Committee are enthusiastic and well advised to be so, but people outside have not the same sympathies because they have not the same understanding of these needs. It would not be sensible to frighten them off by suggesting that the figures should be higher, though no doubt, supplementary estimates will come for items which cannot be foreseen at the moment. The message should be that we want this theatre, we have seen the plans, we believe an excellent edifice can be produced within the figure proposed, and we want the architect to keep within it.
I emphasise the need to pay attention to the National Theatre helping the provinces. At the moment there are in the country between 20 and 30 well-known theatres on the verge of dropping out of existence. If in the next two or three years they do not receive help of some sort we may be short of theatres by that number. I cannot see the force of building an excellent National Theatre in London if it is at the price of 30 other theatres dropping out of existence. The right hon. Lady has shown excellent interest in this matter and she has fire m her belly for the job she is doing. I hope that she will turn her attention to keeping provincial theatres alive. She has encouraged the setting up of a committee of the Arts Council to look into this matter. An interim report has been produced with a view to giving first aid to theatres which may be on the verge of going out of existence. This matter is so urgent that we ought to have a quick reply. Otherwise we shall be paying lip service to this culture only to see it withering away.
The National Theatre can help very much. It does a minimum of eight weeks touring, but rarely exceeds that limit. There are ways and means of letting those responsible know what our views are. If it could be written into the policy of the National Theatre that it must tour the provinces for a minimum of, say, 14 weeks a year, that would be worth doing. Perhaps the running costs would

1523
then be more. The Royal Ballet has "shown that, when trying to do more touring.
However, if it would cost more money it might be worth anticipating the extra running costs in return for spreading the National Theatre's influence in the provinces. If provincial theatres believed that they were within two or three years of receiving such help from the National Theatre it would be an added incentive to their tightening their belts in order to keep alive. If not, this country, which contributes more than any other to this kind of art, may find its influence on world theatre fade.
My answer to the Philistines—of whom there is none present here—is that there is an economic side to this kind of project. The balance of payments of this country through foreign earnings 20 years from now will receive more from the arts, the theatre, television and all the things we call entertainment, than will be received from the sale of motor cars. Other countries are already making motor cars and that market will recede. Only a tiny part of the world has television and theatres and such things which we take for granted. We have the facilities, the know-how and experience by which this country could become to the theatre what Hollywood has become for films. There is a hard economic advantage in having a theatre which is the last word in excellence, which can provide the highest quality performances, and maintain and further establish our lead over America and other countries as the people who can supply the know-how and earn the income.
There are good cultural and social reasons and, I believe, outstanding economic reasons to be enthusiastic about sending this Bill forward with the provision suggested by the right hon. Lady. The benefits I have envisaged, and the vision I have of what could flow from it, depend on our being able to maintain our national interest in the subject. They depend on provincial theatres being maintained. They are old, draughty, out-of-date buildings, not of the best sort, but they have to be kept in use till they can be replaced by new buildings which, I hope, will be financed to some extent by private enterprise. If we allow them to fail we shall not succeed in our object,
1524
but, if we can get this National Theatre, and at the same time maintain and encourage provincial theatres, we shall do a good job.
Because we can together do that I am happy to be on this Committee and to give the right hon. Lady all the support I am able to give.
11.39 a.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon getting us here today discussing this Bill. This is a most exciting occasion. If one looks at the projected plans both for the National Theatre and the rebuilding of Covent Garden in due course with the provision of a permanent home for Sadlers Wells and perhaps a London Arts Centre under one roof, one sees that we are on the verge of exciting and stimulating developments affecting not only drama but ballet and the training of dancers, actors and actresses.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) struck the right note and I wish to follow what he said. We look at the developments for which we have been working for many years, but we see that the state of the theatre is very parlous. The concern which the hon. Member expressed for the lack of health in many of the commercial theatres is well known. I am concerned about the way in which many provincial repertory theatres of the very highest standing, and which are supported by the Arts Council, have to operate on a shoestring. As my right hon. Friend knows I have great personal interest in this. I investigated the Arts Council expenditure last year and had the opportunity of seeing many theatres in England. Scotland and Wales. The idea that the new National Theatre will help to bring some fertilisation and cross-pollination to the provincial theatre is very desirable, but the National Theatre cannot do this unless we provide decent theatres of the right size with the right amenities. These we have not got at present.
I could not follow the hon. Member's suggestion that it should be written into the future contract of the National Theatre that it should tour for 14 weeks. We cannot dictate how much it should tour or where it should tour. Touring is a highly expensive operation, and to be successful it depends on having the

1525
right theatres. It may be that the new National Theatre, with a much larger stage and better facilities than it has now, will do much more ambitious productions with more ambitious staging which could not be adapted to the tiny stages of many provincial theatres. We have to be wary about this suggestion. Neither in touring nor in what should be put on should we attempt to dictate to the National Theatre. This should be left to its good sense and sense of responsibility.
One of the reasons why I welcome the new development is that with the proposals for two theatres under one roof, as it were, and developments for a young people's theatre, which Sir Laurence and Frank Dunlop have very much at heart, there will be more employment for young actors and actresses in this overcrowded profession. They are highly talented people who have been trained in the best schools in the world—the training is superb—but many theatres are closing. Not only are theatres closing, but those which remain are run on a shoestring. Often they can afford to employ only the tinest nucleus of a company. In many theatres supported by the State there is a nucleus of only 10, which is nonsense if we want to support good drama. This is entirely a matter of money.
So, if it provides opportunities to extend employment in the theatrical profession, we should all welcome this proposal. More than half of well-trained actors and actresses—not those who have muscled in by the back door—often do not get employment for a year. That is an indictment of our present care and concern for the arts and the theatre generally. Although I do not want to pour cold water on our happy proceedings, I think we should bear in mind that, while we are looking forward to producing a magnificent workshop for the National Theatre, we must not overlook the provincial theatre's needs, which are very urgent and moving into a state of crisis.
On my visits to the National Theatre I saw enthusiastic, dedicated people who are doing marvellous work, but their conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said, are quite appalling. It is amazing that the present high standard has been maintained for so long under such bad conditions. I am referring not only to mem-
1526
bers of the company, but to those who have to produce the costumes and sets, to paint the scenery and provide the props. They are working under bad conditions of cramped space. A National Theatre should not have to work under those conditions.
I hope that somehow, either by the ideas suggested by my hon. Friend or otherwise, we may persuade those who have not contributed to the development of the arts as they ought to make an adequate contribution. He has suggested a public appeal. However, I wonder if we could make an approach to the Independent Television authorities who, in my opinion, have a very strong moral responsibility. I do not want to discuss their enormous profits but, rather, to what use they put them. Perhaps they could be persuaded to invest some of their profits in the live theatre.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Lady will recall that we wrote a provision into the last Television Act that they should contribute to some sort of fund which, I thought, was to be used for this very purpose.
Mrs. Short: I was not aware that we had written in such a provision. However, the moral obligation is clear. Television tends to use only experienced actors and actresses. To get them, it looks round the provincial repertory theatres and decides which of the actors and actresses are of sufficient experience and talent to use. It creams off young actors who have been trained in the provincial theatres and who have gained their experience through the opportunities given by the investment of public money via the Arts Council. I feel that there is a strong case for suggesting that the television authorities have a responsibility to put something back into the living theatre.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some information about the timing of the development of the Theatre. Like all other hon. Members, I look forward to being able to attend the opening night.
11.48 a.m.
Sir Clive Bossom: The right hon. Lady spoke about the debate in the House 20 years ago. My father was an Alderman of the L.C.C., an hon.

1527
Member of this House and, above all, an architect, and I remember how, 35 years ago, he had some very exciting ideas about the layout and design of a National Theatre. Today, nothing must stand in the way of getting the project launched. I am sure that hon. Members want to see the theatre completed. The date aimed at is early 1973. I hope that that will be achieved.
Last summer, I made an extensive tour of the Lincoln Centre in New York. I wanted to discover some of the pitfalls and snags which had been encountered there and what lessons could be learned from what has taken place there in the last few years. It is a wonderful site. The layout is impressive. There is an opera house at one end, a huge concert hall on one side, a theatre for musicals on another, an exciting small theatre with a magnificent stage, and a huge workshop behind it, and, above all, a small museum with an excellent reference library. I felt very much at home, because there was a tremendous piece of sculpture by Henry Moore out in the open.
Having studied these theatres and auditoriums, I think that there are four lessons which we can study. The first concerns finance, which is always a danger. The Lincoln Centre already is running into major financial difficulties, although there are "House Full" notices up every night. Our own National Theatre already lives in the shadow of the balance sheet, and although Parliament has been very generous—and long may this continue—I see difficulties ahead. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) suggested other ways of raising money, such as public appeals for subscriptions, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) spoke about the possibility of the television authorities helping. However, I think that Australia had the right idea, and surmounted a similar problem in a painless way: £20 million was raised to finance the Sydney Opera House by running a national lottery. I want the National Theatre to feel secure from the start. At the moment, it is getting the money, but we must guarantee that it can continue with complete security.
The next two lessons which I learned are minor but important ones. We must construct adequate car parking space and
1528
get-away facilities. In New York, after evening performances, conditions are extremely bad when the weather is cold and wet. People are marooned at the Centre and cannot get away. We must plan adequately for car parking and provide first-class public transport facilities so that people are not stranded on the South Bank.
The third lesson relates to seats. A person going to the theatre wants to relax and enjoy the production. He does not want to sit tense and cramped. In America, there is never enough knee room. Do not let us skimp on our seats and upholstery. It would appear that some of our modern theatres employ dwarfs to design their seats. Some of them are very uncomfortable.
The main lesson which I learned was that it is much more important than having restaurants to have a small museum, a reference library and a tiny cinema. The standard of English drama is the highest in the world, and actors and students come to England to study. There is a need for a small reference library on the spot, so that everyone can know where to find authentic information about the English theatre. Before Mr. Denys Lasdun finalises his plan I hope that a museum, a reference library and a small cinema will be included. I am not suggesting any addition to the financial provision to be made, because, if necessary, they can be built afterwards. If they are not included in the plans, we shall again miss a unique opportunity.
British genius has expressed itself supremely in engineering, seafaring, literature. South Kensington, Greenwich, Bloomsbury have splendid museums which contain all that is needed for research. No major museum exists for English drama and theatrical history. There is the British Theatre Museum at Leighton House in Holland Park Road, Kensington, where there are 40 major collections. However only a few can be displayed, only the tip of the iceberg is on show. Most of them have to be stowed away. It was opened in 1963, and it is a most progressive little gallery, but it is not big enough. Then there are splendid collections of theatrical material in the London Museum, and the Enthoven Collection in the Victoria and Albert. The Garrick Club, too, has a splendid collection of

1529
what I might call "theatricalia"—if such a word exists. But there is no national museum under one roof. We shall miss a unique opportunity unless it is taken now.
If we have a national theatrical museum it must include a reference library with collections of programmes, playbills and prompt scripts. A copy of each new play should be sent there and kept under one roof. Today, all good museums should be divided into two parts, the larger section being devoted to permanent and special exhibitions, the smaller section being reserved for students and researchers. A mini-cinema should also be included, because that is most important for the showing of filmed records and actual theatrical productions. Filming is expensive today, but it could be done with television cameras which need less light and use electronic tapes which are easy to store. The aim is to film a factually accurate record of a given production to show how it was acted, how it was produced and the way that it looked. We live in an age of documentation, and future generations will not thank us if we allow theatrical history to slip through our fingers. Several small organisations are doing it, but there is no one central body.
To summarise, the four lessons which I learnt from the Lincoln Centre are first the financial one. Why not have a national lottery? The second is the provision of car parking and get-away facilities. Third, do let us provide comfortable seats and adequate knee room. Fourth, let us ensure that there is a small museum with a reference library and a minute cinema attached to it. It is still not too late, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will give some thought to these points and try to provide for them in the plans.
11.56 a.m.
Mr. Christopher Price: I want to add my voice to the warnings sounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) against the words of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who said that, in some way, Parliament should make it clear that, unless certain standards are adhered to, it might have to interfere in the future. Several hon. Members have alluded to Shakespeare. I would remind the hon. Gentleman
1530
of Aristophanes. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows about Aristophanes—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do.
Mr. Price: —but, if he wants more information, one of the happier pursuits of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is to be something of an expert on the subject. Greek democracy was the most vibrant democracy ever. It positively thrived on total criticism of living politicians. That very fact was one of the great bastions of strength of that democracy. I hope that Parliament will lay down no lines for the National Theatre, but will trust those in charge of it to judge plays purely on their quality as drama, rather than adopting other criteria.
A fear which I have is that, before very long, this theatre will appear very inflexible and out of date. I am sorry that the third experimental theatre has disappeared. In my view, the proscenium arch has a limited life in this country. Quite the most exciting developments since the war have come from Joan Littlewood and the Theatre Workshop, heavily influenced by Brecht in Berlin. These ideas have infiltrated into the rest of our theatre, and over the next 20 or 30 years I expect to see many more productions like that of the Hochhuth play about the late Sir Winston Churchill. We shall see more theatre of fact—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is not much fact about that play.
Mr. Price: —and much less traditional melodrama and other types of theatre. In addition, there will be many more attempts to establish theatres as flexible units, such as "theatre in the round". That is why I am sorry that the second theatre is what I might call an orthodox proscenium arch theatre. If we are building this theatre for the next 50, 100 or 200 years, we have to recognise that the theatre is changing from an aristocratic concept into a democratic concept. This may or may not happen, but we can plan for this by planning for flexibility.
I hope very much that, in the final plans, at least as much thought as is given to the kind of plays that people will probably want to put on in this theatre in the next five years, is given to

1531
the developments which might be taking place in the next 25 or 30 years. The Tate Gallery is a good example of what I have in mind. It was designed with prestige and contemporary objects in mind, but 100 years later the building is totally inflexible for the purposes for which we want to use it. That is why we have this expense in trying to mould the Tate into the kind of building we want. I hope that these lessons are not lost on those who design the National Theatre.
12.2 p.m.
Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not want to take more than a few moments, but I was stung into speaking by a phrase used by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker). Glasgow may seem very far away to those here supporting the project this morning, but this is a very real problem. I wholeheartedly support this project because it will provide the core for this country's great tradition in drama. We who come from 700 miles away support the project with as great enthusiasm as the majority of hon. Members who live in London.
No one has fought longer or more fiercely than I have to have the Burrell Collection displayed. The reason why it is not displayed is that there has not been the cash to provide a gallery for it. So that great collection will have to take its turn in the priorities, although I have long thought that its priority rated very high indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that we must consider amateur drama which supports the smaller theatres, and which is seeking money at the moment. I am tempted to remind the Committee, Mr. Robertson, that your own Paisley Grammarians have been chosen as the team to represent Great Britain for the Community Drama in Monte Carlo in September, yet it lacks £500 to get there. This is the kind of thing that inevitably brings criticism vis-à-vis our voting £3¾ million to the National Theatre project today. One of the most encouraging and exciting developments in the arts in Scotland is Scottish Opera, which was born of the enthusiasm of one man, whose passion for opera started at school and has taken
1532
him throughout Europe in command of the Scottish Opera. We should be clear that there are competing claims.
I am glad that there are two theatres in this project. I believe that the smaller theatre will provide opportunity for companies which are, perhaps, more suited for touring, for reasons of unsuitable accommodation, about which we have heard this morning. But when they tour, we who live at a distance have a responsibility. It was my pleasure to attend the National Theatre nightly in Aberdeen last year. The theatre was half empty and I could leave my meeting and walk straight in. That was the National Theatre in Aberdeen a year ago. So when we put our great National Theatre Company on tour we have to impress on the places to which it goes the important link that they can provide by their audience.
This is a great project which I am happy to support today.
12.5 p.m.
Miss Jennie Lee: I am grateful to the Committee for the unanimity of its support. It is doubly appreciated, because everyone who has contributed to the discussion has contributed with an obvious background not only of love for the theatre but of knowledge in many specialised spheres.
We all want to know the opening date. We hope to have the tender accepted and awarded this spring, and that actual work will begin before the end of this year, and that we can look forward to an opening date in 1973. Like everyone else, I protested most loudly. I got into this honourable conspiracy with Lord Chandos on many things. We do not tell people everything. I asked whether there was some way of shortening the period. The Board and everyone concerned are anxious that there should not be a single minute lost and that we shall make maximum speed.
I am in sympathy with the point made about having a penalty Clause, although it is not for me to intervene in that kind of matter. I was impressed by the fact that immediately after the Second World War, when there was a shortage of bricks, cement, and everything else, the Festival Hall was built in two years. There was a

1533
penalty clause in that contract, so it was in the contractor's interest to get ahead as soon as possible.
On timing, we are in complete accord for every possible reason. We know that we can go ahead. We hope that before the end of this year, 1969, a start will have been made, and we must all hope that we may be pleasantly surprised and that 1973 is a conservative estimate. All concerned will have our total support in having an opening date sooner, if possible.
I now come to costs. So far £190,000 has been spent. By the end of 1968–69 the expenditure will probably total about £250,000. The rate of expenditure will move in this way: 1969–70, £440,000; 1970–71, £690,000; 1971–72, £910,000; 1972–73, £900,000; 1973–74, £510,000. Some of those figures may have to be slightly revised, but those are the figures which have been given to me. We want this project to be built, if possible, within the figure which we are agreeing. We must do everything in our power to see that there is no delay in the building, no loose ends, no wastages and no needless extravagance.
I share the regret of others that there is not to be this third experimental theatre. I take a little comfort from the fact that although there will not be a restaurant straightaway, space for it is being provided.
I was impressed by the case put forward by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom). I, too, would have liked a museum included. All we can do is to go ahead at the maximum speed with what is possible at the moment, hoping and believing that there will not only be the will but the surrounding space and possibility for a museum, cinema and all the rest to follow.
Concerning transport, we shall have parking space for 425 cars, with 160 directly for the theatre. There will be more general parking space for the museum and galleries on the South Bank.
I should like to take this opportunity to give a salesman's talk about a project which will come in the near future. I have always said that we will not really completely democratise our great new galleries and theatres on the South
1534
Bank till we have transport, not only in the form of cars and buses, but in the shape of a great covered travellator across the Thames.
I have many friends now in the Greater London Council and the Government who share this view. We should be able to go from one side to the other out of the wind and rain. At the moment it is an obstacle race to get there. I am fortunate, being a Minister, in having a car for travel on official occasions. It is difficult enough to get away sometimes even in these circumstances. Without a car it would be almost impossible. I was astonished and touched when I went to the Festival Hall on Friday night to hear the great Scottish Orchestra. I did not believe that anyone but myself could get there—or a handful of us who had special help with transport. It was wonderful to see the enthusiasm of the numbers of people who, through every difficulty, had got there. We must consider lame people, for instance, or the young man taking out his best girl with a new hair-do for the occasion. Transport is vital. We should not make an evening's enjoyment so often such a squalid obstacle race as it now is in getting to the other side of the river.
The hon. Member for Leominster also made a cri de coeur about the comfort of the seats. I think that this has been taken care of. There will also be special provision for invalid chairs. There will be a certain number of seats situated where access to them is easier, so that people can be helped in that way.
An important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). While they are totally in support of going ahead with the National Theatre, they suggested that we must be very careful that new developments do not take place in an atmosphere of decay in the old commercial theatres and in many of the regions generally. The Arts Council is hard at work. It has set up a committee and has allocated a certain amount of funds. We believe that there will be a get-together between money from the private and commercial sector and public money in order to build up a scheme by which the State subsidised theatres and

1535
the commercial theatres can be complementary and mutually helpful. But we are still awaiting a report. It would be wrong for me to indicate the lines along which the Arts Council is working. But hon. Members have made a point of the greatest substance.
While we have to go ahead with theatres of first-class status in Scotland and Wales—Wales already has plans for a National Theatre; Scotland has not, but it is forging ahead with its opera plan—I can assure hon. Members who have expressed special concern for Scotland, Wales and Wolverhampton, or wherever it may be, that the National Theatre will truly be a National Theatre. What we are spending on this project will not in the long run deduct from what we are spending in the regions. When we create a climate of opinion in which people are willing to spend in the one sphere, it becomes an added stimulus in the other. Indeed, hon. Members may like to know that the total in 1966–67 for drama outside London amounted to £1·6 million, the following year to £2 million, and this year to about £2·2 million. This includes about £250,000 for the National Theatre. In addition, capital grants and promises of grants have been made to 31 projects totalling about £1·1 million. This is encouraging renovation of theatres and the adaptation of old buildings and the rest. Nothing is going ahead as fast as we might like, but I think that hon. Members know of the concern that is being shown to keep a true balance between the needs of the capital city and the rest of the country.
I also, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, pay tribute not only to the leaders in the theatre but to the young. It is moving to see the dedication of young people before they become great ballet dancers or great dramatists. I thought that I knew their lives, but I have learned a great deal in the last few years. They give so much of themselves and they ask so little. We should endeavour to give them the better buildings which they so very much need. Keeping in mind how not to break the heart of the most talented of our young, we must give them more support than we are now doing, making every allowance for the fact that it is more than in the past.
1536
I am not going to follow the slightly dangerous line of the hon. Member for the Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
Mr. Channon: It is very slight.
Miss Lee: I agree. There are no recriminations about the fact that we are 20 years on. There are no recriminations about time lost. It is very much better to look forward than to look back, and I am sure that that is the mood of the Committee.
I have made a number of notes, and I want to make sure that I have not failed to reply to any of the substantial and important matters which were raised. I was asked about the future of the Old Vic. This will be decided by the trustees, but they will do it in consultation with the Arts Council. The matter has not been settled. We know who they are, and we know their interests. It is probable that the matter will be decided in about 1973. Till then the Old Vic will continue to be very much loved, and to make a real contribution in some form or another.
I was asked whether £7½ million would be enough. May we allow that question to lie upon the table? We must do all in our power to ensure that it is enough. To the Arts Council we have added Lord Goodman, an adroit businessman, and a man of great sensitivity. There is also Sir Joseph Lockwood. If he can run E.M.I, he may be able to make a contribution here. We have representatives from the G.L.C., and from the Department. A formidable Board is in control, and I am sure that we can safely leave these matters in their hands. They in turn will be encouraged by the fact that we are so eager for their speedy success.
It is not for the likes of me to interfere with the priorities of the Scottish Arts Council as to what it does with its money. I shall be happy to provide what help I can in getting that Council more than it has had in the past, but I shall not discuss Scottish priorities for burgh collections.
One matter bordering on controversy is that of the degree of freedom to be allowed in the theatre. It is so difficult to decide what is good taste. It may be easier to decide what is freedom. I believe that it is better to take the risk of having a permissive theatre than to have

1537
an authoritarian one. Artists cannot work in a politically-controlled atmosphere.
I conclude by thanking all hon. Members for their work in the Committee this morning, and by thanking you, Mr. Robertson for helping me so much. I thank hon. Members for the immense amount of knowledge as well as good will which has been contributed to our discussion today.
Question put and agreed to.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Robertson, Mr. John (Chairman)

Mitchell, Mr. R. C.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Channon, Mr.

Price, Mr. Christopher

Concannon, Mr.

Royle, Mr. A.

Davies, Mr. G. Elfed

St. John-Stevas, Mr.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Short, Mrs. Renée

Lee, Miss Jennie

Whitaker, Mr.

Maydon, Lieut.-Commander

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Theatre Bill ought to be read a Second time.
The Chairman: I should like to thank the Committee for making my job an easy one on this my debut in the Chair. I hope that in future it will be just as easy.
Committee rose at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Mechanical Engineering Production Census
  Mechanical Engineering Production Census
  Sales Methods (Foreign Firms)
  Sales Methods (Foreign Firms)
  Industrial Expansion (West Midlands)
  Industrial Expansion (West Midlands)
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
  Banks (Accounts)
  Banks (Accounts)
  Pit Closures, Scotland (New Industry)
  Pit Closures, Scotland (New Industry)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery" Wreck (Student Rag)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery" Wreck (Student Rag)
  Herring Meal
  Herring Meal
  Cotton Goods and Man-made Fibres
  Cotton Goods and Man-made Fibres
  Construction Contracts (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania)
  Construction Contracts (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Cheese imports (Anti-dumping Duties)
  Cheese imports (Anti-dumping Duties)
  Commonwealth Trade
  Commonwealth Trade
  Bankruptcy Law Report (Legislation)
  Bankruptcy Law Report (Legislation)
  Trade Figures (Dollar Equivalent of Sterling)
  Trade Figures (Dollar Equivalent of Sterling)
  Hotel Development (London)
  Hotel Development (London)
  Cut-Price Soap Powders
  Cut-Price Soap Powders
  Depot, Sully (Trading Estate)
  Depot, Sully (Trading Estate)
  Company Balance Sheets (Inspection)
  Company Balance Sheets (Inspection)
  Overseas Capital Investment
  Overseas Capital Investment
  Baby Seal Skins
  Baby Seal Skins
  Door-to-door Salesmen
  Door-to-door Salesmen
  Investment Grants (Job Opportunities)
  Investment Grants (Job Opportunities)
  City of London Real Property Company (Take-over Bids)
  City of London Real Property Company (Take-over Bids)
  Gaming Machines (Imports)
  Gaming Machines (Imports)
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  National Exhibition Centre
  National Exhibition Centre
  Frozen Fish Fillets (Imports)
  Frozen Fish Fillets (Imports)
  Sports Goods (Imports)
  Sports Goods (Imports)
  Industrial Effluent (Disposal)
  Industrial Effluent (Disposal)
  Imports
  Imports
  Companies (Political Contributions)
  Companies (Political Contributions)
  Disposable Nappies (Price)
  Disposable Nappies (Price)
  Paper and Board Making Industry
  Paper and Board Making Industry
  Exports to Rhodesia
  Exports to Rhodesia
  Recommended Prices (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Recommended Prices (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Advertising (Economic Effects)
  Advertising (Economic Effects)
  Imports
  Imports
  Auction Rings
  Auction Rings
  Revenue (Retail Sales)
  Revenue (Retail Sales)
  Board of Trade
  Board of Trade
  Receiving Orders
  Receiving Orders
  De-icing Equipment Trawlers (Tests)
  De-icing Equipment Trawlers (Tests)
AVIATION
  Radar Equipment, Gatwick Airport
  Radar Equipment, Gatwick Airport
  Air Corporations (Denationalisation)
  Air Corporations (Denationalisation)
  Edinburgh Airport (Pay Dispute)
  Edinburgh Airport (Pay Dispute)
  Jet Fuels (Foreign Airlines)
  Jet Fuels (Foreign Airlines)
  Air Corporations (Passenger and Cargo Traffic)
  Air Corporations (Passenger and Cargo Traffic)
  Air Traffic Control (Rôle)
  Air Traffic Control (Rôle)
  Aircraft Fire Extinguishers
  Aircraft Fire Extinguishers
  Hotel, London (B.O.A.C. Investment)
  Hotel, London (B.O.A.C. Investment)
  Aircraft (Hi-jacking)
  Aircraft (Hi-jacking)
  New London Airport
  New London Airport
  Tees-side Airport
  Tees-side Airport
  Diversionary Airport, Northern Ireland
  Diversionary Airport, Northern Ireland
  Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh
  Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh
SHIPPING
  Cargo Loads
  Cargo Loads
  Life-Jackets (Foreign Passenger Lines)
  Life-Jackets (Foreign Passenger Lines)
  "Enugu Palm" (Troop Carrying)
  "Enugu Palm" (Troop Carrying)
  Trawlers (Stability)
  Trawlers (Stability)
  Merchant Shipping Acts
  Merchant Shipping Acts
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  N.A.T.O. (European Defence Entity)
  N.A.T.O. (European Defence Entity)
  Pensions, R.A.F. N.C.O.s and Airmen (Bank Accounts)
  Pensions, R.A.F. N.C.O.s and Airmen (Bank Accounts)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery" Wreck (Student Rag)
  s.s. "Richard Montgomery" Wreck (Student Rag)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme
  Northumberland Committee (Report)
  Northumberland Committee (Report)
  Registered Milk Producers (Wales)
  Registered Milk Producers (Wales)
TECHNOLOGY
  General Electric and English Electric Companies
  General Electric and English Electric Companies
  "Queen Elizabeth 2"
  "Queen Elizabeth 2"
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research Programmes)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research Programmes)
  Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing (Steel Prices)
  Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing (Steel Prices)
SCOTLAND
  Milk Prices (Orkney and Shetland)
  Milk Prices (Orkney and Shetland)
  Smalholdings (Rent per Acre)
  Smalholdings (Rent per Acre)
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Bursaries
  Bursaries
  Electricity (Demand and Capacity)
  Electricity (Demand and Capacity)
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Import Deposits and S.E.T. Payments
  Import Deposits and S.E.T. Payments
  Vehicle Excise and Petrol and Derv Duties
  Vehicle Excise and Petrol and Derv Duties
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Hunt Committee (Report)
  Hunt Committee (Report)
  North Sea Gas (Industrial Developments)
  North Sea Gas (Industrial Developments)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Dockworkers, London (Disciplinary Action)
  Dockworkers, London (Disciplinary Action)
  Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board (Courses)
  Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board (Courses)
  S.E.T. Refunds (Delay)
  S.E.T. Refunds (Delay)
HOSPITALS
  Building and Improvement Projects (Honiton)
  Building and Improvement Projects (Honiton)
  Transplantation Surgery (Conference)
  Transplantation Surgery (Conference)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits (Failure to Claim)
  Benefits (Failure to Claim)
  Disability Pensions (First World War)
  Disability Pensions (First World War)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Music and Dancing Licence Revenue (Wales)
  Music and Dancing Licence Revenue (Wales)
  Livestock Worrying By Dogs (Prosecutions)
  Livestock Worrying By Dogs (Prosecutions)
  Dogs (Byelaws)
  Dogs (Byelaws)
  Carlisle State Management Scheme (Productivity)
  Carlisle State Management Scheme (Productivity)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Flood Damage (West Country)
  Flood Damage (West Country)
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Rating
  Rating
HOUSING
  Priority Areas (Designation)
  Priority Areas (Designation)
  Rents
  Rents
POST OFFICE
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
GAS
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  Rig "Unifor 1"
  Rig "Unifor 1"
COAL
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Power Station Programme
  Power Station Programme
TRANSPORT
  Sir Henry Lunn Limited
  Sir Henry Lunn Limited
  Thomas Cook & Son
  Thomas Cook & Son
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
RAILWAYS
  Newport—Gloucester Services
  Newport—Gloucester Services
  Plymouth—Gunnislake Service
  Plymouth—Gunnislake Service
WALES
  Cardiff-Merthyr Trunk Road
  Cardiff-Merthyr Trunk Road
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Protection of Field Monuments (Report)
  Protection of Field Monuments (Report)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nigeria (Loans)
  Nigeria (Loans)

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

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act.

NAVAL RECRUITING
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: 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—

(1) What was the shortfall in naval recruiting in 1968 in respect of

(a) officers,

(b) ratings.

(2) What steps are being taken to improve the position.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will not wish me to anticipate any statement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may wish to make in another place in a few weeks. I can assure him that my right honourable friend is doing all he can to improve the recruiting situation and that measures to that aim are under continuous review.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask him this supplementary question? What steps are the Government proposing to take to restore the standing of the Armed Forces in the eyes of the civilian population? In the last four years or so
416
all they have seen is arbitrary cuts in the Services, usually coinciding with some unpopular announcement on the home front. I feel that the time—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Speech!
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Perhaps the noble Lord would answer that question.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble Lord, would he not agree that the short-fall in recruits is due largely to a succession of White Papers indicating that our Armed Forces are to be reduced, with frequent changes in policy and probably lessened opportunity for men to see the world?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord should wait until he reads this year's White Paper. Many of the answers to the questions he has asked will be in that White Paper.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, while I find the Answer of the noble Lord to the second part of my noble friend's Question perfectly understandable, may I ask him why it is not possible for him to give the answer to the first part? Surely that is a purely factual question, and the White Paper is not sacrosanct so far as statistics are concerned.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. The recruitment of male ratings for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines in the calendar year 1968 was 5,090, compared with 7,244 in the calendar year 1967. This information was published in the monthly Press release issued by the Ministry of Defence recently.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply to my supplementary question?

ROYAL NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING SCHOOL
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: 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 would be the advantages from the Naval point of view of closing down H.M.S. "Condor" and transferring the Royal Naval Air Engineering School to Lee-on-Solent; and what would be the financial savings, if any.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there would be no naval advantage in closing H.M.S. "Condor" at the present time. However, when fixed-wing operational flying comes to an end in the Fleet Air Arm in 1971–72 the work rate of the technical training schools at Arbroath and Lee-on-Solent will be reduced by some 50 per cent. and there would be considerable advantages, both financial and administrative, in combining these two schools. Should the Royal Naval Engineering School at H.M.S. "Condor" be transferred to Lee-on-Solent there would be financial savings of about £1·2 million a year.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I ask him this supplementary question? Have the Government considered the possibility of transferring some similar training establishment up to Arbroath from the Portsmouth area, with common administrative arrangements to save cost, so that the great link with this part of Scotland and the Royal Navy is not lost.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House, and Her Majesty's Government, are concerned about the implications of closing H.M.S. "Condor". A well-established procedure exists in cases like this. An alternative use is first sought within the Ministry of Defence; then use by other Government Departments is canvassed, and finally the facility is offered to local authorities before a final decision is reached. All these procedures will be gone through if it is decided to close H.M.S. "Condor".
VISCOUNT MUIRSHIEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can say what the saving would be if the work were concentrated in Condor "rather than at Lee-on-Solent? Further, may I ask whether, in considering the concentration of the school into one or other of these bases, full attention will be given to the value to the Service a location
418
such as "Condor" has, close to the town of Arbroath, a town of moderate size and great character, situated in superb country; a town which for many years has given the warmest of welcomes to successive generations of serving men and and which has taken immense trouble to help all the work of "Condor"? May I further ask whether those who are likely to be making this decision will remember, or have remembered, that not many years ago the Torpedo Experimental Establishment on the Clyde was also concentrated into the Portsmouth area? And is it really desirable in the interests of the Service that this kind of concentration should go on into an area which, quite unavoidably is becoming inbred?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the noble Viscount will be aware, the rotary-wing flying role of hhe Fleet Air Arm will be moving down almost totally to the West Country, and I think the noble Viscount will agree that it would be unwise to place a training station at one end of the country and a flying area at the other. This, in fact, would be bad logistics.
VISCOUNT MUIRSHIEL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that torpedoes are still tested on Loch Long, whereas the whole engineering establishment connected with them has been transferred to the South of England?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Opposition are always clamouring about huge Government expenditure until it hits some of their pet schemes in this world of change in Scotland?

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: USE IN WAR
2.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 maintain their decision not to be the first Power to use nuclear weapons in the event of war.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the security of Western Europe rests on NATO'S policy of deterrence

419
effected by posing the threat that large-scale aggression could lead to a nuclear response with consequences unacceptable to the aggressor. Her Majesty's Government cannot, however, conceive of any situation in which it would be sensible or necessary for this country to use nuclear weapons independently.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, whilst thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether that is not some modification of previous attitudes? Had not the representatives both of Her Majesty's Government and of the Opposition said that this country would not be the first to use nuclear weapons; and is it consistent with that pledge that the Minister of Defence should now declare that in answer to conventional weapons nuclear weapons would have to be used by NATO in Europe?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have never made a statement in the terms made out by my noble friend. What has been said is that we would never use military force for aggressive purposes; but that is not the same thing. May I suggest that my noble friend studies precisely what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in his most recently quoted paper which he read in Munich and which, in point of fact, is something that he has been saying for years, although my noble friend may not have noticed it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in another place I have heard these statements made, both by representatives of the Government and by the Opposition, that we would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a war but would use them only in defence? Is not the statement that we would use nuclear weapons an incitement to Soviet Russia not to be content with conventional weapons and also to use nuclear weapons in the first instance?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it might be possible to have copies of Mr. Healey's very important statement made available in the Printed Paper Office? I think that copies are available in the Commons Library.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will certainly see that that is done, if it is possible; and I believe it is possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, will my noble friend answer my question?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that was a question ago. Would my noble friend state the hard core of what he asked me?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in one sentence, is not the declaration that we would use nuclear arms an incitement to Soviet Russia to use them in the first instance?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; because it has been the stated policy of the Soviet armed forces that nuclear arms will be used from the commencement of hostilities.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that the statement by the Minister of Defence, that we would sink the Russian Navy in five minutes in the Mediterranean, was injudicious?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT AND SHEPPEY POSTMARK SLOGAN
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why letters despatched from Government offices in Essex are carrying a postmark which says "Fifty miles from London; Sheppey for Holidays, Homes and Industry; Kent's own Sunny Island"; whether any Government Department is receiving money for, or incurring expenditure in, affixing this imprint, which is calculated to suggest the unsuitability of Sheppey as a possible third London Airport; and whether the circulation of such inspired propaganda with Government connivance is in keeping with the independent approach which the Government Commission is supposed to make in selecting a suitable site for the airport.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, local authorities may publicise local amenities for tourist or prestige purposes by means of postmark Slogans. This slogan, sponsored and paid for by the Borough Council of Queenborough in Sheppey, is put on mail, including that from Government Departments, posted in the Ilford and Barking area. The slogan was first used at Sheerness in August, 1963, and was not concerned with Sheppey as a possible third London Airport.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, whilst thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that what may have been virtuous six years ago may be slightly immoral in the changed circumstances of the day, when Sheppey and Stansted are rival suitors before the impartial Commission set up by the Government? Does not my noble friend also think that the Government ought not to solicit financial aid from one of the parties to this semi-judicial inquiry? May I have the privilege of asking him also whether he is aware that the letter I received was from my tax collector, and that I was so indignant that I immediately sat down and wrote a cheque and sent it off?
LORD BOWLES: Thank goodness it did some good for the country! No; this is a purely commercial operation. We do charge fees, which I will let my noble friend see. I am rather surprised that he should go so far as to suggest that a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Roskill, supported and helped by a number of very eminent people, could possibly be influenced by a postmark.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that his Answer means that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, can arrange for a postmark to be issued in Sheppey stressing the desirability of Sheppey for a third London Airport?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, yes; I think he probably can.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much the local authority pay for this?
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords, I can. The basic charge is £50 to cover a campaign. Die charge for the first design, is £3 for each die—and "die" is not
422
Cockney for "day"; it is "d-i-e". The time charge is £1 per week per die.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether this service is open to any advertiser who wishes to have a mark printed on an envelope?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords; private firms cannot avail themselves of this facility.

BRADFORD CORPORATION, BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.
LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY'S AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.
PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY, BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.

VIOLENCE IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to call attention to the dangers of violence in contemporary society; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so with a diffidence that comes entirely from a doubt of my own competence and not in the least from doubts as to the importance or topicality of the subject. While it may possibly be true that we have less violence in Great Britain than other countries have, I also believe, for reasons that I will explain, that we stand to lose more from it.
I hope that noble Lords will approve my action in drafting the Motion widely in the hope that the debate may range freely over what is unquestionably an extensive and varied subject. The number and distinction of noble Lords who have

423
thought it worth while to put their names on the list at once promise a long and authoritative debate and cast me into a certain perplexity as to what my function should be in initiating it. I have concluded that it should be to sketch in a kind of backdrop against which others may speak their parts and, in so doing, let fall perhaps—who knows?—a clue or two which others may feel disposed to pick up, and to waste no time in preliminaries.
In using the term "dangers of violence in contemporary society", I personally am thinking of violence in times of peace; and, in all conscience, the catalogue is long enough. What is more disturbing is the number of items in the catalogue which are new, or comparatively new, or new in form. Ordinary hooliganism I pass over with no more than a word as being a permanent nuisance, though constantly changeable in form. Other noble Lords may perhaps touch upon that subject later. More serious than random hooliganism, because more deep-rooted, is gang warfare in those cities where it occurs, for here we have organised violence for its own sake bred upon a hotbed of social evil. I ask your Lordships to listen to these words:
"If I see a boy looking at me in a way I don't like I hit him, with a bottle and whatever I've got… You live with a gang and you die with a gang. I'm taking that risk myself. If I go with a gang I may end up with a knife in my stomach; I know that."
Those are the words of a boy of 16 or thereabouts in Glasgow. It may be merely tough talk—I do not know—but at least it represents an attitude of mind.
I turn to crimes of violence. In the Criminal Statistics Report (Cmnd. 3689) there appears, near the beginning, a graph of great significance showing the number of indictable offences known to the police during the years 1950 to 1967. Of all the lines representing different classes of crime—and there are six altogether—it is noticeable that the graph representing violence against the person not only climbs more steeply than any of the others, but is also the only one in all those 17 years which has climbed consistently every year. In this morning's Hansard, in cols. 408 to 412, there appear some highly
424
relevant statistics concerning crimes of violence in sample years 1950, 1960 and 1967. I certainly will not give a detailed analysis of the figures since it would take up too much time, and furthermore my arithmetic is not particularly good, but a sample abstraction or two may perhaps prove illuminating. For example, in England and Wales over the 17 year period covered the number of indictable offences against the person known to the police increased at an average rate of 16 or 17 per cent. per year. Of all persons found guilty of violence against the person, in 1950 one-quarter of the total number were under 21; in 1960 about three-quarters of the total number were under 21, and in 1967 rather less, some 64 per cent.—from which it appears that something like two-thirds of all such crimes are committed by persons of under 21 years of age.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord said that his arithmetic was not very reliable. I should like him to look at his figures again because, although the figures of crimes committed by persons under 21 are large and have increased, they are nothing like the percentage he mentioned. The figures are 40 per cent. and 39 per cent.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I stand corrected. I am quite certain that my arithmetic is at fault, and I hope noble Lords will accept the figure I have given, whether right or wrong, as merely an indication that crime has increased to a rather alarming extent.
In Scotland, murders, attempted murders, culpable homicides and assaults known to the police increased in the first ten years by 120 per cent. and in the last seven years by 150 per cent., while the somewhat striking fact emerges that among convicted persons in England and Wales the population of under-21s in the total is a very great deal more than is the case in Scotland—I nearly said twice as great, but if I did I should invite another correction from the noble Lord.
I should enter two caveats. I have already entered one caveat to the effect that my arithmetic is my own—a point which we have disposed of. The other

425
is that the figures are not in every case comparable. However, I think that they give the general impression I desire. It may perhaps be informative to add, from information that I have from Scotland Yard, that in the Metropolitan Police area in 1968 there was an increase of only 1·7 per cent. in all offences against the person and of 3·3 per cent. in offences of wounding and assault; while they claim a clear-up rate of 73 per cent., which is well over 10 per cent. higher than that in the country as a whole. In London, it seems, there is a particularly high risk of being caught—the great deterrent.
There is no comfort in these statistics. What of certain types of assault that lie hidden within them? Attacks, sometimes lethal, on elderly postmistresses or on lonely and defenceless old men? And sexual assaults on children? Am I not. right in thinking that we read of such horrors more often than we did? Unfortunately, it seems that there are no figures for crimes involving the use of firearms available before 1967, which I find rather surprising. They come lumped in under indictable offences simply along with such items as "Shooting at revenue vessels" and "Impeding the saving of life from shipwreck". I think it would be a good idea if we had more information as to the increase in the use of firearms. I suggest that this is a new and ugly feature of our times, for the criminal used never to carry a gun. Why then does he do so now? Is it because the risk is less than it used to be? I think that that may be the case.
The suspension of the death penalty for murder may or may not have resulted in an increase in murder; the graph suggests that perhaps it has done so, but we do not yet know since it is too early to tell. But is it not possible that by reducing the risk attending an accidental or unpremeditated killing, it may have made the carrying of a loaded firearm seem more worth while? I suggest that the possibility at least is one that should be examined and, with it, the wisdom or otherwise of increasing the penalties for illegally bearing arms. There are, of course, also other weapons, notably ammonia, which is a weapon of indiscriminate and unspeakable cruelty.
426
I turn now to deal with student violence. This in Britain is something new; so new that universities and colleges are, generally speaking, at a loss to cope with it—with notable exceptions such as, for example, Bradford and Queen's University, Belfast—yes, Belfast! I refer in particular to violence within the universities, and here I think it is reasonable to include as violence the type of activity which its practitioners sometimes describe as non-violence—that is to say, the physical occupation of premises in order to deny them to others, including other students. The most spectacular instance of all so far, involving revolutionary and even anarchial behaviour, is, I suppose, that of the London School of Political Science. I use the second half of the full name of the London School of Economics in order to remind your Lordships of just what it is that is supposed to be learnt in this now sadly humiliated and discredited institution. I have no wish to dwell on this particular case, but it may be apposite to remember what the trouble is all about. Basically it is against Dr. Walter Adams, the Director, as an alleged racialist. Dr. Adams is known to be a dedicated opponent of racial discrimination, so that the first casualty in this campaign is, as so often, truth.
The question that I should like to ask here is this. What is the part played by, and what is the background of, students from overseas, particularly from the United States of America? Who are these students? Are they militant Marcusians? From what universities or colleges do they come, and what were their activities while they were there? Finally—and I put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—is there any good reason why the Home Secretary should not immediately expel foreign visitors who come here and "kick up hell" at the expense of British students and their seats of learning?
There is a question of law—and this may be worth investigation—which has to do with the law of trespass. For as things are it is impossible for any foundation to call upon the police for assistance, except in cases of assault or damage. Would it be advisable to consider whether or not the law should be amended, so that such institutions should be allowed to call in the police in other

427
circumstances for their own assistance? I simply ask this question without coupling it with any advocacy or opposition of any sort.
In surveying the university scene—and, I freely admit, surveying it from outside—I am troubled by one phenomenon above all others; the systematic use of violence to stifle freedom of speech. It it not confined to universities. Have we not had Paisleys in St. Pauls? But a university exists for the free interchange of thought and opinion, and it is therefore the last place where we should expect to find militant intolerance appearing. In my view, revolutionary-anarchical activities are in the long run less deeply ominous than the systematic (I use the sinister word again) denial of the right to speak and to be heard. To quote Mr. Maurice Edelman, writing last month in the Daily Express
"The right to be wrong is part of democracy and to stifle the dissenter is to play the game of its enemies. Each time Enoch Powell is shouted down by a student mob, democracy loses a round."
And so, I may add, does the ordinary discipline of manners.
We have good reason to be on our guard. Some complain that the noisy minority attract far too much publicity, while the quiet majority go unremarked; and, consequently, that the mass media would serve the public interest better by ignoring the noisy ones. I sympathise heartily with that view, but I also dissent from it: for these matters are important, and in focusing attention on them the Press and television are performing one of the functions which we chiefly value—that of the public watchdog. I leave this matter now but I shall return to it shortly.
"No man is an Island", said Donne. He might add now that "no island is an island either. There are deep tides flowing in the world, tides which, so far from being deflected from our shores by the waves of the sea, are brought surging in upon us by the waves of the air. Thus, whenever violence breaks out anywhere in the world, we are likely to know about it immediately, and even to see its effects or the thing itself, especially on the television screen. Race riots in the United States, student riots in Paris, Tokyo or Mexico City—all these are presented to us, often as they actually occur,
428
as part of our daily experience mixed in with the evening ration of entertainment. Thanks to the sheer speed and efficiency of communications, we thus have world causes operating by example towards an increase in certain forms of violence in Britain, and I do not see that we have any protection against them. What is more, the full force of propaganda by satellite is yet to fall upon us.
What have we as domestic seeds of violence, for which we can hardly put the blame on foreigners? We have the so-called "permissive society" which perhaps most people think of as being permissive in matters of sex. Personally, I think it is permissiveness in something rather more dangerous—the mass of writing designed to be read or to be acted that has been well described as the pornography of violence. The word is not perfectly accurate, because pornography means writing about harlots and their activities, but it is near enough, since no one will doubt that violence can be, and very often is, obscene. We remember the flood of horror comics. How completely has it been stemmed, I wonder.
For more "adult" reading, look around some of the little book shops within a mile or two of here, and see if you will not find paperbacks and magazines that rely for their effect and their popularity on violence in its obscener forms. Would anyone seriously argue that this kind of thing has no harmful effect? If so, I refer him to but one example—the effect that it is known to have had on Ian Brady, the murderer in the "Moors" case. It might be interesting to know whether the Home Office have any particular views on the type of obscene literature that deals ostensibly with violence rather than with sex, and perhaps the Minister may have a word to say on this.
As part of the general climate of violence, we have the example of Governments—not this Government, particularly, but Governments—which regard the selling of weapons of death to all and sundry as not merely legitimate trading but vital to the economy. This is perhaps the supreme manifestation of irreligious materialism, which tends to respect the man with money without inquiring too closely into how he got it. Some will attribute our troubles to easy money and too much leisure at an early age, some to

429
bad upbringing, meaning lack of discipline in the home. Some will find signicance, as I do myself, in the fact that anyone in his early twenties was probably brought up as a child in a home in which "fiddling" the rations and such things were openly talked of as normal and in no way dishonourable. Such things as these, of course, do not necessarily lead to violence, but they do tend towards a disrespect for other people's rights and property, and from there it is but a step to the top of the slippery slope. Bad social conditions in overcrowded towns unquestionably breed violence. So does a shortage of healthy outlets for surplus energy, such as that deeply to be regretted compulsory National Service.
And what are we to say about television? Some are convinced that the portrayal of violence in television programmes is harmful, particularly in plays and particularly to children, while others say that it is cathartic in effect, providing a vicarious release from the rougher instincts and therefore actually beneficial. It is an old and continuing debate in—to quote some words of the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, in a letter that he was kind enough to write to me on the subject—
"an area in which there is so much assertion and so little proof".
As Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, he pleads for more research. For the Independent Television Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has expressed a similar view. It is our misfortune that I believe these two noble Lords are precluded by the Addison Rules from taking part in this debate.
It is not that there has been no research. There has been plenty of it and it goes on both here and abroad. As long ago as 1961 the Television Research Committee was set up with the support of funds provided by the I.T.A. I understand that the Final Report of this Committee is expected in March and, in the meantime, the B.B.C. are—again in the words of their Chairman—
"in the process of putting together the available evidence and considering what steps might usefully be taken next to extend our knowledge".
I take it that the I.T.A. are proceeding along similar lines. This is a Home Office Committee, however, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be
430
able to shed a little helpful light upon that subject.
Myself, I am rather more concerned about another possible effect of violence on the television screen; the effect not of plays but of news reporting, and not only upon children or adolescents or the over-impressionable, but on us al. We have seen murder, we have seen executions, we have seen mob violence and police brutality. We see horrors and we see war—not fictitious, but the real things. I ask a blunt question and I wonder whether anyone can answer it—I certainly cannot. By presenting the world's horrors to us, is television doing us a great service or is it committing an offence against humanity?
Perhaps, that requires a little explanation. My Lords, we witness heartrending scenes of, let us say, suffering in Vietnam or Biafra, and I suppose that each succeeding one shocks us fractionally less than the one before. Familiarity dulls the edge of the knife. What I want to know is this: which of two possible reactions does this repetition of horror pictures induce in you, in me, in all of us—compassion or indifference? If compassion, then the effect is good; but if indifference then we are in great danger, both moral and physical, because it means we come to accept the evils that we see and our will to fight for their prevention is undermined. This seems to me a greater peril, because it is more insidious and more widely effective, than any that might come from television plays. As a kind of footnote, I might draw the attention of those noble Lords who are interested to what is happening in this way in America, as represented by Mr. Milton Shulman in these last few days in the Evening Standard.
Less abstruse is the question of preventing violent crime. As things are going, it seems likely that before long the police will have to be either increased or armed, as they are now greatly under strength: or, if they are not armed, at least equipped with such things as water cannon, tear-gas, riot shields, visors, respirators and the like. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Mansfield has already, put down a Question for Written Answer concerning the desirability or otherwise of these very things. If that is what the police want, perhaps they ought to have them, but personally I feel it would be a

431
calamity, although I must say I have wondered for years why on earth a policeman cannot have a serviceable chin-strap to keep his helmet from being knocked off.
I know about financial and economic stringency and the difficulty of balancing priority against priority where public expenditure is concerned, but I question whether defence—and the police are our defence at home—should have to compete for priorities at all. We may talk about cutting our coat according to our cloth, but should it not be the first business of Government to see that we have a cuirass of finest proof to protect the coat, when we finally cut it, from being rent by sword-cuts and bullet-holes? The police are our cuirass, and I suggest that argument about priorities ought not to begin, even, until their minimum requirement for our safety has been met. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, can tell us whether, since our last debate on this thorny subject, the Government have had any further thoughts on the matter of strengthening the police.
My Lords, the immediate reaction to the words "dangers of violence in contemporary society" is most likely different in every one of us, as I expect we shall see as the debate unfolds. To me, the dangers which cause the most unease are not the obvious and immediate ones, such as hooliganism or armed robbery. They are two in number. I have touched on them both already, and they are both ones as to which it lies within the power of society to make sure that they never materialise. The first is the forcible denial of the freedom to express opinion. Let us not underrate this, my Lords, and let us not airily dismiss its practitioners as a noisy minority. All dangerous movements begin as minorities, usually noisy. Indeed, some continue as minorities right up to the very end, the classical example of that being the Nazi Party in Germany. They who do these things to us are not hooligans: they are students, soon to become persons of responsibility. They tend to be "intellectuals"—a deadly word—and might throw up a leader who would co-ordinate them and turn them into something resembling the nucleus of a latter-day British Union of Fascists.
432
I mention that unpleasing phenomenon for two reasons: first, because the Mosleyites used the Nazi technique of provoking violent reaction in their opponents in order to stamp on it with greater violence, while pretending that they were doing so in defence of their own freedom of speech—and that could be tried again; and, secondly, because so many of those who knew what happened at that time have since then somehow managed to forget. When Sir Oswald Mosley published his autobiography recently, many who ought to have known better—who had known better forty years ago—committed themselves to print in support of the myth that the innocent Black-shirts had been unfairly misunderstood. Fortunately, there were some at hand to set the matter right—notably, to name but three, Mr. Bernard Levin, who was too young to remember what happened but took the trouble to find out; the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who knew because he reported it at the time and who, if he were not in the United States, I am sure would be speaking in this debate this afternoon; and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself, who wrote a reminiscent protest of great power which must have impressed profoundly all who had the good fortune to read it.
My Lords, we should do well to bear in mind, I suggest, the oft misquoted words of John Philpot Curran:
"The condition on which God has given liberty to men is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."
To me, the greatest danger of all is this: that we should cease to see that antisocial violence is an affront to God and man—the danger of acceptance.
I demur to Mr. Dean Acheson's pronouncement that Britain has not yet found a role. We may have lost sight of it temporarily, but a role we certainly have, and it has long been recognised by others. I cannot define it better than it has been defined already by one of the youngest Members of your Lordships' House. In the course of a notable maiden speech in the debate on the White Paper on House of Lords Reform, my noble friend Lord Gowrie said this:
"… what I feel—and I believe that I feel it as passionately as any of your Lordships—is that the greatest, the supreme, contribution that Britain can make in foreign affairs to-day is to be discovered in the continuing stability

433
of her political institutions at home, and in the courtesy and lack of violence with which she conducts her own often difficult and very contentious affairs".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/11/68; col. 886.]
"Courtesy and lack of violence"—these are hallmarks of civilisation; banners under which Britain, of all nations, can lead the world by sheer force of example. That, my Lords, is our role.
At this point—and it is my last—I make no apology for referring once more to the police. A country's police, I submit, provide a remarkably accurate reflection of the country itself, its national attitudes and characteristics. Not wishing to give offence to our friends abroad, I give no examples, but cast a mental eye round the world at recent police activities, and I think your Lordships will see what I mean. Then, having done that, recall the scene in Grosvenor Square on October 27 last, and once again I think you will see what I mean. There, represented by the Metropolitan Police, stood the British people for all the world to see. Thanks to the television, the world did see, and I have no doubt that the lesson was not lost. I think it can be said that no other police force in the world could have handled that situation without bloodshed and emerged from it with enhanced prestige. Let us see that the lesson is not lost at home, and see to it that the world looks to us in the future, as in the past, as a nation resolute, efficient, calm, relying not upon weapons but upon good manners and restraint. That is our role, and as long as we remain true to it our place is fixed among the great nations of the earth. Let violence in, and we sink down among the disregarded and the second-rate; and I do not think the rest of the civilised world would, or should, forgive us. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the House is deeply indebted to the noble Earl who has just spoken for initiating this debate on a topical and important subject and for doing so with a great deal of restraint. I suspect that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who finds it singularly difficult to find his way through the annual statistics on crime and to discover the truth. I think that the noble Earl proved that you can do
434
anything with figures whether your arithmetic is good or bad. In fact, the headlines in the newspapers recently were more than confusing—some of them in the same paper: "New spurt in crime figures"; "Crime rise lowest in 10 years"; Lowest increase in crime since 1955"; "Provincial crime rate soaring" "First fall in London crime since 1954"; "More cases of violence"; and so it goes on. I am not clear what we are meant to deduce from this as a true picture of crime in our society to-day. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who is to reply to the Government, could tell us simply what is really happening in this field.
I should like to make my own position quite clear. In so far as there has been a serious, genuine increase in crimes of violence, this is certainly to be deplored; but before we jump to regressive and panic conclusions and regressive measures—which may well be suggested later on in the debate—I hope that we in this House will try to get this picture into the right perspective. No one can be complacent and crime must be suitably punished; but what is important is to encourage as much research as possible into the reasons why certain types of crime, and particularly crimes of violence, are in fact committed. Work done by the Cambridge institute of Criminology, by Dr. MacLintock and others, is beginning to put a new complexion on some of the traditional ideas about causes and remedies. This is not a field in which generalisation helps very much. It is more a question of patient analysis of individual situations to see what conclusions, if any, can be drawn.
It used to be thought that Londoners were more prone to crimes of violence than others. This, apparently, is now untrue. Indeed, the Provinces seem to have a bigger problem than the metropolis. The age group most responsible for violence is fairly clearly defined as the 17 to 21 year-olds with the 14 to 17 teenagers running second. This is no surprise, but it prompts the question: Why is this so? Again, an analysis done in London in the early 1960s showed that one-third of crimes of violence arose from domestic quarrels and one-third from street attacks—two very different circumstances, not necessarily amenable to the same remedies or punishments. Under

435
this study, apparently only 2 per cent. of all crime involved firearms.
No doubt the noble Lord will say something as to whether there has been a genuine serious increase in the use of firearms in crimes of violence. In four out of five cases it was the first time that the offender had committed a crime of violence, but nearly half the offenders had previous convictions for something else. This must mean that there is a field for tremendous research before one can draw any generalised conclusions. When we talk about crime we tend to forget that about 60 per cent. of the statistics relate to traffic offences and that only about 2 per cent. are really crimes of violence. The rate for murder is less than four murders per million of the population. We should be grateful that we do not have anything like the incidence of violence that they have in the United States. There were more homicides in 1967 on Manhattan Island, with a population of just under 2 million, than in the whole of England and Wales. I hope that we shall not have demands for reintroducing capital punishment with every fluctuation in the annual murder rate. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is far too early to draw conclusions; and I think that that was the conclusion of the noble Earl who initiated the debate.
My Lords, the truth is that the majority of murderers suffer from abnormal mental strain or disorder. One-third of them, I believe, commit suicide before arrest; one-third are found to be insane or of diminished responsibility, and only the remainder are sentenced on what is regarded at that point as being normal—though some of these are later discovered to be seriously disordered. The act, in fact, is seldom premeditated; it is usually the result of a sudden flare-up. I hope that we shall keep this question of crimes of violence well in perspective. I need say no more on this because the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, are far better versed in this than I am.
I had not intended in this speech to deal with the matter of students, but the noble Earl has led me to do so. Student violence is not, in my view, a crime of violence; it is occasionally accompanied
436
by violence. But my plea is that we should stop this wholesale condemnation of the student movement. The vast majority of students are absolutely first-class citizens. There is a very small militant minority—very small indeed—who are out to destroy the university system. The worrying thing to me—and I have talked to many people about it—is that they have nothing with which to replace it. I am thinking of the very serious nucleus, the militants. They say that their philosophy is to destroy the university system and then to see what emerges. They say that they do not know what will emerge but that it will be better than the present system.
These people, if they are carrying out their militant actions to the point where they are preventing the rest of the students from getting on with their work, should be sent down—and they should be sent down through a proper system of discipline which has the confidence of the student body, so that it is not just the Establishment sending them down. This is where the universities must reorganise the whole of their disciplinary system so that it has behind it the sanction of the student force. There is a vast number of students who are absolutely fed up with the stuffiness of the university Establishment; and these are the people who are normally moderates but who will join the militants if their grievances are not attended to and remedied, or if it appears that a great deal of injustice is being done to students by the Establishment of that university. Most of the grievances, the world over, when they are analysed, are found to be pretty reasonable ones. Certainly, the ones in France are; and also those in some of our universities. And certainly the university students of Czechoslovakia have something really to be worried about and to protest about.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. I think that I may perhaps have given a false impression. The last thing I intended to do was to suggest any condemnation of students as a whole.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I had not intended to give the impression that the noble Earl was doing this; but in my view he brought in the question of

437
student violence in the same connotation as violence generally. There is a great deal of difference between crimes of violence and what is happening in our universities.
My Lords, I do not want to get mixed up in the London School of Economics dispute; but I must say that if you erect gates and do not remedy the grievances quickly enough, then the militants will take the gates down and the moderates will support them. This is the worrying thing. If you institute witch-hunts, instead of putting grievances right, then you turn more moderates into militants. This is why my only plea is to understand the tremendous problems of the Establishment and the genuine grievances of the students. And here they must get together. In this country we have a wonderful reputation for solving these problems. Do not let us condemn the whole of the student movement. It is the militants who make the difficulties. We should have some sympathy with the Establishment; but I plead with them to get on with remedying the grievances.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the militants are laissez-faire liberals?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I wish they were. We should know how to deal with them. But they are not. It is important not to confuse this issue. They are semi-Marxists; some of them have a smattering of laissez-faire liberalism. But essentially they are nihilists; they want to destroy everything, yet they have nothing to put in its place. The noble Lord is not helping tile argument by trying to generalise. If he will sit with these students as I have done, and listen to them—and the great thing is to listen to them—he will discover that there are a great many things wrong. This is what the universities must do—and many of them are doing it. Some of the Vice-Chancellors that I know are first-class at this job of listening to the students. You will not find violence in their universities.
My Lords, I feel that we ought to be looking more strenuously at the problems of vandalism, hooliganism and juvenile delinquency. These are the things which will affect the future crime rates if they are not dealt with sensibly. I have been interested in some articles in New Society,
438
by Roger Barnard, on vandalism. If I am inaccurate in condensing what he says, I hope that he will forgive me. What I think he is saying is this: that juvenile delinquency in various forms is spreading throughout our urban communities and throughout the civilised world; and what is worrying is that it is spreading into places where it has never been known before. There is an enormous sense of rebellion in youth against the canons of the adult world. This, coupled with the fact that so few of our young people seem able to find something meaningful to do sets up frustrations which lead to delinquency and often to violence.
I think that the recent National Opinion Poll in the Daily Mail was interesting. They asked young people of this country whether they would back a Youth Service. This exposed a tremendous gap. Over 70 per cent. of the young people asked wanted to do something in the way of youth service—not compulsory; voluntary youth service. This, I think, showed a vacuum, an unsatisfied desire. I think we have to take it seriously and see what we can do to give as many as possible of the young people of this country much more meaningful things to do. Unless we attempt to understand that problem we are not going to salve it, and I do not believe that there is any one solution to it, either.
Vandalism, my Lords, is defined as the ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. To the majority of people vandalism, normally gang vandalism, is seen as stupid, reckless and pointless. But very often the vandal does not see it like that. To him his acts are eminently sensible, just as the Luddites justified their destruction of equipment and property. Take, for instance, the vandal in racial disturbances. In American cities over the past few years there was an almost rational pattern of property destruction. In at least nine of the cities studied, the damage, at least in part, was the result of deliberate attacks on white-owned businesses which the negroes reckoned had been unfair to the negro community. Studies made in this country showed that far from being wanton or pointless, many acts of vandalism have quite good reasons behind them when you analyse them.
School vandalism often arises from something being radically wrong with the

439
school. But what it is that motivates young children to derail trains I simply do not know. Most of these acts are apparently carried out by 10 to 12-yearolds and I do not know whether anybody knows why this happens. Telephone vandalism is, apparently, a phenomenon of the adolescent and the adult. Is it boredom? Is it yearning for adventure? If so, how can it be satisfied? Why is there so much vandalism among derelict houses in the big cities? The answer is probably just because the areas look derelict, they look awful; an open-ended invitation to further destruction. In the same way a road like Kennington Park Road is the target for so much litter that it attracts even more litter, until it looks an absolute disgrace. I believe that there is a lesson to be learned; namely, that the maintenance of high standards in our environment may well be a way to limit "below-standard" behaviour. I was interested the other day when I went round that magnificent place, Waddesdon. It is a National Trust house now. They have no litter baskets and they have no litter. It all looks so beautiful and it is so beautifully kept that people take their litter home and do not despoil the place, and I think there is a lesson to be learned in that.
My Lords, just one word on hooliganism. This, I think, is an equally disturbing phenomenon of modern life and something which needs a great deal more study, as was shown by the excellent report on soccer hooliganism by a Birmingham research group directed by Dr. J. A. Harrington. A number of things came out of this study. For instance, the influence of stadium design and the inadequacy or adequacy of ground facilities were found to be very important in the control of hooliganism. The knowledge that the hooligan will probably get away with it encourages more hooliganism. The combination of advanced ground design with the latest police techniques in crowd control could, according to this report, lead to a considerable reduction in hooliganism; but how often is this applied? The majority of clubs co-operate with the police, but many of them are not prepared to hire the number of policemen required. The fact is that not enough soccer clubs are treating this as a social problem, and probably they will not do so until they feel the pinch
440
at the gate. The main thing, apparently, is to ensure a high degree of detection of hooliganism immediately it occurs. This can be done only by working far more closely with the police and picking their brains.
Another worrying feature of soccer hooliganism, which applies in other fields, too, is the lack of support for the police by the public at football matches. If the public showed a willingness to give open support to the police, this would discourage hooliganism. I witnessed an incident on Saturday, in Bath. I was walking to the railway station and discovered that the traffic was stopped. I came round a corner and found two policemen dealing with a maniac. They had just got him into the police car. The man was fighting, hitting the policemen and they were having a terrible time. About a hundred civilians were watching. One of the policemen shouted. "For heaven's sake! get some help from the police station." Having been a runner in my young days, I set out. I was not followed by anybody. Eventually we managed to get five people, but it might have been a Saturday afternoon entertainment. We must do as much as we can to encourage the public to support the police when dealing with these social problems.
I suppose that hooliganism is really another reflection of the failure of education at home and at school, but it is a problem which must be grasped. One feature of all this was exposed in an article on soccer hooliganism by J. L. Manning in the Daily Mail recently, when he said that there does not appear to be any easily identifiable authority responsible for licensing football grounds and ensuring that they are designed in a manner which would facilitate the job of crowd control. This is something which we could do, to deal with this problem.
My Lords, I have only one more comment to make and that is on something which was said by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. I hope that he was not advocating that we should give the police water cannons and other instruments with which to retaliate against the public. The Grosvenor Square demonstration revealed that there is nothing wrong with our police. The brainwork, apart from the physical courage, that

441
went into that method of tackling crowd control was absolutely magnificent. But if we once get water cannons and all those pikes and things which they use in Japan and elsewhere, you will get the crowd reacting; you will get students reacting; you will escalate the problem into something with which we cannot possibly deal. This is what I mean, my Lords, by keeping this matter in perspective.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Byers, sits down, may I put in this small interjection? I meant to say—I think I did, but if I did not I left it out by mistake—that I believe that to supply the police with water cannons would be a calamity.
3.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for this opportunity to debate a subject which is not only one of pressing importance but one that could affect the whole fabric of our future way of life. He has drawn a backcloth depicting the growth of violence throughout the world; what virtually amounts to anarchy (I think that was the word for which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was searching) against a just, free and liberal society. He has pointed to the danger that, unless we are vigilant, we can come to accept these things as part of the British way of life.
A debate ranging so widely presents a problem for the Government spokesman who intends, as I intend, to deal with the subject, if not comprehensively, at least on the same broad front. To a Home Office Minister concerned with police, criminal statistics, criminal courts and the penal system, the term "violence" has a strong connotation of crimes of violence, and specifically the criminal offences traditionally grouped under that heading—murder, manslaughter, wounding, assault and so on. But there is a much wider connotation, as the noble Earl made clear: the violence of the society in which we live, demonstrated in Grosvenor Square and at the L.S.E. and elsewhere; football rowdies; the violence, both fact and fiction (and some presented as fact which is near to fiction), brought into our living rooms
442
through the television and other mass media.
To bring these various elements into perspective I must find, somewhere in this picture, a place for the most lethal piece of modern equipment of all; a piece of modern equipment which was not mentioned by either of the noble Lords who have spoken and which is neither the pistol nor the cosh, but the motor vehicle. My Lords, last year in the Metropolitan Police area, there were 99 offences of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, compared with 57 murders. If my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport could bring the annual 7,000 total of road deaths down to near the murder rate, and the 360,000 injured on the roads down to the figure for crimes of violence, he would be a happy man. Every day I am on tit; roads and see people driving. I see many who drive with violence.
But let me consider first violence in the conventional sense, of crimes of violence. In the last 18 years, the total of all indictable offences known to the police has increased almost threefold to a present annual level of about 1¼ million, but within this total offences of Violence against the person have increased almost fivefold to an annual level of some 30,000. The figures rightly cause concern, and I have no wish to play down their seriousness. Nevertheless, they can cause undue alarm, if not seen in their context, and as the noble Earl suggested, it may be helpful to put them in perspective.
First, only one crime in 40 is a crime of violence, and a very high proportion of offences classified in this way consist of minor woundings. Out of every 40 crimes, 37 are theft, breaking and entering, or other offences against property. So, my Lords, to the, I hope, limited extent that we are a criminal nation, we are a nation of thieves, not a nation of thugs. Secondly, though the recent rapid rate of increase in crimes of violence as a whole gives cause for concern, the rate of increase has not been uniform for all offences within the classification. The most rapid increase has been in malicious woundings, the lesser offence. In the more serious category of felonious woundings, the increase has been a good deal less rapid. A study of the long-term trend from the beginning of the century shows a similar pattern.

443
Thirdly (though I recognise that this is no comfort to the victims), the odds against being the victim of a crime of violence are still about 1,700 to 1, and analysis shows that the majority of offences of violence occur in disputes between acquaintances and relatives rather than in attacks on strangers. There is something like a twelve times greater risk of being a casualty in a traffic accident. I think that it is fair to show this in perspective. Fourthly—and this is important in relation to the noble Earl's theme that violence may be becoming an accepted part of our society—our experts believe that part of the recorded increase of crimes of violence is due to the fact that the public are very properly much less ready to tolerate violence and increasingly ready to report such offences to the police. I can remember when fights in public-houses and domestic brawls, which were commonplace 30 or 40 years ago, went virtually unnoticed. Now they are more likely to be reported and to result in a charge. There is a welcome general tendency to treat casual violence more seriously.
But this is not to say that there is not a real increase and a real problem. The serious offences, although proportionately few in number, cause great public concern; and these have shown some increase, especially in the last few years. This anxiety has not gone unheeded by the police, who give considerable attention to the detection of violent offenders, and they deserve high praise for the fact that consistently some 85 per cent. of these offences are cleared up every year. This is a very high level.
There has been a considerable increase in indictable offences involving firearms or imitation firearms—which amounts to the same thing so far as the charge is concerned. In 1961, when the figures were first compiled, there were 552 recorded offences. By 1967 this figure had grown 'to 2,337. But, as will be seen from this morning's Hansard, to which the noble Earl referred, we have had this figure specially analysed, and in only 791 cases was a firearm used; in the other 1,500 cases, the firearm was stolen or misappropriated. Again, "used" does not necessarily mean "fired". Two-thirds of the 791 offences were simple violence against the person, mainly malicious
444
wounding. There were, in fact, only 275 offences of robbery in which firearms were used or carried for use, and of these 210 were in the Metropolitan Police District. That, of course, is 275 too many, but we are very fortunate compared with America, where in the last five years the sale of hand guns has increased 400 per cent. and where 37 per cent. of all American households—nearly two out of every five—think it necessary to have guns for self-defence.
But, my Lords, there is no room for complacency. The Government are certainly not resigned to any increase in crime that could be regarded as a serious challenge to law enforcement and the penal system. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers that the principal ways of combating crime are to maintain the strength and efficiency of the police—the first line of defence against the criminal—and to ensure that the criminal courts have the powers and facilities which they need in order to deal with offenders brought before them. In the long term, of course, the best hope of reducing the incidence of these offences lies in co-ordinated social action to get at the roots of violent criminal behaviour.
As regards the police, and in answer to the noble Earl's questions, recent years have seen a considerable increase in police strength and a far-reaching amalgamation programme designed to reorganise the police into larger administrative units, as well as the development of such specialised services as the Police Research and Development Branch and the regional crime squads. In 1955 the total strength of the police service was about 65,000. By March next year, it is expected that this figure will have increased to about 94,000—that is getting on towards a 50 per cent. increase in 14 years. There will also be increases in civilian staffs and traffic wardens. Important advances have also been made by the provision of modern equipment, such as Panda cars and pocket radio sets. The Government are confident that all these measures will lead to greater efficiency in the Police Service to enable them to maintain law and order by preventing crime and detecting offenders. As regards weapons, chief officers of police have made it clear that they do not wish their forces to be armed with guns, water cannons and the other weapons mentioned

445
by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. These are matters which we are content to leave them to decide in the light of their experience and of their assessment of the needs of the situation. This is exactly what happened on that Sunday in Grosvenor Square to which the noble Earl referred, when the world was able to see how we did it and how much better we did it than some other countries.
I come now to the powers of the courts. Much legislation has been passed in recent years aimed at bringing the criminal law up to date and widening the range of facilities available to the courts. The Criminal Justice Act, the Drugs Acts, the Firearms Act and the Theft Act are some examples. My right honourable friend does not consider that the maximum penalties available to the courts are in any way inadequate. The law enables very substantial periods of imprisonment to be imposed on offenders convicted of offences of violence; for example, manslaughter, robbery with violence, and wounding with intent to maim or cause grievous bodily harm, are punishable with a maximum of life imprisonment. We could not have more than that. This has also been the mandatory penalty for all offences of murder since November, 1965. It is for the courts to decide what penalty to impose in an individual case, having regard to the requirements of justice and to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and we have no knowledge of any serious crime for which an adequate penalty is not available.
A disturbing feature, which is revealed by the special analysis published in to-day's Hansard, in response to the noble Earl's Question—and it is a matter to which he has already referred—is the increase both relatively and quantitatively in the number of crimes of violence committed by young persons. If he does not mind, I will now give the arithmetic. In 1950, when 783 people under 21 were found guilty of such offences, they comprised only 20 per cent. of the total of persons found guilty; that is, one-fifth, not one quarter. In 1960, 4,345 young persons were found guilty, that is 42 per cent. of the total; and in 1967, 6,689, 39 per cent. of the total under 21. Another significant matter is that in 1967 the number of young people under 21 found guilty of drugs offences was only
446
10 per cent. less than the number of adults convicted. These facts need and are receiving the most careful consideration. The Government take the view that, while it is essential to maintain the penal deterrents, the best hope of improving the situation in respect of the hooliganism, vandalism and juvenile delinquency, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, lies in social action, such as the Government's urban programme and the proposals in the White Paper, Children in Trouble, to enlarge the functions of local authority children's departments.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said about, "the areas look derelict, and the kids make them more derelict". A few months ago I visited the Borstal Allocation Centre at Wormwood Scrubs. It was at a time when it was badly in need of decoration. We had, of course, started on "B" hall, and had got it more than half done. "A" hall was in a deplorable condition. The weather was cold, and yet in "A" hall every single cell window and every single pane of glass had been smashed out by the boys to make it even more uncomfortable. In "B" hall tot a single window had gone. This, in my view, is a significant psychological fact.
We have other positive defences against crime and violence, and not the least hopeful of these is the paroling of prisoners. This applies almost by definition only to medium and longer sentence prisoners, who have committed a serious crime—and this naturally includes crimes of violence—all of whom I see personally when they are the subject of a favourable recommendation from a local review committee. The Parole Board have, I know, felt a particular responsibility in viewing these cases, and it is a 11 the more encouraging that of the 1,157 cases with determinate sentences in which they had recommended parole in the nine months up to the end of 1968, over 200 related to crimes of violence. And as the House may be aware, out of this total of 1,157 prisoners released on parole it has been necessary to revoke the parole licences of only 33 men. It is, of curse, too early to form definite conclusions, but if this experience continues we shall clearly have found an important way to reduce the numbers of serious crimes, including crimes of violence.

447
My Lords, I turn to the wider aspects of violence in our society, where the balance sheet is no easier to draw. There are respects in which we are a less violent society now than in the past. Our ancestors tolerated and apparently watched with enjoyment public hangings and floggings, and regarded as acceptable other methods of punishment which have long since been rejected as cruel, humiliating and pointless. More recently we have abolished corporal punishment as a penalty available to the courts, and also—subject to a review before the middle of next year—capital punishment. We have abolished corporal punishment also as a disciplinary penalty in our penal establishments, and I believe there is far less physical punishment and general rough handling of children, both at school and at home, than there was even a generation ago.
There are those who say that these changes are the cause of much of the present trouble, and that if we could get back to the penal methods of earlier days there would be much less criminal violence. I doubt this. In the first place, the roots of violence and aggression go deep—deeper, I believe, than the spades of punishment can dig. We understand little, though we speculate a lot, about what causes an increase in the amount of violent behaviour; but I suggest that these changes reflect developments in our society and civilisation, and are not likely to be influenced, except marginally and in the short term, by fiercer penal sanctions. I believe that violence should be met with firmness, not with opposing violence. This accords with the fact that Britain subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means that we acknowledge human rights as the criterion by which man should live. And, my Lords, by every act of personal violence we infringe the human rights and freedom of others.
At the present time, the violent behaviour of a tiny minority of students—1 in 200 was the estimate of the Secretary of State—much exercises university and college authorities and is a source of exasperated annoyance to the public. A good deal has been said on the subject by the students, and notably by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who in his recent speech in another place spoke, I
448
believe, for most of us. On that aspect there is nothing left to say. But I was a student at the London School of Economics some 40-odd years ago, and I should just like to say that it was then as free academically and in every other way as any place in which I have been either then or since. I cannot imagine for the life of me that it is any less completely free now than it was then; and probably it is much more so. However, I should like to make three points relevant to this debate.
First, this problem of students is essentially not a problem for Government, central or local, but for the university authorities. This is implicitly acknowledged by the wise words of Dr. Walter Adams, the Director of the L.S.E., in his recent letter to each member of the School. He said:
"If force is used and the community's life is disrupted, the schools authorities must be prepared to use legal remedies, whether through the courts or through duly constituted internal disciplinary procedures."
Affirming his belief that L.S.E. is an academic community, Dr. Adams said:
"This means that the values we hold—the values of freedom of opinion and tolerance, of respect for truth and disinterested inquiry—must be shared values. It means that the rules by which we conduct our affairs must derive their strength from the positive support—not just the acquiescence—of the overwhelming majority of the community's members."
My Lords, I am convinced that that is the answer wherever violence is encountered.
My second point is that we must see student unrest and violence in perspective. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, we should stop the wholesale condemnation of the student movement. The young people who have hit the headlines and filled the television screen are not only not typical of students, they are not typical of young people generally. I believe that the present generation of youngsters is probably more altruistic than we were; more anxious to be of service to others through such ways as helping the elderly, the sick, the disabled, those who still suffer front bad housing and an impoverished environment. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred to the National Opinion Poll survey of attitudes, and this produces a quite remarkable result. But, of course, that result is not dramatic enough for the television screens, but it is vastly more important and more truly representative than the samples we do see on

449
the screen. It is not that the present generation is cast in a different mould from previous generations—human nature is more constant than that; it is rather that the social and economic improvements in the life of our people during this century, and particularly since the war, have removed some previous constraints and released fresh energy. It is these same broad social and economic changes that have produced the features in our contemporary society that worry us. We must learn to take the rough with the smooth.
Thirdly, I personally share the widespread view that the mass media, in particular television, play into the hands of the violent minority by giving them a significance beyond anything they could otherwise enjoy. Understandably, violence is news and controlled behaviour is not. The trouble is that the television screen is a small one, easily tilled by a few shouting, struggling bodies and giving an impression—and it may be a false impression—that there is a much larger crowd in the background. We must not reach the situation where it you coin a slogan, paint a banner and rent a crowd, the "telly" will take you into millions of homes. Of course, cameramen have their job to do, but it may be that if they were less assiduous in filming and publicising violence there would be less of it.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork, asked about foreign students who cause trouble. A foreign student's record is considered when we have to decide about admission and about his continued stay. It is a serious matter to terminate the stay of someone who is living here while engaged in a course of full-time study, or perhaps in employment, and there would have to be fully adequate grounds for taking such a step. The responsibility for accepting a foreign student lies with the educational establishment, and the general position is that one who has been so accepted for a course of study and who has adequate means to maintain himself will be admitted without difficulty unless it is known that he has a criminal record, or there are security objections or medical grounds for refusing admission.
To a large extent, therefore, control over entry of foreign students is exercised by the educational establishments themselves in accepting these students for
450
courses here. But if a foreign student misbehaves and is expelled from the college, his further stay in this country is automatically in jeopardy. His continued stay here will also be placed in jeopardy if, although he is not expelled by his college, he is convicted of a criminal offence here. For example, we sent warnings to all the foreigners, including students, who were involved in demonstrations in 1968, and this appears to have had a salutary effect.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, also spoke of football violence, which takes a number of forms. The thugs who smash up shops and trains, both before and after matches, and who erupt violently before, during and after the game are committing criminal offences, and the police can, and do, take care of them. But what is the basis of this phenomenon—a comparatively new phenomenon? I. heard Mr. Alan Hardaker, the Football League Secretary, give what may be a clue to it when on television the other evening he said that some football managers attributed the rise in attendances to increasing violence—violence on the field. This seems to have been born out of the demand for success at any price, by any method. On the same programme I saw and heard a football club manager give frank expression to this philosophy when he pithily declared, "Nice people"—meaning managers—"get nowhere". When asked if he would fine one of his players if he was sent: off for violence, he said that would be dangerous. He said, "If you ask for 150 per cent. effort and you fine the player who gets sent off, you cannot ask him for 155 per cent. effort the next week". The unmistakable inference, though doubtless unintentional, was that extra effort is synonymous with violent play.
I said just now that Dr. Adams's declaration for duly constituted internal disciplinary procedures and the support of the community's members was the remedy in many fields. It is certainly true of football which, whether paying or watching, is one of the finest games in the world. Violence could be stopped very quickly by the courageous actions of the ruling bodies and the overwhelming condemnation of the football community. If referees instantly ordered wrongdoers from the field, knowing that

451
the League would back them 100 per cent. and inflict condign suspensions on offenders and on grounds, I believe violence on the field and in crowds would stop.
The noble Earl asked me about horror comics. The Harmful Publications Act 1955, which was designed to stop the flood of comics, has been completely successful. We have not had any here at all, and in fact it has been so successful that there has been no need for any prosecutions. The noble Earl also raised the question of connection between violent behaviour and violence on the television screen and in other mass media. The whole question of the impact of television on society is one on which, as the noble Earl mentioned, more than one view has been expressed by research workers. In 1963 Lord Brooke of Cumnor, then Home Secretary, appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Noble, Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University, to initiate and co-ordinate research into the impact of television, in relation to other influences, in fostering attitudes, and particularly in developing the moral concepts and attitudes of young people. That Committee were financed by a very generous grant of £250,000 from the Independent Television Authority. The Committee have published two working papers, designed to stimulate public debate, on The Effects of Mass Communication with Special Reference to Television, and Attitude Formation and Change, and have sponsored a number of research projects. Only a few days ago my right honourable friend the Home Secretary received the Committee's Final Report, which will be published shortly—I expect next month.
I must express the gratitude of my right honourable friend to the members of the Committee for the work they have done and for their recommendations about the development of research in this field, which will be most carefully considered. I have been able to glance at the Report. Its theme is that a lot more research needs to be carried out into the effects of the mass media, with specific reference to aggression and violence and, more importantly, in a wider context. But one might be forgiven for thinking that the only thing
452
that is at all clear is that nothing is clear on this subject.
Looking at the evidence made available by the research so far done, the Report concludes that one might, while making it clear that it is pointless to talk in general terms about mass media causing delinquency, assert that, for some people, violence in the media can be unhealthy and detrimental. The difficulties of the frustrated, maladjusted and isolated can be intensified, and already existing patterns of behaviour reinforced. In the Committee's view the risks here should not be underestimated and a high degree of responsibility needs to be shown by the media producers. It seems probable that the maximum impact of television will occur where there is repetition of the message, where emotional reactions are brought into play, where the values presented link with the individual's immediate needs and interests and where there is an uncritical attachment to the medium in circumstances in which no correction in value judgments has been supplied through environment and social relationships. Some of the research already commissioned by the Committee will take some time yet to complete; but it is clear that we cannot expect unequivocal answers to some questions about the influence of the mass media, and in particular about its effect on delinquency, in a form that will serve as a reliable basis in the formulation of social policies.
And so, my Lords, I come to what I regard as the truly vital question posed by the noble Earl's Motion: Do we, as a society, accept violence as part of our way of life? My answer is, certainly not; but we must be vigilant. The United States' experience provides an indication and a warning of what can happen. Mr. Rap Brown, the militant American coloured leader, said that, "violence is as American as cherry pie". My Lords, we must not let it become as British as fish and chips. The Times carried recently an article about the progress report of a United States National Commission on the cause and prevention of violence. This painted a sombre picture both of group violence and of individual violence. There were more than 12,000 homicide victims there in 1967. I repeat these figures in no "holier than thou" spirit: we all know that American violence can be explained in terms of the

453
make-up and tradition of United States society. We should be thankful that, compared with the United States, we are at present a safe and orderly society; and we must keep it that way.
There is more violence in Britain than we like. I have pointed to some of the difficulties in quantifying violence and making comparisons with earlier eras, and I have also pointed to evidence that we do not accept contemporary violence as inevitable. To keep in check and to reject violence is, as Dr. Walter Adams said in the remarks I quoted earlier, the responsibility of the whole community—whether it is the academic community, the sporting community, or the nation at large. The chosen instruments of the community are the police, the courts, the penal institutions and the rest of the penal system. But they can be fully effective only if they operate against a background of firm and broadly based community support—not merely acquiescence. With that support they can, and will, be effective bulwarks against the spread of violence.
4.12 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this debate has continued for only an hour and twenty minutes and there are many further speakers, but I think the action of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery in tabling the Motion for the debate is already justified, because even if nothing further were to be said the Government would have received a number of suggestions and your Lordships' House would, very properly, have displayed its interest in this most important and very sad feature of British public life. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this is a worldwide disease, and not confined to this country, it would be lamentable if we derived any satisfaction whatever from that fact. This is our job: if things go wrong here it is we who are responsible, and we cannot look with any sort of complacency on the figures for the rise in violence which have been given this afternoon.
I cannot help thinking that in a field like this we have got to go right back and inquire and analyse whether acts of violence performed by the young derive from defects in their education—and when I say "education" I am not for
454
one moment confining that to education in the narrow sense, education in school or at college: I am thinking of all the influences that bear upon the young. Up to the age of twenty or so we are all being educated or moulded, though I know the Government would say that this process ends on one's eighteenth birthday, and at that point everyone is qualified for full citizenship in every respect. I doubt that. But the problem, at any rate at present—for it may worsen—is a problem of the young.
Look at any demonstration or protest meeting, or at any affair that ends in disorder. Look at vandalism; look at hooliganism look at crimes of violence. I think the noble Lord said that 39 per cent. of those found guilty of crimes of violence were under the age of 21. I believe I shall not incur correction from him if I say that nearly 75 per cent. of those found guilty of crimes of violence are under 30. In passing, may I mention that the criminal statistics are really not as clear and lucid and informative as they might be; and I wonder whether the Government can tell us anything about the work of the Committee on the Criminal Statistics which I set up some four or five years ago. I confess I was hoping that by now the Committee would have made fruitful recommendations which would have simplified the collection and meaningful presentation of criminal statistics, which are so important for factual reasons in debates in Parliament.
My Lords, all this violent misbehaviour among the young is linked with lack of respect for authority, but it stems down to lack of respect for anyone who stands in your way.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if one has never been taught respect for anybody who stands in one's way, is it surprising? The teaching should come first from the parents: the teaching that when you are very young you must obey, and that as you grow older you must still respect. But if parents surrender the early insistence on obedience, either through their own weakness or, sometimes, through blind acceptance of bad psychological advice, can one blame the children if they have no respect for anybody? Violence connotes

455
an absence of respect. The opposite of violence in a society is respect for law. One gets that if the law-givers and the law seem worthy of respect. One gets it if the law is enforced. Whether the law is enforced depends partly on the strength or weakness of those who have the duty of enforcement, and partly on the willingness of ordinary people to put themselves out to help in its enforcement. I am afraid that willingness to help has been reduced in this country by all the teaching, which has deeply penetrated the minds of hosts of people, that one should count on State help before self-help.
It would be easy to put all the blame on parents and to leave it at that. It would be easy, but it would be wrong, to put down all delinquency and crime to weak parents and unhappy homes. That fails to explain how the sons of some of the best parents go wrong and get involved in this violence. More significant still, it fails to explain the very many boys and young men whose background, one might say, simply had not given them a chance in life, and yet who turn out to be splendid citizens. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is going to take part in this debate, knows many cases of this sort. Often, of course, those boys come out right because they have come under fine teachers at school, who have given them by example the standards and values which they have missed getting at home.
Education can be a ladder, it can also be a lottery. Had I a free hand in this, and all the money in the Exchequer available, one of the first things I should do towards producing a more law-abiding and less violent society would be to cut the sizes of classes in schools down to numbers which a teacher can both teach and control. I am expressing a purely personal view now, but it seems to me madness to talk of raising the school-leaving age before one has got classes in primary schools down to manageable size.
We should be able to rely on the schools to inculcate not only knowledge, but standards of values too. We ought to be able to look upon teaching as one of the noble professions, along with medicine and some others. That time cannot come so long as members of the teaching profession drag it down by talk of
456
going on strike, neglecting their duty to the children, as no doctors would do towards their patients. A much wiser member of the teaching profession who recently sensed some sympathy with violent student protest among some of her girls simply told them that if they wanted to become student protesters they would have to work a lot harder for their "A" levels, otherwise they would not become university students at all.
Parents, schools, television, radio, films, newspapers, all these are potent influences. But I think parents and schools are the greatest of all, and next after them television. In days gone by, a boy "had up" for violence used to give the explanation that he had seen it on the cinema, which was usually an excuse for brutishness or sheer thoughtless mischief in himself. Nowadays the similar excuse is television, and there is probably just as much or as little truth in the excuse. But television, surely, is more important than the cinema ever was, because there is much more continuous exposure to it.
In a sense, I am sorry in this respect for those whose work is to plan television programmes. I am certain that they do not want to corrupt the young, but there is far too little authoritative knowledge available to them about the effects of different scenes or ideas in programmes upon the young who watch. That is why I seized the chance to set up that Committee which noble Lords have mentioned to co-ordinate research into the effects of television on the young. I regret that, to the best of my knowledge, the research sponsored by that Committee seems as yet to have produced almost nothing of practical value to the television authorities. It has been said in this debate that that Committee is producing a further report next month. I hope that that report will not merely recommend that more and more money should be found for what they call mass communication research, but will start to justify all the money that has already been spent, by producing findings and recommendations which will be of practical interest both to those who control television programmes and to all those who are deeply interested in children and young people and their development. It is not specific enough for the Committee to say, as I gather from the noble Lord

457
it is going to say, that a high degree of responsibility needs to be shown by the television authorities. We knew that when the Committee was set up five years ago.
Often this whole question is narrowed down to the effects of scenes of violence on the screen. I believe it goes much wider than that. When a body such as the B.B.C. conceives it as one of its duties to call in question all kinds of accepted standards and to disparage and satirise and ridicule them, it may be contributing something to the education of sophisticated adult people. It may be; I am not sure. But I am quite sure that it has not shown itself fully aware of its grievous responsibility for mis-educating those less sophisticated, and especially the young who have not yet developed the critical faculties, or indeed had sufficiently long experience of life, to form thoughtful judgments and distinguish false from true.
If there are dangers in violence, as this Motion says, I do not believe one can sufficiently counter them by simply looking at acts of violence and aiming to check them on the spot. One has to look much further back, right back to some of the fields I have been mentioning. By starting further back, one then needs to learn how to blend more successfully than we in this country have recently been doing the value of the experience of older people with the perennial mutiny of the young against states of affairs which they believe older people ought to have put right. Just now the revolt against authority is strong, and in a few, but only a comparative few, it bursts out in violence. When people say that all students must not be condemned for what is happening in the universities I profoundly agree, but I do not find people condemning all students; I believe it is universally recognised that this is the work of a handful. Nevertheless, a handful can damage the reputation of many, and that is what the many must resist.
This handful is like the people who are too impatient to obey the rule of the road or the Highway Code. I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned traffic, because I can use this to illustrate my point. These irresponsible people defy the Code, and then their dangerous driving wounds and murders. If there were no traffic police they would
458
be a still greater menace. And it is the same with crimes of violence. Only a tiny percentage of the population yield to temptations to violence. That is principally thanks to their upbringing and to their own inbred standards of conduct, but it is partly due, too, at moments of strain and tension, to fear of the law. A mature society cannot let the right of its members to live their lives in peace and safety be disrupted by acts of violence, and if those who indulge in violence succeed in getting away with it the violence spreads, as indeed we have been seeing in the universities.
May I say that I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, when he sought to draw a deep distinction between violence in universities and violence in society. I believe violence in the sense of lawlessness must be condemned everywhere. That is where the Home Secretary comes in. The Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, must be constantly watching the criminal law to make certain that its scope is right in relation to the form that current violence is taking. My noble friend made one suggestion in that field. One recollects that it is not so many years ago that the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place was made a criminal offence. It is not so many years ago that horror comics were outlawed, and that change in the criminal law has, as the noble Lord said, proved wholly successful. It was about five years ago, at the time of the "mods and rockers" trouble, that I felt it right to propose to Parliament an extension of the criminal law needed to meet those circumstances. We should like 10 be certain that the Government are reviewing the criminal law in the present situation, reviewing it actively to-day in relation to current forms of violence.
I agree that this is not a matter of increasing the maximum penalties. I believe that in most cases the maximum penalties are large enough. I think, however, that some rationalisation of maximum penalties is desirable. I hope I shall not be offending any of my noble friends when I say that, for instance, I have never been able to understand why the maximum penalty for assault against a gamekeper by poachers should be heavier than for other similar assaults.

459
But neither the law nor the penalties attaching to breaches of the law are of much importance if the offender believes he has a good chance of not being caught. Wherever the police are below their proper strength, the offender has a better chance of not being brought to justice than he ought to have. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself said that the first line of defence is the maintenance of the strength and efficiency of the police. Here, in my view, the Government stands condemned for the wicked decision they took a year ago to impose a crass economic restriction on public safety. They forbade chief constables whose forces were below strength to recruit all the young policemen they could, by setting limits to the increase in police strength which the Government would permit. At a time when violence was increasing, the choice of the police for an economy measure was incredible and inexcusable. I know, as do many noble Lords, what a good many chief constables think about the Government weighting the scales against the police in this way.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse my butting in, is it not a fact that the strength of the police forces throughout the country is now higher than it was five years ago?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Yes, certainly it is.
LORD LINDGREN: You were in power then.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It certainly is. It started rising, thanks to the large increase in police pay which was brought about by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. It has gone on increasing since, and certainly I should never have dreamed of imposing, as the present Home Secretary has imposed, a restriction that no police force may increase its strength by more than 2 per cent. in the current 15 months. So those forces which were 22 per cent. below strength have been informed by the Government that they must remain 20 per cent. below strength at the end of the 15 months, which is inexcusable.
I have great faith in the police, and I thought my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery was apt when he said that you can
460
tell the sort of people who compose a nation by looking at the sort of police they have. I have faith in the police, and I still have great faith in our country, as a place where much of the foolishness and culpable irresponsibility of the present time will pass away. There are those who may tell me that in that I am denigrating the present. If anybody says that, I would simply point out to him the crime figures and, above all, the growing number of crimes of violence. I have never ceased to be glad that in 1964 it fell to me to introduce the scheme for compensation for crimes of violence, under which more than £1¼ million a year is now being paid out to victims of crimes of violence. But money can never be a complete recompense for suffering. I want this debate, and all the facts and suggestions that have been and will be voiced in it, to stimulate a livelier awareness everywhere of what needs to be done in a great many fields if violence in society is to be checked and cured. I use the word "cured" deliberately, because the measures taken will not suffice if they are repressive only, and not curative too.
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I share the general gratitude which has been expressed to the noble Earl for initiating this debate, which not only underlines the seriousness, the diversification and the importance of the problem of violence but also its controversial complexity. I only hope that my contribution to the debate will not seem too intricate; but I have tried, I hope helpfully, to do some justice to one or two broad features of this problem as I see it.
As we all know "violence" means unreasonable force, the exercise of which inevitably converts persons to things. Though some philosophers may speak, and have spoken, of a person affirming himself, realising himself in the power of a violent act, for myself I see that only as a quite superficial fulfilment: for to be violent, it seems to me, is to disfranchise personality. Violence is an exercise of compulsion without respect for the personalities at whom it is directed. Violence has not the compelling power of reasonable argument in which a person comes to himself as he is led to a new conclusion. Nor has

461
violence the power of love to win us over. Violence is always oppression of personality—that is why it never could be defended as a restriction on free speech. It is a prostitution of the person. If I may make a somewhat lighter reference, violence treats persons like the notice I saw in a lift (which I regret to say was in Church House): "Five persons or 800 lb."
The dangers which violence of this kind brings with it are well known and I need not underline them: irrationality, oppression, disorder, anarchy, nihilism, death. Further, when a group exerts force there always arises a danger of its doing what a single member of that group would be utterly ashamed to do alone. The element of the irrational, brute quality of the force increases with numbers. To give again a rather lighter example, even in quieter, distant days in universities we all knew how different was the undergraduate on the morning of November 6 from his behaviour on Market Hill on the evening of November 5.
Violence, too, often has cruel jealousy and bitter hate as its basis. Its frequency and its dangers in contemporary society hardly need underlining. Though I share the general scepticism about isolated statistics, the sociologist, Pitrim Sorakim, has claimed that even by 1933 the 20th century was more than 25 times as violent as the 19th century, even taking account of the differences of population. By human violence (excluding disease), the 1914–18 war killed 10 million people, of whom 5 per cent. were civilians; the 1939–45 war killed 50 million, of whom about 70 to 75 per cent. were civilians; the localised Korean war killed 9 million, of whom some 84 per cent. were civilians; and the Vietnam war may give an even higher civilian proportion. It is true of course that this is not violence in peace. But, for myself, I do not think that violence in peace and violence in war are essentially separate.
When there are these dangers and these disastrous results, how have people ever begun to defend violence? Recognising all that, I ask: can violence ever be creative? For let us recognise that in our present-day society some of the more sensitive and discerning people who
462
in principle would loathe and detest violence, for reasons that I have stated, have seemed in certain circumstances prepared to defend it. As I shall say presently, the possibility was openly aired at the Lambeth Conference that in certain political and social circumstances violence (and not meaning by that warfare) could be a Christian duty. My Lords, can this ever be so? Can violenee ever be creative?
Picture a people economically and racially repressed and unable to affirm themselves. It is obvious that we would wish to do all we could to enable them to put their case persuasively, and we may hope that those to whom they put the case persuasively would take appropriate creative action by way of response. But suppose that effort fails. Suppose there is no response whatever by those to whom an appeal is made. Suppose those who are economically and racially oppressed feel that they are battering on an unresponsive wall. Men then ask, so pitiably, what can be done about their oppression, about the denial to them of human rights. And perhaps, in only a slightly lower key, what about tie so-called agreements which are, in the last resort, oppressive because they express no basic trust? And what of these so-called agreed policies which are oppressive because they are no more than a disingenuous cover-up?
It is tempting to see in cases such as these an argument for the use of violence; yet we are bound to recognise that even though it be a violent break-through—if you wish to put it in this way, a worm turning with force—it is never itself creative. It may in fact be expressed indiscriminately through, and in, every feature disliked in contemporary society—overcrowding, racial injustice, overpopulation and so on. It has been rightly said that violence needs some objective to begin with; for example, Communists, coloureds, Jews, bourgeoisie. But these are only partly the objects of violent action. They trigger it off and focus it, rather than cause it. They may scion be forgotten in the struggle for power, for elbow room. Further—and here is the greatest of all dangers—violence may well defeat its own end. Those who resort to violence to uphold human rights may find that in the end their action denies the very human rights they were contending

463
for. Here is the terrible Nemesis which violence may bring.
My Lords, what is the moral of all this? It is that violence can do no more, at best, than make conditions possible for attaining an ideal not otherwise likely to occur; and yet to have said that is to make it evident how many and great are the dangers. The only case I can think of where the ideal was preserved untarnished is with the suffragettes, which was, on the whole, a relatively simple, straight issue. It is in more complicated cases that the use of violence will almost inevitably tarnish the ideal; and to practise violence for the sake of an ideal is to start on a long and hazardous journey which could only possibly be defended as a last resort. Yet, in all honesty, I am bound to admit, much as I almost loathe having to come to this conclusion, that in certain circumstances there can be no other way, though we should have to make doubly sure that the violence did not blind us to the ideals for which it originated. And, further, it would be consistent with my argument that if violence is, in fact, exerted, it will be more justifiable against buildings and things than against persons themselves.
All this may seem very theoretical, though I hope that it may have teased out the problem somewhat. But now I come to the practical question: what lessons have we to learn from the dangers of violence in contemporary society? There are undoubtedly factors in our society which seem oppressive and restrictive—"stuffy" to use the term of the noble Lord, Lord Byers—when the old pattern of society seems too narrow to incorporate the hopes and aspirations and possibilities which the future might seem to hold, when technology has by no means been developed to the obvious satisfaction of the many.
May I read a short section from the Lambeth Conference Report to which I referred earlier, reflections of Bishops from all over the world, some of whom have been in close contact with violent as well as non-violent protests?
"Technology … has been exploited to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Our cities have not yet been redeveloped to eliminate slums; indeed, urbanisation has often created slums and ghettos. Two-thirds of the world's population goes hungry. Many men and women are denied employment. Knowledge
464
and power can be used to oppress, and to satisfy human greed or pride. In political and economic matters, excessive deference has been paid to conventional wisdom and outdated institutions. Man is in danger of losing his human dignity and becoming depersonalised. Often he feels himself limited and voiceless in a world where others make the decisions that affect his daily life. We cannot be blind to the signs of sickness in present-day society—the tensions between men of different races … the spread of violence, so that it seems everywhere to be becoming endemic; the development of police states in many parts of the world; the continuing wars that divide men and nations and bring widespread misery and appalling suffering. These are national and international symptoms of the sickness that underlies the political, economic, and cultural revolutions of our age."
Some noble Lords may have heard last Sunday the old story of Cain and Abel, Cain representing and symbolising the beginnings of a technological society where there was the lance and the spear as well as the tilling of the ground; Abel representing the old pastoral society where men thought of themselves as each other's keeper as well as the keeper of the sheep. There was much in that old society which was attractive, and if we may interpret in human terms what is said about the rites and ceremonies in which Cain and Abel joined, we may say that Abel still had a deep satisfaction in life which Cain had lost. As your Lordships may remember, Cain and Abel talked together; they tried to reason out their difficulties. But then came violence and murder. That violence is not excused in the ancient story, and steps were taken to exclude its occurrence in the future, even against the perpetrator of that violence.
But the question that emerges is: was that violence an essentially traumatic experience, a travail, through which that primitive society had to go to find its new pattern? I agree that that is a very problematical reflection, but do let us remember that we are dealing here with some of the deepest depths of society and human personality. Violence is often a criterion of the rapidity of social change and of the inability of a society to adjust fast enough.
What, then, is the conclusion? I share with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, caution about the causes of this violence. But this much seems plain; and I look, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, did, "further back". Our society is certainly not proving satisfying to the needs of man. Our

465
political purpose, our legal structures—and, yes, the Christian Church—do not always seem to afford men institutions in which they can find their life and fulfilment. We have to remember that the very law and order which so many of us treasure here in our own society seem to some, in many parts of the world, to be absolutely oppressive and not at all the expression of an agreed basis for society, an obligation in whose acknowledgement society gains its coherence and in which we fulfil ourselves. We are missing out on a dimension of personality, and if we are to grapple constructively with the dangers of violence in contemporary society we have to make far better provision, it seems to me, than we have done for the needs of the spirit. Man must find, as he rarely does to-day, some satisfying work to give him an integrating purpose to his life: "meaningful things to do", as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said. We are certainly grateful—I certainly am grateful; and I am sure that noble Lords generally are—for the Government's social projects, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred.
I would make only one or two other positive suggestions. Should we not spend more than we do on festivals of the arts, to encourage a greater appreciation of beauty and of music, the insights of literature and poetry, which can provide an adventure of the spirit? Must not we develop much more energetically adult non-vocational education? Can we encourage the playwrights not only to write of the depths to which persons can sink but of the heights to which they can rise? Loyalty and devotion, inspiration and leadership, courtesy (to use a word mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery): to-day all these words, which have almost disappeared from our vocabulary, have to find a new place in our verbal currency. I recognise that there is here no easy answer, and I can do no more than leave your Lordships with a question: what can we do constructively, beyond making the criticism of violence which undoubtedly must be made? Violence will be eradicated only when we have institutions which better develop and satisfy the spirit of man. To say that is to recognise how very much both Church and State have to learn and practise.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in expressing appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for introducing this Motion. The Motion is, as he admitted, a very wide one, capable of many interpretations. I also wish to express my gratitude to him for initiating this debate if, for no other reason, than that it evoked the very eloquent reflection by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Durham. I am in large agreement with what he said and with much of what has been said by other noble Lords; but although the right reverend Prelate himself reminded us, after rightly condemning and exposing the sinister nature of violence, that there were exceptions, we are indeed haunted in history and in our present experience by many paradoxes. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and his episcopal colleagues will not think that I am in any way trying to be cynical when I say that the Church of England itself came into being very largely through violence. I presume that was not a misfortune in our European history, but the reverse.
Although we rightly condemn violence, nevertheless few of us here would do other than agree that violence employed in the last war was successful. Had it not been so, it may well be that our liberties would have disappeared. Whether one be pacifist or non-pacifist, if one takes an objective view of history one cannot deny that either on that occasion or on many other occasions there have been incidents of violence on a wide scale which, on balance, have made men better than they otherwise would have been. We also have to realise that in our schools we offer to our children history books full of exploits of violence, often interpreted in terms of glory and splendid achievement. One thinks of the first Elizabethan Era and the exploits of the sea dogs of Britain—of Frobisher, Drake, Hawkins, Raleigh. Who were these but men of violence? My own memory of the history which I read in my schooldays was that provided the violence was successful, it was good; it was the reverse only when it failed.
Moreover, we have to realise that from other standpoints there have been many signs of violence associated with social

467
revolt which have had excellent results. Not being a Communist or subscribing to the Communist philosophy, I cannot be accused of any sympathy, for instance, with the Communist world of to-day, though I recognise that there are many great achievements to its credit; but the fact remains that it was through violence that the days of the Tsar, and indeed the Church of Russia which supported the Tsar, came to an end. Holy Russia, China and many other States emerged from serfdom, subservience, brutality and oafishness through to a new world. I mention this so that we may be honest with ourselves and recognise that we have to discriminate when we talk about violence.
Some students in our universities are now advocating, I consider quite erroneously, a philosophy of what they call selective violence. It is quite true that what are called the militant students are in a minority, though, in passing, I would say that large numbers of others too easily follow them and I wish that more of the so-called moderate students in our universities would make their voices heard. So often they just allow their own case to go by default. The minority of which I speak now has a deliberate philosophy of selective violence, and there are people, like Marcuse in America and others elsewhere, who have elaborated on this philosophy. The philosophy of violence in a sense underlies a great deal of European history in general and our own British history in particular. Indeed, at times we have called upon this philosophy to defend our great achievements, even though so often it has been at great cost in human life and suffering. An illustration of this fact is that once or twice in our own car park outside I have seen cars, no doubt owned by noble Lords, with little stickers on the back saying "Support Rhodesia". What is that but an indication that the violence which is now operating in Rhodesia, a violence which maintains the dominance of a handful of so-called white people over a vast majority of African people, is an excellent thing and should continued.
If I may return from that digression to the philosophy of selective violence which is advocated by some students,
468
backed up by their quasi philosophers, they claim that from time to time in world history a climax is reached when only by violence can there be a transition from the old to the new, only by violence can the complacency and inertia of the masses be destroyed so that in the nihilism which will then result the spirit of man will burst forth and forge a new form of society. I do not subscribe to this thinking at all. Indeed, if I could warn the students I would say: beware where you are going, for in this philosophy of selective violence you may begin with altruism and idealism, but in the end you will find that those who are prepared to practise violence without limitation are more likely to succeed than you are. Violence was employed, for instance, in Germany, before Hitler rose to power. The Communists employed violence, as did the Nazis; and because the Nazis on the whole were more ruthless, they succeeded. So it is in this country. If the selective violence which is being supported by a minority of the students succeeds, it may well be that neo-Fascism will appear and employ what they have advocated, but implement it with greater violence.
We must recognise that we cannot really divorce this subject from the full context of our social and world life. In our schools not only have we had history interpreted in terms of violence, and successful violence—glorified imperialist violence at times—but also we still employ violence in the schools in certain circumstances. We call it justifiable corporal punishment. I remember in my own schooldays, which were very elementary to begin with, that from time to time there were beatings before the whole school, which filled me with utter revulsion. Almost immediately afterwards we were assembled for a religious period, when we were called upon to sing, with feeling, a hymn, shall we say, to the Rock of our Salvation. The feeling was a physical one on the part of the boys punished, rather than spiritual.
If we are to employ corporal punishment in schools, as we still do, can we not understand the attitude of many boys when they experience it, or indeed view what is taking place? I think that what is in their minds is: "Well, after all, this is imposed on us from above. This is the method they employ. This

469
violence imposed on our body is, it is claimed, for our own good and justified socially. We will therefore employ it ourselves when in process of time we leave school, pass through adolescence and then become adult persons." This cult of violence as a punishment runs through the schools and through the homes and continues onward, sometimes taking extravagant forms; but whether taking extravagant forms or not, implicitly endorsing the principle that in certain circumstances violence must be employed.
We have to ask ourselves: in those circumstances what is to be done? In the first place, I submit that we should do what I have already urged we should do, and recognise that to a large extent our society is founded on violence and that therefore we should try to stress all those elements in society that lead away from violence, lead away from bitter rivalry and competition for what a certain noble Earl once called "the glittering prizes of life". For where there is unrestricted bitter rivalry and competition, in the end the intensity of the emotions reaches a climax which issues in violence itself. I am not suggesting that we should try to remove rivalry and competition in all circumstances. Far from it. What I am suggesting is that of the variety of impulses which we inherit, which are innate in us, which are genetic, we should more and more stress those elements in mankind which lead to human co-operation rather than the reverse. In so doing, we then undermine the very deep and powerful impulses that have been expressed in violence either on a world-wide scale or on an individual scale.
Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to the necessity for greater respect for authority. But, again, it depends on what the authority is. Surely the greatest authority of all is the authority of example. When I refer to Gandhi, I do so not as sycophantically worshipping him as being without any defects. Far from it. Talking with him in bygone days, I myself pointed out what I thought were defects in his philosophy. But at least one has to realise that in India he stood for a principle of non-violence which, although it is extremely difficult to interpret and possibly it cannot be interpreted in some circumstances,
470
within his limitations and within his social context laid stress upon an approach to life and human problems that is very much absent in our own Christian world, though, of course, voices are raised from time to time to emphasise that this is a method which is nearer to the Christian precept than the reverse.
But I plead that if we are to tackle this recurrence of violence from time to time, this assumption that violence has merit and value and validity, whether interpreted in terms of gang warfare or world warfare, whether interpreted in terms of discipline in the school or in the home, or whether the impulses of some psychopath, then we have to begin with the home and the school. May I plead, therefore, that in our schools we should employ the period now devoted to religious instruction to emphasising far more than we have done all those elements which can lead to a non-violent approach to life, which will help the child when he is still impressionable to appreciate that jealousy and revenge and those other impulses of human nature are not things in which he should glory, but are things which he should try to sublimate and redirect.
I know it is done sometimes, but I urge that in the drawing up of curricula for the education authorities of this country much more attention should be paid to the ethical and moral side than to the theological and methodist side. I am not necessarily discounting those; they have their place; but I plead that our schools should deliberately deal with those problems when the child is still open to receive and understand them, when emotions are still untainted and unpoisoned. If that could be done deliberately, and if teachers and masters in schools could themselves accept training so that they could transmit this in appropriate ways—which is rarely the case to-day—that might have a cumulative beneficial effect.
The difficulty is that often, even when that is done, there is a conflict between what is taught in the school and what is actually accepted in the home. It comes back, therefore, to the parents, and as most teachers are themselves parents it means that basically it is in the home where there has to be a greater recognition of the responsibility of the parents for transmitting not merely food and clothing and accommodation, or even

471
hygiene, but also the values by which alone they and we can live.
A large number of parents to-day have lost the old authority and inspiration, but they put nothing in its place. If we are going to see a passing away from the old type of authority and mental domination, if we are to have wider freedom, more clarity of thought, then indeed there must go with it a new kind of authority—the authority of supreme values, rather than the mechanical authority of a person or an institution which, in the end, may merely make us subservient serfs.
For that reason, again, I express my gratitude to the noble Earl who has introduced this subject and thank those who have already spoken. I trust that others who follow will add something to help end the underlying causes of the violence which is wrapped up in the very nature of our social order. In order to escape from that, we should recognise that the home and the school are the places where we can begin to emphasise an approach to life which will eliminate in some measure the vicious impulses that we have inherited from the past.
5.8 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, first of all. I should like to thank the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity of speaking. Secondly, I should like to apologise to him and to your Lordships, because I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay to the end of the discussion as I have a very longstanding family engagement which I should neglect at my peril. Perhaps the discussion will last so long that I shall be able to come back again. However, I want to make some very simple points, and my mind runs very much on the same lines as that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and, perhaps, those of the noble Lords, Lord Sorensen and Lord Byers. My points are so simple, and I think I can make them so quickly, that I hope they will be acceptable to your Lordships and may even remain in your minds.
Violence is, after all, a defect of character, and therefore I think one must go back to the origin of this defect. I am convinced from long personal experiences of various kinds that, more often than not, outbreaks of violence among adolescents
472
have their origin in very early years—first of all, in infancy. I think a famous Jesuit said, "Give me a child for seven years and then you can have him and do what you like with him", or words to that effect, and that is a very true saying. I think a child's character is made in the very early days of its life, certainly up to the age of seven. Perhaps your Lordships will think, as an example, of a young tree without a stake and open to the winds of heaven, over-exposed to sudden rainstorms, possibly with a branch broken, possibly a leader, possibly bent. It will take that tree a very long time to straighten out and grow up as it should. As with that tree, so it is with a child. Once there is a kink, it takes a lot of ironing out, like a crease in a dress, before you get it straight again.
We are discovering only now, it seems to me, that though all women are potentially mothers, not all women are potentially good or wise parents—and nor are fathers. I do not think enough attention has been paid to the instilling of the responsibility of parenthood in the education of either boys or girls in their late teens. Perhaps we should have fewer illegitimate children if this matter was tackled properly. The fact—and it is true—that the sins of the parents are visited on their children has been said before in one of the wisest books ever written, and we do not, I think, have this enough in mind when we talk about violence. We seem to talk about the end effects instead of looking at the beginning. So my first point is: what are we doing, or what are we going to do, about teaching more expert and wise parenthood, especially to mothers—because a child's first years are very largely in the mother's hands.
Secondly, I am a little worried about teacher-training colleges. I do not think that anything like enough importance has been attached to the training of character as well as the inculcation of knowledge and the need for reasonable discipline. There is a strong tendency in these days, it seems to me—and for six years I was at one time vice-chairman of an education committee—to let the child do what it likes and to make things easy, almost like a game. Life is not like that, and I believe that the sooner children learn a little about what life is really like the better. After all,

473
character has to do with self-discipline, ethics and certainly religion. I know that here I may be speaking to a divided House, with humanists and atheists among us, but even they must realise, I should think, that we are living on the capital and interest of 2,000 years of Christian teaching, and that this credit is becoming exhausted almost as quickly as the present Government are exhausting the capital and credit of this country. What happens then? Also, at the training colleges I do not think that the importance of co-operation between parents and teachers can be emphasised too strongly. It should avoid the attitude that either the teacher or the parent knows best. It should really be, of course, a partnership.
Thirdly and lastly, there is the mass media bombardment of the young through television, the Press and advertising. The young are being exploited, and we of the older generation are to blame. Business has cashed in on the high wages of the young, instead of the young being encouraged to save for the future setting up of their homes, as they used to do. I wonder whether they say to themselves: "What is the point of saving, with the deterioration in the value of money, and if every extra bit you earn is taken away from you?" It would be interesting to make an investigation as to how many of the young of marriageable age are now saving for their homes.
The Press and television seem to me to highlight every bank robbery and easy money adventure, and excel in producing pictures of violence and of getting away with violence. I will not say any more about that because quite a lot has already been said, but I sat for some two years on a committee which was examining the effect of the cinema on the child and, in a sense, this is rather the same thing again. My Lords, I think one forgets. When I was a child and I heard of horrible things happening, I dissociated that type of life from my own life and from the people among whom I was living. Now, on television, children watch these leaders of violence over and over again until their faces are so familiar to them that they almost become part of their own society, and it is a shock to children to find that they are so near the violence itself—and that is bad for them.
474
In my view, we have had enough of permissive sociey without the corollary of discipline and of asking for rights without corresponding duties; and too much encouragement to take and not enough to give. I have several children of my own and twelve grandchildren, and I know a great many of their friends. I think they are splendid people. They are healthier, better educated academically, full of all the best aspirations that the young have always had, and have immense courage, but to my mind there is something fundamentally wrong with our present education, which has failed them. There is something wrong with the means of communication between the younger generation and the older generation, who have known two wars, who know that life is a hard trial and who know that true steel must be tempered if it is to stand the strain. This, somehow, we have failed to pass on.
In case I sound rather "governessy" or perhaps too "square", I should like to confess that I was myself a rebel at Oxford and was very nearly sent down. When I think back on this occasion I see that it was a total want of communication between the older generation and the younger one, but I am glad to say that communication was finally re-established. I think it is therefore up to us to look very carefully at the training of the young child, and I welcome nursery schools in this respect. It is up to us to communicate better with the younger generation than we are doing, and it is up to the Press and T.V. to understand more fully their tremendous responsibilities. I would add this as a final word. It is also up to the younger generation to understand us better—we who have already sampled what life is like—and perhaps can help them a little better to understand the future.
5.18 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, many of your Lordships know that I have been urging attention to this matter since about 1945, and I therefore thought that perhaps your Lordships would excuse me for saying a few words on this occasion. But first I want to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and to all your Lordships, because this debate has fallen on a day on which I have a very long-promised engagement. I want to apologise also to the noble Baroness, Lady

475
Summerskill, who is to speak after me, if I do not stay to hear what she is going to say. But this a long-standing engagement, and I must keep it. However, I shall read what is said, and I shall read with special interest what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says, because this is a matter that we have sometimes dealt with together.
I think the thing that most horrifies me is not so much the violence as the character of the violence—its vicious nature. When I was young there was a good deal of violence, but it was mostly thoughtless. To-day, it does not seem to be thoughtless: it seems to be much more purposeful—and, if I may say so, I think that this is the distinction between criminal violence and people being killed on the roads. I believe that the social effect of this vicious violence is much worse, in spite of the much heavier death rate on the roads. Let me give your Lordships some examples of the kind of thing I mean. A friend of mine—and I expect he was a friend of many of your Lordships; he had been President of the B.M.A., and had a very nice house, as well as a house in London, and a very nice social life—found one night that a gang of men had broken into his house. They beat him up and left him insensible. They then set about his wife, who was the only other person living in the house, and beat her so that she was not only silly but maimed and crippled. She afterwards lay on a hospital bed for, I think, four or five years, doing nothing but look at the ceiling, until she died. That, I am told, is not murder; in fact, I am a little in doubt whether it even gets into the crime register in any form at all. But that happened to a friend of mine.
Let me take another, very similar case. Just after the war, the landlord of the "Elephant and Castle", who was performing a duty which the police would have prosecuted him about if he had not done it, was dragged out of his house, beaten up in the street—with people passing all the time, not interfering—and, like my friend's wife, was laid on a hospital bed from which I do not believe (I did not follow this up) he ever rose. From this violence he died. That sort of case would have shocked the whole of Britain when I was a young man. And there are other cases, to which I shall not
476
refer in detail and which have been before the courts, of people using the last resources of science to inflict torture on their victims. There is a viciousness and deliberation about violence to-day.
There is another side of violence which I have taken up more than once in your Lordships' House and which I think is one of the worst forms; and that is the hazing which is inflicted, very often by trade unionists and, anyway, by strikers, on people who have not followed them in their strike, or on people of whom for other reasons they disapprove. I asked a Question about that at the time of the docks strike and I was glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Shackleton, said that the Government reprehended that sort of conduct very strongly. When I ventured to suggest to him that the principal officers of Her Majesty's Government who take their oaths of allegiance were intimately concerned in this matter—because even before political schemes they must look after the safety of Her Majesty's subjects which is committed to them—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, disclaimed this and said that I was going too far.
I am coming back to that in a moment; but I was told by trade union leaders that there was never any physical violence used on these occasions and also that they very much disapproved of such activities. But the leaders of the unions are the only people who can stop these activities. Certainly physical violence is used—which is why I used the word "hazing" and not the phrase "sent to Coventry". Certainly it has been used in some cases, to my own personal knowledge. Your Lordships may remember that after Mr. Enoch Powell's first splash (I can refer to it personally because he did not make his splash in the House of Commons) a very large deputation of dockers came to Parliament, and at the same time a deputation of students came as a counter-demonstration. During the course of the demonstrations the dockers set about the students and chased them down the street. They were observed from the precincts of this House not only to knock them down but to start kicking them when they got them down. If that is not physical

477
violence I do not know what is. The first two murders that I came into fairly close contact with in my childhood were both murders by kicking.
My Lords, I should like to touch on the matter of the students. First, I would say that I think the Government are perhaps on the wrong foot over this. I mean by that that I do not think you can ever get the orderly students to take action against the ones who are violent. It must be done by authority. The main body will certainly back them up; but if the authority is not able to deal with it, you will not get the fellow students to do it. A little time ago I was talking with a very well educated, very accomplished man on education, and we talked about a great school which 150 years ago had as its headmaster a gentleman called Keate. I remarked to him that in my opinion it was not Keate's system (which has been very much criticised) that was responsible for the great careers of many of the pupils of that school, but the homes from which they came. He said that that was perfectly true. And that is the case with the students to-day.
These students come from homes where striking is the normal activity. Of course we must expect them to strike if they are discontented. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, and I think that discontent accounts for a certain amount of the trouble. But, my Lords, it is also partly due to a psychological change in the country at the present time. When I was young, people complained about their grievances but they were very slow to act; and the authorities were often slow to correct a grievance for fear of raising another and worse grievance—which is a reasonable attitude. To-day, everybody who feels that he has a grievance feels that he ought to act about it at once. It seems to me that that is a defect in modern education which it would not be very difficult to remedy.
I should like to go further back on the educational road, to schools. A little time ago there was a rather horrible report of an approved school which had a sort of Fagin establishment. They taught crime; they held the whole of the locality up to ransom. The report was a very bad one and I believe that it was true. I did not take it up in your Lordships' House but I did have discussions with the Government on the subject. I
478
said that I thought that the people who ran the school were quite unfitted to deal with difficult boys and that either the school should be closed or the staff should be radically changed. I do not wish to misrepresent the answer that I received, but it was something like this: "These are our star pupils; they are frightfully clever. We do not want to interfere with that promising education by too drastic a change." That where I differ from most educationists of to-day. Because I say: what is the use of giving very high scientific attainments to people who have obviously criminal tendencies, clever people—
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. Not only did the noble Lord differ but the Government differed. He is speaking of Kidlington Approved School. As I am sure he is, or should be, aware, precisely what he advocated about this school has in fact taken place. There have been changes in control and in the teaching staff, and changes in the régime.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that intervention. I will explain to him how I came to make the mistake. One often takes up a matter in your Lordships' House, and if one produces a really telling case often the matter is remedied. But the Civil Service are remarkably careful to conceal from one that anything one has said in this House has had any effect at all. I had hot the smallest idea of the outcome of the consultations I had with the noble Lord when we worked so harmoniously together. I am grateful to him.
My Lords, I will give him another instance. It is about post-war credits. I took up some bad cases in this House and they could not be denied. They were really bad cases. But the Government repaid the post-war credits, and the only way I heard about it was that I received many grateful letters from people who got the money. The Civil Service were very careful that I should never know. The noble Lord and I have been victims of the system.
That is all I have to say. I have not used many abstract words, but I still say that it is the Government's job to consider all these matters. I do not say that they must do anything frightfully

479
drastic; but it is their responsibility to see that this thing goes right, and I hope that they will accept it.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I understand that this very interesting debate can range over the whole spectrum of violence, and I propose to focus attention on a display of violence which is brought so frequently into the homes of the people. We hear that there are two schools of thought about television. I do not belong to that school of thought which lightly dismisses the effect of television on the family. It has always seemed to me that if the commercial interests are prepared to spend colossal sums on presenting their wares, they have clearly learned the effectiveness of the visual impact in conditioning behaviour.
Scenes of sexual promiscuity and violence provide daily lessons for our teenagers. Indeed, my Lords, it seems that already we have a "university of the air" in these two subjects. When I turn on my television it seems to me quite unusual not to see a man aiming a blow at another with a chair, a rifle butt or a fist. It seems to me that I must have just come in at that time; it is difficult to believe that this kind of behaviour goes on for some hours. Of course, there are some who try to dismiss this as make believe and therefore of no serious import, but I would remind your Lordships that the individuals appearing in the advertisements are also acting a part, but they appear to leave a very strong impression on the viewers.
My Lords, I wish to focus attention on those engaged in exhibitions of violence which cannot be dismissed as fantasy. Prize fights are organised as a business in the guise of a sport in which, unhappily, the television authorities are prepared to participate. I would remind your Lordships that the chairman, the vice-chairman and the governors of the television authorities are appointed by the Crown. As I have said, the advertising interests have proved that their methods are highly successful. Similarly, the promoters of prize fights are aware that the regular display of two well-muscled individuals punching each other must appeal to a not over-intelligent youth who is
480
longing to prove his prowess. The person who lounges in front of a television, the compulsive viewer, is not highly intelligent. The unintelligent youth gazes at these two whose names are given and, of course, in his heart he very often identifies himself with them. Therefore television is invaluable to the business of enticing youngsters into the ring.
It has been mentioned before in this debate that there have been recent reports of violence in the United States of America, and apparently the incidence of violence is increasing there. It may be not unrelated to the fact that, compared with our viewing periods, American adolescent youth has a double or treble exposure to the school of violence. I am told that in America television is switched on by people almost as soon as they wake in the morning. While I have sympathy for the ignorant youth whose head is pummeled, I am even more concerned with the effect of the fights on the audience.
Before television ruled the lives of the people only a tiny minority were exposed to this spectacle. Now it is brought to a captive audience in the family living-room with the co-operation of the State which, simultaneously, at great expense to the Revenue, strives to reform youths guilty of crimes of violence. It seems to me that the more fortunate of these boys are protected by their schoolmasters and doctors. Prince Charles's school, does not teach boxing. Charterhouse discourages it and now Eton, fortunately for Eton, has a headmaster who is not favourably disposed towards it. Many grammar schools and secondary schools do not include boxing in their curriculum; and, my Lords, the effect of all this is reflected in the recent decision of Oxford University Boxing Club to disband. This was announced on January 27, and the fixture against Cambridge which was started in 1897 for the first time will not take place this year. The secretary of the club announced that it was a unanimous decision of the club to disband, as so many schools had given up boxing that few undergraduates were prepared to box.
I want to press this point, my Lords. I do not know of any other field in our health services where this class division exists. To-day the boy in the more prosperous home has his brain protected

481
by those who are aware of the danger of repeated blows to the head. The boy in poorer circumstances, conditioned by television and who spends his time in a boys' club, is lured to become a prizefighter by promises of money which dazzle him and his family. Some may escape injury. We all know the names of those who have escaped, but, unfortunately, so many people forget the names of those fighters who were headline news only a few years ago; because generally after about sixty fights they show unmistakable signs of deterioration which is irreversible.
Last week I had the pleasure of making a contribution to a conference held at the Royal Society of Medicine, and I feel that in this context it was historic. It was arranged by the Royal Medico-Psychological Association with Professor Linford Rees, of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, in the chair. The subject under discussion was: "The Organic Psycho Syndrome (or punch-drunk syndrome) due to Boxing". At Manchester University a great deal of research is now being carried out. This, I can assure your Lordships, is something which many of us welcome. It is so new and the results are so startling. It is carried out in Manchester by a large number of doctors. Last week Dr. J. Johnson expressed the opinion that amnestic and dementing states can develop as a result of boxing, and he supported this opinion with psychometric test results.
Other notable work in this field is being done at the same university by Drs. Isherwood, Mawdsley and Ferguson. In carrying out X-ray studies of the brains of 16 former boxers they found that only three were normal while the other 13 had a variety of features. In the abnormal findings the X-ray changes definitely noted were in the septum pellucidum membrane, or tissue wall, that connects the two chambers of the brain. Of the 13 cases, nine showed perforation in the tissue. These eminent doctors said:
"There seems no doubt that the changes observed in the septum pellucidum of the boxers are a significant feature, and the role of trauma in their production must be considered proven."
The report went on to suggest that there was a correlation between the degree and distribution of atrophy of the brain demonstrated by X-ray and the severity
482
and type of neurological affection seen in clinical examinations.
Your Lordships will recall that in 1962 I introduced a Bill to ban boxing, which I lost on the Second Reading by seven votes. On that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham (as he then was), asked me not to press the matter to a Division because the late Lord Brain had given an undertaking that he would ask the Royal College of Physicians to convene a committee to study the whole question. The committee has been set up and is conducting an investigation; and all the evidence that I have given your Lordships to-day (although I have to admit in a very abbreviated form) will of course be considered by that committee. Meanwhile, there are many neurologists, psychiatrists and pathologists who have evinced a practical interest in the damage caused to the brain of a boxer and have made reports which prove conclusively the effect of repeated blows to the head. Of all sports boxing occupies a special place, since its aim is that of producing injuries, more particularly to the brain. It is the only sport, or so-called sport, in which wounds inflicted and blood drawn gives colour, zest and a sadistic thrill to the whole performance. It is a business in which the fighter himself may not realise that he has been damaged and that his mental processes are gradually deteriorating or, if he does, he may not admit it for fear of being barred from further fights. I think that it should be obvious to the Government that the evidence which has already been produced is sufficient to merit the withdrawal from the television screens of exhibitions which glamorise violence.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I start my intervention in your Lordships' debate with an apology, which I make with great regret. I have a long-standing later engagement, and having been persuaded to participate in this debate at very short notice, I could not alter it. Like other noble Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for doing the considerable service of enabling us to discuss this important and highly topical subject in your Lordships' House. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, and no doubt others who will, because the noble Earl has drawn his Motion so widely, I am going to narrow my

483
purpose. I am sure that the noble Baroness who has just spoken would not wish me to include boxing in the survey I am going to make.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I do not mind at all.
LORD HUNT: Noble Lords, including Lord Byers, Lord Brooke and Lord Stonham, at some stage in their speeches spoke of putting this question in perspective. I wish particularly to speak of young people, given that young people are so much concerned and responsible for the violence about which we are talking. We all recognise the wealth of excellence among young people and the splendid community service that many are doing. I have been impressed by the recent opinion poll organised by the Daily Mail, which showed what a significant number of young people would like to do some kind of service to the community or to individuals. This does not surprise me one little bit. But it does add substance to the impressions and beliefs of a great many of us. On the face of it, these facts and indications have little directly to do with the subject of this debate. The numbers and activities of that minority who are engaged in these socially useful activities, and the even greater numbers we now have reason to believe would like to join in some kind of community work—and we can add also the great many others who are pursuing leisure activities which are socially harmless and who are getting on with their education—are in violent contrast with the activities of that other minority which is in revolt against society or makes a pastime of violence. The two are poles apart.
Turning to the minority with whom we are concerned to-day, I have identified, like other noble Lords, three areas in which violence takes place. First, there are the youth gangs, including those who are violent at football matches; secondly, there are the criminal activities in which violence is used, and, thirdly, there are the political or quasi-political activities in which violence is also used. I have deliberately avoided speaking specifically of students in this connection because, as 'the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, so rightly reminded us, this is not exclusively an arena in which students exercise violence. Violence has occurred in other
484
political or quasi-political spheres, and I fear that it may happen in future. I looked at these three areas and asked myself what there was in common between them. I am convinced that between the hobby or pastime of gang violence, and criminal activity there is a direct link. Some of those concerned go from a hobby to professional crime. I find it more difficult to link those two groups with the political activities, with violence attached, which at the moment are mainly indulged in by students unless it is that they are all symptomatic, at different social and intellectual levels, of the malaise in our society as a whole, a by-product of the social problems thrown up by material progress and the pace of change. Are these various expressions of violence simply the tip of an iceberg? I use this analogy in a strictly schematic sense. It conveys in no sense the temperature at which violence is perpetrated. I think that this symptomatic point is relevant in that violence, as I have already said and as noble Lords have widely recognised, is largely a youthful phenomenon. From that I draw both a sense of relief and a feeling of worry and anxiety—relief because, as such, it is transitional for most young people and the question is, partly, what more can be done not merely to deter but to help this violent minority through this particular phase?
I think that all this can be seen as transitional in the wider context of this period of history. We are now a generation in time anyway from a war which unified the nation and involved everybody, in varying degrees and ways, particularly that age group at this transitional stage in life, and imposed disciplines which were cheerfully accepted by nearly everybody, however vaguely, as right. Now, in a kind of "peace in our time", we have not yet found social acceptable alternatives to the youthful aggressions of the anti-social minority. There is something else—and this is where I have my deeper worries—the frustration to idealism, the lessening of national pride and purpose, which has not yet been replaced by any wider notion of community which is acceptable to more than a very few people. This is not simply a transitional problem confined to youth; it includes adults. There is a mood of questioning, of doubting, among many people of most ages. I believe that this

485
accounts in part for the paucity of inspired and convinced adult leadership which is acceptable to young people.
All that, my Lords, is background. I do not know of any general panacea for the problems we have all been discussing. I am certain that there is no "instant" remedy. Some would say, "National Service". Well, we have missed that bus. It might have been done, if we could have retained National Service and changed it to suit our purpose while it was still there. But I do not think that it would be socially acceptable to have it Duck now. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had to say about an extra statutory year at school. I could not disagree with him. It is desirable and necessary that we should introduce this new measure only when we have a proper ratio of teachers to students; but I look forward to this as a significant step forward.
I say this provided that a substantial part of that extra year is taken up in tilling the gap between adolescence and adult status by programmes designed specifically for that purpose, with wide options for the use of leisure; a requirement—and I believe it should be a requirement—to be trained for one or other form of community service; the opportunity to take part, to a limited extent, in some chosen form of community service, looking at the social problems on which young people are going to vote when they are 18—looking also at problems concerned with marriage and parenthood which I was so glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, mention just now.
And, above all, provided that the extra year is taken up for establishing wider adult contacts, not only within the school, but outside the school—indeed, all those meaningful things that the right reverend Prelate mentioned in his speech for making all young people realise that they have a place and a part, a difficult part, to play in the community.
In this respect, I believe that the activities of the socially-minded young people of to-day have a relevance to the future. But it is quite obvious that for the effects of all this we must wait until well into the 'seventies. And I am not so starry-eyed as to suppose that this extra year at school is a general panacea either.
486
Just for the present, I believe that we have to concentrate more on the immediate cures or palliatives of the actual symptoms of the malaise, rather than on general preventives of a more fundamental nature.
I propose to say something about two of the categories of violence which have been identified in this debate. I want to say something, quite briefly, about the youth gangs and about crimes of violence. I was tempted to say something about students in violent revolt, but as other speakers have said quite a lot on this subject, and it was discussed, to some extent, in your Lordships' House in June of last year, I will refrain from doing so. With regard to youth gangs, I shall not touch on the football violence, but simply on the gangs as they are now emerging. I see these gangs as the successors to the "mods" and "rockers" of a few years ago. Fortunately, at present they are not attended by the focus of publicity, television and Press, to anything like the extent that the "mods" and "rockers" enjoyed, and which abetted them so much. When the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was Home Secretary I remember that he invited me to sit on a committee to advise him on problems of juvenile delinquency, and I and another member of that committee, the entertainer and singer, Frankie Vaughan, got together with the "mods" and "rockers" to try to understand what made them tick. One thing that shone out crystal clear in our conversations with them was that they got a "kick" out of the Press publicity which they enjoyed at Margate, Brighton and Ostend. There was no doubt about that whatever.
These gangs, I believe, are far more serious as a phenomenon than the "mods" and "rockers". We have instances of them in our urban areas, not only in Glasgow but here in London and in other cities. They are so similar to the gangs about which we have her rd so much in the American cities. They thrive on "kicks" and on a form of warfare: and all this is growing. I have here a Report called, Year One, of a community relations development project on the South Bank, based on King George's House, and sponsored by the Y.M.C.A. It covers the areas of Lambeth, Brixton and Camberwell. In this Report—and

487
no doubt there are many others—one gets vivid glimpses of the "latchkey" kids, the 14 to 17 year olds, adrift from family life, their homes in multi-storey flats, with nowhere to go and nothing to do; or it would probably be truer to say nowhere where they want to go, and nothing better that they are willing to do. They are interested only in destroying things, and they have ready to hand the milk bottles at the street doors. They are interested only in fights with their rival gangs, in trespassing into the territories of those gangs in order to "fix" somebody; many of them—and remember this is a community relations project—actively racist. This is a reversion to tribalism. The Report makes grim reading.
The key points which come out from this Report, as I feel, are a lack of adequate home life; a lack of any neighbourhood loyalties—and for this, I am sure, the vertical housing policy must be regarded as having some responsibility; an ignorance of, a lack of, or a rejection of all alternative ideas and opportunities; and, most important of all, a lack of older people they can trust and look up to—and this includes the parents. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I agree that one cannot blame entirely, or even perhaps mainly, the parents for the relationships in the climate in which we and they live.
One main purpose of this Y.M.C.A. project was to meet this lack of need of adults. I will not go into detail, but it was, and is, simply the appointment of detached workers in considerable numbers, working in this area, with a roving mission to frequent the cafés, to move around on the streets, to cultivate the acquaintance of and relate with these youngsters, again through trust and confidence, and to have access to major resources which can lead elsewhere than to all this street fighting. Café brawls and hooliganism. I think the important point here is that the most successful of these contacts are always on the one-to-one basis. I remember a year or two ago, when I was in the Mayflower Centre at East Ham, at a time when a gang broke in, the Reverend David Shepherd and I were successful in separating the individuals of the gang and talking to them individually, and I, being new to
488
such a situation at that time, was quite amazed to find how reasonable, friendly and normal these individuals were when they were away from the protective influence of the gang. I think this is a fairly important point.
Of course, the social youth worker is not a new idea. The National Association of Youth Clubs made an experiment with four of them a few years ago, and published a well-known Penguin called The Unattached. There is the Manchester Youth Trust, which is doing an invaluable job in the North Midlands, training these very people. And in the South, in Brighton, I am in touch with the Archways Ventures, where some of the staff and students of Sussex University are trying to help the misfits, the social lost souls who drift down to the coast. It is very slow; it is very demanding; it is very expensive in adults: but I am sure that these detached workers, properly trained and inspired, play an essential role in combating gang violence. The important thing is that it must be at neighbourhood levels. I believe, also, that this is the experience in the United States.
The only other point I would make about this subject (and I am narrowing my focus on purpose) is the importance of training and the importance of the workers accepting certain standards—and here I listened again with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he spoke about standards. May I give a personal reminiscence of a few years ago, which is quite brief and which I know the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will remember. We were both interested in a new attempt to get in touch with what were then called "the unattached", and a body, called, I think, Youth Ventures Limited, was established on a commercial café basis in several towns. The director of that enterprise wrote reports, and I remember particularly one report in which he said that there was one strange thing about the groups in these cafés—I think it was in Leicester—and it was that if you took away violence from a group, you destroyed the group. To me, though that was true, that was the evidence of very poor leadership.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, may I say that that was thought to be true at the

489
time, which was 1959. It was the first group. But he will be glad to know that that particular club is flourishing more than ever, in new purpose-built premises, and has been going for ten years, with a membership of about 400.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to hear it.
I am going, lastly, to turn to crimes of violence; and here I do so with circumspection, declaring my position as Chairman of the Parole Board. I will say very little and limit myself to a particular point only. All through my limited experience of prison treatment, whether it is "inside" or, as now, outside on parole, runs this same theme that I have been developing with your Lordships: the need to establish personal human relationships between the offender and those who, on the landing, in the workshop, in the recreation period, and later of course in the community, are responsible for his supervision. It all comes down to this kind of caring, leadership, or companionship from somebody who can also command respect. I, too, was very encouraged by the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave just now in this connection, which of course I myself am familiar with. I am keeping my fingers crossed. The recalls that he mentioned do not specifically show how many of this small total were serving sentences for crimes in which violence was involved, but I happen to know that the number is a very small part of this very small figure. We shall not know for some time yet the longer-term benefits of paroles on crimes of violence, or on any other type of crime, but already the value of a trained social worker—in this case a probation officer—who has something else to offer in ideas, in leadership, in opportunities, in practical help and in his own inherent quality as a person, is evident. There is also the psychological value of bestowing a measure of trust in the man in trouble, of restoring his self-respect.
My Lords, in concluding I should like to say just this. I have concentrated quite purposely on a very narrow front, and this focus has been concerned with remedial measures rather than punitive or deterrent methods in regard to
490
violence. I hope it will not be felt that on this account I am in favour of a soft line towards those who offend against the law. I am not. I am lease of all leniently minded towards those who use violence as an aid to robbery or any other kind of crime. I have simply sought to present and to support the view that, along with the enforcement of the law, we must try as adults to understand, to communicate with, to counsel and to redeem those who are prone to violent methods.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I will not take up much of your Lordships' time in what I want to say. I simply want to record some observations on this matter. I, too, of course, am duly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for making the opportunity. I begin with a simple question. Why are we participating in this debate at all? Why does it seem so relevant? I think everybody here would agree that it does. The Motion is elegantly put: it refers to "the dangers of violence in contemporary society." It defies anyone to disagree with it. It implies that contemporary society is threatened by violence; indeed, that any society is at risk when confronted by violence within itself. Who would disagree? Certainly not I. But it is our collective awareness of violence as a new, strange thing among us which I find so intriguing.
At this point I would say that I am among those who distinguish between politically motivated violence and plain "bloody-minded" hooliganism. Violent revolution for political ends has an honourable history of sorts; mob rampage has not. This distinction is a personal matter. I feel sure that sociologists and psychologists could find plenty of common ground between the Embassy demonstrator and the train-wrecking football supporter. Both, possibly, have common roots in the tensions and frustrations of our society. And inevitably there are people, great numbers of them, who will tag along in a crowd for no better reason than the pleasure of a good yell and an afternoon's excitement. The policeman confronted with events is hardly in a position to sort out political ethics. And violence for any or no reason has such a depressingly same look—the litter, the breakage, the bandaged

491
heads and busy Press cameramen. Perhaps all violence is a symptom of disturbed behaviour, or of aggression in a lemming society, or of group hysteria. I do not know. I certainly do not condone violence in whatever context it appears. But neither will I automatically write off violent activity politically inspired as being without significance.
Having made this distinction, I should like to trace a short sequence of reactions which violence seems to me to generate within society. It is as follows: first, disbelieving; secondly, bewildered; thirdly, dismayed; fourth, outraged; fifth, revengeful. Some societies are overtaken by violent upheaval without progressing past the disbelieving stage; we could call it the, "Let them eat cake" attitude. Some societies race through the sequence straight to the revengeful, and put down the humblest dissent in fearful pogroms. I believe that we are somewhere between "disbelieving" and "bewildered" in the order. We are bewildered like a benevolent uncle who cannot understand the misbehaviour of a child who has been promised all that it could wish for—as soon as it has grown up. We have not left behind the sheer disbelief that all these embarrassing events in universities and outside Embassies are happening at all. But they are. And, like any other determinist problem, violence exists because it exists.
To get back to the sequence I projected, I said that in disbelief, bewilderment, dismay, outrage and revenge, we were between disbelief and bewilderment. Shall we go the rest of the way? Who can say. A Sunday paper at the turn of the year demonstrated very persuasively to me that 1968 was the year when the old orders hit back. Country after country reacted (using my scale) in outrage to stiffen the forces of law. For another aspect of violence is that it produces violence. Far from cleansing, it corrupts.
Having said all this, I would ask: can we see any answers? I do not believe that, using the familiar terms of reference, we can. The spirit of violent revolution is not quenched by White Papers and well-mannered General Elections; not even by events in this House this afternoon. In our culture we can offer
492
an answer of a kind through our ability to smother things with particularly British cosiness. We seem reluctant as a nation to be swept up by new, modish ideologies. Goodness knows!, it takes long enough for ideas to be assimilated into the national character. Of course, this too is changing. People are necessarily exposed to events on an international scale by the mass media. Many noble Lords have noted this point. We can see Japanese students under siege for their beliefs, beliefs which have counterparts much closer to home. It is not too difficult to picture oneself in the distressing logic of violence. Suppose you—any of you—are one of a fluent, energetic group absolutely convinced that society tolerates gross imperfections, yet the means are not there for you to reach a wide audience for your views. What course of action should you adopt? Will the papers publish your utterly reasonable letter? Will the bureaucracy even notice your petition? Will anyone older even listen?
So when you can see other societies being forced to listen, or at least to react to violent action, you are halfway to the acceptance of violence as a valid form of political dialogue. When the great reforming ideas of history seem full of meaning to-day, when the concept of any authority is in doubt, when Hegel and Marx are fresh, exciting novelties—no, it does not take too much imagination to realise how seductive it can be. As Lady Bracknell put it:
"Fortunately, in England at any rate education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square."
For our own part, I can only be unoriginal and repeat that the best defence against violence is to try to understand it. Marshall McLuhan says neatly:
"There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Of course violence is alien and distasteful. Unlike a word, a violent act cannot be retracted. Also unlike a word, it cannot be ignored. My Lords, I spoke a moment ago of a "defence" against violence. Perhaps what we should be looking at hardest is the society we propose to defend. It will be a measure of the maturity and flexibility of that society to see how we recognise violence; and by recognising it, remove it.
6.11 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, it has been said several times in the course of this debate that we are living in a time when violence has become in some ways almost a habit, but I sometimes wonder whether it is not in part simply that violence has become, like many other things, more classless than it used to be. I well remember when I was a young reporter in Liverpool, some 45 years ago, the clashes that used to take place there quite regularly between the Orangemen and the Catholics. They would make anything that is going on now in Northern Ireland look like an amateur showdown. I remember when I was quite young going out as a junior reporter and seeing what I suppose would be called a "punch-up" down in the docks, which involved 20, 30 or 40 people. Being very young and inexperienced I rushed back, believing that I had a great story. I was asked, "Was anybody killed?". I said, "No". Then I was asked, "Was anybody taken to hospital?". I said, "No.", and the rejoinder was, "That isn't news; that's only part of the life of Liverpool".
It is only because violence, in its student manifestations, has also become part of the middle-class way of life that we begin to get so perturbed about it and to take so much more notice of it, and because we have ourselves, as a nation and perhaps as a world, become in essentials a basically less violent society than we used to be. I think we disapprove of violence and condemn violence much more than we used to do, and are concerned—as your Lordships are—to see how it can be ended, to a degree that used not to be the case when it was accepted as just one of those things that occupied the lower classes.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has said, we live in a violent century. It is a violent century in which more people have been killed in war than in any other century; and, particularly now, television brings the impact of the violence of war home to an extent that never before existed. It has been truly said that Vietnam is the only war in history to have been fought in American sitting-rooms. It is because it is fought in American sitting-rooms that it creates, on the one side, an acceptance of violence as part of the modern way of life, but on the other side an
494
acceptance of popular responsibility, a growth of popular determination to seek, as in Vietnam, an end to such a war. This is a feeling which would not have existed to anything like the same extent if the war had not been fought in their sitting-rooms. I think that is the other side of the penny.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who said that there was a certain rejection of authority. I believe that to be true; but it is also true that we have to ask ourselves why authority is rejected and whether, in some instances, authority does net seek to impose itself in such ways that it seems perfectly right and proper, particularly to many young people, to reject it. I will give your Lordships one quite minor instance. I do not bow to any Member of your Lordships' House in my respect and admiration for the police force, particularly for its behaviour in violent demonstrations, but I know that in my own part of the country, in Surrey, there are groups of young people who dress themselves up in what I suppose is the uniform of their age, with long and, as it seems to me, rather dirty-looking hair and "with it" clothes. They have what they call "jallopies" which I think, on the whole, because most of them are mechanically minded, they keep in excellent condition; but every time they go out driving they are stopped by the police because they look like they do. I know of one who has been stopped no fewer than twenty times in the last four months. I have been told so by his parents and by him. They feel that if he wore a bowler hat and a nice, trim suit, and drove a smart little Austin Mini, the police would wave him by without any trouble at all. But because these young people look as they do they are stopped by the police and are given the impression that the police are regretful when they find that there is nothing wrong that they can take up, and that they are only waiting for the next opportunity. It is that attitude that one has, with some difficulty, to break down.
The problem of violence, and particularly of student violence, goes much deeper. I happen to have been present at the place and the time which I suppose may be regarded by many as the birthplace of student revolt, in Berkeley, California, when the first student riots

495
began. I was a visiting Professor there at the time and I got to know a lot of the students very well. I was at first surprised, but later not so surprised, to find that although there was a mischief-making minority which was only too ready to seize on what it could, in the main those who were demonstrating and rioting were among the most idealistic of all the students on that campus.
A couple of years ago, and several years after the beginnings of the outbreak in Berkeley, I was at another American university, the University of Wisconsin. The Middle West, which has its feet on the ground, on the whole had been free from outbreaks of student violence. Suddenly, just after I arrived—though I assure your Lordships it was only coincidental—violence began. There were various sharp clashes between the students and the university authorities and the police. Eventually members of the faculty very sensibly asked if the students would like to send some of their representatives for a completely open discussion with them about what was wrong.
I went along to the discussion. There was a very large gathering of the members of the faculty and a number of student representatives, who were not very good, in that it was clear that their reasons were not always completely lucidly worked out. But what most of all came through that discussion was a sense, on the part of the students, of disillusion and frustration, not simply with the university but with the whole of American civilisation as they now began to see it, although it was disillusion that embraced the university, because they felt that it was playing a wrongful part in that civilisation.
To a large extent, and partly no doubt because of the Vietnam war, and partly also no doubt because of the feeling of growing division and confrontation with the Negroes in America, the feeling of a society that was beginning to show gaps all over, they felt that the ideals which had been held out to them by their parents, of a two or possibly three car garage in a nice beautiful ranch-type house in a good suburb, did not interest them. This was not what they wanted at all. They wanted something which would seem to them more meaningful, and especially (and I hope I
496
shall not myself invoke violence by saying so in a technological age) they did not very much want a technological society. They felt that they had hoped to come to a university to have new vistas of life opened to them, a new sense of values and opportunities, and that all that was happening was that the university was concerned to make them good little junior executives in a technological corporation. And they did not want that; they wanted something which would be more challenging and more inspiring.
I myself could not help feeling that perhaps in part American universities, and also British universities, despite the need which we all appreciate for technological advance, were going too far away from the old conception of creating educated people versed in the liberal arts and thinking and living in terms of a civilised life in a civilised community. And again, as with those students in Berkeley, I could not help feeling that although of course there were always groups anxious to take hold of this sort of feeling and divert it to other political or, perhaps, economic purposes, yet at the basis of it was something that one ought not to fear or reject but to applaud and embrace.
In conclusion, may I remind your Lordships that in this debate no one, I think, has touched upon what is in some ways one of the most striking occasions of recent history; and that is the demonstration by the people of Czechoslovakia, and particularly the young people of Czechoslovakia of the immense significance and importance of non-violence. My wife and I have a very old friend who is a woman professor in Prague, and as it happened, very fortunately, she came over here for an international conference just after the Soviet invasion of Prague. We were able to invite her to stay with us, and she was able to tell us about the situation.
She said something that made a deep impact on me. She said, "Before all this happened we were often having meetings at the university to discuss what we feared to be the outbreak of violence and revolt amongst our students, and we felt that perhaps they had caught a disease which apparently seemed to be international." "Then", she said, "we were faced with a real act of violence, the arrival of the

497
Soviet tanks, and instead of reacting with violence our young people and our students acted and reacted with an amazing self-discipline, an amazing resistance of morality and intellect, not of violence". She said, "I remember particularly at the very end, when our leaders had returned from Moscow and so much seemed lost, that that evening on the radio an appeal went out that in order to save what could be saved the streets of Prague should be cleaned up and the provocative slogans taken down. That evening I saw torches blazing in Wenceslas Square and the streets of Prague, and I wondered if the young people were refusing to take this and had decided, as seemed might well be possible, on violence. And I saw that by the light of their torches they were cleaning the streets and rubbing down and away the slogans, not because they wished to do so, not because there could be any pleasure in doing so, but because in this bitter moment of temporary, but we believe only temporary, defeat, they felt themselves a part of their society and at one with their leaders in an attempt to hold fast as much as possible." And she added: "As I looked at that I felt myself weeping a little, and I said to myself 'Little violent students, how much I admire you'".
My Lords, if we can create a society in which all people, and particularly the young, can feel that they are truly a part, that it is governed by values greater than just material values, that it gives a true outlet and a challenge to their idealism, then we may hope to defeat violence more completely than by any punitive measures.
6.30 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I, too, like those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, am most grateful to the noble Earl for having given us this opportunity of speaking, in my own case from personal experience, on this subject of violence and juvenile delinquency and of the young criminal, as one might call him. I am also grateful to Lord Byers for having given me a lead in going rather outside the narrower sphere of violence and its dangers.
In 1941 I was asked to take command of a young soldiers' battalion. I had not the slightest idea of what it was going to be like. I had never seen one. They
498
were entirely new. I found that they were used for emptying borstals and approved schools, and this was done by telling the young boys that if they joined up they could get away. So they all joined with the greatest alacrity, deciding not to make the best of it but to make the worst of it. They were an extraordinary crew. We had everything, from one man who was later hanged for murder to two people who were given 14 and 12 years' respectively as the leader and the deputy leader of one of the gangs in the East End of London at the end of the war. We had one young fellow who was an expert safe-breaker. So expert was he that I was asked by the Chief Constable of Banff if I would allow him to lecture his detective staff on the secrets of safes. He was only 18, but. I understand that he did this with the utmost aplomb. He had been caught only because, unfortunately, his father, who was a safebreaker before him, had never told him that he should wear gloves when he was breaking safes.
Then we went through each little gang of petty thieves. At the beginning of this venture these petty thieves and the more ambitious thieves managed to get rid of several hundred pounds' worth of Government property each month, apart altogether from the depredations perpetrated on local shops and other fruitful-looking prospects. It was difficult to know what to do. It was obvious that officers like myself, and non-commissioned officers who had been "dug out", were quite incapable of dealing with this active young gang. It was also evident to me that the first thing to do was what I had tried to do in every single thing that I had undertaken: to teach them and to restore their self-respect. I am glad to hear that truth being stressed by many speakers to-day, because that is the basis of the solution to the whole problem.
We were given the most soul-destroying tasks that young fellows could ever be asked to do. One week we were asked to dig holes for defence, and the next week we were told to fill them in bemuse a new defence commander had arrived. Having filled in the trenches we dug in the first place, we were asked to dig another lot, in the certainty that in the following week we should be filling in those too and digging new ones. I was given the opportunity of getting new officers and non-commissioned officers.

499
Some of these young fellows were capable of tackling a non-commissioned officer's job. In order to try to get the officers to know more about their men and to break through the protective crust which these young fellows had erected around themselves, I got permission for the men to go off the air stations for 24 hours every week. That was a great step forward; it helped the officers to break through the crust, to get to know their men and to gain their respect. That was the first step.
The next thing was to see what could be done in regard to getting rid of the examples of original sin, which were quite evident among some of the older and more experienced sinners. Fortunately, I came across a co-operative psychiatrist who was willing to take my word for it if we came up against someone who was completely and absolutely irredeemable. He marked them down for the unarmed Pioneer Corps and I put them on the train. Nobody was able to meet them at the other end, because they were not there. But at any rate we did not have the mortifying experience of seeing those fellows come back from gaol and leading away and enrolling in their own private gang the people who had started to make good. It is extremely important, when you have these incorrigibles, that you should get rid of them. I do not mind how, but get rid of them you must if you are going to get a free field for the young fellows who are sinners by mistake rather than by determination.
Things went on pretty well. The petty thieving and petty crime began to decrease. Finally came the great moment when, from these young fellows, I was asked to provide, every month, a demonstration platoon at the training centre for the Commando. I made it a rule, to begin with, that nobody with any entry on their conduct sheet during the past three months was eligible. That was automatic selection to begin with. But gradually, after that, and in their keenness to do a man's job and show that they could do a man's job, crime disappeared and when the time came to break up the battalion and send them to the corps, I had the satisfaction of receiving a letter from the Scots Guards saying that they would be willing to accept anybody whom I chose to send, without further question, so long as he had reached the physical
500
standards of the regiment to which he was going. We had achieved the three or four things that were essential. First of all, we broke up the little private gangs. Then we broke through the crust of lack of confidence. Next, we restored their self-respect and showed them that they could, and would, do a worthwhile job and that they could be trusted to do it.
Now let us go back a little into history. About a year ago now, one of my woodlands was set on fire by a young fellow aged 14, who had collected together a gang of eight aged between 9 and 12 years. That young fellow, from the age of seven, had had a constant battle with the police. He knew that in the present circumstances they could do nothing; that they were utterly helpless. He developed a contempt for the police and a contempt for the law, and he was leading those 9 and 12-year-olds along the same way that he had gone. So far had this 14-year-old gone, that when one of the policemen told him to get into the car in order to take him to Kilmarnock, the other policeman said: "No, don't touch him when you are alone: take somebody else with you ". The boy had already learned to deal with the police and frame them. We must find some means whereby those 7 and 8-year-olds can be made to realise that although the age of responsibility may not come until several years later, they must learn to behave themselves otherwise it will be the worse for them.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke about the importance of a full establishment for the police. With your Lordships' indulgence I will read a short portion of an article which appeared in The Times the other day. It said:
"They agree they are charging fewer people"—
this was the police—
"involved in disorderly crowds but say that this is because they are under strength and that by the time they get to the scene of a gang fight the mobs have melted away and there are never any witnesses.
This week housebreakings in the area are running at about six a night. The police accept that five of these will be genuine robberies, the sixth part of a recognised ploy by tenants to induce the social security office to replace money allegedly stolen.
One policeman said: 'It is little wonder that youngsters grow up into "Neds" in families who will not work. There are many decent people here, but with as few as one or two

501
constables covering an area the size of the City of Perth we have no chance of protecting them or their property.
'There is no point in talking about Frankie Vaughan to an innocent man who has had a knife shoved under his ribs by a youngster he has never done anything to or even seen before.
'Nobody hopes more than us that Mr. Vaughan's plan will go well and that the youth centre will be a success—but when you see the vandalism here! The boys on the list of the Scottish Criminal Records Office will take over, and the decent youngsters will be driven out.'"
6.43 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Cork, must, I am sure, by this time feel amply justified in his bold essay and must feel gratified at the extent and the amplitude of the debate which has been occasioned by his opening remarks and his subject matter. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for reminding us of the dangers of using the deductive method in such a discussion as this, beginning with a proposition and then endeavouring to fit the evidence into that proposition. I am sure that this is such a complex and widely stretched subject that anything less than a full use of the inductive process would be foolish, and I do not pretend that with an accumulation of evidence such as I should like to try to bring there would be necessarily a coercive result. But at least let us try.
I am not satisfied that there is a prima facie case, or an inductive case, for the proposition that man is to-day a more violent animal than he has been. I think this is the first general proposition which has to be tested and looked at. I have often felt how pleased I should be if our Russian friends would stop reading Dickens and start reading Trollope for a change. I think they would find just as much good ammunition, but they will persist in the idea that nothing has changed in England since the time of Dickens; and of course it is a sheer fallacy. Those who would like to refresh their mind on this particular fallacy may well remember the chapter in Sketches by Boz, "Making a Night of It", or various parts of The Old Curiosity Shop, and indeed of Oliver Twist, to say nothing of Barnaby Rudge, to persuade them that a very great deal of violence in our day is less than the kind of violence that prevailed in the days of Dickens. And
502
by the same token I wish that some of those who think to-day there is an accumulation of a particular characteristic of violence never before known would use this particular method of comparing what can be dredged out of the various books of Charles Dickens and compare the evidence there with the sort of thing that is happening to-day.
In the second place, it is quite evident that we know so much more to-day about what is going on than did those who lived in comparative isolation in the 19th century or the beginning of this century; and this, it seems to me, is probably the principal matter with which the B.B.C. has to take account. It is not so much its pornography, which is occasional and, I think, to be execrated; it is not so much its deliberate infusion of violence into so many of its programmes, as the widespread coverage of violence which is a necessary part of its news service, a news service which was impossible until the present generation, and has nevertheless brought to minds and to the ideas of people who previously would have been innocent of it a whole range of violence, which has always been there but has hitherto gone unnoticed.
Then, of course—though it has not been mentioned to-day—surely it is a fact that the increasing efficiency of the police force has brought to book many of those who in previous days went unchallenged. I remember that when I first began as a social worker in the Old Kent Road to see a policeman in Rivet Street was a very occasional experience. Indeed, a great deal of the violence that belonged to that area then went unnoticed and undeterred precisely because the police were not sufficient in numbers and the law was not sufficiently mandatory to bring many of these scoundrels to book.
Therefore there is no prima facie evidence that we are dealing with a new phenomenon. But there is evidence that the character of violence is itself changing, and I would, if I may, deploy that evidence. We see personal and gang violence, the domestic violence to-day, against a hitherto unprecedented backcloth of world violence. I think that this is the intellectual gap, or the perception gap, between the students and those of more advanced age. We have come perhaps to be conditioned by, and to

503
tolerate, a situation of mass violence which if it were presented to us for the first time would shock us out of our senses. As it has come with this immediacy to many young people they see their own violence within the framework of a world in arms, and the arguments to which they are invited to listen, of nuclear war and prospects, such as we debated in your Lordships' House last week, of biological and chemical warfare. These things create a sense that violence is a necessary and inevitable part of the society in which they live, a sense which was not present, I believe, to many of their forefathers.
Then again, we deplore—I do—the breakdown of religion, of the Christian faith. But it is not perhaps the Christian faith which is so much in question now as the taboos and the prohibitions which went with it. Once upon a time, people at least knew the name of the church they stayed away from. This is the first secular age in which people are almost entirely remote, not only from the doctrines and metaphysics of the Christian Church—more particularly this applies to youth—hut from its moral obligations. Is it not true that violence has now passed out of the realm of the moral consideration and has become an amoral consideration; and has not this created a new difficulty in the approach to that violence?
I am not surprised, in a sense, that this decay of a sense of obligation to avoid that which is basically evil should have taken place. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will allow me slightly to disagree with him—not that I disagree with the first part of what he said. Had this been a camp meeting, I would be complete with "Hallelujahs!" because it seemed to me that for the first couple of pages of his speech he completely denounced violence as being a wicked thing, with no good in it, and I said "Amen." Unfortunately, the right reverend Prelate went on to say that perhaps in some circumstances it was still necessary. Whether or not your Lordships agree with that, you must agree what a disabling effect that must have on the outsider who looks to the Christian Church for a sense of absolute and finds, as my noble friend had to find at the end of his speech, a number of questions. If
504
we, as Christians, are not able to point the absolutes in the moral field, it is not surprising that for so many of our contemporaries the whole attitude to violence has passed clean out of it.
What, then, is to be done in a situation where this violence has acquired perhaps new aspects but is not, I think, an extension of original sin or a double dose of total depravity, but is necessarily a part of a world which itself is intrinsically violent? In passing, may I add one dimension again to the quality, or the disquality, of the violence of the gang. Nobody, up to now, has mentioned the place which alcohol and drugs take with that minority who are the stimulants of gang warfare. As I happen to know, and as many of your Lordships will know, this is with regard to alcohol no new phenomenon; but it is with LSD. At the risk of being petulant, I would beg your Lordships, if you have not seen anybody under the influence of LSD, to listen with great care to the observations of those who have. I am one of them, and I consider that violence is one of the most astonishing, and at the same time one of the most disastrous, appearances produced by LSD. It would not surprise me, though evidence would be hard to come by, to learn that in most of the violence that is sheer hooliganism there is an element of drug-taking, however small that element may be—though I personally think it to be pretty large.
What is to be done? I hope that there will be no demand for a return to the violent kind of punishment which is assumed to be an answer to the violent kind of crime. Already there has been in your Lordships' House evidence of the repudiation of the idea that it will be good for us to return to capital punishment. I hope that we shall not return to corporal punishment. I have been a prison chaplain and I have seen corporal punishment. I have seen the dreadful effects which it produces, particularly the effects on those with homosexual tendencies and those who are sadistic or masochistic. Quite apart from that as a special reason, to answer violence by violence is, in the end, to multiply the violence, not to get rid of it.
I also hope, as has already been said so often in this debate, that the police force will be strengthened and, if I may

505
say so without impudence, better educated. I have sat down, walked around, and stood up, at C.N.D. rallies on a number of occasions and have engaged in a number of altercations with the police. I hope that they will not think it pompous of me if I say that in many cases, when they are prepared to argue in a good-natured fashion with the demonstrators, they find themselves very quickly out of their depth, for many of the demonstrators are well-equipped, at least with the arguments which they think are pertinent. Many of these young policemen, bless their hearts, are thoroughly good and decent people and would enjoy a good conversation. I do not know how this better education can be achieved (it might form part of the curriculum), but a better-educated policeman, who is at one and the same time as gentle and restrained as many of them are, would be a far more effective member of the community and would do better what I, having been in Grosvenor Square, know is already being done very well.
But surely the real problem must go a lot deeper. I am sure that people (except those extraordinary people who are perverted; and they are a very small minority) do not resort to violence because they believe it is a good thing. They resort to violence, as has already been noted in this debate, because they cannot see any effective alternative to it. I was most moved, as we all were, to hear my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams talking of the Czech reaction, the non-violent reaction, to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. I compared it in my mind with the heroic but violent reaction of the people of Hungary in 1956. This is evidence that should support those who believe, with Martin Luther King and Gandhi—and as I wish, with the Christian Church—that non-violence is a technique as well as the repudiation of violence.
One thing which, to me, is perhaps more interesting and dynamically important than anything else about the Czech resistance is that, because they decided not to embark on violence, they had the time, the energy and the enthusiasm to perfect a television service which made known to the rest of the world within a few minutes the grim effects and facts of that invasion. Johnson said that a sentence
506
of death "wonderfully concentrates" the mind. So does a gun in your pocket. So does the acceptance of violence. If you are prepared to maintain violence, even as a last resort, you will by that very process be inhibited from giving your full attention to any contrary or any other kind of defence.
Perhaps the most constructive thing that could emerge out of this debate would be a claim for, and some provision for, education in the alternative to violence. As one who has tried to listen to students, tried to understand their language and their problems, I find it almost impossible to say anything to these students who have tried and struggled and failed, and who feel they are completely without any hope of getting what they justly believe to be right. Whether or not what they claim is right, when they find their point of desperation then violence become; the only thing that can possibly work. It is a cynicism but it is necessarily one of which we should take account. To give them the opportunity, the option; to give them at least the vision of a way which is non-violent—that which is not clearly the rejection of violence but is the constructive alternative to it—demands that they should have a sense of community. It is an atavistic society in which most of them live. This demands that they should live in a community in which they should participate. This demands all the splendid ideas which have already been echoed in the House this afternoon.
But, as a beginning, if people to-day could be persuaded that what Gandhi did in India, with due differences and other manifestations, was not an isolable and egregious event, but in fact contained within it the substance of an alternative to the scourge of violence; if in the present situation there can be seen the opportunities whereby those who want to pursue this non-violent path can do so in voluntary service (and how quickly they respond to Voluntary Service Overseas; how eagerly they march in C.N.D.; how quickly they respond to Oxfam!) and if there were a wholesale attempt on a voluntary basis to provide the microcosm of the non-violent society, in which service and care and friendliness were dominant, then I believe that those who now turn to violence as a pis aller, those who feel that nothing but violence

507
can offer hope, would eagerly grasp that new sense of opportunity and new sense of vision.
I cannot but end by saying how much I hope that the Christian Church will give them this new sense; how much I deplore the fact that those who wish, as many of them do, to move out of the city of destruction, as yet have little idea of the City of Light to which they would fain go. We must give them, through the Christian Church, or through voluntary help, a sense of community in the whole of this land in which we live and which we love. This is part of the constructive outcome of this debate, and makes me the more grateful to the noble Earl for initiating it.
6.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, your Lordships will not envy my having to get to my feet after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery not only for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, but also for his very kind remarks about me. In spite of this, I feel a certain unease in taking part, so I shall be brief. The unease springs from a sense of things not being made clear, in spite of many interesting, eloquent and moving speeches this afternoon. We have been talking about violence, and violence is, intellectually speaking, very much in the air at the moment. Even in the fortnight since I learned that your Lordships were to debate this Motion, books and articles have appeared about revolution, about forceful political protest, about student demonstrations and college takeovers, and many of these have been reviewed and discussed in the highbrow and middlebrow Press. For the moment there seems to be a lull in our attitudes, in our preoccupation with sex. Violence is "in", as my noble friend Lord Birdwood suggested. Even your Lordships—and I imply no disrespect—are jumping on this bandwagon.
What I am unclear about is this. Where is all the violence going on? Force, Marx told us, is the midwife of every old society pregnant with the new. But in England, at any rate, is she not a somewhat outdated old body, doing her rounds in a few places, admittedly, but on the whole yielding to newer obstetrical
508
techniques—techniques which may be a bit impersonal but which are certainly a lot more painless? Such an unlikely duo as Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Tariq Ali seem both agreed that rivers of blood are flowing, or are going to be flowing somewhere, and both seem afraid of missing the boat.
Perhaps my life is too sheltered, but contemporary society in England seems to me a good bit less violent than it was when I was a teenager in the 'fifties. The school I attended beat one fairly frequently—a practice which I understand it is starting to abandon. Capital punishment was still on the Statute Book, and it is very largely thanks to your Lordships that it was abandoned—though not, in my view, before time. I myself witnessed two gang fights, one in London, one in the Provinces, in which flick knives were used to dreadful effect. I remember the horrors of Notting Hill and the bicycle chains. There was a great deal more censorship of books and plays and films then, and those of us who make our living in or about the arts usually agree that censorship is in itself a form of violence, a violent offensive against the integrity of an individual work, or of the individual's right to work from nature.
What I suggest to your Lordships is this. A great deal of the violence which we are talking about is, like Marx's phrase, a metaphor. This is not to belittle or underrate it. On the contrary, my view is that it is a vital metaphor, that our intellectual preoccupation with the forces of violent action is necessary at the present time. Everyone knows, and many of your Lordships have pointed out, that the twentieth century has been the witness of exceptional global upheavals. To adapt Donne's sermon, as my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery did, "no country is an island" any longer, and our own exceptionally stable island could not and should not, in my view, escape participation in other's more agonising upheavals. And how unbearably smug, even by traditional English standards, it would be if we failed to reflect those upheavals in our own doings. If playing on words is not fiddling while Rome burns, let me close with an attempt to clarify two words in the context of our debate. They are "reflection" and

509
"deflection". What does our current preoccupation with violence reflect? And can we deflect it, turn it to the useful ends of Jefferson's, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?
Whether we like it or not, Britain is no longer an island. It is a divided part—look, my Lords, at Ulster—of a divided continent. And Europe's divisions are made made more poignant by her situation between two monolithic super-Powers, Russia and America. Russia and America, as we know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, has pointed out—and I, too, have talked in American universities so I was very fascinated by his speech—have their own acute divisions and dissensions, but they are "countries" in a way that Europe is not. The ways in which these two countries are run, and the intellectual assumptions which underlie their policies, are European in origin expressed in the old argument between licence and liberty—whether you find your freedom collectively or individually; whether you find freedom in perfect freedom or freedom in perfect service.
It is a confusing argument because it is such a broad one, and when human beings get confused individually and collectively they tend to become violent. Added to this confusion is the agony of the "Third World", of starvation, overpopulation and commercial exploitation. How violent these safe-sounding abstract nouns can be in reality. Our students and our young teachers have an unprecedented global awareness. They not only sense, they pin down the confusion and so they want to change it. As many have said, this is only natural. But there comes a point, when you want to change things, where you are forced to decide whether to do the job bit by bit, to channel events to your liking, to deflect what you object to. Or you may decide that things are too far gone and that what needs altering is the structure. I understand that in physics structural alteration tends to be violent, explosive. In politics it is usually called revolution.
The English way has been to do the job bit by bit, and this sounds the most reasonable and attractive way. But your Lordships will know how many bitter
510
postponements there have been in our history; how many moderate solutions have been held up through prejudice and ill-will, even down to issues like reform of your Lordships' House, or questions of your Lordships' salaries. Your Lordships do not need me to tell you that times of general violence have been fertile breeding grounds for particular reforms. Our Welfare State got going during the late war. Your Lordships can consult the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, about all that.
What I am suggesting is that we must not only deplore violence; we must be aware of it as a conceptual alternative to doing the job bit by bit. We must study it, as my noble friend Lord Bird-wood suggested, and we must allot money for the study. One can take courses in revolution more cheaply than having a revolution. Only if you are aware of things conceptually can you hope to affect them when they leave the realm of concept. And in America, in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East, in China itself, in the France of last summer, even down to the London School of Economics, we see how quickly things tend to leave the conceptual realm.
Finally, there is of course violence and violence, and I felt very strong sympathy for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. It would be wrong of us here to fume over the revolutionary longings of some of our students, and their rather sad mini-Guevarist activities, while we take for granted other forms of violence and, indeed, accept them altogether. I mean, for example, the colossal slovenliness of our culture, our contempt for the environment which we rape—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for mentioning vandalism in that context—the industrial pollution and what we call the uglification of existence. The useful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about motor cars goes without saying. These problems are not metaphors; they are far more real than that. But we have it in our power—we even have a certain amount of power in this Chamber—to do something about such problems as industrial waste or the motor car by totally peaceful means. It was, I think, William Blake who taught us about the violence of just desires, but he, too, was a revolutionary.
7.9 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, like every Member of your Lordships' House, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for having introduced this subject for debate to-day. We have had many extremely serious, moving and in some cases profound speeches, and it may be that, in contrast to those, what I have to say will seem rather trivial and superficial, but I think that, implied in the putting down of this subject for debate, there is the point that violence has increased and is greater than it has been in the past. I think that implication is something which should be repudiated. My noble friend Lord Stonham has said that we have a less violent society than in the past, and I think that is true. I am inclined to think that there have been a number of references to violence at the present time which have not been properly contrasted with the same kind of violence in the past. There has been a reference to gang-warfare. I remember that in Glasgow forty years ago gang-warfare was much more intense and much more violent than it is to-day.
Then there was a reference—I do not know exactly what it has to do with violence—to the increase in the figures of juvenile delinquency. I wonder whether juvenile delinquency has in fact increased, or whether it is merely that the statistics have enormously increased. When I was a small boy in Glasgow and we had policemen six feet two inches tall and 15 stone in weight, they could not normally catch the delinquents; and if on a rare occasion they did, they would give them a cuff on the ear or a boot on the bottom or, in very rare cases, take them to their fathers and tell them, "If he was my son, I would give him a good hiding". But they did not take them in and make them statistics. Today, the police catch more of the offenders and dare not lay a hand on them, so they take them to the police station, they are booked, and up go the statistics of juvenile delinquency. I am not at all sure that juvenile delinquency has increased. Lord Stonham referred to the fact that there is a greater public readiness to report acts of violence. There, again, the statistics are increased, but we do not really know whether the acts of violence have increased.
512
In the Guardian yesterday there was a reference to this debate in your Lordships' House which said:
"Television and cinema, too, by showing violence as a regular ingredient in the lives of many of the heroes who appear on the screen, must play a part in inuring viewers to it. Yet we still know little about the specific impact of television on viewers. The Lords to-morrow might usefully bring new pressure on the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to spend far more of their budgets on research into this. It could be a valuable outcome to to-morrow's debate".
I am bound to say that this afternoon and this evening less blame has been put on the cinema and television for the increase, or supposed increase, in violence than I had expected, but there have been a number of references to the very harmful effect of the film and television in this respect. In the case of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I was not quite sure whether it was boxing or the showing of boxing on T.V. that was the villain, but I gathered that they were both villains; and there were further references to the evil effects of both the film and television. Of course, that is not at all unexpected, because if there is an increase in violence society looks for a scapegoat. It cannot be society itself which is at fault—that would be unacceptable. Nor can it be the Church; nor education; nor parents. There must be some evil influence at work. We must find a scapegoat. In my young days the scapegoat was the "penny dreadful", then it became the cinema and now, to some extent, it is television. I would ask your Lordships to look rather carefully at this theory, because I do not think there is any evidence for it. There is just a lot of prejudice.
May I give your Lordships an illustration? Some fifty years ago I was the manager of a cinema in one of the poorest slum areas in Glasgow. When I tell your Lordships that the admission prices were 3d. and 5d., you will realise just how poor an area it was. Many of the films that were shown—in fact, most of them—were films which showed luxurious living—high standards of housing, furnishing, eating and drinking; luxury of every kind. I was then young and naïve enough to believe that these poor slum dwellers, seeing these scenes of luxury on the films, would be raised to revolt, to believe that they should

513
share that kind of life. How naïve I was! What happened was that, for 3d., for two hours they lived vicariously. They enjoyed living in luxury. Make no mistake, my Lords: I am not joking about it. There was not any doubt; I talked with them. It was not merely the fact that the 3d. admission was cheaper than warming their poor slum houses. It was that for a couple of hours they had lived in luxury and had enjoyed it.
My noble friend has just interjected to say that in certain circumstances the film or television does their violence for them. I think that is a most important point to remember in all our discussions about violence: that scenes of violence, whether on the cinema or on television, may well act as a release of the aggressive instinct rather than as a provocation to acts of violence. I have discussed this over the years with psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and so on, and I quote from a paper given recently by a psychiatrist friend of mine:
"The problem of violence is closely related to that of aggression and is one which has aroused a great deal of talk and controversy. Just as the 'penny dreadfuls' and the films were once blamed for the increase in juvenile delinquency and for the ill-doings of children and adolescents in general, this blame has now shifted on to television…
"From such investigations as are available at the present time on the effects of television on children, there is no evidence to suggest that television makes well-adjusted children into violent or aggressive children, although … it is probable that the aggressive, or the frustrated children can be stimulated into committing acts of violence".
There, the fault is not the medium. The fault lies in the fact that the child has already become a problem child.
The paper goes on:
"In this situation violence could also be liberated by comics, films, or radio programmes. It is also probable that the child who is aggressive is able to participate vicariously in screen violence with consequent relief of his aggression."
I think that is something that we must really bear very closely in mind.
I would conclude by saying only that I think this has been a most valuable debate, but I very much wish that in some way we could establish—and I know this will appeal to my noble friend Lord Stonham—whether there has in fact been an increase in violence, and, if so, whether it is due to the mass media,
514
or whether, as the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, suggested, it is a reflection of the fact that we are living in a violent world and in a violent society.
7.20 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has done great service to-day by introducing this debate in your Lordships' House; because violence in our contemporary society is something which is, and must be, causing great concern, as witness the number of speakers in the debate to-day. I do not know whether it is more comforting to know that we are not the only country that is troubled by it or more disconcerting to know that violence is not confined to our shores. It takes many forms, as has been amply demonstrated this afternoon. My remarks will refer, in the main, to the more public manifestations of it which we have seen with demonstrations and student risings.
One thing is certain; and that is that if there is violence, it is a reflection on our society, the society in which we live and which is some form or shape we have helped to create. It may be that it is our fault for tolerating it and for not being firmer with it. It may be our fault for creating a society which to some is so obnoxious or so self-protecting that the only means by which the individual feels that he can influence it is by demonstrating against it. It may be that it is our fault for having an educational system which results in so moulding the minds of our people that they conclude that this is, if not an illegitimate means, at least an acceptable one of voicing their opinion. I often think that if one were a man from outer space dropped on this planet, and if one were told that here in England and the Western World one would see a highly civilised society at work; and if one saw sophisticated machines and computers, high wages, home comforts, State care, and, at the same time, strikes, discontents, violence, riots, and student uprisings, one might be tempted to ask: "And what has civilisation offered to them?"
If civilisation means anything, my Lords, it must surely mean the cultivating of our minds to the subjection of the individual will to the concerted will of the majority without the abrogation of the individual's right to express his mind

515
and voice his opinion, and thereby to try to influence thought and society. Surely it must mean relegating to the background the law of the jungle and the law of, "He who hits hardest wins". When something goes wrong—and something has gone wrong, as witness these scenes of violence—one tries to find a cause. It is the young; it is the parents; it is the war; it is the schools—as if there were some single cause which, if one were clever enough to pick up the right lid, would be found staring one in the face. In short, one tries to find the peg on which to hang the hat.
But, of course, it is not as simple as that. If there is some cause, it is far more complex. I believe that it is a combination of factors that has altered the mind and the way in which the mind reacts. We hear much about the chasm that exists between the old and the young generations, and we are told that we must do all we can to close it. But I am not sure that that desire may not in itself be the root cause of much of the trouble. I do not believe that the discrepancy between the young and the old is very much more, or very much less, than it was a hundred years ago, or than it will be in a hundred years' time. There is a gap. So there should be, and so there always will be; for the mind thinks differently and reacts differently at 40 from the way it did at 20, and at 60 from the way it did at 40. Each age has its contribution to make. It is as pointless for the 20-year-old to consider himself on a par with the 40-year-old as it is for the 40-year-old to consider himself on a par with the 20-year-old.
But, my Lords, it is over the past twenty years or so that society, in its endeavour to understand the other age groups within itself, has made the mistake of pretending that the natural demarcation lines of age do not exist. In our endeavour to understand youth, we have given youth more responsibility. This may well he right. But while giving them more responsibility we have lessened the guide-lines, the standards, the disciplines, the restrictions of authority. Here I agree so much with what my noble friend Lord Brooke said in his speech which, if I may say so, I thought was so germane to the problem. We have lessened the standards and the guide-lines. Sometimes
516
we have removed them; sometimes we have blurred their position. We have done this to authority, whether it be the parent, the teacher, the university don or the Church. "Think for yourself! Come to your own conclusions! Make your own guide-lines!" This has been the message that has gone out from a society which has been prepared to lean over backwards to show that it is not repressive.
But the fact is that it is human nature to want a standard and a discipline—if only to have a standard against which to kick, and it is human nature to want to kick against that standard. The further the standard is moved down the road of freedom and permissiveness, the wider becomes its circumference and the less easy it is to kick it; until in the end you flail around like a mad thing trying to make some impression on it, somewhere. I believe that it is this manifestation that we are now seeing.
Part of the cause of this may be television and the Press, which not only report much of the trouble (and in many ways rightly so, because this is the news) but also on occasion encourage it in order that it may be reported, thus inflating both the importance of the trouble and the importance of those who generate it. But television and the Press must also bear a different responsibility; and this in a much more subtle and subversive manner, which I for one deplore. It encourages the feeling that the only way in which authority could or should be respected is to subject the person in question (whether he be a Prime Minister or an Archbishop) to endless questions, and even vilification, in front of millions of viewers on a host and variety of subjects; and according to the way in which he reacts to interrogation, and sometimes denigration, depends how much respect he or the institution which he represents deserves.
For any society to be able to operate for the maximum benefit of all there must be restrictions. But the fact is that we have now become so obsessed with these restrictions, and with the desire to ensure our freedom from them, that we have blurred the line which differentiates freedom from licence. It was said that the Grosvenor Square march of last October was to ensure the right of freedom of speech and that to curtail it would have

517
been to curtail the freedom to express one's views. But I question whether it is right that £250,000 should be spent in overtime for the police. And is it freedom for them to be asked to give up their week-ends to come to London to act as Aunt Sallies in a carefully organised plan of violence? We shall seriously prejudice the chances of our getting enough police if this is what they are to be subjected to. At that same march, students came in deliberately from abroad, from other countries, armed with offensive weapons (including compasses to stick into horses) deliberately to try to create trouble. A further £250,000 had to be spent by private individuals in barricading up their shops and offices in order to prevent damage. Where, my Lords, is the freedom there? Where is the freedom for the millions of people who are unable to go about their normal business or pleasure because of the demonstration, and who are actively frightened by it?
We are told, almost as if in defence, that the trouble was really caused only by 200 or 300 militants. My Lords, if this is so, is it not an appalling confession of failure—if our society is to permit 200 or 300 people to hold the remainder to ransom and make such inroads into the daily life of the average person, all under the guise of freedom? So it is with student riots. While, of course, concern and attention in proper and due measure should be given to students and to their views, it surely must be intolerable if we are to permit the wholesale disruption of the educational curriculum and damage to buildings by a few extremists while the authorities stand by, apparently powerless to do anything constructive and while the majority of the law-abiding students have to see their educational opportunities and time being utterly wasted and desperately frustrated.
My Lords, tolerance we should certainly have, but there must be a point where firmness and a respect for law and order should have priority. I, for one, was relieved and grateful to hear the strong condemnation by the Secretary of State of the behaviour of some of the more militant students at the London School of Economics about two weeks ago. If this is caused by six or so extremists, why should their continuance as students be permitted? Why again,
518
if places at schools of higher education are at such a premium, are the authorities not as vigilant about the type and character and temperament of the students chosen to fill them as they are about their academic attainments, especially when students come from abroad and especially when they have a record of militancy?
Over this I feel that the authorities hold a heavy degree of responsibility. I have no hesitation in saying that grants ought to be removed from students who so conduct themselves that their behaviour adversely affects either the institution at which they are studying or the other students with whom they come into contact. As a country, we are prepared to offer grants to enable students to receive the benefit of further education. If they are prepared to abuse this privilege, and if the result of the grants is not education but civil unrest, clearly the grants are having an effect in these cases for which they were never intended, and they should be removed.
There are some people to-day who are prepared to take too much for granted. There are people who are concerned more to learn the extent of their rights than to consider the area of their responsibilities. There are some people who are concerned more to give voice to their own views than to accept the influence and opinions of others. In short, they are prepared to say, "It is my life. It is my world, and it is going to be run my way." What is it that is taken for granted? Freedom to voice their opinion; the ability to receive an education at the expense of others; the knowledge that the powers that be will lean over backwards to try to see and understand their point of view. My Lords, these things should not be taken for granted. They are hard won prizes and huge privileges. If they are taken for granted, society will condemn those who abuse and misuse these privileges in the same way that it will condemn those who permit them so to be abused and misused.
The answer to this problem is far from simple, almost as far from simple as is the cause which created it. Those who find themselves in authority, whether they be Government, police, teacher or parent, can do only what they consider to be the best and adopt only what they consider is the best course.

519
But when they do try to consider what is the best course, far more consideration should be given to those who wish to live ordinary lives, to those who wish sincerely to study, with all the accepting and challenging of conventional thought which this may bring, and to those who value the benefits of the democratic processes and who are prepared to accept the restrictions commensurate with them, rather than to those who, although few in number, are prepared, for their own ends, to use their position, abuse their position and abuse the rights and privileges which they purport to seek to achieve. I believe, my Lords, that more firmness, both in word and deed, by those whose difficult task it is to take public decisions would be welcomed by society as a whole; and if this debate does in some small way help to encourage or even to guide those who find themselves in positions of authority and responsibility, then we shall have performed a useful service.
7.36 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have decided to resist the temptation to try to answer the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There are a number of points on which I profoundly disagree but I have decided to resist the temptation to answer him because I want, if I can, to try to put the student position as I see it. A sociologist once said that a man that had male children had potential pre-delinquents. I have two sons who are at different universities and perhaps I have had some opportunity to try to understand what is happening at university level at the present time.
There are many problems, both national and international, about which people are feeling very strongly, and none more than our students. I refer to the evils of apartheid; "Powellism"; the racial problems in South Africa and Rhodesia; the slaughter in Vietnam; the starvation and death in Biafra and the still present social inequalities in our own society. These are matters of real concern to many of our people, particularly students, and I have to admit that it is distressing, even for someone of my age, that there appears to be little that we can do about it. Is there anything that we can do? Are we able to make our voices heard? Or is it all so big and powerful that it is above and beyond us, so that we are all completely
520
powerless to deal with the many problems which are besetting us at the moment?
When we look at what is happening in this and in other countries, I must confess that it bothers and bewilders me. It is not surprising—at least, not to me—that our young people feel impotent and frustrated, and the accumulative effect of frustration is always explosive. The youth of this country certainly feel that they can do something about the problems facing us to-day. The rapid progress being made in the scientific field is becoming meaningless to the vast majority of people. The majority cannot comprehend or begin to understand what is happening. To-day the destiny of man—I would go so far as to say of civilisation, the future of the world—appears to be in the hands of a few people, and any one of them could destroy civilisation at the press of a button. And all we have is a feeling of helplesness. For the youth of this country I believe that to be a frightening thought. No wonder youth revolts, and I think we ought to be thanking Almighty God that youth is doing so. We cannot think of them as fools and sheep. They are neither. They have just lost faith in the Establishment, in its institutions and its political Parties, including the one I represent, and many mistrust what is being done by people in authority.
I believe that young people, particularly our university students, are seeing things much more clearly than most of the present older generation. We are living at a time when we seem to be governed by the "stomach and pocket" view of life, at a time when science has won for us powers fit for gods, yet so often we bring to their use the mentality of schoolboys or savages. What philosophy of life are we able to give our young people, many of whom wander aimlessly along the road of life without knowing where they are travelling or for that matter why they are travelling at all? It has become common practice among members of our generation to accuse our young people of being without creeds, codes, standards or values, but what creeds, codes, standards or values have we passed on to them? Are we ourselves not speaking with divided voices in respect of a number of fundamental issues? Are we really bothered about

521
Vietnam, world poverty, Biafra and the many inequalities here at home? Perhaps it is only the students who are making a valid appraisal of what is happening here and in the world to-day. I would ask your Lordships: who is it who is opposing the resurgence of Nazism in Western Germany to-day? Not the older generation but the young people, who did not live under its evil influence but who recognise it for the evil that it is.
I believe that there are two major factors in the present international situation which have to be taken into account in understanding student revolt or youth unrest, if you like, to-day. I plead for understanding. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was right when he said that this is something we have to try to understand. The present generation of our students—and this is also true of students in some other countries—is the first this century which has not been involved in war. There has been no war for nearly 24 years. Wars bring about demands for social change, demands which were met substantially after the 1914 and 1939 wars. War has always stimulated our thinking for peace. It is the time when we come to certain conclusions about the kind of conditions which should ultimately exist in our society.
I am not saying that our thinking and planning have ceased but they are no longer apparent or, if they are apparent, then to many people, mainly the student body, they do not appear to be producing results. The students have become impatient, and I for one think with some justification. I would remind your Lordships, as did the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that the full title of the London School of Economics is the London School of Economics and Political Science, and it is not surprising that the students there are concerned with political matters. The trouble is not, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, that Dr. Adams is considered by some to be a racist. The real problem is that the students want extensive representation on committees and to play an essential part in the running of the school. I understand from the Press that the Governors are now prepared to meet these requirements. But it is doubtful whether these conditions would have been met but for the militant behaviour of the students.
522
They are concerned, and I believe rightly so, not only with the inequalities within our society but also with many other social problems, including the gap between the rich and the poor. Many students regard the inequalities in our society as a form of violence against people. Violence does not always have to be physical. The treatment of people can be regarded as violence. I think that the students are quite right when they consider that certain inequalities amount to little less than violence against people. It may not be everyone's concept of violence but it is theirs. It is something which they condemn and feel that society generally does not condemn. They see our society as the protectors of property and not as the protectors of people. They see that a train robber gets 30 years' imprisonment and a murderer is often let out of prison after 9 or 10 years. I am not suggesting for one moment that the murderer should be kept in prison. I am merely saying that the law seems to favour property more than life.
It is perfectly true that at the London School of Economics there is a small group of students who are revolutionaries—I call them revolutionaries because they are—who are completely opposed to our concept of society and they do not believe that social democracy has or will ever change it. Because they are students at a university, the university is for them the starting point in their attempt completely to alter the structure of society. I want to make clear that I do not condone this but I think it is important to try to understand their thinking and feeling. Fortunately, they do not command a great deal of support, though probably they would have more support if the school was not to be reopened in the foreseeable future.
The second group, which is much larger and more moderate, is asking for meaningful consultation, with some power and influence in the decision-making processes in the university. This does not seem to me to be at all unreasonable. From to-day's paper, I see that the Governors of the London School of Economics have decided to meet these requirements, and I think that they would be well advised to make a sincere and sustained effort to meet them.
I believe that today our students are more adventurous and more intelligent

523
than the students of previous generations. In the past, their energies, enthusiasm and idealism have been diverted. Now these three attributes are directed towards the need for social change. I think that this is a good thing. What is the point of educating people without giving them the opportunities for participating? It is true that they want a continuous dialogue to discuss the kind of society in which they want to live and play a part, but I think that this is a good thing. Many people are concerned—and here, let me confess, quite understandably so—at some of the methods which they adopt. I, too, deplore some of the methods that have been employed by some of them. But why are we so afraid of this ferment of ideas? Why are we so afraid of the limited violence—because it is limited—that it has produced? In the normal way, everything in me cries out against violence. But it is my view that we have to face the fact that violence on occasions may be inevitable; that it may be a necessary expression in order to demonstrate the depth of feeling held, as well as the sincerity of conviction. How else in our society does one make an effective protest? Certainly not by demonstrations.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who introduced the debate, quoted, I think I am right in saying, from something that I believe he said came from Maurice Edelman, who said: "Every time Powell is shouted down democracy loses a round." I just cannot accept that. I believe there are occasions when a vicious, evil doctrine is being propounded, when it is necessary to make it abundantly clear to the person who is doing it that it is not acceptable.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I think he will recall the occasion which has been referred to by Mr. Edelman which I have in the back of my mind. It was not made clear to Mr. Powell that his opinions were unacceptable. He was not allowed to express his opinions at all.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am obliged to the noble Earl for that intervention. I think my reply to it would be that
524
it was simply because people knew in advance of the kind of thing he was going to say. I think there are certain things in life that we have to resist, and make it perfectly plain that we are resisting them.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, too?—because I am fascinated by what he is saying. Can he explain how he correlates, on the one hand, the right to have the rising and to demonstrate, and yet, on the other hand, to deny a person the right to speak? These two seem to be totally incompatible.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am saying that that kind of situation may be inevitable, because the person in question is well-known for his views, and has been going round the country propounding them. So on this particular occasion these views were anticipated. I think this is inevitable. I think that people who feel strongly—and I think it is a vicious doctrine—must express themselves in the way that they feel. I find myself in complete sympathy with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. It was a joy to me to hear him speak this afternoon from the philosophical point of view, because I wanted to say to your Lordships: Can there not be a doctrine as to the right of violence against injustice?
Many of us have been violent. I fought the Fascists in East London thirty years ago and suffered considerably as a result. But I think it is important that when one is faced with an evil—and I regarded Fascism as being an evil—one cannot accept it. It is all right for my noble friend Lord Soper (I have known him for many years, and this is the first time in something like 35 years that I find myself in disagreement with him) to say that we must not answer violence with violence. What do you do? Do you merely accept the violence? The Fascists were certainly violent long before anybody wanted to be violent to them.
LORD TEVIOT: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would say that I entirely agree with him. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will be here later, because if violence goes with violence, does not punishment go with punishment? How would he answer that?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Punishment does go with punishment. But we have an element of deterrent in it—at least, we hope so. I do not think one can allow evils to be maintained without making it quite clear in the strongest possible way that these things are evil.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will allow me to interrupt. He thinks that this limited violence on one side is all right. What cause does he think it serves by kicking a police officer in the face with a heavy boot? Is that limited violence? Does he approve of that? And is he suggesting that violence is all right provided you agree with the people who commit it, and all wrong when it is committed by people with whom you do not agree?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry that my noble friend the Minister did not listen to what I said a little while ago, when I made it perfectly plain that I deplored very much some of the methods that had been employed. I am talking about violence in matters of principle, and this is something entirely different. Of course I do not approve of that kind of violence. I would remind your Lordships that Martin Luther King said:
"Violence is the language of the unheard."
And the noble Lord, Lord Byers, if I may be permitted to say so, was, I think, perfectly right when he said that we must listen and try to understand. Young people to-day, I believe, have an abiding taste—
EARL FERRERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord again? I am most interested in what he is saying. He has just said that we should listen and understand, and a minute or two ago he said that it was perfectly all right for a demonstration to be held which prevented people from listening.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is because I have been interrupted so many times (I do not object to this for one moment; I rather enjoy it) that noble Lords have lost the thread of what I was saying. I have been talking about students, and what I am saying is that we must listen and try to understand their point of view. I hope that this answers my noble friend.
LORD STONHAM: If my noble friend was referring to me when he said that we must listen and try to understand the point of view, I entirely agree, but for the last ten minutes he has been speaking about not listening to other people because of knowing what they were going to say in advance. This is a kind of inequality. It is not a dialogue at all. My noble friend's argument is just a monologue.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOLRTON: Hear, hear!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that no doubt the person in question was interrupted because a large number of people were familiar with his views and had heard them before. I did not say it was right that they should do so. I am merely pointing out, in answer to a question, why people behave like that.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: This is really too much. The case that we are talking about particularly is one in which Mr. Enoch Powell was invited by some people to go and address them, and he was interrupted by other people who had nothing whatever to do with the meeting. Presumably, the people who asked him to go did not know what he was going to say, and wanted to know, or they would not have asked him. But other people came in and shut him up.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I am not defending it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: You were!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: What I said quite clearly (and I hope your Lordships will look at Hansard to-morrow) was that the reason why he was interrupted was because they anticipated what he was going to say.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: With great respect, the people who interrupted him were the people who were not going to listen to him.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: Then, my Lords, that goes for a number of noble Lords in this House, because I am certainly not permitted to carry on, am I?—
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: We are all listening.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: —but I do not mind in the least. It is my view that in America, for example, the violent demonstrations over Vietnam were effective because they certainly produced—at least, I think they produced—a number of good contenders for the Presidency, each one of them dedicated to end the Vietnam war. If I may quote from something which is attributed to the right honourable Jo Grimond, he is reported to have said:
"However unpalatable it may be, the truth is that again and again useful reforms have been achieved in Britain by force after argument has failed."
I sometimes wonder whether, if there had not been force, we should ever have had a Labour Party, of which I am a member.
I think we have to face the fact that youth is disillusioned, and I do not believe it is without cause or justification; and the disillusioned have to find expression. Somebody (I do not recall who it was) once said:
"You my call them hippies, yippies, dropouts, long-haired layabouts, counter-revolutionaries or just students. The fact is that they have rejected the values of our society, the society in which they live and of which they have some knowledge."
Students—I think we must face this fact too—do not have the same excessive respect for the so-called virtues of authority and discipline as was held by the present older generation, for they are aware of what has been done in the name of authority and discipline. Can we honestly say that there is no substance in their thoughts and feelings, and should we not try to understand those thoughts and feelings and make an effort to get to know their wants and needs? Iron gates and lock-outs are not, in my view, likely to solve, really solve, this problem.
8.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, felt compelled twice to intervene in order to try to check the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, from developing his Fascist ideas any further, because, as I have said in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, those Fascist ideas were penetrating—
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to intervene, I am not sure whether I heard him
528
correctly but I think he referred to me as a Fascist. If so, I ask him to withdraw that.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I did not say the noble Lord was a Fascist. I said he was propounding Fascist ideas, inasmuch as he was apparently—and I think most noble Lords agree with me—supporting the action of those persons who prevented Mr. Enoch Powell from speaking. I think that that was the general impression given. The noble Lord throughout the whole of his remarks has been apparently apologising, and indeed eulogising, the action of the more revolutionary students.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must insist in this. Presumably, if I am accused of having Fascist ideas and Fascist views, the implication is that I must be a Fascist; and if this is so I still ask the noble Earl to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not say that the noble Lord is a member of any Fascist Party or has any Fascist affiliations, but I do say—and I will not withdraw it—that the remarks he has been putting forward are tantamount to Fascist views. That I certainly maintain.
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and all your Lordships, I know, are most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for introducing it, but as the time is now lamentably late I intend to devote myself to only one or two subjects. The first is particularly that one which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, mentioned I had on the Order Paper; that was, what was to be done to protect our police and make their lot easier when they had to contend with the demonstrations made by what I might call Lord Wells-Pestell's pets. Many of these officers have been injured, some of them seriously. Your Lordships will have seen that revolting picture which an enterprising Pressman very justifiably took, of one thug holding a policeman's arms behind him while another kicked him in the face. The police are being bombarded with stones, bottles and other weapons against which their helmets afford little protection other than to the top of their heads.

529
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it would be a good thing, in fact, it is essential, if a Committee were to be set up—preferably not a Departmental Committee, in which case the evidence might be suppressed—and presided over by some eminent Judge or Q.C. who would call for evidence, not merely from the Commissioners of Police, but also from chief constables, inspectors and sergeants who had had experience of this trouble, to see what ought to be done in order to protect our long-suffering police from the injuries inflicted upon them. After all, this is a civilian State. We have an unarmed police force without whose existence no one could come and go safely to and from your Lordships' House. Without their existence, none of us could live safely in our own homes. I think that we ought to investigate the possibility and desirability of providing the police with a certain quantity of shields, similar to those which many of your Lordships will have seen in the papers are used by the police in Tokyo against rioters.
Our police, as I have said, are usually unarmed. An example of when they are armed was referred to in small headlines in the papers a few days ago when it was said that two detectives were sent with revolvers to arrest a man who it was thought might be dangerous. As it turned out, he was not. Revolvers are in fact kept in all the principal police stations of the country, but the number of times they are issued to officers is very small indeed. Therefore, as we have an unarmed police force it is surely our duty to do something to prevent them from being injured by the attacks of these thugs. The noble Earl, Lord Cork, said that he deprecated the use of water cannons. That point, again, ought to be considered by this Committee, and they also ought to consider all other forms of necessary protection.
There has been a rather unhealthy tendency throughout this debate on the part of many of your Lordships, from Lord Wells-Pestell backwards, apparently to justify the conduct of many of these students on the grounds that they are objecting to present-day conditions. Well, these demonstrations, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, rightly said, were not carried out by the vast majority of students, who are completely innocent of any such conduct;
530
and it would be entirely unfair to blame students as a whole for them. But there remains a small core of revolutionaries, whose numbers on occasion are of course greatly increased by young people—hairy, unwashed, and whose studies appear to relate entirely to questions of drugs and fornication—who come out to assist whenever there is a riot.
Some of your Lordships may also remember that there was a case of a reporter who interviewed a man who he thought looked rather incongruous in the crowd outside the American Embassy in the Grosvenor Square riot. The reporter asked the man why he was so deeply interested in Vietnam. The man replied that he did not even know where the adjectival asterisk was, and did not care an adjectival asterisk about it. All he knew was that he had read in the paper that there was likely to be a "punch-up"; he hated the police and he liked "punch-ups", so he had come from the North Midlands to enjoy himself. I think that shows that the vast majority of the people going in for these demonstrations are not really interested at all in the cause they are purporting to represent.
I believe that there has been a lamentable laxity of firmness and purpose in dealing with the hard core of these revolutionary students. When they take over a building, the first thing that should be done is that all electricity, gas, water, and central heating from outside, if there is any, ought to be cut off; and no food ought to be allowed to be brought into the building. That would bring them to their senses in a very short space of time. At the same time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there should be consultation, not merely in the case of the London School of Economics but in the case of all other similar institutions, between the governing body and the students as to any reforms that might be considered desirable.
The difficulty is, who is to represent the students? One has to be careful, or one will find oneself in the same position that a trade union finds itself. Many unions are ruled by a small Communist oligarchy, although in point of fact the number of Communists in the union is probably far under 10 per cent. If you are going to take a vote simply from those in the hall, just as with some of

531
the trade unions, all the revolutionaries will turn out and most of the respectable people will stay away. So it ought to be a vote by ballot, or something of that kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was perfectly right when he spoke about a malaise, and his words were echoed to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. There is a general malaise, the reasons for which are rather difficult to discover, but if I may speak for a few moments longer on this point I will tell your Lordships about one of my King Charles's heads which I do not think I have previously mentioned. Along with some of your Lordships I am old enough to remember the revulsion of feeling which swept the country when the Germans started their atrocities in Belgium and France in the autumn of 1914. The whole country was convulsed; it was thought to be a thing that could not possibly happen, and it was generally agreed that all the laws of war were going to be kept in any other war which broke out. Of course they were not; but it is from that time onwards that there appears to have been a general softening of the moral fibre of Europe.
This process is, I think, accelerated by the fact that in two successive wars we have had all our young manhood trained to kill. If a man is told that it is perfectly virtuous to kill some foreigner with whom he has no personal quarrel, it is difficult, if he is a person of rather low intelligence, to make him see that there is a reason why he should not kill a person of his own country with whom he happens to disagree or whose property he wants. I believe that these two wars, and the conditioning to a killing state of mind of so many of the young men, has gone a long way to produce the present situation. It is all very well for these young people to be excited about Vietnam, Nigeria, Rhodesia, South Africa and the rest. If they, or any of their friends, were in power, what could they do? Britain has renounced her responsibilities as a world Power, and in most of these cases there is nothing we can do in order to put things right.
It is quite obvious that all these riotings are purely political, and not economic, because if there was an occasion for
532
riots it would have been in the 'thirties when the really bad depression swept the country. That I know, because at that time, partly when I was a Member of another place and partly after I had come to your Lordships' House, I did a number of tours around the worst areas: the Rhondda, three times; all the worst of the Clyde area, Jarrow, Hebburn and the mining villages of Durham. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would be interested to know that those Durham mining villages were quite the worst I ever saw—far worse than the Rhondda. Had there been marches and demonstrations at that time, when the conditions of many people there and in other parts of the country were truly deplorable, there would have been a justification for it. But there is no justification now; the demonstrations are obviously purely political.
I would go further, and say that students and others are being used by a small and unscrupulous body of revolutionaries for their own purposes. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that there must be a control of these students, and that those who persistently offend should be disciplined and, if necesary, lose their grants. And certainly those who come from overseas should be given one warning after which, if they then interfere in our affairs, even if they are not convicted of any offence in the courts, if they advocate armed revolution in this country, they should be deported forthwith, wherever they come from, and it does not matter whether they are black, white, brown or yellow.
Time is getting on and I have only one or two things more to say. I think it is a little unfortunate that save for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, there has been very little reference to violent crime apart from these political demonstrations. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was forced to admit, murders in Scotland in the past seven years have gone up by 150 per cent. Murders everywhere—and I shall ask the Government for the figures before long—have been increasing all the time, and it is scant consolation for those who have been coshed to read that the rate of increase of crime has now been slowed down. We do not hear anything about the rate being diminished, but rather that the increase is not as great as it was. Although it will,

533
as usual, shock the majority of your Lordships, I must say that I think that to that extent violence ought to be met by violence and that in certain limited cases (only a few each year) we ought to consider the reintroduction of both capital and corporal punishment.
In conclusion, my Lords, I still stand by what I have preached in your Lordships' House on many occasions. I consider that the honest and good citizen, and the police who seek to protect him, are persons far more worthy of our consideration than are the criminals. There is far too much attention given to the feelings of the poor criminal, and far too little to the feelings of the victim—if he is still alive—and his relations.
8.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, I, too, should like to join the long list of noble Lords who have offered their thanks to my noble kinsman for moving this debate this afternoon. The debate has ranged widely and has been most interesting. I thought I was just being beaten to it by the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I wish to change the tenor of the debate slightly, even if it is only for my own little speech. As an entirely practical man and not an academic I am afraid I have little contribution that I can make to such subjects as sociology and all those other problems that have already been so well covered by noble Lords in many highly erudite speeches.
As the subject of the Motion has been widely drawn, I wish to speak, not, as I have said, on the matters already covered but as a security consultant on my own subject, which is concerned with violent robbery. Unfortunately that is something which is definitely on the increase. Here I must declare an interest, and my interest will become apparent later. I wish to narrow the focus still further. My special concern is the security of staff, and I would remind your Lordships that many of them are women, who handle large and, in some cases, very large, sums of money in public places. The temptation for the criminal is, of course, the "loot" in a highly negotiable form, usually used bank notes. To snatch one bag of those, probably containing somewhere in the region of £5,000 or £10,000, is, to an individual to-day, more than he could ever possibly hope to save in a lifetime of
534
toil. Therefore the temptation is great. There are, every day of the week, many thousands of those bags in various places throughout this country.
The emphasis, however, has recently changed. At one time practically every company used to send perhaps its chief accountant or someone in the accounts department in a small motor car up to the bank to collect the weekly wages. Hardly a week went by in which there was not a screaming headline about a wages snatch, and one heard about the poor chief accountant of some company being coshed on the head on the pavement, or having his little car rammed; and £5,000 or £10,000 worth of notes were snatched out of his hand and were gone. But the emphasis has changed. We do not hear so much of that nowadays. It is because the well-known security companies have moved in and they now supply that service. So the threat has moved. It is now much more against those who stand at the counter dealing with large quantities of cash in full view of the public; and this threat, of course, comes from coshes, sprays and guns.
On the subject of guns, to which I have over the last few years devoted some quite considerable study, especially in relation to armed robbery, the one thing that really must be guarded against is what one might call the instant threat. I do not mean the amateur James Bond who comes in with a shoulder holster and has difficulty getting the gun out. I mean the criminal who comes in—I will say to a bank, but it may be anywhere else—and with a smile on his face as he pushes half-a-crown across the counter says "I have left my car parked outside on a meter and I have not got any sixpences. Do you think you could change this?" The girl says, "Yes". She looks in her till for the necessary sixpences, and when she looks up she is looking down the muzzle of a gun.
No security should be expected to stand by itself. Security is always part or an overall plan. The security that should be provided at the counter is the type of security that will meet the instant threat. It will not meet the sort of threat of somebody who can "whip up" a medium machine gun, because he should never be able to get it there; the other security should have seen to that.

535
It was about three years ago that I tried to pioneer, if possible, the construction of some form of screen that would be serviceable. My company came up with an idea which produced a screen through which you could see, speak and transact your business, but at no time was the cashier at risk. We tried to hawk that around, and your Lordships would be quite surprised at the complete and utter lack of interest in it. It was too early. We tried to show that it was not very expensive and that complete immunity could be achieved for what we cansidered to be a trifling sum. But we did not get very far. In most cases we were told that there was a confidential communication between the organisation and their clients, that to put our screen in the way would quite definitely be a nuisance, and would we please take it away.
As some noble Lords may remember, I made another attempt on television to see whether I could get this idea across; that the situation was getting dangerous, and perhaps we should try to provide some form of security for people in this position. Although it aroused great interest abroad, I am afraid it was pretty uphill going here. One thing, however, I think we were able to show, and that was that if any reasonable form of bullet-resisting glass was used in these screens, if any crook dared to fire at it, whether the bullet went through or not, the ambulance would have to be called, not necessarily for the cashier but for the crook. Because it cannot be too strongly stated that, with any form of bullet-resisting glass if you fire at it point blank you get the whole lot of shrapnel straight back in the face. This, I think, is one of the greatest deterrents which crooks can have. Suddenly, lately, there has been a tremendous upsurge of interest in organisations and departments to provide this form of screen. The matter has now got out of hand, but unfortunately it is all a little late, because there is a wild activity to get this done and, most unfortunately, so much of it seems to be going wrong. In many cases the correct materials are being used but are wrongly fitted.
Here I should like to quote an example of a German bank I visited where they had the most beautiful bullet-resisting glass that I had ever seen. The screens
536
were glass sheets right up to the ceiling; and it was a very tall room. The director proudly showed me his installation and said, "You can shoot anything you like at it and it will not go through". I had to tell him that I would not dream of firing a gun at it, but that I would take a couple of 6-inch tyre levers and put them in the speaking louvres to lever the screen out, and about 2 cwt. of glass would fall on the poor cashier. This shows the case of misapplied money in the erection of a security screen. They did later take it down and put it back in correct mountings.
In many cases wrong materials are used, and wrong materials specified. Quite often these wrong materials are being used because there is such a wild interest nowadays that there is no productive capacity equal to meet what is required. In many cases correct materials are used but of the wrong dimensions: people can jump over the top, or get round the side. And, worst of all (and here noble Lords will probably recognise what I am referring to), are the otherwise adequate security screens which either have a nice hole just opposite the cashier's face, or a slit to speak through, or a nice slit across the bottom to pass money through. The hole or slit at the top are beautifully placed for ammonia or caustic spray, and the slit at the bottom is absolutely perfect for resting a revolver along the top of the counter so that it points straight at the cashier's stomach. What a pity! As I said, productive capacity is being very severely strained at the present minute to meet what is going on due to this wild activity.
I have referred to the existing demand. But what about the future demand? As I told your Lordships, the emphasis has changed from the snatch of the bag in the street. It has now moved largely to the banks. The moment the banks start to armour themselves, as, thank goodness! they are doing, where is it going to go next? There are the rating offices; there are the betting offices.
LORD STONHAM: Hotels.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: As the noble Lord reminds us, there was a story in the papers to-day about a hotel that was robbed. There are also the large supermarkets. I know that many supermarkets make a point of keeping only a small quantity of money in the tills,

537
at any rate in the tills near the door; and the moment the till reaches £20, the supervisor takes out £20. But where is it taken? Probably to a little office with a thin plywood door; and that is all the security there is. Once the squeeze gets on, and the banks are not easy picking and the post offices cease to be easy picking, the process will go on, and it will go on down the line.
My Lords, what is the solution? Here again I am declaring my interest. The real solution is a specialist consultancy. I am not the only person who has specialised in this; there are many others. But somebody must inquire from somebody who has been into this matter and knows something about it. It is no good an organisation telling their resident architect, as they so often do, "Design a security screen". He will make a nice-looking one, but it will probably be utterly ineffective. So he is probably told, "Discuss it with our security officer". The security officer is probably an eminent ex-policeman. He has many good ideas on security. But can he design metal work and glass? No. This is a specialist field in which people should consult. This would do away with some of the footling efforts that are going up at the present moment. They breed a false sense of security, and one of these clays one of them is going to be breached, and then all confidence by the stall in security arrangements will go.
It is not only a matter of protection against guns. I know that guns are the most dramatic—I used guns on television because they brought home the point I was trying to make. It was great fun, I can tell your Lordships, emptying a whole magazine from a Colt ·45 into a glass window and not getting a bullet through it: it was most dramatic. But there are many other things. There are these crippling and disabling sprays. One can buy ammonia at any ironmonger's shop. One can buy these pressurised oven cleaners and squirt them into a person's face. They are really crippling. Something must be done. We must give protection.
We must also be far more conscious of security if we are to remove from the criminal the temptation to be violent in chasing the "loot". For instance, we fall down badly in cases where the security companies deliver the money. They rule
538
out the risk of the money coming from the bank to the company for the payment out of wages. Bit what happens to it then? Probably it just put in the bottom drawer of a desk along with the head cashier's sandwiches. As noble Lords will remember, there is a case where a security company arrived to deliver the money, only to find that security was so lax in the place where they were delivering it that the accounts department or the cashier's department to which it had to be delivered had already been taken over by the crooks, who look the money as it arrived.
In conclusion, I am going to remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of something which I am aware he knows; namely, that on the Continent they have had this same trouble and they have clone something about it. At the insistence of the insurance companies, the West German Parliament enacled that those who handle money in public places must be properly protected. It caused a great stir among the glass manufacturers, who tried to provide enough glass within the time available, but it is being done. It is only fair to the staff who are placed in that position. We have that example of its being done by legislation. May I just leave a small seed of thought in the mind of the Minister: that perhaps legislation might not be a bad idea, to make quite certain that something is done about a most pressing need.
8.34 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as your Lordships can imagine, at this late hour most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall try not to be repetitive and I have strung my notes together again. Obviously, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for introducing this debate and for his most interesting runover of the ground. This is the fourth time in my few years in your Lordships' House that I have spoken on this subject, but I hope that my words will not be too repetitive.
I am glad that no one has told us to-day that it is the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb which has caused the youth of to-day to have less respect for authority and the consequential rebellion against convention. I think the nearest we have come to this was in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord

539
Wells-Pestell, who justified much of what youth did on the ground that they found inequality too glaring an unfairness to be withstood.
While I am on the noble Lord's speech, may I say that I felt that there was a slight slander on our judicial system, when he was allowed to get away with saying that he thought we favoured property before life. We have had several debates on the matter of capital murder and its pros and cons, and on the question whether we should hang people or imprison them, and I think it has been fairly well established that most murders are probably not compulsive, but are partly passionate, and in most cases are unlikely to be repeated once the person has had time to cool off. It was on this understanding that I, for one, voted in favour of the suspension of the death penalty. Those concerned do not plan a murder with others. They might plan it to get rid of a particular thing which is upsetting them.
People may have really planned and thought out with a lot of other people, a conspiracy to acquire a large sum of money. I can think of many people who would be willing to forgo ten years of their life (which is probably the sentence that a murderer would undergo after remission and is what, as I take it, the noble Lord has referred to as a time sentence) if after they came out they were certain of getting, let us say, a quarter of a million pounds. This is the point. This is a planned operation: it is not a compulsive, emotional thing.
I should like now to support my own strong view of which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and also my noble friend Lord Brooke spoke, the importance of education in this field. In all my thinking I have come down completely to agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in his plea for smaller classes. It is in the youth and the children of to-day that we have to find our remedy for to-morrow. Obviously, parents have their part to play; but we parents do not seem to be doing too well. It is only a combination of parents and schoolteachers who can do the job.
I take the Metropolitan Police area because it is easy to look at and the
540
figures are extremely accurate. I have worked out that of the crimes of violence in this area 69 per cent. are committed by young people under the age of 30. In this same area, the figure of crimes by people under 30 for shopbreaking and warehouse breaking amounts to 86½ per cent. Coming to burglaries and housebreaking, the figure in relation to the crimes committed by people under 30 is 89 per cent. This really is most terrifying. It is the youth of this country which is committing these crimes.
In this latter class, the housebreaking class, we often read of senseless violence. I can give an example which took place at Christmas time. A flat opposite mine in London was burgled. The burglars did not find much of value to interest them, and I suppose in retaliation they decided to make a mess of the flat. Senselessly, they kicked in every piece of furniture and they broke the glass in every picture in the flat. They ripped the carpets; they broke everything they could in regard to cutlery, et cetera. Not content with that, they even decided to foul the bed. This is a point of such senselessness that one wonders if the animal mentality was in those particular youths on that evening, or whenever this burglary occurred.
I should like to see more Government encouragement for more organised opportunities of service for youth, in which not only would their weekend energies be occupied but they would find, one hopes, both competition and enjoyment. Many noble Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, give up a lot of their spare time to doing youth work in this field. The noble Viscount gives up almost the whole of his time to it. Many noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, have done sterling service in the Boy Scouts, and my noble friend Lord Elgin, who is not here, in the Boys' Brigade. There are hundreds of your Lordships who do this work. Unfortunately, these efforts are all too small. If only we could get something such as the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme on a larger scale, adopted on a national line by local councils, I should feel that the Duke's remarks the other day were bearing fruit. I think the history of the people who take part in these activities shows they do not fall into the categories of which we are talking because they

541
have things to occupy their minds which are good.
The old cliché that protection is the best form of prevention is still as true as it ever has been. Everybody agrees with that. Therefore I welcomed the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about probable police increases. If I understood him aright, it is hoped that by the end of March, 1970, the total police force of England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police, will be around 94,000, which, after allowing for some 4,150 women officers, gives a male force of 89,850. That figure is still some 11,000 short of the authorised strength, as opposed to the 17,600 deficiency now, but over the two and a quarter years from the end of 1967 it is an increase of some 6,600 men. It is a figure to be greatly welcomed.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord say that again, please?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I said that the figure in March, 1970, would be still some 11,000 short of the authorised strength in the male police force, as opposed to the 17,600 deficiency which we seem to have now, but that nevertheless over these two and a quarter years it would be an increase of 6,600.
However, there is one point which is puzzling me—and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for inquiring into this, as I mentioned to him that I was puzzled. If he cannot answer now—I shall not expect it—perhaps he can let me know later, but when checking the point with some of his friends I was given the figure of 90,782 as the strength of the total force at the end of 1968. After deducting the 4,150 women, it gave me a figure of 86,632 male police at the end of 1968, as opposed to 83,227 at the end of 1967. That seems to me an apparent increase of some 3,400 men. My arithmetic may be wrong in this, but if my figures are right it is an increase over the past twelve months of some 4 per cent. Although that is most welcome to me, as I think it is to all other noble Lords on this side of the House and, I should hope, on the noble Lord's side also in their hearts, it does seem to make somewhat of a nonsense of the officially allowed increase of 2 per cent. in maximum cases. Maximum cases, of course,
542
are where the police forces are most deficient in their authorised strength. I shall understand if the noble Lord cannot answer that point, because I have rather jumped it on him at this late moment. I have given him my figures so that he can check them.
Further to this point about the police, I hope that the beat patrol system, with its Panda cars, will not be allowed completely to supersede our policemen on the beat. I have raised this point before. It has always been my contention that the "copper" on the beat is a man who is seen and respected. One hopes he will be made again into the friend of local children and not their enemy. When I was a small boy I used to go into Hyde Park every morning. I always spent a quarter of an hour at the fire station in Basil Street, and I knew all the firemen there. In Waltham Street there was a police station and I used to know the policemen there, and the policemen in those days in the late 'twenties were regarded by small children as friends. In the country villages and towns the local "copper" was like the local parson and the local doctor; they were three men whom the whole of the village or the town knew and liked. The smaller the unit the more important they were.
The point I am making is that with modernisation, and trying to make a Panda car and a couple of policemen do far more than they did before, I am rather frightened that our old friend the "copper" on the beat may fade out. This is why I, for one, and I think my noble friends, regard the maintenance of the police in numbers as important, apart from anything else such as the increase of detection, which of course is always welcome. If a lack of policemen is evident, children grow up outside any immediate influence of the police, and later in life do not have the natural regard for the policeman that should be his lot.
So much for the police force for the moment. I should like to refer to a subject which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, brought up a moment ago. I purposely have not gone into those groups of people—with one of which companies I am connected—who try to help in a private capacity to protect property and cash in transit from the current greed

543
and violence, but the noble Earl has drawn attention to them and said, if I understood him aright, that because they are doing this all danger has now moved away to the people inside the banks. I should like to draw his attention to the fact, of which the noble Lord the Minister is well aware, that there have been several attacks recently not only on the company with which I am concerned—some of our people are still in hospital with shot-gun wounds—but also on other companies in close alliance: competitors, of course, but in close alliance in respect of security. I should not like noble Lords to go away thinking that these people have an easy time, and I should like to pay a tribute to the way the police forces of this country are being helped by these companies, assistance of which they themselves are well aware, and which relieves them for work and duties elsewhere.
Having paid tribute to these forces which assist them, and which I mention only because the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, brought them in, I should like finally to pay tribute to all the police, who have done, and are doing, their best, by their splendid example of restraint when under insult and attack, to dampen down all forms of violence.
8.48 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will sympathise with me in my attempt to introduce some new aspect into this much discussed subject to-day. Perhaps it might be appropriate if I were to return to one of the opening passages that the noble Earl who initiated this debate referred to, in which he quoted from a newspaper article dealing with gangsters and gangsterism in the City of Glasgow. It is a city in which I spend most of my life and in which I am involved in the social, religious and university life of the city, and of course I am very much concerned about the fact that the violence of our city is a lot better known than its many virtues.
I want to quote, just to bring the argument round to the initial contribution, from an article in the Sunday Observer Supplement which describes an incident of three boys who, for no reason at all, were attacked by members of a gang in Cathedral Street in the centre of Glasgow
544
on March 15, 20 yards from a bus queue of about fifty people. They were kicked, beaten and cut with knives. One of the gangsters, interviewed later by the correspondent, said:
"You feel good inside when you are hitting them and battling them with bottles and slashing them with razors. They deserve it. They would not feel sorry for me if they set about me, so I don't feel sorry for them."
If your Lordships were to visit the casualty wards of the leading infirmaries in the City of Glasgow on any Friday night, you would see a succession of cases similar to that which was reported in the Supplement.
I regret to say that in the league table of crimes of violence the City of Glasgow has some distinction. It has about three times as many crimes of violence as compared to the City of Birmingham, a city of similar size. The number of malicious woundings in Glasgow in the year ended March, 1967 (I am talking about malicious woundings, not the minor incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, referred in his interesting speech) was 933, as against 96 in Edinburgh, and 547 in the City of Liverpool. This distinguishes Glasgow as a somewhat violent city. It has many compensating virtues, but that is not the subject of to-day's debate.
I ask myself, as someone involved in community relationships in that city, what are the causes. I must admit that there is something in the mores of the Glaswegian that makes him respond more violently to certain events. Anyone who has participated in a General Election in that city will realise that there is a warmth and vitality which is absent from many other communities. Anyone who has stood with 80,000 partisans on New Year's day in Ibrox Park will realise how deeply moved the Glaswegians can become over particular issues; and anyone who has read the history of the Labour movement in Glasgow will appreciate that there have been many instances of violent reaction to certain events.
I believe that in this city there are certain special features. I want to deal, first of all, in the presence of my noble friend Lord Macleod, with the religious tensions in this city. It is a city with a large Roman Catholic population. People may protest and demonstrate about the segregation of children in

545
Alabama and in other parts of the world, but in the City of Glasgow there is an insistence by the Roman Catholic authorities that their children must be segregated from all other members of the community in their religious education at a very early age. It means in fact that the Jews in the community, and the increasing number of Muslims from the Pakistani families, can go to the ordinary schools, but there is an insistence that Roman Catholic children from the age of five years must be educated in other schools. I speak from personal experience when I say that this in itself creates certain tensions in our community. That, spreading from the early age of education right through the social life, the sporting life, and political life of our community is an unhealthy aspect dividing the community, and I am afraid it is a contributory factor to tension and ultimately violence. In these days when the ecumenical idea is being fostered so forcefully and when so much lip service is being paid to the idea of the ecumenical relationship of Churches, it would be a fine gesture if this segregation of children in schools were to be departed from in the city.
The other special features about the city include poverty, squalor and bad housing, all of which are contributory factors leading people to seek escape—and notably in the public house. If one analyses the statistics relating to violent crimes in Glasgow, one sees that 86 per cent. of all crimes of violence are committed by people under the influence of alcohol. I think that there is a strong relationship between the committing of violent acts and the increased consumption of alcohol. But the religious tensions, the poverty and the squalor do not in themselves explain this situation, because Glasgow suffers from the same features as affect other parts of the country and the general increase in violence which has occurred.
A great deal has been said in this debate, quite rightly and sensibly about the revolt of young people, and there is a general acceptance that young people demonstrate in their various ways perhaps, because they have rejected the values which we regard as important. They seek some satisfaction in perversely exciting activities, such as violence and destructiveness, because they are protesting
546
against values and there has been no replacement of new values by which they can live. If we look at the kind of community in which we live, this is understandable. The right reverend Prelate referred to the depersonalisation of our society, and there is no doubt that young people who spend most of their waking hours in a large anonymous factory, engaged in mass production lines, get no creative satisfaction out of such activity. I was interested in some experiments in this matter because I regard it as of importance to social progress and harmony in our community that we should study the effect of the depersonalisation which mass production industry brings to people.
I recently visited a shoe factory, a mass-production unit run by a Quaker family. They decided to do something about this problem, and they invited any employee of the factory who was engaged in a single-unit operation during his working day to go back to the factory in the evening and to produce a pair of shoes, so that he would know what he was engaged upon. The production in which he was engaged during the day would thereby be much more meaningful, since he would not be pressing a button to produce an article. There is no doubt that some of the satisfaction which people enjoyed in the past, when they we-re engaged in smaller industrial units, is lost to-day in the kind of meaningless, depersonalised relationships which exist in our modern factories. I feel that young people must be given new objectives, new purposes; and their lives must be given a meaning. This can be done by giving them opportunities for service; and if this is done I am quite sure that young people will respond.
There is a rather special problem involved in the new housing communities. I used to think that there was a rather simple way of solving these problems. I assumed that if people were taken away from the slums and put into new houses there would be an inevitable reduction in crimes and violence and in social tensions. I regret to say that the experience of the City of Glasgow does not prove this to be true. More than half the population of almost 1 million people are now living in council houses; there has been a tremendous achievement in that respect. But having put people into

547
new housing estates, we have discovered that we have not created communities. I discussed this with local authority people many years ago. The great need was for houses. "Let us have more houses"—that was the plea heard everywhere. So we have created great concrete deserts in Easterhouses, and elsewhere, with no social amenities and none of the cohesive factors which establish community living. We are trying to catch up with this problem, but this is a factor not only in Glasgow. I sometimes think that in developing our housing policies we have been too concerned about the achievement by local authorities of the target number of houses and have not analysed the social consequences of some of our housing developments.
I have been studying the problem of crime and delinquency in New York, of all places, and I have been extremely interested in some of the new housing developments which have been built as co-operative housing projects; that is to say, large communities are created and there is ownership of the houses within co-operatives. Named as a tribute to this country, Rochdale Village, in the heart of New York, is a new housing community of 20,000 people. So successful has Rochdale Village become, as an example of an area in which Negroes and white people, Jewish people and Puerto Ricans are living together in an integrated community, that a new centre called Cooperative City, has now been built in the heart of New York.
Now what is the special feature of this community? The special feature is the fact that people have a sense of ownership in the community. They own and run their own medical services, and their own security force. They have more than 50 separate community activities—symphony orchestras, drama clubs, racial groups, political groups, discussion groups, senior citizens' groups. They own their own shops, laundries and power plant. Indeed, when New York was in darkness, more than a year ago, the only place that was shining brightly was Co-operative City, because it runs its own power plant. But it is shining brightly for a whole lot of reasons apart from that: because people feel involved in the community; because they elect their own council, run their own shops,
548
run their own health service; and because they are involved and participate in all the activities of the community which they feel they own. As a result of this, delinquency in that community has dropped dramatically and it is a totally integrated inter-racial community. I suggest that in planning our community development in this country we might study the fact that council ownership in large cities tends to be remote and bureaucratic, and we might think in terms of a greater decentralisation of power and authority in the running of new community enterprises.
Many of the points which I noted have inevitably been dealt with already, and at this late hour I will not repeat them. But I think we must accept that we are living in a rather violent society, a society which is conducive to violence. This can be seen when we look at the mass media of communication, and the fact that in the Royal Court, a theatre not far from here, there can be seen—according to the Financial Times critic—a gang of lay-abouts amusing themselves by torturing a baby and stoning it to death. We are living in that kind of atmosphere, and that is reflected in films, in television, in the theatre and in other areas. It may be argued that it is the duty of the theatre to reflect society and that this is a violent society; and that is no doubt a justification for this piece. But I think we must be careful that we do not by anything we do reduce the sensitiveness of people to violence, and to the blasphemous nature of some of the violence that is perpetrated in our society.
A previous speaker said a few minutes ago that no one had mentioned Vietnam. I am sorry to say that I believe that by showing on television the atrocities in Vietnam, we reduce the sensitivity of people to violence. We begin to accept that violence is part of life. So I hope that, following to-day's very interesting debate, we might consider as individuals, as people in a community, how best we can elevate the Christian virtues of kindness, caring and compassion, and bring them into our politics and our lives so that we can contribute something to resisting violence.
I know that there are all the more practical measures: we have to increase the police force—and I agree; we have to develop a new relationship between

549
police and public; we need to have more social workers; we must have a deeper study of the causes of violence; we have to be careful about controlling the cultivation of violence in the mass media; and we have to develop better community relationships. But those community relationships should be based on respect for the individual, and should be built up in a spirit of kindness, caring and compassion.
9.8 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend Lord Cork for initiating this debate. The year 1969 is still young, and I hope that we shall very soon have another debate which comes up to the standard of this one. I must apologise for not being here to listen to the opening speeches, but I must say that I enjoyed the most interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and his story about Glasgow. It is absolutely true. I was there last summer and I was horrified by what I saw. The noble Lord mentioned violence through alcoholism, and I can quite understand that that is a problem there. I, too, was taken around in a car and shown Easter-houses and Blackhills, and I was appalled when I saw Blackhills. The shops had to be boarded up at night and there were scores of people sitting out on the pavement with nothing else to do. There was no community life there, and I think that we need to study their problem very closely.
My reason for speaking here to-night is to deal with violence on British Railways and on public transport. I must first thank British Railways and London Transport for their co-operation in giving me the following figures. The chief worry of British Railways is the appalling increase in the number of cases of malicious damage to railway tracks, signal boxes, and other equipment. The number of persons convicted in 1963 was 415; in 1964, 541; in 1965, 820. Then we went back in 1966 to 622; then, in 1967, we went roaring back again to 836; and, for the first six months of 1968 (it is less than six months, apparently, because of children's holidays) the total was 454.
The opinion of British Railways is that these crimes happen particularly in urban areas; that children are the worst criminals and that the cause is lack of parental
550
control, which is another factor that we are dealing with in this debate and one that is now recognised in our modern society. I am not one of those who say, "Fings ain't wot they used to be". Successive generations always criticise those who follow. I am sure that this will be true of my own generation; but there is no doubt that in our present society there is an increasing lack of parental control. Particularly depressing about these figures of children on railway tracks is that they will be adults in a very short space of time. I think it follows (I hope it does not, but I think it does) that if you do something very beastly when you are young there is a chance I hat you might do something fairly violent when you get older.
My Lords, the situation is most interesting when you look into facts and figures. I also asked British Railways, about "football specials" In the 1967–68 football season, they ran 866 trains, and only 19 of them—I agree 19 too many, but only 19—were actually damaged, representing 2·2 per cent. of the total. The total cost of this damage was only £2,000, but that was just the damage to the trains and did not include costs caused by delay through people pulling the communication cord. One redeeming feature from this analysis is that few football fans are destructive. Those who are destructive are only a minority; and this is one of those cases where I think the problem has been all rather "blown up" by the Press. But I agree 19 cases is too many.
Also, again happily, the railways state that there are very few assaults on their staff. But I am afraid that a very different story appears when you compare attacks on London Transport central bus staffs. In the healthy days of 1960, there were only 167 cases of less serious assaults, but in 1968 the figure was 658—nearly four times as many. The number of cases of serious assault, involving grievous bodily harm, was 30 in 1960 and 81 in 1968. One can appreciate the reluctance of their staff to work late at night.
I also asked about Brighton—I knew quite a lot about transport in Brighton—and I discovered that there has been very little violence there over a great number of years, as in other cities. One does not quite know why violence is

551
mounting in the case of London Transport. One hopes that it has nothing to do with racialist troubles, although one has a nasty feeling that that is the case. I do not quite know what we can do about it. We now have the recently enacted law concerned with raciality. Whether that will have any effect I do not know, but I do not think it will have any effect on violence. However, I do not want to get involved in a long argument here.
I want to go on to just one or two other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whom I happily saw during one of his short periods outside, said that there are far fewer crimes of violence than there are road accidents. But one point that I should like to make is that the number of road accidents is going down; so surely we must all try to sort something out to reduce the number of these crimes of violence. Members of the public, as a great many noble Lords have said, have to be protected; and the Government—this or any other Government, of any political Party—must do their utmost to see that this figure comes down.
Various suggestions have been put forward. We must think seriously about reverting to capital and corporal punishment. In many ways it would seem to be the answer; but I have not lived long enough to know much about it. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is shaking his head. Then there was the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who said that you cannot kill violence with violence. But, on that score, must you have punishment with punishment?—because the people who commit violence inflict punishment on their victims; so presumably one must have violence with violence. Where do we go from here?
I apologise to noble Lords for being informal in my speech, but at this late hour your Lordships' House becomes—-if I may use the expression—very cosy. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, suggested more community centres in our industrial estates. We have talked about students; but I think the violence of the students is different from that of absolute thugs. The students have been overplayed in this debate. I know that
552
they are very much in mind at the moment; but I think it has gone too far.
My last word is about the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I have not known him for very long but I should like to know him more, to meet him more often. He made a most interesting speech, and although at one point he was very much interrupted I think that shows the quality of his speech, that it was worth interrupting. I know that it was very sincere. If we have not learned anything else, we must all find some solution to the problem of reducing these figures of violence.
9.16 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I would congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, on initiating this debate. I heard a great deal of it and it has been very interesting. I will not say very much, as your Lordships know. There have always been periods of violence in the world's history—even in what we think of as rather quiet times. In the 19th century there was quite a flare up at one time and it was unusual for a big procession not to have a bomb lobbed into it. There was violence when Garibaldi tried to unite Italy—in fact, I think he did unite it. He had a great deal of trouble; but he never united the Italians. We have had violence in the last few years; but to my mind this is different from the kind of violence we have had in the past. It seems to me that in the past it had some sort of purpose, but this present violence has no purpose in it.
There is the matter of the Sorbonne, the violence among the students there. Well, they had quite a lot of grievances; the conditions were very French and tricky and the students had stuck it for a number of years. But the German universities are very up to date. One noble Lord mentioned a paper that was issued by the students of the London School of Economics. I shall not read it; but it is Communism that they want; they want to knock down the gates for Communism. In Czechoslovakia another student is becoming a human torch—against Communism. The thing is not making sense. It is different all over the world.
My Lords, I personally think—although nobody will agree with me—that the cause is unconscious precognition of what is going to happen in the future. I do not think that precognition is a subject that

553
can ever be proved. I know that some quite well known scientists believe that with guessing numbers and boxes and so on, they have proved it, but I do not think it can be proved. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is not here. When he was a young and enthusiastic man he had a series of dreams. And they were very profitable. Although he did not put much money on them, the horses he dreamt of won some races. He wrote a book about it. Perhaps he has forgotten it now. But I dare say that many Lords have had future dreams and have found that they came true. One cannot explain it, but it is so. These premonitions are most interesting but I do not think they have ever been proved.
Unless one has had a future dream one could never really believe in it. A man could dream, say, that it was going to snow on Derby day. He could, say, register his dream at the post office—and then it could snow on Derby day. But that would prove nothing. It is not proof. There has, in fact, been a Derby run in the snow. There is a cold period at that time of the year.
I should not be talking about future dreams if I had not suffered from having had them. At one time I had such a cycle of them that I became rather interested. They all came true; they were trivial dreams but all came true. I kept a dream book in which I wrote down the dreams and I found a rather extraordinary thing. One of the dreams I had—it was a simple thing—gave me the clue to the whole process of this future dreaming, of seeing what is happening in the future. It was a silly dream. It was a dream of a large, long ship which fired a torpedo which hit another ship with a tall mast on it—or presumably it did—and the other ship sank. Very distinctly I saw the torpedo's wake, and I saw the long battleship. I could not see the other ship distinctly, but when it sank a man climbed out of the water up the mast. I put that down as a nightmare. But when I saw the papers in the morning I saw a picture of a man who had been on a ship which had sunk in shallow water and he had climbed up the mast. There was a photograph of him.
Nearly two months later I went to see a son-in-law of mine and his daughter and we went along from Helensburgh. I say a very long battleship which he told
554
me was going to be broken up, which surprised me. I had never seen such a long ship in my life. Going up Loch Long, he said, "Do you know what those are?" I said, "No, I do not know." He said, "They are torpedo timing rafts; there is one coming now." I looked down. I had never seen a torpedo before, but I saw this torpedo coming up, leaving a line of bubbles behind. Then we had a picnic party on a rocky promontory—I remember something about that too. When I got back I looked up my dream book and I found out the process of how these dreams had worked—that you got a newsy item, like a man on the mast of a ship, and tried to make it logical. And I picked up these events which were going to happen, two months ahead. At the end of that I came to the conclusion that I could never understand future dreams or how it is possible to see the future, but I could understand how they work; it is picking up newsy items.
Now, my Lords, I shall not be long, but it is quite interesting to me. Suddenly my future dreams stopped. A new thing happened. I had a different form of precognition. I felt very miserable for quite a long period, then something happened that was unpleasant, and then I felt happy again. Indeed, I felt excessively happy. Then after that, something nice turned up, and I felt normal again. About this time last year I felt so jolly and so happy that I could not think what was happening. "Really" I thought, "this is wonderful; something marvellous is going to happen." One day, when opening my letters. I saw a Government form. I said, "Oh Sear, I am sure I paid everything before I left." I opened it and saw "£500", and I thought, "Oh!" Then I looked closer and saw, "Dear Bondholder, yon have won £500"; and I realised why I had been so happy.
My Lords, I feel that this unconsciousness that I have had is what the students have had. They have unconsciously felt irritated, depressed, liable to break everything up, like one feels when one is angry. It is for something that is going to happen in the future. That is why I think there will be something. It probably will not be what we think—the bomb, or the obvious thing. It will be something quite different, something upsetting for the world, which is going to happen in the future. I know in my

555
own life, which is on the way out now, that nothing has ever been quite so good as I hoped it would be, and nothing has been as bad as I feared.
9.24 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I "chip in" for one moment? We have heard a very useful debate, started by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery with his usual eloquence and efficiency, and we have heard about the dangers of violence and how they are created. We have also heard the means of overcoming them. The people concerned with violence are a minute fraction of the millions in this country, the ordinary people who carry on. As an advanced octogenarian I have been accustomed to dealing with boys leaving school, with works apprentices. They have all been very helpful and really British. Our people are ordinary people and they move about in the ordinary way with courtesy and helpfulness. In other words, we are a great nation, a nation which has never been defeated in war or in peace, and we all of us have a right to be very proud of the members of it.
9.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I always enjoy listening to speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strange, and I hope to hear a good many more of them. I am a distant relative of his, but I am afraid that I am not a close enough relative to be able to make quite such a Strange speech. That is why I shall not follow him. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, introduced this debate because I believe that it has been extremely valuable. I would not think of joining it at this late hour, had it not been that, after listening steadily to the debate, I feel that one or two important points have been missed and I believe that, as a warden of a youth club and a schoolmaster, I might be able to add to the debate.
If a doctor is dealing with a disease of long standing in a patient, one of the first questions he will ask is: When did it begin? I do not think that we have asked this question enough. It seems to me that this disease of violence starts much earlier than many noble Lords have suggested. It is obviously well established by the age of 14, and I believe that it starts much, much earlier. I have watched this
556
in the London borough of Camden, where I live, and I have come to the conclusion that the beginning of it is the separation between children and parents, partly through the mother going out to work, so that for long periods there is no family in the house, and partly because the big blocks of flats have no gardens, nothing attached to the flat, so that when a child goes out of the door he is away from his parents and their control and they have no idea where he is. These are the earliest forms of separation and the beginning of trouble. When I say "he", though I may appear to speak only of boys, I also include, for the benefit of my noble friend Lady Summerskill and others, girls. They also go out into the streets and have very little to do. I believe that here we can do something to help the situation.
The education authorities and the Ministry of Education are already doing quite a lot, though I believe still not enough, for the older children, from 14 upwards; but there is still an enormous gap, which is not adequately filled, between those who are old enough to go out into the streets, out of their parents' sight, and the age of 14. My own little floating youth club on the Regent's Canal takes children from 8 to 14. We get a large number of members from high blocks of flats, children who once they are out in the street are out of their parents' control and who have little to do and not much money with which to go far. At their age they have no great wish to go far, but there is very little to do unless they do go far. This state of affairs has several effects which I think should be brought to the attention of this House. One of them is that unless something is organised for these children to do they fall into the hands of other people who will organise them in ways that we should not wish.
I have had several gangs of older boys join my club at one time or another, and in almost every case they have a "little Jimmy" in tow, and "little Jimmy" is much younger than the other members of the gang. He is not brought along because they like his blue eyes, but for the simple reason that they know perfectly well that if they have a bit of illegal work to do they can send him in to "do the dirty work" before they reap the benefits, and if he is caught,

557
he will not be so severely dealt with as they would be. "Little Jimmy" was proud to be taken along, because he was being treated as one of the big boys. He ran with the big boys, and because of this he considered himself as a big boy. He was treated as a kind of pet. Several times we have had gangs who have joined our club and when they found that it was not a club where they could cause trouble, they left. But very often a week or so later we got "little Jimmy" back. The rest of the gang had gone, but he, realising that it was a good place for "little Jimmies", had returned to us. So we had done what I believe to be an important job: we had separated "little Jimmy" from the older boys who were mismanaging him and were leading him into a life which none of us would wish him to know.
I believe it to be most important that we should organise more for the younger members of the community, those below the age of 14, so that they will fall into surroundings where their life can develop, where they can have reasonable friends and activities which they enjoy, with the help of adults, and not fall into these other hands which will lead them into the troubles of which we have heard to-day. For that reason, among others, I think that it is most important that we should develop a range of activities for the younger child.
It is not only the "little Jimmies" that need rescuing, but the whole of the rest of the children of that age, because they are undoubtedly not receiving the attention they should receive, and they are too much separated from their parents. At that age it is far more important for them to receive some kind of parent or adult support than it is at a later age. The whole process of growing up is what one might call a continuous process of birth. From the moment they physically separate from the mother, they mentally get further and further from their parents as they must right through their lives; and possibly the process never finishes. There is always a moment when one wishes to see one's parents, even if in my own case, as everybody knows, my noble relative sits on the other side of the House. The fact of the matter is that these younger ones need much more parent and adult support than the older ones do, and at present they are not getting it.
558
I am finding to my surprise, because this was not something I contemplated when I started my floating youth club on the canal, that parents are joining me in considerable numbers. I am now getting cases of boys who have misbehaved—in fact, I have defended them in juvenile courts—who are, with the aid of their parents, buying small, old battered boats, and, with their parents, settling down together to repair those boats; father and son working side by side. That, I believe, is the framework that we should be aiming for—not necessarily, as in my case, on the water; I am sure it can be done in all sorts of other fields. I believe it is our business to draw the parents and the children much more together at this younger age, which is where it needs doing. I believe that the trouble that is occurring is to some extent—I will not say it is the whole trouble; I would not be so silly as to do that—that one stage of this long s3parating process that a child goes through in the course of developing its life away from its parents is taking place too fast. Between the age of 8 or 9, when the child is able to go out into the street and run with the other youngsters, and the age of about 14 there is a very serious gap developing when the child is far too much separated from, not only his parents but all those who might act as his parents—adults who would join him as friends and supporters, as teachers and leaders. This is the gap that really needs filling at this moment.
I believe that if we tightened that up we might be able to avoid quite a lot of the trouble we are having now. I do not say we would avoid it all; I would not be so bold as to say anything of the sort. But, in my experience, of the few years in which I have been working in this field, it has seemed to me from asking myself this question over and over again that that is where the trouble is at the moment. The child has been forced too quickly through a process of separation, and we should slow the separation up at that point by doing something—I would not know exactly what; a cleverer man than myself will say what—towards giving the child more support either from the outside or from his parents at that exact age. If we do so, we may well reap a very good harvest from activity at that precise point.
9.38 p.m.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, I am well aware that it must be almost unbearable for some of your Lordships who have been in on the whole of this debate that, having got through a long list of speakers, there is to be yet another speech from a speaker who is not on the list. But I assure your Lordships that this speech is of the shortest kind. It is a contribution made because of the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who made a speech on which I feel I must say just one word. It arises from an anecdote, and at the end of this anecdote I shall sit down.
To make my remarks as brief as possible, perhaps I should declare my interest. Continuously for the last twenty years in Iona some of us in a religious community there have each week run a camp for borstal boys, lads from borstal, with 20 boys a year. Overall we have had 400 boys at camp for a week. This experience I have always been able to share myself without intermission, and I want to say just one thing about it. I have always asked these boys one question. This has not been a sort of official court of inquiry, but sitting round the camp fire, so to speak, where perhaps one gets even closer to the truth. Every year I have asked all of them together for their view of capital punishment and corporal punishment. What brought me to my feet tonight was the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who hoped that both would be reintroduced. It may interest your Lordships to know that over these twenty years with an accumulation of 400 borstal lads, I have ascertained that every one of them is in favour of the return of corporal punishment, and of capital punishment.
One can make what one likes of that situation. My own interpretation, for what it is worth, is simply that they live in a world of violence and they become uncomfortable at once if they find themselves in a situation where violence is not their environment. It is when we threaten violence, and sometimes use violence, or when they know that violence is waiting for them, that they feel at home, because they are in the area from which they came. There was the case of a lad (not in one of these camps) who went to a school where there was too much corporal punishment. So his parents took him away and sent him to
560
a school where there was no corporal punishment and everyone tried to understand each case. After a year the boy wrote home and said he would like to be taken away from that school and sent to his former school. When he was asked why he said: "It is not very nice to have corporal punishment but it is much worse to be understood".
I personally believe that the reason is just as I have said, this sense that violence will not meet violence, and if there is an atmosphere of violence we only intensify the situation. The overall impression I have gained of this debate (and I think I have been here for three-quarters of it) has been the extraordinary way, almost unanimity, with which people have been determined to be constructive and not to return violence for violence. Do let us remember that we live in a violent age. We have said it time and time again. How far do we know it in our minds and not in our beings, that we are part of the violence?
Just one final symbol of it: the Polaris, costing over £60 million; the Polaris, which carries in its belly an accumulated fire power equal to the entire fire power used by both sides throughout the whole of the last war, including the bombs which fell on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This, in the last ghastly resort, unless we are protesting, we are prepared to throw on a target 2,500 miles away, to kill a million people: to kill a million people in order to assure them of our belief in the ultimate value of the human personality; to kill a million people in order to assure them of our belief in the human rights of every man. This is the symbol of the atmosphere which is all around us and for which we are responsible. And unless we deal with that contemporaneously we shall have no solution to the violence of youth to-day.
9.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we have debated for seven hours; 24 noble Lords entered their names on the list, so far we have had 27 speeches and there have been no "drop outs". We have had the remarkable experience of the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, aged. I believe, 86, staying to the end of this long debate for the sole purpose of proclaiming his firm—and justified—faith in our country and its people. I think that

561
that, and this whole, debate, is a great credit to your Lordships' House.
How does one reply to a debate when there have been 27 speakers, when everyone wants to get home? No one wants to hear a speech from me, and yet I have the duty to reply to a number of people and to honour the excellent speeches which so many noble Lords have made. Of course, no one knows the answer to that question I have just asked, and certainly I do not. Therefore what I propose to do is to state what I believe to be the main threads and the main points of agreement in this debate, and then to deal individually with one or two points which have been made by noble Lords. First of all, there is, I am sure, complete agreement among us all that we and the country owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for initiating the debate and for the manner in which he opened it and, as it were, gave us the whole broad theme: we are indeed grateful to the noble Earl.
Then I think we shall agree that many noble Lords, I think most, have expressed the view, crime statistics apart, that we are less violent to-day than we were years ago. My noble friend Lord Soper said we were less violent than at the time of Dickens. There is no question about it. But what I think is more important is that that violence went virtually unrecorded in those days. Abominable atrocities were committed which people were conditioned to and they accepted. We do not accept them to-day, and therefore virtually all comparisons are irrelevant. My noble friend Lord Archibald spoke about violence in Glasgow forty years ago. I remember one of the most depressing days I had in my life, in 1924 I think it was, on a wet Sunday in February on Glasgow Green. It was the most depressing, ghastly, awful experience that any man could see. These days are very different. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, mentioned Notting Hill in 1950 and the violence there, and I think he largely agreed with my remarks on this subject, for which I was very grateful. Let us get that picture in our minds first of all.
I think everyone, too, has agreed that the violent students are a very small minority whose importance has been grossly exaggerated by the mass media.
562
We are agreed, moreover, that the greatest need of all in this field is for the very large majority to stand up and exert their influence, to speak as they believe. We all agree, too, that there is great need for authorities of every kind to try desperately to understand, which means to talk, to discuss; and, indeed, if there were not misunderstanding it would not be so easy for the few to lead the many.
Almost every noble Lord has ex pressed his concern at the increase in crimes of violence, but there has been almost complete agreement—this was the theme of the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary—that violence should not be met with violence. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—and I disagreed with at least one thing he said, and I will come to that in a minute—used a phrase that I was so delighted to hear used: "We must relegate to the background the law of the jungle, that he who hits the hardest wins". That is the crux of the whole matter in a very telling phrase. We are agreed that violence should not be met with violence. I do not think that there would have been such general agreement even twenty years ago in your Lordships' House. So we, too, change.
There has been a recognition that in crime and elsewhere violence is overwhelmingly confined to youth. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, gave one statistic—he gave a number, but one very striking one—that 89½ per cent. of people convicted of housebreaking offences were under 30. In that I see a seed of hope, because I believe it is evidence, too, that if only 10½ per cent. are over 30 we are reforming them. We are getting them inside and in our borstals and in our prisons, and they are not going on. This is not just a light statement; I believe there is a great deal of truth in it.
Then, too, there has been great admiration expressed for the British police and approval of our methods. Here I come to the point where I disagree wish the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am not quoting him exactly, but he said that it was wrong to spend £250,000 on overtime for the police in dealing with the demonstrations. I much regret the expenditure on overtime, but I do not agree with the noble Earl that it was not worth it. It

563
is worth a great deal more than money to retain in this country the glorious standards of liberty, of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I know that on this occasion they were grossly exploited by a minority, the kind of people, whether they came from abroad or were citizens of this country, who could bring ballbearings to trip up horses, who could stick nails in horses. This was despicable, deplorable and detestable conduct by anybody.
That is not the point. The point is that it was the right decision. It demonstrated the difference in this country. It was a decision in which I took part, although I was in hospital. The Home Secretary came to see me about it beforehand and we discussed this most anxiously, because it was one of those kind of things in regard to which you are almost bound to be wrong whichever decision you take. As events proved, the Home Secretary's decision, a courageous one, was the right one. I remember my grandfather talking about a demonstration in about 1870—"bloody Sunday" he called it. He was a young man then. There was a demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the kind of gross injustices that Lord Mansfield was talking about in other parts of the country.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I know he wishes to be fair, but he will draw a distinction between the right to demonstrate and to give one's views and, if you like, the right to violence, which is something totally different?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl. I was on the perhaps narrower point on which he thought it was wrong to have allowed the demonstration to take place. I thought it was right, and that that decision was justified by events.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said that it was about time we protected the police against the kind of things to which they were subjected, and he mentioned light shields of the kind used in Tokyo. I cannot emphasise too strongly that this is a matter for decision by the British police. If chief constables say that they want these weapons for their forces, that they want this equipment, of course they
564
will have them. But the chief officers of police, the Police Federation and the lower ranks have all said, "We do not want them; we can handle these things in our own way." I am sure the noble Earl will agree that they are the people in charge, and that they are the people to whom we should have regard.
There has been a great deal said about youth. In the notable speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, there has been a stressing of the need for positive social action to improve the environment; the tremendous importance of home and school influences; the part that teachers can play. My noble friend Lord St. Davids said—and I do not disagree with this—that violence starts in the very young child, and often arises when the child is separated from its parents—perhaps for economic reasons. He suggested that we should start a range of activities for the young. My Lords, we have done so. We have a whole range of activities for the young, such as adventure playgrounds. I remember that years ago my factory used to be burgled every day of the week, often by 8 or 9 year old children. So we started an adventure playground over the wall, and we had no problems thereafter. Of course this is right; and, indeed, what is so noticeable about the debate is that there has been almost no criticism of Government policy, except for the condemnation by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, of our curtailment of police recruiting. There has been a general feeling, which was particularly expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, that we should do more of the things we are doing. I do not dissent from that at all; but there must be this general feeling that we are on the right road.
Then there has been the discussion about the idealism and the desire of so many young people to assist, which is all very true and is never sufficiently stressed. We always hear about the minority—the people that cause the disturbance are the people that make the news—and so little about the great majority who are such very fine young people wanting nothing more than to make a real contribution. I think that is a fair summary of the general themes

565
which have come out and have emerged in this debate, and on which there has been general agreement. Perhaps I can now deal as quickly as I can with one or two particular questions that were put to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me about the Report of the Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics. This Report was presented to Parliament, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, and published in December, 1967. The Report concluded that while the present criminal statistics for England and Wales were among the best in the world (though obviously not good enough for the noble Lord) there was certainly room for improvement; and the Report recommended that more detailed particulars should be reported by the police, with radical changes in their presentation. The practical problems, and indeed the financial and other implications of implementing the Committee's recommendations, are being studied by my Department, and we are constantly trying to make improvements.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill,—who has had to attend another meeting—seized on the opportunity, as we might have expected, to advance her views about the noble art, and she suggested there was already sufficient evidence to merit the withdrawal from T.V. screens of exhibitions which glamorised violence. Well, this is a matter which will doubtless be considered. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to whose speech I have already referred, said that we had weakened the guide-lines and the standards of responsibility, and he argued that we badly needed such standards. I do not dissent from that at all. I think the difficulty also is in getting people to listen.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood—whom I regret not having heard speak before—made a speech that will repay re-reading and studying. He spoke of the disbelief, bewilderment, outrage, revenge, and finally of the violence which produces violence; and he said that violence, far from cleansing, corrupts, and that the best defence against violence is to try to understand it. The noble Lord's speech was so diamond-studded that the only complaint I make is that it was delivered at a rate of knots which precluded the proper appreciation of individual
566
gems. That is why I say it will have to be carefully studied.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I must rise to thank the noble Lord for his tribute. In fact, the little sequence I outlined was the reaction of society to violence, consisting of disbelief, bewilderment, dismay, outrage and, finally, revenge. I is not the violence itself: the violence is always there. That is what the host society does when confronted with violence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I certainly would not dissent from what the noble Lord said. I wholeheartedly agree with him that our job is to listen. The trouble is that some people will not listen. You cannot have a dialogue unless both sides listen. And I am afraid that there are a minority of young people who are anarchists and who do not want to listen; they do not want to co-operate; they do not want things to improve; they do not want to understand; they do not want to know. They merely want a revolution: they want to disrupt.
My noble friend Lord Francis-Williams said that we live in a violent century, a century in which more people have been killed than in any other century. I agree that that is so. But we are alive in this century and we have to deal with things as we find them. My noble friend Lord Francis-Williams touched upon what I regard as the crux of our problem to-day in his very moving passage about the demonstration by the young people of Czechoslovakia and in underlining the tremendous importance of non-violence. He mentioned a friend of his who described it. He said that before it happened the students were often having meetings; that there were unrest, revolutionary talk, and talk about violence. And then they were faced with a real act of violence, the Soviet tanks. The noble Lord's friend said, "Our people reached out with an amazing display of discipline, and the appeal went out that in order to save what could be saved the streets should be cleaned up and the slogan removed." They did not do it because they wished to, but because in the bitter moment of defeat they felt at one with their society and their leaders. I think that this is the important thing: they had something to do.
Then we heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. He has two sons at university and he was able to

567
tell us, or at least to give us his view, of the problems about which students feel strongly—the slaughter in Vietnam, starvation in Biafra, inequalities in our society, Rhodesia, apartheid in South Africa. We all—at least, I hope all of us—feel strongly about these matters, but I do not think we all agree that they could be helped by some of the methods which have been employed by young people. He asked, "Are we powerless to deal with these things?" Well, in the sense of our being dictators, we certainly are powerless, but we are not incompetent so far as our influence is concerned. He said that our young people are impotent and frustrated; that our youth feel that they can do something about these things.
My mind goes back to a little over forty years ago, when I was a student in 1922 and 1923 at the L.S.E. I was not old enough to be in the First World War, but nearly all my fellow students were chaps who had been in the First World War and had survived. It was not a very pretty world that we lived in. There were not many jobs and there was a lot of unemployment about. There was enormous frustration and there were economic problems. In 1926 we had the miners' strike and the General Strike, and in 1931 we had 3 million unemployed. Those who did not experience it, who were not alive at that time, who were not working at that time, who were not adults at that time, cannot imagine just what it was like. But we did not sit down in the streets. We were not frustrated in that way. We got on with the job in a practical way.
My noble friend said that these students are concerned at the gap to-day between the rich and the poor. Good heavens! my Lords, my noble friends and I—virtually every single one of us—are on these Benches because we were concerned in those days and because we are still concerned. It is our whole lives. This is not new, and it was vastly more acute in those days. My noble friend rightly pleaded for understanding. He said, "Try to understand". But if you are going to understand there must be a dialogue in which the speakers also listen. But there are some students who are not interested in dialogue. They want extensive representation on committees. I know a number of Vice-Chancellors who
568
have discussed their problems with me; and the fact is that any body of students who really want to consult, who really want to co-operate, who really want to play an important part in their university, can do so. But where I take issue with my noble friend is this. We cannot logically advocate unfettered freedom of speech for ourselves and deny people like Enoch Powell the right to speak, however much we disagree with them. It has to be both ways.
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, spoke in a professional sense about protection against attack, and particularly counter protection, and I wholly agree with what he said. In fact I go even further. I think that in firms of any size at all, even small and middle-sized firms, a director or a member of the firm should be partly or wholly engaged on this question of security and protection, not only to protect the employees—though that is vastly important—but also in connection with the vastly greater losses from theft. As for the noble Earl's point about legislation to protect people who have to take care of cash, that is something we shall have to look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked questions about police strength now, and about increases. Perhaps he has blinded me with science, but I really cannot see where the difference comes in. However, I am going to accept his invitation to write to him and will put the matter right. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe spoke of Glasgow and the violence there; and in recent years this has, of course, been most disturbing. But I am glad to be able to say, although we cannot make firm statements about trends, that on figures over short periods it seems that the increase in these offences in Scotland in the early months of last year was followed by some reduction. So it appears that there may be hope there. I can also tell him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recognises that the problem cannot be solved only by the deterrent work of courts and police, and that he has a very substantial programme of direct action in this field to provide amenities, mainly through the local authorities. But certainly it is expected that these needs will be met.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, whose speech I am afraid I did not hear, spoke

569
about damage to public transport, about which I know he is very much concerned. I was pleased to hear that he made reference to the very small percentage of damage to football trains, although it is very much publicised. As to the noble Lord, Lord Strange, it is impossible, of course, to reply to any speech from the noble Lord. One can only say how delightfully and aptly he was named, and hope that we shall be here to listen to many more of those Strange speeches.
My Lords, I think I have now made at least some reference to every noble Lord who spoke, and I hope that in the time available I have summed up the debate. It only needs me to say, therefore, how very valuable this debate has been, and how carefully it will be studied by the Government. I am sure that it will be of material assistance in helping us to improve a situation which is rightly a matter of concern but which, as I think this debate has shown, is not so serious as many people might have us believe.
10.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the long debate is over, and there is nothing more for me to say. There is only one quotation which sticks in my mind out of all this long afternoon and evening, and that is one from the second speech, to which we have just listened, from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He said:
"Everyone wants to get home; nobody wants a speech from me".
I will take that as my cue. But there is one thing I must say, and that is to express a small personal and also a public vote of thanks to the noble Lord himself. I cannot over-acknowledge the most courteous help that I had from him myself before the debate began; and I am quite certain that the House will approve my remarks if I express wonder—and not for the first time has it occurred to anyone—at the permanence, almost, of his presence upon the Government Front
570
Bench and at the Despatch Box, day after day, Bill after Bill, week after week, showing—and this is the point I wish to make, my Lords—the most devoted and genuine concern and attention. I think this makes a great impression on us all.
My Lords, having said that, I make a small complaint. The noble Lord took me up on the matter of my arithmetic at the beginning of the afternoon. He is probably absolutely right. I said myself that I was not very good at it; I never have been. But a Home Office spokesman, who one hopes will remain unidentified, has revealed to me that these figures would have been in Hansard a little earlier, possibly, if there had not been some computer trouble. It is all very well, but I do not see why my arithmetic should not be as good as that of a broken-down computer. However, I will take it no further than that.
My Lords, I think there remain only two things for me to do. One is to beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion, and the other is to express my most heartfelt thanks to those noble Lords who have supported it by taking part in the debate and also to those who have graced it with their presence.
Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.

REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1ª, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.