Sitting of 30 June 1969

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

    Tonga (Vava'u Airfield)
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development what contribution he is proposing to make to the Government of Tonga in respect of the cost of the second airfield at Vava'u in Tonga ; and on what factors he is basing his decision.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): At the request of the Tonga Government I arranged for two experts to report on aviation development and to survey an alternative site on Vava'u. This report is expected very shortly. Meanwhile, the British Government have not been asked for a contribution.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the Minister aware that it is widely thought in the
    2
    Pacific area that the reason a second airfield is required is that the original advice proved to be faulty? In these circumstances, will he be quite certain that no steps will be taken except on good advice?
    Mr. Oram: The hon. Gentleman had a Question down at the end of last year about the earlier site. I assure him that the two inquiries which have taken place will ensure that no action is taken that is not likely to be quite successful.

    Overseas Civil Service (Education Allowances)
    Mr. Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, in view of recent increases in school fees, he will again increase allowances to members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service serving abroad whose children are at schools in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Oram: A review of these allowances has already been put in hand and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last review took place in September and that it took into consideration factors which were about six months behind the times? We are now in the middle of the next year. Is it not about time that action was taken?
    Mr. Oram: As I have said, the matter is being reviewed. Allowances for

    3
    people serving under the Overseas Aid Scheme are closely related to the allowances for those home civil servants who are seconded for duty overseas. This question is largely the responsibility of the Civil Service Department, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as a result is achieved.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the increase in school fees referred to—there are 30 such schools; for example, Malvern, in my constituency—takes effect from October this year on account of the advanced selective employment tax and other increased charges? Could not these overseas civil servants receive their increased allowances from October this year?
    Mr. Oram: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the factors that he has put forward concerning increased fees and dates will be taken into account in the review.

    Scottish Organisations (Representations)
    Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many representations from organised bodies in Scotland have been received this year about expenditure on overseas development.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): I have received 25 letters this year from organisations in Scotland asking for an increase in the overseas aid programme. A very large number of similar letters has been received by other Ministers, especially my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Eadie: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is not aware—as, no doubt, he must be—contrary to views expressed in some quarters in the country, that there is enthusiasm for more overseas aid to be given and that, as he has stated to the House, young people and church leaders are writing to ask us to try to influence the giving of more aid?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, there is a good deal of evidence that in the last year or so there has been a considerable increase in the number of people actively concerned in this matter, especially
    4
    young people, who want us to make a larger contribution towards fighting poverty throughout the world.

    European Volunteer Programme
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will consult member and applicant States of the European Economic Community on the development of a multi-national European programme of technical assistance by young people in the developing countries.
    Mr. Oram: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the Reply given to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on the 19th June.—[Vol. 785 c. 147.]
    Sir. G. de Freitas: Since this country has so much more experience in this field—through V.S.O., for example—than any other country, will not my hon. Friend do what he can to offer that experience to our neighbouring countries in Western Europe?
    Mr. Oram: I certainly have a good deal of sympathy with the idea of international programmes of service for young people, but my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that there is no scheme in Europe similar to that indicated in his Question. As to the future, my right hon. Friend should know that the United Nations is initiating a discussion about the feasibility of a United Nations volunteer programme. This will shortly be discussed at E.C.O.S.O.C. and I would prefer to know the outcome of that discussion before embarking on my right hon. Friend's European idea.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister have plans to encourage employers and trade unons at home to co-operate in the national scheme?
    Mr. Oram: Indeed. We are constantly in touch with both trade unions and employers. During last year I had meetings representative of both sides at the Ministry and had a good deal of helpful discussion with them.

    Mauritius (Tourist Industry)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans he has for development projects to assist the tourist industry in Mauritius.
    Mr. Prentice: I have had no requests from the Government of Mauritius to assist projects concerned with the development of tourism.
    Mr. Dalyell: What alternative propositions will the Minister be able to put to Prime Minister Ramgoolam when he comes this month?
    Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is for the Government of the country concerned to put propositions to us within the context of their development plans. A good deal of the work which we do is helping with infrastructure that may attract tourism. For example, the survey which we have just undertaken of the road network in Mauritius will be helpful in this respect.

    Estimates Committee (Recommendation)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking to implement the Estimates Committee's recommendation that overseas official aid should be increasingly concentrated on those countries which offer the greatest potential markets.
    Mr. Prentice: I accepted the recommenclation of the Estimates Committee and intend to take account of it in future aid programmes. At present opportunities are limited by the constraints of a programme fixed at a constant level.
    Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that free enterprise and free movement of capital are by far the best and most suitable mechanism in identifying market opportunities, and would not the most constructive conclusion to be drawn from the Estimates Committee's Report be that the activities of his Department should diminish and those of free enterprise increase?
    Mr. Prentice: No. In fact, the Estimates Committee came to exactly the opposite conclusion, and what is needed in developing countries is both Government aid to provide the sort of things which private enterprise will not provide—roads and schools and that sort of development—plus private investment to help the formation of productive capacity. What those countries need is both, not one or the other.

    Aid Programme and Expenditure
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development what adjustment he proposes to make in the figure of £235 million, reported in Command Paper No. 3936 as planned overseas aid expenditure in 1970–71 at 1969–70 estimated prices, to take account of increases in the prices of aid-financed goods.
    Mr. Prentice: None, Sir. The figure of £235 million is in cash terms.
    Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if only £235 million is allowed in the Estimates for 1970–71 this will be less in real terms than that provided for in the White Paper?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, this is true, and I am glad my hon. Friend has called attention to this matter for the sake of clarifying it. There is in fact a reduction of something like £5 million or £6 million a year in real terms on recent experience. The real value of the programme is bound to go down as long as it is couched in the same level in cash terms.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what estimate his Department has now made of the net cost across the exchanges of the British aid programme during the current financial year.
    Mr. Prentice: A recent study of the economic planning staff of my Department confirms previous estimates that the foreign exchange costs are about one-third of the whole. This estimate takes no account of the repayment of past aid loans, which benefit the balance of payments; nor of the export orders which result from other countries' aid programmes.
    Mr. Hooley: In the light of that reply, which I very much welcome, will my right hon. Friend make the most powerful representations to the Treasury that it cannot argue that exchange considerations should in any way hold back expansion of our aid programme?
    Mr. Prentice: I cannot reveal to the House what I might or might not say to the Treasury, but I think my commitment to the concept of an expanding aid programme is well known.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the value

    7
    of official aid at constant prices for each of the financial years 1966–67 to date.
    Mr. Prentice: Taking as the base year 1966–67, when official aid was £216 million, the £215 million of aid provided in 1967–68 was worth £210 million and a provisional figure of £212 million provided in 1968–69 was worth £201 million.
    Mr. Bidwell: Noting the trend of these figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that overseas aid amply repays this country, even if one looks at it simply in a Scrooge-like way, and certainly repays those who think they have some moral responsibility to assist less fortunate peoples in the world?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes. Taking that second point about our self-interest, I think that if one looks at the effect on our balance of payments, long-term or short-term, it is clear that our balance of payments would be worse if we had had no aid programmes in the last ten years.

    International Development Association (Replenishments)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Overseas Development when it is proposed to initiate discussions on the next Replenishment of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Prentice: I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to make progress in this matter. But the Second Replenishment of I.D.A. resources is not yet operative, and until it is it would be premature to undertake discussions on a Third Replenishment.
    Mr. Hooley: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that what he has just said constitutes the strongest reason for beginning discussions at an earlier date? Is he not aware of the fact that a very long period indeed elapsed before getting the Second Replenishment going? Does he not think that that strengthens the case, therefore, for making an early start with the discussions on the third?
    Mr. Prentice: I agree that it has taken a long time to get the Second Replenishment going but my hon. Friend will be aware of the reasons for that. The United States Congress has now passed the I.D.A. Bill and, therefore, I would expect that the United States will soon
    8
    be in a position to notify the World Bank of their acceptance so that the Second Replenishment can take effect. I would think it would not be very long before discussions started on the Third Replenishment.
    Mr. Braine: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could add to that and tell the House whether there are any other members who have not yet ratified their own contributions to the Replenishment? Or does what he has just said about the American action mean that the last obstacle to enabling the Association to put its plans into effect is now removed?
    Mr. Prentice: There has been a small number of other countries which have not ratified. I think that in most cases they were waiting to see whether the United States would do so. However, I think the main point here is that once the United States have done so the necessary ratio of resources has been committed and the Second Replenishment can go ahead.

    Development Work (Reporting)
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Overseas Development what further plans he has for systematic reporting on the work of his Department.
    Mr. Prentice: In the next few weeks I shall publish the Memorandum on the British aid programme submitted to the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. as part of its annual aid review. This will be an extensive review of development work in 1968. Our annual Statistical Bulletin will be further improved this year, taking into account some of the suggestions of the Estimates Committee.
    Mr. Judd: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can give any indication to the House what action the Government will take to create a feeling of dynamic participation in the Second Development Decade amongst the British population, particularly the younger people of the British population?
    Mr. Prentice: Well, the Government work in many ways, particularly my Department, to create a greater understanding of the development needs, and understanding of what Britain can do to help respond to them. Certainly, as the

    9
    plans for the Second Decade unfold during this autumn and this winter, information has to be related particularly to the concepts of the Decade.

    New Educational Methods and Techniques
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance he is giving to make new educational methods and techniques available to the developing countries.
    Mr. Prentice: I regard this as a very important and growing part of our aid to education in the developing countries. I am planning to set up a new Centre under the Chairmanship of Sir Lionel Russell, C.B.E., which will be primarily responsible for advising and helping developing countries on all matters concerning curriculum reform and new teaching techniques. It will incorporate a number of existing bodies and will cooperate closely with the B.B.C., the British Council and other interested organisations.
    Miss Lestor: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and expressing pleasure at this announcement, may I ask whether, for example, there will be any concentration of development on new methods in primary education, and what amount of money it is expected these projects will cost?
    Mr. Prentice: I anticipate that a great deal of work will be in the primary field, though I could not separate it without notice, or even with notice, because a lot of the work will overlap.
    Mr. Braine: Yes, but the House will be wanting to know what the cost is likely to be. May I take the opportunity to welcome the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made? I can think of few ways in which a more useful contribution could be made to overseas development than this.
    Mr. Prentice: I can give the figures. I did not respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) because I thought it related to primary education. At the moment the cost is about £150,000, and it is expected to go up to £256,000 and to rise to some extent in subsequent years.

    British Honduras (New Capital)
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance he is giving to British Honduras to build a new captial.
    Mr. Prentice: I have just sent a message to the Premier to say that we will provide a further £807,000. This brings our total contribution to the new capital to £4,932,000. I am also ready to consider possible help towards the move to the new capital, which is expected to take place next year.
    Mr. Bidwell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which recalls the decision to assist in the building of the new capital arose out of the dreadful hurricane and loss of lives, and also the commitment of the previous Government to assist, may I ask him whether he will assure the House that every possible speed will be put into removing to the new capital when it is provided?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes. In particular, we are in consultation with the Governor about the possible help and advice which British Honoduras may need on social and other aspects of the move when it takes place next year.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that the Prime Minister, Mr. Price, will be coming to discuss this and other projects in the colony?
    Mr. Prentice: Not without notice.

    Tanzania
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will now resume development aid and assistance to Tanzania.
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The situation has not changed since the debate in the House on 26th July last year, when I explained why we had found it necessary to discontinue aid to Tanzania.
    Mr. Whitaker: When will the Government reconsider this lamentably shortsighted attitude? Tanzania needs overseas technical assistance. Will it be left exclusively to the Chinese and the Russians to supply it?
    Mr. Prentice: I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the great regret I felt about the need to discontinue aid to Tanzania, but he is also aware of the reasons for it. Because of those reasons, I see no early prospect of resuming aid.

    Biafra
    Mr. Henigasked the Minister of Overseas Development how much official aid has been sent to areas under Biafran control since June, 1967, to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Prentice: None, directly. Colonel Ojukwu refuses to accept aid from Her Majesty's Government. Since June, 1967, the Government have, however, contributed £950,000 to the International Red Cross, which is providing relief on both sides of the fighting line.
    Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend agree that need knows no frontiers and no Governments, and that the figure of £950,000 is pitiful in view of the great tragedy which is being enacted in that country? Will he make fresh overtures to try to establish links between this country and the Biafran Government so that further assistance can be rendered?
    Mr. Prentice: In reply to the first part of the question on the quantity of aid, we have played a substantial part in the effort of financing the International Red Cross. On the question of new contacts, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be answering a Private Notice Question at 3.30 this afternoon, and I do not want to anticipate what he might say.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Henigasked the Minister of Overseas Development how much official aid has been sent to Nigeria since June, 1967, to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Prentice: The total amount of official development aid given to the Federal Military Government of Nigeria between June, 1967, and March, 1969, was about £8·6 million. In addition, in the same period some £970,000 was given by Her Majesty's Government to relief purposes in the war stricken areas.
    Mr. Henig: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether
    12
    exact accounting methods are used to make certain that the money is spent on the projects for which it is intended, since there have been rumours that some money intended for aid has been diverted to military use? Can my right hon. Friend deny this?
    Mr. Prentice: I can deny it emphatically. We have efficient methods of making sure in Nigeria, and in any other part of the world, that aid provided by the British taxpayer is used for the purpose for which it is intended.
    Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind the immense need for medical help for those wounded in the war?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, that is why the Government have made this contribution to the Red Cross, to which many private citizens in this country have also contributed.

    World Food Programme (Storage of Foodstuffs)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Overseas Development what attention is being given by his department to problems of loss during storage of foodstuffs donated under the World Food Programme arrangements.
    Mr. Oram: The Tropical Products Centre, which is a department of the Tropical Products Institute, is the consultant to the Programme on the storage, transportation and handling of food. The Centre is training all the World Food Programme Project officers in ways of preventing the deterioriation of stored food ; it has completed a handbook on the subject for the World Food Programme and provides specialists to advise recipient and donor countries on their problems in this field.
    Mr. Barnes: Since it is such a tragedy that food which is so badly needed should be lost in this way, will my hon. Friend say what time will elapse before these losses can be prevented, and how many officers have so far been trained for this work?
    Mr. Oram: This is a continuing problem, and it is not easy to put a time scale to it. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, in each of the years 1967 and 1968 there were

    13
    three courses, at which 24 officers were trained. In 1969, four courses will be given and 32 officers will receive the benefit of training.
    Mr. Braine: While I agree that it is difficult to put a time scale on this, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations recently estimated that because of pests, disease and weeds the world loses up to 48,000 million dollars worth of food every year? Does not he agree that research and technical assistance in this field can do more than anything else to ease the world food problem?
    Mr. Oram: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman in attaching importance to this problem. As I have said, we are doing an important job and increasing our expert knowledge on this subject.

    Non-Wheat Flours
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the increasing demand for bread in the developing countries, what his Department is doing to find ways of using non-wheat flours in bread making.
    Mr. Oram: The Tropical Products Institute, which is part of my Department, has set up a test bakery to develop ways of making bread from a mixture of wheat flour and starches derived from cassava, maize or millet, fortified with protein supplement.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the results of this research be made available to developing countries, and is this country producing machinery for the production of flour from non-wheat substances?
    Mr. Oram: All information derived from these researches is readily available to the Governments of developing countries. I am glad to say that the machinery which is recommended is of British manufacture.
    Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister make sure, before flour of any kind is despatched from this country, that there will be no delays at the Customs, as recently happened when 12,000 tons of Australian flour was held up in Nigeria until it went rotten?
    Mr. Oram: This is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. I am aware of the problem and will have it in mind if it arises in connection with our efforts.

    Agricultural Produce (Marketing)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether his Department will assist overseas governments in finding markets for their agricupltural produce in Great Britain and Europe.
    Mr. Oram: Yes, Sir. Advice on the marketing of cash crops is given by the Tropical Products Institute. Marketing problems will feature, for instance, at a Conference on Tropical and Sub-Tropical Fruits to be held by the Institute next September, at which the delegates will include fruit producers from developing countries and importers from Europe and Britain.
    Mr. Fraser: Will administrative machinery be available for providing this advice to cash crop producers in the countries concerned?
    Mr. Oram: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Tropical Products Institute is very much concerned with getting the result of its researches to the Governments. Indeed, this is its main purpose in life, so my hon. Friend can be assured on this point.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not the Minister think that Question No. 25 is slightly contradictory to Question No. 24? Would not it be better for the countries themselves to use their food surpluses rather than that they should be encouraged to send them to this country to the detriment of our farmers and of this country's import bill?
    Mr. Oram: I see no contradition in these two Questions.

    Subsistence Agriculture
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will increase the level of technical assistance given to developing countries to assist that section of their population working in the field of subsistence agriculture; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Oram: As is indicated in paragraphs 11–12 of the recent White Paper Cmnd. 3976, it is already my right hon. Friend's policy to increase aid and technical assistance for food and agricultural development, including the subsistence sector, which is of course predominant in the agriculture of most developing countries.
    Mr. Jackson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will not he acknowledge that between 70 and 90 per cent. of the population of developing countries is employed in agriculture, and that the highest priority should be given to development in subsistence agriculture?
    Mr. Oram: I fully acknowledge the overwhelming importance of this sector of agriculture for developing countries, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that we cannot devote our technical assistance exclusively to this, because foreign exchange earnings through the export of cash crops are also very important to the budgets of developing countries.

    Pensions
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the average delay in transferring pensions paid locally in Commonwealth countries and which are ultimately required to be paid in the country in which the pensioner is resident.
    Mr. Oram: As overseas pensioners, who elect to have their pensions paid locally, are themselves responsible for the remission to the countries in which they reside, I do not have the relevant information.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service from Tanzania resident in South Africa, and also pensioners from Ghana and Nigeria, are suffering considerable hardship? Is there not a case for again looking into the question as to whether all pensions should not be taken over by Her Majesty's Government and aid reduced accordingly?
    Mr. Oram: I am aware of the difficulties in relation to Nigeria and Tanzania. In the case of Tanzania, there
    16
    have been successful approaches through the High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam and we seem to have overcome the difficulty in that instance. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is a much more serious problem in relation to Nigeria because of the stringent exchange regulations as a result of the war there.
    Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend agree that it is a ridiculous concept that these pensions should be regarded as aid at all? Is it not high time that we revised our policy on this important matter?
    Mr. Oram: This matter was fully debated in the House recently. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion.

    Rhodesia (Pensions)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Overseas Development what arrangements he will now make regarding pensions payable to former members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service or of the old Colonial Service in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Oram: Security Council Resolution No. 253 expressly permits the payment of such pensions. I do not envisage that the closing of Rhodesia House or withdrawal of our Residual Mission in Salisbury will affect the payment of overseas pensions in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that that statement will be received with joy by some of the pensioners who cannot possibly leave Rhodesia, even if they want to, because they cannot sell their houses?
    Mr. Oram: I recognise that.

  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Supplementary Benefits (Disregards)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for increasing the value of disregards in assessing claims for supplementary benefits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the main amounts of disregard specified in the Ministry of Social Security Act. There are

    17
    no plans at present for increases in these amounts; such increases would only benefit those who are already living above the normal supplementary benefit levels.
    Mr. Hamilton: Could my hon. Friend say whether these disregards will be looked at when the supplementary benefits are increased in the autumn? Is he aware, for instance, that the derisory increase of £1 a week in pension to miners is being inhibited by the knowledge that if the pension is increased a consequent amount will be deducted from the supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Pentland: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but he will agree that the present disregard means that the retired miners who have an occupational pension and are on supplementary benefit already are £1 a week better off than the person without the disregarded income? If we extend disregards too far it will undermine the main purpose of the supplementary benefit scheme, which seeks to bring people's other resources up to a guaranteed level. Furthermore, it will not help the poorest people who are on supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Dean: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increased charges for teeth and spectacles when they come into operation will be disregarded for supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Pentland: Any increases in that direction will operate, as they have always operated in the past, under the supplementary benefit scheme.

    Insured Persons (Self-employed)
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will institute an inquiry into the extent and effect of changes being made in the contracts of employed persons seeking to transfer themselves into a self-employed category.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): A regular check is made on the numbers of insured persons contributing as employed, self-employed and non-employed. There has been a increase in the number of self-employed in recent years, but this is very small in relation to the total number of persons in employment. I do not think that a general inquiry is called for.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing number needs to be looked into? There is a considerable increase in the service and distributive trades, with people transferring to the self-employed category in order to avoid taxation, and this can have a detrimental effect on payments made to persons concerned.
    Mr. Ennals: As I said in the original Answer, the actual increase is very small; but there has been an increase, particularly in the construction industry. The increase in this industry is one of the matters upon which the Phelps Brown Committee has been reporting, and the Government are now considering the Report and the action they will take.

    Social Security Office (Chelmsley Wood)
    Mr. Speedasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will expedite plans to provide the Social Security office facilities at Chelmsley Wood.
    Mr. Pentland: The Chelmsley Wood area is at present catered for by two offices in Washwood Heath, which are to be merged in new premises this August. The southern part of the area will, however, eventually be covered by a new office in South Yardley, more conveniently situated than the present one. An additional office in Chelmsley Wood itself would not at present be justified, but we shall keep the possible future need for such an office in mind.
    Mr. Speed: Does the Minister realise that Chelmsley Wood, when the office is completed in two and a half years, will have a population greater than the city of Worcester? There is already considerable evidence of hardship caused by people having to travel long distances to take advantage of health and social security services? Could he consider the possibility of temporary provision in the meantime until a final decision is reached?
    Mr. Pentland: No. I am aware of the position. As I have said, we are keeping an eye on this area, in regard to the possible future need for such an office. We will keep it very much in mind.

    Pensions and Benefits (Budget Increases)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the number of retirement pensioners and of other recipients of Social Security payments who next November will not receive as a net addition to their incomes the full increases proposed in the Budget Statement.
    Mr. Ennals: As the right hon. Gentleman will recall from the days when he had responsibility for these matters, this will depend, to take the main factors, on the numbers with supplementary benefit, or with less than the standard rate of insurance benefit or with a liability to income tax, and on the extent to which these categories overlap.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute that the number is likely to be of the order of 2 million? To minimise disappointment among a large number of people next November, will he so arrange any advance publicity to make it clear in advance that substantial numbers will not benefit by the advertised figures?
    Mr. Ennals: The arrangements for increases in supplementary benefit have been made widely known. They will be made more widely known when the Regulations are debated on Thursday. I will ensure by means of publicity that it is understood that the recipients of supplementary benefit received an increase last October.
    Mr. Marks: In addition to giving publicity to those facts, will my hon. Friend also give publicity to the fact that those on supplementary benefit have had an increase every year since this Government came in and that those on the standard rate of pension have had one every two years? This means that persons on supplementary benefit will have had an increase of 70 per cent. in five years.
    Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm this. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman put down the Question, because at one time, when he was Minister, over a two-year period when the level was raised for National Insurance the level for
    20
    National Assistance was not increased to the same extent, so the National Assistance recipient did very badly indeed.

    Graduated Pension Scheme
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to his intentions in respect of increasing pensions earned under the graduated pension provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1959.
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he proposes to make in the existing State earnings-related pension scheme ; and on what date they will take effect.
    Mr. Ennals: Under the Bill now before Parliament it is proposed to raise the rate of contributions on earnings between £18 and £30 a week from half per cent. to 3¼ per cent. for employer and employee from 3rd November, 1969. When the Government's proposed new scheme starts, the existing graduated scheme will be wound up, but pensions already earned will be preserved and will be included in the two-yearly reviews of benefit rates. The target date for the new scheme is April 1972.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer mean that the hon. Gentleman does not propose to do anything to meet the representations made by those responsible for pension funds on the subject of the retrospective change of the option under the 1959 Act?
    Mr. Ennals: There have been representations taking a variety of different points of view concerning this matter. It would be absolutely impossible to satisfy all those who make representations which are directly contrary to each other.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the graduated pension scheme is to be changed, would it not be better to put it on the basis of a higher rate of interest rather than to relate it to the cost of living?
    Mr. Ennals: I do not think that would be a satisfactory answer.
    Lord Balniel: Why do the Government consider the provision of a taxpayers' subsidy for the graduated pension scheme is of higher priority than

    21
    the provision of pensions for the over-80s or the civilian disabled?
    Mr. Ennals: There is a priority to give some justice to those who, under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, have not had any opportunity of seeing their pensions rise but of seeing them shrivel. This is a priority, and this is why the Government announced their decision.

    Life Offices Association (Discussions)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement upon the progress of his discussions with representatives of the Life Offices Association in regard to contracting out of the proposed new State superannuation scheme.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): As I said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 10th June, we have now issued a second consultative document on the contracting-out arrange-merits. The Life Offices Association is one of the organisations to which copies of both consultative documents have been sent, and we await their comments.—[Vol. 784, c. 249–50.]
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be better to call off this discussion and to admit that abatement is all very well in theory but in practice it will give rise to insoluble problems?
    Mr. Crossman: I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, it is absolutely vital to the future of all pension schemes, whether private or public, that we should have an early announcement, if possible, of the agreement on contracting-out arrangements.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that, though the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question in terms of contracting-out, he has not offered contracting-out to those with whom he is negotiating and is offering no more than a very modified form of abatement?
    Mr. Crossman: There was never any question of contracting-out of the whole scheme. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under his scheme there was the flat rate, from which there was no contracting-out, and a small element on top from which there was. We are making a comparable arrangement, but with a wholly earnings-related contribution.

    Earning Rule
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, having regard to increased living costs arising from larger National Insurance contributions, whether he will advance the proposed maximum earnings rule of £7 10s. weekly per adult male to £10, and proportionately for women, in order to promote productivity and help the elderly.
    Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. The decisive factor here is what level of earnings is wholly compatible with retirement. We consider £7 10s. is the right point at which the earnings rule should start to operate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I suggest that that is the wrong figure. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, having regard to the remorseless and unremitting increase in the cost of living and the approximate increase at the same rate in the wages of the community, it would not be unreasonable, when pensions go up, to set the earnings rule figure at £10, not £7 10s.? Will he recognise this matter, in the interests of productivity, in attracting back to sedentary jobs more elderly people?
    Mr. Ennals: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figure is being increased in the Bill at present before the House. It means that an employed married pensioner and his wife would be able to receive as much as £15 12s. before the rule takes effect. When I hear the hon. Gentleman making a great deal of fuss, he might be interested to know that this provision affects only 16,000 pensioners in the country.

  HOSPITALS

    Nurses (Meals Allowance)
    Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the financial settlement agreed upon relating to additional payments for nurses consequent on the introduction of the pay-as-you-eat scheme ; and what representations he has received against the agreement.
    Mr. Crossman: The Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council have agreed on the introduction of a special meal allowance of £48 a year for

    23
    younger students and pupils, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants who are paying for their meals as taken. I have received no representations against the agreement.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he has had no protests by the nurses on the ground that the allowance is taxable? Can he say what will be the net figure after the young nurse has paid tax, because it will be a minimal sum not adequate to meet her needs?
    Mr. Crossman: I can only repeat what I have said. I thought that this was a satisfactory agreement. As for the matter of taxation, that question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Dame Irene Ward: Although the right hon. Gentleman has had no individual representations, does he not regard representations made in Parliament as proper representations, or does he ignore Parliament? Members of Parliament have made many representations. What action does the Secretary of State intend to take to make the scheme more realistic and human to meet the needs of the nurses?
    Mr. Crossman: I always appreciate the vigour of the hon. Lady's representations or protests. What I said was that I had not had any representations from the nurses. I say in all seriousness that what the Whitley Council has achieved has satisfied the main grievance of student nurses. I am sure that the hon. Lady and I are agreed about that.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Secretary of State bear in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always specifically excluded from tax a luncheon voucher for a maximum of 3s. per diem for any person employed who is not a nurse? As this amounts to approximately 3s. per diem or £48 per annum, could not a similar tax-free provision be applied to student nurses?
    Mr. Crossman: That again, I suggest, is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Transplant Surgery
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the report of his Ad-
    24
    visory Committee on transplant surgery; and if he will publish their main conclusions.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement upon human organ transplants.
    Mr. Crossman: I cannot at present add to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in the debate on 20th June, but I hope to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Smith: As everyone agrees that there must be completely adequate safeguards for prospective donors, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that legislation is now urgent? Is he aware that recent cases have done nothing to alleviate public anxiety, and that it is important for the medical procession that the public should be wholeheartedly behind it in this import new development?
    Mr. Crossman: I agree that any legislation should have the full support of the consensus of public opinion. But we had better await the report of the Advisory Committee.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in two consecutive Parliamentary Sessions the Government have rejected my Private Member's Measure, Renal Transplatation, on grounds that they wished to legislate comprehensively for all human organs and would not proceed organ by organ? Is that still the position and policy of Her Majesty's Government, and can we have an undertaking that this important legislation will be included in the new Session—if there is one—next October?
    Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have listened very carefully to my Answer to the previous Question. I said that whether we should have legislation or not would depend on the report of the Advisory Committee. I advise the hon. Gentleman to wait for that report. The answer to the first part of the question is "yes".
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the demands made by transplant surgery on hospital services, particularly on blood banks, is reducing the standards of service available for day-to-day treatment of routine conditions, and will he look into it?
    Mr. Crossman: This is a different question. I will certainly look into it, and I am prepared to answer a Question on that subject if my hon. Friend will put one down.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As well as dealing with this highly technical and important question, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the report will concern itself primarily with the social and eithical problems involved?
    Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.

  HEALTH

    Doctors' Premises (Financing of Improvements)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to authorise the repayment of medical practice compensation to those doctors in the National Health Service who require the money for the improvement of their surgery premises, or to repay bank loans incurred for that purpose.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. Other means are available for helping doctors to finance improvements to their premises.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of doctors in the National Health Service have to pay very high rates of interest to banks to enable them to improve their surgeries while the Government sit on the compensation owed to them and give them only 2¾ per cent.? Is he also aware that the banks are trying, because of Government policy, to persuade doctors to repay loans? Would it not be simpler for the Government to give to the doctors the money that is owed to them?
    Mr. Crossman: It is more sensible to keep the problem of compensation separate from the problem of assisting doctors to build their own premises. There are a large number of young doctors who like to build their own premises and who do not have compensation. The system is working satisfactorily.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether doctors who are borrowing from banks to improve their premises will be allowed to continue deducting their interest tax-free
    26
    because the expenditure is for this purpose?
    Mr. Crossman: That is a different question which should be put down separately.

    Ampicillin
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount spent by the National Health Service in purchasing Ampicillin for the year ended 31st December, 1968 and what percentage of the total market of broad spectrum antibiotics this represents.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): It is not Government policy to disclose information of this kind relating to the product of an individual manufacturer.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 50 per cent. of this market is held by one firm, and as it has had an increase of £5 million in its profits and the profit on its equity capital has risen from 31 per cent. to 36 per cent., will he now consider issuing a compulsory licence under Section 41 of the Patents Act?
    Mr. Snow: I should not like to comment too freely at the moment on the financial structure of this company. But perhaps my hon. Friend should know that, since its introduction in 1961, there have been nine reductions in the price of this particular drug, two of those reductions being in 1968. We spend about £15 million a year on broad spectrum antibiotics. Doctors have been alerted to the high cost of this important drug so they may judge in a particular case whether the advantages of Ampicillin are so great that it should be prescribed in preference to a cheaper drug.
    Mr. Dean: Does the Minister agree that this drug makes an important contribution to the export record of the pharmaceutical industry?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, as do many others. Much is due to the use and practice of the drug in the National Health Service.

    Prescription Charges (Young Persons)
    Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to exempt all young persons

    27
    receiving full-time education up to and including the age of 19 years from payment of prescription charges.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. Any who would suffer hardship who are 16 or over can apply for exemption. Those aged 15 are dependants and any claim for them should be made by the head of the family.
    Mr. Dickens: Is there not a strong case for uniformity of treatment here, in that the parents of the children concerned get family allowances already? As the State recognises a duty to young people nowadays in this age group, should not we extend it in the way the Question suggests?
    Mr. Crossman: I am certainly very ready to consider the point my hon. Friend puts, but it is unlikely that we shall make a change in the exemption method.

  LEGAL SYSTEM (OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked Mr. Attorney-General whether he will arrange to have an investigation made into the operation and administration of the legal system with a view to expediting the procedure and lessening the costs ; and whether he will commission a firm of organisation and methods consultants to undertake such an investigation and to report.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): Various important aspects of the operation and administration of the legal system are or have recently been under investigation by the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, the Law Commission and several departmental committees, many of whose recommendations have already been implemented. Our legal system is kept under continuous review. I do not, however, consider that any comprehensive investigation by a firm of consultants or otherwise would be either useful or practicable at this stage.
  Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many cases which in some instances take two, three and four years to reach the courts, and that very often it is extremely profit-
  28
  able to keep cases going for a long time, so making it very expensive for litigants? Is this not the only profession of which it might be said that the longer a case goes on the better it is for those concerned?
  The Attorney-General: I repudiate the suggestion that these delays are occasioned by the deliberate practice of the legal profession in prolonging cases for their own personal enrichment. That is an unworthy and unjustifiable accusation. However, that does not mean that we are not greatly concerned about delays in legal proceedings, and we are doing what we can about them.
  Mr. Carlisle: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the Report of the Royal Commission to which he has referred will be published?
  The Attorney-General: I hope in the autumn.
  Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend study the comments of Lord Goodman last Thursday evening about the shortcomings of the system? Can he say when we shall have neighbourhood legal centres which that great Socialist country, the United States, had many years ago?
  The Attorney-General: The latter suggestion is one of the matters which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has referred to his Advisory Committee on Legal Aid. The views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I had the pleasure of hearing from the horse's mouth on Friday.

  YOUNG versus GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  Mr. Iremongerasked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the prima facie evidence of conspiracy on the part of the London County Council valuation officers in 1962 as set out obiter by two Lords Justices in the judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of Young versus Greater London Council.
  The Attorney-General: I have studied the judgments to which the hon. Member refers and I find nothing in them to suggest that the members of the court were of the opinion that the case disclosed

  29
  evidence of the commission of a criminal offence.
  Mr. Iremonger: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two little "quickies"? First, is he aware that there are now 20 names appended to the Motion on the Order Paper demanding an inquiry into this scandal? Secondly, is he aware that, when the appellant brought the appeal, the valuation officers approached him with an offer of £20,000 to drop it?
  The Attorney-General: What I do know is that there was no mention of the valuation officers in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, there was nothing to justify the allegation of conspiracy, and that the argument that the Traffic Advisory Committee's decision was not bona fide was abandoned.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
  Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Attorney-General why he has issued instructions that no one owning land or employing labour shall be appointed as a justice of the peace ; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: I have not issued any such instructions, nor has my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is the authority responsible for the appointment of justices of the peace.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Lord Chancellor has made several speeches in the past few months saying that he will refuse to appoint the gentleman concerned? Can we have a categorical denial from the learned Attorney-General that this will not be the practice in the future?
  The Attorney-General: I have already given an emphatic denial. It is the case that it is the policy of my noble Friend to appoint to commissions of the peace persons from different sections of the local community, and particularly from among those who are wage earners. This policy is not new, but it has been applied rather more vigorously in recent years.
  Mr. Oakes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware how disappointing his reply is to many hon. Members on this side of the House? If he had adopted
  30
  this policy it would be the reversal of the policy of successive Governments for centuries. Will he tell us when it is proposed to pay magistrates in accordance with the decision of this House in the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: The important fact is that magistrates should be selected for their competence to do the job. But it is fitting and proper that benches should now represent a cross-section of the community as a whole. On my hon. Friend's point about the payment of justices, when the economic situation permits the undertakings given will be fulfilled.
  Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On reflection, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question 36, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one Question too late.

  SHIPPING (CUBE-CUTTING)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General when he first received information concerning the illegal practices known as cube-cutting; when he first decided to hold an investigation ; and when he now expects to be able to announce a conclusion to these investigations.
  The Attorney-General: I first received information alleging cube-cutting on the 23rd January, 1969; on the 29th January, I asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to arrange for these allegations to be investigated by the police. The task of investigation has proved to be complicated and considerable, and I cannot forecast when it will be completed ; it necessarily involves a study of a great number of difficult commercial documents belonging to a number of shipping companies with which the shipping agents concerned did business.
  Mr. Lewis: Surely there is enough information for some action to be taken? Five months have gone by. Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us some hope that, for instance, before the present Parliament ends action may be taken, or must it be left to the next Parliament?
  The Attorney-General: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that premature action which might produce no result or an unjust one would be unsatisfactory. The matter is being pressed with the utmost expedition.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist me in my ignorance, which may be shared by some other hon. Members? What is cube-cutting?
  The Attorney-General: It is the practice of diminishing the weight actually carried in cargoes for the benefit of shipping agents.

  ACTIONS FOR ENTICEMENT AND BREACH OF PROMISE
  Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General (1) if he will take steps to end actions for enticement and breach of promise:
  (2) why the Civil Judicial Statistics do not include the number of actions for enticement and breach of promise.
  The Attorney-General: The Law Commission is examining both forms of action and it would be better to await their report before making a final decision in this matter. In the circumstances I do not think this is an appropriate moment for adding to the judicial statistics by including particulars of these actions.
  Mr. Lipton: Does not the small number of these muck-raking unsavoury cases prove that they no longer serve any useful purpose? Is it really necessary to await the ponderous deliberations of the Law Commission before deciding to end what is admittedly a very unsatisfactory state of affairs?
  The Attorney-General: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's views about these causes of actions. However, I would not describe the activities of the Law Commission as ponderous. They are efficient, and I think it cannot be said that they are unduly delayed. We had better wait to see what the Commission recommends.
  Mr. Carlisle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it would be foolish, to remove the action for enticement unless at the same time something is done about the claim in damages
  32
  for adultery? If it were removed, the ridiculous position could arise whereby a husband had a claim but a wife had no form of claim?
  The Attorney-General: That is precisely the kind of difficulty which needs consideration before rushing into premature action.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: If my right hon. and learned Friend is taking steps on the lines indicated in these two Questions, will he at least make the terms of the recommendation sufficiently wide to deal with other undesirable relations between the sexes, male and female?
  The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend's Question intrigues me. Perhaps one of these days he will descend to particulars.

  COURT CASE (WITNESS)
  Mr. Peter M. Jackson: asked the Attorney-General why an inquiry made by Mr. B. J. Quirk, acting on behalf of Messrs. John Lovesay and Anthony Peterson, accused of murdering Mr. Sydney Epps on 24th January, 1968, addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting information from police records concerning a prosecution witness whose name has been sent to him, elicited a negative response, in view of the fact that a subsequent inquiry established that the witness had misled the court ; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: At the time of the first inquiry from the defendants' solicitor, the information available to the Director of Public Prosecutions was that there were no convictions recorded against the witness. It was later reported to the Director that the witness had a number of convictions under various names, and he immediately informed the defendants' solicitor of the details.
  Mr. Jackson: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that the information given me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) in reply to a Question on 19th June, indicating that only one name and not the aliases of this witness was given, was incorrect? The aliases were given, and there is no reason why the record

  33
  should not have been provided to Mr. Quirk?
  The Attorney-General: I am answerable in this House for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he acted on the basis of the information supplied him by the police.

NIGERIA
Mr. Henig (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take to alleviate the fresh threat of mass starvation in Biafra.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The British High Commissioner in Lagos has seen both General Gowon and Dr. Arikpo in the course of the last few days. The High Commissioner has, on my instructions, made clear to the Federal authorities our deep concern and hope that arrangements should urgently be made which will allow the flow of relief to be resumed.
The House will realise that such arrangements will also require the active co-operation of the Biafran leadership, particularly if daylight flights are to be instituted.
The Federal Government's new policy statement reaffirms that the Federal Government are prepared to allow relief supplies to rebel-held areas subject to proper inspection and control. Every-thing now turns on working out satisfactory arrangements between the Federal Government and the relief agencies on this basis, and, indeed, on the Biafran response.
The talks in Lagos between the Federal Government and the relief agencies began this morning and were resumed at 3 p.m. today. When the results of these negotiations are known, and I have been able to evaluate them, I hope to be able to make a further statement to the House.
Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public concern and horror are mounting over the totally inadequate nature of the British Government's response to the position? Is he aware that from the statements made by Chief Enahoro on behalf of the Federal Mili
34
tary Government it would appear that mass starvation is now a weapon of war and that the war has become one of genocide?
Has not the time come for the British Government to break with their military allies in Lagos completely, once and for all, and fly in the food and medicines which, in the name of humanity, are needed by millions of starving people in Biafra?
Mr. Stewart: That question contains so many misstatements, but I will try to make my answer as brief as possible.
First, I do not wish to underrate the nature of the peril, but this is what Colonel Ojukwu himself said on 1st June:
"We seem to have overcome the once imminent danger of mass starvation and can now look forward to a period, after the crisis, of comparative plenty. Our efforts in the land army programme give us visible signs all over our land of imminent victory in the war against want."
That is Colonel Ojukwu's judgment.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the Federal Government are engaged in resisting a rebellion. Many of us think that they are right to do so. Some hon. Members think that they are wrong. I hope that we shall all be prepared to respect each other's sincerity in this matter. In the course of that war, the Federal Government use the weapon of blockade, but have announced that they are prepared for the blockade to be breached in respect of both food and of medical supplies. I know of no historical parallel of a Government engaged in a war being prepared to do that. It would be possible for supplies to go in by land as soon as the Biafran leaders agree to this.
The accusation of genocide has been rejected by the international observers, and there are, indeed, 4 million witnesses against it—the 4 million Ibos who live in peace and go about their business under the Nigerian régime.
Mr. Braine: What the Secretary of State has just told the House about the Federal attitude is encouraging, and we must await the outcome of the talks, though we hope that this will not be long delayed. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted Colonel Ojukwu as saying that rebel held territory is self-sufficient. Can

35
he say something about the facts of the situation? Is it the Government's information that large-scale starvation is imminent? If so, what are the objections on either side to suitably supervised daylight flights, which seem to me to be the sensible solution to the problem?
Mr. Stewart: I quoted Colonel Ojukwu because I think that if accusations are to be made against either the Nigerian Government or Her Majesty's Government of attempting to starve the Ibo people it is important to bring this evidence out, but I admit that it is genuinely difficult to know what the exact facts are.
That there is real difficulty I do not deny. That it is often exaggerated for propaganda purposes, I regret is also true. I cannot see any reasonable objections to daylight flights. We shall be glad to help in that. The Federal Nigerian Government are prepared to do that. As present, Uli airport, where planes would have to land, is made unusable by Colonel Ojukwu during daylight hours. It is very important that this obstacle should be removed.
Mr. Winnick: Whatever may be the rights and wrongs in the Nigerian civil war, will my right hon. Friend accept that the British people are not willing to allow possibly 1 million people to starve to death in Biafra? We remember the statement made last week by a Nigerian official that starvation is a legitimate weapon. If agreement cannot be reached today, will the British Government take other action with leading countries to try to get emergency food supplies to those most in need in Biafra-held territories?
Mr. Stewart: We and, I am sure, other countries will take every action to try to get food to those who need it, but I think that the House and the country must understand that the obstacles to this do not arise from the policy of the Nigerian Government. They arise from the decision of the Biafran leaders.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the Secretary of State care to reply, in his absence, to the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party yesterday on the radio? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Does not the Secretary of State agree that a statement by the leader of a political party would be better made in this House rather than on the Sunday radio?
Mr. Stewart: I was surprised at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. If I remember rightly, he gave his support to the allegation of genocide, for which there is not a shadow of evidence and which is, I think, a shocking misrepresentation of the facts.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect upon the orderliness of a question which makes my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responsible for the statements of the Leader of the Liberal Party? I always understood that a Minister had to reply only where he had Ministerial responsibility. Surely it does not extend to this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is perfectly correct, but the Secretary of State himself chose to answer.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Have not the Biafran leaders recently offered to accept daylight flights by Joint Church Aid and the Red Cross, provided that they are not exploited for military purposes? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government use their tremendous and undoubted influence in Lagos to see that this offer is accepted before another million are dead?
Mr. Stewart: I think that we all understand that it is difficult to get completely accurate and up-to-date statements of the positions of all the parties, but, as I understand, the Biafran leaders have said that they will only accept daylight flights in addition to night flights and not as a substitute for them. I think that the whole House realises that the significance of night flights is that it is at night that arms and military material are flown in to the secessionists. The Federal Government have, therefore, said that anyone who engages in night flights must do so as his own risk. I would have thought that the right answer, therefore, was the cessation of night flights and the introduction both of daylight flights and, which is far more important, because all the aircraft we can muster cannot deal with what is required, the opening of the land routes. That is what matters.
Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that throughout the long period of conflict there have been deep suspicions on the Biafran side about

37
supplies coming by land through Federal-held Nigeria? Regardless of whether those suspicions are justified or not, will the right hon. Gentleman say that he understands the reasons for them and use his influence with the Federal Government to try to lay emphasis on the air routes which he said earlier would be acceptable to him?
Mr. Stewart: We must spell this out. If one wants adequate supplies carried in, there ought to be land routes. I know that there are objections by the rebel leaders to this. I do not believe that those objections are of such weight that they justify the denial of necessary supplies to their own people. But, failing land routes, I agree that we ought to try to get daylight flights going or the Cross River route which is now under discussion. However, it is not the Federal Government who oppose daylight flights.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend accept that no satisfactory solution can be found for this tragic situation as long as the war continues? Will he explore yet again with other countries the possibility of exerting economic and political pressure on both sides to achieve a cease-fire and meet round the conference table? Only in this way will lives be saved in this tragic confrontation.
Mr. Stewart: That goes rather beyond the original Question, although this is a matter which we have often debated. Her Majesty's Government have used every effort, not only recently but over a long period, to try, first, to avert this conflict and, later, to bring it to an end. If any opportunity occurs where we can helpfully act to that purpose again, we shall take it.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does it not really amount to this? Land routes are the only effective means of dealing with the long-term problem, but a great deal could be done if only the daylight flights were allowed. Therefore, an unequivocal decision is required from Colonel Ojukwu that these flights will be allowed, and then they can be arranged by the Powers interested in helping to avert starvation.
Mr. Stewart: I am sure that this is right. I know that some hon. Members take a different view from that of the Government, and have been in touch with
38
Colonel Ojukwu. I try not to criticise anyone's sincerity or good intentions, bust I do say that anyone who has contact with Colonel Ojukwu ought to shout loudly in his ear that he should allow relief to come either by daylight flights or by land.
Mr. James Johnson: No doubt my right hon. Friend heard the sensational but unsubstantiated allegations of 1 million Ibos dying. What estimate has Colonel Ojukwu himself made in the refugee camps and other centres about starving Ibos? Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of this?
Mr. Stewart: The House will realise that exact and reliable information is difficult to come by, but at one time the allegation was that there were as many as 3 million people in refugee camps. The Biafran Rehabilitation Commission, however, has recently said that there are fewer than 1 million. But both to these and to others help could be offered if the land routes were open.
Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very wide measure of understanding for the line taken by the Government in this unhappy situation?
Mr. Stewart: I hope so. I know that this has been for hon. Members in all parts of the House a genuinely difficult question to solve. I have set out in previous debates my reasons why I believe the attempt by some Ibos to deal with their grievances by secession was wrong for Nigeria and wrong for Africa as a whole. This fact we must take into account in dealing with the whole matter. Subject to that, if there is anything Her Majesty's Government can do within reason to relieve human suffering and prevent starvation, we shall be glad to do it.
Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend think it helpful to propose that the United Nations should supervise the relief programme and ensure that neither side takes military advantage of it?
Mr. Stewart: If I remember rightly, it was at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government that there was a United Nations report on this matter at all. The Federal Nigerian Government have proposed that any land routes for relief

39
should be policed by representatives of the Organisation of African Unity, and this seems to me to be quite a reasonable proposal.
Mr. Longden: What corroboration has the right hon. Gentleman for what Colonel Ojukwu says? I have no contact whatsoever with Colonel Ojukwu. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is no substance in the reports from all these responsible journalists, from The Times upwards, or downwards? Can there not be one Nigeria which is a Federal Nigeria? Is not Australia one nation?
Mr. Stewart: Indeed, that is the whole point. It is the view of the Federal Government that there should be one Nigeria, but that it should be a Federal State with a proper position for the Ibo people in it. That has been the argument all along.
I quoted Colonel Ojukwu's statement for this reason. It is genuinely difficult to know what the exact facts are, but we do know from the past that the danger of starvation, although it has been there, has sometimes been unscrupulously exaggerated solely for propaganda purposes. I thought it right, therefore, to put the House in possession of what Colonel Ojukwu himself had said.
Mr. Roebuck: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the rebel régime—not Biafra, for there is no such place as Biafra—has any rationing system to ensure that relief supplies go to women, children and civilians and not to the armed forces?
Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. Our information is that there is no system of that kind.
Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not everyone in the country is in full sympathy with the Government's view that the best way to settle the civil war is to take one side in it? Does he not agree that perhaps we could have greater influence, or even some influence, with Colonel Ojukwu if we did not take sides in this civil war?
Mr. Stewart: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is very attractive, but I ask him to look at this fact. It was clearly understood, when Nigeria moved to in-
40
dependence, that she could rely on us for some of her supplies of arms. This is something about which a newly-independent country must have some assurances. That meant that Britain was probably the only country in the world that could not, in fact or in honour, be neutral about this.
If we continued the supplies, it would be assumed that we supported the Nigerian Government. If we cut off supplies that they had reasonable grounds to expect, on the ground that they were fighting a rebellion, the inevitable conclusion must be that the rebellion was justified.
In this situation, we had to make a choice. For reasons that I have often given to the House—and I am not unaware of the dreadful human issues involved in this situation and the anxieties of conscience that one has about it—I could not find it right in conscience or policy to say that this rebellion was justified.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: If the Government had assisted to secure a ban on arms to both sides, would not the inevitable conclusion have been that they considered that the matter could not be settled by a war but only by peaceful means? Is not that still the case? Will not the Government, therefore, endeavour to do what my hon. Friend suggested, namely, take an initiative for bringing the war to an end?
Mr. Stewart: I think that the House knows that we have done this more than once already. I think that it is now generally agreed, now that people have had time to review the facts, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Nigeria was valuable both in securing proper understanding between this country and Nigeria and in bringing home to the Nigerian Government the deep anxiety there was about the reckless use of military power.
We have also sought more than once to try to get international agreement on the stopping of arms supplies, but if that is to be done effectively it has got to be policed from inside Nigeria. That means a cease-fire. I earnestly hope that the Ibo people will realise that a ceasefire and discussions on the basis of one Federal Nigeria with a proper place for the Ibo people is the right answer to this tragic problem.
Sevaral Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (STRUCTURE)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I shall make a statement about the structure of the textile industry.
On 6th February, I told the House that Courtauld had agreed, at my request, to withdraw its bid for English Calico, and that the Government had decided that the future structure of the Lancashire industry should be examined thoroughly and objectively in the light of the Textile Council's Report on Productivity and Efficiency. The council's report was published on 31st March.
On 12th February, I informed the House that I was asking my hon. Friend the Minister of State to discuss the problem of structure at length with the major firms in the industry, the textile trade unions, the man-made fibre producers and a number of the industry's major customers. He has now done so, and has been greatly helped by the advice of a small group including Sir Joseph Lockwood, the Chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, Sir James Steel, the Chairman of the Textile Council, and Mr. P. N. Davies, an industrial adviser to the Government.
In considering the question of concentration and rationalisation in the industry, I have attached great importance to the Textile Council's view on one of the basic essentials, namely, that if the industry is to become fully competitive the existing groups must integrate their activities by developing closer technical and commercial links between the various stages of production and marketing. The main groups in the industry have grown rapidly by merger and acquisition in recent years, and, as the Textile Council pointed out in its report, most of them are still in the process of sorting out their constituent parts.
The Minister of State's group took the view that the prospect of further mergers and takeovers among these groups might in present circumstances increase the problems of management and could,
42
through the perpetuation of uncertainty, seriously impede the internal reorganisation and integration which has yet to be achieved. I accept the group's view and I have, therefore, concluded that, on balance, the best interests of the industry would not be served by a merger between any two of the larger firms in the Lancashire industry at the present time or by a takeover of any of these firms by overseas interests, The need now is for a period of consolidation.
A standstill for a period on major acquisitions in the textile field will not prevent the larger firms from improving their structural balance either by acquiring smaller firms, or by transferring capacity between themselves, unless the result would be to create or intensify a monopoly at any stage of manufacture or distribution. But any proposal for a merger between two or more large firms which might be expected substantially to reduce competition in the textile field will always be a matter of national importance.
While, therefore, the present standstill should not be seen as a bar to further major rationalisation at some later date, there can be no question of this taking place without the Government being satisfied that the benefits to the public interest outweigh the disadvantages of reduced competition.
Apart from the special difficulties arising from monopoly, the Government do not consider that, in present circumstances, they need to take a view on the linking of fibre production with textile manufacture. It follows that the Government would see no objection if an existing fibre producer with textile interests wished to diversify into new fibres.
In arriving at these conclusions, I have also taken into account the Monopolies Commission's Report on the Supply of Cellulosic Fibres.
There remains the question of rationalisation in the rest of the industry, and the position of the medium size and small firms. The Textile Council proposed that new integrated groups and consortia should be formed from among these firms, and I attach great importance to this. I am employing two consultants to advise me on what can be done, and I am glad to say that they are meeting with an excellent response from firms in the industry.

43
Sir Joseph Lockwood has assured me that the I.R.C. is very ready to help with any schemes which may emerge, and I shall certainly call on this help at the appropriate moment.
Sir K. Joseph: Have the Government, on the occasion of Courtauld dropping a bid which, if contested, it might never have won, rejected, without having the guts to say so, all the six recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on Courtauld and the cellulosic fibre industry, including its recommendation that the E.F.T.A. cartel should end and import duties should be reduced?
If they have rejected those recommendations, what are the reasons for their rejection, or, if the President of the Board of Trade can give us no reasons, is he not open to the suggestion that he has simply been horse-trading with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission?
Mr. Crosland: I cannot in the slightest understand the reference to horse-trading. The position is perfectly plain. My announcement covers the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission on the structure of the industry. The remaining recommendations of the report on cellulosic fibres relating to tariffs and the rest will be covered when I make a final statement on the Textile Council's study relating to the tariff situation and other matters. There has been no horse-trading of any kind whatever.
Mr. Thornton: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention fully to use the resources of the I.R.C. in the necessary restructuring of the industry and in securing a better structural balance within the larger firms in the industry?
Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir; it is certainly our intention to call on the resources of the I.R.C., as I said in my statement. In fact, the I.R.C. is already working closely with the two consultants I mentioned and with the Board of Trade. The consultants have already seen more than 70 firms in the industry, and sufficient progress has been made in a number of cases to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions with the firms concerned on prospective mergers.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I, for my part, congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on at last putting down
44
the foot of the Board of Trade on merger-mania? He has struck a blow against the merger-mania and monopoly-mania with which other Departments of the Government seem to be infected, and for that reason he deserves the congratulation of all those who believe in free competition, free trade and the ancient and sterling virtues.
Mr. Crosland: Striking a blow is more flattering than being accused of horse-trading, so to that extent I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
Mr. J. T. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his rather cautious statement will be received with sympathy in Lancashire, if not with wild enthusiasm? Is he aware that those of us on this side who represent textile areas in our famous textile county are still most perturbed at the fact that the major source of trouble for us in Lancashire is not necessarily inefficiency—we are all in favour of increased efficiency—but that Britain is still the dumping-ground for all the excess textile production of the rest of the world?
So long as 53 per cent. of our home market is occupied by imported textile products, we shall remain sceptical about the full advantages of increased rationalisation—which we support—being achieved by the industry itself. Will he bear in mind, since he makes a reference to marketing, that, in our opinion—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer supplementary questions.
Mr. Price: With great respect Mr. Speaker, I am about to finish on this point. It is a most important question which we have not debated in the House for a long time.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the separation of textile production in Lancashire, its historic home, from marketing, which has been hived off to Aldgate, in London, for many years, is one of the greatest handicaps against which we are still struggling? Will he encourage the reunification of marketing and production?
Mr. Crosland: No statement which 1 or any other President of the Board of Trade could make about the textile industry would evoke wild enthusiasm in Lancashire. Sympathy is the most one can hope for.

45
I know my hon. Friend's strong views and those of the industry about the level of imports. I shall be making a statement on the import question during the course of this year. I stress this point, however: whatever views are taken about other problems of the textile industry, an attempt to get the right structure for the industry is a necessary condition for future prosperity.
Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman referred to making a further statement about the future of the textile industry, particularly imports or tariffs. He will appreciate that this is a matter of urgency if confidence is to be revived in the industry. Will his statement be made before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Crosland: I appreciate that this is an extremely urgent matter. I have already told the industry that I hope to make a statement at the latest by the early autumn; and if I can possibly make it earlier, I shall.
Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the larger enterprises, can my right hon. Friend say for how long he expects the period of consolidation to last? When, on the most favourable estimate, does he expect the consultants' report on medium and smaller firms?
Mr. Crosland: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot give a definite date. The purpose of the standstill is to allow the larger firms to achieve the degree of internal integration which was the original object of their mergers. I would not like to hazard a guess as to how long it will taka them to do this. It might take some, considerable time.
With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not want to give a specific date. I hope that the consultants with the help of the I.R.C., will produce a continuous process of mergers and rationalisation among the smaller firms.
Mr. Oakes: Will my right hon. Friend give the House more details of the help the I.R.C. will give towards the integration of the industry? Will it be purely advisory, or is it to be financial? Who are the two consultants whom my right hon. Friend has appointed?
Mr. Crosland: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's first question specifically now. At present, the help of the I.R.C. is in an advisory capacity. Whether anything more than that will be needed, we shall have to see with the development of the exercise. One of the two consultants is Mrs. Caroline Miles, a well-known figure in the industry, associated with the Textile Council. The other is Mr. Ord-Johnstone, also a well-known figure in Lancashire.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ambitions and activities of the I.R.C. and Mr. Charles Villiers are becoming increasingly controversial? What expectations have we that the I.R.C. and the Textile Council will be any better at putting together groups of textile companies than the Shipbuilding Industry Board has been successful in putting together groups of shipyards?
Mr. Crosland: I wholly reject that suggestion. Mr. Villiers and the I.R.C. have done an excellent job in achieving structural reorganisation in British industries which clearly needed it, and where it has been many years overdue.

NIGERIA
Mr. Henig: 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 situation in Biafra".
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you have already been generous this afternoon in allowing a Private Notice Question and further questions and discussion on this matter, but it is sufficiently important, and regarded by the public as such, for the House to have a chance to debate it and put its different points of view.
The Nigerian civil war is a continuing phenomenon, but there is an important new fact, namely, that one party to it which has the means to deal with this has decided that the International Red Cross and International Council of Churches may no longer send in aid to the victims.
The matter is specific, because we have reliable evidence from a number of important eyewitness that millions of

47
people are now starving in Biafra and will die unless immediate action is taken. There certainly seems to be much medical evidence to this effect.
There is urgency in this because, if the House were to wait to debate the matter in the ordinary course of business, as it might well be able to do in a week or two or a month or two, the tragedy that I have been intimating can happen will have happened already, and there will be no point in our debating the matter.
I have always believed that the procedures of the House made it possible for us to give humanity a hearing at moments of supreme crisis like that at present in Biafra and Nigeria. I do not believe that there can be anything in the world more important than the threat of starvation and death for possibly millions of people. Today or tomorrow there is a chance that a debate in this House could lead to alleviation of the situation. By next week it may very well be too late. It is in that spirit that I seek to move the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) gave me notice this morning that he might seek to raise a Standing Order No. 9 matter this afternoon, as did another hon. Gentleman.
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 situation in Biafra".
I have given careful consideration to his speech, to all that has happened this afternoon, and to the statement of the Minister.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to all the representations that have been made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCE (£50 LIMIT)
4.6 p.m.
Mr. John Peel: I beg to move.
That the £50 travel limit is unworthy of Great Britain and should be abolished.
I am very glad that after many attempts over nearly 12 years in the House to be successful in a Ballot my name eventually came out of the hat first and thus enabled me to move this Motion.
I regard this limit on our travel freedom as a typical piece of frustrating Socialism. It is an obstruction to one of the dearest freedoms of the British people, namely, our ancient freedom to travel and to move amongst other peoples and in other countries where and when we want. It should never have been reimposed in 1966, 21 years after the end of the last war and seven years after it had been abolished. It is bad on every count, and should be removed forthwith.
I shall submit a number of general reasons for my Motion and a number of more specific ones. It is understandable that during war it is necessary to have foreign exchange control. But when war is over free countries should remove it at the earliest possible moment. It is a badge of dictatorship.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Rubbish.
Mr. Peel: Such control was first introduced before the war by the Nazi Government of Germany. No other Government felt it necessary to introduce it in those days.
We remember the old saying, "How are the mighty fallen". Britain's power and strength, economic influence and influence amongst other people, and her greatness were created by the adventurous desire and readiness of her people to move out of their small island and travel far and wide. It is a very sad commentary that she should have dragged her feet—
Mr. Heffer: The idea that all the British people were able to travel all over the world is a lot of rubbish. Millions of our people who did not earn sufficient to keep body and soul together could not travel to the next town, never mind all over the world.
Mr. Peel: But the fact still remains that this small island would never have reached the stage it did reach if many millions of its people have not travelled abroad.
One of the saddest commentaries is how Britain dragged her feet after the war in getting rid of this obstacle. Instead of being in the forefront of the movement to get rid of it, she was very slow to follow others. However, she did, and I am glad to say that it was under a Tory Government in 1959. One of the great condemnations of Socialism and its restrictive philosophy in regard to people's freedom of choice is that it led a Socialist Government in 1966, with hardly a twinge of conscience, when they got into economic difficulties, as they always do, to reimpose this shackle upon us. It was a serious backward step and was both unnecessary and unforgivable. I hope to be able to show that it was entirely unnecessary.
Although a waiver may have been obtained for it under Article VIII of the International Monetary Fund Agreement, it is clearly against the spirit of that agreement. Even the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Home Secretary, seemed a little aware of this when, in answer to a challenge in January, 1966, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) as to whether he intended to impose new restrictions on the travel allowance, he replied:
"The silly season has arrived rather early this year. Let me say at once—in order that Mr. Maudling may sleep soundly in his bed tonight—that I have no plans to cut the the travel allowance."
Six, months late, he did—not untypical of the Government. He cut the allowance to £50.
This was derisory enough, but devaluation has made it even more so. Its retention for so long is a serious indictment, although now only one of a lengthening list of this Government's economic mismanagement's of our affairs, and it is altogether a shameful business that the Government of a great country like ours should impose it at all.
We are, more than most, a great trading nation, dependent for our standard of living and for our very lives upon countries outside our borders and upon the confidence of the inhabitants of those countries in us and in our economic management. Quite rightly,
50
the Government are constantly urging upon our businessmen and industrialists the need to export more. All the time we hear the cry go up. We are pressed to get up and go abroad to sell our manufactures and the important part of this effort and this educative process—it is educative, since many millions of people in this country do not naturally tend to go abroad—is to visit other countries and peoples.
I do not mean just on business, but also on holiday and on extended sabbatical leave, because many executives of big firms would like to combine business and pleasure and go abroad to learn the ways of others, to study their customs and their needs, their likes and dislikes, to get to know them and for them to get to know us. Otherwise, confidence does not grow.
When I say this, I do not just mean all the package tours along the well-worn beaten tracks with gaggles of their own countrymen—
Mr. Heffer: What rubbish!
Mr. Peel:—and little contact with the people of the countries visited, although these are not unimportant. They have their uses from the point of view not only of holidays, but of cultural contacts as well, but in a limited way and to a limited extent.
Mr. Heffer: Oh.
Mr. Peel: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt, I am ready to give way. I am tired of listening to him interrupting from his seat.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always best to intervene in a Parliamentary way.
Mr. Heffer: It is obvious that the hon Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) does not like anyone making any comments at all. I am prepared not to make any further comments during his speech. I will make them if I am called in the debate. I had no intention of speaking, but after hearing this tripe I feel that I must say something.
Mr. Peel: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene in the right way. I am only too delighted to have him intervene. I have no objection to his doing so, but I wish that he would do it in the proper manner, because it is

51
slightly easier to answer him if he does, quite apart from it being slightly better mannered.
Captain Walter Elliot: He has not got any.
Mr. Peel: What I think is important is that the people of our country should have the freedom to move along lesser known ways, some of the byeways of other countries, to come into closer contact with their peoples and to see and learn and communicate with them and to study their art and their culture.
The Government are, quite rightly, working for an increasingly united Europe, despite some of their hon. Friends below the Gangway, and they are not having an easy passage. But sometimes we have only ourselves to blame for many of our difficulties. I meet lots of our Continental friends through the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union and many are understandably suspicious of our insular attitude and sense that there is a strong reluctance on our part to regard ourselves as genuinely part and parcel of Europe. The restriction on the travel allowance tends to increase their suspicion and deprive us of many more opportunities for dissipating them.
The Government may and do say that there are plenty of opportunities for holidaying abroad within the sterling area, but Europe is not within the sterling area and the Government keep saying that we are good Europeans. I ask that we prove it. Furthermore, I believe that there are many parts of the sterling area where sterling is not necessarily saved and where, in one way or another, it is converted into foreign exchange. Such places are those which lie at the crossroads of the sterling and dollar areas, like the West Indies, Bermuda and the Bahamas, and other places like Hong Kong and Australia.
These are some of the general reasons why I consider the travel limit to be bad. I want now to look at some of the more specific objections to it.
First, a paltry sum like this is positively demeaning for a country like Britain. Foreigners tend to regard it as quite despicable and contrary to the whole spirit of trade liberalisation. They
52
tend to pity us like poor relations and feel that perhaps they should try and make special terms for us or give us special hospitality or make special allowances. In some instances they do not particularly care whether we go to their hotels or not, because they know that we have to be careful when it comes to giving tips and other rewards.
The whole process involved in getting foreign exchange is tiresome, takes time, is frustrating and costs money. Those whose duties or businesses take them abroad fairly frequently may well be caught by the legal obligation to sell back their foreign currency and exchange allowances within a month of their return to this country, and quite soon thereafter may have to go abroad again, which entails more time and further expense in acquiring fresh foreign exchange. So the tedious process goes on, tedious for all concerned, bankers, travel agents and travellers.
Like all bad laws, especially those that restrict our freedom, this will have many legitimate ways of getting round it, of being avoided. I am sure that many people find those ways. I have no doubt that the Minister of State can tell me of many himself. It is not a particularly easy or dignified law to enforce.
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the removal of this pettifogging restriction would make all that difference to our balance of payments. Some time ago, we heard that the Government thought that it might save £50 million, but then it appeared that it was saving no more than £25 million. Compared with the amount of foreign exchange which the Government themselves spend abroad, those are small figures. I understand that the average Briton abroad seldom spends more than £40 to £45. If that is so, it is pointless to have a restriction which is meaningless to the majority of holiday makers.
Like so many restrictions, it is full of anomalies. We allow individuals, after they have paid their lawful taxes, to spend as they like—and it amounts to considerable sums of money—on expensive foreign goods, on foreign luxuries—perhaps £8,000 or £9,000 on a foreign car—on dresses, tobacco, drinks and many other items. But they are allowed to spend only £50 on travel in the countries from which these things come and

53
to meet the people who come from those countries.
I understand, too, that people may obtain £150 to go abroad to watch a football match, but that if they want to take a healthy holiday ski-ing in the winter, they may have to pay as much as £2 10s. or more a day for ski-lifts for which they can obtain no extra allowance. No doubt in many ways it is noble to watch a football match, but it is better for our people to take healthy exercise, so why should there be this distinction? This should be considered. I understand that it affects about 40,000 people a year. If they have to pay £2 10s. or more a day for ski-lifts, they will find it difficult to spend 10 days or a fortnight abroad on £50. In these ways we have our priorities all wrong.
If it is necessary to reduce expenditure on foreign travel, in a free country it should be done in some other way, for example, by taxing expenditure on such travel. That is more appropriate to a free country than putting a bar on the travel allowance. The Americans considered this and rightly discarded it.
In paragraph 11 of the recent Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor said that he would abolish this restriction as soon as the balance of payments allowed. Surely that has always been the case. There could not possibly be any reason for having it if the balance of payments were right. But what did that mean? Will it be as soon as we have a surplus, however small, or only when we have a large surplus? Is the Chancellor thinking in terms of a surplus now of £300 million, down to which he has come after talking to the because no doubt we shall whistle for that as long as we whistled for the £500 million? That is not good enough.
I have tried to show that we should not have this kind of restriction in a free country in peace time, let alone in a country which, like Great Britain, depends upon its foreign contacts, upon foreign confidence and upon knowledge of other lands, and I beg the Government to get rid of it now.
4.26 p.m.
Dr. David Kerr: I suppose that it is inevitable that a subject like this should have a summer
54
garden air about it. Even your attempts to call the House to order, Mr. Speaker, smacked pleasurably of the noise of a bee buzzing in one's ears more than your usual rather disciplinary bringing of the House to order.
I cannot help feeling that our ennui, if that is a permissible word in HANSARD, was fed by the deliberations, and I use the word advisedly, of the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel). This subject is a veritable fool's bladder with which to hit the Government. What a trivial little Motion the hon. Gentleman has chosen! On the one occasion when, as he has so proudly told us, he was selected out of the hat, with matters of great pith and moment surrounding us, he has chosen to attack—that is not the right word to describe his speech, but it is the one which comes most readily—the Government's record on foreign travel allowances.
The hon. Member was guilty of some extraordinarly lapses from normal logic. We are accustomed to odd processes from hon. Members opposite, but he cited the average Englishman spending only £45 per head while abroad as a justification for increasing the allowance still further. That seems to be lacking even the sort of common sense which we have the right to expect from Her Majesty's Opposition.
Mr. Peel: If the hon. Gentleman himself is so good at logic, he must know that the average man does not represent every man in Britain, thank goodness.
Dr. Kerr: For the sake of the hon. Member's own protection, I dare not give way to him again. That was even jucier than the last.
The hon. Member made some rather palsied references to the way in which the £50 travel allowance fails to work and he made many ambitious, inaccurate and misleading references to the way in which Britain had been a travelling country, quite overlooking the fact that it is only since the war that foreign travel has been extended to the great mass of the people in this country, thanks to the cheapening of communications. Moreover, it strikes me as a little—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting a little Continental.
Dr. Kerr: I was saying that it strikes me as a little naive that an Opposition

55
Member should blankly ignore the interests of our own tourist trade. There has been such a fight about the Develepoment of Tourism Bill that one would have thought that a Member choosing this subject might at least have paid some lip-service to a desire to promote the interests of the British seaside resorts, the British hotel interests and certain other interests to which I shall refer.
To suggest that we have always been a nation of seafaring travellers since time immemorial, is a load of nonsense. We are a nation which has certainly developed foreign travel for the purposes of colonisation, for exploitation of the native people whom we went to visit, and whose culture we went to study. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Even the history books of hon. Gentlemen opposite could scarcely have taught them otherwise, if they had spared the time from slamming the Government, to study them. This has been the story of British travel, of British naval travel and military expeditions—not of great mass excursions to the fried fish and chip shop on the Costa Brava, which is what we are now witnessing as part of our mass communications.
We have to look at the purposes of foreign travel. The hon. Member waxed loud and enthusiastic about the sabbatical year taken by directors of large enterprises to study the language and modes of living and business opportunities, and so on. He failed to point out that many a director is fortunate enough to be able to be accompanied by his wife, for the purposes of the trip attached to the company's payroll as his secretary. For such trips as these there is often considerable generosity on the part of the Treasury, and a lot more than £50 per head in travel allowance is obtained.
When it comes to most of the other exceptions, non-holiday exceptions, I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the opportunities for legal extensions of the £50 sum are enormous and are seized with an enthusiasm which corresponds to the resources of the person so seizing them. That does not include most of the people of this side of the House, nor those we seek to represent.
Those who do enjoy very large travel allowances are those who have resources to match and can go to their doctor and
56
get a certificate to say that they need a prolonged spell of convalescence in Nice, or Dubrovnik, or Sochi, or the other centres of capitalist tourist exploitation. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman, and any of his colleagues who feel that they are in need of treatment for alcoholism, bad liver or senility, that I would gladly extend to them my own professional courtesies and assist them to obtain this extension.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is this not the very reason why the £50 restriction should be removed, because there are so many people getting the advantages? Why should there be only a limited number of people so restricted?
Dr. Kerr: The hon. Gentleman has rather spoiled by peroration, but that was not the argument put forward by his hon. Friend, who said that he was now feeling the spur of charity, that other countries were bending to make sure that he and his colleagues would not be deprived of the services of the Black Eagle, or the hotels in Nice and that they were having to adopt a more charitable, and, therefore, unacceptable attitude, which made it difficult for him and his colleagues to accept this allowance with equanimity.
There are certain divergencies of view on the other side about what the allowance is about. I want to make a plea for the allowance, first and foremost on behalf of the British holiday resorts. It is, alas, a fact that whatever may be said from the other side, the figures do not suggest that foreign travel has diminished significantly as a result of this measure. It has done something similar to the prices and incomes policy, it has made people think a little. If it discourages them from going to a country like Spain or Greece, then the £50 allowance would be justified for that reason alone.
Unfortunately, it also discourages people from visiting friendly, responsible and democratic countries where we should like to see them go. But they go there, and there seems to be very little restriction of the growth of package holidays abroad, save for the very unfortunate and in my view unacceptable regulations of I.A.T.A. There is now a case for looking at this country's sense

57
of responsibility to I.A.T.A. and the way in which these regulations benefit the very large airlines to the detriment of airlines operating in countries like our own. We could considerably increase our opportunities for cheap travel within the £50 allowance. This is something at which we might take another look.
I am sorry that with all of his sweeping imagination the hon. Member devoted to his speech he failed to make one important point. As he says, the average man in Britain is not the average man in Britain. What he is saying is that there is a wide range, that the problem of the individual travelling abroad alone is not the same as the family man going with three children. For most family men the opportunity to take £250 plus the fare is more than he needs or can afford. For the individual there may be a good case for looking more sympathetically at this problem. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether any thought has been given to a sliding scale allowance whereby it would be possible to give a group or family going abroad slightly less per head and to allow those travelling abroad as individuals slightly more. Could we not, for instance, say that a man going abroad with five children should have his £45 a head, which he will not spend, to allow the individual, or the man and wife travelling solus to have £55 a head?
This seems to be a reasonable way of recognising the different degree of expenditure faced by these two different groups, and the hon. Member has lost opportunity to recognise these difficulties. I make good his omission.
I also want to make a plea for the advantages of camping. My right hon. Friend could do a good deal to keep people here if he recognised the quite extraordinary growth of camping, not only here but on the Continent. Not only is there a tremendous growth of this outdoor activity here, but the way in which people in Holland and Germany flock south to lavishly equipped camping sites in Italy, Yugoslavia and the South of France makes the movements of swallows look ridiculous by comparison.
Why are we not grabbing a large part of that market here? If there is an argument for encouraging people to stay at home rather than travelling widely
58
abroad, let us do more than we are to ensure that camping enthusiasts here are well catered for. The capital necessary to compete with other interests, on which there may be a higher return, might be provided by municipalities rather than private camping interests. This is one way of justifying an allowance which we recognise is a nominal feature.
It would perhaps be improper to go in to all the ways of avoiding this allowance illegally. It must be common knowledge that the right to take out sterling to the amount of £15 is flouted to an extraordinary degree, which no sort of intelligent control at our points of exit could ever hope to restore to what we want it to be.
Perhaps there is an argument for looking soon, as we have undertaken to do, at this restriction, but I do discount all this blather and nonsense about restriction of freedom. The facts are that there are more people travelling abroad, and people are able to do so within the allowance. If there is any disadvantage it is to those travelling individually or in couples, and there might be an exemption given in such cases. I can only hope that in looking at this aspect of travel by Britons abroad we will not lose sight of the importance of assisting travel by foreigners into Britain.
This involves foreign expenditure of a different sort, and, in view of the opportunities which arise particularly for young people in Continental countries to come here, I urge the Government to adopt a very generous attitude towards this kind of operation.
I discovered an argument in Berlin last year in favour of a restricted travel allowance. In company with one or two hon. Members opposite, I found myself touring Berlin in the vain hope of discovering some night life. At one point we found ourselves in a near-beer bar. There were three very attractive young ladies who offered us a variety of facilities, some of which were on the menu and others which even my scanty knowledge of German led me to believe could not have been printed on the menu. We then noticed that whisky was priced at £15 a bottle. It was with great relief that we were able to claim that the restricted travel allowance did not allow

59
us to stay in that place one moment longer.
4.42 p.m.
Sir Charles Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) for raising this matter, because it is very important.
The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) talked a great deal of nonsense. He seems to want a travel allowance graduated according to party loyalties. All that he seems to want are controls and more controls, which I do not want. During his speech I wondered whether even in the House of Commons he was allowed to advertise the fact that he was a doctor, whether it was permitted by the General Medical Council and whether he could arrange for people who were ill to get a good travel allowance. Perhaps he will have a queue of patients tomorrow wanting to go abroad. I should not have thought that the General Medical Council would think very highly of that.
I represent a British seaside resort, but I do not believe in forcing people to go to British seaside resorts for their holidays. They should encourage people to go to them because of their amenities. About six weeks ago I attended in Dublin an international conference of hotel keepers. Over 70 nations were represented at it. The hotel keepers unanimously decided to send a resolution to the United Nations stating that they hoped that 1970 would be declared the year of freedom for travel. They were not considering their own seaside resorts, towns and cities. They believed that freedom of travel was necessary in this modern world and that it was one of the rights of human beings that they should be able to travel throughout the world if they wished.
Dr. David Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman make plain to me and perhaps to some of my colleagues whether that resolution referred to restriction on financial expenditure or to the kind of imprisonment which is occurring in Greece and Spain and other countries with tyrannical Governments who were not allowing foreign travel?
Sir C. Taylor: The resolution referred to all these things. It also referred to imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain.
60
Freedom of travel means not only the people are allowed to spend their own money in travelling, if they have any, but that they should be free to go to other countries provided they behave themselves and act in accordance with the rules and laws of them.
At a meeting in Germany two or three years ago I was talking with some of my German hotel friends who said that they had given up exhibiting British Travel Association posters because British people had only a £50 travel allowance. Travel arrangements must be reciprocal and, therefore, they were putting up posters urging people to go to France, Switzerland and Austria where there was no travel restriction. The £50 travel allowance for British people is doing us harm, because travel must be reciprocal. If others countries know that the British traveller will be allowed to take abroad only £50 a year, why should they advertise the "Come to Britain" campaign, which has been done so well by the British Travel Association?
I should like to ask the Minister whether this travel allowance is contrary to the Bretton Woods Agreement. I believe that it is. Has the International Monetary Fund said to us, "You must stop this nonsense about not allowing your people more than £50 as a travel allowance"?
The Government are making us appear paupers in the world. It is unpleasant for English people, having contributed very largely to winning the last war, to appear to be paupers when they travel round the world. Let me give one example of the narrow-mindedness of the Treasury. Members of the British Parliament paid a visit to Switzerland in January. Those Members who could ski were asked to ski against members of the Swiss Parliament.
For many years the Swiss Members of Parliament have entertained their British counterparts at a small good will get-together. I understand that the members of the British Parliamentary team applied to the Treasury for a small grant to entertain, for a change, our Swiss colleagues. It was turned down. This is absolutely outrageous. The Treasury said, "This is a jolly" It was not a jolly; it was a good will visit. We got to know our Swiss colleagues very well, which is very helpful in this difficult world, but we were

61
not allowed even a few pounds to give them a little hospitality in return for the hospitality which they had given us over the years.
It is no wonder, when that sort of thing happens, that there is no confidence in our country or in the continuance of the value of the £. In other countries we are made to appear paupers. When we go abroad, we are made to feel as though we are criminals because we want to take some of our money abroad.
When we had sweet rationing in the days of the Socialist Government after rile war—and, of course, during the war—everybody said, "I am entitled to this ration of sweets and, therefore, I shall buy it". Everyone bought his or her ration of sweets. When sweet rationing was done away with by the Conservative Government, however, the consumption of sweets fell. I suggest that although, before we had the rationing of money, many people who wanted to go abroad spent only £35 or £40, they now insist on their ration of £50.
I know this to be a fact. It is only penalising the so-called rich, who, at their own expense, may be going out to pay good will visits here and there or whatever else they do. It does not matter what they are doing. They should have freedom to travel. I believe firmly that if the Government did away with this silly restriction, it would cost us no more in foreign currency.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East for raising this matter. It is one of great consequence. I hope that the United Nations will make 1970 a year of freedom to travel for all nations.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of participating in this debate. I wanted to hear what was said, because I have some sympathy with the idea of raising the limit and ultimately abolishing it. I thought that we would have a rational debate on those lines. Then, however, I heard what I would regard—and I am sure that most of my hon. Friends would agree with this—as amazing statements from the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), who initiated the debate.
The hon. Member talked about its being a badge of dictatorship to have
62
a travel allowance of £50 and said that the greatest freedom we had was the freedom to travel. I intervened to point out to the hon. Member that there were millions of people in this country who, during periods of depression and unemployment, and even during periods of full employment, never earned enough to travel to the next town, never mind to travel all over the world. I have never found it a great embarrassment to have a travel allowance of £50, neither do the overwhelming mass of people.
We were told when the £50 travel allowance was introduced that it would mean a great restriction on our people going abroad and meeting the French, the Italians, the Spaniards, and so on. The fact is that just as many go now as ever went before. [HON. MEMBERS: "How does the hon. Member know?"] Because the figures prove it.
Mr. John Hay: But how ninny more would like to go?
Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite are talking about a small minority of people—their friends, the ones whom the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) was honest enough to bring out in the end, the few rich, who naturally feel restricted and upset that they can have a travel allowance of only £50.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Absolute nonsense.
Mr. Heffer: We are told that they feel like paupers—of course, they have larger sums of money—unless they participate, as we were told, in the many ways in which they can get round the law. Perhaps they have money abroad anyway and they draw—
Sir C. Taylor: It was the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who said that.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Eastbourne also said it. I listened carefully to him. That is the truth of it.
Hon. Members opposite are raising the question of the £50 allowance because it is their friends, the small minority, who are upset about feeling that they are paupers when they go abroad. The overwhelming mass of people have not been writing to hon. Members, passing resolutions at union branch meetings or holding demonstrations at Westminster to demand

63
the lifting of the £50 allowance. I have seen many other demonstrations on all sorts of issues, but not on this one, because the average working man or woman who goes on holiday abroad finds that the allowance is sufficient to meet his or her needs. It may be that they would like a little more, but it is not those people who talk about the badge of dictatorship.
Sir C. Taylor: Government by restriction.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member talks about restriction. My people have been restricted for generation after generation. For the first time in their lives, some of them are going abroad and enjoying things which they have never enjoyed before. They are doing it at this moment.
I will tell hon. Members opposite how the ordinary working man went abroad in the old days. He did it the way my father went abroad, as a soldier. He went to India and Burma as a soldier. He would never have been able to secure sufficient money to travel in those countries. He went as part of the Armed Forces. That was how the average working man went abroad. Or he went as a seaman. He did not travel the world enjoying the sights and the luxurious nightlife that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) found in Berlin. He went not on the basis of his own money, but as part and parcel of the Armed Forces or as a seaman. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is talking about the minority of people.
I accept that there is a case for lifting the limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here we go."] But the hon. Member for Eastbourne was not asking for that. He said that it should be abolished. Then he spoke about the overwhelming mass of people, the average person, whom he dismissed in a way which, I thought, was cavalier and disgusting, because he was talking about his snobby friends. They are not my friends, because my friends are not complaining.
Then we were told that the Tories got rid of this restriction. They got rid of it in 1959. They came to office in 1951. It took them eight years to get rid of it. They had to keep the restriction for a period because of the economic circumstances.
64
We ought to have serious debates in the House. If hon. Members opposite want a debate of importance, they could have had a debate on something on which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East touched in passing and on which I, like him, feel passionately—the concept of building a united Europe.
Mr. Hay: On £50?
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member is being utterly stupid—
Mr. Hay: Thank you very much.
Mr. Heffer:—absolutely stupid, because if the hon. Member thinks that the restriction to £50 is any way stopping the concept of a united Europe, then he lives in a world entirely different from the one I live in.
When we argue about a united Europe we argue about important political and economic implications and difficulties we have to overcome. That is a very important debate, which we could have had. We could have seriously considered the whole question of the new situation arising out of the new French Government; and we could have considered the possibilities of a further approach in relation to the Common Market as a first step towards a united Europe. But no, the hon. Member was not prepared to have a serious debate on this question. He just wanted one more little stick with which to try to beat the Labour Government. That is all he wanted. This debate is sheer political propaganda, and he and his hon. Friends know it.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am interested in the accusation which the hon. Member has made against my hon. Friend. He said a few minutes ago that the only reason for the introduction of this debate was that a few of our very wealthy friends felt themselves restricted, but now he is saying that this is a great exercise in political propaganda. He really must make up his mind which it is.
Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite have been speaking on behalf of their friends outside the House and whipping up their feelings. That is all that this debate has been for. There is no serious motive behind it at all. Hon. Members opposite all know that there is no serious motive behind it. I have never heard so

65
fiddling and ridiculous a Motion in all my life. I hope that hon. Members will not have this Motion put to the vote; I hope that they will not be so silly; but if they are I hope that the House will have sufficient sense and intelligence overwhelmingly to reject it.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: We have had from the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) the accusation that this debate is, on the one hand, unimportant, and, on the other hand, that it is stupid. All I can say is that, however unimportant or stupid it may appear to them to be, between now and the General Election—even if there is not an announcement from that Box today—there will be no £50 restriction on currency for people going abroad, and the hon. Member for Walton knows that if this announcement is made by the Government it will be to help him and his hon. Friends to help the Government to get more votes.
However, this is a serious subject. This restriction has been on a very long time now and there are many good reasons why it should come off. The fact that the Government have hinted that it may come off or be lightened is a credit to my hon. Friend. We did not hear any such hint until the Motion had been put down on the Paper, and so at least my hon. Friend has had an effect in jogging the Government's memory on the subject and making Ministers concern themselves with what is likely to happen next year. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give an indication in good time so that the tour companies can organise themselves on the basis of an increase in the allowance next year.
I suppose that, like the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, who is issuing certificates to all sorts of people so that they can go to the South of France to improve their gout situation, or whatever it may be, I, too, must declare an interest. I have a travel organisation, but I am not involved in tours.
However, what this £50 is doing is to turn us into a nation of international trippers, because most people now, if they want to go abroad, have to go on a package tour, whether they like it or not.
66
A large number of people, not only middle-class or rich people, but also ordinary chaps working in the docks in Liverpool, like to think that they can go abroad by themselves. They like to book in at an hotel, and not to have to take part in a package tour with a lot of other people, perhaps people whom they see day by day. They do not want to go on holiday and meet the people they meet five days a week. They want to meet other people. They cannot do this because the £50 does not stretch to meeting the individual room charges of hoteliers compared with the charges hoteliers provide for people booking in groups of 30 or 40. Removing the restriction would give a little more freedom to people when they go abroad who would like to go abroad as individuals rather than en masse.
The Minister will probably say that the whole exercise has been justified because the balance on currency now available to us is in our favour. I accept this. It is coming into our favour. But I would say that if the restriction has a little to do with it, it does not have everything to do with it, as the Minister well knows. In case he does not spell out the different things which have helped to give us this balance, I will do so.
First of all, as he knows, devaluation has helped to give us this balance, because people going abroad from this country are not spending so much. Devaluation is against them. Their money does not go so far. People coming into this country from abroad, however, are at a great advantage, and this has brought a large number of visitors into England. We are cheap. We are. perhaps now second only to Spain and Portugal and some other countries whither, as the House knows, British people go because, they say, "There we can have the sun and things are cheap" Now people are coming here because we are getting the sun and because things here are cheap. They are coming in droves from France, going to Marks and Spencer's and buying goods at prices which we think are expensive but which, for them, are at low prices. This is all because the Government have devalued the £, and the £ is now, to them, an advantage currency, not as high in rating as the dollar or the mark. So more money is coming into this country, and this

67
helps us with foreign currency. It would be a disastrous situation if after devaluation we had not gained an advantage of this kind.
More over, there has been a natural growth in world travel, ever since the £50 restriction was introduced three years ago. Year by year, international travel has increased. It is not only people travelling from this country abroad but people travelling here from Europe and from America and from even farther away—people coming from Commonwealth countries to see the Mother Country. This will continue. This is the second advantage to us, the natural growth in travel, which has helped our currency advantage.
Then we have an increase in hotel accommodation available. Even prior to the Development of Tourism Bill, introduced by the Government, there had been in London considerable increases in hotel accommodation, and this has helped to make it easier for people to come and stay here.
Another reason why we should now get rid of the £50 restriction is that the restriction is really a bad thing for our prestige abroad. If we want to exude confidence—and part of our trouble arises from the fact that the Government have not been able to get the balance of payments right because there is a lack of confidence—restricting currency is not really a good way of doing it. To make ourselves about the only country in Europe where the people are restricted in what they can spend when they go abroad, so that they cannot afford this or they cannot afford that, perhaps even the most modest gifts, is wholly bad.
I was challenged about this when I mentioned it in Committee on the Development of Tourism Bill the other day, but it must not be underrated. There are charter companies having to shop around abroad and squeeze foreign hoteliers right down to the last cent. Foreign hoteliers know about this restriction, and they reduce their prices for parties as much as they can. Because of the £50 limit our companies have to get prices down to the rock bottom, and the foreign hoteliers know that. They know that if they do not concede on pricing they will not get the bookings.
68
They equally know that this has nothing to do with the tour companies; it has to do with the restriction imposed on them because of the Government's currency restriction. There should be open bargaining between the tour companies and hotels overseas. I am all in favour of the tour companies getting the best bargain, but it should not be a bargain on the basis of forcing the hotels to concede the lowest possible prices because of the currency restriction.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is putting up a much better case than did the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel); at least it is a serious case. But, surely, on the basis of his argument, if the tour companies are doing this, then our people are getting a very good bargain?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, I accept that they are getting a good bargain, but this can be conducive to bad relations between the tourist industry in this country and the tourist industry abroad. This is two-way traffic and good relations should exist, but they cannot so long as this restriction continues. Hoteliers abroad understood that the restriction would continue for a year or so; they certainly did not expect it to continue for three years.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the hoteliers abroad who are squeezed down to a low figure are bound to lower the standard of food served to British tourists and that this is a bad bargain for the tourist?
Mr. Lewis: This is absolutely true. People going abroad on package tours are often served a course light, or the food is not of the best Continental standard because the hoteliers are unable to provide it within the restricted amount.
I have accepted that in the beginning there might have been a case for this restriction, but it is a bad restriction if it continues for too long. It results in many side-effects. It discourages air travel, except package tour air travel. There is no reason why I should plead this, but it has a bad effect on the passenger-carrying possibilities of the nationalised airlines since it restricts the number of people who can go on scheduled flights. It pushes people on to charter flights and also into their motor cars. By taking a

69
motor car abroad people are able to get another £25, and this is an additional advantage.
The longer the restriction goes on, the more people will learn how to get round the regulations. There cannot now be many people who do not know that they can go to a doctor if they have had 'flu and say that they need a holiday to recuperate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central is no longer here. I know of a doctor in practice who has bought an interest in a travel business. People can go to his surgery and get from him a certificate and a prescription for which they have to pay 2s. 6d., but when they reach the recuperation stage the doctor can tell them to take a holiday and send them down below to the travel business, and so he wins in every direction. This has, of course, a humorous side but it happens to be true.
The longer this restriction is continued the more opportunities there will be for people to get round it. The Minister knows that business men can get a considerable allowance, but not for a holiday. He will understand, however, that it is possible for a business man to go abroad on a business trip and tag on his holiday at the end. This is perfectly legal. He is entitled to do this and he will get the business currency advantage to help him to have a better holiday.
I turn now to Provision 1 which is related to package holidays and to the £50 allowance. I had a Ten-Minute Rule Bill down for Wednesday which I have withdrawn because I thought it would be better to raise the subject now than waste the time of the House on Wednesday.
The Tour Operators Study Group, which is representative of all the tour companies and package tour companies in the country, has made representations to the President of the Board of Trade to look at the impact of Provision 1 in so far as it restricts upwards the price of package holidays. The President of the Board of Trade made a statement in which he said that he would make certain concessions in the winter period, but the Edwards Committee Report on British air travel in the 70s went a good deal further than this.
70
The British Tour Operators Study Group, having looked at the Edwards Report, has now stated its own view. I know that the package tour companies would like the Minister to go a long way towards removing the restrictions. It must be recognised, as the Edwards Report stated, that a free-for-all cannot be allowed. Package tour companies cannot suddenly be told that thy can charge what they like on any route they like. That would be accepting that there was no case for scheduled fares, and there is a case for scheduled fares in certain circumstances.
The nationalised air companies are contemplating entering into charter operations. I hope that the Minister will make an early announcement about this whole matter, not necessarily today but in time for the 1970 programme, so that the package tour companies know where they stand. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look at the routes which have been put to him and the proposed reductions of fares and make an early announcement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the possibility of a certain amount of horse-trading? Since the scheduled companies wish to go into package tour operations, if the Minister restricts the package companies he should be prepared also to maintain restrictions upon the scheduled companies operating package tours, or he can lift restrictions on the package companies. It would be quite improper for him to allow a benefit to one and refuse the other.
Paragraph 704 of the Edwards Report states:
"The past policy of the British Government towards inclusive tours has been to take a liberal attitude towards their development but to endeavour to ensure that its charges did not undermine the fares for scheduled services on the same routes."
The Minister, the House and the country should know that the great expansion in cheap overseas travel has been made possible through the efforts of free enterprise, not in the main through the efforts of the nationalised airlines. It has been made possible because certain people were pioneers and have developed travel abroad to such an extent that extraordinarily good bargains are now available and people can have holidays abroad almost as cheaply as holidays at home Nothing should be done to restrict this

71
We have seen this development in Europe and in countries near to these islands. We now have an opportunity to expand this further afield. Today Questions have been put to the Minister of Overseas Development and he has been pressed to increase grants to underdeveloped countries. The best way to help these countries is to expand tourism so that more and more British people go abroad, to the Middle East, Asia and Africa. So far as our people go and spend money there, we are taking money to them which they can re-spend here and so purchase things they want. The best way to do this is to encourage package companies by taking off some of the restrictions on the far flung routes. This offers new development which might take another five to 10 years, but when it comes to fruition it will provide the opportunity of tourist development which will be to our advantage as well as to the advantage of these other countries. It will provide an exchange of peoples and a subsequent exchange of goods.
This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) for giving us the opportunity to raise this subject. I hope that the Minister will really say something this afternoon and will not, once again, be putting off a decision. I hope he will indicate the way the Government's mind is working upon this matter. If the limit is kept on too long, it must be understood that when eventually the Government take it off it will be regarded as a piece of pure electioneering. It ought to be taken off now. The sooner the better.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has been fortunate in this debate in that he has managed to roll three speeches into one. He has dealt with the subject of the Motion on the Order Paper, the abolition of the £50 holiday allowance; he has managed to bring in the Edwards Committee's Report and has given us an advance speech on that; and he has also been able to make some free time on Wednesday by withdrawing his Private Member's Bill on charter flying and package foreign travel. We are grateful to the hon. Member for bringing some realism to bear upon this
72
subject. He will realise when he reads his speech tomorrow that he has taken up the Government's case.
The hon. Member made two interesting observations. He said that he agreed with the limit when it was introduced, but he felt that the time was now approaching for it to be removed. Whether that time has now come, or whether the £50 limit needs to be raised, is a litle uncertain at the moment. But there are one or two categories of persons in this country whom the Government should consider in relation to raising the limit. At the moment people over 70 are given an extra allowance. But there is no reason why retired people below the age of 70 should not also be given the extra allowance. A considerable number of people who intend to travel abroad when they retire would welcome an increase in the allowance. Some changes could be made even within the framework of the existing arrangements.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel), in opening the debate, talked about skiing holidays, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). He said that those who wished to take more than one holiday were being held back by the £50 restriction. I should like hon. Members opposite to look at the matter of the restriction of individuals' freedom, which was a theme that ran through most of their speeches in relation to holidays. In terms of the holiday agreements which operate in so many trades in this country, even with an increased holiday allowance it would be impossible for the vast bulk of wage earners in this country to take the double holiday to which the hon. Member referred. Therefore, if they are keen and sincere—and it is all very well for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to shake his head—
Sir C. Taylor rose—
Mr. Milne: Will the hon. Gentleman wait a moment? I want to develop the point he made.
Sir C. Taylor: I did not make that point. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Milne: No.
Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Member referred to me. Will he not allow me to answer?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Milne: I will deal with this matter in my own way, without any assistance from the hon. Member for Eastbourne. If he says that he did not make that point, then I will leave it entirely alone.
Sir C. Taylor: Thank you.
Mr. Milne: But when the hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will possibly be more in agreement with me than he is now.
Sir C. Taylor: No.
Mr. Milne: Without referring to whoever said it or did not say it—
Sir C. Taylor: The hon. Member should get his facts right.
Mr. Milne: There is no harm in some of us getting our facts right. We have not had many good examples of getting facts right from the other side, particularly from the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Therefore, he need not shout about getting facts rights right. I will make my speech in my own way without any assistance from him. The point has been made in this debate, in regard to the restriction on the £50 limit, that persons who want to have a double holiday are restricted.
Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) to impute both to my hon. Friend and to myself things that we have never said and then to shout us down. This is outrageous.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Milne: The hon. Member for Eastbourne has described this as outrageous. I have made it quite clear that if the hon. Members concerned assure us that they did not make those points, I would merely make the point in the debate. Certainly many people have argued that the £50 restriction prevents people from having an extra holiday abroad.
The point that I make is that, if hon. Members opposite are really concerned with personal freedom, the holiday agreements which exist in the majority of
74
trades and professions in this country prevent people from having a double holiday in the course of the year. A general move towards the extension of holidays, as well as an extension of the travel limit itself, would be helpful. This is the only point I make in this respect.
Nobody has yet made the point that the £50 limit is not the maximum. There is the £25 car allowance, and in addition to the £50 there is also the £15 allowance, which can be taken out by a traveller on every occasion he leaves the country. It is an extra entitlement in terms of currency.
Mr. Peel: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here when the debate opened, but I assure him that I have been present the whole time and I have heard nobody talk about double holidays. Now that more and more holidays and longer holidays are becoming available, there is no need to take a double holiday in order to require more than the restricted allowance. If lion. Gentlemen opposite claim that only a few rich people want more than the £50 limit, why have it at all because the effect on our exchange must be minimal? The hon. Member has the matter quite wrong. One does not need to bring in the argument about the double holiday to justify the removal of this restriction on our freedom.
Mr. Milne: Although the hon. Member has taken advantage of my giving way in this debate, he has not in his intervention dealt with the points I was making. As for my being here at the outset, I confess that I missed the first five minutes of the debate. I was at the Board of Trade with representatives of firms in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I followed most of the remarks that he made about his speech, so that there was no need to make that spurious intervention in order to demonstrate that an hon. Member was not present to hear him open the debate. I was absent for only five minutes of his speech. Whether I regret that or not is another matter.
Coming back to the £50 allowance, a number of factors have to be looked at when considering the arguments raised during the debate. The £50 restriction has not proved to be a limitation on the expansion of the holiday trade. It is

75
true that the bargaining with overseas hoteliers, coach-owners and others has contributed to the expansion, and I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that those in the travel business have done an outstanding job in providing holidays of this description. However, when hon. Members opposite argue that the £50 limit is not sufficient to enable people to have holidays abroad, which is flying in the face of the figures with which we have been provided over the past three years, it is quite illogical at the same time to argue that people spend more money as a result of the £50 limit. After all, the average price of a holiday abroad is between £44 and £45 per person, depending on the country visited. Many of us who have been abroad have seen people lining up on ferries and at airports to spend the remaining few pounds of their holiday allowances. Some of them feel that they have to spend the whole of the allowance when they are on holiday.
I hope that the Government will consider two of the main points which have been made in the course of the debate. The first is that not everyone wants a package holiday. Some people like to make their own arrangements and move around a country or countries when they are on holiday, and certainly that is not confined to people in the upper income bracket. The second point is that, as a result of the growing facilities for travel, people in future will want to travel more widely than they can at the moment with the £50 restriction.
When I commented earlier about existing holiday agreements preventing people from taking double holidays—and possibly the hon. Gentleman will take the point now—whereas the present limit may be reasonably good for the purposes of the average fortnight's holiday, the possibility of extending it to three weeks obviously increases the difficulty of keeping within the £50 limit.
I do not believe, as some hon. Members have said, that the limit has reduced the number of people coming here from abroad following their experiences with British travellers overseas, with no tipping, and so on. I am not against tipping simply because I am a native of Aberdeen. I was bold enough to say that in the course of our debates on the Development of Tourism Bill. It appears that
76
most countries in Europe which are developed in terms of tourism have done away with tipping in any event, and there is no question of the number of people from abroad coming here on a reciprocal basis being adversely affected by the Government's £50 foreign currency allowance.
Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East, initiated this debate. It is not just a matter of making a protest about the allowance, saying that it is insufficient and that we ought to scrap it. We should be looking at the wider development of the holiday trade and at the opportunities provided to our people in the shape of holidays abroad. I am a firm believer in the theory that the more of our people who become accustomed to visiting various countries on the Continent and elsewhere, the more we are likely to attract the expanding tourism which we need and which the Government have helped towards by the Development of Tourism Bill.
One would think from some of the discussions during the various stages of that Measure that the Government have done nothing to assist tourism, but the reciprocal visits of people to and from this country can only be of advantage to us all in the long run.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) may have been surprised when some of my hon. Friends objected strongly to one or two of his points. Perhaps I can reassure him by saying that his arguments were a good deal more weighty than those of his hon. Friends who preceded him, because I was astonished to hear some of their arguments. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for example, seemed to think that if he and his constituents cannot obtain expensive foreign travel, no one else should.
We had, too, the astonishing speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) who said that we should not bother about the travel allowance because all sensible people knew how to evade it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) was right when he said that this restriction is an

77
aspect of bureaucratic Socialism. Nowadays we have rules and regulations which "fly" people know how to fiddle and twist. That, surely, is one of the troubles which beset the country today. We have more and more rules, regulations and restrictions, with the consequence that we are rapidly becoming a nation of fiddlers and twisters. That is just one reason why this restriction should be scrapped quickly.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central is not present to hear what I say about him. Among his other arguments, he said that the travel restriction was a good idea in that it stopped British tourists visiting countries of whose regimes we disapprove, and he mentioned specifically Greece and Spain. I have rarely heard a speech which was based on such a lack of knowledge of the facts. On 12th June, the Foreign Secretary gave details of the number of visitors to Spain since the introduction of the £50 restriction. In 1964, 700,000 British people visited that country. In 1965, the number was 800,000. In 1966, 950,000 British people visited Spain. In 1967, the figure was over 1 million. In 1968, it reached the grand total of 1,282,000. If the restriction has had any effect, it has been to increase substantially the number of people visiting Spain. It is one of the countries where it is possible to have a cheap holiday. If we were concerned about trying to relate our holidays to political views and attitudes—and I do not think that we should be—the £50 allowance must have brought joy to the heart of Spain, and certainly it must be a worry to those in Gibraltar who are suffering from the restrictions and sanctions imposed by the Spanish regime on that territory. I do not think these were good arguments at all.
I bitterly resent the attack that was made on my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East who, quite rightly, suggested that travel restrictions were very much related to freedom and freedom of movement.
Only this morning I had a letter from one of my constituents who is a member of a church which is organising a visit of 10 young Czechoslovaks and their minister from a church in Czechoslovakia. Arrangements had been made for these youngsters to come in mid-August. Word
78
has just been received that it will be almost impossible for them to come because of a savage restriction on currency spending imposed by the Czechoslovak Government. We are trying to find ways around this restriction. These young people will be allowed to bring with them precisely £2 for their stay of two weeks in this country. We are trying everything possible to find the money. The important thing is that countries like Czechoslovakia are using restrictions on spending specifically for the purpose of curbing foreign travel. Although I should not suggest that the Government are doing the same, it is a bad example which can be quoted in other countries.
It has rightly been said that travel and currency restrictions are not new. We had them in the 1950s when the ceiling moved from £25 to £100, and then between 1959 and 1966 it was virtually abolished.
We now have restrictions again. The main reason advanced in 1966 for bringing in the £50 allowance was because we had difficulties with our balance of payments and because the balance in foreign travel was very much against us.
Since 1938, when we began to keep figures of the amount that our holiday makers spent abroad and the amount that foreign holiday makers spent here, we have had a deficit. I understand that in 1961 we had a deficit of £38 million. In 1966. at the end of a period of unrestricted spending, we had a deficit of £95 million. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that this is now moving the other way. But we have a deficit in travel comparing home and foreign spending.
On the other hand, there is every reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East so eloquently argued, for removing or substantially increasing the allowance. If we accept that £50 was a reasonable allowance when it was imposed, we must remember that certain things have happened since.
First, we had devaluation, which has had a very substantial effect on the value of the allowance. But, more important, there has been inflation not just in this country, but in all the countries which our people visit. For example, £50 now

79
buys only about two-thirds of the services which it could buy in Portugal in 1966.
Spain devalued with us, but, despite that, £50 buys 14 per cent. less in goods and services than in 1966. To that extent, even if we said that all things were equal and there had been no changes, there is a very good case for an immediate increase in the allowance.
The argument about the few rich who are helped by it cannot be justified, because we all know what has been happening. The people with a lot of money who want to go for expensive holidays have been changing the places to which they go. They now go to Malta or to the Bahamas or places where there are not the same restrictions. They can even go to Abu Dhabi if they find it a satisfactory place to have an expensive holiday. Instead of going to certain places, the wealthy are going to other places. To that extent the Government cannot say that the nation has been saving a great deal.
The £50 allowance has probably expanded foreign travel more than it has restricted it, because more people have found, for the first time, perhaps, that they can have a good or a reasonable holiday abroad on £50. There has been a dramatic extension in foreign travel not entirely unrelated to this restriction. In these circumstances, it is impossible for the Government to say that this really is worth while. They have argued that they are not trying to restrict foreign travel but merely the amount spent abroad. This is often very minimal indeed.
As the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central pointed out—I am sorry that it has been pointed out so much—there are many ways round the allowance. If a man has a doctor's line, whether from the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central or any other member of the medical profession, he can get an allowance of £7 a day in foreign currency. The suggestion made is that a man simply goes along to a doctor and says, "I want an injection for cholera." Then, when he has had his injection for cholera, there is more than ample justification for a doctor giving him a line saying, "You need to convalesce abroad to recover
80
from the injection." There are many arguments like this.
I have been told by someone whose word I trust how he got round the allowance. He went to a West Indian island where there was a casino. I do not go to casinos and I do not like them. But this man went in at one end, bought some chips with sterling, walked to the other end of the casino and cashed those same chips for dollars without gambling one penny or spending one chip. This was told to me by someone who claimed to have done so. I see no reason why it could not be done.
I am not justifying people being dishonest or shady in trying to find their way round the rules. But it is ridiculous that by restrictions like this which really have a minimal effect on the economy, we should force so many people to resort to twisting and finding ways round regulations.
Let us consider spending. The Minister recently gave me the figures for the amount of cash spent in Spain alone. In 1964 £38 million was taken abroad by British tourists. That was a time when we did not have restrictions. Last year, when we had restrictions, British tourists took £48 million—over £10 million more. I feel that, no matter what is said, the effect is minimal.
The numbers of foreign holidays are increasing substantiailly. The wealthy are spending their holidays elsewhere or finding ways round the regulations. What point is there in having such restrictions, particularly in a free country. if there is little saving in currency and we simply encourage people to evade by finding ways round the regulations, if we are simply restricting travel to countries like Spain? Only last week the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box pleaded with the people of Britatin to examine their consciences to see whether they could not try to stay away from Spain for their holidays. But where else, apart from Spain and certain other limited choices, can people go on a £50 allowance?
All the arguments lead to the fact that we should abolish this restriction. If the Government cannot bring themselves to abolish it altogether, there should be a substantial increase so that we can have freedom of choice in our holidays, so that we do not have to twist and evade

81
and find ways round the restrictions, and so that we can bring back some sanity into what has become more bureaucratic and more annoying as each day passes.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Britain today is in a very particular and peculiar financial position. That is one reason why I oppose the Motion.
The Motion is typically anti-British. It is, therefore, unpatriotic and should be defeated. It is designed to drain from Britain money which is badly needed at home.
It used to be said that it was necessary for one's education to travel abroad. That is no longer necessary. We have the amenities, the instruction and the advantages of countries all over the world without travelling. As Shakespeare said, we have,
"England, bound in with the triumphant sea, Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege."
There is no need today for people to go abroad to obtain what used to be called the advantages of travel.
I oppose this wrong-headed Motion on several grounds which I shall state briefly and seriatim. First, we need the money at home. Secondly, our holiday camps need holiday workers and holiday makers. Thirdly, our hotels, both at the seaside and in the country, need visitors and money. I know that the beautiful city of Aberdeen, which I have the honour to represent, could do with more visitors than it gets today. In the present international situation Britain needs attention at home, both at work and in play.
In our present circumstances we should not pour our largesse abroad. We live in particular circumstances when such money as we have in Britain should be retained. The time may come when the authors of the Motion will have their way and we may pour money into foreign countries. Where are we to go? To dictatorships? To Spain? To Greece? No; I say we should keep our money at home and enjoy the advantages and the fruits of Britain.
It is old-fashioned nonsense to say that we must go abroad for our education. We have at home all that we want. The other evening on television I had
82
the advantage of seeing pictures of five countries. In our modern libraries there are books of a descriptive character. We have every advantage at home without pouring our money abroad into foreign countries. Butlins and other holiday camps offer not only education but enjoyment to people who want to stay at home. It is wrong for the authors of the Motion to try to induce the Chancellor to change his beneficent rule about the £50 allowance. Let us stay at home. Let us protect our industry. Let us encourage trade, industry, commerce and employment here, instead of spending our money abroad.
I promised to be brief. In view of the time, I have been brief. I hope that the Motion will be defeated.
5.53 p.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) gave a very fine exposition of Socialist dogma, in that he indicated strongly that he knows what is best for people better than they themselves know; he said that foreign travel is not necessary and that people should stay at home. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that, whether he likes it or not, millions of people want to take their holidays abroad.
Most of the points I had intended to make have already been covered, but I want to ask the Government a few questions about the £50 allowance. The reason for the restriction is, I understand, to save foreign exchange. Has it been worth while. The Government have quoted figures to show that the balance is in our favour. Are those figures conclusive? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) mentioned devaluation and spoke of the large numbers of people who come to Britain and spend money here. There are other factors, too. We may stagnate at home, but people abroad are growing wealthier and travelling much more. That is another reason why more people, particularly Germans, are coming to Britain.
I understand that the package tour business is booming. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford gave as the reason that people were forced to go on package tours because individual

83
holidays were far more expensive, whereas package tour operators are able to get the best terms for holiday makers. I have studied some of these package tours. I have never been on one. It strikes me that by a variety of procedures package tour operators are able to get round the regulations. The holiday maker seems to be able to pay a large proportion of his bill in sterling in Britain. I suppose that in the end it is inevitable that Britain must pay, by one means or another, for a holiday abroad.
I should like to know from the Government how package tour operators are able to achieve this. If they can achieve it, why cannot a private individual? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned evasion. We all know that there is a variety of ways. Would I be acting illegally if I opened a bank account in Ireland and started my holiday by going from England to Ireland and then on to another country?
Did the Government consider other methods of imposing restrictions on our spending abroad in an effort to right the balance of payments? Is it more desirable to buy a foreign motor car or foreign wines than to take a foreign holiday? I cannot see that there is much difference.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Might it not be more advantageous to have the holiday rather than buy the car, because an imported foreign car might do more harm to our car industry than a holiday abroad?
Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point. The argument could be extended over a vast number of articles. It may be argued, though, that an imported car carries tax whereas a foreign holiday does not. If there has to be a restriction on foreign holidays, perhaps it would be better to tax them, though God forbid. It might be argued that that would help the wealthy or the better off. I believe that any talk about a small minority is rubbish, but if it was thought that to tax foreign holidays would help the better off as opposed to the less well off it should be possible to have a progressive tax so that the amount of tax paid would rise in relation to the amount taken from the country. It seems to me that this solution of an overall limit
84
is a very blunt instrument and I am sure that there are better ways of solving the problem.
My final point concerns the effect of the travel restriction on the nation and the people. There is no doubt that it is humiliating to both. More important, it gives entirely the wrong impression abroad. I have been talking to an Australian and, although this is perhaps not especially relevant, I am sure that it applies in all countries. He was telling me what a bad Press we get in Australia and how different he finds things when he comes to this country. I believe that we get a bad Press all over the world because of these petty restrictions, and that we shall continue to do so unless the Government are able to show that they are really worth while.
When people are abroad on their holidays they naturally count aloud how much they can spend on a particular article, whether it is a meal, a drink or a souvenir. That tends to destroy confidence in ourselves and in this country in the eyes of the rest of the world. This may seem intangible, but it is of vital importance. If we can get rid of these little restrictions it will make all the difference to this country.
6.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage, although there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak and who, no doubt, will seek to do so after I have finished. A number of points have been raised and I think it would be convenient if I were to deal with them now in case they are repeated later.
The House will be disappointed if it expects me now to make a promise of relief, or, for that matter, to convey an enthusiastic defence of the restrictions. The disadvantages of these restrictions are plain. Some points that have been enumerated in the debate are, perhaps, more telling than others. The most important disadvantage in the travel limit is the personal restriction which it involves. It may be justifiable but it would have to be justified. There are, of course, other restrictions in the way in which people spend their money but they, too, have to be justified. Quite apart from the personal restriction involved, there are

85
also irritations without which, normally, we would be better off. Nevertheless, the question is whether or not the justification in this case exists and how far some of the arguments against the restriction have been made up.
A number of points were raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) to whom we are grateful for this opportunity to discuss this subject. Some of those points were amongst the least telling ones which have been made. He said that this was clearly an example of Socialist restrictionism and that it was a badge of dictatorship and contrary to the way in which the Conservatives approached the problem. He has conveniently forgotten the history of this matter. In the early 1950s this was a weapon which the Conservative Administration regarded as just as necessary for the preservation of our balance of payments as do the present Administration. It is not just a case of the Conservative Administration continuing a restriction which had been previously imposed. At the time when the Labour Government left office in 1951 the foreign travel allowance limit was £100, but early on it was reduced to £50 by the Conservatives and early in 1952 it was reduced further to £25. In 1953 it was raised to £40 and it did not return to the £100 limit till the new travel season of 1st November, 1954. Therefore, this is not just something which only the Labour Government have found a useful weapon for protecting the reserves and our balance of payments. It was used before, and indeed quite savagely.
Mr. Peel: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow the record to be put straight. I did not claim that the Conservative Government were antagonistic to this limit. I simply said that when it was lifted a Tory Government were in power. I did, however, deplore the fact that after the war we were so slow in getting rid of it, and that applies to all Governments.
Mr. Taverne: I agree that the hon. Member made the point that it was lifted by a Conservative Administration, but his charge that this was a badge of dictatorship and was an example of Socialist restrictionism is not borne out, because the limit was lowered by the Conservative Administration when it came into power.
86
It has been said that this has led to suspicions of our good intentions towards Europe, because on the Continent an unfavourable contrast was drawn with the lack of similar restrictions in the sterling area. Here I should say something about the international position, because the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) asked how far this was contrary to our international obligations. It is not contrary to Bretton Woods. Under Article 8 of the Fund agreement, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East, member countries must obtain prior consent before imposing restrictions on current payments. This consent was obtained in July, 1966, and it was renewed on 1st November, 1967, and again in 1968. There has to be consent, which is why it is mentioned in the letter, but the Fund has been assured that it is our intention to remove these restrictions as soon as the balance of payments position allows.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having referred to Article 8 of the I.M.F. Agreement. I accept that consent has been sought and granted. But is he saying that it is in the spirit of the letters exchanged with the that the restrictions should be continued for so long?
Mr. Taverne: No. It is recognised that this is a legitimate weapon to use to protect our balance of payments. That is why it has been used and why consent has been granted.
So far as the O.E.C.D. is concerned, there is specific provision under the code to allow foreign currency freely for travel purposes, but this may be derogated from if there is a deterioration in the balance of payments. None of the members of the O.E.C.D. has objected to our restriction in this field. They have understood the reasons why we have had to use the restriction. It is not regarded as an anti-European gesture.
Again, the special position of the sterling area is understood. It would be impossible to impose travel restrictions relating to the overseas area without restrictions over the whole of exchange within the sterling area, and this is something which, under the present sterling area system, cannot be done and is not done. The sterling area position is understood, and

87
there is no question of suspicion about our European intentions.
It was said that there was a special allowance of £150 in the case of the World Cup. This is very much in line with the arrangements made for the Olympic Games, both under the previous Administration and recently. The reason is that these are exceptional individual occasions—exceptional in their importance in the sporting world. No other sporting events have received similar treatment or have required similar treatment. They have always been regarded as exceptional.
The question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East: why not allow foreign holidays when foreign imports are allowed? The whole argument on imports is quite separate. Exchange control arrangements exist, and they are widely accepted. There is a fundamental argument on which sometimes the Government do not find themselves totally at one with some of my hon. Friends: namely, whether or not import quotas would be a solution to our problems. I do not want to go into the arguments now as they involve questions of administration, of how far this is a long-term prob. fern and of the possibility of retaliation. They are quite separate from this field in which there is no question of retaliation.
It has been suggested that these travel restrictions do no good, and this is perhaps the most important argument that has been advanced. I must point to a contradiction in the arguments. It is said that the effect of these restrictions is to make people live too cheaply, and also that they do mean that people are spending less. There is obviously a clear contradiction in these arguments. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) and by the hon. Member for Eastbourne that it makes people spend to the limit. If one considers the average amount spent by visitors overseas, one finds that the reverse is the case. In 1966, before restrictions were imposed, the average spent by persons going abroad was £42. In 1967 it was £37 and last year it was £36. Therefore, there is no case for saying that people are spending more than they did before. In fact, the average has gone down.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is that on holidays?
Mr. Taverne: This is the average, all expenditure by persons abroad.
The crucial question is how far this measure has helped the balance of payments. In a very fair speech, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) suggested that it might have been of some help but nevertheless he wanted the restriction removed. There is no doubt that the amount spent on holidays abroad was increasing annually, as one would expect. In 1958 it was £152 million. In 1965 it was £290 million. In 1966, the last year before the restrictions were imposed, it was £297 million. In the two subsequent years, for which we have the figures, that is, 1967 and 1968, total spending abroad dropped from £297 million in 1966 to £275 million in 1967 and £272 million in 1968.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is that holidays?
Mr. Taverne: This is total expenditure, most of which is on holidays.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can my hon. and learned Friend give what one might term the import figures? What about money brought in by people coming to this country? How does it balance up?
Mr. Taverne: I shall come to that. Perhaps I may first look at the amounts spent abroad. This includes expenditure both within the non-sterling area and within the sterling area. There has been a particularly sharp drop, as one might expect, in the non-sterling area, from £220 million in 1966 to £193 million in 1967 and £184 million in 1968. There has been a rise in the sterling area, on the other hand, from £75 million in 1966 to £82 million in 1967 and £88 million in 1968.
Those figures are based on the international passenger survey, being figures in the possession of the Board of Trade. It would appear that the rising trend of overseas expenditure which was taking place has been halted. But there are a large number of different factors. One cannot be dogmatic about the effect of the travel restrictions—I recognise that—but it would appear that there has been a useful effect, which has been estimated as £25 million to £30 million a year.

89
It has been suggested that one must look at the other side of the picture. Does it not adversely affect travel to this country? In fact, one finds that in the growth of world travel, to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford pointed, there has been a considerable increase in the number of visitors and in expenditure by foreigners in Britain. In 1966 earnings from overseas visitors were £219 million. In 1967 the figure was £236 million, and in 1968 it was £282 million, which shows, on the face of it, a surplus on this particular account. But it would be wrong to judge it as a separate trade account; one could not do that. It was a question which was raised, so I have produced the figures. One must, however, look at the trend of expenditure abroad and see how far it has been affected.
The average amount spent has always been under £50. It has been pointed out that the allowance is not £50; it is £65. There is £15 sterling in addition, of which one might expect that at least £10 would be spent. In the past, about one quarter of those taking their holidays abroad spent more than this, and it is in that sector that it appears that the measures have had some effect.
Mr. Peel: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not overlook that the £15 in cash can be exchanged only at a poorer rate of exchange. It is something which people abroad are not very keen to have; they would much rather have it in other forms.
Mr. Taverne: It is true that it does not carry quite the same rate of exchange as travellers' cheques, though I do not think that it is right to say that it is not a popular form of foreign exchange for one to have. One sees frequent exchanges of dollars into pounds in this country, and I do not believe that there is any objection when dollars are exchanged into pounds.
I turn now to another aspect of the matter. There has been some evasion, but it is pursued, and the penalties, when cases are caught, are heavy. There are more than 7 million visits abroad each year. The vast majority of people spend less than the total in any event. The vast majority of people are reasonably honest. Again, hon. Members cannot have it both ways and argue, on the one hand
90
that these are totally ineffective restrictions and, on the other, that they are indefensible because they act as restrictions. All the evidence is that they do act as restrictions on most people.
As I said at the outset, this is a restriction and, therefore, it calls for justification. The question to be considered is: how far is it justified? How far does the situation permit it to be relaxed? It is not unreasonable to hope that the restriction will be removed soon, but, equally, it would be unreasonable at this stage for me to make a definite promise that it will be removed shortly. I am sure that the House, looking at the matter seriously and soberly, will agree that one must see how the balance of payments develops over the next few months. It will be considered again in the autumn, and an announcement will be made in good time before the next travel year begins.
As I have said, there appears to be good evidence justifying the restriction, but it is something which one does not wish to continue one moment longer than it is needed. I hope that, in the circumstances, the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East will not press his Motion to a Division.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Before commenting on the Minister's speech, I add my voice to the congratulations already offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) on his luck in the Ballot and on his decision to table a Motion on the subject of the travel allowance restriction. I was glad that both the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne)—he is not in his place at the moment—and the Minister of State took the same view, thereby clearly dissociating themselves from what I thought were the un. fair remarks made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who seemed somehow to think that it was unnecessary or even improper that we should have a few hours to debate a matter of considerable consequence to a large number of people.
It so happens that the debate is well timed, coming as it does shortly after the publication of the Letter of Intent

91
signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, in which, I was glad to see, the Chancellor undertook that the Government would
"abolish as soon as the balance of payments allows the restrictions which it currently maintains on travel expenditure".
Obviously, that is a very carefully worded passage, as the whole Letter was, and it has aroused, I think, justifiable optimism that this may be the last time we have to debate the travel restrictions.
The trade in particular will have been disappointed that the Minister could not go further than he did. I emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland (Mr. Kenneth Lewis); namely, the need for the Government to give early warning of their intention to remove the restriction. I am told that already the brochures for next summer's holidays are either at the printers or will shortly be going to them, and they have had to assume the continuance of the restrictions. But the planning for the winter holiday season, 1970–71, is already under way. Plans will have to be laid fairly soon. Any advance warning that the Government can give will be of immense value to the tour operators, travel agents and others, including the airlines, who have to plan their programmes well in advance.
It has been put to me that there would be an advantage in the Government's indicating, perhaps earlier than they would otherwise do, that it would be their intention to lift the restriction as from the beginning of the holiday season next November, even if they have to issue at the same time a clear caveat that if the balance of payments does not improve sufficiently to enable that to be done the decision might have to be revoked. It came as a surprise to me that the trade would welcome even a qualified and guarded statement of that kind. But that is the position that has been put to me, and I put it to the Government in the hope that they will feel able to take note of it.
The Minister's speech boiled down to a case for the restriction that was typical of the case repeatedly made; namely, that the gain to the balance of payments is about £25 to £30 million a year. It is remarkable that no Minister who has had
92
to deal with the matter has ever been able to be any more specific, and no Chancellor, despite repeated questioning, has felt able to publish his calculations in arriving at this figure.
I very much welcomed the Minister's recognition that merely to rely on the bald figures of British tourists' expenditure abroad and the corresponding figure of foreign tourists' spending here is not wholly reliable. The whole debate—not today's debate but that which has gone on in the country ever since July, 1966, when these measures were reintroduced—has been marked by a great haze of doubt surrounding the value of the restrictions as a method of saving foreign exchange. What it boils down to is that after the restrictions were imposed there was a dip in the published figures of expenditure on travel outside the sterling area. The Financial Times pointed out in an article on 27th August last year that this was a very simpliste inference to draw. The article continued:
"It is an elementary statistical precaution to ask what else was happening at the time, before jumping to the conclusion that the departure from trend was all due to a particular act of policy".
It is essential to ask what else has been happening over the recent period.
I invite the Minister to ask any travel agent what factors led to the down-turn in spending. He would be told that there were many other factors of much more immediate causative effect than the restrictions on currency, especially the liar! h deflationary measures with which they were accompanied. These are bound to make people much more careful in their spending on all sorts of things, particularly those parts of their budget which are flexible, and for many people, holiday spending is about the only part of their annual budget that can really be regarded as flexible. This restriction operated at the time when bookings were being made, and the figures clearly reflect that the down-turn in forward commitment in holiday travel very closely accompanied the introduction of deflationary measures, with the rise in unemployment and everything else that accompanied them.
There is added evidence. The travel business has shown clearly that the largest setbacks came among the relatively cheap package tour operators, and especially

93
with tours that have a low foreign currency content. By definition, they are almost wholly unaffected by the currency restrictions. I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Walton, because I am sure that he will appreciate that this goes a long way to destroy the Minister's argument justifying the continuation of the restrictions.
It is well known that any degree of political uncertainty or civil strife in a country immediately turns off the tap of foreign travel. Look at what happened to the hoteliers of Paris at the time of the May disturbances last year. It was months before they began to recover. Some of that business will have gone elsewhere. But many people will have cancelled their plans, been unable to put anything else in their place, and stayed in this country.
Reference has been made to travel to Spain. I was most interested in the figures my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) elicited. The Gibraltar imbroglio will have had some effect on travel to that country.
Looking at the other side, which country has enjoyed the biggest percentage increase in British travel overseas? The answer is the United States of America, right at the expensive end of the spectrum. Bearing in mind that the very expensive translantic fares do not come into the currency restrictions, and that almost the whole of the £65 is bound to be spent in almost every case, one can begin to recognise that the reduction of outflow of sterling is hardly proven.
Even the case the Minister made was qualified, and when account is taken of all these other facts it becomes of very doubtful validity indeed.
One's scepticism is further increased when one studies international comparisons. Here we have the advantage of a fairly recently published study, "Freedom to Travel", headed "An Economic Study of the Advantages of the Development of International Tourism without Restrictions", published in March by the European Travel Commission. It gives a much more penetrating analysis of the United Kingdom's situation over the past few years than anything the Minister of State gave us in the debate, and makes clear that before we strike
94
a balance of advantage we must take many other things into account.
Among the most vocal critics of the Government's policy in this country have been the airlines, both nationalised and private, because they have lost substantially as a result of the Government's restriction. Yet there was not a whisper in the Minister's speech that any account has been taken of the loss to the nationalised airlines as a result of the falling-off in traffic because of the travel restrictions.
What about the investment that has been made overseas by British travel operators in travel facilities, such as hotels? Has any account been taken by the Government of the loss of earnings to this country because these facilities have been under-utilised as a result of the restrictions? These are all facts which have to be taken into account.
Again, when looking at the balance the other way—and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that it is wrong to look at tourism as a single, isolated balance of payments figure—one has to have regard to the results of devaluation on increased spending on purchases in this country by tourists coming here. The conclusion of this highly reputable international body is this:
"In summary, the travel balance argument in relation to U.K. tourism earnings and expenditure requires closer analysis in order to take account of all the factors which can ultimately determine a `true' balance on the travel account. Restrictions on travel can affect U.K. air lines and U.K. hotel investors abroad, will reduce income to these principles and this reduction will be substantial in the future, particularly in relation to the air lines."
I do not believe that the Government have taken these factors into account. Nothing that the hon. and learned Gentleman said gave any indication that he had done other than take a broad inference from the figures of spending.
I do not need to stop there. When one is going to weigh the speculative balance of payments advantage against the powerful and compelling arguments to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, one must bear in mind two further points. First, the spending by British tourists overseas is a tiny proportion of the total expenditure on goods and services. In 1961 it was 3·9 per cent.; in 1965 it was

95
again 3·9 per cent.; in 1967 it was 4 per cent.; and I am prepared to accept that in 1968 it may have fallen back a little because devaluation will have sharply put up the cost of imports.
If one bears in mind the marginal effect, which is all it is, that travel restrictions may have even on this tiny proportion of the total spending overseas, one begins to see that one is juggling over a miniscule share of the total spending overseas.
Second, it is wrong to look at the tourist balance in isolation, just as it is wrong to look at the visible trade balance in isolation. In fact, many countries regularly run tourist deficits, including the United States, Canada, France, West Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Belgium and Luxembourg. These countries together regularly provide more than half our tourist earnings. In 1964 a total of 56 per cent. of our earnings came from this group of countries in 1965 the figure was 57 per cent.; in 1966 it was 58 per cent. and in 1967 it was 60 per cent. We are a major beneficiary of other countries' tourism deficits, and it is taking a narrow, myopic view of our future as major participants in the growth of international travel to justify these petty, irksome restrictions by reliance on our balance of payments on tourism.
The Minister of State's case, even at its best, has been shown to be founded on a shaky statistical basis. Against it, I see three powerful arguments. First, the present arrangements are riddled with loopholes and there is no doubt that they are subject to widespread evasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression, as did the Chancellor the other day, that he does not know what is going on. It is a perfectly legal form of avoidance to get the medical certificates which the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central said that he was so free with. Who can say that his health will not be improved by a trip overseas, especially after one of our fouler British winters? I understand that in many areas certificates are readily forthcoming and are always accepted without question, because bank managers are too busy to make their own investigations. Even on a small scale, most of the cross-Channel ferries are offering vouchers for purchases on board so that one does not
96
have to touch the £15 allowance, which is then available to be spent overseas. These are the legal ways. There are illegal ones.
Cash is smuggled out—and this does not come into the figures at all. I was struck by a paragraph in an article in the Daily Mail of 16th October in which Mr. Vincent Mulchrone wrote
"In Greece earlier this year our travel editor, Peter Whelpton, questioned 40 English tourists. Four out of five admitted that they had brought extra cash."
This is not evasion on a tiny scale. This is simply the manner in which the tourist, if he is going to have a holiday in a country like Greece, has to provide himself with the necessary cash, and it goes out stuffed in his socks. We know of cases of business allowances which are not fully spent and are deposited in banks abroad. Travellers' cheques are exchanged in an overseas sterling area country, such as Malta or Jordan—and one goes to Jordan first before going on to Israel because Israel is outside the sterling area. Many of my hon. Friends have also mentioned the West Indies as another example. It is just one more example—and here I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart—of a restriction that is petty, pointless and damaging, which is making criminals of us all and bringing the law into disrepute.
The second major objection is that the restriction represents a severe incursion on individual liberty. It was good to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that point. But it is right that we should answer the point made by the hon. Member for Walton that because the great majority-75 per cent., on the Minister's figures—find that they can manage their holiday within the allowance, that is the end of the matter. I do not accept the argument that an injustice ceases to be an injustice because only a few people are affected. On the contrary, the people hit by this are the "loners"—those who want to get away from the beaten track, who want to explore on their own, perhaps with a car, and perhaps stay rather longer than most people are able to do. This applies particularly to those who have just retired. It is becoming increasingly the custom in the United States that on retirement one has a long holiday overseas, maybe the only one of one's life. This is something which these restrictions make

97
impossible. These are the people one hits. It is the mark of an uncivilised attitude to believe that if only a few people are affected one can accept the situation with equanimity and say that it is not really important. This country is almost alone in feeling no qualms at restricting its people from travel.
Then, of course, there is the question of confidence. No doubt the Government will remember Lord Cromer's letter to The Times last year. I realise that Lord Cromer is not perhaps the favourite banker of Treasury Ministers, but he wrote:
"If confidence in Sterling is at issue no measure in itself could be contrived more effectively to disseminate more widely in the world at large an unfortunate and uncalled for belief that Sterling is not a good currency to hold…The pleading of poverty of foreign exchange by British tourists abroad in hotels, restaurants, and elsewhere does not enhance confidence in Sterling or in a Government which causes its citizens to debase themselves into begging special consideration."
That sentiment was repeated, in different word, by The Guardian last October:
"Britain's reputation abroad is undoubtedly damaged by the restrictions put on British tourists, eking out their francs and lira to cover a whole fortnight: nothing more effectively impresses on the minds of the Europeans that Britain is still in a precariously bad way."
If the Government had wanted to set about undermining confidence in the pound, if they wanted to blazen abroad to ordinary people like the French hotelier, the German restaurateur, the Italian taxi driver or the Swiss ski instructor, by giving the impression that our economy is in a dangerously parlous state, they could not have devised a more effective method than to send out millions of our people counting every centime, every pfennig, every lira or every cent they spend. If, as I believe is true, confidence is a critical weapon in the fight for prosperity, the sooner these niggling, irksome, illiberal and petty retrictions are abolished the better.
Question put and negatived.

MONOPOLIES COMMISSION
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern the lack of a clear Government lead in relation to recent reports of the Monopolies Commission and related matters
When I put down the Motion, I thought that I would thereby be doing a great service to British industry, the City and the public generally. Alas, it now looks as though I bought a pig in a poke, for I have only 20 minutes to go. That is nobody's fault, but I hope that it will be understood if I skin various points. I hope that the Minister will not interpret it as lack of courtesy if I curtail his latitude for reply.
The recent reports of the Monopolies Commission which I have particularly in mind and which I want to make the centre of the debate are the last two, that on the agreed take-over bid by Unilever for Allied Breweries and the contested bid by the Rank Organisation for De La Rue. Those reports are of great significance. First, they make specific comments on the two deals; second, they display a substantial widening of the criteria on which the Commission works; finally, both reports have a common annex headed "General Observations on Mergers". The appendices to the annex are highly relevant to the future development of monopoly, merger and take-over practice in this country.
The reports come at an important juncture in the industrial affairs of the country. The year 1968 saw acquisitions of large or public manufacturing companies totalling some £1,600 million. Although the number of companies involved was down on previous years, the actual finance was more than three times as great as five years previously. Therefore, superimposed on the general background of take-overs and mergers there is clearly the problem of bigness.
These fears of bigness bring in their train many questions about City ethics and financial techniques. We have the expression "funny money" which derives from the fact that debentures or loan stock are liable before tax is charged whereas the victim to be taken over has probably paid corporation tax before striking its return to its shareholders.

99
There are problems of job security, and as part of the general background may I refer to "Le défi Americain"? I am sure that the Minister will understand all the implications of the title of that book. These fears are often emotive, but that is not surprising. The old familiar pattern is disappearing, and disappearing rapidly. The number of United Kingdom manufacturing companies quoted in the appendix to the Report of the Monopolies Commission fell by no less than 31 per cent. between 1961 and 1968.
There are always fear and emotion when millions are on the march, and I refer not to the millions who might be mentioned in the headlines of the Morning Star but to millions of pounds, shillings and pence. However emotively expressed, these fears are by no means without substance, and they point to the need for a clear lead from the Government.
I turn now in terms of bigness and concentration to the confusion which is inherent in the 1965 Monopolies and Mergers Act, in which bigness and market power are utterly run together. In fact, it is impossible to find any rationale for the £5 million. On the whole, however, I agree with the Monopolies Commission when it says in its annex that there is no reason to think that this merger activity has so far led to the growth of companies whose absolute size is such as to raise important questions for the public interest. My information would suggest that the £5 million, allowing for the change in the value of money, is probably now too small anyway.
But I stress the use of the phrase "so far" as employed by the Commission, and I put particular emphasis on the disappearance of the decision-making units. Although large companies, large corporations and conglomerates, if well organised, have subsidiary structures which are capable of decision-making, they are vastly different from the independent company which has to make its own way with its own stockholders.
I have referred to conglomerates only in passing, and I say a word or two more on this subject in the hope that the Government may respond to it specifically. To a degree, the development of
100
conglomerates emphasises the point about bigness and concentration. There is a general fear that they will "make a mess of it", a fear of the wheeler-dealer kind of operation and the fear that the growth of conglomerates may merely be an excuse for bad management as fresh acquisitions may cover blunders in the past.
I was delighted on the whole to see the balanced way in which the Commission dealt with this point when it said that the term "conglomerate" as implied in this sense was clearly pejorative. Although we have to watch the situation carefully, I believe that the conglomerates have a useful rôle to play—this is recognised by the Commission—in terms of providing finance and management expertise within a certain defined area. The Commission does not develop the argument of the virtues of conglomerates in terms of filleting the rather sleepy company which has lost its way, but I see no reason why one should not be entirely forthright about this and proclaim that the conglomerate is a service to the economy in defined circumstances.
I was particularly interested by the reference in the appendix to account presentation whereby not only conglomerates but all companies might in future be required in the presentation of their statutory annual account to note the impact that acquisitions had had on their profitability and assets situation. This is not an easy matter to deal with, because in the new grouping which arises out of the acquisition the company taken over often loses its identity—it is merged, it is rationalised. But I believe that legislation along these lines, or, failing that, some co-operation from the Stock Exchange and the chartered accountants acting in advance, as the Jenkins Committee did with the last Companies Act, could improve matters, and that firms might well be encouraged to act on that. Such figures would form part of the statutory accounts unless an auditor certified that it was impossible to make a fair representation on that point.
Throughout the country there is a degree of ambivalence about mergers. It is recognised that largeness has a rôle to play in terms of competing internationally and coping with rapid obsolescence with the advance of technology. At the same time, many people are concerned about

101
the relatively small home market compared with the U.S.A. and the European Economic Community.
An aspect of ambivalence on which I want to tackle the Government concerns specifically the I.R.C. I do not want to lose my way in the short time which I have by discussing its raison d'etre but may I tell the Minister of the kind of reference to the I.R.C. with which one meets not merely in the City but among provincial industrialists? One example is that it is said that the I.R.C. can "get away with murder". With that one finds the sort of expression which I recently heard from a leading merchant banker who said, "When we go to the Monopolies Commission, they treat us like a lot of pickpockets." When the two expressions are aligned, the result is extremely disturbing.
I would go so far as to say that unless the I.R.C. and the Industrial Expansion Act are handled with transparent, even laborious, regard for the best aspects of monopoly merger philosophy from now on, then merger policy in Britain risks being hurried into an early state of disrepute. What is public virtue will become private vice. Legislation governing mergers and monopolies now extends to 13 major statutes, five quasi—statutesif I could put the Stock Exchange rules and similar rules under that heading—four separate Ministers and the N.E.D.O. Clearly, there is a need to sort this out so that people can see where they are going.
Second, there is the criterion for reference by the Board of Trade to the Monopolies Commission. This is apparently extending at a rate of knots. We heard the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House on 17th April. What disturbs me particularly—I shall touch on only two points—is that emerging from these last two reports of the Monopolies Commission there is what I would call the debasement of the shareholders' judgment and the general theme which appears to be that they will react only to immediate financial advantage.
This is a point of great misconception but of great profundity. It is a matter requiring the most careful attention and correction. In terms of the criterion used by the Commission, I very much hope that the Government will find it possible
102
to disclaim entirely the type of staff poll held at De La Rue during the course of the Monopoly Commission's investigations. In this context De La Rue acted as agents provocateurs, canvassing its agents abroad and conducting the poll among its staff at a point when tensions were obviously running extremely high.
The only parallel we have with this is the attempted take-over of Edwards High Vacuum by Varian Associates some three or four years ago. It is most ironic that the outcome there, although that approach was frustrated, was that the company fell victim, at a lower price later, to an English company. I believe that the executives have subsequently become extremely unhappy and are now leaving.
I wish to propose action to amalgamate the Government agencies and produce guidelines in terms of take-overs. I want substantially to qualify the expression "guidelines". I have read and re-read the Conservative Government's 1964 White Paper which contemplated public interest guidelines to assist the Monopolies Commission. It still makes very good reading, but my impression is that it is not quite what is called for. If the Government would get a move on and sort out the various agencies and let us have not merely a glossary or bibliography of the various ways in which we proceed but something more of the philosophy of the Board of Trade and its approach to these matters, that would be sufficient for the time being.
The delay by the Board of Trade is of considerable concern throughout industry. We must compliment it on the restraint it has exercised in references under the 1965 Act. Whether this will hold good now in view of the last two reports remains to be seen. There can be no doubt that the Board of Trade is exceedingly slow. It took nearly two months to make up its mind to refer the Unilever and Rank bids to the Commission, which was asked to report within not more than four months. The Commission beat the target by about a fortnight. Let us round it off at six months, and we see the effect of this and the impossibility of the situation in terms of the dropping of the Unilever bid on account of a change in market circumstances.

103
I stressed at the outset that I meant no discourtesy to the Minister, but I should like to speak a little more about the disrepute which has tended to cloud some of the practices in the take-over area. I refer specifically to the City code on take-overs and mergers. The first edition of this did not get off to a good start. The staffing and sanctions in the code did not work, as we saw with the Gallagher bid and the News of the World battle. The April 1969 code is good, and I should like to see the Board of Trade embrace it publicly instead of at a distance, through an official, as has been the case up to now.
My complaints about the code and its operation are somewhat detailed, but to be particular, there is no industrialist on this panel. There is a finance director of I.C.I., but I do not regard him as an industrialist in this context. I am full of compliments for the new Director-General, Mr. Ian Fraser; with any luck he will do a good job. Case histories should be made available from the take-over panel so that we all know where we are going.
There are many other points I should like to make. It has not been my intention to be discourteous to the Government, and I hope that in the very few minutes remaining to him the Minister of State may be able to put his finger on one or two of the salient points, as he sees them.
6.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) will acknowledge, I shall not be able to take up many of his points in the three minutes remaining. Perhaps I can face head-on one or two specific criticisms of the operation by the Board of Trade of the monopolies and mergers legislation, particularly mergers legislation.
104
First of all, the hon. Member criticises us for excessive delay in operating this legislation. I cannot accept the criticism. A total of 75 per cent. of cases are dealt with within two weeks, and 90 per cent. in three weeks. He makes a particular reference to the Unilever bid, where a longer period of consideration, I accept, took place, before a decision was made to refer that case. There was considerable difficulty in deciding whether it should be referred, and before referring it we wished to take advantage of the fullest consultation with the two ecru-panics concerned. This consultation took place with the chairmen of the two companies, and it was only following that and an assessment of the risks involved and all the benefits likely to accrue that we decided that it was a case that should be referred. This was exceptional. The normal period is far shorter.
The hon. Member calls for a clear lead from the Government, but he did not give too clear an indication as to what this would comprise. For example, there is the subject of guidelines. Guidelines of public interest to the Monopolies Commission or guidelines for the Board of Trade in deciding which mergers should be referred? As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out in the House and in speeches in the country, we shall publish a handbook which will describe how the Board of Trade operates merger legislation.
This does not mean that it is possible to provide clear guidelines that will in all cases remove uncertainty whether a merger will be referred. It is impossible to do this. An attempt has been made to do so in the United States, but it just cannot be done within—
It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government Business).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have published, as is my wont, my list of selections. I need not remind the House that we are starting the Report stage of the Bill at 7 o'clock and that reasonably brief speeches would, I think, be appreciated by everybody.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
    New Clause No. 1

      INCREASE OF RENTS OF HOUSES BELONG ING TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES WITHOUT NOTICE OF REMOVAL
      (1) Subject to subsection (2) and (3) of this section, where a house belonging to an authority to which this section applies is let for any period, the rent payable to the authority under the tenancy may, without the tenancy being terminated, be increased with effect from the beginning of any rental period (that it to say, a period in respect of which a payment of rent falls to be made) by a written notice of increase given by the authority to the tenant not less than four weeks before the beginning of rental period, or any earlier day on which the payment of rent in respect of that period falls to be made).
      (2) Where an authority to which this section applies gives under subsection (1) of this section a notice of increase which is to be operative as from the beginning of a rental period and the tenancy continues into that period, the notice shall nevertheless not have effect if the tenancy is terminated by a notice of removal given by the tenant in accordance with the provisions express or implied of the tenancy, and—

      (a) the notice of removal is given before the end of the period of two weeks following the date on which the notice of increase is given, or such longer period as may be allowed by the notice of increase; and

      (b) the date on which the tenancy is made to terminate is not later than the earliest clay on which the tenancy could be terminated by a notice of removal given by the tenant on the last day of that period.

      (3) A notice of increase given by an authority to which this section applies under subsection (1) of this section shall not be valid unless it informs the tenant of—

      (a)his right to terminate the tenancy and the steps to be taken by him if he wishes to do so, and

      (b) the dates by which, if the increase is not to be effective, the notice of removal must be received by the authority and the tenancy be made to terminate.

      (4) This section shall apply in relation to a tenancy of a house belonging to an authority to which this section applies notwithstanding
      106
      that the letting took place before the date of the commencement of this Act.
      (5) This section shall apply to any of the following authorities, that is to say—

      (a) a local authority;

      (b) a development corporation as defined in section 2 of the New Towns (Scotland). Act 1968;

      (c) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

      (d) a regional water board or a water development board as respectively defined in section 34(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.

      (6) In this section 'local authority' means a town council, county council, joint county council of a combined county, or a joint board or a joint committee; and for the purposes of the definition of local authority 'joint board' and 'joint committee' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by section 379(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947.
      (7) Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1968 (increase of local authority rents without notice to quit) is hereby repealed.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.1 p.m.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time the Government Amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      Dr. Mabon: These Amendments are consequential to the new Clause.
      The House will recall that the National Board for Prices and Incomes, in its Report No. 62 on local authority rents, suggested in paragraph 81 that the requirement of a formal notice to quit to accompany the offer of a new tenancy at a new rent should be changed. Accordingly, Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968, allowed the local authority to increase the rents of houses in their housing revenue account by sending to the tenants a simple notice of increase. The new Clause re-enacts for Scotland Section 12 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1968.
      We have taken this opportunity of extending it to cover the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town development corporations. Hon. Members with experience of this matter know that constituents who have been affected by this procedure in the past were, understandably but wrongly, sometimes distressed about the meaning of these formal

      107
      notices. This change has been welcomed, and I hope that the new Clause will receive the endorsement of all concerned. Certainly local authorities are very glad about it because it also brings in school houses, police houses and houses owned by water and sewerage authorities which are not in the housing revenue account.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad to accede to your request, Mr. Speaker, by making a very short speech. I hope to be able to continue in this way.
      The new Clause deals with something which has caused many misunderstandings in Scotland. There was an obligation on public authorities, when informing tenants that the rent would be raised, to give a notice to quit at the same time. The Minister has rightly said that people were often distressed and were very anxious because they thought that they were being turned out of their house. They often required firm legal assurance before they were satisfied. We therefore accept the principle of the Clause, which should improve the situation in Scotland.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF HIGH TOWER BLOCKS
      The percentage of grant payable by the Secretary of State towards the costs incurred by local authorities in the strengthening of high tower blocks as a result of the Ronan Point disaster shall be increased from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 35, in the Title, line 17, after 'tenancy', insert:
      'to increase the percentage grant payable to local authorities for the strengthening of high tower blocks;'
      I remind the House that we discussed the principles behind the new Clause on the parallel English Bill.
      Mr. Campbell: The new Clause has the effect of raising by 20 per cent. the Exchequer's share of the necessary costs to ensure safety in certain multi-storey buildings. I remember the debate of a week or two ago to which you, Mr. Speaker, have referred, but it was restricted by the Chair to a discussion of the situation in England and Wales. The principle is the same in Scotland. Therefore, I should like briefly to indicate the problem in Scotland.
      The disaster over a year ago at Ronan Point has, fortunately, not been repeated elsewhere as far as I know. There was an inquiry straight away and it was found that certain kinds of multi-storey buildings which had previously been thought to be entirely safe required strengthening because it is possible that in a certain combination of circumstances such buildings could suffer partial collapse.
      The Ministers concerned, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, gave guidance to local authorities and other public authorities concerned to obtain the advice of consultants. I understand that that has been done in Scotland. I do not know whether all local authorities have yet done it, but the trend has been that local authorities have employed consultants who have advised them that certain buildings need strengthening. No doubt this process is continuing.
      Local authorities concerned and Parliamentary replies have indicated that there are 18 local authorities concerned in Scotland. They are confined to certain areas, but in those areas where there are several such buildings this is a very serious matter. It is not only a question of the cost of paying contractors to carry out the work. There are the ancillary expenses of loss of rent when tenants have been moved out, and of finding alternative accommodation for the tenants; and I believe that tenants can reasonably claim for moving expenses when they have to move lock, stock and barrel into other accommodation. These are necessary expenses. I repeat that at the time these buildings were constructed they were regarded as being entirely safe. No disaster like Ronan Point was foreseen or in any way apprehended.
      We are not concerned here with increased public expenditure. I say that

      109
      in case hon. Members opposite say, as they sometimes do, that we on this side of the House are arguing for increased public expenditure when at other times we urge the Government to curb it. Our proposal refers to the essential work which must be done to make these buildings safe and the expenditure incurred in doing that work. Both sides of the House will agree that this work must be carried out. The question which arises is how the expenditure is to be shared between the public authorities upon whom it falls. If it is to be shared in the way suggested by the Government namely a 40 per cent. Exchequer grant with the rest to be covered by local authorities, the few local authorities which have several buildings in this condition will be faced with a comparatively large bill which will seriously affect their housing finance. We suggest that more of the expenditure should be covered by the Exchequer. It would then be shared by the whole country and would cause less of a problem to local authorities which, through no fault of their own, and entirely by misfortune, suffer from this danger and are having to spend money to put it right.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had occasion to express their anxiety on this subject, but we have not been able to discuss it as it affects Scotland, although there have been many Questions on it by which we were able to draw attention to what was happening and to ask the Government what they were doing. They have always replied that they were engaged in discussions with the Scottish local authorities. When we managed to discover what was happening the indication from local authorities was that they hoped that at least 75 per cent. of the cost would be covered by the Government. We naturally do not know the course of those discussions, but we got the impression from our contacts that the local authorities concerned expected a great deal more than 40 per cent.
      In a case like this, where a disaster has occurred but, fortunately, has not been repeated—although the danger exists—we believe that this must be regarded as money which has to be spent on safety and that more of it should be covered by the Exchequer than is proposed by the Government.
      Sir John Gilmour: As there are no high blocks of flats in my constituency, I feel that I can look on the new Clause rather more dispassionately than some hon. Members from constituencies where there are flats of this type. In the same way, when one seeks, as the Clause does, to spread the net wider, it means that my constituents would be paying their share. In all the circumstances, however, I think that that would be the fairest way of dealing with the problem.
      It is no fault of the local authorities concerned that this accident took place. Indeed, it may be the case that, because of the needs of safety, more remedial work has been done than is absolutely necessary. Be that as it may, the justice and the logic are surely that when a mistake in design has been made, if the blame cannot he pinned fairly and squarely on one person, the fairest thing to do is to spread the burden as widely as we can. That is what my hon. Friends seek to do in the Clause, and I very much hope that this view will prevail.
      Mr. Esmond Wright: I wish to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends but to put the matter in a Glasgow context. I should like to be reassured, when the Minister replies, that of the 58 high-tower blocks in Scotland, only three of the 18 in Glasgow incur the risk of needing these repairs.
      I support my hon. Friends in the contention that in simple justice and equity the burden should not be loaded as to 60 per cent. on Glasgow and only 40 per cent. on the national Exchequer. The logic for Glasgow operates pro rata for Cumbernauld, where, I understand, there are 15 high-tower blocks, but I do not know how many are vulnerable and need at least checking, and there are 14 in Edinburgh.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has pointed out, local authorities, rightly or wrongly, were under the impression that they would get a 75 per cent. grant. How will the Minister approach the City of Glasgow, which has just carried through what is, perhaps, the first effective revision of its rent and rate structure following the 33 wasted years of a Labour-controlled Glasgow Corporation?

      111
      How will the Minister of State ask Glasgow Corporation to find what, I understand, may amount to £.1½ million to cope with the consequences of the disaster?
      I should like to draw a parallel, as we did in the House a week or 10 days ago, with Hurricane Q, which hit Glasgow 18 months ago. I suggest that the Ronan Point disaster is exactly similar to the disaster which struck Glasgow 18 months ago. In all justice and equity, the burden should be carried by the Government at least to the extent of 60 per cent. and not 40 per cent.
      When the Minister responds, I should like him to give the facts concerning the the number of blocks affected and to reply to the case which I seek to make in terms of justice and equity.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. N. R. Wylie: Arising from something that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Pollok (Mr. Wright) has said, I feel justified in intervening shortly. My hon. Friend referred to Edinburgh, which is one of those cities in Scotland where high flats are becoming more and more obvious and to which greater resort has to be made because of the shortage of building land. In my constituency, there are three high-tower blocks which have been affected by the Ronan Point disaster.
      Unfortunately—or fortunately, perhaps; I do not know—one of those three blocks is occupied and was occupied at the material time. The housing authority felt it possible and safe to leave it occupied. The other two, however, have remained unoccupied. That means that in my constituency alone, something like the equivalent of 260 houses are unoccupied. When one has regard to the enormous waiting list for local authority housing in Edinburgh, this is something which we clearly cannot allow to continue.
      I understand from discussions which I have had with Edinburgh Corporation that negotiations have been going on with the central Government and with the Minister for some time, and I certainly would not wish to say anything that would prejudice those discussions. The Government's attitude seems, however, to have precluded any advance on the 40 per cent.
      112
      grant which some days ago, in connection with the Housing Bill for England and Wales, we challenged as being inadequate. We make the same challenge again.
      It seems to us quite inadequate that the central Government should pay only 40 per cent. of the cost of restoration, which, I understand, in Edinburgh's case will be in excess of £½ million. That is a considerable burden for the ratepayers. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage and notwithstanding that the matter was resolved against us in the Housing Bill for England and Wales, to have regard to the needs of housing authorities in Scotland, particularly those which are affected by the problem, because it is the major housing authorities and the major cities which have to go in for this type of development. It imposes a very heavy burden upon the ratepayers. I ask the Minister to think again.
      Mr. David Steel: I share in this matter the altruism of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) in that there are no tower blocks in my constituency. As the member of my party who served on the Committee stage of the Bill, however, I received quite a lot of representations from members of my party throughout Scotland when it was known that this matter would be discussed. On behalf of my colleagues, I support the new Clause in the name of the Opposition.
      In trying to determine the fair balance between what the national Exchequer should bear and what the local authorities affected should pay for this remedial work, it is worth casting our minds back to the report of the inquiry into the Ronan Point disaster. It shows that a fair amount of responsibility lies with agencies of the central Government. The report states, for example, at page 52,
      "that the National Building Agency was not excused for a failure to consider how this type of building would react when damaged as a result of some abnormal incident.
      "The other Government organisation which might have been expected to be aware of the structural implications of system building is the Building Research Station…the B.R.S. appears to have taken no steps either to follow up the structural problems of system building, or to give warning of the danger of progressive collapse".

      113
      On page 53, it is stated:
      "It is unfortunate that just when many large building firms, with the support of some architects, were advocating continental system building, engineers in this country were largely lukewarm or uninformed. It was in these unpropitious professional circumstances that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who themselves did not have qualified engineering staff to advise them, launched their industrialised building drive."
      In the first place, therefore, it is fair to suggest that the national or Government authority must itself accept a considerable part of the responsibility for the local authorities proceeding with this type of building.
      To be fair, the Government have not dodged their responsibility in this matter. In a letter from the Scottish Development Department to local authorities on 6th June, it was stated:
      "As to the use of industrialised building for this purpose, the Government accept that its extended use has been a feature of the policy both of themselves and of their predecessors".
      So I think this is the first thing we ought to get absolutely clear in trying to assess the balance of expenditure between the national and the local authorities.
      I will, if I may, just raise two questions about how these grants are to operate and about the advice which has been given to local authorities and which has been drawn to my attention. In the same letter which I have just quoted it is suggested:
      "In each instance it is proper that the local authority which commissioned the building should consider whether any claim lies against the contractor."
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Steel: This may well be so. The Minister says "Hear, hear", but I wonder, if a local authority takes legal action against the contractor and fails in that action, whether the Government will regard that as part of legitimate expenditure for which they would pay grant. I think it is a fair point, and the local authorities are entitled to know this before reaching a view on the advice given to them.
      On the same point of coincidental expenditure, in the circular issued by the Development Department on 21st November local authorities were advised by the Secretary of State that he
      114
      "also strongly recommends that in any instance in which, having regard to the standards set out in the Appendix and any previous appraisal, there is any doubt about a high block's freedom from the danger of progressive collapse, any gas supply which is still connected should be cut off, after appliances using electricity have been substituted for those operating on gas, as soon as possible, without waiting for further appraisal."
      Will those local authorities who act on this advice and incur expenditure, installing electricity appliances, and who feel, on further examination, that they are not required to make further alterations, be eligible for grant? That is a question which should be raised now.
      This is a matter of balance, and on the whole I certainly feel that for the Government to say, "We accept less than half of the expenditure involved here", is underrating what their responsibility is. They said in their circular that they had given very full consideration to the matter, and I know they have, in England and Wales and Scotland, but, as one who comes from an area not affected by this kind of expenditure, I feel that those local authorities landed with this kind of expenditure have a legitimate grievance if the Government only accept 40 per cent. of it, and I think that the Opposition's proposal is about the right balance.
      Mr. George Willis: As one of the hon. Members representing one of the areas very much affected by this matter I have had no representations at all about the manner in which it is proposed to make the Government contribution. I should have thought that if there were a great deal of feeling about this at least the Members of Parliament would have been informed.
      It seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, this is a matter of balance; there is no principle here. The Government have accepted a responsibility, and the only point at issue—there is no vital principle here—is simply the amount of the Government's contribution. I have no doubt at all that my hon. Friend will be able to give excellent reasons—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh, but I have no doubt about it at ail. An hon. Gentleman wants me to give some of the reasons. I could occupy a long time doing that, and it is not my business; it is my hon. Friend's job to give the reasons.

      115
      However, I should have thought there would have been a good deal more dissatisfaction on the part of the local authorities affected—
      Mr. Wylie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Edinburgh Corporation has been making very forceful representations direct to the Government about this matter?
      Mr. Willis: Well, it is about time. Edinburgh Corporation can make representations to me about a vast number of things, and if it feels very deeply about this I should have thought that the right thing to do is not only to make representations to the Government but also to the Members of Parliament for the city. Till I receive such representations I will find it hard to believe that my hon. Friend did not put very good arguments when he met the local authorities and discussed this matter with them.
      One does not want to go into all the pros and cons, but I can think of other things which have happened in Edinburgh. I remember a housing scheme in which balconies fell off the houses. I did not hear hon. Gentlemen coming along and asking about a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. grant to make all the balconies on those Edinburgh houses safe. I did not hear this argument at all then.
      Sir J. Gilmour: The contractors were at fault. It was nothing to do with design.
      Mr. Willis: This is one of the points which arises here. The only point I am making is that, after all, this would be approved by the central authority, if not to the same extent as in this case, but I did not then hear hon. Gentlemen coming along and saying, "What about 60 per cent. for Edinburgh to examine all its balconies and make them safe?" I did not hear that at all.
      Therefore, I view this new Clause with a certain amount of scepticism, particularly in view of the fact that hon. Gentlemen who represent Edinburgh are not even here to put the case. There cannot be much feeling about it if they are not even here.
      Mr. William Hannan: Nor during Committee on the Bill was there any mention made of this. My recollection is that in Committee there
      116
      was no Amendment put down about this matter. It may be that there have been afterthoughts since the English Bill went through.
      Mr. Willis: It is unfortunate that whenever I speak I always prompt other people to speak.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: We continually questioned the Government on the Floor of the House, and the Government told us that they were in negotiation with the local authorities about this, but they did not announce that they were going to give only 40 per cent. until about two weeks ago, when in Committee we had long gone past this point. Indeed, I think the Bill was out of Committee.
      Mr. Willis: I understand. I heard hon. Gentlemen raise this at that time. I am not quarrelling with the fact that they have raised it, although I should have thought the Long Title of the Bill would have to be altered to include this.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: That is another matter.
      Mr. Willis: This indicates that it is not very appropriate to this Bill, and that this new Clause has been moved as an afterthought.
      The only point I wanted to make was that if there were all this dissatisfaction on the part of Edinburgh we should have had more representations from the Members of Parliament for Edinburgh. Where are they? I do not know. Why are not all the hon. Members here clamouring for justice for Edinburgh Corporation? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) is here. I am not speaking of hon. Members on this side of the House but of hon. Members opposite. Where is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith)? Where is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison)?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope we are not going to have a catalogue of absentee Members. We will talk about the new Clause.
      Mr. Willis: I wished only to make the point and to make it only briefly and I have not been allowed to do that—that I have not received any representations about this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles seems to have received a lot of representations.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I certainly will be brief. I think that the most significant contribution made so far was the loud "Hear, hear" by the Minister, if I may say so, on a technical point, and this was one of the things I wanted to raise. Obviously, when there is a 40–60 split it is very tempting to ask, "Why not make it 50–50? Then everybody would be happy". But it is not as simple as that.
      I should like the Minister to explain to me where the money is coming from. The altruistic approach we have had is most encouraging. I take it that what hon. Members opposite are saying is that they would not object to their local authorities having a reduction in some kind of grants next year provided that the money would go to the local authorities which are involved in this matter. Is that what they are saying? Is that what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) meant? Or did he mean that the Exchequer had to find it from some other source?
      Sir J. Gilmour: I simply suggested that if a mistake is made which cannot be attributed to a particular place, it is wiser and better to spread the load wider rather than put it on the local authorities particularly affected.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman could in time become a Minister if he makes such replies as that. He obviously has not answered the question. I am surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) did not raise this specific point. Are we to understand that the North Dakota prairie dog philosophy is applying here? Is it the case that we want to encourage local authorities but whenever expenditure is incurred, through no fault of their own and through no fault of the Government, they must always look to the Scottish Office? Is this the philosophy that hon. Gentlemen are putting forward?
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: For example, my constituency in the North of Scotland, which was entirely unaffected last year by the hurricane in the South of Scotland, in no way resented the money that went to restore the damage in the areas which were affected.
      Mr. Brown: We have still not had a reply to the specific point whether or not all local authorities in Scotland next year will make do with less than they anticipate in rate support or any other grant to make sure that the local authorities which are involved in this expenditure have an increased contribution from the Exchequer. In the absence of any clarity from the Opposition, I can only think that, as usual, they are playing at politics.
      Will the Minister say what we are thinking of in terms of cost? In Glasgow, with the usual exaggeration of the city treasurer, the cost was estimated to be about £2 million; everyone now recognises that it is more likely to be £1 million. No proper estimate was made, and there were legitimate fears at first sight that more work would have to be done than has proved to be necessary. How many local authorities are involved? What is the expenditure per head of the population to the local authorities concerned, and will the Minister give an assurance that, in the light of this genuine good will that is shared by everyone, he will look again at this matter?
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I was interested in the debate on this matter which took place on the English Bill. One or two generous tributes were paid by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), and by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), particularly in column 598, in relation to storm damage, who made the good point that with storm damage we were dealing with remedial measures for which the Government accepted full responsibility in that they gave a handsome contribution. This cost the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) nothing; so I do not think that he should take credit for that. There we judged the needs of individual authorities and made grants accordingly.
      It has been suggested that this is the way in which this assistance should be given; that we should look at the Government contribution quite apart from the proportion, to see whether there could be a differential distribution of the Government's share. That, I took it, was the somewhat crypto-ministerial argument of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I agree with him that that is a perfectly sound argument, and I thought

      119
      that the way in which he replied to my hon. Friend was perfectly fair. It may be ministerial, but it is still perfectly fair. We are very willing to discuss this with the local authorities. I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said. When my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hughes, meets local authorities—and he has offered to meet them as soon as possible—we shall discuss whether or not there should be a differential distribution of the share that has so far been provided.
      Local authorities are not always as noble and generous as the hon. Member for Fife, East they may not agree with this, and it might be difficult to apply. My instinct is that it would be just if we were able to do it. I counsel the House to recognise that we do not know exactly how people will be affected, and I agree with my hon. Friend that many extravagant and silly things have been said by local authority elected members about how people will be affected. The assessment work has not yet been completed. There are in Glasgow 33 Corporation blocks of large panel construction, and they are being appraised. The hon. Member for Pollock mentioned the three—I presume in Albion Road—which are already being evacuated.
      I cannot say, and no one can say, at this stage how much work will need to be done and on how many blocks. People are presuming that all the blocks will need to be repaired in a substantial, and perhaps even unnecessary, way because of the fear of a recurrence of the disaster. This must be done in a sensible way by making proper assessments.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) mentioned the question of further inspection. The man responsible for the judgment on further inspection is the consultant employed by the local authority, and it is up to the local authority to accept his opinion. A genuine error has been made in the case of one block in my constituency. The consultant's advice on one occasion was reversed on another occasion. I do not blame him: we all makes mistakes we are all human. Even the best professional man sometimes makes an error. If there are genuine
      120
      mistakes we will seek to help the local authority, but the ultimate responsibility is with the local authority. The Government cannot compel all authorities to stand aside, abdicate their responsibilities and let us step in; it would be far too great a job for central Government to do.
      The job of central Government is to seek to advise, to pool the experience of authorities in Scotland and England and to try to give the best possible counsel. We do not give directions. The circular to which the hon. Gentleman referred is not a direction. It does not allow the authority to opt out of the responsibility. I very much agree with the view that when local authorities are given responsibility they must accept that there is a financial penalty if they make a mistake. Otherwise, what is the point of giving them responsibility? This is a grown-up view of local government. It is wrong that local authorities should come running to the Government whenever they get into trouble. Free agents as they are in many ways, and while they should listen to advice and to the experience of their confreres elsewhere in Scotland, they must accept ultimate responsibility for mistakes, however genuine they are.
      The Government accept in principle their responsibility here. Had they been all-wise and all-knowing, and had they had all the technical advice they would have liked, the Ronan Point disaster would never have happened. The responsibility is not confined to this Government. The previous Government must accept responsibility for the way in which the industrialised building programmes was launched and supported in the early 1960s, and the previous Government should not be blamed any more than we should be blamed. This is not a party argument. It is an argument about what happens when Governments give advice and guidance, and encourage authorities to do certain things.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Minister referred to something which he described as a mistake. We have never regarded these buildings as mistakes. When these buildings were authorised no one for a moment thought that they were not completely safe. Will the Minister tell us in respect of each of these blocks whether or not he considers that a mistake has been made?
      Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is not a technical professional man, neither as I in this regard. Neither he nor I can say which blocks are or are not in need of reinforcement. We, like the local authorities, can only rely on advice. When I say "a mistake", it was a mistake of design, a failure to appreciate the risk of progressive collapse of load-bearing panel construction following damage from explosion.
      There have been arguments in the technical press ever since Ronan Point about the degree of pressure resulting from explosion and whether or not it is tolerable. In the blocks that we are studying in Scotland we are dealing with a large number of systems and variants of systems. But the one particular block affected was only one particular form of construction with only one application in Scotland, and that was not an exact copy. Therefore, it is not easy to appreciate the technicalities.
      We are not yet out of the wood. I counsel hon. Members to be patient with the authorities. They are having a difficult time, as are we centrally, in making sure that the preventive work is carried out properly. I am sure the House would be annoyed if either the Minister or the local authorities were to rush things and come to snap decisions about this difficult problem. Nothing in the procedures for the submission for approval of subsidy-earning housing developments, the building regulations, the codes of practice or suggestions for the use of industrialised building compel a local authority to adopt a particular form of construction. Therefore, they do not relieve it of its responsibility as the authority exercising a function to provide houses. This is the principal difference between Hurricane Q and Ronan Point.
      Nobody has argued, apart from one authority in Scotland—namely, Greenock—that it is entirely the Government's responsibility and that 100 per cent. grant must be paid. But if the Government accept some responsibility and if, as I am arguing, the local authorities have some responsibility, surely some responsibility must be borne by the building industry and also the professions associated with it. The Government do not make the contracts. The contracts are made between local authorities and contractors. We have asked local authorities to con-
      122
      sider their contractual position vis-à-vis contractors who may be involved. It is still to be decided in discussions with the local authorities what items of incidental expenditure will quality. But I assure the House that it will be safe to assume that the removal of gas will qualify.
      It would be wrong of me to go on to agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that if an authority feels it has a case in law on the contract and goes to court and loses the action, it should be able to come to the Government to ask for partial relief in the payment of its legal costs. I do not see the logic of that. If the responsibility of entering into a contract lies with the local authority and if it wants to challenge the contract in the courts, then it is right and proper not only that the authority enjoys the benefits of a successful action but that it suffers the penalty of an unsuccessful one.
      Mr. David Steel: The only reason I raised the matter was to seek clarification since the Department's own circular refers to "such other expenditure as may be agreed to be reasonably incidental". I thought it was something which should be understood. However, the Minister has given his answer.
      Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in the discussions with the local authorities, and no doubt the fact that the hon. Member has raised the point and that I have given my reply will be useful to them in understanding our thinking on the matter. But I do not see the logic of pursuing the issue to the point of saying that they must get their legal costs.
      In all the arguments which have been deployed hon. Members opposite must remember past practice and consider how they would be placed in a similar situation if ever they were returned to power. I can assure the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that this Government will still be in power next year, so that he need have no worries about that. I hope that we shall see the matter to a successful conclusion.
      7.45 p.m.
      As for the Edinburgh blocks, I am not aware of the precise number involved.

      123
      There are still blocks at Sighthill which are empty, but as yet we have no proposals for remedial works. I could not comment on the figures given by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) about the impact of the situation in Edinburgh. I was then asked by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn whether it would apply to all blocks. My answer is that not all blocks need strengthening.
      It is sensible that when the local authorities meet my noble Friend they should be willing to look at the question of altering the flat rate suggestion to a differential rate. It is a matter for persuasion because many adjoining authorities in Scotland will not be affected. It is unfair to leave out those authorities which, probably for the best reasons, have embarked on high-rise buildings because of shortage of land and so on. Perhaps the local authorities will look at the matter, and the Government are prepared to accept a variation of the decision.
      The new Clause is unnecessary since we have the right to make extra-statutory payments. But, however it is varied, this is still public expenditure; it is still to be accommodated within the budgets. The Government do not wish to witness a falling off in house building. We accept that the Government's share of responsibility for the design is the same share as the equivalent of the current value of the subsidy paid on new building. We accept that additional responsibility. The subsidy on new building is roughly 40 per cent. That is why we have arrived at this figure. There is no logic in choosing a figure of 60 per cent. without breaching the principles of responsibility which must be shared between the Government and the local authorities.
      I end by saying that, although we have mentioned two authorities concerned to share responsibility, I pose the question to the House: is there not a third? As Members of Parliament concerned with the public purse, whether it be related to ratepayers or taxpayers, should we not ask the industry to look again at its part in this matter to see whether it should not honour, in some ex gratin way, its responsibility to local authorities, which have been good customers for many years and which have taken professional ad
      124
      vice from contractors, from outside consultants and from the Government, and yet have come upon this evil day.
      Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: We are grateful to the Minister of State for his sympathetic attitude, but at the same time we are disappointed that he has moved no further from the position that was taken by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in an earlier debate on this subject.
      We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in process of discussion with the local authorities. We hope that out of those discussions the matter of money may be adjusted in accordance with the wishes of the local authorities. We welcome that, and we also welcome the fact that, the Government's mind is open as to the way in which the money should be apportioned. This still leaves the Government bearing only 40 per cent. of the total cost over the country as a whole as against the 60 per cent. which they are to require from the local authorities. Although the Government are prepared to co-operate in the administration of the grant in seeing that it is as flexible as possible, the Minister today has not moved in any way on the main matter from the stance adopted by his right hon Friend.
      In the latter part of his speech the Minister mentioned the co-operation that he was hoping to receive from the building industry and those responsible for the construction of these flats. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, even though they have a liability, either legal or moral, it still leaves them with a very big burden, and it is that burden on the local authorities which concerns us? Whether or not it is a matter for litigation, at the end of the day a substantial amount will have to be met by the local authorities. Incidentally, very few building contracts go to what might be termed legal litigation. Normally any dispute is dealt with by a process of arbitration. That is the established way of dealing with such matters.
      Earlier in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman spoke of mistakes. We do not intend for a moment to attempt to apportion blame to this Government or to previous Governments. We are not think-of that. What has happened in terms of

      125
      design and so on is past history. The fact remains, however, that the mistake was not the fault of the local authorities. They accepted advice based on the best codes of building practice known at the time, and they have become the victims of unfortunate circumstances in that they will have to find the major amendment to put right the mistakes which has occurred. What concerns us is the size of their contribution in relation to the responsibility which they have, and it is the amount of money and how it is to be found to which I want to direct my remarks.
      Although it is many months since the Ronan Point disaster, it is unfortunate that we are still not in full possession of the facts. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for that. There is a great number of blocks to look at and a tremendous amount of work to be done before we can know the facts. But we have had considerable time, and we do not want to let much more time pass.
      In an earlier debate, the point was made from the benches opposite that there was an impression amongst local authorities that the Government would be more generous and that now that it is realised that the Government will give only 40 per cent., the fear is that local authorities may hold back in completing surveys and carrying out remedial works. I hope that that will not happen, but that was the suggestion which came from an hon. Member opposite who represents an area which is particularly concerned with high tower flats. The Government having announced their intention to contribute 40 per cent. to the cost of remedial works, I hope that it will not mean that any local authority will hold back in carrying out such works.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: There is no Ministerial authority for ever having said 75 per cent. at any time—or, indeed, anything in excess of 40 per cent. The authority which hesitates to carry out remedial work because of the Government's 40 per cent. grant will lose more in rent by not doing the work than it would by embarking on some sort of phased programme.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that last point, but that does not apply to blocks which are in occupation. When the hon. Gentleman says that, he must be
      126
      referring to blocks under construction or those which are not yet occupied, in which case, the longer the delay, the longer it is until the authority concerned can get tenants into them.
      The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) implied that we raised this matter as one of great principle. That is not our object. We raise it as a purely practical point of how the cost is to be apportioned. If we raised it as a matter of pure principle, we should have said that the Government ought to bear 100 per cent. of the cost, as the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech. We are not asking for that. We believe that the cost must be shared, and we are not treating this as a great matter of principle. It is our aim to get to the practical point of trying to apportion responsibility and, having done that, to see how the money to meet the cost of carrying out remedial works is to be found.
      The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that local authorities in Scotland were not concerned about it—
      Mr. Willis: I did not say that.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: He said that they were not showing their concern.
      Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I said that I had heard nothing from Edinburgh Corporation, and I did not think that any other hon. Members had heard from Edinburgh Corporation and that, if anyone had, he was not here to say so.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That must reflect on what Edinburgh Corporation thinks that the right hon. Gentleman will raise in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), on the other hand, is renowned for the way in which he takes up the building problems of his constituents. On 20th June, in answer to a Question which sought to discover the size of the problem, we were told that Edinburgh has 14 blocks likely to be affected, Cumbernauld has 15, Greenock has 14, Lanark County has 12, and Glasgow has 58.
      Hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies are aware of the great concern which is felt in the Glasgow authority. The hon. Member for Glasgow,

      127
      Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that there were some exaggerated statements in the early stages. According to a report in the Glasgow Herald on 7th June, the convenor of the housing committee said:
      "I regard a 40 per cent. grant by the Government as quite inadequate. All this extra expense stems from the Government encouraging industrialised system-building in the first place, and the corporation following Government advice on remedial measures after the Ronan Point disaster."
      That shows the concern which is felt in Glasgow, and the figure given following that meeting of the Glasgow housing committee was £1·4 million. That certainly is a substantial sum, and it shows the concern which is felt there.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) said, there is concern not only about the expense of strengthening but about the trouble and inconvenience caused to families who have to be removed while it is being done. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) spoke of the Albion blocks, as did the Minister of State, where something like 285 families are likely to have to move as a result of the remedial action which is necessary. We look at the problem not only from the point of view of the cost but from that of inconvenience to those who have to move to comply with what is necessary for the remedial work to be done.
      The real point is to discover from what accounts the money is to be paid. If the Government are to pay only 40 per cent., and 60 per cent. must come from the local authorities, that must be paid for in certain ways. The first possibility is that it is paid out of rents and put upon the tenants of the authorities affected, in which case it will fall heavily on those areas which, through no choice of their own but for reasons of land shortage, have had to build these high flats. If it does not fall on the tenants, it will have to fall on the ratepayers, despite the fact that, in March of this year, in Circular 15/69 the Government urged local authorities not to allow their housing revenue accounts to go into deficit. They will go into deficit increasingly if a large amount of expenditure on remedial action is to go on the housing accounts and if it cannot be passed on to the ratepayers and others.
      128
      8.0 p.m.
      We, on this side, are concerned because the problem of the high tower flats is concentrated in the areas of particular local authorities on which it bears very heavily indeed. If the local authorities in those areas are to bear so high a proportion of the expense, it will fall either on the tenants or on the ratepayers in those areas. We are concerned about these people, and that is why we have put down the new Clause.
      Earlier, the Minister said that no definite assurance was given about how the cost was to be apportioned. In the debate on 20th February on the Rate Support Grant my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn was chided by the Minister of State for raising the question of remedial action in strengthening high tower blocks. The Minister said:
      "Perhaps we shall decide it in the storm damage way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 840.]
      This is the kind of encouragement that local authorities had: that the Government would be more sympathetic towards the problem than they had been. This has concerned local authorities.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that storm damage grant was awarded to those authorities that were affected, and this is a point still to be discussed. As a Minister, I have gone as far as I can in indicating my preference to be discussed between Lord Hughes and the authorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether he favours a differential arrangement or a flat-rate arrangement?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The whole point of having a discussion with local authorities is to get their points of view. Local authorities have not put any particular points of view on this to me. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what he has heard.
      But this is not the point at issue. The point is whether the Government will give 40 per cent. or the 60 per cent that we believe they ought to give. We feel that the Government are treating this problem as an ordinary housing problem. The Minister of State has said this tonight and the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that on 18th June. We do not believe that this problem is in the

      129
      ordinary run of housing problems and should be met in the way in which should be met in the way in which they are normally met. We believe that this is an abnormal situation which should be met in an exceptional way. As the Government have totally failed to grasp and realise the exceptional nature of the
      situation, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new Clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 142.

      Division No.300.]

      AYES

      [8.4 p.m.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bessell, Peter

      Gurden, Harold

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Biffen, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pym, Francis

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Body, Richard

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Royle, Anthony

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Brewis, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Sharples, Richard

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

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

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

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Holland, Philip

      Silvester, Frederick

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Hornby, Richard

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Speed, Keith

      Carlisle, Mark

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Stainton, Keith

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Kitson, Timothy

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Chataway, Christopher

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Stodart, Anthony

      Clark, Henry

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Lane, David

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

      Corfield, F. V.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Costain, A. P.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Tilney, John

      Currie, G. B. H,

      Lubbock, Eric

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dean, Paul

      MacArthur, Ian

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Walters, Dennis

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Maude, Angus

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Mawby, Ray

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Doughty, Charles

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      White-law, Rt. Hn. William

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wiggin, A. W

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

      Monro, Hector

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Farr, John

      Murton, Oscar

      Wright, Esmond

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wylie, N. R.

      Foster, Sir John

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Goodhart, Philip

      Peel, John

      Mr. Anthony Grant and

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Eadie, Alex

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

      Alldritt, Walter

      Edelman, Maurice

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preaton, N.)

      Ensor, David

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

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fernyhough, E.

      Lawson, George

      Binns, John

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Blackburn, F.

      Forrester, John

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Booth, Albert

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Boy den, James

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Gregory, Arnold

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Buchan, Norman

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Hannan, William

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Haseldine, Norman

      MacColl, James

      Chapman, Donald

      Heffer, Eric S.

      MacDermot, Niall

      Concannon, J. D.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hooley, Frank

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Manuel, Archie

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mapp, Charles

      Dewar, Donald

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Dobson, Ray

      Hunter, Adam

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Doig, Peter

      Hynd, John

      Maxwell, Robert

      Driberg, Tom

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Mendelson, John

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Millan, Bruce

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wallace, George

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Watkins. David (Consett)

      Moonman, Eric

      Sheldon, Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

      Whitaker, Ben

      Ogden, Eric

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Orbach, Maurice

      Silverman, Julius

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Orme, Stanley

      Slater, Joseph

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Small, William

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Paget, R. T.

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Peart, Ht. Hn. Fred

      Symonds, J. B.

      Woof, Robert

      Pentland, Norman

      Taverne, Dick

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Thornton, Ernest

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Rankin, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Rees, Merlyn

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    New Clause No. 3

      HOUSING ACCOMMODATION AND CAMPING SITES IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING HOUSEHOLDS
      (1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to consider the needs of travelling households in their district with respect to the provision of housing accommodation and of properly serviced camping sites.
      (2) Every local authority shall from time to time cause to be made such a survey or inspection of their district as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed on them by this section.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Clause I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 36, in 'Title, line 17, after tenancy; ', insert:
      'to make provision of housing accommodation and camping sites in respect of travelling households:'.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the end of last year the Liaison Committee for Scotland of the Gipsies and Travelling People's Council raised with Scottish Members the problem of the harassment of travellers and the difficulties they had in finding places to settle. Many of us recognise the difficulties thrown up by this intractable problem, but it is easy and perhaps convenient to forget them because in relation to Scotland as a whole these problems may not be so great.
      The matter has been more closely drawn to our attention recently by the census carried out by the Scottish Office of travelling families in Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Office and to the work of those involved
      132
      in the local authorities. I am glad to see the Minister of State genuinely smiling for the first time this evening. This encourages us. All of us who have a knowledge of local authorities appreciate the tremendous amount of work which went into the preparation of this census and into the analysis which was carried out by the Scottish Office. The results thrown up greatly increase our knowledge of the problems of travelling families.
      8.15 p.m.
      In March it was found that 1,500 people in 300 families had to follow the roads in Scotland throughout the year. Those 300 families contain 650 children under 16. Nearly 30 per cent. of those families live in tents. In the winter time, there is a concentration of these families in particular areas—in Lanarkshire, as the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) knows, and in Perthshire, where I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has been concerned.
      It is important that the census should be kept up-to-date so that we have knowledge of the dimensions of the problem. Thus, subsection (2) enjoins the local authority "from time to time" to
      "cause to be made such a survey or inspection of their district as may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed on them by this section."
      I welcome the Department's proposal to conduct another census in mid-August. That will provide details of the summer picture and fill the gaps in the March census.
      As well as recording the number of families, the age groupings of children, whether the families were living in tents or caravans, and whether they were on

      133
      permanent or temporary sites, the census inquired of the families whether they wanted to continue travelling. Under 20 per cent. of the families who answered the questions wanted to continue travelling. Eighty per cent. wanted to settle in one spot. Four out of five of those who wanted to settle stated a preference to settle in a house rather than in a caravan on a site.
      In Circular 38/1969 the Scottish Development Department urged local authorities to take temporary action in regard to such families—first, in the matter of housing accommodation, and, second, in the provision of caravan sites. The new Clause would impose a definite duty on local authorities to consider the needs of travelling households. Consonant with our support of the Government's urging local authorities to consider the provision of temporary accommodation and also to seek a permanent solution to the problems of travelling families, we seek to impose a duty on local authorities to consider the needs of travelling households, first, in respect of housing accommodation—this is important, since four out of five families who want to settle want to do so in a house—and second, we seek to impose on local authorities the duty to provide camping sites.
      I accept that the question of the provision of camping sites may not be so great in the long term. As the Circular points out, local authorities already have power under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, and the Countryside Act, 1967, to provide caravan sites. In addition to caravan sites, what is important is the provision of properly serviced camp sites with hard standings, where needed, with toilet accommodation and washing facilities, because 30 per cent. of these families live in tents.
      This awkward problem poses many questions for local authorities. It poses deep social problems in regard to the families. It poses problems of education. Difficult though the problem is and small in relation to the total population of Scotland, this is a problem which we in this House must not brush aside. Therefore, by drawing attention to it by means of this Clause I hope that we shall have shown that we are concerned about it. At the same time,
      134
      I hope the Government take the opportunity to say what they believe can be done permanently to provide for these families, and if they need to supplement the powers which they already have, I hope they will take advantage of the Clause to provide a permanent solution.
      Mr. James Hamilton: I welcome this proposed Clause, although with reservations. It is very easy to become emotional about this problem. As a Member of Parliament I have been bedevilled with this sort of problem in my constituency, where these travellers move from village to village, and the police have been very tolerant with them. Representations have been made by myself, by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and others to the Scottish Office, which has been most attentive.
      I am sure that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is aware that local authorities already have the power to provide the necessary sites and to service them for these travellers. However, when these people are asked whether they are prepared to use the sites we find that the answer is invariably in the negative. These people come to Bellshill frequently. It is very easy to suggest that we in such places should be Christian and tolerant, provided that they are not in one's own back garden. When one is bedevilled with this kind of situation, one's feeling is likely to be quite different.
      I have received large deputations on this subject. Only the other week there was a television programme pin-pointing the sort of thing that was happening in Bellshill. Once these people are moved from Bellshill they go to another village in my constituency, Mossend, where they camp beside a church. Representations were made to me by local residents because people going to this place of worship found all sorts of things going on and heard language which one would not expect from Christians. The worst feature of all is that these people were leaving human dirt in these areas. This is a fact with which I am personally conversant. When these travellers were moved from Mossend they went to Bothwellhaugh which is also in my constituency.

      135
      It will be appreciated that when one is directly concerned with this problem one does not become emotional about it but looks at it in a realistic fashion. I welcome this proposed Clause so long as local authorities are prepared to use the existing legislation under which they are able to prepare camp sites. The trouble is that there is no guarantee that the travellers will use these sites.
      It is easy to suggest that these people should be given special consideration for housing. It is not so difficult in areas which do not have the housing problems that exist in some parts of my County of Lanark, including Rutherglen. In parts of Lanark some married couples have been waiting seven or eight years before they can get a house. Are these travellers to be considered before people who have been on the housing list for six or seven years? If one is prepared to say that they should be given preference, then one is obviously running into tremendous difficulties. I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to finance the local authorities to construct these camp sites and to offer subsidies for housing. If so, I shall be in favour of this new Clause.
      The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred to the problem of schooling. This is a serious problem because the children of these travellers move from one school to another and we have to give special consideration to this fact. If they are prepared to stay in certain localities where people are tolerant—particularly the police and the local authorities—the local authorities in those areas must receive special consideration from the Government. I therefore ask the Minister of State to answer these questions to my satisfaction before I can support this Clause.
      Mr. Ian MacArthur: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) reminded us that this Bill deals primarily with large issues but that that fact should not be an excuse for turning our backs on the very real problem of the travelling families in Scotland.
      I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). It is very easy to become emotional and
      136
      carried away by the plight in which one sees many of these families living. I would add to what he said that if the behaviour of some of the travelling families is as reprehensible as he suggests—and I do not dispute it—that may be the result largely of the pattern of life which these people lead. Their movement is not always voluntary. Sometimes a movement is imposed upon them by people pushing them away and harrying them about. There is very often a wish to get rid of the travelling family and the small encampment which can be a nuisance and very often is an eyesore. But that should not cause us to say that nothing can be done about the problem. or that travelling families should not be helped. They need help, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the new Clause and calling attention to a big human problem.
      8.30 p.m.
      My hon. Friend referred to the survey conducted on 19th March. I am very glad that it was carried out, for it produced four significant findings. First, it revealed a population of travelling families in Scotland of about 1,500 people, which is about 300 families. Second, it showed that two out of three of those families have children under 16. This points to the related problem of educating those children as they move from place to place. Third, the survey showed that the families tend, as we knew already, to settle in the winter and to travel in the summer. Therefore, it is right that there should be another survey in August so that we have a balanced picture of the whole scene. It is possible that the March survey underestimated the number of families, and I am glad to think that the second survey may remedy that and give us a better impression of the true picture.
      Finally, the survey showed that about eight out of 10 of the families say that they want to stop travelling. This means that there are 240 families that wish to settle permanently somewhere, and the figure may be higher if the March survey under-estimated the number of travelling families. One presumes that those 240 families wish to take up a normal settled life, living in a house, with neighbours beside them.
      Much of the problem is centred on Perthshire and the House may be in-

      137
      terested to know what has been happening there to try to cope with the problem. As the hon. Member for Bothwell reminded us, local authorities already have quite substantial powers to provide suitable camping sites. I welcome the decision of the Joint County Council of Perth and Kinross to acquire a piece of land near Perth which will provide a permanent camping site for travelling people. However, the acquisition of the land may take a long time.
      The local problem now, therefore, is to provide a temporary site which can be in use before the next winter, when the families settle down again. One is being provided at Ruthvenfield in my constituency. The work being done on the site is a remarkable demonstration of the humane and understanding care which many people have for their fellow creatures in difficulty. A Church of Scotland Minister, the Rev. Dennis Sutherland, has special responsibility for travelling people. He and a local welfare group are clearing the site and building a road. The work is due to be finished tomorrow. Among their helpers are seven boys fom the Easterhouse area of Glasgow, who have been giving their time willingly and generously. They are also giving their energies. I believe that they shifted 400 tons of rubble in one day last week.
      The group does not consist only of people coming in to help. In charge of the group is a travelling man, the Secretary of the Scottish Gipsies and Travellers Council. Lord Hughes visited the scheme last Thursday, and I am sure that his visit was greatly appreciated.
      This voluntary work is splendid, but voluntary effort can achieve only a limited amount. A special responsibility should rest on the local authorities. I believe that the Perth Town Council and the County Council are deeply aware of this. I have already spoken about their provision of a permanent site. There is also a need for houses for those travellers who wish to settle down.
      Two points must not be lost sight of. One is the need to distinguish between the genuine travelling family and the fellow-traveller, the bogus claimants who are not travelling families in the true sense of the word.
      Mr. Eric Lubbock: I should be interested to know what the
      138
      hon. Gentleman means by a bogus traveller. Could he define this a little more precisely?
      Mr. MacArthur: What I mean is that there has been a certain overlap between the travelling families and itinerant people of a different kind, such as travelling furniture buyers from Ireland in vans, who remain in Perthshire at this time of the year and try to cash in on the sentiment and feeling there is for the genuine Scottish-based travelling family.
      The second point which must be borne in mind is that one should not give so much priority at a time always of housing difficulty that travelling families unduly jump the queue. It is right that they should have their own places on the housing waiting lists but there is no case for giving them undue preference so that residents in a town are moved down the list because of the sympathy we naturally feel for these travellers. What is important is that they should be treated equally with other people, and I welcome the fact that, in Perth, travelling families are put on the local waiting list in exactly the same way as any other family. Indeed, rather more than 20 of the families have been re-housed in this way. But that is not the pattern generally followed, I understand.
      For too long, these travelling families have been ignored. They have been harried and pushed about and, although they have for some time given rise to the sort of problems outlined by the hon. Member for Bothwell, it is right to take note of the difficulty they have been facing, and we should recognise that many of them who are presenting a sizeable social problem now wish to settle down among their fellow men. It is right that we should help them to do that.
      Mr. James Davidson: I support the new Clause, but with certain reservations. I have taken an interest in this problem for some time. I first wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on 5th February, 1968, which is well over a year ago. In his reply he said:
      "As I expect you know, Mr. Lubbock's Bill is likely to be a temporary measure only. But if and when it can be shown that we have a problem in Scotland of sufficient

      139
      magnitude to justify legislation, we can consider dealing with it in a separate Scottish Bill."
      Shortly after that letter, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) introduced a Bill—later, the Caravan Sites Act—which applied to England and Wales and not to Scotland. I put down an Amendment to try to make it applicable to Scotland and perhaps it is a little surprising, in view of the enthusiasm today, that I did not get any support for it, except from Members of my own party. On Second Reading, I said:
      "I cannot quite make out the reasons for the opposition to including Scotland. I believe that most of the opposition comes from the local authorities, not from the Scottish Office itself. There is no real basis for it. It appears to me to be just simply a kind of inertia, a reluctance to take on new responsibilities, a desire to be left undisturbed."
      I went on to say:
      "I disagree very strongly with the view which has apparently been expressed by the County Councils Association. I do not believe it has looked at the matter very thoroughly, and I shall do my best to see, before any permanent legislation is introduced, that Scottish counties do look into the matter."
      I made a point which can well be made again today in relation to this new Clause. I said:
      "The Protection from Eviction Act. 1964, applies to Scotland. Considerable anomalies may be raised in the position of caravan dwellers. They will be protected in England but they will not have protection in Scotland. My hon. Friends and I believe that permanent legislation could be introduced apposite to Scottish conditions.
      "I repeat that I believe that the reluctance to include Scotland in the Bill is really due to inertia and lack of interest among Scottish local authorities, when we have clear evidence of Scottish conditions which will show the Scottish Office that Scotland should be included."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1986–9.]
      Since then, earlier this year a survey was conducted with the good will of the noble Lord whom I have mentioned. Its results were interesting. I have to admit that my own county of Aberdeen is not one of those particularly troubled by this problem, which is confined mainly to Lanarkshire, Perthshire and Renfrew-shire. But that is because—and this is the important point—for some time the local authority in Aberdeenshire has taken the view that the travelling people should be integrated into the community. It has pursued that policy all along the
      140
      line with considerable success. It has set an example which other authorities troubled with the problem of travelling families without proper sites should follow. Authorities should make a stern and determined attempt to integrate these people into the community.
      I have certain reservations about the new Clause because it is extremely vaguely worded. It proposes to impose a duty on local authorities, but it does nothing which is not already done by the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. For that reason, in its present form the Clause might be something of an embarrassment, because it is a Clause without definitions and without specific provisions.
      The Government surveys are much to be commended. I understand that another is to be carried out in August, and that should give more complete figures. One interesting point which emerges from the surveys is that the vast majority of the travelling families want to settle down. Only a tiny proportion want to go on travelling indefinitely. The large proportion want to settle down, to be integrated, to send their children to school and to feel that they have become part of the community.
      In this connection, there may be a need to encourage local authorities to introduce or devise some type of intermediate housing, as is done in Aberdeenshire, where travelling families may get used to the idea of living on a settled site in one place before moving into accommodation of the standard of that allocated to normal applicants for local authority housing. I say that in no spirit of disparagement. If a family has followed a tradition of travelling for decades, or centuries, it is obviously a big step for it suddenly to enter the community and live in permanent housing to which it has not yet adapted its way of life.
      There is an interim need for the police to be encouraged to exercise leniency, particularly in respect of the Trespass (Scotland) Act, 1865, until the problem is more adequately dealt with. There have been occasions when travelling families have been moved on in the middle of the night, in bad weather and so on. This is unnecessary adherence to the letter of the law and in certain areas the police should be encouraged to show leniency in this respect.

      141
      The travellers who came to see me raised another matter, which was of minor importance. When they apply for local authority housing, it sometimes happens that when the news comes through that they are on the short list, or are likely to get a house, they cannot be found because they have moved on. A special supplementary register with a forwarding address, so that a travelling family may be contacted if it has applied for local authority housing, is needed, so that if it moved on, it does not lose the house by the authority's failure to be able to contact it.
      These are genuine considerations which were raised with me by the travelling families, and I hope that the Minister of State will take them into account, both in his reply tonight and in the future Scottish Office policy towards travelling families in Scotland.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for reminding the House that at the time of the Caravan Sites Bill last year he sought to extend its application to Scotland. At that time I, too, wrote to the Scottish Office to find out its view. I wrote to the Minister of State, and, apart from sending me a copy of the letter from Lord Shepherd, already quoted by my hon. Friend, he said:
      "We are, of course, very ready to look at any evidence which you may have in relation to Scotland."
      I did not have much evidence at the time, it was not available. As a result of this study it seems that all the information on which legislation might be based is now in the hands of the Scottish Office. I hope that we shall not have something as vaguely worded as this new Clause. As the Minister of State rightly said, what we need ultimately, as we cannot apply the caravan sites Measure to Scotland, is a separate Act dealing with the position in a comprehensive manner. We shall need to impose duties on local authorities, rather than merely give them powers to do certain things, which as my hon. Friend has said, they can already be doing under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960.
      It could be argued that they have the power not only to provide sites but also to carry out any additional surveys that
      142
      may be necessary. Clause 24(2) of the Act says:
      "…a local authority shall have power to do anything appearing to them desirable in connection with the provision of such sites …".
      That would include the surveys mentioned. I hope that, armed with this information, the Scottish Office will be fairly prompt in introducing legislation to cope with this problem. I suggest that it should apply the same kind of responsibilities to local authorities in Scotland as we have done in England and Wales in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and that at the same time it should clear up the powers which local authorities have there, which are far more extensive than the Highways Act 1959, and other provisions dealing with the occupation of land by gipsies in England and Wales.
      As my hon. Friend has said, the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 is being applied extremely harshly in certain areas, particularly in the county of Lanarkshire, where the police are exercising their powers under that Act in a manner which most of us would think rather unreasonable.
      Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me, because I do not want the good name of Lanarkshire to be besmirched in any way, that the authorities and the police there have been extraordinarily tolerant with these people.
      Mr. Lubbock: That may be the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but it is certainly not that of the travelling people, who have come down here to see some hon. Members. No doubt they came down to see the hon. Member. It was represented to me by those who came that in some circumstances—I am not saying invariably—the police had used these powers rather too harshly. Perhaps the Minister of State can comment on that.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the debate on the new Clause, which deals with housing. I was trying to give him a little latitude but he has taken it too far.
      Mr. Lubbock: I mentioned it only because one or two other hon. Gentlemen had referred to this Act. We cannot entirely divorce the provision of accommodation for the travelling people from the power which local authorities may

      143
      have to deal with the unauthorised occupation of land.
      The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about the genuine and bogus travellers. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office will make no such distinction. It would be highly invidious, and very difficult, to ask local authorities to make any kind of judgment as between genuine and bogus travellers. It would be uncivilised and unfair to sections of the travelling people if we were to make any attempt to distinguish between them in this way. It is like people who say that we should do everything possible for people of Romany blood and nothing for those who have no such blood in their veins or who have adopted the travelling life in recent years. I hope that that point will not be pursued and that, whatever duties we lay upon them, local authorities in Scotland will cater for the needs of all travelling people and not merely for the needs of a small section.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West rightly said that the vast majority of these people want to settle down on sites and send their children to school. He thinks that this would best be done by providing intermediate housing. That is one solution which, in England and Wales, has been put forward by Hampshire. But we cannot lay down a hard and fast rule. What we can say is that our experience shows that travelling people who have lived in tents are generally willing to go into this kind of halfway accommodation, but that those who possess substantial assets, like caravans and lorries which they use in the pursuance of their business, do not wish to go into intermediate accommodation because it means disposing of those assets which are their means of earning a livelihood. Therefore, I hope that whatever solution is adopted in Scotland, it will not be too rigid and that it will allow local authorities to choose between the two solutions.
      Last year, the associations of local authorities in Scotland pretended that there was no problem. They did not believe that legislation was necessary, and they resisted any suggestion that the Scottish Office might be involved in this matter. But, after the publication of this Report, which shows that the proportion
      144
      of travelling people to total population is as high in Scotland as it is in England and Wales, there is a very substantial case, particularly when one takes into account the under-remuneration which I believe is mentioned in the Report.
      I therefore hope that the Scottish Office, following this debate and the publication of the survey, will promptly initiate discussions with the local authority associations in Scotland, and that we shall have a comprehensive Bill in the next Session dealing with the subject.
      Mr. John Rankin: I think I can say that all my hon. Friends are thoroughly seized of the problem which we are considering. There has been some criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), but those of us who know the area to which he referred and the problems which are created for him and for those who live there will appreciate what he said.
      I have been drawn to my feet by one or two suggestions from the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). We are presently considering a Bill dealing with housing in Scotland. As a Glasgow Member—and Glasgow has 80,000 people on the waiting list—I know that any suggestion about easing the regulations governing the allocation of houses to people who need them must be considered with great care. In this Bill we have been doing everything possible to tighten up the regulations governing the construction of houses, and the repeal—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new Clause does not deal with regulations for the construction of houses. It deals with itinerant travellers.
      Mr. Rankin: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was treading on thin ice, like the two hon. Members before me, but I thought that it would bear me—only one person—when it had already carried two. All I wanted to say is that from the remarks which I have just heard, there seemed to be a tendency to ease the regulations governing the construction of these temporary houses for dispossessed persons.
      I welcome any step that will help them, but it would have to be taken most carefully lest it weaken some of the extra

      145
      precautions which we have been taking, in the process of putting the Bill on the Statute Book, to make houses of a better type for those who are now waiting on them in Scotland but do not belong to this section of dispossessed people in our country.
      We have every sympathy with them and we want to do our best for them—
      Mr. James Davidson: I think that the hon. Member has slightly misinterpreted me. If I may give an example of what the local authority in Aberdeenshire has been doing, I referred to the intermediate—not temporary—housing. The local authority is merely using partly renovated houses, which would otherwise have been condemned as temporary accommodation, of the type to which I referred.
      Mr. Rankin: Very well. I will not pursue that. At the same time, nevertheless, a permanent place in the housing structure would be given to this inferior type of housing. That can become a danger to the housing future of a city like Glasgow, where there is a list of 80,000 people all waiting for houses. I leave it at that. It is simply a warning. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may have a word in support of what I have said.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I much appreciate the comments which have been made. If I may say so without offence to anyone, I thought the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) put his finger best on the problem. This is not the kind of subject which should be solved in a Bill of this kind. It is of such a substantial and complex nature that it deserves a solution much more comprehensive than the rather innocent little new Clause on which this necessary but extensive debate has been held.
      The hon. Member for Orpington has somewhat inherited the mantle of the late Norman Dodds—a fine mantle of a fine man—and has kept up the arguments. I remember being here during the passage of the English Bill when this was discussed. The hon. Member knows that the Government were concerned about it and made a takeover, which he welcomed. I shall not comment on the position regarding England and Wales.
      At the time when we had discussions, we in Scotland were genuinely of the
      146
      view that we did not have a problem. We had had no representations apart from those of the hon. Member and my former hon. Friend Norman Dodds, whose death we all regretted at such an early age and who had campaigned for such a long time.
      I say right away to the hon. Member for Orpington that there is no intention on our part in Scotland to try to classify the travellers and give preference over one section as against another. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did not imply that in what he said. He may have mentioned that certain people, in coming to Scotland on business, may want to get in on the census. That would be quite proper. They are not in that sense the people to whom we are referring here.
      9.0 p.m.
      The Scottish Committee on Travellers—and I will give particular mention to Miss Helen Fullerton, Mr. Charles Douglas and the Rev. Denis Sutherland—have worked with us in the Scottish Office very much since this matter was raised on the Floor of the House by different hon. Members including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) who is very concerned about this matter, and asked us, the House may remember, to carry out some kind of survey.
      The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington is slightly wrong when he says we have all the facts. We have not. The census of March has revealed some very interesting facts about the travellers. For example, the number of families living in tents in Scotland is 30 per cent. as compared with 4 per cent. in England and Wales. Perhaps that leads on obviously to the next fact, that the numbers of persons wanting to settle down in permanent homes is 80 per cent. in Scotland, and there are only 20 per cent. who wish to continue travelling. But we do not know all the facts. After all, the survey which was done was, so to say, a winter survey. We hope to carry out this further survey in August, which will, perhaps, reveal a bit more about the numbers of travelling people and the nature of their wishes. Some may have permanent homes, and may travel only in the summer, in which case we really

      147
      could not make a sudden jump to the solution suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson). We could not have a preferential list. Those who remember the Kay Report will remember the argument about allocating council houses, and they will realise that this would be preferential treatment on a very formidable scale, not only in terms of numbers but of breaching a principle.
      Mr. James Davidson: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I did not suggest a preferential list but a special list, so that travellers who move on can afterwards be located. I did not mean a preferential list whatsoever. It has happened that when travelling people wanted local authority housing and could not then have it they moved on, and the local authority could not catch up with them and tell them when housing had since become available for them. They could not be located because they had moved on. I think a special list of such people is needed.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: Some of the protesters against that would be a family who lived in my constituency and moved to Gourock and were disallowed from being included in the Gourock list because they had moved across the boundary. I have had specific knowledge of this sort of thing in my own constituency. The matter of residence would have to be discussed between the two authorities concerned. It is not easy to come to a quick solution about how we should provide permanent homes for these people, or whether there should be some kind of intermediate stage.
      The Scottish Office has dismissed none of these solutions, all of which have difficulties in them. What we are trying to do is to carry out a survey, and, on the basis of that survey—not regular surveys but this additional survey in August—see if we can come to conclusions about specific things we might do. That would involve legislation. We should have to discuss this with the local authorities.
      I would not accept, by the way, either, that we should make that sort of stern attempt, as suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, to have them settle down, because some of these travel
      148
      ling people just cannot, cannot in their natures, settle down. I would take the point of the hon. Member for Orpington that many of them, by the nature of their businesses, for that matter, ought not to settle down in permanent homes.
      Therefore, we have to take into account the possibility of providing sites along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire in relation to Perth County Council. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been to Perth and will visit Lanarkshire to discuss the matter with the local authorities, and he will be conducting other visits to other areas which may be affected, in order to see what can be done.
      The liaison committee, I should tell the House, is not anxious to have this new Clause adopted. Nor does it agree that legislation can be brought in at the drop of a hat. It wants the problem properly studied. It wants the good will of the local authorities, which is very important. Of course, if there is legislation we shall have to look at the question of assisting local authorities, and that will mean discussion with them in considerable depth, because the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is perfectly fair, that if travelling people want, and quite rightly want, to be considered more properly by society and to be given the facilities which are presently denied to them, they in their turn must undertake to observe social obligations and not be a nuisance to people in the offensive way which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell has described.
      I should like to think that only a minority of the travelling people are of this nature and so get the bad name which they do in some parts of the country. It is easy for those who are not witnesses of travelling people in their areas to be sanctimonious, if that is not too harsh a word, about the un-Christian behaviour of other people in parts of the country which are visited by the travelling people.
      On the subject of trespass, a great deal of good will is necessary from all concerned, not just the police. We must impress upon the travelling people, local authorities, the police and others that we want a solution to the problem and we need their good will in this difficult period until we carry out the survey and settle

      149
      the general policy in Scotland. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that the policy for Scotland need not necessarily be the same as the policy for England and Wales. It must fit the facts of the study rather than rehearse what has been attempted quite boldly and rightly in England.
      I ask for the new Clause not to be pressed, and I give an assurance that in the meantime we are asking local authorities to consider the possibility of permanent rehousing for those who are regular residents in their areas, even if they do some travelling, and to consider an interim solution for next winter in the form of more pitches which could be used lawfully by the travellers provided that they would be fair to the local community and would not cause ally of the troubles that have been witnessed in some parts of the country.
      On the basis of that assurance, I ask that we do not proceed with the new Clause but wait for a more comprehensive provision which the Government will consider with the local authorities.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This has been an interesting debate. In reply to what was said from the Liberal benches, I would say that whilst I appreciate that the new Clause does not provide a perfect answer to the problem, the remarks made ware somewhat grudging. We on this side of the House have raised this subject at the first opportunity when there has been proper knowledge of the problem, and to that extent the debate has served a useful purpose.
      I appreciate, as do my hon. Friends, the need to continue with the survey, to have the survey in our hands and to have full consultation with the local authorities. I have been impressed by the concern shown by the Minister of State to reach a solution to the problem and, if need be, to introduce legislation later. In view of his assurances, which I welcome, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Motion.
      Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      DEFINITION OF HOUSE MEETING TOLERABLE STANDARD
      Mr. Hannan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take also Amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines I to 3 and insert:
      (3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      Mr. Hannan: The point which is embodied in these two Amendments was referred to in Committee. The House will recall that when we discussed in Committee Clause 2(2), I moved an Amendment to insert the word "improve" which would have the effect of increasing the degree of tolerableness of all the items listed in paragraphs (a) to (i) of subsection (1). When an assurance was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that he would accept the spirit of the Amendment, although not its terminology, it seemed good enough assurance and guarantee to ask the Minister to look then at the further provisions in respect of Orders. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled an Amendment to make clear beyond all doubt that it would be possible only for an Order under subsection (2) to raise those standards.
      I pay a tribute to the Minister of State, who consistently throughout the Bill has said that the provision is not to be considered as an alternative to the provision of more and newer houses, but is to be regarded as an alternative to the system that is being used at present to try to lay down tolerable standards and to accept the principle of increasing their effectiveness.
      By adopting the negative Resolution procedure, it will still be open to any hon. Member to pray against an Order about which he may have reservations. These Amendments would have the effect of substituting the negative for the affirmative Resolution procedure. We should not like to see a situation in which either Government or local authorities, because of procedural difficulties of this kind, were held back from taking speedy

      151
      action which would have the effect of raising the standards.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) for his generous tribute and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) for his support in both Amendments.
      This matter was discussed in Committee, when I suggested that I should like to look at the point. I have since discussed with my hon. Friends their Amendments, which in draft form are quite acceptable and acceptable in principle. I am sure that the Opposition will accept that since we are agreed in principle on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, which are virtually the same, Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 should be incorporated in the Bill. A different situation would arise if I were not to move Amendment No. 3, but since I shall be doing so, and since I hope to have Opposition support on that, it is logical that we should accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 5.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish briefly to respond to the invitation from the Minister. In the light of Amendment No. 3, I accept the spirit of the discussion on Amendments Nos. 2 and 5, and I support what the Minister said.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in line 43, after 'subsection', insert:
      'in such a way as to raise the tolerable standard'.
      I promised in Committee to make an Amendment of this kind. I am glad that the Opposition have put down their Amendment on this point, which is exactly the same as mine. In order to show my natural generosity, I looked to see whether or not it would be better in draft form to accept No. 4 rather than No. 3, but I am told by the draftsman that Amendment No. 3 is a little neater. Therefore, I would ask the Opposition in their turn to be generous.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for the Amendment and his acceptance of the principle which we discussed in Committee. The concern
      152
      about the point was expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), and we supported him. We are glad that where standards are to be varied, they should be varied upwards. We all hope that eventually the tolerable standard will be converted into the Cullingworth satisfactory standard. Meantime, we appreciate the problem of local authorities which have many houses needing to be improved. Obviously, to set too high a standard at an early stage would present great difficulty.
      As for the choice between our Amendment and the Government's the Minister has tried to be generous. I am sure that he has considered our Amendment. However, we do not hold strongly to one or the other, and in this case we return the generosity by not pursuing our Amendment and by supporting the Minister's.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
      (3) Any order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Hannan.]

    Clause 4

      LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY PASS RESOLUTION DECLARING AREA TO BE HOUSING TREAT MENT AREA
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 29, leave out from 'securing' to 'brought' in line 33 and insert:
      'the carrying out of such works on the houses in the area that on the completion of the works all the houses then in the area will meet or will have been brought up to at least the tolerable standard; or
      (c) by securing the demolition of some of the buildings in the area and by seating the carrying out of such works on the houses in the area, other than the houses in those buildings, that on the completion of the works all the houses then in the area will meet or will have been'
      The Amendment is intended to make it clear that where an authority has resolved to act under paragraph (b) or (c), the obligation to have houses brought up to at least the tolerable standard applies only to the houses which are in the area at the time when the improvement works have been completed.

      153
      Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that we discussed the position of tenements where a single end, for example, may have to be included with existing houses to give space for the provision of bathrooms. As Clause 4 is drafted at present, where an authority has resolved to proceed in a housing treatment area either by improvement or a combination of improvement and demolition, it is obliged to improve all the houses which are in the area at the time of the resolution or all such houses which it had not resolved to demolish. This, therefore, is a clarifying Amendment which I hope, has the agreement of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: One small point occurs to me which I hope is appropriate to the Amendment. In such a clearance area, if the demolition of part of a tenement property is called for and the rest is classified as being suitable to bring up to a tolerable standard, whose is the responsibility for shoring up the gable ends which are left? It may be that this is dealt with in another part of the Bill, but this question appears to arise in the change which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
      If one close in a group of five or six tenements becomes unsound and is demolished, it can have an effect on the structures of the houses on either side of it, and their proprietors may be involved in substantial bills for shoring up and restoring gable ends or making their properties more secure. Whose is the responsibility? If the local authority is carrying out the demolition of one property, who will be responsible for maintaining the structure of adjacent houses or for shoring up the gable ends? Does that fall on the authority which calls for the demolition? It is a detailed point, but one which is bound to arise, and I should appreciate the Minister's observations.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nothing in the Bill would prevent it being dealt with by the local authority in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I doubt whether there will be many cases where it will be appropriate.
      We, naturally, missed the hon. Gentleman's presence in Committee, but we know that he has many obligations else-
      154
      where. If he had been intimately connected with the Bill, he would know that areas are drawn by the local authority in its discretion and put up to the Minister as areas for housing treatment. Unlike the English system, ours involves demolition and improvement together. I should be surprised at a local authority putting up the case that there should be knocking-down of tenement blocks which left one or several being shored up. That would be a very unsightly-looking procedure. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there is some doubt about it and that this matter might arise, I will look into it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5

      PROVISIONS SUPPI.EMENTARY TO S. 4
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 3, at end insert:
      (5) Where a local authority purchase the land and themselves undertake, or otherwise secure. the demolition of the buildings in pursuance of this section it shall be their duty to secure that any persons who may be displaced from residential accommodation on the land and for whom no suitable accommodation is otherwise available on reasonable terms will be provided with such accommodation before the displacement.
      I move this Amendment fairly quickly, because the Minister is aware of our views. Clause 1 lays responsibility on a local authority to consider alternative housing accommodation in pursuing the purposes of the Bill. However, when we come to Clause 4 the local authority is given powers to secure the demolition either itself or through another agency. The new subsection that I propose to Clause 5 puts the onus directly on the local authority to provide alternative accommodation for those who are displaced as a result of action under Clause 4 followed by action under Clause 5. I want an assurance of full help from local authorities in rehousing those who are displaced.
      We had an argument about this in Committee on an earlier Clause. My point is the responsibility of the local authority towards those who may be owner-occupiers or tenants of private landlords. In Committee, the Minister

      155
      of State said that private landlords should operate their own reallocation schemes for the rehousing of their tenants. Rehousing is vitally necessary under the Bill if the improvements that we wish to see carried out are to take place. However, the Minister of State is glossing over some of the difficulties of rehousing owner-occupiers and tenants of private landlords.
      Many practical problems arise. I have discussed this point with the Property Owners Association in Glasgow. Whilst it has considered and would like a scheme of reallocating houses, it thinks that there are great practical difficulties. I do not intend to go into the matter in detail this evening. We discussed some of the problems in Committee, particularly the problems of the smaller landlords with, perhaps, one or two houses.
      The Amendment puts a specific duty on the local authority, I appreciate that this is not as wide as the point that I raised in Committee. The Clause refers particularly to houses that have been purchased by a local authority or demolished by it or by some other party on instruction. I appreciate that the problem of rehousing does not refer to nearly as wide a context as the point that I raised in Committee under Clause 1. However, it still raises a point of substance. We must be much more certain about how we provide alternative accommodation for owner-occupiers or tenants. For this reason, I should like these words to be written into the Bill so that the onus is laid on local authorities to rehouse those who are displaced.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If the Amendment were made, would it apply only to houses purchased in tenement properties, or would it apply to the rehousing of those in properties which are subject to demolition on the initiative of a local authority but which still rest officially in the ownership of the persons concerned?
      What is the Minister's interpretation of "suitable"? There are instances, particularly in Glasgow, where persons living in private accommodation have their houses subject to clearance or demolition and are made an offer of rehousing which is not suitable, in that it is a substantial distance from their place of work, from where their friends live, or from where they have made their homes for anything up to 50 or 60 years. Does
      156
      the Department advise local authorities that efforts should be made to rehouse people in an area of the same character as that in which they live and not too far from where they now live?
      In the event of suitable housing being offered to an owner-occupier, what does the Bill provide as to demolition costs? Only this morning I brought a case to the attention of the Minister. This is not something which happens once in a blue moon. The Minister may have heard of Glasgow and of Cathcart. In Stanmore Road and Holmlea Road there are specific cases of houses which have come down. These houses are in owner-occupation, and the occupants have put their life savings into them. The money is lost. The owners get a bill for the demolition of their own houses. In the case which I have raised with the Minister this morning, the costs involved in respect of one house in Stanmore Road amount to £839. The normal procedure is for the local authority to put a real lien on the land concerned. Will this apply to the taking-over of houses? Will it be the general practice for local authorities not to charge for demolition but to put a real lien on the future development possibilities of the land?
      9.30 p.m.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not blaming the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in any way, but I am sorry that he did not serve on the Standing Committee with us, because we discussed many of these matters thoroughly. If the hon. Gentleman had served on the Committee, or had read our proceedings in Committee, he would know that we discussed this matter extensively.
      The choice is simple. One method is to rely on the present means which we have adopted. I thought that S.D.D. Circular 63/1968, which we published following the Kay Committee Report on the allocation of council houses, received general acceptance from most hon. Members as being a good circular. There is, as the alternative, the suggestion in the Amendment of doing it by legislation. I accept that this is a somewhat slenderer approach than that which we discussed in Committee, but it brings us back to the question whether we should put into legislation the general principle which is embodied in the Amendment.

      157
      In Clause 1(2) we have accepted the general principle that local authorities must ensure that there is suitable accommodation available for people displaced by slum clearance action. It would be a piece of impertinence on the part of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) or myself to attempt to define "suitable". "Suitable" is a highly useful word implying a great deal of discretion on the part of the local authority. It is not one that could possibly be written into statute or even into a circular, because it would be bound to offend a family in some particular area. We therefore leave it to the discretion of the local authorities.
      The working party of local authority officials, with which we discussed the matter in great depth, was, like us, of the opinion that it would be wrong to introduce a statutory rehousing obligation into the Measure. This applies all the more in Scotland not only because we are introducing the concept of full market value compensation for owner occupiers but also because in Scotland we are determined, unlike our friends in England because they have a different problem, to go in for much more demolition than they intend to do. Our provisions are designed more to demolish than to improve. While we do not in any way disregard the advantages of improvement, we certainly accept that there has to be demolition.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has referred to demolition and market value compensation. In some cases the demolition charges exceed the market value of the houses. Could he say what happens to the demolition charges?
      Dr. Mabon: No, not at this stage. I want to stick to the subject of housing. We are debating the issue of housing, albeit qualified by this Amendment, in a narrow sense. If we were to import a statutory obligation of rehousing, it would make difficult the process of getting on with the housing areas. The purpose of the Bill is to improve housing and demolish slums. Therefore, anything which stands in the way of that process is dangerous to the objects of the Bill, which both sides of the House support.
      We do not want arguments about rehousing as such. Somebody might want to be rehoused in a certain place, and that might delay the conclusion to the discussion about full market value. The converse might also be true.
      While we are most anxious to secure full market value compensation for owner-occupiers, we do not want to import a statutory obligation which would mean delay in getting ahead with the housing treatment areas. I hope the hon. Member will realise that we cannot simply accept this Amendment, which, I agree, is modelled on Clause 36(3) of the English Bill and is related, quite properly, to the improvement areas according to the English idea, because in Scotland it would offend the position in the two ways that I have described; first, it would be a failure to recognise that demolition is a crucial part of our system of dealing with housing treatment areas; and, second, we have agreed readily to full market value compensation.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to respond to the Minister of State. I feel that this comes down to a question of balance of judgment to a great extent. I appreciate that there are reasons—and I do not argue with them—as to why we have not written into this Bill this obligation on the local authority. I agree that we do not want to write anything into a Bill which may delay the achievement of demolition.
      However, I must ask the Minister to bear in mind the opposite point of view, that if there are going to be difficulties in rehousing particularly those who are private tenants and owner-occupiers, he will get opposition in other directions unless this obligation is fulfilled. I appreciate that the general obligation is backed up morally by the Scottish Development Department in its circulars, but we feel that the balance falls in such a way that the obligation should be written into the legislation. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 150.

      Division No. 301.]

      AYES

      [9.35 p.m.

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

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brewis, John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Biffen, John

      Body, Richard

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

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hawkins, Paul

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Scott, Nicholas

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Sharples, Richard

      Chataway, Christopher

      Holland, Philip

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

      Clark, Henry

      Hornby, Richard

      Silvester, Frederick

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Corfield, F. V.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Speed, Keith

      Costain, A. P.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Stainton, Keith

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Lane, David

      Stodart, Anthony

      Dean, Paul

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Tapsell, Peter

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Lubbock, Eric

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      MacArthur, Ian

      Tilney, John

      Doughty, Charles

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Maude, Angus

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Mawby, Ray

      Waddington, David

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Emery, Peter

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walters, Dennis

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Monro, Hector

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Farr, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Foster, Sir John

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Murton, Oscar

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Grant, Anthony

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Wright, Esmond

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Wylie, N. R.

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Gurden, Harold

      Prior, J. M. L.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Pym, Francis

      Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Reginald Eyre.

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      NOES

      Alldritt, Walter

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Manuel, Archie

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mapp, Charles

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell.)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Barnett, Joel

      Hannan, William

      Maxwell, Robert

      Beaney, Alan

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mendelson, John

      Binns, John

      Haseldine, Norman

      Millan, Bruce

      Blackburn, F.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Moonman, Eric

      Booth, Albert

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Boyden, James

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Newens, Stan

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Orbach, Maurice

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Orme, Stanley

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

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hunter, Adam

      Paget, R. T.

      Chapman, Donald

      Hynd, John

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lawson, George

      Rankin, John

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rees, Merlyn

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Dobson, Ray

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Doig, Peter

      Driberg, Tom

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Silverman, Julius

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Slater, Joseph

      Ensor, David

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Small, William

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fernyhough, E.

      MacColl, James

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Forrester, John

      McGuire, Michael

      Symonds, J. B.

      Fowler, Gerry

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Taverne, Dick

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tinn, James

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Urwin. T. W.

      160

      161

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Whitaker, Ben

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Wallace, George

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Woof, Robert

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Williams, W. T, (Warrington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Ioan L. Evan.

    Clause 6

      LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY ACQUIRE LAND SURROUNDED BY OR ADJOINING HOUS ING TREATMENT AREA
      Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 19, at end insert:
      'including use for recreational purposes'.
      Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that when we discussed the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill", we put forward a strong case for the local authority being able to acquire land for recreational purposes. But we did not receive any reply to that debate, although in some ways the Minister did discuss it when we dealt with Clause 58, which is in much more general terms and in which grants and loans are available to private landowners as well as in respect of land owned by local authorities.
      9.45 p.m.
      It was very clear in the two debates that those who had studied the Culling-worth Report, which makes out a clear case that there is no point in improving houses unless one improves the surrounding land to make the whole community attractive, thought that we should specifically add to Clause 6 a provision that land could be bought for environmental and recreational purposes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that this is something we should support. We want to see land bought for Community halls, community centres, playing fields, adventure playgrounds, parks and even sports contests—all of which are things which would surely commend themselves to the House. The Amendment would provide a useful power and if it were used wisely by the local authorities, it could do nothing but good.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Amendment is unnecessary, although I certainly agree with the principle behind it. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has referred to Clause 58. If he reads that along with Clause 59, he will see that the provision of play spaces is an example of
      162
      the kind of expenditure which is likely to be eligible for grant under Clause 59.
      We accept that the purpose of housing treatment areas is to improve the amenities as well as the houses. Clause 6 as drafted does not prevent in any way a local authority from using its power which is contained, as I have said, in Clauses 58 and 59, to the end described by the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) explained to us the family wedding which detained him from moving this Amendment in Committee, and I think that we were able to have a short discussion on the point. I hope that I have explained the position again. There is nothing in the proposals of the hon. Member for Dumfries which cannot be realised in the Bill as it stands. We do not have to make his Amendment. In any case, it would be in the wrong place. It would, if they were defective, be more appropriate to Clauses 58 and 59 because they are the physiological Clauses which make a reality of his plea for recreational facilities. They give the Bill the life force, as Bernard Shaw would say, to make the recreational provisions the hon. Gentleman has mentioned into a reality.
      Mr. Monro: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. It is a matter of judgment whether it improves Clause 6 or not but, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO RETAIN HOUSES SUBJECT TO DEMOLITION FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPATION
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 2, at end insert:
      (4) Where a local authority exercise their power under subsection (1) of this section they shall make a return of houses so occupied to the Secretary of State at such time and in such form as he may prescribe.

      163
      The Amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to keep the Secretary of State informed of local conditions. Obviously, any Government, when drawing up their housing policy, must be influenced by the conditions as they are, possibly even in remote areas—certainly in all areas over which they have jurisdiction. Such local conditions as are prescribed in the Amendment come within this scope.
      Secondly, there is a danger that local authorities will keep patched houses in occupation almost in perpetuity for temporary rehousing in housing clearance areas. This state of affairs would apply to only a minority of authorities, but the retention in occupation of such houses should be subject to the over-riding decision of the Secretary of State.
      Paragraph 208 of the Cullingworth Report advocates the patching of unfit houses for a limited period so that they may be used for temporary accommodation for families awaiting rehousing. In Committee, the Minister of State said:
      "I agree that it is very important that the authorities should not have these houses in occupation for very long—".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 10th June, 1969; c. 135.]
      That is part of the purpose of the Amendment. Later the hon. Gentleman posed a rhetorical question to which neither he nor other hon. Members could give an answer—"How temporary is temporary?". That is a difficulty which we appreciate. The Amendment would give over-riding powers to the Secretary of State under other legislation to keep his eye on the trouble and so be able to bring pressure on authorities to end the usage where he considered that desirable.
      Obviously, nobody wishes to perpetuate the use of so-called patched houses, but the financial help available to authorities under Section 17 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, makes provision for such activities. The Cullingworth Report said that few authorities had availed themselves of this provision. Paragraph 216 of the Report says:
      "We therefore recommend that the financial provisions for patching should be reviewed as a matter of urgency and that local authorities with a clearance problem which cannot be met within five years should be required to use their powers for the acquisition and patching
      164
      of property which falls below the Tolerable Standard".
      We are not asking that a house should be brought to the tolerable standards defined in the Bill, but the Amendment would assist the Secretary of State in approving grants under the 1950 Act if they came within his jurisdiction.
      I regret that I do not have a personal first-hand knowledge of the problem as it affects Glasgow, but, evidently, it is there that much of the problem exists. The Amendment would help there as it would help elsewhere.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I support the Amendment. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee; I was serving on the Committee dealing with the Iron and Steel Bill.
      The Minister will be aware of the situation in Glasgow where some houses have been taken over as substandard, maintained by the local authority and occupied for a long time. It would be useful if a return of such houses were made to ensure that they did not remain occupied for too long. An advantage of such a register would be that it would give some indication of the time when a house had been used and occupied in such circumstances.
      If this Amendment is accepted, does it refer to tenanted houses taken over for demolition and does the same person stay on? My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of this. In such circumstances, in an area scheduled for demolition and determined under this Amendment, what is the position of two tenants on either side of a stair, one with a controlled rent, the other with a fair rent?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The real question must be addressed to the return that is being asked for.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I accept that there is no connection, and perhaps I can reply to that at some other time.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister does not know.
      Dr. Mabon: That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already provides for it, and for that matter the 1966 Act, which he ought to know, provides at present that under Sections 20 or 40, as repeated in Clause 8

      165
      of the Bill, we may allow claims for grant in respect of expense incurred under section 19 of the 1968 Act.
      The point which the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) was raising—namely, his desire that there should be a record—is a legitimate one, which we try to secure. There are two elements in the grant payment. One runs for a fixed period of 15 years, and the other runs for the number of years for which the house is kept in use. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is right; we are concerned that houses which are taken over for patching are not kept in use for too long.
      Glasgow is perhaps the critical example, and the present position there is that patched houses are kept in use for about five years. In my opinion, that is rather a long time, but I recognise the difficulties in Glasgow. The point is that if we had an annual return such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, we should have all the information about this. There are these two elements in the grant payment. When the authorities make their claims they indicate separately houses which have been acquired for patching during the year and houses which have previously been patched and taken out of use. That gives us a running account not only of the new entrants to the scheme but of those for which we are still making annual payments in this category. There is no need to make further statutory provision. If we had a gap, I agree that we should have such a return.
      We are often criticised for having too many returns, but this is essential, not only for the supervision which has been suggested but because of the need for financial supervision. I thought that that was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Housing legislation is complex, and one cannot always recall exactly what is going on. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to explain the provisions as they have applied and will apply when we pass this Bill. I am sure that, with that assurance, he will not want to press his Amendment, which would only duplicate the present statutory provision, which I agree is essential.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I thank the Minister of State for that reply, and, since the provisions of the Amendment
      166
      are adequately covered in previous legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF WELL MAINTAINED HOUSES
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 8, leave out lines 8 to 12.
      This is in the nature of a probing Amendment. Under Clause 11 the local authority can make payments in respect of well-maintained houses in two circumstances, either when the house is occupied by the owner or when it is not occupied by the person liable to maintain it. Presumably in certain circumstances this will include the tenant. We then come to the last few lines which I propose to exclude. Who excluded under paragraphs (a) and (b) is to be included in the lines that I propose to delete? We did not discuss this point in Committee—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On closer study, it appears to me that these lines are not necessary. Perhaps they have a purpose. I should like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about them.
      Mr. John Brewis: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said that this was a probing Amendment. It may be rare that a house is not occupied by the owner or by a person liable to maintain and repair it. Occasionally a house may be occupied by somebody who has not a title to it.
      I wish briefly to refer to a case, of which the Minister has had short notice, which occurred in my constituency. A couple, Mr. and Mrs. Compton, were rehoused by the county council in a new

      167
      house as a result of a redevelopment scheme. They had bought the house which they left about ten years before when it was, more or less, falling down. They had to strip everything in it and put in new walls and new floors and have it rewired. They paid £90 for it, but found that nobody could give them a good title because the title deeds had been burned years ago and there was never any possibility of the owner of the house turning up. They spent about £300 to £400 on the house while it was in their occupation, but, owing to a lack of title, it was not possible for the county council to make any payment to them on the basis of its being a well-maintained house, which undoubtedly it was.
      I should think that a case like this comes within the proviso to the Clause and that there may be a few rare cases like it. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that this is the sort of case which he has in mind. Perhaps he could go even further and tell me whether there were similar provisions in the previous Act.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If an individual makes a claim for compensation and the person inspecting the house takes the view that a substantial part of the responsibility for maintaining the house in good repair arises directly from the work under the storm damage compensation scheme, with which the Minister was personally connected, will it affect the eligibility to compensation of the individual concerned?
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: The answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is "Yes". This should be taken into account and there is sufficient discretion in the Statute to make this assessment. However, the Clause is concerned only with the houses which are purchased compulsorily at site value because they have failed to meet the tolerable standard and, therefore, are unfit for human habitation.
      I am obliged to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) for giving me notice this morning that he would raise the matter which he has raised. However, it is very much a question of establishing title; it is not connected with the Clause. I am told that this could be done only by obtaining an extract of the
      168
      title from the register of sasines. Once title is established, an owner would be entitled to full compensation. The hon. Gentleman has written to the Lord Advocate. I have not been able to trace the reply which may have gone to him, or which may be in preparation, through the Scottish Home and Health Department. I will look into the point and write to him.
      Mr. Brewis: There is no possibility of tracing the owner through the sasines register. It has already been looked at. I do not, however, want to take up the time of the House further on this occasion.
      Dr. Mabon: I know how patient the hon. Member is about these matters. I will look into this and find out whether the matter has to rest there or whether we can take it a stage further. I am sure that the House sympathises with the point of the case expressed tonight by the hon. Member.
      As to the probing nature of the Amendment, if we were to make the Amendment a tenant who carried out work in the house on internal repairs, who replaced fireplaces and installed water-heating facilities and kitchen fitments—this do-it-yourself equipment is becoming more common and young couples living in many of these houses are to be commended for trying to make little palaces of nearly unfit houses—would be excluded altogether from well-maintained payments. It would prevent us from making such payments. I suggest to the hon. Member that that is not what he would like to do.
      The proviso is in similar terms to Section 49 of the 1966 Act, which dealt with well-maintained payments in clearance areas, and which, as the hon. Member knows, the Bill repeals. Section 25 of the 1966 Act covers well-maintained payments for houses which are subject to closing or demolition orders, and it contains the same form of words.
      In reply to the hon. Member for Cathcart, I would say that there is no question of a claim as such. The Secretary of State would decide in the light of the inspection and give a direction. The well-maintained payment might become, as I suggested at the beginning, part of the amount in relation to storm damage of the loan which the local authority recovers from the owner. If he gets relief

      169
      because of hardship, he could hardly get payment as well.
      I do not think I can say more in response to the probing Amendment. It may have clarified the position. I think we are all agreed that tenants should be included and not excluded.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said earlier, I support the principle of the Clause. We are glad that these payments are made for good maintenance. We want to see this extended to tenants also. We have no intention to exclude them.
      The sole purpose of the Amendment was to obtain clarification. It has served a good purpose in making clear to people outside that tenants, as well as others, are included in the entitlement to payments when they have kept the house well maintained and in good condition.
      Having had the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16

      LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY CONTROL OCCUPA TION OF HOUSES IN HOUSING TREAT MENT AREA
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 21, leave out 'occupation' and insert 're-letting or sale'.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take also Amendment No. 13, in line 36, leave out 'occupies' and insert 're-lets or sells', and Amendment No. 14, also in line 36, leave out 'occupied' and insert 're-let or sold'.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Clause 16 arises directly from paragraph 31 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3598, "The Older Houses in Scotland". While I appreciate and I do not in any way question the principle of the Clause, the need to control occupation of houses within housing treatment areas is obviously necessary. I certainly support that as it is laid out in paragraph 31 of the White Paper.
      Whilst, however, the Clause refers in every case to the occupation of the house, it is interesting that the White Paper
      170
      refers to control of reletting and of sale as the means by which to control occupation and not the direct control of occupation itself.
      The final sentence of paragraph 31 of the White Paper states that
      "Legislation might, for instance, provide that after a certain stage such houses could only be relet to tenants approved by the local authority or sold with the consent of the authority."
      Therefore, I am interested to know why "occupation" has had to be used throughout the Clause whereas in the White Paper the suggestion is that to control occupation, all that is needed is to control reletting and sale as the means of controlling occupation.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: May I put just two points to the Minister? First, should like to support the Amendment particularly in relation to old people. Often, it will be possible for a demolition order to be placed on a house but not necessarily to come into operation right away, and I think it is right that old people who have been resident in a house should have an opportunity to go on residing there. That is the first point I would put to the Minister in support of this Amendment.
      The second point is, that the rubric to Clause 16 is,
      "Local authority may control occupation of houses in housing treatment area."
      It is conceivable in a constituency like my own that control will be necessary not in housing treatment areas but in isolated cases—a house which is taken over by the county council, for instance, in a remote area. I ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to make observation on that.
      Mr. Speaker: There is no Amendment down to subsection (2).
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not say that only formally, either.
      The House will recall that paragraph 31 of the White Paper proposed that the provision in any future Bill would be control of occupation or sale. The Amendment would change this to sale or letting. What we think would happen in that case is that there would not be the same control over families in these houses as we would desire.

      171
      The idea of Clause 16 is to encourage local authorities to go ahead with housing treatment areas. That means we want them to rehouse the families there as quickly as possible. We could not have an area, so to speak, of osmosis whereby one family moves on and has a local authority house, sometimes not necessarily, in priority over the housing waiting list, and then another family moves in and in its turn is rehoused in order to get the housing treatment area properly dealt with. That would be unfair to the families on the waiting list. It would discourage a local authority from getting ahead with housing treatment areas if we were to switch the bias from control of occupation to this proposed form of control.
      I have looked very closely at the memorandum from the Chartered Land Societies, Scotland, and the Property Owners and Factors Federation in their representations to us, and, quite frankly, I cannot understand the reasons why they are asking for this. It seems to me that if their concern is over empty property then this is one of the penalties of getting housing treatment areas dealt with. Once one starts a housing treatment area there are bound to be empty properties. Not only in these areas but in any part of the country one cannot get a house either demolished or improved just at the drop of a hat. It is very difficulty; particularly in Scotland, there is a very difficult problem where we have to deal with old tenements with 12 or more families having to be rehoused in one single block instead of being scattered as, for instance, in Birmingham, over a reasonably larger area.
      Therefore, I put it to the House that it is very important that we keep control over the occupation of the houses. The local authorities are very much with us on this. I am sure the whole House wants us to make a success of these housing treatment areas. The initiative lies with the local authorities. If we were to switch this proposed form of control I think we should be doing damage to the object of the exercise, which is to get housing treatment areas dealt with more expeditiously. I would agree that we do not want to keep houses empty too long, and I would agree that we do not want houses to fall
      172
      into a bad state of maintenance. I accept that criticism, which is a good point.
      10.15 p.m.
      On balance, taking it that there can be only one form of control or the other, I think that the Government are right in sticking, with the local authorities, to Clause 16 as drafted. I realise that this is a probing Amendment, and I hope that I have satisfied the Opposition on this ground. I do not see the advantages of the form of control which the Opposition suggest, but I do see the disadvantages of it.
      The Clause specifically allows the person living in the house when the order is made to continue to live there. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) about old people. That is still controlling occupation. Where the landlord can provide alternative accommodation, when he is ready to go ahead he will transfer the old couple and this would, we hope, be done in a humane way. Should we do this by sale or letting or, alternatively, by control of occupation? I believe that the Clause is right as it stands.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course I accept the principle of the Clause. There must be control of occupation. I entirely accept the Minister's point that it is utterly unfair if as soon as one family moves out another family moves in, and that is why the Clause is necessary.
      I am glad that the Minister accepts the point that there is an effect of almost a blight in housing treatment areas if houses are left empty for a long time. The whole area becomes shabby and derelict, and this has a bad effect.
      In recognising this point, I hope that the Minister will impress on local authorities in carrying out the provisions of the Bill that when houses are empty they have the right to control occupation. In return for that right to control occupation, they should go ahead with rehousing as quickly as possible so that houses are not left empty for a long period.
      The assurance which the Minister has given—that once a housing treatment area has been designated and houses become empty, the houses will be left empty for the shortest possible time—meets the point. I hope that the Minister will make sure that what he says is observed by

      173
      the local authorities. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

    Clause 24

      POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO SECURE REPAIR OF HOUSE IN STATE OF SERIOUS DISREPAIR
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 15, after second 'in', insert 'such'.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 19, in page 17, line 15, leave out
      'although not in a state of serious disrepair and'
      and Amendment No. 20, in page 17, line 19, at end add—
      (5) For the purposes of this section a house shall be deemed to be in a state of serious disrepair if, although it is not unfit for human habitation, substantial repairs are required to bring it up to a reasonable standard having regard to the criteria in section 2 of this Act.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a group of three Amendment which go together. The group has two objects. I will take first Amendment No. 20, because that has the main object of giving guidance on what shall be for the purpose of the Clause interpreted as a state of serious disrepair. The whole Clause is dependent upon an understanding of that phrase, which appears in the second line. There is nothing at present in the Clause to indicate what is a state of serious disrepair. The proposed addition in Amendment No. 20 indicates that, although the house is still habitable, substantial repairs are needed to reach a reasonable standard having regard to the criteria which are listed in Clause 2 for the tolerable standard of a house.
      We recognise that the tolerable standard which has been defined by those criteria in Clause 2 relates to improvement and situations where amenities may be lacking and that Clause 24 is concerned with disrepair rather than with the improvement of houses and the lack of amenities. Nonetheless, because the criteria in Clause 2 have to be accepted and understood by all those who are to operate the Bill when it is enacted, we believe that by referring to them and bringing them
      174
      into the Bill it will give valuable guidance to those who must make a judgment arising from the Clause. We have borrowed some words from the English Bill which we believe are helpful.
      The second objective concerns the other two Amendments, Nos. 18 and 19. We seek to improve subsection (4). That subsection adds an extra point to the Clause, but, to put it mildly, it is not felicitously phrased. Briefly, what it says is that although a house is not in a state of disrepair, it shall be deemed to be in a state of disrepair. This will make it difficult for those who have to judge whether the house is in a state which will then cause the Clause to come into effect.
      In Committee the Minister seemed to admit that there was some shortcoming in the drafting of the Clause. We accepted his challenge to try to improve it and to make it easier for those who will have to operate the provision and to interpret it. I am sorry that the Government have not made an attempt in an Amendment of their own to carry out what we in Committee were seeking to do, but I believe that the Amendments which we have tabled, or something like them, if accepted by the Government, will be helpful to those who have to administer the Bill later. At the moment the Clause may cause difficulties later on if there is a dispute. We hope that there will not be too many disputes, but on a subject like this there are bound to be. Anything we can do now to make clearer what we mean will help later on.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I appreciate the effort by the Opposition to seek to improve the Bill by importing these new subsections. Although I shall criticise them, it is not because I lack appreciation of their efforts. It is easy to knock things down rather conconstructively to improve them.
      There are two defects in the Amendment. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for borrowing the English phrase, but it does not fit, because in the Bill we are repealing the provisions as that phrase applies to them, while in the English Bill they are retained. It is therefore appropriate that it should be so phrased in the English Bill. We should have to do a little more surgery and a little more adding than this if we were to accept the use of the English phrase as such.

      175
      Furthermore, to take the reference in Amendment No. 20 to Clause 2, the reference will be inappropriate in that it would provide a severe—the property owners would argue a too severe—test for this purpose. If a house has only a year or two of life left, is it fair to insist that it should be brought up to tolerable standards? This is almost self-defeating. We do not like houses in this condition. It is right and proper that we might want an owner to make the roof watertight and to do some repairs, but not extensive repairs. To put a damp course in a house with two years' life is a waste of private and public money. To put in the further subsection would be quite inappropriate and unfair both to the local authority and to the landlord.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) deals with the age of the house. That must be taken into account.
      Dr. Mabon: The minute one applies this kind of test, one realises what one will have to observe.
      What is the alternative to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment or to any Amendment which the Government might have drafted? It is to consult the people concerned. I thought that that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was quite right. The people concerned are the sanitary inspectors, local authority officers, those concerned with the Building Acts, those experienced in the sheriff courts, and the sheriffs. They are the people who are involved in the practical problems. The sheriff is well used to hearing and assessing evidence and judging appeals under Section 27.
      All my advice is that it is better to leave the matter as it is. Someone once said, "It is difficult to define an elephant, but you recognise it the minute you see it ". That is the sort of argument which has been put to me. One can argue cases
      of disrepair and of serious disrepair and make a distinction which has been understood by inspectors who have operated the Public Health Acts for a long time. My own Chief Sanitary Inspector is a distinguished former President of the Association in Scotland, and his advice is that it is better to leave this matter for practical interpretation and to the experience of the sheriff than to amend it in a statute. I have tried to interpret this, and I have been unsuccessful. That is why I have moved no amendment.
      This Amendment is defective in two serious ways. We could make an attempt to correct the first one, but the other is too severe to put into the Bill. I would counsel hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is too hard to do it in the Bill. The matter should be left as it is. It has been like that for some time now, and it works reasonably well. If the hon. Gentleman has any better suggestions to make, no doubt we can look at the matter again in the other place. But it would be a mistake to make this Amendment.
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has recognised that there is a problem here, and we are disappointed that he has made no attempt to draft an Amendment with a view to putting it right.
      Clearly it is a matter of judgment. If we followed his advice that it is impossible to describe an elephant but one knows it when one sees it, we would do very little of the work that this House has to do. It is our job to help those who have to carry out our enactments. We believe that something along the lines of the Amendment should be in the Bill, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 143.

      Division No. 302.]

      AYES

      [10.27 p.m.

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Doughty, Charles

      Biffen, John

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Chataway, Christopher

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

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Clark, Henry

      Emery, Peter

      Body, Richard

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Eyre, Reginald

      Brewis, John

      Corfield, F. V.

      Farr, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Costain, A. P.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Foster, Sir John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Dean, Paul

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

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

      Goodhart, Philip

      Grant, Anthony

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Speed, Keith

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stodart, Anthony

      Curden, Harold

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Murton, Oscar

      Tilney, John

      Heald, Rt. H Sir Lionel

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Holland, Philip

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Waddington, David

      Hornby, Richard

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Walters, Dennis

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pounder, Rafton

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Kitson, Timothy

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Pym, Francis

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Lane, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Royle, Anthony

      Worsley, Marcus

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wright, Esmond

      Mac Arthur, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wylie, N. R.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Sharples, Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Maude, Angus

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

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Mawby, Ray

      Silvester, Frederick

      Mr. Hector Morris.

      NOES

      Alldritt, Walter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Ashton, Joe (Passetlaw)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Hannan, William

      Newens, Stan

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Harper, Joseph

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Barnett, Joel

      Heseldine, Norman

      Oswald, Thomas

      Beaney, Alan

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Paget, R. T.

      Binns, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pentland, Norman

      Booth, Albert

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Boyden, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Rees, Merlyn

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

      Hynd, John

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Buchan, Norman

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

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

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

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Ryan, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Sheldon, Robert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Chapman, Donald

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

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Silverman, Julius

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lawson, George

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Slater, Joseph

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Small, William

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Symonds, J. B.

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Taverne, Dick

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Tinn, James

      Dewar, Donald

      Loughlin, Charles

      Tuck, Raphael

      Dobson, Ray

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Driberg, Tom

      MacColl, James

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

      MacDermot, Niall

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Eadie, Alex

      McGuire, Michael

      Wallace, George

      Edelman, Maurice

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Ensor, David

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Whitaker, Ben

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Forrester, John

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

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mapp, Charles

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Woof, Robert

      Gregory, Arnold

      Maxwell, Robert

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mendelson, John

      Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Millan, Bruce

    Clause 25

      RECOVERY BY LOCAL AUTHORITY OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 24
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 17, line 40, leave out from 'the' to end of line 46 and insert:
      'local authority may fix:
      Provided that there may from time to time be prescribed by the Secretary of State a maximum rate of interest for the purposes of either or both of those subsections'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

    Clause 26

      RECOVERY BY LESSEE OF PROPORTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN REPAIRING HOUSE
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 22, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen".
      I am by way of being a mediator in this matter, because in Committee the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) moved an Amendment to delete 7 and insert 21. The Minister of State then suggested that 21 was the maximum number of days there could be and that there might be something better in between. I have tried to produce something better in between, which, I am glad to say, is supported by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I have reached the difficult decision that the something better between 7 and 21 is 14.
      Mr. David Steel: I am always glad to welcome a sinner to repent, even a Tory sinner. I am delighted that the Opposition Front Bench has adopted the improved form of the Amendment I moved in Committee. It is not a question of my supporting the Opposition's Amendment but of our both tabling similar Amendments on the same day. I am delighted that the Opposition have joined forces with me on the point which I and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) pressed on the Minister in Committee. The figure of 14 came from the lips of the Minister, so it will be difficult for him to refuse to accept this reasonable Amendment.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: As I was half way to the penitent's stool in Committee, the House will not be surprised to hear
      180
      me say that the Government are happy that this Amendment should be made.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 41
      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 41 OF ACT OF 1968
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 24, line 38, leave out "him" and insert "to the applicant".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    Clause 45

      APPLICATION FOR QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 27, line 18, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 24 and insert:
      'the dwelling has all the standard amenities'.
      I am obliged to the Minister of State for writing to me on this matter which was raised during the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part" in Committee. This Clause relates to applications for qualification certificates, and a distinction is drawn in the circumstances envisaged in subsection (1) on the one hand and subsection (2) on the other. Subsection (1) deals with the situation, as I understand it, where at the date of the commencement of the Act no improvement works are required in order to provide the house with all the standard amenities. That is under paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) of the subsection deals with the situation in which the dwelling falls short of the standard but the necessary remedial work was begun before the commencement of the Act. On the other hand, subsection (2) deals with a situation where an application is made for a qualification certificate before any works are begun. It seems to me that there is a hiatus here, and I am not at all sure what the way out is. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider this.
      So far as I can see, there is no provision for a situation in which work is commenced between the commencement of the Act and before the application It may be that that is deliberate policy on the part of the Government, and I can understand the implications behind

      181
      subsection (2), namely, that it gives the tenant an opportunity to evaluate the consequences of those improvements as far as his rent is concerned and gives him an opportunity to object. The Minister explained that fully in the letter to which I referred.
      My first concern here is this. I do not know how this will work in practice. Subsection (1) says:
      "… an application … shall not be entertained unless … the dwelling has at all times since the commencement of this Act been provided with all the standard amenities…"
      It is easy to envisage the circumstances in which although the dwelling at the time of the application satisfies the necessary standards, it is difficult to establish that many months or years ago the dwelling likewise satisfied all those standards. In Committee I raised the question what happens if an amenity has originally been provided and has since become unserviceable. The Minister's advice, I understand, is that not withstanding the unserviceability of the amenity, the amenity would have been provided and the local authority would be entitled to entertain the application.
      That may be. But I think it is arguable in those circumstances because of the emphasis on the "at all times" point, that provision means not merely initial provision but by implication provision and maintenance during the whole period between the commencement of the Act and the date of the application.
      Leaving that apart, will there not be difficulty here in trying to satisfy the standard set in paragraph (a)? How does one prove that the dwelling has at all times since the commencement of the Act been provided with the standard amenities? With that in mind, this Amendment has been put down simply to apply the test of the state of the dwelling at the time of the application as the matter which will decide whether the application will be entertained or not.
      So far as I can see, there is no provision for an appeal against the local authority refusing to entertain an application. If an application is entertained and a certificate is refused, there are statutory provisions, in Clause 50, which enable the applicant to appeal to the sheriff on the ground that the certificate ought to have been issued.
      182
      It is interesting to note that subsection (3) of that Clause specifies two dates as being the crucial dates on the question of an appeal, namely, the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and secondly the state of the dwelling at the time of the issue of refusal of the certificate.
      10.45 p.m.
      If Clause 50 means that one could appeal against the refusal of a local authority to entertain an application—I do not think that it does—an impossible situation is created wherein the local authority is obliged to apply its mind to one set of criteria, namely, the state of the dwelling from the date of the commencement of the Bill till the date of the hearing, and on appeal to two other dates substituted therefor, namely, the state of the dwelling at the date of the application and the state of the dwelling at the time of the appeal.
      That is why it seems to me that Clause 50 does not provide for an appeal against a refusal of the local authority to entertain an application. If it did, there would be a serious inconsistency between the two sets of provisions. If there is no provision for appeal against refusal to entertain an application, on the highly technical ground set out in subsection (1) of Clause 45, it seems that the Clause is even more complicated than appears at first reading.
      Those are my two criticisms, which the Amendment is designed to cure. How does an applicant establish that at all times since the commencement of the Bill the dwelling has met the standard amenities? Second, if the local authority declines to entertain an application because it is not satisfied on that point, what provision is there for appeal against that decision?
      10.45 p.m.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sorry that, although I went to considerable trouble in writing my letter of 23rd June to the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), I still do not seem to have got over the simple proposition that Clause 45 is arranged quite deliberately in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) and embodies a fundamental point of principle in the operation of Part IV.
      The Amendment would allow a landlord who had managed, by whatever

      183
      means, after the commencement of the Bill, to provide all the standard amenities to apply right away for a qualification certificate. It might be that he had obtained the tenant's consent to the works being carried out without telling him of the full implications of the work, and particularly that it would allow the house to be converted from a controlled tenancy to a regulated tenancy. The Bill as drafted deliberately restricts the Clause 46(1) procedure to houses where there is no question of the standard amenities being provided after the commencement, and this is the point of principle which the Government regard as essential to the proper operation of Part IV.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman raised several other matters, and in Committee I thought that his criticism was directed at the drafting, whereas it was basically a question of principle. He dealt with the point about standard amenities becoming unserviceable. In my letter to him I said:
      "My own legal advice is that the unserviceability of an amenity would not alter the fact that it was provided in the house, and the situation you referred to would not therefore prevent the local authority from entertaining an application under Clause 46(1)."
      I have since checked that, and the position remains as I was advised and as I stated on 23rd June.
      We debated this matter extensively. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not adduced arguments further to those which he put in Committee. The Amendment would breach the principle of the Bill substantially. It is right that the tenant should be protected in this way, and I could not counsel the House to make the Amendment.
      If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to take the matter a stage further, not necessarily tonight, and he has new points of argument to raise hereafter, I shall consult my noble Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether there is some way in which the drafting of the Clause and its consequential Clauses could be improved, but I cannot depart from the general principle which I explained in Committee and outlined in shorthand fashion again tonight.
      Mr. Wylie: I think that the Minister—and I can well understand this—was
      184
      reading a prepared brief not designed to cover the points I sought to make.
      I thought that I had made it clear that I accepted the principle the Minister set out in the letter, because I think that the tenant would be prejudiced if the landlord could, without his consent, make improvements which would bring the property up to standard and enable certificates to be granted. Our Amendment is really put down to probe the other points I have mentioned, neither of which the Minister has dealt with.
      How will this work in practice? How will the landlord establish that a dwelling has at all times since the commencement of the Act been provided with standard amenities? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take up with his noble Friend the question of whether there is provision in the Bill for appeal against the refusal of the local authority to entertain an application under the Clause, in contrast to the provisions for an appeal to the sheriff against the refusal of the issue of a certificate which has been entertained.
      Those are two points that I ask the Minister to consider very seriously, because they seem to me to be shortcomings in the Clause.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the second point, I will willingly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman again. But on the one hand he endorses the principle and on the other he moves the Amendment, and that is not possible.
      Mr. Wylie: I was about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I thought that I had made clear that there are two problems, and I ask the Minister to consider these points.
      I accept the validity of the principle, and endorse it, that the tenant must be safeguarded. My concern is whether this can work. Will the Minister think about this and consider whether there is any provision for appeal against refusal to entertain an application as distinct from the provision for appeal against refusal to issue a certificate?
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is Government Amendment

      185
      No. 26, with which we may discuss Government Amendment No. 27 and Amendment No. 28, in page 28, line 3, leave out 'before considering it' and insert 'forthwith'.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 27, line 42, leave out from the beginning to 'shall' in line 43 and insert: (4) As soon as a local authority have received an application for a qualification certificate they.
      The two Government Amendments fulfil an undertaking I gave in Committee that we would consider the suggestion made by the Opposition that the Bill should make it clear to local authorities that they must deal with applications for qualification certificates without undue delay. Amendment No. 26 amends subsection (4) by requiring the local authority to send a copy of the application to the tenant as soon as it receives the application instead of before considering it.
      Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that where the application is made under Clause 45(1), that is, where the dwelling is already provided with all the standard amenities, the notice to the tenant of his right to make representations must be served on him at the same time as the copy of the application is sent to him.
      The Amendments meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion as regards the service of the notice on the tenant. He also sought to have a form of words included which would make it clear that the local authority must consider the application immediately. The Government's view is that such an insertion would be well-nigh meaningless in practical terms and would add nothing to the sense of urgency which the Government Amendments convey.
      I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman might agree, on reflection, that these Amendments meet the undertaking as far as is practicable.
      Amendment No. 28 follows up remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, as reported at column 325 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The Government Amendments are perhaps a little better. I have discussed this with my legal advisers, and they are firmly of that view.
      Mr. Wylie: We are grateful to the Minister for moving those Amendments. They entirely meet the point raised in Committee. I recognise, as I have on many occasions, that the Minister's expert drafting is almost invariably superior to ours, and I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 28 in preference to the Government Amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 46

      PROCEDURE ON APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 45(1)
      Amendment made: No. 27, in page 28, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 4 and insert:
      'at the same time as they send a copy of the application to the person named in the application as the tenant in pursuance of section 45(4) of this Act, serve on him'.

    Clause 50

      APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 29, leave out line 37.
      Subsection (3) provides that
      "on any appeal under this section the sheriff shall have regard to the state of the dwelling at …"
      two different times. The first is
      "…at the time of the hearing…"
      and the second is "…at the time of the issue or refusal of the certificate…".
      In a sense, I suppose that this is the same point as was raised earlier but I do not think that the arguments against apply as forcibly in this context.
      Here we have a situation in which an appeal is taken to the sheriff against the issue or refusal by the local authority of a qualification certificate. He has to be satisfied as to the state of the dwelling, first, at the time of the hearing. One can readily understand that. It is something on which evidence would be led and everyone would know where they stood. But why is it necessary to specify that he shall also satisfy himself as to the state of the dwelling at the time of issue or refusal of the

      187
      certificate? Surely this is a confusion of times.
      Either the dwelling satisfies the statutory criteria at the time of the appeal or it does not. If it does not, then the appeal falls. What is the situation if it satisfies the criteria at the time of the appeal but the sheriff is satisfied that, at some earlier stage—namely, the time when the local authority issued or refused a certificate—it did not satisfy them? I do not understand the purpose here. Surely, if the dwelling has been put right in the meantime, the equity of the situation could be dealt with by way of expenses.
      This seems a rather unnecessary confusion and introduces into the appeal procedure criteria which have to be tested as at two different times, one of which has superseded the other—namely, the condition of the dwelling at the time of the appeal and the condition of the dwelling at the time of the initial application.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: By the time the appeal is heard, the state of the dwelling might have changed from that at the time of the local authority's decision. This may be to the advantage or, indeed, to the disadvantage of the owner. For example, the local authority may have been justified in issuing a certificate because of the poor state of repair of the dwelling but, by the time the hearing is held before the sheriff on appeal, the repairs might have been carried out and the qualifying conditions of Clause 44(1) met. Again, it is possible that a defect in the dwelling may have developed which would justify the granting of an appeal by the tenant against the decision of the local authority to issue a certificate.
      We can either seek to fit that sort of situation precisely into the Clause or leave the matter to the sheriff to decide on appeal, and we think that the latter is the better course rather than having the parties concerned starting the process all over again. We are importing a certain amount of common sense into this. If there is a change between the issue or refusal of a certificate and the appeal, then the matter should be decided by the sheriff because these matters will be led into the discussion of the case. This course will speed up the whole
      188
      matter rather than make the parties go back to the beginning because there has been a change and start all over again.
      Mr. Wylie: I am not sure I follow all this. For example, at the time of application the statutory criteria were not satisfied and, therefore, the local authority was justified in refusing the application. The applicant then appeals and in the meantime puts right the property, so that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Is the sheriff in the situation as it exists then bound to grant an appeal? If so, what relevance has it, apart from the equitable question of expenses, whether the state of the property at an earlier stage in the proceedings has failed to satisfy the criteria?
      I can well understand that, in such circumstances, the local authority may say, "The criteria are satisfied now, but we were justified in our earlier refusal. Therefore, you should refuse to allow his expenses." But I will be satisfied if I have an assurance that the governing factor is to be the state of the premises on the date of the hearing of the appeal, if that satisfies the statutory criteria.
      11.0 p.m.
      Dr. Dickson Mahon: The object is to get the repairs done. Whether we reach the stage of an appeal being successful does not matter to that. However, I will consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
      Mr. Wylie: I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman raises this matter with his noble Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
      I do not suggest that this is a crucial matter, but these are three lines which simply provide that the sheriff shall make no order for expenses unless it appears to him, having regard to the conduct of the parties and all their circumstances, that it will be equitable for him to do so.
      I have always understood that the court always has regard to all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties. I wonder whether these three lines are necessary.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's case,

      189
      he is not saying that we ought not to have safeguards for a party who has lost an appeal, but who, in equity, ought not to have expenses awarded against him. He asked me whether this wording was proper. It is certainly precedented. It is in Section 13(h) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933—action for recovery of rent—and in Section 33(6) of the Rent Act, 1965—recovery of possession of agricultural cottages. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not regard this as a vital Amendment and I hope that he will not pursue it.
      Mr. Wylie: If it is so well precedented, it is almost impertinent to pursue it and ask why it should be here. However, one is at times tempted to question these things even though here are precedents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 55

      CONSENT OF TENANT
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 32, line 23, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 29.
      The Clause spells out many of the circumstances which the sheriff must take into account. Is it wise to spell them out in this kind of detail, especially immediately following the generality of regard having to be had to all the circumstances? The Minister has often told us that to do so emphasises aspects which do not merit emphasis. It leads to questions of interpretation. For example, the sheriff has to take into account the tenant's means in relation to the increase of rent that would result. What is meant by "means"? Would that take into account supplementary benefits to which he would be entitled if the work were done and the rent increased by that amount?
      These are the kinds of questions of interpretation liable to arise when one seeks to spell out these things in such detail. Would it not be wiser to leave it in the broadest possible way to the discretion of the sheriff by stopping the Clause where we suggest?
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Following the argument so convincingly made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), will the Minister say whether the disadvantage and other circumstances would be those arising as a result of the repairs or as a result of the works being done? Many of these cases will arise with small houses occupied by large families and some works might result in reducing the available accommodation.
      We all know of circumstances when well-meaning factors have proposed alterations and improvements which, although excellent in themselves, would substantially reduce the accommodation. We have had examples of this with smoke control orders which have resulted in the provision of necessary facilities while reducing space.
      For example, there might be a man and his wife and their six children living in a two-apartment house. If the proposal would have the result of reducing their available accommodation, would that be one of the circumstances which the sheriff could take into account? If so, these words will be valuable. I should appreciate the Minister's view on whether the words refer to the inconvenience in the course of the works being done, or that which may stem long term from the works being done.
      Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful for the aid of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). "Disadvantage" could be interpreted as referring to a reduction in size.
      The hon. Member is probably speaking from experience of Glasgow. Perhaps he will take this a step further and accept that if we allowed automatic exemption for one tenant in a tenement block, that might make it virtually impossible for the owner to provide amenities for the whole house, or to make conversions involving amalgamations of houses.
      In other words, a restriction of the kind used in the English Bill would be inappropriate to us in Scotland and would make it, if not impossible, very difficult for Clause 55 orders to be made in many tenements where landlords proposed to undertake improvements. I extend the hon. Member's example beyond the large family in small accommodation to families in tenemental accommodation where

      191
      one family could be affected by the rights of another.
      New Clause 4 was added to the English Bill to introduce income limits to restrict the operation of the equivalent Clause. We do not think that in the Scottish context, it should be made. Our sheriffs are well used to exercising discretion on matters to be taken into account and are well able to make a judgment between conflicting interests, between landlords and tenants, but the Amendment removes any guidance to sheriffs. The guidance is varied.
      The first point is that which the hon. Member for Cathcart reported, and which supports me—I hope that this does not embarrass him. That is of accommodation being converted into a bathroom—a good example—which the hon. Member gave, or the example I gave, the effect on a next-door tenant. There is the question of temporary accommodation if works cannot be done while the tenant is in the house, even if the house is to be improved or converted.
      The last item, about which we are not now arguing is that touched on by the English new Clause—Ability to pay the rent. There is precedent for similar directions in other Acts and it is right to guide the sheriff on these three points. They are peculiarly Scottish and there is no need to qualify it as the English new Clause 4 has done. It is important not to upset Clause 55. We expect a great deal of it.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the Minister answer the point about the first part of this:
      "… disadvantage to the tenant which might be expected to result from the works"?
      Does "works" refer to the position after they have been completed or to when they are being done?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Interjections must be brief.
      Mr. Wylie: The matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has drawn attention underline the danger of trying to spell out in detail too many criteria. As the Minister said, the sheriffs in Scotland know well how to operate this type of provision and it would have been much better to have
      192
      left this as a simple direction to the sheriff that he should have regard to all the circumstances, instead of filling it up with language practically every line of which is open to question and may be open to judicial interpretation. I will not press this kind of point at this hour, but precedent or no precedent, we should be careful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 7

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 62, line 38, at end insert:

      1968 c. 42.

      The Prices and Incomes Act 1968.

      Section 12.

      —[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 34, in line 17, after 'tenancy;', insert:
    'to provide for the increase of rents of houses belonging to certain authorities without notice of removal'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    11.15 p.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    May I congratulate my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including those from the Liberal Party, who have participated in the excellent progress of this Bill. It has passed through the Scottish Standing Committee and established a record for speed of transition. May I also congratulate those who have taken part on the very constructive way in which they have argued the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) described the Bill as the most important Scottish Bill this Session. I agree. In my opinion, it is one of the most important housing Bills for many years.
    The Bill contains the first major revision of the slum clearance law for more than 30 years, and for the first time introduces in Scotland a positive minimum standard for houses. By integrating the statutory codes for slum clearance and improvement and by giving a greater incentive for improvement the Bill opens

    193
    the door for fruitful co-operation between local authorities and private owners. In introducing the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
    "Legislation alone can never cure the problem of bad housing in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 18th March, 1969; c. 7.]
    The Bill provides the framework, but the effective action depends on the help and co-operation of local authorities, owner-occupiers, landlords, tenants, builders and particularly the leadership of local councillors. They have done a magnificent job so far in extending the output of new houses in Scotland and I hope that they will with equal energy get on with the task of stepping up the rate of clearance to a level which will enable Scotland to get rid of its plague of slums within a short period of years.
    11.18 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I wish to thank the Minister of State for the tributes he paid to my hon. Friends for the examination of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides have done their best in the short time available to improve the Bill. On the question of timing, I must make it clear that it has seemed to us that the Government have got their legislaion mixed up, in as much as this Bill was in the queue after the Planning Bill and the Education Bill. This meant that we have had an unusually short period of time to take it through its stages here
    before it goes to another place.
    Having said that, the Minister will agree that hon. Members on both sides have co-operated fully in a difficult programme so that we could examine the particular points and try to make changes in the Bill to improve it. I am glad to say that the Minister has accepted a number of our suggestions made in Committee and later. We are sorry that he has not been able to accept more.
    The Bill seeks to produce a new system for the improvement of older houses and we hope that it will prove to be an effective system. It is now left to those who have to try to make the Bill work—and the Minister has mentioned some of them—to operate this system. We hope that it will be more effective than previous systems and we on our side will do all we can to ensure that the stock of houses that we have in Scotland is fully used and that those with plenty of life in
    194
    them, which need improvement and repair, are saved and used fully to help provide accommodation, along with the new houses being built.
    11.20 p.m.
    Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: There is a rule of thumb that I have for Government legislation, which is that the best thing we can do with whatever they put forward is to throw it away; on the whole, we would be much better off without it.
    This is one of those very rare exceptions, I can scarcely think of any other, where, on balance, we have to give a Third Reading to a Bill which will serve certain useful purposes. That is why we have been able to treat the Bill in a receptive and agreeable fashion. On reflection, it is a pity that this receptive fashion should have been to some extent disturbed by the Minister of State, at certain points, when he made attacks on some Scottish local authorities and their housing records, attacks which were not justified by the facts—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is in the Bill and not discuss other matters outside it.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I would not dream of doing any such thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the attacks made by the Minister of State were within the terms of the Bill on various of the Clauses that we discussed earlier. However, I will not try your patience by pursuing that further.
    While, together with my hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill in general, it does not go nearly far enough. In particular, the terms of Part IV are totally inadequate to deal with a grave injustice which has persisted for many years. To my mind, it is intolerable that people like landlords in my constituency, who have small individual properties, in an excellent state of repair, with all modern conveniences, are receiving such low rents. I had a case last week of a landlord who was receiving, for a fully modernised property with three rooms, kitchen and bathroom—the lot—a rent of £16 10s. a year. It is intolerable that these people should be invited to wait for three or, perhaps even four more years

    195
    before they can obtain the benefits of upgrading under Part IV of the Bill.
    Therefore, it is for that reason above all that I greet the Bill with very modified rapture. It is justice very long deferred into the future. I suppose, however, that to be able to greet a Bill from the present Government with any form of rapture at all is a welcome change.
    11.22 p.m.
    Mr. David Steel: I would not like the Third Reading of the Bill to pass without my being able to say that this is one of the few Bills on which I have actually enjoyed serving in the Committee stage. I think it is a good Bill and one which is for the improvement of the housing situation in Scotland.
    If we accept, as, I hope, we are all moving, however slowly, towards accepting, that housing is a basic human right, we can say that this modest Bill goes one step further in the direction of creating that human right as a reality in Scotland. Of course, standards are not high enough. What one person may regard as a minimum status of tolerance might not be acceptable to most of us even in this House as tolerable living conditions. We will want to see the standards improved over the years.
    The Bill has thrown up important discussion. One conviction which it has underlined, certainly in my mind, is that we shall never cure the position of Scotland's older houses until we rid ourselves of the legacy of the dilemma of private landlordism in Scotland. We are in the impossible situation that if a landlord is to get a fair return on his capital, the tenant has to pay an extortionately high price for the value of the property which he inhabits.
    If, on the other hand, the tenant is to pay a reasonable rent for the property which he inhabits, the private landlord is often in a situation in which he will not be able to improve the property or keep it up. Therefore, I hope that over the years we will see encouragement to home ownership, co-operative housing and municipal housing and the phasing out as rapidly as possible of the sector of private tenancies which we have known in Scotland.
    I believe that the people of Scotland are well aware of the deficiencies of our
    196
    housing situation compared with that south of the Border. I say that because the House might be interested to learn that the public response to the Shelter organisation in Scotland since—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we can discuss only what is in the Bill—in other words, how the Bill will operate. We cannot discuss things that we would like to see in the Bill or suggest what should be taken out of it.
    Mr. Steel: What I am about to mention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is very relevant to how the Bill will operate, because one thing with which I am closely concerned is the encouragement of housing associations, which will make use of the provisions in the Bill for increased rents.
    What I wanted to tell the House was that one of the main sources of revenue of housing associations in Scotland will be money raised by Shelter. Since this organisation set up its own office in Scotland in the autumn it set out very carefully a financial target for its first year of operation, bearing in mind its experience in England, and it has had the very pleasant surprise of having been able to raise within Scotland in four months the amount of money which it had set as its target—in the first year of operation. This, I believe, is testimony to the awareness of the public in Scotland to the very cruel housing situation which exists in some parts of the country.
    I should like to put a question to the Minister following the very encouraging reports in the Press of the development of clamp-on units in the older housing, and the fact that the Scottish Special Housing Association said that it had spent only £100,000 of the £1 million allowed by the Government for the improvement of older properties. If we are here passing a Bill to encourage more improvement of older properties I wonder what role the S.S.H.A. has to play in this. The reason given for this very small expenditure was that it was permitted to spend only £2,500 on doing each conversion.
    I would suggest that most housing associations operating in this field used grants available under the old legislation and were able to make conversions usually at a cost of about £1,600 and not at the £2,500 level. I wonder, first, whether the S.S.H.A. ought to be in this

    197
    field at all; but, if it is in the field, I wonder if it should have such exacting standards. I do not believe that the Bill deals with matters such as flush-fitted doors and matters of that kind, and whether we can, in this legislation, bring houses up to modem council or S.S.H.A. building. This should be borne in mind when this money is available for the improvement of older property. The association ought to take this into account when it has still £900,000 left to it for this purpose.
    Finally, I very much hope that we shall see more housing associations in Scotland. I do not mean housing associations of the commercial kind. I mean voluntary bodies of the kind which exist only in the major cities and, occasionally, in towns like Greenock, where, perhaps, they have been actively encouraged. It is true that most of the small burghs in Scotland which do have the problem of older houses do not have any voluntary associations in their midst to help deal with this problem. This is something which ought to be encouraged, and the passage of the Bill, I hope, will make that easier.
    I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage in another place, as the Minister expressed in Committee the possibility that it might be in operation by the end of the Summer Recess. I hope that we do not delay it any longer. I wish it a speedy passage and all success.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LARNE HARBOUR)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
  11. 28 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Clark: The north-east coast of Ireland, where my constituency is situated, faces Scotland across the narrowest part of the Irish Sea. It is an unfortunate fact of geography that in the whole 100-mile stretch of this coast, from Belfast to Londonderry, there is only one natural harbour, only one harbour which gives any facility for deep-water berths for boats much larger than from 10 to 15 tons.
  198
  There are a couple of artificial harbours which give only crowded space for small boats. The one natural harbour, which is the subject of which I wish to speak, is Lough Larne. Lough Larne and, more particularly, Curran Point, the sickle shaped spit which half closes the mouth of the Lough, provides very valuable and historic anchorage. As this is the only natural harbour in 100 miles of coast. Curran Point, at Lough Larne, has for generations been of great strategic and commercial importance.
  At no time have Lough Larne and the Curran been more important than in the past 25 years. Ever since William Cheyne founded Larne Harbour, more than 100 years ago, the harbour company has been a go-ahead and enterprising firm, and the country owes a great deal to it. Under its present board, and particularly the management of the late Davy Logan, the harbour has gone from strength to strength. In 1949, it became the base for Colonel Bustard's early experiments in roll-on roll-off ferries and container services. As the Minister knows, that enterprise of Colonel Bustard's has grown into a large part of the Transport Holding Company.
  Larne Harbour has grown during those 25 years, since the war, at a quite phenomenal rate. In 1947, the harbour dealt with barely 1 per cent. of the traffic to and from Northern Ireland. Today, it deals with about 37 per cent. Larne has become the second largest harbour in Northern Ireland and, from dealing with £2½ million of goods, today it deals with about £370 million worth. It is a great success story, and everyone in County Antrim is proud of it.
  The length of deep-water berths and quays has been increased on a number of occasions, and several times permission has been granted by the Board of Trade for navigable water to be reclaimed so that the storage areas and parking bays can be provided which are so essential to the handling of containers; and Larne probably knows more about handling containers than any other port in the world.
  Unfortunately, members of the Larne Harbour Company are not the only people to have an interest in the Curran Point. When it was heard that the Board of Trade was to grant permission yet again for Larne Harbour

  199
  Board to reclaim a large area of 6½ acres of sea, it was clear to anyone who knew the area or who looked at a map of the area that the whole nature of Curran Point was about to be changed.
  The other interested parties on the Curran must be spelt out carefully. For generations, the Curran Point has been a favourite area for retired sea captains to build their houses, and Larne has produced a whole race of famous seamen. Recently, I sent the Board of Trade a petition signed by 170 residents of the area, and there can be no doubt that the extension of Larne Harbour which turns an attractive small bay into an extraordinarily ugly parking space for containers is reducing considerably the value of those private houses. Under the law, they can receive no compensation.
  At the tip of Curran Point, the Northern Ireland Electricity Board has a site of six or seven acres. On it, one of the first generating stations in Northern Ireland was built. Today, though the generating station has gone, the electricity board has a storage area and a switching and transforming station there.
  In addition to the harbour board, the residents and the electricity board, there are two sailing clubs. The Larne Rowing and Sailing Club is based on land which is owned by the harbour and leased on a year-to-year basis. Then there is the East Antrim Boat Club, which purchased a small disused shipyard in 1949 that the harbour could well have bought in 1949 had it wanted it.
  The sailing clubs present another success story. They have large memberships, particularly large cadet memberships. They have very successful fleets of sailing dinghies, and increasing numbers of cruising boats and ocean racers. They provide on Curran Point the largest single slipway available to yachts in Northern Ireland, and they have facilities for hundreds and, in future, perhaps thousands of people to take part in water sports. Anyone who knows the County Antrim coast, and has sailed up and down it as often as I have, knows that nowhere else on the coast could one place the facilities of Curran Point and Larne without huge expense.
  Just as there are several parties concerned with Curran Point and Larne, so
  200
  there are several planning authorities. Larne Harbour Company itself is the planning authority for the dock and quay area. Larne Borough Council is responsible for the area outside the quays and docks. The Ministry of Development of Northern Ireland is responsible for the Belfast area plan, in which Larne is included, and it is responsible equally for the revision of that plan and for the special area plan for East Antrim, on which consultants have been working for the last few months. For good measure, the Crown Commissioners own the foreshore, and the Board of Trade, as we have discovered, is responsible for the navigation.
  Over a year ago I raised with the Board of Trade the question of the navigation and the possibility of further filling in and reclamation of Larne Harbour. Unfortunately, the Board of Trade did not seem to be able to find the reference of its correspondence with the Larne Harbour Company and the yacht clubs in Larne, and the matter went no further. Just what happened to the letters in the Board of Trade, I do not know, but it is getting a reputation for delay and prevarication.
  Not having heard from the Board of Trade, I assumed that no action was being taken. I was surprised when, early in April, I received a letter from the East Antrim Boat Club enclosing a copy of a letter from the marine division of the Board of Trade saying that permission had been granted to the Larne Harbour Company to fill in stage one, which is 6½ acres. Since I had first taken up the question there had been some amendment. The Royal Sailing Association and the Northern Ireland Council for Youth and Physical Recreation had made representations, and slight adjustments had been made in the plans for filling in.
  When I wrote to the Board of Trade, in April this year it again seemed to take an inordinate length of time to discover what was happening. It took repeated telephone calls to the Minister's private secretary, and only just before the Whitsun Recess, when filling in had been going on for six weeks, I received a letter from the Minister in which he maintained that the Board of Trade's responsibility was purely for navigation and that the permission granted did not

  201
  mean permission for the harbour board to continue to fill in.
  It is possible that the Board of Trade observed the letter of the law when it granted permission to the Larne Harbour Company. But what discussions did the Board of Trade have with any of the planning authorities? What discussions did it have with the householders, who were eventually forced to send a petition through me? What discussions did it have with the other interested parties, such as the Northern Ireland Electricity Board, which is interested in Curran Point?
  There is no doubt that the Board of Trade's decision to allow the filling in of 6½ acres of sea pre-empts any other planning decisions, and certainly if stage three and stage four, as shown in the charts, are proceeded with there will be no hope of preserving the amenity value of Curran Point.
  I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the filling in of stage one will be brought to an end very shortly. I also ask for an assurance that he will not give permission for Larne Harbour Company to proceed with any further stage of reclamation in Lough Larne until the whole question has been gone into very carefully with the appropriate planning authorities, and better still, until the plan provides both for the Larne Harbour Company and the amenities of the householders now on Curran Point.
  I need hardly remind the Minister that in a similar plan to extend the Liverpool docks and harbours a private Act of Parliament was necessary, and the householders nearby were assured that their houses would be bought, if necessary at pre-development rates.
  Larne Harbour must have priority—it is a vital development for Northern Ireland—but must not have absolute priority. The interests of others must be taken into consideration. The problem can be solved. I believe that it can be if it is gone into carefully. The land now held by the Northern Ireland Electricity Board could be taken over. The electricity board is under-utilising a very valuable site, and its buildings are an eyesore. On Curran Point splendid amenities for water sports can be provided with good planning and we can at the same time have a bigger Larne Harbour than before.
  202
  I believe that the Board of Trade, while observing the letter of the law, has been negligent in this case in not considering the best interests of all the people concerned. The mere fact that the constitution of Northern Ireland gives jurisdiction only to the water edge leaves a loophole which the Board of Trade, I think without proper care, has taken and has prejudiced very valuable amenity rights which cannot be replaced elsewhere on the County Antrim coast.
  11.40 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I am gateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) for raising this question, as it gives me an opportunity to tell him and the House just what are the Board of Trade's responsibilities—and they are limited—in connection with works in tidal waters.
  I am sorry if the hon. Member feels that his concern with the matter has not been properly and rapidly dealt with. I see that he wrote a letter to the Board which was received on 1st May, to which the Board replied on 21st May. I know that he may feel that the delay was longer than necessary, but I hope that he will understand that, because of its limited responsibilities, inquiries were necessary which involved some researches which I would think reasonably justify a lapse of this time. Certainly I believe so on the basis of the information available to me, whereas if the hon. Member feels there was any discourtesy, this was not intended. As far as I can judge, there was no unreasonable delay in dealing with his problem.
  The Marine Department of the Board of Trade is responsible for the safety of navigation and also for protecting the public right of navigation in tidal waters. I think that we should get this clear. As a result of these responsibilities, it is necessary for the consent of the Board to be obtained to the construction of works and to the deposit of materials below the high-water mark of ordinary spring tides, unless statutory powers are obtained from Parliament. This requirement goes back at least to the early part of the last century.
  In considering applications, our statutory concern is with obstruction or danger to navigation, and only with these matters, not with matters of planning or general

  203
  amenity, however important they may be—and I should not dispute that they are important in this case, as in others.
  I should like to stress this now as there appears to have been some confusion about the position reflected in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I appreciate his concern and I am anxious to indicate the necessary limit of it from the Board's point of view.
  The Board of Trade is concerned only with the interests of navigation and our consent does no more than give the applicant the "all clear" on the navigational aspect of his application. It does not give him any powers to carry out the works, nor does it override the need to obtain planning permission where this is required.
  Mr. Henry Clark: Surely the Minister is speaking as if this was Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland reaches only to the low-tide mark, where the Board's powers begin. There can be no application of planning by the Northern Ireland Government in the area. Therefore, the Minister is the only authority, and, by granting permission, he is taking the powers of a planning authority.
  Mr. Rodgers: With respect, the hon. Member has not quite got it right. I hope that I will partly answer his question in what I have to say. I am trying to indicate where our area of responsibility begins and ends. In the proper fulfilment of our obligations and responsibilities we are bound to fall short of the area with which the hon. Gentleman said that he was principally concerned.
  At one stage the hon. Member referred to a total plan for the area. I am trying to make clear that we are not responsible, and cannot be under our powers, for a total plan for the area. Although the hon. Member might wish us to go wider than the letter of the law, given the position, we must carry out our responsibilities as fairly as we can. We cannot depart from what is statutorily given to us to infringe upon the responsibility of others.
  As the hon. Gentleman has implied, in Great Britain planning matters are, of course, the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But
  204
  in Northern Ireland they are the responsibility of the Minister of Development. I understand that if anyone wishes to appeal against a planning decision made in Northern Ireland by a borough or county council they can appeal to the Minister of Development. In any case, planning is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Parliament and not of Ministers in Westminster. Whatever the hon. Member or I might say, this constitutional relationship cannot be changed.
  To return to the functions of the Board of Trade, in considering applications for consent to works in tidal waters we consult all those whom we think have an interest from a navigation point of view, and in many cases we require proposals to be advertised. If we consider that we require more information, we can hold a local inquiry. The hon. Member said that an attractive small bay was to be turned into an extraordinarily ugly parking place for containers. This is not essentially a matter for the Board of Trade, because our responsibility is limited to the navigational aspects.
  May I turn now to the specific case which the hon. Member has raised tonight relating to an application from Larne Harbour Ltd. to reclaim part of Lame Harbour. This application represents in fact a further stage in a process of reclamation of the harbour which has been going on since 1961 in order to expand the facilities for handling traffic at Lame. As the hon. Member says, developments in recent years have been marked by progress and growth in this respect.
  Larne Harbour Ltd. is not a statutory harbour authority, but it handles more traffic and goods than any other harbour authority in Northern Ireland, except Belfast. The British Railways Ferry Service operates four services a day and the harbour authority handles a considerable and growing amount of container traffic, which perhaps creates the problem as the hon. Member now sees it. The area which the company now wishes to infill will be used to provide a hard standing and parking area for container service vehicles using the port and will provide an additional quay along the seaward side of the area.
  We required the proposals to be advertised, and objections were received. I am sorry if the hon. Member was not

  205
  aware of this fact. These led to revisions of the proposals which were again, in their revised form, advertised—I am now talking about a period extending over three or four years—following a meeting between representatives of the Board of Trade, the Royal Yachting Association, and the applicants. The area which is now proposed to be reclaimed has been slightly reduced—I think the hon. Member himself said there had been modifications—and under the new arrangements the East Antrim Boat Club and the Larne Rowing and Sailing Clubs—the two clubs with which the hon. Member was concerned—will continue to have access to their slipways.
  To make an early start on the reclamation and provide some additional space for the container traffic, Larne Harbour Authority has now split its proposals into the three stages which I think the hon. Member has in mind and we have been able to give consent to Stage I, as we are satisfied that this does not interfere unreasonably with navigation. I must again stress that this consent does not of itself give the company power to reclaim the area concerned, but merely states that, if I may quote the somewhat antique wording which is used on these occasions—
  "so far as the interests of navigation are concerned and without prejudice to the estate and interest of Her Majesty the Queen, or other the Owner or Owners in the soil of the tidal lands to be interfered with, hereby consent to the reclamation by Larne Harbour Authority of 6·7 acres of foreshore below high water mark of ordinary spring tides at Lame in connection with Stage I of the proposed extension of Larne Harbour as shown by the plan annexed hereto".
  It will be noted that the phrase—
  "so far as the interests of navigation are concerned"—
  is the preliminary to the consent we have given. This is the limit of our responsibility.
  Again speaking within our own responsibilities, I can say that Larne Harbour Authority has been very co-operative over the navigation needs of the Lame Rowing and Sailing Clubs—at least, I have been told so—and has agreed that they may have the use of the extreme southern end of the proposed quay for the accommodation of visiting yachts and for other purposes.
  206
  Discussions are continuing concerning the loss of mooring space and proposals for alternative mooring areas. Strictly speaking, I understand that the provision of moorings for a vessel should not be regarded as part of the public right of navigation. The consent of the owner or lessee of the foreshore or bed of the sea is required before anyone can lay either a permanent or a temporary mooring, so that we do not need to take objections relating to moorings into account when considering applications. Nevertheless, the Board's practice is to attempt to resolve as far as possible any difficulties relating to mooring by negotiation with the parties concerned.
  It has been suggested—I think that the hon. Member implied this—that the proposals of Larne Harbour Authority will lead to the disappearance of the only safe all-weather anchorage for yachts between Carrick Fergus, 20 miles south-west of Larne, and Port Rush, 60 miles to the north. I do not think that this is correct. There are, I gather—although I would defer to the hon. Gentleman and his experience—places within Lough Larne, in particular to the south-west of Curran Point, where a safe anchorage can be found.
  I hope that I have been able to explain to the hon. Member the basis on which the Board of Trade considers applications relating to works in tidal waters, and to satisfy him that in this particular case we have given full and fair consideration to all the navigational aspects of the matter, those being, as I have said, the only aspects of concern to the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Henry Clark: Could the Minister tell me what discussions he has had with the Minister of Development in Northern Ireland, who is responsible particularly for the Belfast area plan and the East Antrim special plan, and what discussions he has had with Larne Borough Council? If he has had no discussions, would he not agree that he should do so, as the Larne Borough Council's responsibility and the responsibility of the Minister of Development are directly adjacent to this in-filling?
  Mr. Rodgers: I personally have had no discussion with the Minister of Development, but, as I have said, discussions about this development have extended over a period of three years. We

  207
  have always advertised the proposals, and after the first occasion they were modified. There has been very full opportunity for all those involved to make their views known.
  But I must say again, although it is not for me to disagree with the hon. Member's argument, that many planning authorities are involved. All I can say is that our concern is for the navigational aspects. As far as that is concerned, we have gone through all the procedures, and I am not aware that there has been any objection raised with us by the Minister of Development in Northern Ireland. If this is not the case, I will let the hon. Member know.
  As I say, our responsibility has been limited. I must ask the hon. Member not to expect me to get involved in the total plan which he says may be required in the area—I am not discounting it, but it is not my province—nor ask me to abandon the letter of the law for a more liberal interpretation of responsibilities which would impinge upon the proper responsibility of the Parliament of
  208
  Northern Ireland and would not be, for that reason, ultimately acceptable by this House.
  The hon. Member has performed a useful function in raising this matter, from everybody's point of view. I can certainly assure him that our consent to stage I of the scheme is entirely without prejudice to our consideration of the later stages of the schemes—in other words, stages II and III. In examining these suggestions, we shall, of course, take into account what he has said tonight.
  As to the planning matters that he has raised, I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I say that as they are outside my province, they are matters which he may wish to discuss with the Minister of Development of the Northern Ireland Government because it would be improper for me to trespass on to his ground, just as I am sure he would not wish to limit our own rôle, restricted though it may be, for entirely navigational matters.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Malawi (Government Aid)
  Malawi (Government Aid)
  Congo (Bridges, Orientale Province)
  Congo (Bridges, Orientale Province)
  International Planned Parenthood Federation (Grants)
  International Planned Parenthood Federation (Grants)
  Developing Countries (Proteins)
  Developing Countries (Proteins)
  Swaziland (Alienated Land)
  Swaziland (Alienated Land)
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
  Ceylon (Pensions)
  Ceylon (Pensions)
  Institute of Development Studies
  Institute of Development Studies
  Technical Education Resource Group
  Technical Education Resource Group
  Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas
  Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas
  Former Commonwealth Public Servants
  Former Commonwealth Public Servants
  Desert Locusts
  Desert Locusts
  "SONG OF THE LUSITANIAN BOGEY" (ALDWYCH THEATRE)
  "SONG OF THE LUSITANIAN BOGEY" (ALDWYCH THEATRE)
  RACE RELATIONS ACT
  RACE RELATIONS ACT
HEALTH
  Medicines (Bulk Purchase)
  Medicines (Bulk Purchase)
  Dispensing (Rural Areas)
  Dispensing (Rural Areas)
  Health Service Facilities (Non-United Kingdom Citizens)
  Health Service Facilities (Non-United Kingdom Citizens)
  Medical Services (International Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Medical Services (International Reciprocal Arrangements)
  Committee for Ideals in Mental Practices
  Committee for Ideals in Mental Practices
  Proprietary Medicines (Prescribing by General Practitioners)
  Proprietary Medicines (Prescribing by General Practitioners)
  Contaminated Medical Waste
  Contaminated Medical Waste
  Health Checks (Report)
  Health Checks (Report)
HOSPITALS
  Woking Maternity Hospital
  Woking Maternity Hospital
  Chest Diseases
  Chest Diseases
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Abortion Operations
  Abortion Operations
  Confinement (Cost)
  Confinement (Cost)
  Nurses' Rules
  Nurses' Rules
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Patients)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (Patients)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Patients (National Insurance)
  Patients (National Insurance)
  Dispute, British Leyland Motors Limited (Supplementary Benefits)
  Dispute, British Leyland Motors Limited (Supplementary Benefits)
  Strikes (National Insurance)
  Strikes (National Insurance)
  Retirement Pensioners (Overseas)
  Retirement Pensioners (Overseas)
  Immigrant Population
  Immigrant Population
  Remedial Professions Committee
  Remedial Professions Committee
  REMEDIAL PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE
  REMEDIAL PROFESSIONS COMMITTEE
  Disabled Persons (Medical Rehabilitation)
  Disabled Persons (Medical Rehabilitation)
  Local Social Services (London Boroughs)
  Local Social Services (London Boroughs)
  Seebohm Committee (Report)
  Seebohm Committee (Report)
  Widows
  Widows
ROADS
  Paxton Road, Offord d'Arcy, Huntingdon (Speed Limit)
  Paxton Road, Offord d'Arcy, Huntingdon (Speed Limit)
  Motorway Fencing (Home-grown Timber)
  Motorway Fencing (Home-grown Timber)
  Pedestrian Safety
  Pedestrian Safety
  Motorways (Lanes)
  Motorways (Lanes)
  A35 Road (Rushington Roundabout)
  A35 Road (Rushington Roundabout)
  Trunk Road Schemes
  Trunk Road Schemes
TRANSPORT
  Bus Services (Outer London Areas)
  Bus Services (Outer London Areas)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  International Institute of Human Rights
  International Institute of Human Rights
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development Certificates (Cardiff)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Cardiff)
  Anglo-Argentine Trade (Northumberland Report)
  Anglo-Argentine Trade (Northumberland Report)
  Live Calves (Export)
  Live Calves (Export)
  Tourist Boards and British Travel Association (Foreign Conferences)
  Tourist Boards and British Travel Association (Foreign Conferences)
  Advance Factories, Carmarthenshire
  Advance Factories, Carmarthenshire
AVIATION
  Air Transport (Decentralisation)
  Air Transport (Decentralisation)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  National Superannuation (Contracting Out)
  National Superannuation (Contracting Out)
  Carlisle (Loan Sanctions)
  Carlisle (Loan Sanctions)
  Ronan Point Flats (Member's Letter)
  Ronan Point Flats (Member's Letter)
  Carlisle (Rate Rebates)
  Carlisle (Rate Rebates)
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
HOUSING
  Maisonettes and Flats (Leasehold Reform Act)
  Maisonettes and Flats (Leasehold Reform Act)
  The Hartlepools
  The Hartlepools
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Housing Repairs
  Housing Repairs
  Applications for Housing
  Applications for Housing
  Construction Rate (Lambeth)
  Construction Rate (Lambeth)
  Carlisle (Grants)
  Carlisle (Grants)
  Metric House Shells
  Metric House Shells
SCOTLAND
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Agricultural Lime
  Agricultural Lime
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Local Authority Members (Compensation for Loss of Employment)
  Local Authority Members (Compensation for Loss of Employment)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Wheat Imports (Prices)
  Wheat Imports (Prices)
  Meat and livestock Production
  Meat and livestock Production
CIVIL SERVICE
  Women (Commutation of Pension)
  Women (Commutation of Pension)
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Top Civil Servants (Pay)
  Top Civil Servants (Pay)
  Intergovernmental Council for Automatic Data Processing
  Intergovernmental Council for Automatic Data Processing
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Pentland Hills Firing Ranges
  Pentland Hills Firing Ranges
  Electronic Direct Fire Weapon Effects Simulator
  Electronic Direct Fire Weapon Effects Simulator
  Recruiting (Northern Ireland)
  Recruiting (Northern Ireland)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Carlisle and Cumberland
  Carlisle and Cumberland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Shelve School, Shropshire
  Shelve School, Shropshire
  B.B.C. School Broadcasting (Expenditure)
  B.B.C. School Broadcasting (Expenditure)
  Fulbright Commission (Grant)
  Fulbright Commission (Grant)
  Commonwealth Immigrant Children
  Commonwealth Immigrant Children
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Male Employees (Scotland)
  Male Employees (Scotland)
  Railway Employees (Carmarthenshire)
  Railway Employees (Carmarthenshire)
  Employment (Carmarthenshire)
  Employment (Carmarthenshire)
  Regional Weekly Earnings
  Regional Weekly Earnings
  Exhibition Industry (Wages)
  Exhibition Industry (Wages)
  Bank Employees (Pay)
  Bank Employees (Pay)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Urban Programme (Phase II)
  Urban Programme (Phase II)
  Stray Dogs
  Stray Dogs
PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  Thos. Cook and Sons Ltd. (Office Space)
  Thos. Cook and Sons Ltd. (Office Space)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C. 2 (Reception)
  B.B.C. 2 (Reception)
  Licence Exemptions
  Licence Exemptions
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Nutley Open Trestle Post Mill
  Nutley Open Trestle Post Mill
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
TECHNOLOGY
  Prestwick Air Show (Concorde Flight)
  Prestwick Air Show (Concorde Flight)
  Industrial Investment Schemes
  Industrial Investment Schemes
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Banknotes (Anti-theft Measures)
  Banknotes (Anti-theft Measures)
  Gold Coins (Prosecutions)
  Gold Coins (Prosecutions)
  Customs and Excise (Confiscated Cigarettes)
  Customs and Excise (Confiscated Cigarettes)
  Nationalised Industries (Turnover)
  Nationalised Industries (Turnover)
WALES
  Local Government Reorganisation (Redcliffe-Maud Report)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Redcliffe-Maud Report)

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

RHODESIA: PROPOSED SANCTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS
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 conclusions have been reached on the consideration of terminating communications with Southern Rhodesia.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on June 24, we are carrying out a fresh study of what, in present circumstances, sanctions on communications with Rhodesia would involve.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he say whether the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee has considered this proposal, and also whether it might not be supplemented by the suggestion of a public exposure, through the excellent British Intelligence Service, of ships carrying loads in defiance of United Nations sanctions so as to alert action by Governments at ports of delivery?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think my noble friend is going rather wide in the latter part of his supplementary question. The original Question refers to "terminating communications". The Government were asked to consider this particular aspect of communications and, as I have said, my right honourable friend has asked for a survey to be undertaken immediately.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, and with a view to
294
assisting exports and improving the trade balance, would the Minister consider taking advice from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress as to their view of the propriety and advantage now of restoring normal trade with Rhodesia?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I prefer to rest on what I believe is the feeling of the majority in this country, that in some way or another—and sanctions appears to be the only way open to us—constitutional rule should be brought back to Rhodesia; and I see no reason why we should consult the C.B.I. on this matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the fact that the Trades Union Congress has condemned the declaration of independence by this minority Government in Rhodesia?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend may be right, but I fear that in these two supplementary questions and answers we are departing from the original Question on the Order Paper.

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS' INVESTMENTS
2.9 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: 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 what has been the annual increase or decrease recently in the value of investments held or managed by the National Debt Commissioners, other than the National Insurance Funds, about which figures were given in a Written Answer in another place on June 9, 1969.]
TILE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, since the accounting periods for the separate funds managed by the Commissioners are not all identical, figures of increases or decreases for all the Commissioners' investments at one common date could not be produced without a disproportionate amount of work. Figures at widely different dates would give a confused picture. However, 96 per cent. of the investments held or managed by the

295
National Debt Commissioners are in two main groups of funds, the National Insurance Funds and the Savings Banks Funds. The latter comprise 62 per cent. of the total. The remaining 4 per cent. is spread over a number of small funds.
In respect of the Savings Banks Funds the position is as follows. The current market value of the investments held by the Commissioners on the Savings Banks Funds decreased from £2,589 million by £13 million between the end of the year 1966 and 1967, and by a further £84 million by the end of 1968. The gross liabilities for the funds remained, broadly speaking, constant.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.

NIGERIA AND INTERNATIONAL AID TO BIAFRA
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to influence the Federal Government of Nigeria to facilitate international aid to prevent large-scale starvation in Biafra.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with (he permission of the House I will answer that Private Notice Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I gladly accept that.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in view of the fact that we are expecting a long debate on the Divorce Reform Bill,
296
and as one noble Lord has intimated that he wishes to speak on the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I postponed the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill until Thursday. I therefore do not propose to move the Second Reading this afternoon.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
2.12 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the outset I should like to make two general comments. First, a Mr. Butt wrote the other day in The Times that this Bill had received inadequate consideration and was badly drafted because it had not been drafted by Parliamentary counsel. As Mr. Leo Abse wrote in reply, this Bill is
"the final end thinking of years of consideration by Parliamentarians, Churchmen, academic and practising lawyers."
It is based on the recommendations of the Archbishop's Group in Putting Asunder and on the Law Commission's analysis in The Field of Choice. Your Lordships debated both these Reports in November, 1966, and the Bill embodies proposals (with slight changes generally to meet the points raised by critics of the Bill) agreed upon by the Archbishop's Group and the Law Commission, formulated in a joint statement by both bodies in July, 1967.
The Bill and its prototype have passed, once completely and once most of the way, through all their stages in another place. The text now before your Lordships was prepared by Parliamentary counsel on the instructions and with the aid of the Law Commission, whose Chairman, Sir Leslie Scarman, is a distinguished and most experienced Judge of the Divorce Division of the High Court. I should have thought that if ever there was a Private Members' Bill forged, tempered and fashioned in the white heat of years of intense and anxious Parliamentary and private controversy, it is this Bill.
Secondly, this Bill has been described as a "Casanova's charter"—an odd charge to level against the Archbishop's Group ! We could, I believe, proceed so much the less encumbered to the consideration of the real issues in this debate if that

297
type of emotive melodrama were consigned to the realm of fantasy to which it belongs. Casanovas do not bother with charters. If they did, they would be grievously disappointed with the contents of this Bill. This Bill does not open the door to easy divorce. That door is wide open now, under the existing law, and it would be hard to open it wider.
Nine out of ten of all divorce suits are not contested. As things are now, one party commits adultery, and if he has a co-operative partner divorce follows normally after a ten-minute hearing in court. In spite of all the vigilance by counsel and solicitors to protect the court against deception, it is not easy to detect the pre-arranged or collusive act of adultery on which the court will not act; and the existing system has the vice of playing into the hands of the less scrupulous petitioner to the detriment of the petitioner who respects his oath to tell the truth. What in substance is that but unavowed divorce by consent, coupled with a legal ceremonial, sometimes not very edifying, in which I personally think it is not very fair to expect our admirable judges, who take such pains in the administration of this difficult branch of the law, to participate?
I do not believe that such a system conduces to respect either for the law or for the institution of marriage. We are blessed in this country with a Bench of Judges who, besides their absolute integrity and massive independence, which we take so much for granted that we never even think of giving them a "Thank you", bring to whatever impossible task Parliament places upon them an understanding and broad humanity which clothes their proceedings with reason and common sense and makes even the existing system not too wholly unpalatable.
The Archbishop's Group's proposals and the Bill cut away from all this. They are designed to rescue the whole proceeding of divorce from its present want of dignity, to invest it with a humane form which accords more closely with the thinking of ordinary, reasonable men and women and discards the narrow legalistic approach on which the whole conception of a matrimonial offence or semi-crime, as it used to he called, dating right back to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, was based. It is designed to support and
298
strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring that before divorce is granted the parties have ample time for reflection and reconciliation in all cases where that is possible. It gives the court drastic new powers to prevent the weaker party in the proceedings from being overreached, while preserving the existing powers in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 to safeguard the interests of the wife and children. Finally, it brings relief to very many unfortunate and blameless people to whom the existing law denies it.
For example, I believe that it would shock most people to realise that, as is the case under the existing law, if two perfectly decent, sensible people, man and wife, part by mutual consent because they cannot get on together, they can never thereafter during the whole course of their lives become divorced, however ardently both desire it. unless one or other consents to the humiliation of committing some matrimonial offence, such as adultery. The Bill puts an end to all that.
Clause 1 gives effect to the main proposal of the Archbishop's Group that irretrievable breakdown of a marriage should be substituted for the matrimonial offence as the sole ground for divorce. If this change is in principle right, the rest of the Bill follows from it. Our divorce courts are not wholly or mainly peopled by the modern counterpart of the mustachioed villains of Victorian days and sobbing maidens whom they have cruelly deceived. Of course, there are such persons, but if they are so numerous in our 1969 community that we have to fashion our legislation affecting everybody so as exclusively or mainly to fit in with the behaviour of such persons, we may as well put on woad and troop back into the jungle.
In the vast majority of cases the suitors in our divorce courts are decent men and women, neither better nor worse than most of us, who have lived through a personal tragedy. The relationship on which they have built such high hopes, the prospect of happy parenthood, of moving together through life to life's end in the rich experience of the family circle—all that has crashed about their ears and lies wrecked. The tears have long since been shed; the months and years of heartbreak are gone by, and they approach the divorce court dry-eyed to try, with the assistance of the court, to tidy up a situation which is in ruins.

299
Surely in those circumstances the relevant question which a civilised society should put to the petitioner for divorce is: "Can you show that your marriage has irretrievably broken down?" Surely our law should not, as it does at present, stage what is in effect a sham combat between two parties, both of whom, in nine cases out of ten, want divorce, and require one to point an accusing finger at the other and charge the commission of a semi-crime, with all the ugliness and lasting bitterness which such a proceeding engenders, together probably with a hateful and disturbing memory for the unfortunate children, already bereft of the security of the united home, to carry away with them for the rest of their lives, of parents both of whom they still love and want to respect.
Clause 2(1) is the product of joint consultation between the Archbishop's Group and the Law Commission. The Archbishop's Group proposed that, as irretrievable breakdown was to be the test, the court should probe into all the circumstances of the marriage to ascertain whether in a real sense it was at an end. The Law Commission advised that procedurally such a proposal would be hardly workable, and that certain factual situations should be selected, proof of which should suffice prima facie to establish that the marriage had irretrievably broken down: and the Archbishop's Group agreed that this was appropriate.
But, my Lords, the basic objective of the Archbishop's Group, that real breakdown should be the test, is preserved in many provisions of the Bill, notably in the requirement in Clause 2(3), that the court is to grant a decree on such proof only if the evidence viewed as a whole points to the marriage having in a real sense foundered; and in a further provision in Clause 3(2), that if the judge thinks at any stage of the proceedings that there is the hope of reconciliation he may adjourn the proceedings for as long as he thinks right to give that hope a real chance of maturing into a reconciliation between the parties. Further, Clause 3(1) requires the petitioner's solicitor, before any petition for divorce is launched, to discuss—and later to certify to the court that he has discussed—with the petitioner the possibility of a reconciliation, and has given him or her
300
the names of persons, such as marriage guidance advisers, who might be of help.
But the Bill goes further still than this to preserve marriages in danger of wreck. Clause 2(1)(a) provides that the first of the factual situations of which I spoke is adulterous behaviour on the part of the respondent. But such behaviour will be regarded as prima facie evidence of breakdown only if, in addition the, petitioner satisfies the court that he or she in a real sense finds it intolerable to go on living with the respondent. You may have cases (and this is the thinking on which this concept is based) where an act or acts of adultery, though ordinarily they indicate or are a consequence of a fundamental lack of mutual affection, trust and respect of the spouses, nevertheless in the particular case do not mean that all is at an end between them. The adultery, therefore, so the Bill provides, is not in itself to be regarded as demonstrating breakdown unless the petitioner can in addition satisfy the court that the act of adultery is so offensive and deeply wounding to him or her that any further married life with the respondent is unthinkable. This again is an indication of how anxious was the Archbishop's Group, so far from drawing up a "Casanova's charter", to insert in the Bill every possible safeguard to hasty, ill-considered divorce, with a view to strengthening and reinforcing respect for the institution of marriage.
In Clause 2(1) paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with cruel and intolerable conduct by the respondent towards the petitioner and with desertion of the petitioner by the respondent for two successive years, in place of the three-year period at present requisite. Both clearly spell the death knell of the marriage.
There remain the two-year and five-year separation provisions which have given rise to controversy. Before I come to them, may I digress to say a word on what are known as the "discretionary bars". They are preserved in Section 5 of the existing Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, having been largely imported from 1857 thinking. The law now says: "If you prove that your spouse has committed adultery you get your divorce; but if, in addition, you yourself have committed adultery, you will find a divorce refused, however ardently both of you want a

301
divorce, unless the court exercises its discretion in your favour. Worse still, if you do not voluntarily own up to the court that you have committed adultery, you almost certainly will not get a divorce, even though nobody else has the least desire to raise it or complain of it".
I suppose there is a kind of ferocious lawyers' logic in saying in this context to a petitioner for divorce: "You are complaining of another's conduct; have a mind to your own". Your Lordships will often have seen announcements in the Press that, "A decree nisi was granted to Mrs. X on the ground of her husband's adultery. The judge exercised his discretion in favour of Mrs. X in respect of her own adultery". I offer it purely as my opinion, which your Lordships may or may not accept, but I find it difficult to conceive of anything more humiliating and absurd than the discretion statement, with its penitential confession in open court, the routine quasi-rap over the knuckles before the whole class, with its "You naughty boy" or "You naughty girl" rebuke, now almost common form in announcements that a decree nisi has been granted. A remote and crabbed casuistry may lead to the conclusion: "Adultery by one, divorce certain; but adultery by both, divorce uncertain". My guess would be that in the judgment of the man and woman in the street, this, in the context of divorce, just does not make sense.
It is not the judge's fault: they must administer the law as they find it; it is the fault of Parliament for not, long since, removing this blot on the Statute Book. It is almost a dead letter anyhow. In years gone by the exercise of discretion was often refused. To-day only in rare cases do the judges think it their duty to refuse to exercise their discretion in favour of the petitioner, but in each case they must still ask themselves whether they should or should not. Once breakdown is substituted for the matrimonial offence, the discretionary bar clearly no longer has any place. The more deplorable the conduct of both parties towards each other, the more obvious is it that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and Clause 9 therefore throws all these discretionary bars, lock, stock and barrel, out of the window.
Before I submit to the House my argument with regard to the separation
302
provisions, may I briefly call attention to Clause 3, subsections (3), (4) and (5)? Whether the petition alleges adultery, intolerable behaviour, desertion or separation as the relevant factual situation relied on to establish breakdown, the circumstance that the petitioner has for an; period gone back to live with the respondent to try, in spite of all that has happened, to "make a go" of it again, in no way prejudices the petition, if the parties find it is not possible for them to come together again, provided that the period or periods do not in the aggregate exceed six months. I cite this provision as yet one more effort by the Archbishop's Group to save marriages where there is the least chance of putting the pieces together again. It is a valuable provision, because it means that the petitioner's solicitor can advise him or her with complete safety to go to the extreme limit to see whether, after all, a last-minute reconciliation may not be possible.
What then of the separation provisions? Paragraph (d) provides that when it is proved that the parties have lived apart by mutual consent for not less than two years, that shall be a sufficient prima facie proof of breakdown, provided that the respondent does not object to a decree of divorce being pronounced. If two people, grown up and in their right minds, have lived apart for two years, and then, both desiring divorce, one approaches the court to ask for a decree of divorce without objection by the other, what possible reason, in public policy or otherwise, can there he why they should not be divorced? If they earnestly desire to be divorced, to refuse them divorce after two years of separation which make it obvious that the marriage is at an end, is almost to invite them to stage a simulated act of adultery. They may be sensitive people whose stomach turns against the idea of adultery and who wish to preserve the respect of their children. They have waited two long years, perhaps from time to time coming together to try, without success, to patch things up. If a marriage has to end, is this not the dignified way to end it? Your Lordships may hope that if divorce on this ground is allowed, this is the method which more and more will be used by well-behaved people, and the sordid recitals of adulterous behaviour which now degrade our courts will be

303
increasingly consigned to the dustbin where they belong.
Then comes paragraph (e), which provides that five years' separation shall be sufficient to establish breakdown and lead to divorce, whether or not the respondent to the petition objects. I submit that this is right. A few days ago I received a letter from a lady unknown to me from which I will quote:
"We have waited twenty years for this Bill, we are now old-age pensioners and we wept for joy when we saw it had been proceeded with … We started life together twenty years ago, after much consideration, having seen each other every day for seven years, we went into it with out eyes open in the hope that one day his wife would realise how futile and hopeless it was and give him his divorce. He is a very sick man and it upsets him dreadfully that he could die without as he puts it. having put things right for me and his son".
I submit that a law which enacts that these two people may not be lawfully married and legitimise their son is utterly cruel and evil. Surely in such a situation the fact that looms larger than any other is that husband and wife who have been apart for five long years are not husband and wife at all; and that if one uses what has become a meaningless, sterile, legal noose to condemn the other either to eternal celibacy or to eternal concubinage, fathering or mothering bastard children, with all the stigma and ignominy which an unfair world attributes to such a situation, unless there are the strongest reasons he or she should not receive aid and encouragement from the law.
My Lords, I am sure we shall hear the argument that if the old lady and the old gentleman in the type of situation described in that letter have their way, our law, for the first time, will be allowing wrongdoers to take advantage of their own wrong against innocent wives. So long as we remain wedded to the matrimonial offence, this as a purely legal proposition is no doubt as faultless as a Euclid axiom. It is as perfect and unfeeling as a skyscraper. When I hear it, I always think how wise the Archbishop's Group was in advising us to travel away from 1857 to 1969 and to dump the matrimonial offence and all the antiquated junk that goes with it beneath the waves for ever. Cases differ so
304
much. It may be the husband or the wife who seeks freedom. The sole object in so doing may be to live untied and unvexed with no question of a second union.
My Lords, Satan does not always choose a male bosom for his habitat. Not all husbands are plethoric businessmen in their fifties, who spend their office hours with a blonde typist seated on their knees, pondering how to discard the middle-aged wife who has lost her attractiveness. It is very far from the case that all middle-aged wives have lost their attractiveness. But even if, as is often asserted, there are some middle-aged wives who will be financially worse off if they are divorced than they would be if they remained tied in law to a husband whom they may not have seen for years, that surely is not a sufficient reason why very large numbers of other men and women of all ages, perhaps in every sense meritorious, should have to undergo years of distress which could easily be terminated by a change in the law.
After all, what is the husband's much-trumpeted wrong, or the wife's, for that matter? Probably in many, if not most cases, it is that after the last vestiges of the reality of his marriage have been swept away by years of separation, in utter loneliness he has yielded to the longing, deep in all of us, for a family hearth and the love of a woman and children. In most cases, I would guess that the fault that led to the parting was on both sides. The wife may have been innocent in the legal sense that she has not committed a matrimonial offence, but she may have been impossible in her behaviour—cold, suspicious, heartless, insensitive. Or she may have been a wholly deserving wife and her motive in refusing divorce an understandable reluctance to give up the hold she has on her husband to preserve for herself, and perhaps for her children, some financial or other security. She may even have some lingering affection for him and hope that he may ultimately return—a hope, be it said, very rarely likely to be realised. Or her motives may be simply vindictive, a desire to hurt her husband and perhaps his new family. She may be a saint or a vixen. She may, it is to be hoped will, be able to make a new life for herself with a new career or a new

305
happy union with a second husband. The figures in Appendix C to The Field of Choice seem to show that of women who are divorced the vast majority are divorced when they are under 40.
My Lords, should we not in this situation say to ourselves, "Never mind the lawyers"—including myself—"and the highly organised pressure groups, and ask in this human problem: what would be the verdict of ordinary, kindly, responsible men and women with red blood in their veins and pity in their hearts—the people at large for whom this legislation is designed?". I believe their reasoning would be as follows. If husband and wife have been apart for five years, first let the husband desiring his freedom make fair provision to support his wife and his children if they are with her, or at least do the best he can; if he has done so, then most certainly dissolve the legal bond, unless when the position and behaviour of all the parties is considered—the husband, the lawful wife, their children, the Common Law wife and the illegitimate children—it is manifest that a dissolution of the legal bond would occasion grave hardship in the balance of unhappiness. They would, I believe, add a rider—that only rarely in cases of this type, where really serious hardship is shown, should a divorce be refused.
All this is what the position will in fact be if Clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill pass into law. Surely it is right to provide as these clauses do, that it is not only the interests of the lawful wife that are to be taken into account. The Law Commission estimated that if the law were changed there were no fewer than 180.000 illegimate children who could be legitimated. I find it hard to think of any claim that should be weighted heavier in the scales than theirs. Born without their consent into a heartless world not above throwing their illegitimacy in their teeth, they at least cannot be accused of seeking to profit by their own wrong. Surely it is better for the lawfully-born children also that there should not be that bitterness between their parents which is likely if their mother seeks to hold a halter around her husband's neck which bastardises the issue of his second union.
Your Lordships may wish in Committee, if this Bill receives a Second Reading, to examine more closely the pro-
306
visions of these two clauses. While the existing powers, hitherto thought to be adequate, vested in the courts to safeguard the position of the wife and children of a marriage which is dissolved are preserved, the Bill by Clause 6 confers drastic new powers which go very far beyond them. If divorce is sought on the ground of separation, whether for two or five years, the judge can make it a condition of granting the divorce that the husband shall make whatever provision the judge thinks fair and reasonable, or, in the case of a poor man, at least the best practicable in the circumstances, for the support of the wife, both before anti after the husband's death.
But, when all is said and done, behind Clause 6 stands Clause 4. When every effort has been made to achieve adequate arrangements, and a fortiori if no such arrangements have been found possible, nevertheless if grave hardship, financial or otherwise, will be occasioned to the wife if divorce is granted, the judge is enjoined by Clause 4 to dismiss the petition. While everybody's interest has to be taken into account, it is her interest in the ultimate issue which is to prevail; the scales could be hardly tilted more in her favour.
Legislation broadly on these lines is in operation in some other Commonwealth countries. Analogy with the experience notably of Australia suggests that divorce after five years' separation might result in an extra 5,000 divorces a year in this country, with a consequent increase in the cost of the Legal Aid Scheme, equal to a small fraction of the cost of building the "Queen Elizabeth"—cheap at the price for the relief of the massive suffering involved. There would be an initial backlog of cases, as I believe there was an initial backlog of cases for urgent medical treatment after the National Health Service was introduced. At least I would expect, and hope, there would be such a backlog. The greater it is likely to be, the stronger I submit is the case for enacting this Bill, and the more serious the reproach to be levelled at the existing system. Your Lordships may have many reservations about individual provisions which you may wish to explore more fully in Committee, but I hope that your Lordships may feel able at the end of this debate to conclude that at least the Bill is right in general principle and

307
should receive a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
2.47 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have known the noble Lord who has just spoken as a personal friend for many years, and I fully appreciate the depth of feeling he has shown and the sincerity with which he has spoken. I must confess that I did not know that my mention of "Casanova" would rouse him to such Freudian fury. Perhaps afterwards we might discuss that aspect of the Bill. This House has of course discussed divorce on many occasions. Many of us made a contribution to discussions on a Bill similar to this, in certain ways, some years ago. I must say to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill that I cannot agree with what he said about that Bill. He has reminded the House of these other discussions, and I cannot recall the same unanimity as he does.
Frankly, I think it was a little unfair to quote on so many occasions the Archbishop's Committee. What the noble Lord said almost indicated that the Church in this country is wholly behind this Bill. I have had a colossal post on this subject and I must say that the letters I have had from the clergy did not indicate to me that the whole of the Church supports this Bill. And quite understandably. We are not discussing some cut-and-dried question which does not arouse human emotions at all—although of couse it is inclined to arouse the lawyer to legalistic illustrations. Today, we are discussing a matter which concerns every family in the country. Those who rarely read the newspapers will listen to what is said on the radio. They will listen to what their neighbours have said is in the popular newspapers about Parliament's attitude to divorce.
As I have said, we have discussed this question on other occasions, and I would recall this because I think the point is important. It was in 1967 when I raised the whole question in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I did so because the Queen's Speech said that there was to be reform of family law. I had heard in this House that there was talk of a Divorce Bill, and therefore in my speech I anticipated this Bill and asked the Gov-
308
ernment to consider certain aspects of divorce reform, aspects which I shall discuss to-day. I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I am in any sense repetitive, but I believe that on this subject repetition can be forgiven.
It seems to me that the main purpose of the Bill is to make marriage more easily dissoluble without having given proper consideration to the consequences to the wife and children of the important first marriage. I have listened to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill making a plea for the wife and children of the second marriage, or for the partner who played a part in an extra-marital union. My noble friend's plea was very forcible, but I am asking your Lordships' to put in the forefront of your thinking the circumstances and the needs of the first, important, family.
The far-reaching social importance of this Bill has not been recognised. Otherwise, the Government would not have chosen the hours between 10.30 at night and the following day for Members in another place to consider, in the small hours of the morning, a matter of such profound importance to the community. Less than one quarter of the Members in another place, including those for and against this measure, voted on the Third Reading. The Bill did not come to them suddenly. As has been said, we have thought about this and talked about it for years. Quite understandably, a tremendous amount of information was disseminated in another place by the promoters of the Bill, yet after all that propaganda only one quarter of the Members—totalling 600—of another place voted for or against this Bill. This cannot be regarded as representing the will of the British people on divorce, and certainly not the will of the inarticulate women and children who may be the victims of this Bill. I ask the Government to pause now. I ask them to give us time, to give the country and Parliament time, and to reconsider the whole position. Indeed, the choice of to-day for this debate was most surprising. How many Members are away in connection with the Investiture? I ask again: why this unseemly haste?
It will be recalled by all noble Lords that Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that the issues embodied in this Bill were of such far-reaching importance

309
to family life that a Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce should be appointed. That Commission discussed over the years, not just in the small hours of the morning but over the years, with individuals and organisations, two fundamental changes which are included in this Bill. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce voted against both—namely, divorce by consent, and divorce of the innocent spouse by compulsion. I should like to remind the House of the words of the Royal Commission. They said:
"To vest in a husband or wife the right to divorce a spouse who, ex hypothesi, had committed no recognised matrimonial offence and who did not want a divorce, would result in grave injustice. It would, for example, allow a man who had committed adultery or had been cruel to his wife to leave her and subsequently to divorce her against her will. This would violate a principle which has been long established in the law, namely, that a man shall not be allowed 'to take advantage of his own wrong'."
My Lords, if as a result of this Bill an innocent wife is to be divorced against her will, at least we should ensure that she has financial safeguards. Yet the outstanding omission from this Bill is the failure to make any adequate financial provision for the first family. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, saying, in a debate on divorce some years ago (and may I say how pleased I am to note that so many noble and learned Lords who represent the law of this country are to take part in this debate?): "The only person who will get paid is the one who is there on Friday night"; and of course that will not be the first wife. Therefore, if this innocent woman is to be divorced against her will, we must make sure that she is adequately provided for.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has said that the Law Commission is preparing a document on the subject. My Lords, I heard this in 1967; I have heard it time after time through the years. But why must this Bill be rushed through before we have debated the contents of that document which is still not forthcoming; which is still just a promise? To-day we are being asked to support a measure blind-fold. Surely no responsible lawyer would ask a client to do this. As the Bill stands, the financial protection for
310
the wife is set out in Clause 6(2)(b), which says the court must be satisfied:
"that the financial provision … is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances".
Surely this is a contradiction in terms, for "the best that can be made in the circumstances" means that the financial provision need not be fair and reasonable. Most men cannot afford two wives. That, shortly, is why I said that this is "a Casanova's charter." None of the arguments that I am giving now applies to the rich man. Therefore the best provision, according to this Bill, that can be made in the circumstances (because that is what the wife must have) could mean that the first wife might receive a pound a week after the second family had been taken into account. I do not think this is an exaggeration.
Without information on the financial provisions we are being asked to-day to take this Bill on trust. I believe that social justice demands that all the possible consequences of this measure should be made apparent to the public. If this Bill is going right into the homes of the people; if this Bill is going to be held up as a threat to innocent women throughout the country, should we not now say that we should wait for that very important document that may come after this Bill is on the Statute Book—or not necessarily on the Statute Book, because I understand that the Government may not make this Bill operative until the financial measure is introduced. This is another curious procedure. The financial measure should be debated with this Bill because the two are interdependent. A woman who is cast off after many years' service to the family should, I believe, be able to count on her share of the goods accumulated during the marriage.
I feel that the Government are in a difficult position because they are receiving conflicting advice all the time. This is a reason why we should wait. What have the Law Commission said in this regard? The Law Commission recognise the injustice of failing to protect the first wife, and they say, in The Field of Choice:
"Until the rules relating to family property and financial relief are reformed in a way which will protect the wife against additional hardship resulting from a divorce, it may be necessary to go even further by providing an additional safeguard whereby a divorce can-

311
not be forced on the wife if it is impossible for the husband to make provisions which protect her from disproportionate hardship."
As I say, since few husbands can keep two wives, the Law Commission's recommendation should be sufficient to negative the Second Reading of this Bill. In my opinion, a law which is not enforceable is bad law, and a law so drafted that only wealthy men can take advantage of it is bad law.
In considering this Bill, it must be borne in mind that men can earn their incomes and improve their skills as workmen by virtue of the division of labour between themselves and their wives. The wife spends her youth and middle age in bearing and rearing the children and tending the home. This frees the husband for his economic activities. Sir Jocelyn Simon, the President of the Divorce Court, put it in this way. He said:
"The cock bird can feather his nest precisely because he is not required to spend most of his time sitting on it."
All this helps us to focus our attention on that important person, the wife and mother, and I say that changes in our divorce laws of this fundamental nature should not be made in vacuo. An innocent, middle-aged wife divorced against her will, with years of service to the family to her credit, must not be sacrificed. I am not talking about the well-to-do; they can make their own arrangements with regard to property. I have in mind the hundreds of thousands in modest circumstances. Most European countries have recognised the services rendered by the wife and mother and have introduced matrimonial property laws designed to protect the wife on divorce. It will be recalled that the Matrimonial Property Bill recently introduced in another place would have given the innocent divorced wife some measure of justice, but although it received a large majority on Second Reading in another place, I understand that the sponsor was persuaded by the Lord Chancellor to withdraw it.
There is another aspect of the Bill before us to-day which I thought would have raised an outcry in the Church, and from my letters it certainly has. That is the provision which allows divorce after two years' desertion by the petitioner, provided the other spouse does not object—divorce by consent. By the way, I re-
312
mind your Lordships that this proposal was fully examined for years by the Royal Commission and they came down against it. And, if I may say so with due respect to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, this may have been the reason why he repudiated the Bill when it was first published.
Divorce by consent sounds very attractive, but let us just look at the ordinary family. The facts are that with the age of majority reduced to 18 we could have very early marriages of very immature young people who, after a few quarrels, will be responsive to suggestions to end the marriage by consent after two years' separation. My noble friend has conjured up pictures. I ask your Lordships to conjure up the picture of these two young people: the girl is 17 and the boy 18. They probably met at school, and very often such young people are at school together till the age of 16. They get together and look for a bed-sitting room, which saves getting furniture to start with. Life in a bed-sitting room for two young things accustomed to being looked after by mother often leads to quarrels. "In-laws" and other people can bring easy pressure to bear upon them and say, "You have to be apart for two years and this is all over. Why not do that?". Should we say that a marriage between two teenagers like that, after two years' separation, has broken down irretrievably, without allowing them to get over their teething troubles? I think this clause is dangerous. The institution of marriage may have lost some of its flavour in this permissive society, but it has served us well for so long that, while it needs to be reviewed from time to time, any attempts to modify it should proceed with extreme caution.
I come to the part that so many people have made so much of. Great emphasis has been placed upon the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as marking the reforming nature of this Bill. I have listened to promoters of this Bill and for the last three years I have listened to speakers in every part of the country. All the time they talk about the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, of how this Bill will bring this novel concept of marriage, and argue that that is why it must be supported. I have discussed it with eminent lawyers

313
who have had vast experience of the administration of the divorce laws, and many of them regard this as playing with words. In Clause 2 the matrimonial offences are set out as the guidelines; but the judge—and I am very sorry for him—would be almost in the position of a coroner; he would have to conduct an inquest into each case. There has been such a plethora of words on this aspect of the Bill dealing with the irretrievable breakdown that I believe that it has been used as a stalking horse for the profound changes in the Bill which I have mentioned.
I want to say this finally. There are those here to-day who believe that they should support the Second Reading of the Bill because of the clause dealing with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and then strive in Committee to amend the Bill regarding fundamental changes. I believe that this approach is not based on logic. I was always taught as a young Parliamentarian that on the Second Reading of a Bill we consider matters of principle, and the basic changes set out in this Bill, in my opinion, are questions of such far-reaching principle that I would ask your Lordships to vote against the Second Reading.
3.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, this branch of the law falls within my departmental responsibility, and accordingly there are a number of things that I think I ought to say to your Lordships about this Bill. May I deal first with the position of the Government? It has been said, and more than once, that the Government are trying to push this Bill through; that it ought to be a Government Bill; that the Government are to be blamed for not having provided Parliamentary draftsmen when they ought to have done; that the Government are to be blamed for having provided Parliamentary draftsmen when they ought not to have done, and that the Government certainly ought not to have given it Government time. The answer to that attack is that there are two classes of cases which are never Government Bills. One class are cases where there are many people in every Party who think one way and many people in every Party who think the other way.
The second class—and sometimes they co-exist, as here—is where the subject
314
matter raises questions of great social interest, and particularly if it raises questions of conscience and of religious conviction. I do not pretend to have gone hack to the Reformation, but I do not know of any Government Bill which has ever dealt with the grounds of divorce. The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act was an Act which provided that if you wanted to have a dissolution of your marriage it was no longer necessary to go to the Ecclesiastical Court, or to start an action of criminal conversation or sponsor a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House. The object was not to alter the grounds of divorce. Since then we have had numerous Bills to alter the grounds of divorce: by Mr. Asquith and others in 1892, Lord Gorell in 1914, Lord Buckmaster in 1918, Lord Buckmaster in 1920, Lord Gorell in 1921, and then a successful one which started in the other place but which was really Lord Buckmaster's Bill again. That successful Bill was in 1923. Then, after an interval of eleven years, Mr. Halford Knight introduced a Bill which was really the precursor of the Herbert Bill, and Sir Alan Herbert's Bill, as it became, was brought before Parliament in 1936. There was then a further interval until Mrs. Eirene White's Bill in 1951, which had in it a breakdown clause of seven years. That was withdrawn only on the Government's undertaking to appoint another Royal Commission. Then we had Mr. Deedes's Bill in 1958, Mr. Abse's Bill in 1963, and Mr. Wilson's Bill in 1967.
All I want respectfully to point out is that I do not know that we have ever had any Bill to alter the grounds of divorce which has been a Government Bill; they have always been Private Members' Bills; and, of course, where, as here, questions of conscience are involved, one can well understand the reason for that. I do not know—he will speak for himself—but I imagine my noble friend Lord Longford would have resigned from the Government long before he did if the Government had sponsored an abortion law reform Bill or a divorce law reform Bill. We all recognise that some people have strong religious convictions on this subject.
THE EARL or LONGFORD: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has mentioned me,

315
I should like to confirm what he has just said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, my Lords, we still have one or more Catholics in the Cabinet, and no doubt many in the Government and, of course, in the Party. Obviously, that is one of the reasons why no Government ever make this particular subject a Government Bill.
I will not spend time on the question of the draftsmen. I think it is generally agreed now that if an important Private Member's Bill looks like reaching the Statute Book the Government ought to provide the draftsmen to see that it is properly drafted. It is the last thing that any Government want to do, as your Lordships would realise if you knew the time that Ministers have to wait to get their Bills drafted. It is really rather maddening when one is told, "He has left your Bill and is drafting a Private Member's Bill." But I think everybody agrees that in this case it was right. All we regret are the misrepresentations like the article in The Times ten days ago, which blamed the Government for not having provided Parliamentary draftsmen when in fact they had done so throughout.
Then, as to Government time, I confess that, before I became a Member of your Lordships' House I had always thought that our Parliamentary procedure was defective, in that there were a number of most important social questions, which I quite understood could not be in a Government Bill but which never seemed to get decided because it was so difficult to get a major Private Member's Bill through. I thought that every Government ought to choose one or two of those Bills every year and, if necessary, give them Government time. Well, I have rather changed my mind, partly because I did not then realise how little Government time there is and how naturally jealous Governments are about Government time. The other place meets for only 160 days a year; we meet for less. Six days are taken up with the debate on the Address, 32 are Opposition days, 16 Budget and Finance Bill days, 22 days are spent on Private Members' Bills and Motions, four on Adjournments and Recesses, and in addition it is found necessary to keep 25 days for
316
Orders, regulations, opposed private business, debates and contingencies. So, apart from the Finance Bill, the unfortunate Government to-day have only 55 days in the whole year in which to get their own legislation through.
But what I also did not know was the extent to which Governments have in fact given Government time to Bills, and particularly to Private Members' Bills of this kind. I find that in the 17 years from the 1948–49 Session down to the 1965–66 Session Governments gave Government time to Private Members' Bills on no fewer than 58 separate occasions—that is, more than three times a year—obviously picking out those upon which they thought Parliament ought to be enabled to come to a conclusion. While I certainly will not go through this list, I observe that it included in 1955–56 the Marriage (Scotland) Bill; in 1957–58 the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Bill; in 1958 the Legitimacy Bill, and in 1959–60 the Adoption Bill. The immediately preceding Conservative Government, in 1962–63, gave Government time to Mr. Abse's Matrimonial Causes Bill and in 1963–64 to the Divorce (Scotland) Bill.
Bearing those facts in mind, I submit to your Lordships that this Government are in no way to blame in this matter. We are in fact entirely neutral, for the very good reason that some of us strongly support the Bill and some of us strongly oppose it. There has never been a Government view; the Government are quite right not to make it a Government Bill, and they were quite right to provide Parliamentary draftsmen. Thus, starting with Miss Eirene White's Bill, followed by Mr. Abse's Bill, and from the time that Mr. Wilson's Bill received a two to one majority on Second Reading and concluded its Committee Stage but failed for want of time, if ever there was an obvious candidate to be given Government time it was the new Bill, which again got a two to one majority on Second Reading in another place.
May I come next to the position of the Law Commission. There is no such thing as lawyers' law reform. We all know that some property Bills are quite technical, but you cannot divide up the subject in that way. There are but few law reform Bills, or, I suppose, any Bills, which do not raise questions on which laymen may disagree. I respectfully defy

317
anyone to write down on paper any precise, workable definition of what you mean by "lawyers' law reform"; and if the Law Commission were confined to highly technical property subjects we might as well not have it.
On the other hand, I said, I remember, in the debates on the Law Commission Bill that it would be fatal if the Law Commission were to get involved in any question of Party politics. The same remark, I think, applies to matters which raise big social questions, particularly, of course, religious questions. The Law Commission, I think, recognise this very well themselves. We had an example only this month wherein they drew attention to the wide demand among those who care for the liberties of the people for a review of the old question of administrative law. They at once added:
"This raises social questions which are not for us to decide and, indeed, we do not think for lawyers to decide",
and they suggested a Royal Commission.
On this subject, in the field of choice they said:
"It is not, of course, for us but for Parliament to settle such controversial social issues as the advisability of extending the present grounds of divorce. Our function in advising you must be to assist the Legislature and the general public in considering these questions, by pointing out the implications of various possible courses of action. Perhaps the most useful service that we can perform at this stage is to mark out the boundaries of the field of choice."
All that is quite right, and your Lordships will remember that it was as a result of the debate in your Lordships' House and, I think, by general agreement that after reducing the field of choice the Law Commission entered into further discussions with the most reverend Primate's Committee.
I imagine that your Lordships will wish me to say something about the historical setting in which this Bill comes before us, and I shall do so quickly. There was first the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857. Then we had a Royal Commission. I have already dealt with the intervening Bills until we reached the Herbert Bill, which passed its Second Reading by 78 votes to 12. My noble friend Lady Summerskill has pointed out the small numbers. That is always a feature of Private Members' Bills, which are usually taken on Fridays, and anybody who does not want to be there tries to find a pair,
318
but there being no Government Whips nobody ever knows how many are paired. Sir Alan Herbert had the services of the Law Officers to advise, and of Parliamentary draftsmen. The Bill came to your Lordships' House (where the vote on Second Reading was 79 to 28), and later received the Royal Assent. Then in 1950 we had the first Bill containing a clause based not on the principle of the matrimonial fault but on the principle of a marriage having irretrievably broken down, and a Royal Commission was appointed in consequence.
The next thing that happened was that in 1953 New Zealand brought in a new ground: that the petitioner and respondent are living apart and are unlikely to be reconciled, and have been living apart for not less than seven years. In 1956 the Royal Commission reported, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill has already dealt with that. In 1959 there were two new grounds in Australia: one, wilful desertion for two years; two, that the parties to the marriage have separated and thereafter have lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the date of the petition and there is no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.
It was in January, 1964, that the most reverend Primate appointed his Committee, and two and a half years later, in July, 1966, they reported in Putting Asunder. The Field of Choice has already been mentioned. Your Lordships will remember that on November 23, 1966, Your Lordships' House discussed both those documents, and there was expressed the general view of the desirability of the Law Commission assisting the most reverend Primate's Committee to see whether their general proposals could be put forward in a practicable form.
It was on February 16, 1967, that the general principle of breakdown was affirmed by the Church Assembly of the Church of England by a large majority. On March 17, the Scottish Law Commission made a very interesting Report. If time permitted I would read the conclusions of that Report, but it is available in the Printed Paper Office. In July, 1967, the Methodist Conference affirmed the general principle of breakdown as against matrimonial fault. In July, 1967, the most reverend Primate's Committee

319
with one abstainer, a lawyer, who abstained on the technical ground that the Committee was functus officio, unanimously agreed what has since been called the "consensus" which, in the view of the Law Commission would be practicable. There again I had intended to read that Report, because it is a very short document and would enable the House to see how far the present Bill differs from the consensus, but the consensus is available, published in the last Annual Report of the Law Commission.
On November 29, 1967, Mr. Wilson's Bill was introduced and was later given a Second Reading by 159 to 63, more than a two to one majority. Out of the women members who voted, 11 voted for the Bill and 4 against. My right honourable friend the Solicitor General, who represented me, explained that he was himself against the Bill. The Bill occupied 37 hours in 13 Sittings of the Committee before it finished its Committee stage. The effect of the 37 hours on my right honourable friend was to make him change his mind, but I suppose that is the object of discussing things together.
On January 1, 1968, there came into force the Matrimonial Homes Act, which my noble friend Lady Summerskill piloted with such skill through this House. On February 1, 1968, Canada introduced a new divorce law including a five-year breakdown clause. Then of course the 1967 Bill, having foundered for lack of time, was reintroduced in November, 1968, by Mr. Jones in another place and was carried on Second Reading by 183 to 106. That Bill occupied 27 hours in Committee, and 16 on Report and Third Reading. These two Bills have been discussed in the other place for a total of 80 hours, which I believe to be somewhat exceptional. Mr. Wilson's Bill was finally carried on Third Reading by 109 to 53. I do not know how many pairs there were; I am told by the promoters that they had 364 supporters, but I cannot say. In December, 1968, New Zealand reduced the seven-year clause to a four-year clause. On May 22, 1969, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland accepted the Report of their Moral and Social Welfare Board which suggested substituting breakdown for matrimonial offences.
320
It may be that if we are to change our law here, we ought perhaps to look not only at the extent to which those countries most like us have changed their laws already, but at what looks like being the future pattern. I do not know, of course, whether the most reverend Primate has read that Report. I found it of fascinating interest, because it covers the whole of the history of Scottish divorce law from the time of the Reformation. The basic proposals of the Board are:
"The Committee remains, as in its report to the General Assembly of 1968, unanimously agreed that divorce should now be granted on the ground of breakdown of marriage as over against the need to prove certain matrimonial offences. Matrimonial offences are often the outcome rather than the cause of the deteriorating marriage. An accusatorial principle of divorce tends to encourage matrimonial offences, increase bitterness and widen the rift that is aleady there. Separation for a continuous period of at least two years consequent upon a decision of at least one of the parties not to live with the other should act as the sole evidence of marriage breakdown."
The Board go on to explain why they consider two years quite long enough and why they think longer than two years would be too long. Then they deal with conciliation. Then they say:
"Divorce on the grounds specified above could be sought by either party or both. This would relieve a great deal of human misery and help to remove a stigma from many children born of illicit unions."
They go on:
"The court shall not grant a decree of divorce unless and until it is satisfied that the financial provisions relating to the spouses and children and the provisions for the welfare of the children are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case."
I found the whole Report to be of considerable interest.
Finally, I should, I suppose, say something about the relevant facts, or the basic facts. I have looked at last year's figures. I think I am the only person in your Lordships' House who is aware of them at the moment because they are usually published in July in the Civil Judicial Statistics. Having read them, I can say that I do not detect anything of any kind exceptional in them or other than continuing trends. As your Lordships know, if you file a petition for divorce you have to say what the ground of divorce is, and by far the most common ground is adultery alone. This constitutes about half the cases. Following

321
rather a long way behind are desertion and cruelty, and then of course there are a certain number in which a petition is presented on more than one ground.
There is another fact which seems material, though it is not generally known. I do not know why it is not generally known, because it is in the Civil Judicial Statistics every year. I mentioned this fact two or three months ago in conversation with a High Court divorce judge and he said, "Oh, you must be wrong about that. That is contrary to the whole of my experience." Some weeks later I mentioned it to another High Court divorce judge and he said, "That cannot be so." One has to bear in mind that for twenty years it is the county court judges who have seen the thing as a whole. The county courts now deal with 93 per cent. of the cases. The High Court judges with only 7 per cent., and also, perhaps, with a fairly specialised number of defended cases where there will be a long fight on cruelty—which we all know are really entirely questions of money: who has to maintain whom.
As I say, I do not know why there is so much surprise, because it has been stated in the annual Civil Judicial Statistics for years. But it is a simple fact that if you take this, the most common case, based on adultery alone, the number of petitions by wives against adulterous husbands is always just about the same as the number of petitions by husbands against adulterous wives. I do not know why that should have caused surprise. I think that in 1966 there were more adulterous wives than husbands; in 1967, cases of adultery by wives numbered 11,061, by husbands 11,016—it is always a fairly close thing, as your Lordships will see, and last year, 1968, by wives, 13,171; by husbands, 12,800. So there is a difference of a few hundreds each year, one way or the other.
The question of age has been raised and is no doubt material. The Registrar General illustrates this in five-year age ranges, so the question is: if you take all the women who in a year have their marriages dissolved, in which five-year age range would you expect to find more than in any other–51 to 56, for example or 53 to 58? The answer is 24 to 29. Over one-third of all the
322
women whose marriages are determined in a year are 29 or younger; over half are 34 or younger; 70 per cent. are 39 or younger; 82 per cent. are 44 or younger.
Since people speak of possible loss of a pension, the re-marriage rate is of course relevant. How many of these women re-marry? The answer to that question is that I do not know. It was said in the other place that 64 per cent. of the men and 62 per cent. of the women re-marry, but I have been unable to find the basis of those figures, and the best I can do to assist your Lordships is to say this. In 1967, there were 42,378 divorces, and in the same year, among all the marriages, there were 26,546 women whose previous marriages had been dissolved. Of course they are not necessarily the same. But that seems to be the pattern: that women whose marriages have been dissolved appear, in a slight majority of cases, to re-marry. At all events, re-marriages amount to more than half the number of divorces. Of course, I thought, "These will he the younger women". But apparently not, because the same Registrar-General's 1967 figures disclose that in that year there were 4,267 women over 50 whose marriages were dissolved, and 2,642 women over 50 whose marriages had been dissolved and who re-married. So the position looks about the same at different ages.
The whole question of finance is not an easy one. Broadly speaking, of course, there is no difficulty now when the man has money, because you can go through his passbooks, you know what investments he has, and the court can order any amount of maintenance it likes. It can order all, or as much of it as it thinks fit, to be secured; that is to say, that certain assets or shares shall be attached so that the payments are guaranteed. It can order a husband to nay his wife any lump sum that it likes. But most of our people are not in that position. Most of them have a house. The house may have been bought; it may be in the course of being bought; it may be a council house; it may be a tenancy. Then there is what is in the house; and half the people have a secondhand car.
Now that my noble friend Lady Summerskill has protected the position of the matrimonial home, what is of most importance is maintenance. In the event

323
of breakdown of marriage, a great many—nobody knows how many—make their own arrangements. But I think it right to point out that, at the opposite end of the scale, there is great hardship being borne by the deserted wives of the low wage-earners. The Graham Hall Report reminded us that on January 1, 1966, there were 118,000 maintenance orders in force, and my noble friend is quite right in saying that in those cases where there is a second family it is the woman who is there on Friday night who is going to get the money. I am stressing this because I do not want anybody to suppose, from whatever anybody who supports the Bill says, that the Law Commission or Parliament or the law can, by waving some magic wand, relieve the positions of these women.
The Graham Hall Report revealed the fact that in 87 per cent. of these maintenance orders the man was earning less than £16 per week, and in 43 per cent. he was earning less than £10 a week. I think, if I may say so, that we get so used to reading in the papers about the high wages of people who have gone on strike for more, because they are in a privileged position where they can hold the community up to ransom, that we tend to forget what a large number of very low weekly wage earners we still have. I must say that I was surprised at the figure quoted, of 43 per cent. of maintenance orders being against men with less than £10 a week. Of course, with a wage of £12 a week it is no good ordering a man to pay his wife £6 a week, because he will not do it. He will end up by going to prison, which does not help anybody
A court can make an order for £2 a week, which may be paid; but it does no good, because in such cases the wives are all living on supplementary benefit, and if the £2 is paid it simply means that the supplementary benefit is reduced by £2 a week. What really matters is the supplementary benefits. I am not saying that some of the wives of these very low wage earners may not be better off financially than they were when they had their husbands living with them, and had to depend on whatever money they could get from him when he was in work. I also appreciate that there are difficulties once supplementary benefits get to be more than the sort of money
324
that would be coming into the house if people were working.
The House may remember that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in his recent White Paper that he was making a study of the three groups of one-parent families—and when I say, "the three groups", I mean the deserted wives about whom we all know, the fatherless families; the mothers who have never been married; and the cases, of which there are large numbers (I never know why nobody ever mentions them), where a woman walks out of the house with another man, leaving two or three small children in the house—the motherless families. I always think this is difficult. I happen to know a number in quite different social classes, and I know one or two low wage earners who have stopped work and live on supplementary benefits because they think it is their duty to bring up the children. They do not lose much if they were on a very low wage. The alternative is to get a woman to bring up the children in the daytime. But where do they find such a woman? And is she to sleep in the house? My right honourable friend is looking at all these three groups to see where the shoe most pinches.
May I add this? I am sure that none of your Lordships will think that the fact that I have drawn attention to the very difficult position of these 118,000 deserted wives means that I think this has anything whatever to do with divorce. It has nothing to do with divorce. As a matter of fact, 14,000 of them have been divorced, and 104,000 have not. The position of those who have been divorced is exactly the same as the position of those who have not. The difficulties are not due to divorce. The difficulties are due to the fact that their marriages have broken down and the man who used to earn the money has left. Divorce makes no difference at all except prospectively in three rather minor ways.
First of all, it is said—I do not know whether this is true—that if there has been a divorce the wife is probably being a bit better treated financially, because she will certainly have had legal aid and legal advice. I do not know what truth there is in that. Then it is said that the wife is prospectively better off with regard to her retirement pension if there has been a divorce, because in any

325
case the wife does not get a retirement pension at the age of 60; she has to wait until her husband gets it at 65; whereas, if there has been a divorce she is treated as a single woman and gets it at once. So it is said that, from that point of view, if and when it happens, the divorced woman is better off.
Lastly, there is the pension. This is a slightly complicated subject but, broadly speaking, the position is this. In the case of a civil servant, of a member of the Armed Forces or of somebody who has a company pension, some of the pensions are discretionary, in which case the trustees can do what they like, and in other cases the man can say to whom the pension is to be paid. The great change made by this Bill, of course, is that for the first time the judge in court will be able to say to such a man: "I am not going to give you a divorce unless you take out a policy which will provide for your wife the pension which she would have had, or would probably have had, if there had been no divorce". The Chairman of the Law Commission and I have throughout made it quite clear that our view, rightly or wrongly, is that to the extent that the pension position, and a woman's financial position generally, can be protected, those provisions are already in this Bill; that you cannot provide for better than the best; that this new and very powerful armoury which is given to the court, and which has never been given before, can protect those cases; and that the only case that remains is the State widow's pension, about which nothing can be done.
There are two qualifications, perhaps, that I should make here. Of course, if a person is living on supplementary benefits it probably will not matter anyhow, because if such a person had the pension the supplementary benefit would be reduced; but where that is not so, then there is nothing to preserve the State widow's pension. Perhaps I have rather over-stated the matter. If you ask a careful lawyer, "In the average case, if there is a divorce will the first wife lose her State widow's pension?", he will say, "Of course, I have got to bear in mind that most of these women are 34 or less, and that you are asking me about an event which is not going to arise in the ordinary way for another 35 years. Bearing that in mind, my reply must be that
326
if she does not marry again, which she probably will, and if she and her husband live a normal length of life and he predeceases her, then whether she will lose her widow's pension will depend on what our social security laws are in the year 2009. Of course, if you are asking me about the exceptional case, if you are asking me about a woman who is now 60, who has something to live on so that she is not dependent on social security and whose husband appears to be dying of pneumonia, then the answer is 'Yes'".
My Lords, I have to say a word about Mr. Bishop's Bill and the Law Commission's proposals. The Bill was a Bill dealing with community of property, which is a conception that I have always favoured, if we could find a practicable kind. This was a Bill which no Government could possibly allow to reach the Statute Book, because, if I may respectfully say so, the sponsors had not begun to think it out. There is no country where there is community of property that seems to work except those countries where you can contract out, and everybody contracts out. I saw Mr. Bishop and his colleagues, and I told him that there was no prospect of the Law Commission introducing anything in the nature of a Report on Community of Property, but that the provisions relating to financial relief needed an overhaul and. in the view of the Law Commission, needed it whether the Divorce Reform Bill was passed or not. And I said that I expected to receive that Report in July. When I saw him the next clay, having told him roughly what that Report was likely to cover, we drafted a letter together to record this, which I told him he could publish. That said:
"Matrimonial Property Bill. I am writing to confirm what was agreed at the meeting yesterday which you, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Eric Lubbock and Mr. Awdry had with the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Sir Leslie Scarman, Professor Gower and other members of the Law Commission staff and me. Sir Leslie Scarman agreed that the Law Commission would be able to report before the end of July on their proposals for matrimonial financial relief. The Divorce Reform Bill contains a provision that it will not come into effect until an order is made by the Lord Chancellor. Without of course committing the Government on its programme for legislation, which I know you would not expect me to do at this stage, I agreed that if you withdrew the Matrimonial Property Bill I would undertake not to make such an order until legislation based on the Law Commission's proposals had been introduced next Session."

327
My Lords, there are one or two things about that letter that I want to make plain. The statement that the Bill would come into force only on an order made by me had of course nothing whatever to do with Mr. Bishop's Bill. It was in the Bill in the first place; it was in Mr. Wilson's Bill. It is a very usual provision, as your Lordships know, to have in a Bill when a Bill cannot be brought into effect until rules have been made; and this is certainly so in relation to the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. When I have had, as I have had, many letters from people wanting to know when I thought this Bill might become law, I have told them, "If it becomes law at all, and does so by the end of July, it certainly cannot come into force until January 1, because we always need six months to make the Rules. If it becomes law by November, it may be Easter before it comes into force." On Wednesday of this week I have a meeting of the High Court Rule Committee to make the Rules which will enable a part, at least, of the Civil Evidence Act to be brought into effect. That Act received the Royal Assent in October, so in that case it has taken nine months. This is because all the legal services are so heavily overworked; it is necessary to consult other Government Departments interested, and because there are on the Rule Committee representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society. All these consultations inevitably take time, and the interval before an Act requiring Rules comes into force will be at least six months.
So, relying as I did on what the Law Commission had told me, that they would produce their proposals in July, I think it is obvious (although one must observe the convention that no Government ever say what is going to be in their next year's legislation) that I should not have agreed to this if I had not thought I should be introducing such a Bill relatively early in the Session. So in fact it will not in any way affect the time when this Bill comes into force. Indeed, I should not myself think it right, without the express authority of Parliament, to defer for some wholly extraneous purpose the making of an order to bring into effect some Act which had received the Royal Assent.
Your Lordships will want to know the position about the Law Commission. They have kept their word. Next month
328
they will be publishing their Report on financial relief. I asked the Chairman whether he would be good enough to summarise it for me in a form which I could read to your Lordships, and with your Lordships' permission I shall now do that. He says:
"You asked whether we could briefly summarise what matters of relevance to the debate on the Divorce Reform Bill will be dealt with in the Law Commission's forthcoming report on Financial Provision. May I say first that in our view none of these is in fact of much direct relevance since Clause 6 of the Divorce Reform Bill will enable the court to protect those who, despite the fact that they have not committed any matrimonial offence and do not want a divorce, may be divorced after five years' separation. It is to these 'innocent respondents' that Clause 6 gives the maximum protection possible. All we can do in our promised Report is to extend the powers of the court to make financial orders, thereby affording greater protection than at present to other deserving parties, whether petitioners or respondents. Accordingly those who will principally benefit are those who might be divorced under the present law rather than those who, for the first time, may be divorced as a result of the Bill and whose protection will still depend largely on the draconian powers conferred by Clause 6 (supplemented by Clause 4) of the Bill.
"Our recommendations will attempt to rationalise the present position by:—

(1) Ensuring that the court's powers to award financial provision apply generally and do not, as at present, differ according to the sex of the applicant or according to whether he or she is the petitioner or respondent.

(2) Providing that all forms of periodical provision should be capable of being secured and, if secured, of lasting for the life of the payee or until he or she remarries, whichever is the shorter.

(3) Extending the power to order lump sums and interim awards.

(4) Re-defining the children of the family in whose favour financial orders may be made and the ages to which orders can be made.

(5) Improving the formulation of the court's duty to ensure that proper arrangements have been made in respect of children.

(6) Generalising the court's powers to order settlements and transfers of property and to vary ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements so as to enable the court to make provision for the spouses and children by the adjustment of the spouses' property in the light of breakdown of the marriage.

(7) Defining the principles on which the court should operate when ordering financial provision whether by way of periodical payments, lump sum awards or property adjustments. This will make it explicit that the contribution of the wife in looking after the home and children should be

329
regarded as a factor to be taken into consideration as also should the loss of any pension expectancy resulting from the divorce.

(8) Extending the powers to vary or discharge orders and to set aside voluntary transactions designed to defeat claims for financial provision.

"We also intend to make some recommendations regarding the determination of disputed rights in property to the acquisition or improvement of which both spouses have contributed and regarding the actions for enticement and damages for adultery.
"I hope that this advance information, which can certainly be quoted if you wish to, may be of assistance."
My Lords, I have only this to add. First, that I am sorry to have been so long; secondly, that this document is perhaps a little difficult to follow and I have therefore already arranged for copies of it to be available in my office, if any noble Lord would like to have one. There is one more fact which I forgot to mention. In New Zealand they have now had 14 years' experience of the working of this principle of breakdown and I am told that of those who take advantage of this clause, "the Casanova's charter," over 40 per cent. are women.

NIGERIA: RELIEF SUPPLIES TO BIAFRA
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like now to reply to a Private Notice Question put by my noble friend Lord Brockway earlier this afternoon in respect of relief to Biafra. I would answer as follows:
The British High Commissioner in Lagos has seen both General Gowon and Dr. Arikpo in the course of the last few days. The High Commissioner has, on the instructions of the Secretary of State, made clear to the Federal authorities our deep concern and hope that arrangements should urgently be made which will allow the flow of relief to be resumed. The House will realise that such arrangements will also require the active co-operation of the Biafran leadership, particularly if daylight flights are to be instituted. The Federal Government's new policy statement reaffirms that the Federal Government is prepared to allow relief supplies to rebel-held areas subject to proper inspection and control. Everything now turns on working out
330
satisfactory arrangements between the Federal Government and the relief agencies on this basis, and, indeed, on the Biafran response.
The talks in Lagos between the Federal Government and the relief agencies began this morning and were resumed at 3 p.m. this afternoon. When the results of these negotiations are known, and I have been able to evaluate them, I hope to be able to make a further Statement to the House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I, because of the tragedy of this situation, be constructive before being critical? Would the Government consider this proposal, for which I have some authority? While United Nations' and British intervention would be resented by one side or the other, could not co-operating Governments indicate to the Federal Government that they would contribute substantial aid and would second pilots and planes to the International Red Cross and to Church and other relief organisations to enable them to give notice that from an early date they will operate a massive relief organisation by air, land and river? Would not the Federal Government be likely to accept such a proposal if it were supported by the Governments of the United States of America and Britain and by Governments in Europe?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend had said that he was going to be constructive and critical. I was awaiting the critical part.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, that will come.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will take note of the suggestion that my noble friend has made, although I must he frank, it is not a new one. The problem is not in the quantity of the food or medicine, because supplies are available at the perimeters of Biafra. The problem is in the means of getting those foods and medical supplies into Biafra. As my noble friend knows, night flights have been used, I think deliberately, as a cover for arms shipments into Biafra. That is the reason why the Federal Government have come out in opposition to night flights, where in the past they have condoned them. It is Colonel Ojukwu who puts conditions—I think unreasonable conditions—upon both the daylight

331
flights and the use of the river. But I hope that the talks that are now taking place in Lagos (and, later, I hope, negotiations with Colonel Ojukwu) will see a breakthrough in this field.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the statement from Lagos this morning that the Federal Government have now ended the role of the International Red Cross as a relief organisation and have made no statement about the possibility of daylight flights? Is it not the case that the Biafran Administration has accepted both daylight flights and river relief under international supervision? In view of these circumstances, how long are Her Majesty's Government going to supply arms to one side in this disastrous conflict and thus contribute to the starvation of hundreds of thousands of people?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know that my noble friend wishes to be constructive; I hope that he will be accurate. Colonel Ojukwu has said he will permit daylight flights if they are supplementary to night flights. In other words, he is making a condition for daylight flights—a condition that the night flights continue; because this is a cover for arms supplies. With regard to the question of the Federal Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross, if my noble friend will look at that statement again, with care, he will see that it refers to the Federal areas only—I repeat: the Federal areas only. It means that the Nigerian Committee of Rehabilitation will have overall responsibility; but it does not say that the International Committee of the Red Cross cannot participate in relief within the Federal-held areas.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord make it plain—I think he meant to—that the Red Cross is in no way concerned with carrying arms?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am glad that the noble Baroness has raised that point. I hope that I have never so indicated. What I said was that the use of these relief aircraft by night has been a cover for military equipment to be flown into Biafra and, as my noble friend Lord Brockway well knows, for the Biafrans to obtain an aircraft capability.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, how can my noble friend object to the Biafrans obtaining arms from the other side when Her Majesty's Government are supplying arms to the Federal State?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that this is getting into a debate. Surely if what the noble Lord says is right, the Federal Government have every right to prevent in every possible way Biafra from continuing this conflict. But in this particular case, for the first time in my knowledge of war, a Government has been prepared to see medical supplies going into an area which it regards as being in rebellion.

DIVORCE REFORM BILL
4.0 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, back to divorce! I feel ill-cast in this divorce debate, being much more at home at the launching of marriages than in the "breakers yard". But my job is simplified by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who has, as I believe all your Lordships will agree, outlined the purpose and the content of the Bill with feeling, force and with great thoroughness. We are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his view of the law; his exposition of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly for his history of the whole matter. And, of course, we are also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who at least made her position clear.
My Lords, I should like to put my remarks briefly under five broad questions. First, is the present divorce law all that bad? The people to judge in this matter, it would seem, are the judges and the lawyers who practise in this field; and all those who gave evidence to the Archbishop's Group, including the President and two Judges of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court, considered that the present law was unsatisfactory. No doubt there are some other judges and some other lawyers of great eminence and experience in this field who think otherwise. Let us hope that we shall hear from some of them to-day. But at least there are not a few whose views are worthy to be

333
considered and who believe that all is not well.
My second question is: is it practicable to change our divorce law for the better? At the moment, not being a lawyer and wanting very much to hear the views of the 30 noble Lords who are to speak to-day, I confess that I am not sure. How can we be until we have tried? But I do know that if there is any place where a change can be made, and if there are any people who can do it and do it thoroughly, it is your Lordships on the Floor of your Lordships' House; that is to say, if your Lordships are given time for the consideration that a subject of this importance deserves.
My Lords, there is no reason to suppose that a Second Reading to-day will limit in any way the improvements that we might make in Committee. On the last occasion when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and I spoke on a Private Member's Bill, every single word, including the Title, had been changed before it was ready for Report; and we can do that again. The third question, then, is: is this the right moment for reform? Would it not be better to wait, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, suggested; to conduct more research, assemble more evidence and more statistics, appoint a further committee and wait for further legislation? I had prepared a schedule of all the antecedents of this Bill, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had prepared a much better one and I can skip the entire thing.
After listening to the noble and learned Lord, my conclusion is that there is indeed an ancestry to this Bill; not, of course, one which guarantees a perfect or even a good Bill, but it means that this Bill can hardly be described as the product of a pressure group, the brain child of its individual sponsors, inexpertly drafted, hasty or rushed. My Lords, the conclusion to which I come is that the time is ripe for Parliament to come to a decision on this legislation, and, as is implied in Clause 11(3) and as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has confirmed, more is needed before the time is ripe to bring the legislation, if it is enacted, into operation. But that is a different thing.
In that connection, I believe that your Lordships will want to probe very
334
carefully and more fully into the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in the fields of national insurance, family property legislation, financial provision and the increased cost of legal aid. As the noble Baroness said so clearly, all these things need to be scrutinised most carefully. It has been a great help to have that long statement with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ended his speech, and we shall all want to study it before the next stage. All that must be studied most carefully before Parliament is asked to pass this Bill; and still more carefully before it is asked to approve the Statutory Instrument under which the legislation, if enacted, will be brought into force.
My Lords, I should like most of all assurances about the independence, the growth and the development of the whole marriage guidance movement and to hear about sustained support from Her Majesty's Government for that growth. I would be the first to admit that the Government may be warmly congratulated on what they have done so far in support of the marriage guidance movement; but the fact remains that 3 per cent. of what is spent on marriages in the "breakers yard" is more than all that is spent on their construction and repair. When the £30 million or so spent on children in care (most of whom come from broken families) and the £30 million spent on supplementary benefit in supporting unmarried mothers and deserted and divorced wives is compared with the one-tenth of £1 million that is shared between all the agencies engaged across the whole field of marriage guidance, preparation for marriage and education for family life and rehabilitation, our priorities in this matter look more absurd. I am quite sure that this has to be looked into very thoroughly.
My Lords, the fourth point I come to is this. Is this a good Bill and how do we judge it? I think there are two main tests which should be applied at this stage. There are many more which will be called for when we go into Committee. The first is: does the Bill tend to undermine the stability of the holy estate of life-long matrimony? The answer to that question is that of course it does. The only law that perfectly witnesses to the permanence of marriage is no divorce law at all, and so the question for us is rather: does this

335
law, based upon the breakdown, do more or less damage to marriage than the present law based on the offence? I am not sure. I like to think that marriage rests on firmer foundations than the divorce law. I know that the whole question, the whole purpose of the Arch. bishop's Group, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, was to find, if they could, a system which in that respect was better; and had they felt that they had not succeeded I doubt whether they would have made the proposals that they have. I know that this system will allow reconciliation to be attempted where at present it is precluded. I know that the new system rests on truth, honesty and frankness in court, and that the present system encourages adultery, deceit, dishonesty and even perjury.
The second test as to whether it is a good Bill or a bad one seems to me to be this. Does the new system as a whole protect hatter the interests of those, particularly of the wives and children of the first marriage, whose interests it is the function of marriage to protect, but which are nut in jeopardy when marriage breaks down? It is, I submit, the joint responsibility of the sponsors of this Bill and of Her Majesty's Government—the onus is firmly on them—to give the fullest assurances to Parliament on these two points. If the Bill fails to get a Third Reading from your Lordships, or if the Statutory Instrument bringing it into force after its enactment is not carried, it will be, I hope, because your Lordships have not been satisfied on these two points.
This is no Party matter. It is more than usually a matter for individual conscience and individual judgment. I have not been speaking in any sense as a Conservative Whip. I speak, however, as one who sets great store on our traditional doctrines of behaviour and on the inherited wisdom of the past; as one who is not readily won over to the latest forms of social reform or to the delights of our permissive society. I speak also as one who is ordinated to uphold the sanctity and stability of marriage and its solemnisation as a sacrament of the Christian Church. Nevertheless, I speak as one who, though still open to persuasion, when the Question is put in six
336
or seven hours' time, That this Bill be read a second time, will vote "Content".
4.13 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is going to vote "Content" because, listening to his speech, I was not quite sure which side he was going to take. I was afraid that he was going to forget that marriage was made for man and not man for marriage. But I think that he has borne that in mind.
The opposition to this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, is based on her deep concern for the first family. I have no quarrel with her here nor, I am sure, has any of your Lordships, because it must be the first family who must be considered first. Of course, all being well there should never be a second family. Some of us often feel that the contract of marriage is not so much between a man and a woman but between parents and their children and no marriage should be ended until the last child has grown up. But that may be a counsel of perfection.
The noble Baroness feels that this Bill makes it easier for a man to divorce his first wife and her family. I am not sure that that is altogether the case, because in certain respects I think that the Bill makes it more difficult. But it seems to me that this argument is an irrelevant one. This Bill has no effect either way on the condition of her marriage. Divorce is a device for settling a state of affairs which has become intolerable, and by the time it becomes a question of divorce this Bill has no effect on her marriage at all. The noble Baroness is worried about the fact that the ordinary man cannot support two wives. That is quite true. She feels that we are being asked to take the financial provisions of the Bill blindly and that those aspects of the Bill about "or the best that can be made in the circumstances", are doubtful. But this is irrelevant. A deserted woman is already in difficulties and the Bill cannot make them worse.
The noble Baroness and her supporters are upset by what they feel is the imposition of divorce against the will of one party. It seems to me that whether there is an imposition of divorce or not it is in the public interest that a marriage which has completely broken down should

337
be terminated. The National Council of Women has said that where an irretrievable breakdown can be proved, so long as there is no disproportionate hardship divorce should be available. This means that it should be available not only by mutual consent. This Bill gives no automatic right of divorce without consent. It has safeguards, some of which are very substantial, in certain circumstances amounting to making it more difficult get a divorce than it is now. The damage that is done is not by divorce but by desertion. Divorce only recognises that the damage has already been done and seeks to remedy it. We all know that deserted women are in a difficult position, and that the majority of maintenance orders are simply not met.
Under this Bill, the position of women who have been deserted and then divorced, even if against their will, is better than at present; the conditions under Clauses 4 and 6 make the position considerably better—or at least we can accept that they are marginally better. But as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has said, these difficulties have nothing to do with divorce reform, and if all these things have nothing to do with divorce, then I suggest that nothing is served by keeping up a form of pretence when in fact a marriage is dead.
The noble Baroness is also worried that 10 per cent. of divorced women are over 50 years of age. As has been pointed out, the bulk of divorces involve younger women who feel that they have made a mistake and who want to be able to get married again and have another family. If there is a clash here between the hardships which might be suffered by these two classes of women, and in so far as there is a disproportionate hardship between the younger women and those who to some extent have had their lives, I think it rests with the younger women.
It has been suggested that we might get over the difficulty of unilateral divorce by having, as was suggested in another place, a provision such as operates in the law of property—that is to say, a clause providing that divorce should not be unreasonably withheld. At first sight this may seem attractive, but this proposal has always been refused by
338
the promoters of the Bill—I think rightly—because the reason for having unilateral divorce is that in the last resort divorce is so often unreasonably withheld. I cannot believe that generous minded persons, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their children—or, indeed, as I have attempted to show and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown, for financial reasons—could possibly refuse divorce if the marriage has completely broken down. It seems to me—and I do not myself want to be ungenerous here—that it can be only out of spite, or by a mistaken serve of religious duty, a confusion between the form of religion and its reality, that this happens. It seems to me that the safeguards which have been put into this Bill amount almost to the same thing as saying, "shall not be unreasonably withheld". It seems to me, in those circumstances, with the kind of safeguards that are built into the Bill, that no one should reasonably object to unilateral divorce. I do not believe that anybody will be hurt by it and, if they are, it seems to me that they are the sort of persons who probably should be.
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as your Lordships will expect, I approach the subject we are discussing this afternoon from the starting point of the Church's belief that marriage is the lifelong union of a man and woman, and that when we recall the familiar words of the marriage service, "those whom God has joined together", the very idea of divorce is something which should evoke horror. While, therefore, I share the feelings of compassion so widely felt for those whose marriages have broken down in misery, and for children who are illegitimate, I also feel bound to bring to bear upon proposals for reforming the divorce law the question: Does the proposal tend to weaken the institution of marriage in the eyes of those who are approaching marriage, or does it encourage those who are approaching marriage to have a lower view of its lifelong obligation? This aspect of the matter—let me call it the educative effect of the law—of the approach to marriage, has been very little emphasised in the discussion this afternoon, and I make no apology for recalling it.

339
It was such considerations which led me to oppose the proposal in a Bill brought to your Lordships' House six years ago to add as a ground for divorce five years' separation at the instance of either party. At the same time, I felt then, as I do now, that the existing law of divorce is very unsatisfactory indeed. When I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, describing the bad features of the existing law, I could not find a word that seemed to me exaggerated or a word with which I thought I disagreed. A law based on the doctrine of matrimonial offences so often leads to acrimonious disputes between the parties as to which of them is in the wrong, so hinders reconciliation in cases where reconciliation might still be possible, and encourages a degree of collusion in such a way that divorce by consent is virtually what happens in the present system.
It was both my dislike of the present system and my uneasiness with the proposals before us in the Bill of 1963 which caused me, with the encouragement of the Lord Chancellor at the time, to invite the Group, under the chairmanship of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, to inquire into the possibility of a totally new kind of divorce law. The proposal of that Group, in the Report entitled Putting Asunder, that a law based on breakdown should totally replace the present law based on matrimonial offences quickly won a great deal of sympathy.
I was, and I still am, hopeful that a sound law based on breakdown might be formulated to replace totally the present law. But there was, and there still is, the difficulty of so framing a law based on breakdown as to avoid injustice towards a man or woman who has been the victim of really scandalous conduct, contrary to the public interest, in the institution of marriage. The authors of Putting Asunder, for all their wish to pass over completely to a law of breakdown, were acutely conscious of this difficulty, and they devoted a good many pages of their Report to it. I quote their conclusion, on pages 52 and 53 of the Report, where they say:
"Nevertheless, when all has been said, we have to recognise that there would be cases where our sense of justice and propriety would rightly be offended if a decree were granted against the will of a respondent—
340
cases where a petitioner had not only been blatantly responsible for ending the common life but had blatantly flouted the obligations of marriage and treated the other party abominably…. In such cases—to put it crudely—it just would not do to let the petitioner get away with it. To grant a decree would be against the public interest; for it would shake confidence in the administration of Justice and cast doubt on the reality of the State's concern for marriage…. Therefore … we believe a safeguard to be necessary; and what we recommend is that the court should have a duty to refuse a decree, even though breakdown had been proved, if to grant it would be contrary to the public interest in justice and in protecting the institution of marriage."
Of course, to say that produces a big qualification into a proposal for a law of breakdown; for a breakdown of marriage is a fact, and I recognise that one of the values of a law of breakdown is to avoid discussion as to whose fault the breakdown has been. But it is because the sense of justice dies hard that that paragraph which I have just quoted had its place within that Report recommending breakdown to be the law. And I think it is fair to say that at the time of the publication of Putting Asunder a good many people, including myself, gave general support to the proposals in virtue of this particular qualifying proposal, and in the hope that this qualifying proposal might somehow find a place within legislation on the subject.
So, my Lords, I ask: Does the present law achieve a law of breakdown which would be sufficient to protect the institute of marriage and avoid flagrant injustices? My anxiety is about three points in the present Bill. First, there is the two-year clause. Is it axiomatic that separation for two years proves irretrievable breakdown? I think it is unfair to criticise this clause, as it has been criticised, as introducing divorce by consent. I think it is an unfair criticism because, in effect, it may be neither more nor less consensual than is a vast amount of practice under the present law. But is not the alteration of the period of three years to a period of two years something of an encouragement to a light approach to the undertaking of marriage as a contract "until death us do part"? The noble and learned Lord, in introducing the Bill, put the onus on the critics, and asked why a decree should not be possible after two years. I feel that the onus is the other way. To my mind, we have not had

341
any really effective evidence for making the change from three years to two years.
Secondly, I view the treatment of financial provision under the Bill with real anxiety, which I am afraid the very helpful statement made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not removed from my mind. The words in Clause 6(2)(b) do stick for me, as they stick for the noble Baroness:
"The court shall not make absolute the decree of divorce unless it is satisfied … that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair, or the best that can be made in the circumstances"
I think there is something rather repulsive in a law so formulated that the "best that can be made in the circumstances" is a kind of equivalent to "reasonable and fair". If those two things are equivalent, then it makes nonsense of "reasonable and fair"; and "reasonable and fair" might be better omitted, with a frank acknowledgement that "the best that can be made in the circumstances" may, quite often, be neither reasonable nor fair.
My third point goes back to the quotation from Putting Asunder which I made earlier. I ask not only whether the Bill safeguards efficiently the financial provisions, but also whether it safeguards the public interest in the institution of marriage in the case of a petitioner who has treated the spouse in a manner which is appalling and which flouts the public's respect for the institution of marriage. Clause 4 defines the court's power to refuse a decree. The words of Clause 4 do not disclose very much about the probable exercise of those powers, and we have had very little exposition or discussion on them this afternoon. I ask: do the words,
"It would be wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage"
correspond effectively to the safeguard of justice for which the authors of Putting Asunder pleaded in the passage which I have quoted?
The sponsors of the Bill, quite rightly, make considerable appeal to that document, and I believe that Putting Asunder is a very fine document for the conceptions of the reform of the law which they are trying to introduce. But I feel that there is in that Report an element which has been somewhat by-passed,
342
both in the presentation of the Bill and in the discussion this afternoon. Some of us from time to time have large postbags on matters of public concern. I am not prepared to dismiss the postbag that I have had on this matter as just a set of letters in common form, using the same cliché. We know how to dismiss postbags of that kind. Nor are they merely letters obviously inspired by some organisation. We all know how to dismiss postbags of that kind. In my experience I am moved by personal letters whose writers are apprehensive about justice to themselves, or to people whom they know intimately.
So, my Lords, I wish that the Bill could be rid of what I believe to be blemishes. The existing law is bad, and I would gladly see it replaced; and there is evidence that many of my fellow-Churchmen with me would be glad to see it replaced by a law based upon breakdown. It goes without saying that I welcome wholeheartedly the provisions about reconciliation which this Bill contains. I hope that many noble Lords. like myself, not wanting to be hostile to the Bill, will be with me in trying to get these specific blemishes corrected. I cannot vote for the Bill as it stands, as the things which I have criticised are, for me, matters of justice and principle.
4.36 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I feel very privileged to follow the most reverend Primate, although I do not share all his doubts. This Bill was introduced by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill with erudition, moderation and grace, and I really welcome the Bill in the way he introduced it. I did not understand the comment of my noble friend Lady Summerskill when she said that he had introduced it with such "Freudian fury". I think it is the kind of phrase that can rebound on the person who makes it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I interrupt? I would say to my noble friend that I mentioned Casanova. If my noble friend will look in Hansard to-morrow she will see I was rather struck by the fact that the name "Casanova" left such an impression on my noble friend. I wondered why he kept repeating it with such Freudian fury. I should have thought that was obvious.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I think this Bill could easily have had another Title, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who pointed out that one could amend any Bill, even the Title. I would suggest the Title, "In Place of Strife". I suggest this because this Bill seeks to rationalise and put our grounds for divorce on a more honest and less artificial basis than is adopted at present. In an ideally civilised society divorce could be a private matter, and only its social and financial consequences sorted out with equity, I suggest, by a council of marriage guidance judges of superlative wisdom.
I will comment only on some of the social aspects of this Bill, central to which is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. These are academic words, but what they hide is the end of a state of extreme unhappiness between a man and a woman—the end of endurance. Often marriage is still tolerable, even when all passion is spent, so long as there remains a deep fondness, and mutual care and responsibility for the children. When we come to the dregs of unhappiness, and one or both partners in the marriage cannot bear it any longer, I believe that legislation in 1969 should begin to take this into account, and I do not believe that marriage is undermined by this proposed legislation. I am astonished that many people defend our present divorce proceedings, which are such monuments of hypocrisy and contrivance, just because, they say, they work. They recoil from the idea of divorce by consent, yet, as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has intimated, 93 per cent. of divorce cases are undefended. Surely this is an under-the-counter divorce by consent.
Views on divorce are based on many primitive and old-fashioned myths and beliefs. Despite the great strides we have made towards sex equality, the idea that men more easily tire of women than women of men is still prevalent. Even emancipated women believe this. But the figures tell quite a different story. I take my figures from the brilliant speech of Dame Joan Vickers in another place: that out of 21,000 divorces for adultery, roughly half were for the men and half for the women. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed this out in his speech. From the many critics of this Bill one would
344
assume that the vulnerable age for a marriage to break up is about 50. In fact, as has been said, it is 23 or 24. We have heard a great deal about the innocent woman who, if this Bill becomes law, will be in great danger of being jettisoned for a younger rival. I am sure that many speeches will show an excessive interest in these women. Surely, if a marriage has lasted until the woman is 50, there is a pretty good chance of its lasting until death do them part.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lady Summerskill for the ageing female partner of 50 who has committed no technical marital offence; and clearly there must be legislation to deal with the circumstances in which she may be left. But I do not agree with my noble friend about this Bill being, as many noble Lords have said, "a Casanova's charter" because I do not believe that Casanovas are marrying men. I do not believe that every man of 60 is just waiting to walk out on his wife. Incidentally, I looked up "Casanova" in the Encyclopædia Britannica and found that there is no record of his having married at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I think that if my noble friend looks again she will find that he did: in Vienna, once.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Once. The noble Baroness has conceded my point. I should think that the Casanovas, the compulsive womanisers in this world, are rather reluctant marriers. As I have said, I share the general concern for the plight of an ageing wife who could be divorced after five years desertion by her husband and left in great financial misery, as well as psychologically distressed. I do not believe, however, that any judge would grant a divorce in such a case; I cannot believe it of the judges of this country. It seems to me that for those who fear this consequence of the Bill polygamy is the only answer, because it is only in a polygamous society that the abandoned wife is kept in the household and looked after.
Here I should like to comment on what my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said about young marriages: that the partners in them need time to get over their teething troubles. I agree with this in some way. But divorce in young marriages is far less dangerous than in older

345
marriages, because the younger ones nearly all re-marry. This is just one of the facts of life. I do not quite know what my noble friend would like them to do. Would she like to chain them together for many years before they separate? Surely, in some ways it is much better that the young ones separate early. Or would my noble friend prefer young people to live together and produce a lot of illegitimate children? There are 200,000 already.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my noble friend has directed two questions to me. Of course I want these children—they are children to us—to be happy. But if there is a practice of easy divorce after two years before the age of 21, it may become a habit. The very fact that one marries again does not mean that the next marriage is going to be successful.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: No, my Lords, it certainly does not. This is a chance that everybody has to take. No two people can promise that their marriage will be happy. Of course they cannot. Again, this is one of the facts of life. I do not think that by keeping divorce as it is at present, hypocritical and not honest, we are making the situation any better.
However, the promise by the Lord Chancellor was, I understand (I am not quite sure about this) that the new Divorce Bill, should it reach the Statute Book, would not come into effect until Government legislation on the financial provisions of women's rights had been enacted. I am not quite sure whether this is so. I had thought it was so, and I think that this would remove all anxiety on this score. Incidentally, I am told that four-fifths of all legal aid is for marital problems, which shows that a good many poor people seek a divorce.
Then there is an argument that this Bill makes divorce too easy and that an avalanche of divorce cases would follow if it became law. As has been pointed out, the experience of New Zealand and Australia, which have similar legislation to that which is being proposed, belies this. Perhaps the least attractive. but very prevalent, attitude about the whole question of divorce is the punitive, and punishing, attitude. It is as if we said to the people who wanted to separate, "You've made your bed. Now you jolly
346
well lie in it! Now you have to lie in it!" These unhappy people are simply committed to a compulsory marriage state.
For most people, divorce is not contemplated or entered into at all lightly. It is usually a very painful decision, fraught with mixed emotions of guilt, conflict between responsibilities and desire; and it is here that good legislation can help resolve many of the difficulties and the complications with regard to children and finance which follow. This Bill bases the ground for divorce on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There is nothing, my Lords, so dead as dead love. This reality is recognised by this Bill, and although no Bill is perfect and can satisfy everyone's idea on divorce, I warmly support it and shall vote for its Second Reading.
4.48 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I should like to consider this Bill from two points of view; and I am afraid that it will be necessary for me, in so doing, to look at the detailed provisions of the Bill a little more closely than has been done already this afternoon. I hesitate to take up so much of your Lordships' time, and I hope that I can be reasonably brief; but I feel that it is necessary, if one is going to reach a balanced view on the Bill, to go into these provisions in a little more detail than has yet been done.
The first point of view is this. It seems to me that the most important aspect of the Bill is: what alteration will it make in the present law; how will its provisions work; what kind of people will get divorces who do not get them at present, and what kind will be refused who do get them at present? I must say that I am not enamoured with this idea of finding a high-sounding principle and then pursuing it to its logical conclusion. I think that leads to many difficulties, and has led to many difficulties in this Bill.
The second point of view from which I want to observe the Bill is this. While I do not underestimate the importance of sociological arguments, it seems to me that justice to individuals must come first. I have never been one to support the extreme view that "Justice must be done though the heavens fall". We all saw, for example, during the war instances of cases where it was necessary to relax

347
the ordinary standards of justice in order to preserve the national safety. But surely it cannot be necessary, in this chapter of the law, to relax the ordinary standards of justice in order to benefit the man who has run away with another woman and his children? Therefore it seems to me that we ought to examine this Bill from the point of view of where and how it may do injustice.
I am always suspicious—and I am suspicious here—of any proposal in any sphere to advance the public good at the cost of doing injustice to individuals. That, I think, is broadly what parts of this Bill are trying to do. I do not say that the whole Bill is bad. There are some parts of it, as I shall try to explain as briefly as I can, that I think are disitnct improvements. There are some parts of it on which I do not have any strong view either way: I am willing to accept them; I do not think they will do much good or harm, either way. But there is one part of the Bill, to which I shall come later, to which I am most strongly opposed and which I hope, if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading to-night, you will leave out at the Committee stage. That can easily be done without in any way injuring the rest of the Bill.
Before I come to these matters I would start by saying this: unfortunately this Bill is drafted in such a way that it has led to a great deal of misconception. You look at the Bill and you find in Clause 1 that the sole ground on which divorce is to be granted is to be irretrievable breakdown. That looks revolutionary, but it is simply not so when you come to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 is the operative clause, and Clause 2 contradicts that because it sets out five quite independent grounds of divorce, one of which has to be proved. So the practical result is that it is not the slightest good setting out to prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. That will get you nowhere at all. What you have to do is to start proving, and prove, one or other of these five grounds; and if you do that, in nine cases out of ten nobody will hear a word said about "irretrievable breakdown". That is because the only way in which irretrievable breakdown comes in is under Clause 2(3), that unless the court is satisfied on all
348
the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably it is to give a decree if one of these grounds is proved. So it does not seem to me that the question of irretrievable breakdown will ever arise, except in the very rarest case, in an undefended action. It may be that in a defended case the respondent will seek to argue to the judge that the evidence shows that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down; and sometime he may succeed. But I do not think it is likely that he will succeed very often, even in a defended case. I regard Clause 2 as saying, in effect, that there shall be five grounds of divorce, with the qualification that if it can be shown that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down the petitioner will not get a decree. That is the substance of the Bill.
I say that the question of irretrievable breakdown will not crop up very often for this reason. The Bill, very properly, emphasises the need for reconciliation in Clause 3, but I do not think it goes far enough. I welcome what it does say in Clause 3, but I am afraid that it will have very little effect. I will not go into the matter, but it seems to me that it will be difficult, after Clause 3 has been operated, for anyone to say that the marriage has been operating unsuccessfully or for anyone to say that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably. I say that for this reason: whether or not the marriage has broken down irretrievably depends primarily—indeed, solely—on the state of mind of the petitioner. If the petitioner says, and is believed, "In no circumstances will I return to the respondent" (and the petitioner may be masculine or feminine), then the marriage has irretrievably broken down unless the court holds that the petitioner is telling a deliberate lie.
It is quite obvious that if one party says, "I will not return to the other in any circumstances", and is believed, then there has been an irretrievable breakdown, and it does not matter at all how willing the other party may be to resume cohabitation. I do not see that the court has any possible alternative. It may adjourn, very properly, if it thinks that is going to do any good, but when it comes to the end the judge in court must decide either "I accept what the petitioner says, that he"—or she—"will not resume cohabitation, and therefore the marriage has

349
broken down", or "The petitioner is telling lies and I do not think the marriage has broken down." That seems to me to be very far removed from the view which is so prevalent, that some new principle has been introduced into the law and that we are going to start talking about "irretrievable breakdown". We are not. The court will hear about it only on rare occasions.
I must now consider these five grounds and see what they do. The first three merely continue the existing law, subject to certain amendments, most of which I would accept. The fourth one looks quite new but is not, and the fifth one is both new and highly objectionable. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said that this Bill would get rid of pointing the accusing finger. But we were told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that half the cases at present are cases of adultery, and that it will still be possible to bring cases alleging adultery and that evidence of adultery will have to be adduced; and if alleging and proving adultery is not pointing the accusing finger, I do not know what is. So it is quite wrong to say that this Bill removes the need for proving matrimonial offences. You may call adultery something else, but it is an offence; and in half the cases that come up it has to be proved. Therefore this idea that we are getting rid of matrimonial offences and putting something else in their place is quite wrong, and it will be seen to be quite wrong on the very day that this Bill starts operating in court, if it is put on to the Statute Book.
Under the first ground you have to prove two things. You have to prove, first, the adultery, and then you have to prove that the wife—or husband, as the case may be—finds it: intolerable to live with the other party. That gets rid of discretion, and I wholly agree with the noble Lord that discretion statements are an abomination and ought to have been got rid of long ago. It also gets rid of connivance and condonation and a number of other things. I am a little more doubtful about that, but on the whole I think it is a good thing, and I am prepared to accept—although not with any great enthusiasm—the amendments to the existing law which are introduced under paragraph (a) of Clause 2(1). But make no mistake about it, my Lords, paragraph (a) simply continues the exist-
350
ing law with amendments. It makes no fundamental change whatever.
I come now to the question which is said to save the situation: that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. Observe, the petitioner does not need to find it intolerable because of the adultery; it may be intolerable for some quite other reason. Therefore that does not tie up, as I rather thought the noble Lord suggested it did—perhaps I misheard him. Secondly, it is not that a reasonable man or woman would find it intolerable; it is a subjective test that the petitioner would find it intolerable. If the petitioner comes along and says, "I should find it intolerable", and gives a reason, whether adultery or some other reason, how is he or she going to be disbelieved, unless again the judge is prepared to take the unusual step, fortunately seldom required in our courts, of saying that the petitioner is a liar? Otherwise this question of finding it intolerable is no safeguard at all; it will not operate except in a handful of cases. It looks nice, but it has very little in it. Besides, I doubt very much whether many people at present do bring petitions for divorce unless they find the idea of going back to live with the other partner intolerable.
I turn to paragraph (b). Here, again, the existing law is changed. There is no suggestion of a new basis for a new kind of law altogether. It simply continues the present law of cruelty with one exception; it is no longer necessary to prove injury to health or apprehend injury to health. I am very glad to hear it, because I think that was getting to be rather a farce. Therefore, I think paragraph (b) is an improvement on the existing law. But, there again, it is the existing law, and you have to prove a matrimonial offence before you can succeed under paragraph (b). It is the same thing with paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) reduces the period of desertion from three years to two years. I have no objection to that at all, because it seems to me that if the case is not clear after two years it is not likely to be much clearer after three; therefore I take no exception at all to the reduction of the period. But again I emphasise that this is simply in accordance with the existing law with that one single amendment, and there is no question there of introducing any new idea of breakdown.

351
Then I come to divorce by consent, which is dealt with in paragraph (d). I say "divorce by consent" because that is what it is in the great majority of cases. It is true that the Bill goes rather further than divorce by consent, and I will say a word about that in a moment, but fundamentally it is divorce by consent, and there is the two years' delay presumably in order to make sure that the two parties who are consenting really intend that there shall be a divorce. I have no objection to that two years. It looks new to have divorce by consent, but it is not; as has been pointed out already this afternoon, if the two agree and are both equipped with an elastic conscience, they get the divorce to-day. It is only the scrupulous people who fail, and that seems to me to be highly unsatisfactory. Therefore I welcome paragraph (d). I have not welcomed any of the others up to date, but I welcome paragraph (d) because it regularises what is, to my mind, a discreditable position, and I consider that paragraph (d) alone is worth having for its own sake.
But I do not like the extension of paragraph (d). It says that it applies where "the respondent does not object". I think it ought to be "where the respondent consents", and for this reason. if you are going to let a petition through merely because the respondent does not object, then surely you must make quite sure that the respondent really does not object and has been made acquainted with what the position will be if she is divorced; because normally it is the wife who will suffer in this matter, and a good many women still do not really understandstand the legal consequences, or perhaps even the financial consequences, of affairs of this kind.
I regret to say that the Bill only provides in Clause 2(6) that there is to be given such information
"as will enable him to understand the consequences."
It is no use sending a legal document of that kind. I think this House ought to insist that there should be free legal aid and that the respondent should be told that there is free legal aid. Instead of being sent a document containing information the respondent ought to be
352
told, "Go and see a solicitor, if you want to, free of charge, and he will advise you as to what the consequences will be, financial and otherwise". It may be that it is not in order, because it is doing something which would put a charge on the Revenue, and if it is not in order then the proper course, I think, is to limit this clause to actual consent and to strike out "not objecting", on the ground that without putting expense on the Legal Aid Fund we cannot properly ensure that the woman is fully advised about the consequences. I would therefore strongly submit that paragraph (d) ought to be altered by substituting "consents" instead of "does not object".
There is a curious point in Clause 2(5). For some reason that I am wholly unable to understand, although I read the proceedings in another place, the two years' period runs not from the date when the parties quarrel, not from the date when one decides not to go back to the other, but from the date they last lived in the same household. One may have had to go off to hospital, or have had to take a job abroad where he could not take his wife, and the time begins to run against them although they are still perfectly happy and writing to each other in loving terms. That is a most astonishing position and I very much hope something will be done to put it right.
Now I come to what many people regard as the most important element in the Bill: that if you live apart for five years justice can be thrown out of the window; it does not matter there is to be a divorce because, I suppose, public policy requires it. Up to date I have expressed, it may be a tepid approval, but still approval, of the provisions of the Bill, and I quite see that if one approves of the principle of a Bill one ought to vote for the Second Reading and hope for the best on the Committee stage, and if necessary vote against the Third Reading. But a vote for the Second Reading here means that you approve of this principle in Clause 1, and I do not approve of it. In so far as it means anything, it seems to me to be objectionable; but really it does not mean anything at all in a great majority of cases. Therefore I do not feel that I can vote for the Bill and I do not feel that I can vote against the Bill, because I recognise that it contains a certain amount of good material.

353
Therefore, although one does not like to do it, on this occasion I must take the alternative of abstaining and then hoping that in the Committee stage I may be in the Lobby with the majority for an Amendment to leave out paragraph (e) altogether. I say that that is the proper Amendment to make, because we can easily drop paragraph (e) without doing any harm at all to the rest of the Bill. The provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are not correlated with that of paragraph (e) at all; they stand on their own feet. They can equally well be put in operation with the same result, whether paragraph (e) becomes law or not. The line which I would take would be to stand neutral on the rest of the Bill but to oppose paragraph (e) very strongly indeed. I oppose it because of its injustice.
It has been said—I think it was said by one noble Lord this afternoon—that most wives who are left in the lurch like this have themselves to blame to some extent. I do not believe that for a single moment. There are (I do not know how many) countless cases of men who are either infatuated or induced away by another woman when the wife is not in the least bit blameworthy; and if we could discriminate, if we could say: "Now the woman who has brought this on herself shall be treated in one way, but the woman who is completely blameless shall be treated in another way" then I should be prepared to consider something on the lines of paragraph (e). But the sponsors of the Bill have not attempted to do that, and I doubt whether it would be practicable to do it.
Therefore we have to consider the discarded wife who is completely blameless. It will not do to say that because a number, it may be even the majority, of wives are to some extent to blame, therefore the blameless ones must suffer. That is precisely the doctrine which I shall always fight to the full strength of my capacity. It simply will not do to say that you can do injustice to certain individuals because other people deserve it. That is what the promoters are saying in this case, and I hope that the House will not accept that strange argument. Does public policy really require that we shall make the deserted, discarded wife and her children suffer in order that we may
354
improve the lot of the man who has run away and of the woman who has chosen to set up an illicit establishment with him? Does public policy really require that? I am not going to argue that question; others can do that, and I am taking too long, anyway. But arguing against myself that public policy does require that, then surely we must ensure that the innocent, blameless wife who is discarded shall have a fair deal financially; and that the Bill admittedly fails to do.
Something was said about Australia, and I think something was also said about New Zealand. I am ignorant of the position in New Zealand, but I think I am right in saying (I speak purely from memory) that in Australia provision has been made so that discarded wives shall not suffer financially in this way. I am not sure about the details, but I think I am right in saying that in Australia this problem does not arise because of the way in which their legislation has been carried out; and I think the Government give some financial assistance in the matter. It may be that New Zealand gives that assistance, too.
The problem is this. It is perfectly true that the man of ample means has no problem because he has enough money to support two households. It is equally perfectly true that the ordinary wage earner has not. The question the House has to answer is: who has to suffer? Is it to be the first wife, the real wife with her family, or is it to be the second woman and her family? And when I say, "Who is to suffer?", I mean who is to go on public assistance. If we were able to do so, the just solution would be that the first wife and her family should have a first charge on the wages of the man. At present, the best she can hope to get is what is left over after the man and his second family have enough to live on. But if justice were to be done it would be the first wife and her family who would have the first charge, and the man and his second family would go on public assistance. But I suppose that is impracticable.
The other thing that would have to be done would be to request the employer to deduct from the man's wages the amount which the court had ordered should be paid to the discarded wife. If that were done—the man might occasionally go off to another employer—and if the Ministry

355
of Social Security were required, as they should be, to inform the discarded wife of the last known employer of the man, then we should catch up with him. I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that if he is considering legislation it ought to be made quite clear that where there is a magistrates' order the Ministry will inform the wife of the last employer known to them to be employing the man.
I should also greatly like to see in the new legislation provision requiring the employer to deduct from the wages at source the amount of any maintenance order. If we could do that it would have another quite beneficial effect. If the man knew that the first wife and his family were going to have the first charge on his income, fewer men would run away with another woman; and, over and above that, a good many women would not run away with a man if they knew they were going to be left in that position. Therefore, from the sociological point of view it would be highly desirable to bring in an Amendment on those lines. But I suppose it is too much to hope that our sociologically inclined friends would support that Amendment, although it would do a great deal of good. If it is not practicable—and I do not think it is practicable in present circumstances to go as far as I should like—then the answer is that we must not do injustice, and we must not put this into operation.
Let us see what the Bill says about it. The most reverend Primate has been—and I am not surprised—troubled about Clause 4. I think he has rather misapprehended the effect of Clause 4; and, as I say, I am not surprised, because it is by no means a creditable example of draftsmanship. It says two things. It says, first, that you must prove grave financial hardship. Apparently, mere financial hardship is regarded as no injustice at all; it must be "grave", although why it suddenly becomes an injustice when it is grave I have great difficulty in understanding.
But let that be. Suppose that you prove grave financial hardship?—and it is not going to be easy to prove it because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning knows well, when dealing
356
with grave financial hardship the court takes a quite narrow view of the question, and it is only in most extreme cases that the court will admit of grave financial hardship and I think that that will save but few cases. But that is not enough; even grave financial hardship is not enough to prevent a decree. The clause reads "and" not "or" that it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage. I suggest that one Amendment which should be made to this clause is to change the word "and" to "or". As the clause stands, in addition to proving grave financial hardship the respondent must prove that in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage. Well, if it is not wrong to cause grave financial hardship, I do not know where wrong begins. But apparently it begins somewhere beyond that, and then you have got to find some kind of wrong which is more wrong than inflicting grave financial hardship. I thought that the most reverend Primate was inclined to take some comfort out of this. I can assure him that he will get very little comfort out of it when it is put in practical operation. Clause 4 will be the nearest thing to a dead letter if it is put into operation in its present form—I have very little doubt about that.
Then reference was also made to Clause 6(2)(b). This really is astonishing. Clause 6(2)(b) says that the financial provision to be made is to be "reasonable and fair". That is all right, but it goes on:
"or the best that can be made in the circumstances."
So admittedly there will be many cases where the discarded innocent wife will not be given reasonable and fair provision. Again I am afraid that the most reverend Primate is extremely optimistic if he thinks that the expressions "reasonable and fair" or "the best that can be made in the circumstances" have any relation to each other. They are poles apart. "The best that can be made in the circumstance" comes into operation only—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for interrupting, my point was that they are poles apart, and it was the attempt to identify practically together those two things that I was objecting to.
LORD REID: I am afraid that I perhaps misheard the most reverend Primate. If that is so, then I am in complete agreement with him that they are poles apart, and it is rather disgraceful for the sponsors of the Bill to come along and say to Parliament, "Although, admittedly, we cannot do justice to the innocent woman, still we want our theories put into operation at her expense and she is only to get 'the best that can be made in the circumstances'", which in most circumstances will he nothing at all, or as good as nothing as not to matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? Surely the position is exactly the same now. We do not do justice to the discarded wife now. We are trying to improve the divorce laws; surely we can do that, even if we cannot do the other as much as we should like to.
LORD REID: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness should think that two blacks make a white, because they do not. I quite agree that at present the position of the discarded wife is most unsatisfactory, and I am glad to hear that something is going to he done about it, although I gravely fear that when we see this vaunted Government Bill it will not turn out to be anything like as effective as it ought to be. I have a grave fear to that effect. I hope I shall be shown to be wrong, but I do not expect it. I think that the Government will shy away because there are all sorts of interests that they have to pacify one way and another, and they will shy away from making a really just scheme. I hope I am wrong, and if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who I am sure would like to make a just scheme, can carry others with him, then nobody will rejoice more than I do.
We are left with this: here is a patently unjust scheme, admittedly unjust by the provision which I have just read out, and admittedly unjust for another reason. Much play was made in another place of the undertaking by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he would not bring this Bill into operation until a new and better Bill had been introduced for the protection of women who have been deserted. That was supposed to mollify the opposition, because it is said, "Of course, the Bill is unjust at present, but it will not
358
be so unjust when this new Bill comes into operation. You can trust the Government to see that injustice is reduced to a minimum." Well, I hope that is right; but why should we take it on trust? Surely the right thing to do is to postpone the operation of paragraph (e) until the new Bill has been passed. Parliament ought not to lose control. The proper course, I submit, is that Parliament should retain control and then, when the new Bill has been passed, we should have an Affirmative Resolution, if Parliament is so minded. I would certainly submit that an Amendment ought to be made altering the provision that the Lord Chancellor is to bring the Bill into operation to, so far as paragraph (e) is concerned: "It shall not come into operation without an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses after this remedial legislation has been passed." I hope that the House will throw out paragraph (e) altogether, but, failing that, it seems to be almost unanswerable that Parliament must retain control and we ought to substitute for the Lord Chancellor's order an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
5.26 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, this Bill has been presented to the House as a complete transformation of our law of divorce and, indeed, of marriage. There is, in future, to be a sole ground for divorce. Divorce is to be granted only where the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The matrimonial offence is no longer to be a ground for divorce. One might have expected, if that were so, that in these circumstances the matrimonial offence, with all its disagreeable associations, bitterness, distress and all the rest of it, would have disappeared altogether from our law of divorce. One might have expected that the promoters of this Bill would have taken the opportunity to get rid of it. That has not been done. In fact, the matrimonial offence must be proved in every case, although the judges' decision is not bound to follow it. Unless this view of Clause 1 of the Bill is accepted, what is claimed for the Bill is really an empty shell and without meaning.
It is a little difficult to see how the matrimonial offence is to be got rid of. The Archbishop's Group, who condemned the retention of the matrimonial

359
offence, recognise that the determination of certain questions, such as financial questions, must be left in the hands of some body, I suppose the court. My noble and learned friend Lord Reid analysed the whole of Clause 2 where are set out the matters which the court must take into account in the future.
He showed that in each of those cases the issue was simply a revival of a matrimonial offence. Indeed, when one looks at the Bill as a whole it is quite clear that there is no reality in this claim that any new ground upon which marriage can be dissolved will be established. There is in fact no substance in this view that there is to be a new principle, and that the divorce will depend solely upon whether or not the marriage has broken down.
I turn now to the other grounds for divorce which are contained in the Bill, and which are new to our law. Living apart is now made a ground for divorce. May I remind your Lordships of the two new principles which are contained in subsection (1) of Clause 2? My noble and learned friend Lord Reid has analysed both of these provisions very fully, and I do not propose to follow him in doing so. But I am going to make the forecast that women will be the most numerous respondents under these two principles. The provisions of subsection (1) of Clause 2 exactly suit the man who is growing tired of his wife and desires to abandon her. I had better not say anything about Casanova.
The wife is left in middle life, having spent the greater part of her time in bringing up her husband's children and looking after her husband's home, and then, later on, she is suddenly confronted with this proposal that she should be divorced. She herself has done nothing wrong and is a completely innocent party. In my judgment, it is gravely and grossly unjust that a man or woman should have a divorce forced upon them against their wish, when they themselves have been guilty of no misconduct or error of any kind. But that is what this Bill does and for that reason alone, if there is a Division to-night, I intend to vote against the Second Reading.
May I say a few words about the financial provisions of the Bill?—because
360
financial provisions are essential in judging the merits of the new proposals for divorce. I think the promoters of the Bill have done their best to ensure that such funds as are available for the support of the wife and of the husband and of the new family, if there is a new family, will be equally or fairly distributed between them. But they do not produce a result which is in any sense satisfactory. The real difficulty, in dealing with the financial situation of these broken marriages, is that very few men have the means of supporting two families. It is really the lack of means of support which, in the majority of cases, will produce the gravest financial hardship among women who are divorced under the provisions of the Bill.
What is there to be done about it? The income of the husband and, perhaps, such earnings as the former wife and the new wife are able to secure, will go towards the maintenance of both families. It will be supplemented by supplementary benefit as, almost certainly, the needs of the two households will fall within the ambit of supplementary benefit. But what is to happen then? Is the supplementary benefit to be paid to the wife or to the woman to whom the husband has gone? I include the woman to whom the husband has gone because although the husband is probably in full-time employment and will not be entitled to supplementary benefit, it may be paid to the woman with whom he is living. The problem of which of the two women should receive the benefit is one which arouses most bitter feelings among deserted women. They feel that they have the first claim on the husband's resources, and that they ought not to be required to accept supplementary benefit in place of the contribution to their upkeep which the husband ought to make.
May I say a word or two about this question of supplementary benefit? What usually happens, where a claim is made to deduct from a man's wages a sum of money in respect of the maintenance of his wife, is that he gives up his job and disappears. In our society to-day it is quite surprising how difficult it is to find a man who disappears, in spite of all our administrative resources. It is often impossible for months and years, sometimes for ever, to trace a husband who has abandoned his wife and who is being

361
chased for maintenance money, But, surely, one has to ensure, so far as one can, that the available funds are fairly distributed.
Clause 4 lays down that, in the case of grave financial hardship, a divorce decree may be withdrawn, but I doubt whether that clause will prove of much value. It will mean that a man who is otherwise entitled to a divorce will be refused one because he does not have the means to support his family. It may be right that this should be so, but it begins to look very much like one law for the rich and another law for the poor. I think it would be very strongly resented if any distinctions of that sort were made. Very much the same argument applies to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 6. There the provision for the wife has to be what is
"reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances."
But if the payment is not reasonable and not fair, it may still have to be presented to the wife, and it may well be that she will be supported in circumstances that are neither reasonable nor fair, but the best that can be made in the circumstances.
What is, "the best that can be made in the circumstances" to mean? That, of course, is what it will come down to. It is no good saying that the settlement should be reasonable and fair if in fact it comes down to what is reasonable in the circumstances. How are we going to get over this? It is quite obvious that no provision which can be put into this Bill will do more, in the case of the class of persons of whom I am speaking at the moment, than to divide between them a sum which is inadequate for the maintenance of both. My own view is that we ought to make it clear in the Bill that the interests of the first wife should be paramount to those of the husband and the second wife. Whether it will be possible to insert a term of that nature into the Bill in order to ensure that the wife gets the best share of what is available I should not like to say.
My Lords, it is the case, of course, that this Bill, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading to-night, can go to Committee and that some at least of the errors which I think this debate has disclosed can be made good. For myself,
362
I think it better that this Bill should be refused a Second Reading to-night.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive my intervening? I do so because he has such very great experience of these matters as a former Chairman of the National Assistance Board. Am I correct in understanding him to say that, in his experience, where there was a man who had a second family, the wife being a wife to whom he was not lawfully married, and children from that marriage, and where there was a former lawful wife from whom he had not been divorced, whether she had children or not, the factual situation in his experience was that the lawful wife received National Assistance and that it was impossible in practice to see that the wages of the man, if he were in work, were made available to the lawful wife? In other words, that it was the unlawful wife who was always kept by the man's wages and the lawful wife who was always kept by assistance from the National Assistance Board when the noble Lord presided over it? Am I right in thinking that that was the personal experience which the noble Lord had, about which he is telling the House.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, sometimes we paid it in one way and sometimes in another. It depended very largely on convenience. But the husband was usually working; and if he was working in full-time employment then, of course, he was not entitled to supplementary benefit. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, what I am wanting to know is this. When the noble Lord was Chairman of the National Assistance Board, who in fact supported the lawful family? Was it the National Assistance Board or the husband? Am I not right in thinking that the noble Lord was saying that in his experience it was generally the National Assistance Board?
LORD ILFORD: As I say, my Lords, sometimes it was done in one way and sometimes in another. Sometimes we paid the wife, sometimes we paid the other woman. It rather depended on circumstances. We sometimes had to pay the allowance to the—I will not say the second wife, but to the woman with whom he was living. We tried to pay the

363
allowance to her if we could. We could not pay it to the man. But it caused considerable resentment if payment was made to the other woman. The wife considered, and I think not unnaturally considered, that she, as his lawful wife, was entitled to the first choice.
5.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to try to bring the debate back from a discussion of the practices, interesting though they may be, of the National Assistance Board to the question that we have to decide at the end of the day. I do not want on this occasion to get engaged in a controversy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or with the Government; nor, indeed, with the most reverend Primate on anything he said; nor, indeed, with anyone else. But I differ in some respects from what the most reverend Primate has said, and in one respect in particular. I agree with him a very great deal, but I hope he will reconsider the conclusion which he reached. That conclusion was that he could not vote for this Bill. My Lords, we are not to-day having to decide whether this Bill becomes law. If that were the case, he and I might find ourselves in the same Lobby. What we have to do to-day is to consider whether or not this Bill should be given a Second Reading.
I say straight away that if there is a Division I shall vote for a Second Reading because I personally think that it certainly would be wrong for us to slam the door on divorce reform and look as if we were not going to make an attempt to get the law relating to divorce in a safe and proper form. The House has listened with the greatest interest to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. There are many things he said with which I agreed. He is not going to vote against the Bill: he is going to abstain. I suggest, with the greatest respect to him, that the majority of points that he raised, important points as they are, are really points to be dealt with, and which should be dealt with, in Committee, and are not grounds for not giving this Bill a Second Reading.
I suppose that one's approach to this Bill largely depends upon one's attitude with regard to the existing law. I cannot
364
claim to have had the experience of many in this House, and in particular of my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson, who I know takes a view different from that which I take and who was for many years a distinguished Judge in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I recollect having appeared before him and having argued cases before him in the years (which are now some time ago) when I was a member of the Bar. But it is not because of my experience before him that I venture to express the view which the most reverend Primate also expressed: that our present law on divorce is in a wholly unsatisfactory state. That is my reaction to it, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, whom I think I can without breach of tradition call from these Benches "my noble friend"—we have been friends for many years—put in the forefront of his case the existing state of our law. He talked about discretion; and there has been a great deal of talk to-day about injustice, and all that. It is the case now that a petitioner is seldom refused the exercise of discretion on the ground that he or she has committed adultery. That petitioner can still get a divorce on the ground of the other party's adultery. Can there be any real confidence that justice is done by condemning one adulterer at the instance of the other? I doubt it. But why is it that the courts now take that attitude in granting a divorce so freely where a complete discretion statement—and it must be complete—is filed? Surely it is this, my Lords: it is because the courts have been forced to the realisation that in those circumstances, where both parties are committing adultery, there really is a breakdown of the marriage and there is no point in treating that marriage as subsisting.
One of my main criticisms of the existing system—and I think the most reverend Primate touched on it—is that it seems to foster hostility between the spouses. I have seen cases—I have had experience of them—where the battle is fought between the spouses after the decree has been granted; and if there are any children (it does not matter so much if there are not) the sufferers in that battle are the children of the marriage. It is because of that that I have for long wondered whether one

365
could not get away from this trial of who was at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. All through this debate—as in the speech of my noble friend Lord Ilford—the question is asked: "Is it just?" or "Is it unjust?" Cannot we get away from that? I do not know whether the courts can ever satisfactorily determine which of the two spouses is really responsible for the breakdown; it may be "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other". Can we not go to the determination of the state of fact that the marriage has really come to an end?
I have held these views for some considerable time. It was because I held these views when I was Lord Chancellor that I asked the most reverend Primate to see me and to discuss the matter with me. We found—and I think he will not mind my saying so—that we were in substantial agreement. We both doubted very much whether a system based on breakdown would be workable. As we know, he appointed his Group which had not only some very distinguished Prelates on it but also my noble and learned friend Lord Devlin, Lord Colville of Culross and Mr. Justice Phillimore. I welcomed their Report. It is a radical approach; but I do not think it is any the worse for that. But it is very interesting to listen to the criticisms made of it because it seems to me that so much of that criticism is a sort of reversion to the test, "Who is the guilty party? Where does the justice lie? Who has done wrong?" It is a going back to the determination of which of the two was more to blame for the marriage ceasing. That is what I wanted to get away from. I wanted to go to the state of fact: could it be proved that the marriage had really come to an end?
That principle, if it can be called a principle, is enshrined in Clause 1 of the Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Reid has said, Clause 2 detracts from that principle. I know that Clause 2 is a compromise; but Clause 2 brings in—and I here agree with him—again the proof of misconduct under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) for the purpose of proving that a breakdown has in fact occurred. I am sorry about that. It disappoints me. But this is a branch of the law where I am inclined to think that possibly the balance lies in favour of reform rather than in no reform at all. I think we cannot have the last word
366
in this; but I should like to see this step forward made.
The two controversial provisions are in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 2(1): the two years' separation without objection and the five years' separation whether or not there is an objection. I certainly think that the wording of this clause, the whole of it, requires most careful attention in Committee. I am not at all happy about it. For instance, I do not see why in subsection (1)(b) there has to be what I might call cruelty "since the celebration of the marriage". Why the words "since the celebration of the marriage" are in, unless it is to signify that it must start immediately after the marriage, I do not know. But this was drafted by Parliamentary counsel and no doubt we shall have the opportunity of taking it up. When one comes to subsection (1)(d), I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, that it should not be "the respondent does not object". I would put the burden on the petitioner of proving that the respondent consented. You may say that divorce by consent is something that we should not look at, even after two years. But, in a sense, is not every undefended petition a divorce by consent, in the same sense as a divorce under Clause 2(1)(d) would be? I do not object to paragraph (d). With my noble and learned friend, I think that it brings more reality into the situation.
With regard to subsection (1)(e) which is the main controversial provision and which was attacked by the noble Baroness, may I say that I did not agree with her at all, as I think what I have said has made clear, in her statement that the main purpose of the Bill was to make marriages more easily dissolved. If I thought that, I would vote against the Bill on Second Reading without the slightest hesitation. But that is not its intention. Its intention is to try to make things better—better for the unfortunate people who get involved in these proceedings. With regard to subsection (1)(e), if one is looking at the facts and is not trying to determine who is responsible for the end of the marriage, one could say, as I read Clause 2 (which is the approach), that if the parties have really been apart for five years that is very strong evidence that the marriage has come to an end. But it is one thing to say that that should be very strong

367
evidence that the marriage has come to an end; it is another thing to say that the courts should grant a decree on that account. That is where I draw the distinction. I am not at the moment convinced that we ought to take paragraph (e) out of Clause 2(1); but I think that, again in subsection (3) of this clause, the onus is put the wrong way round. It says there,
"… then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably …"
I would rather put it, "If the court is satisfied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably" it shall grant a decree. I think that would fit in better with the reconciliation provisions.
I come back to my main point. If by virtue of Clause 2, subsection (1)(e) is to be proof (subject to other considerations) that the marriage has really broken down, I do not think it necessarily follows there that the decree should be granted. I join in the criticisms which have been made of what I regard as the extremely unsatisfactory provisions of Clause 4 and Clause 6. I would say that even where there has been a separation of five years (or it may be ten years or however long) if one party to the marriage objects to the decree, that decree should not be given against him or against her if it is going to lead to any financial detriment to him or her. My noble and learned friend Lord Reid said that the blameless ones would suffer. No one wants to see that happen. Surely it would not be going too far if we moved an Amendment, and had it carried, to ensure that such decrees based on evidence brought under paragraph (e) should not be granted if it would result, not in grave financial hardship or because of other circumstances, but in loss of income, means of support, to the person concerned. But views on that will no doubt differ.
Views on many parts of this Bill will be different, but the question to-night that each of us has to face is: How do I vote? I agree with a great many of the criticisms made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid. I agree in particular that we must have a provision in this Bill that it shall not come into force, if enacted, until it is approved by a Resolution of both Houses. With great respect to the
368
noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it is really not enough to say that it will not be brought into force until some other Bill has been introduced into Parliament. The introduction of a Bill, as we know from the history of this Bill, does not mean that it will get very far or proceed very quickly. We ought to retain control. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think, on reconsideration, that that clause should be amended by saying, as we so often have said, that the Act will be brought into force on approval of an Affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses.
There is much more that I should like to say but there are many people who wish to speak. I am not happy about a great many aspects of this Bill. We ought to have a very careful, very thorough and perhaps long (although I hope it would not be) Committee stage. I hope that we shall not be pressed to consider this as a matter of great urgency; to get it through before the end of this Session. What matters in a change of this importance—this is one of the biggest social questions that this House could tackle—is to get it as right as we can. Speaking for myself—I am not one of the promoters of the Bill—I would rather see us take time in trying to get it right, even if it meant that the Bill was lost in this Session. It could be reintroduced again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and passed through this House, or the work completed on it, in the next Session; and it could then go back to the other House. But what would be a mistake—and we are getting on in point of time—would be to try to rush it. There is a great deal of work still to be done on this Bill. Those of us who would like to see the law on divorce reformed would, I know, welcome the opportunity to bring some of cur ideas forward for public consideration.
It is, perhaps, an unusual role for me to speak in support of a Private Member's Bill—I usually oppose them, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will know. I hope that will comfort the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. But I would say to him, in conclusion, that whatever line I have taken on Private Members' Bills has been, so far, extremely unsuccessful. I hope that it will not be to-night.
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I do so on this occasion with even more diffidence than usual in view of his new and so richly earned eminence, on which I congratulate him (as I know everyone here will) most heartily. The noble and learned Viscount had many criticisms to make of the Bill but he convinced himself, for reasons which he explained, or indicated roughly, and said that he proposes to support the Bill. I am not going to argue with him about tactics: I think that he is a better judge of moral values than tactical values. I cannot remember his ever succeeding particularly on the tactical front in this House, although I think that his morals have always been beyond criticism. I would therefore venture to suggest that those who will be most delighted with the line he is proposing to take in the Division are the promoters of the Bill who, I think, have very little intention of making any amendments, and will be hoping that there will not be much of a vote against the Bill. But, my Lords, I am not concerned primarily with tactics now.
So far as I can judge, I am the first Roman Catholic speaker in this debate, and I realise that a Roman Catholic speaker in a debate on divorce is always slightly suspect. He is rather like a pacifist in a debate on defence: people wonder whether he is quite genuine in trying to make a success of the plans under discussion. I am not really a bad-tempered man—or at any rate I like to think so—but I became very irritated to-day when a great friend of mine greeted me in the House with the words, "Oh well, of course you are going to vote against the Bill on religious grounds."—in other words, I had had some instruction from somewhere to vote against it. I would say to any noble Lord that I challenge anybody when it comes to promoting a large number of divorces. I was the election agent of Mr. A. P. Herbert in 1935, and he has explained in his book my share in certain events that followed and my reasons were suspect at the time, but I need not go into that now; it was the last independent thing I did before becoming a Socialist and a Catholic. But that is all years ago. At any rate,
370
I did persuade Mr. Herbert to stand for Parliament, and he won; and, of course, many thousands of divorces have resulted. When I think of all the years in purgatory that await me I am full of disquiet. Therefore, I am ready to challenge anybody who says he has done something for the cause of divorce law reform.
My Lords, like everyone else here, I look upon this matter as one who is interested in social questions. Before coming on to a very brief statement of the Catholic point of view, I must say that from any point of view you like, whether it is the religious point of view or the social point of view, or whatever you like to call it, I regard certain provisions in this Bill, certain essential features, as utterly evil. I hope that people will realise that I mean that. People are almost too indulgent towards a Catholic in matters of this kind. They think that one is a good fellow but not to be taken very seriously. So let me repeat that I regard these provisions as utterly evil, and I hope that that will be fully understood by those who support the Bill. I do not mean that individuals are utterly evil—not at all: they are just deluded. But these proposals are evil.
Let me say a few words, briefly, about the Catholic point of view. Though I call it "the Catholic point of view" I realise of course that it is a view which is widely held by many millions of Christians of all denominations. We look upon marriage (and when I say "we" I do not mean only Catholic Christians, but also many people who would hesitate to ascribe a denomination for themselves, but who would say the same) as a Divine institution. It was instituted by God as a permanent union between one man and one woman. A marriage contract is not a purely secular contract; it is one that is inherently sacred: it is governed by the laws of God which no civil law can change. These laws may be stated very elaborately, or they may be stated very simply. Putting them in simple form, I would only repeat what has been said so often, but in my view cannot be said too often:
"Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder."
If anyone wishes to know what is the Roman Catholic point of view, and a view

371
which is shared by so many other millions of Christians, that is the heart of it.
It follows that true marriage involves an irrevocable personal consent. The one thing that makes marriage different from any other sexual union is the irrevocable will of one man and one woman to make a community of destiny and love. This soands—it is meant to sound—solemn and abstract; but no one, surely, can describe it as an impossible ideal. Whether you phase it grandiloquently, or whatever words you like to use, this is the ideal which is lived up to by the vast majority of people in this country to-day, in spite of the advance of divorce and the number of broken homes. Therefore I cannot have this set aside as something which is quite irrelevant to 1969.
If I am asked why I am so sure that what I call the Catholic ideal, or what your Lordships might like to call the traditional Christian ideal, is right, I certainly, in the few moments that I shall speak, cannot seek to convince somebody of a proposition which he had not previously studied. I would only report that in my view the arguments are overwhelming from revelation—that is, the teaching of Christ interpreted by the Church—but also from reason, and by that I mean the human mind working over the experience of the ages. As regards revelation, one cannot, of course, expect everybody to accept what one describes as a revelation available to oneself, and I am indicating only the Catholic point of view; I am not asking anyone to come over to that in a flash. But I would say that from the point of view of reason, of ordinary human sociological study, the very possibility of divorce impairs the whole conception of the indissoluble union and the total commitment.
I cannot say that it destroys the conditions for a happy marriage: I know of too many happy marriages among my friends who have been divorced and have remarried. That is part of one's life experience. But I would say that the possibility of divorce diminishes very much the prospect of the fullest life, and of fidelity. We who take this view would therefore expect the coming of divorce to weaken family life; and to weaken it the more the easier divorce becomes. We would expect this to be so in the case
372
of what I have called true marriage, and we would expect it to be so in the case of all marriages since we of course, like everybody else in this House, I presume, are concerned not just with the welfare or the family life of our community but with the welfare of all our people, all within the community. We would expect this result from our reasoning, an a priori reasoning, and from the lessons of history. We would expect this result, this damage to family life, to follow, and in our own reading of events we are convinced that it has indeed come about. Therefore, the House will have gathered that we are vehemently against divorce.
What, then, should we say or do? I am speaking for the Catholic minority, whether in this House or elsewhere, though no one has deputed me: I am not speaking on instructions, but I am the first Roman Catholic speaker in this debate. What then should we seek to do when proposals are introduced to reform the divorce law of the country, bearing in mind that we are not more than 10 per cent. of the whole country? On this point the Roman Catholic must not expect direct guidance. I do not think that it is any good for him to go to church and ask what he is to do about this particular law. He is a citizen and has to make up his mind like others in public life. Speaking entirely for myself. I cannot become very enthusiastic about one principle of divorce more than about another, whether it is the principle of the matrimonial offence or the principle of the breakdown of marriage—or about what seems to me to be, as in this Bill, a very uneasy amalgamation of the two.
I would just say this. If leaders of the Church of England, with all their tremendous sense of tradition of inherited Christianity, came to us to-day and told us that in all the circumstances this Bill was the best that could be produced; if they told us that this was the united proposal of the Church of England, and if, so far as I could see, it did not offend against natural justice and profession, I could not see myself voting against it. But, of course, that is not the position to-day. We have not yet heard how many leaders of the Church of England support the Bill, but I gather that they are not agreed on this matter. Certainly one could not say that this measure has the Church of England behind it. I gather

373
from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that he will not be able to support it. Therefore, I certainly do not feel that we are in the position of having to pay very great attention to what might be called an agreed Church of England view.
Left to myself and leaving out my general antipathy to divorce, I have to make up my own mind about the Bill in front of us. I will mention only one provision, which is the most horrible provision that has come forward in any measure brought before Parliament since the War that has had any chance of success. I need hardly say that I am referring to the permission that will be given to the man who has left his wife to kick her out after five years. I regard that with total disgust. Much has been rightly said about the iniquity of this clause and I will not try to improve on the words used. About six years ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, for whom my admiration is unbounded, as he knows, and who I think may be following me, spoke sharply against this. I do not know what he is going to say this afternoon, but I have an uneasy suspicion that he has "ratted" on his first magnificent view, expressed about six years ago. In those days, he said:
"We believe that once it is established by law that marriage can be brought to an end either by the mutual consent of both parties or even by a single unilateral act of will of one, you strike a grave blow at the stability of marriage and thereby run the risk of creating far more unhappiness than this clause would cure".
He went on to speak about women ageing more rapidly than men, and at that point he came into conflict with the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. But that, of course, was a sort of side issue in the course of the debate. At any rate, those were the views then expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I hope that he will return to that earlier wisdom when he follows me in a few moments from now.
Among all the words that have been used to denounce this clause, I do not think anything has been said better than what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, at an earlier point in the Bill, when she said: "The Bill violates the well-established principle that a man should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong-doing."
374
That puts it about as succinctly as it can be put and nothing can be plainer or truer than that. May I repeat with emphasis the word "wrong-doing". I realise that the promoters of the Bill and even the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and others, are anxious to dispose of the idea that any wrong has occurred when a man leaves his woman and sets up house with somebody else or maybe with a whole succession of other women. I am glad that the noble Baroness refuses to let them get away with that. I do not think they can get away with it. Anybody who has studied, or even dabbled in, modern psychology or criminology is well aware of the difficulties of assessing guilt or innocence, or of judging as God would judge. It is clearly a blasphemy when we say that somebody is guilty and God is writing the same verdict in Heaven.
I submit strongly to the noble Lord. Lord Stow Hill, and others, who are so anxious to dispose of this idea that any wrong could ever be done by anybody in the course of the break-up of a marriage, that if we are really going to exclude altogether this idea of blaming no one or praising no one, we should undermine the whole influence of the moral factor affecting the conduct of the people of this country. I think it was the most reverend Primate who dwelt on what I would call the dynamic features of the situation. It is not just a question of trying to do the right thing (though that is difficult enough at the moment), but of looking to the future and to the effect on conduct of these measures. If we are going to exclude the idea of rightness and wrongness in the behaviour between husbands and wives, it means good-bye to any hope of moral conduct in married life in this country.
We read a good deal about the permissive society. In some ways I favour that and in some ways I do not. Personally, I feel that all that is most valuable in that idea is contained under another heading—that of the compassionate society. Taking the test of compassion, which of course is not the only test because there is also justice, I acknowledge that in a few cases—I do not want to seem so fanatical that I do not recognise that there are a few cases; I concede this to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—these provisions for getting

375
rid of an unwanted wife after a few years may on balance increase rather than diminish the total happiness. But I would say with absolute conviction that in the vast majority of cases these provisions will have a very cruel impact, and for that reason I am totally against this Bill and I hope to Heaven that it will be defeated.
6.19 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford seems a little surprised or puzzled at what he suspects to be the line I am about to take. I confess that I am a little surprised and puzzled myself. He has just reminded me of something I said on a former occasion. But I would point out to him that the former occasion was the former occasion, and not this occasion, and that the occasions are quite different. When I was speaking last time, the words which the noble Earl quoted referred to a Bill which, in my judgment, included a proposal for divorce by consent. This Bill does not include a proposal for divorce by consent. There is a proposal for divorce with consent upon which a judgment has to follow. It is not a divorce qua consent, as there is under the present law, where if one party commits adultery the other party brings an action, proves the adultery, and the adulterer does not bother to defend but consents to letting it go through and the judge has to issue a decree.
But I share the noble Earl's puzzlement and surprise that a person like myself, who some twenty or thirty years ago spent so much time in writing and speaking in defence of the principle of the indissolubility of marriage, in favour of the proposition that strict monogamy is a precept of the natural law, should now support this or indeed any other divorce reform Bill. I still believe, however, that the best ordered society is that one of which all the members observe a strict rule of monogamy; and I still believe, if not in the metaphysical doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage, at least that the obligations of a marriage, duly contracted, are lifelong, and that it is wrong and cynical for either party to ignore or evade them or seek by means of a civil divorce to be totally rid of them.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I are practically in identical agree-
376
ment so far. And, indeed, I can scarcely take any other view when I consider the plain, direct teaching which is contained in the Scripture:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her."
In that case, it may be said, would it not be more logical for me to join my many Roman Catholic friends and oppose any and every divorce Bill, urge the State to repeal the present divorce laws and make no provision at all for the civil dissolution of marriage? Then I reflect that the law by itself cannot ensure strict monogamy in society. In countries where, because of the strong influence of the Roman Catholic Church, there is no provision for divorce—countries such as Eire, Spain or Italy—marriages still break down, husbands and wives are deserted and irregular second unions are formed. For members of a society universally to obey the strict rule of monogamy when things go badly wrong in a marriage, or begin to go badly wrong, requires the outside buttress and support of a really powerful public opinion. That we have not got. Apart from that, it demands also a degree of loyalty, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, tolerance and forgivingness which does not come easily to man and which needs the inspiration and strength of deeply held conviction.
I remember, also, that when the Jews objected to our Lord's teaching:
"Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?"
our Lord replied:
"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives."
It seems to me that the modern pluralist State must, like Moses, also make some provision for the hardness of men's hearts. But it is important that the provision which it chooses to make should be the least damaging to the fabric of society. This, I think, was the opinion of the reformers in 1857 when divorce, or the right to re-marry, was first written in to the Statute Law of England. Provision, it was felt, must be made for the relief of a deeply wronged partner to a marriage; and the wrong which they considered demanded this relief was adultery on the part of the wife, and adultery, plus cruelty, on the part of the husband. At that time, the principle of the martrimonial offence as a ground for divorce

377
was undoubtedly right, against the background of a strong public opinion in favour of strict monogamy. No one had recourse to the Divorce Court except with a great deal of reluctance and a deep and justified sense of injury; and to the respondent there attached a grave social stigma.
But that is not the state of affairs now. With the additional grounds of divorce since 1937, one of which, at least—. insanity—is not an offence at all, in nine cases out of ten there is little sense of personal injury, little desire to put the whole of the blame on the other party; rather, it is the recognition by one of the parties, or very often by both, that their marriage relationship has reached an impossible and intolerable position and that it must be, and should be, ended. But because the only legal ground for divorce is the matrimonial offence, one of the parties must appear to be the offender and the sole cause of the default. Hence all the hypocrisy, the pretence, the unnecessary bitterness and the shame which are so unpleasant and discreditable a feature of our present divorce system. In other words, in nine cases out of ten the matrimonial offence is no longer the appropriate basis for divorce. The true ground for divorce is the breakdown of the marriage, and the great merit of this Bill lies in its first clause, which clearly establishes this principle.
But there is, of course, always a test case, where there is a genuine and justified sense of injury. The marriage has broken down all right, but the cause is clear enough and lies in the behaviour of one of the parties. What should be done in this test case? Clause 2(1), paragraphs (a) to (c) enable the aggrieved partner to prove the breakdown of the marriage primarily on the ground of the matrimonial offence. So that seems to be all right.
Controversy arises, and understandably enough, on paragraph (e). Where the parties have lived apart for five years or more it is reasonably certain that the marriage has broken down. But where the cause of the breakdown is manifestly the behaviour of one of the partners, should that partner be allowed to take advantage of his or her own behaviour, plead the breakdown and rid himself or herself of the last shreds of legal obligation which attach to his or her marriage?
378
It is a difficult question. Logic demands the answer "Yes", for the marriage has indubitably broken down. Justice, and even a sense of decency, would seem to demand the answer "No".
Much, I think, must depend on the financial safeguards provided for the injured partner. The Bill goes some way to meet this where there is sufficient capital or income to provide for two or more establishments. But where there is no such capital or income, the issue is much more difficult. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier to-day explained, with great lucidity, some of the difficulties and some of the proposals which the Royal Commission next month are to bring forward, and I look forward with interest to reading the Paper which was mooted earlier.
A great deal has been said this afternoon about the hardship suffered by the deserted and innocent wife. I find it is always difficult, when talking about this subject, to separate clearly in one's mind the hardship which the deserted wife has indeed suffered, and which has been a serious hardship, because of the desertion, and the hardship which is caused to the wife because the desertion is followed by an unwanted divorce. So far as I can see, the actual financial hardship which the divorce, as opposed to the desertion, actually causes the wife is almost minimal. I think it concerns these things: equitable division of the family chattels; the protection of any possible widow's pension rights; and, above all, the enforcement of maintenance orders. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, has been explaining to us how immensely difficult it is to ensure the enforcement of these orders. Every deserted wife is at the mercy of her husband who, tired of having so much taken out of his weekly wages, leaves the country and becomes out of the wife's reach. These are very difficult problems; their solution is remote. The actual degree of hardship caused by the divorce, not by desertion, is not so great as is sometimes thought.
Also in connection with this paragraph we need to know what is meant by the phrase:
"it would be wrong in all the circumstances to dissolve the marriage".
The corresponding phrase in the Australian and New Zealand legislation is, I think, "contrary to the public interest",

379
and in those legislations by that phrase I understand it to be meant a case of exceptionally grave public scandal, likely to do grave danger to the popular estimation of marriage. I do not know whether that is intended to be the meaning of the phrase "wrong in all the circumstances" here or not. It may be argued—and has been argued here in this House to-day—that if the matrimonial offence is firmly shown the door in Clause 1, it comes back through the window of Clause 2. If that is not indeed to be the case, the courts must take seriously their duty to inquire into all the facts alleged and to be quite sure that they are satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In other words, the evidence of the matrimonial offence as proof of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage must be treated as rebuttable, and not as conclusive, evidence.
I personally deeply regret that the Bill includes Clause 2(1)(a) which specifies adultery. That is the most dangerous way of bringing back the matrimonial offence, and I wish that it could be excluded. I have not read the report which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor read to us earlier, of the Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. If I understood him correctly, that document specified the breakdown of marriage as the sole ground of divorce, and the evidence for the breakdown of the marriage was two years' continuous separation. There was no mention of any offence at all as supporting evidence. I should have thought that that would be a much more satisfactory form for our English law to take.
When all is said and done, the great question is this: will this Bill weaken the institution of marriage and thereby damage society? I do not think it will. With or without the Bill, there will be desertions and irregular unions. With or without the Bill there will be arranged divorces, by or with the consent of both parties. With this Bill there will be, first, a greater emphasis on the duty of both parties to seek outside help for the purpose of reconciliation before they admit defeat. Secondly, there will be a strengthened power of the court to protect the interests of children and wives. Thirdly, there will be a greater freedom for the
380
parties to agree between themselves on an equitable sharing of the family assets. Fourthly, and most important of all, there will be a greater possibility of signalling the end of a marriage, if that is what it has to come to, with dignity, mutual respect and honesty. For these reasons I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
6.35 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I find myself very much in the same state of mind as my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. I have asked myself the questions which the right reverend Prelate has put to himself, and to which he has found satisfactory answers, but I am afraid that I have not found the answers quite so satisfactory.
In the old tribal days when a person offended against the custom or law of his time, or her time, he or she paid the personal penalty and that seemed quite satisfactory all round. In the case of matrimonial offences, if you cannot afford to pay the penalty it is paid for you by your neighbour. I say "by your neighbour" and not the State, because people always think that the State has inexhaustible resources, whereas it is really your neighbour who is paying for what you cannot afford to pay for yourself. I do not say this to imply that there is anything wrong with legal aid—indeed, we cannot do as much as we should like. I think we ought to bear in mind the cost of all these things. This year the cost of legal aid was £6,850,852, over £6¾ million, of which 83 per cent. was spent on matrimonial cases, which, out of the money that is allotted to us, left us very little for other matters that are just as urgent. We are hoping that when the county courts take undefended cases we shall be able to save a portion of this amount. We have to expect that if this Bill goes through there will be another great increase in matrimonial cases, which at the present moment is roughly, against that, £400,000—almost half a million pounds more.
If I could be certain that this Bill was going to strengthen the attitude towards matrimony among the young I should vote for it, because obviously the present divorce laws do need revision. But I cannot as yet persuade myself—and I have listened to most of the speeches this afternoon—that these new proposals

381
will give the young who enter matrimony an increased respect and solidity in their decisions at that time. If we look around at the cost of matrimonial offences, we see that the bill is really very formidable; and it is a bill that has two sides to it. One is the financial side—I have already mentioned what matrimonial cases cost us. Then there are the new abortion laws; undoubtedly we must foresee that we shall have to support most of the deserted wives in a certain income group. Probably we shall have to recover children who lose their homes; we shall have to look forward to looking after them when they become delinquent.
The total bill of matrimonial offences is thus a very much larger one than one normally envisages. Heavy as it is, however, that is not, to me, the most important bill which we may have to pay. I am going to speak for only a very few minutes, because these are the only two points I want to make. One, the heavy cost of matrimonial offences; and the other, in our permissive society, the bill we may have to pay in the effect that it will have ultimately on the character of our British people.
I was talking to a Communist delegate only last week, who told me that they had had to revise entirely their abortion law, which was very free and easy, because it was having such a deleterious effect among their young. I heard from another Communist country that they had to revise their divorce laws. I was told (I am not sure how accurate this is) that one of the ways in which they have done it is by making the first divorce relatively easy and cheap, the second divorce very much more expensive, and the third prohibitive. I do not know whether that is a good system to work on. But it shows that in both these countries, where they have had very full permissive rules in all these matters, they have had to go back because the freedom was having such a deleterious effect on the character of their people. This is what I fear about our present situation and the way we are going. If our British character is allowed to break down and slip away, then our own place in the world will go also.
6.41 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill which was so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord
382
Stow Hill. What I think it does is to provide a real reform, perhaps not going as far as some of us would like it to go, but treating adults as adults—which is expressed in Clause 2(1)(d)—and recognising that people should not be trapped for life in a marriage that is dead, even if one party to that marriage, for any reason, either refuses to or cannot believe that this is so. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said about the irretrievable breakdown of marriage; that Clause 1 was contradicted by Clause 2. I think we are all aware that a certain amount of compromise had to be reached in order to get this measure through at all, and I think we have to be politically realistic about this. But I do not see the contradiction in the way the noble and learned Lord does, because I think Clause 2(1)(d)—if the parties "have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years"—indicates on that ground a breakdown in the marriage. I would hope, and I think we can foresee, that in the future the majority of divorces will in fact: be or. this particular ground.
If I may take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, when she said, "Bear the costs in mind", I think first of all that if we are discussing an area, which we are, which creates such a tremendous amount of human misery, this is an area where we should decide that we can bear the cost and the cost should be found. But, secondly, it is very likely that in many cases the cost will be very much less than in the very hard fought out divorce cases that take place to-day. So I do not think that that argument is very viable.
I think that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Reid, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Longford, who were very much against Clause 2(1)(e) should consider the position if this provision were dropped. My noble friend Lord Longford actually said, "To kick her out after five years". That is not what the clause says. The parties have to be separated for five years before one party can even apply for a divorce. If this provision were taken from the Bill it seems to me that one of the most important clauses of the Bill would disappear.
Our society is monogamous, but it is hypocritical to pretend that behaviour

383
is always monogamous. In fact, in many cases it is even seriomonogamous. if we really take to its end product the point about widows' pensions made by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, it is quite impossible for one man to have two widows unless we move from monogamy to polygamy; and I do not think the opponents of the Bill have so far suggested this. It is perfectly true that certain hardships must arise. Hardships arise from any reform we make; it throws up the need for more. There is inequality in forms of justice, in health, in every way. Is it fair that some people should be widowed before others? Is it fair that some people should lose their children while others do not? Is it fair that some people should be disabled? This is all part of our existence and part of our lives, and it does not seem to me to be an argument on which to turn down a reform which is going to relieve the misery of a far greater number of people that unfortunately there will be a small number of people who, whatever one does to help, even in the material sense (and I will come to that point in a moment), will still feel that they have been badly treated.
So far as the matrimonial property legislation is concerned—I think we were all very pleased to hear the statement from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—there is one point I would make. That is that I think it is doubtful whether this would have been expedited in the foreseeable future without this Bill's making its progress through the Houses of Parliament as it is at the present time. Turning it down on this basis, because, as some noble Lords feel—and they perhaps have reason to feel this way—this is rather putting the cart before the horse, will in my opinion only delay the things we want. We had a rather similar analogy last week when several of us here spoke on the Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons Bill. Many of us felt that we would rather have had the Seebohm Committee recommendations implemented first, but not one of us thought it a good reason to turn down one reform because we could not get another reform placed in front of it. I think that this is the way we ought to approach divorce law reform.
384
But beneath a great many of these rationalisations, both on behaviour and on finance, I think there lies something which is very much uglier and which has not been mentioned so far, and this is the incidence of revenge and ill-feeling. "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"; but for this mantle to be assumed by those deserted by their spouses is not only unethical and un-Christian, but self-destructive. I feel that, even with the best will in the world, those opponents of the Bill who are encouraging women to oppose it are really seducing them into a dedication of their lives to grievance, to thrive on bitterness, and actually preventing them from the opportunity of perhaps taking up a new life and the chance of remarriage. We have heard figures from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, so I will not repeat those.
The plight of the deserted wife can be a very grave one. No one is trying to minimise this. But it is not at the point of divorce that it is so bad; it is, as other noble Lords have said, at the point of desertion and separation. It is also wrong to pretend, even with the improvement in conditions, the greater extent of equality in our society, that many women are not in a far more fragile position, both biologically and economically, than men. But, at the same time, as we have also heard from the figures, it is not just the "little woman" who is always left at home with the children; there are almost an equal number of women, as again I know from what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack cited, who commit adultery, leave their husbands, and very often leave their children as well.
However, this question of finance for the deserted wife is something which cannot really be solved by any kind of divorce law we have. In the matrimonial court where I sit about 80 per cent. of the men against whom maintenance orders are made default. What can we do? We give them suspended sentences. Some of them go to prison. We have them in front of us, and a man will say he is earning so much, he is doing this or that job, and his wife will say he can earn more; he can do a different sort of job. We have far less power to find out what a man really can do. We cannot force him to take up a better-paid job. But

385
under Clause 4 or Clause 6 in this Bill, if the wife is able to divorce a man and he is capable of earning more, then the chances are that that wife will get more. In any case, if I may repeat one figure given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, receiving supplementary benefit last year were 114,000 separated women compared with 36,000 divorced women.
So whatever is done cannot be done through any form of Divorce Bill. It means looking at the whole situation in a quite different way, and it is for that reason that I am not so sure, as some noble Lords appear to be, that it is such a bad phrase to have at the end of Clause 6(2)(b)—"or the best that can be made in the circumstances". It may not be fair, it may not be reasonable, but if the money is not there you have to do the best that can be done in the circumstances. What one really needs—and this has nothing at all to do with the Divorce Bill, and I know that my noble friend Lady Summerskill will be with me—is to see the principle of equal pay implemented, because to-day more and more women are working and the pattern of women's lives (and this to some extent affects the Divorce Bill) is changing. The working lives of women are divided into two parts: before they have children and after. This does not apply only to young women—there are middle-aged women who are doing training and re-training courses and going out to work as their children grow up. Women should not feel—and the younger ones do not—that marriage means a meal ticket for life; they do not want to be an appendage of a man. There must be a far greater and broader basis for the continuation of the marriage and the security of the family.
I should certainly like to see, as set out in the White Paper on National Insurance, that a wife who is working will be in a better position than she is to-day. I should also like to see housewives in the insurance scheme because of the work they do in their homes, which should be counted as work and not as doing nothing. In that way we should get away from this dependence on the man's pension, and the wife would have a pension in her own right. This would alter the whole climate of this particular problem. It would mean separate legislation and different thinking, but I still
386
stress that it has nothing to do with turning down a Divorce Bill which will help so many people.
Then there is the idea which has also somehow got around that thousands of men are only waiting for the Bill to be passed in order to leave their wives. This is, as we know, absolute nonsense. So far as I have been able to gather from my researches, most men are absolutely terrified that their wives will find out, even if they are having the mildest flirtation. They go to great lengths in order to keep their wives and families secure, even while they indulge in a little extra-marital activity. In fact, the passing of this Bill will make it more difficult for the man who plays around, because whereas now he can say to the girl friend, "Darling, of course I would marry you if only my wife would divorce me", in future he will be stuck with it and he will have to be a great deal more careful about the promises he makes.
I think we should be much more frank and perhaps less romantic about marriage. Possibly it would help young people as well if we were more frank about it. Marriage may be made in Heaven but it requires very hard work to make it survive on earth. It is really amazing—and it is something to which I think we should pay some credit—that the majority of marriages in fact do survive, and survive reasonably well. The majority are reasonably happy, or reasonably unhappy, according to whether you think your cup is half filled or half empty. Thousands survive what we now know as a "matrimonial offence" and will continue to do so, but when it comes to the end of the line then it is both inhuman and immoral to keep two people tied together. One can have all the compassion in the world for a person, but one must remember the other partner as well, even if the first one wants to hang on.
Here I would reiterate what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, that there are thousands of women who are also anxious to be divorced, who are involved in a second family and with a second group of children, It is not only the other way round. I think we should look at the example of New Zealand, where since 1965 they have been operating a law similar to this, and where

387
the divorce rate has risen something like 10 per cent., which I understand is the figure estimated by the Law Commission that will obtain in this country if this Bill is passed.
This Bill will be setting the pattern for marriage and divorce in this country for years ahead, and in this context we should consider the attitude of young people, to whom reference has been made by the most reverend Primate and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley. When she said that the reason she was concerned was because she did not think this Bill would strengthen the attitude of the young to marriage, I would point out that Divorce Bills are not meant to strengthen the attitude towards marriage. By the time you get to divorce you are shutting the stable door by withholding a divorce, but you will not prevent the marital horse from bolting. What we need to do is to start much further back (which we have not done) and one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission—and on behalf of the Fabian Society I gave evidence to that Commission—was that there should be far more and far better systems of education for marriage. I do not think we have yet gone very far along that road.
I do not believe that young people enter marriage with the cynical view that has been suggested, or that if this Bill becomes law they will say, "Oh well, in two years' time we can get a divorce". Incidentally, it is not in two years: it is two years' separation but people will have to be married for three years, except in extraordinary circumstances, before they can get a divorce. I do not think one can have it both ways. People talk about a permissive society and the behaviour of the young, but if you accept that the social mores have altered then there is less need for young people who want a temporary or just a sexual relationship to marry at all. In fact, on the whole I believe that those who marry do so with the intention that it shall last. As many people are marrying younger than ever before, since we have brought down the age of majority, it stands to mathematical reason that there will be some who will certainly make an error of judgment. It is really only a part of humanity, of being alive, to make mistakes. Is it not better that those who do make mis-
388
takes should have the opportunity to start again, to marry again and to make a new life? To create a family and to be able to settle down in society as a married couple without having to spend their lives in misery, as we have heard from the very sad letters quoted by noble Lords?
This is a moderate Bill. It is not something which is so way out that it could not possibly be accepted by this House, which, after all, has a reputation for putting through contemporary social reform. It makes a real attempt to accept that marriage must be a living relationship if it has any claim to viability, and in passing it I believe that we shall be adopting a more civilised and less hypocritical attitude to both marriage and divorce which will be far more in keeping with contemporary society.
7.0 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I have pleasure in supporting this Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will feel able to give it a Second Reading. In my view there are two aspects of marriage. The first is the religious aspect, which is the dominant one, and in a perfect world should be the only one. However, we live in an imperfect world and there is another aspect of marriage; namely, the factual aspect. By this I mean that if two parties have gone through a religious ceremony and later part, and in fact remain apart and have no intention of ever coming together again, how can one possibly say that a marriage exists between the parties?
Let us look at this from the practical point of view. It sometimes happens—indeed, it often happens—that where a husband and wife part, and live apart, the husband lives with another women by whom he has illegitimate children and the wife, for her part, lives with another man by whom she has illegitimate children. That is, to me, a deplorable state of affairs, and perfectly dreadful for the children concerned. In my view, illegitimacy is one of the most distressing things in the whole world. This Bill will not cure illegitimacy, but if it goes some way in that direction it deserves support from all sides.
As for Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, they are the basis of the new approach to the problem and, in my view, deserve

389
support. Clause 2(1)(b) makes me think rather seriously. The judges will require to be armed with the wisdom of Solomon to decide what is behaving in such a way that the petitioner should not be expected to live with the other party. However, as the learned judges already possess that wisdom no difficulty is likely to happen in the future. As for Clause 2(1)(d), it appears to me that if people have lived apart for two years they should be able to decide, if they so wish, that a mistake has been made and that the sooner it is rectified the better. As for Clause 2(1)(e)—the provision which enables one of the parties to obtain dissolution of the marriage without the consent of the other—everyone must have to think hard whether this is desirable. However, the passage of that paragraph may have the paramount effect of reducing illegitimacy, and on that ground alone it deserves a measure of support.
Clause 3, which deals with reconciliation, is highly to be commended. It seems to me an excellent idea that the petitioner for the divorce should certify that he has discussed with the respondent the possibility of reconciliation and has taken such steps as he can in the matter. I do not wish to be a pessimist—pessimists never get anywhere; but allow me to tell your Lordships that reconciliation, although it can save some marriages will save only a very few. I am sorry to make that statement, but I cannot help it: I am dealing with the factual aspect and not the theoretical aspect of the matter.
Then we come to Clause 4, which deals with financial matters. I myself think—in fact we all think—that the wife and children should always be financially considered and if possible supported. At the same time, I regret that this question of finance should come into the question of whether or not there should be divorce on other grounds. Because if it does, we get the absolutely ridiculous situation that a wealthy man will be able to get a divorce in exactly the same circumstances as those in which a man in poor circumstances will be unable to obtain a decree. I think that this matter should be reconsidered—indeed, there are many other matters one can talk about. But as there are many of your Lordships desirous of speaking, I will only say, in con-
390
clusion, let us support the Bill and give it a Second Reading.
7.4 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, I oppose this Bill to-day, as I have in the past when the idea of compulsory divorce has been raised, on the ground that it is an injustice to women, and I do not think that can be controverted. It is, as my noble and learned friend Lord Reid said, completely wrong that women should be put in this position, and I cannot believe that it is in the public weal, for which we pray day by day in connection with our legislation, that this particular feature of the Bill, which is really the main new provision, should be accepted. I know that it is said that a comparatively few Members in another place voted for this Bill—on Second Reading 150, on Third Reading, I think, 100—because it was a Friday and no doubt many Members were paired. But, from reading the letters I get, reading what I read in the public Press and hearing the speeches to-day, all of which, with their different points of view, have been most interesting to me, I am not persuaded that it is in the public interest that this infliction of an injustice on women—and I speak advisedly of women—should be perpetrated.
I am aware that that is not the only new provision in this Bill. There is the provision for consensual divorce. I will not go over again the ground which has been covered so many times, but my noble friend, Lord Silkin, who spoke on the last occasion that I remember this matter being raised and who is a man of long experience and great wisdom and a professional man, a lawyer, pointed out that as things are at present 75 per cent. of divorce cases are consensual: consensual in the sense, as he made quite clear, that both parties want the divorce. Therefore the introduction of consensual divorce, whether with consent or by consent, whichever way you describe it, is not really anything very novel. I am, of course, aware that there is another objection to the consensual divorce which is a valid objection; that is to say, that there is a grave risk that the will of the weaker party may be overborne. For that reason I do not myself particularly like the idea of consensual divorce, but I have not the same feeling about it as I have about compulsory divorce.

391
The word "breakdown" is used as though it were a substitute for the matrimonial offence. Of course it is not that at all. Your Lordships and I, when we are talking about our friends who have been unfortunate enough to go through the divorce court, will say, "Poor old so-and-so; his marriage has broken down". We do not go round saying, "This is all the fault of his horrible wife", or, "It is his fault". We do not go into it, and that is the civilised way of behaviour, I suppose. Similarly, in the divorce court the judges are not really concerned with guilt. There has been a good deal of rhetorical talk about blame and guilt, but we are not talking about blame and guilt. All the judges are talking about is what has to be proved, not who is at fault. Nobody in this world is blameless, and I suppose few spouses who separate are blameless. But people who lose civil actions do not go round with a placard saying that they are guilty of, say. not paying the grocer's bill or of committing some offence which enables some remedy to be obtained against them.
I think a great deal of this talk about "breakdown" is rhetorical and has little relation to reality. My noble and learned friend Lord Reid made the point that the word "breakdown" is used but when you come to what has to be proved by the petitioner you find that the petitioner has to prove the same old things as before. It is true that the word "cruelty" is omitted and another form of words is used which comes to very much the same thing, excepting that one does not have to prove injury to health. The word "guilt", although it appears in the Statute, no longer operates so far as cruelty is concerned because of recent decisions of this House which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning (whom I am pleased to see here) will remember.
I know that the word "guilt" is associated with the word "adultery", but I do not myself attach any importance at all to this question of blame, except in one respect, and that, I think, is highly relevant and one cannot get away from it. The law of this country is that a man's duty is to support his wife, and in order to escape from that duty he has in most cases to impute blame to her, and to that extent blame will be relevant. For myself, I do not see any
392
escape from that, nor does this Bill provide any escape from it. Similarly, so far as children are concerned, when the parents separate one cannot act on a sort of rule of thumb basis, saying that all the little children should go to their mother and all the older children should be divided between the parents. That would not do. And in deciding what is to happen to the children, in their interest—because it is the interest of the children that judges have to consider—one is bound in many cases to inpute blame. If one finds that a mother is living the life of a prostitute, or that either spouse is an alcoholic or a drug addict or is suffering in some other way which makes it unsuitable or impossible for that parent to have control of the children, one is driven into the position of imputing blame; and in this unhappy world one cannot avoid sometimes imputing blame when one is trying cases.
As your Lordships have heard already—and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning will support this, as will also my noble friend Lord Silkin—I have had some experience from one angle of these cases, because at the Bar and for several years on the Bench, until I went to the Court of Appeal, I had spent a great deal of time dealing with divorce cases—that is to say, disputes between husband and wife about all sorts of things, including the actual divorce case—and from that experience my respect and admiration for my fellow countrymen increased. I saw many examples of true devotion and service given by one spouse to the other, often in the most heartrending circumstances. May I give just one example? When the Herbert Bill brought in divorce on the ground of insanity, one had a string of cases in which it was related that the spouse who was left visited the ailing spouse month by month, year after year, doing what they could to comfort and help that spouse. That is an illustration of what marriage is as an institution; and that is why I venture to make the point that marriage is something to be respected and admired, something which the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, spoke about just now; something quite different from what a newspaper man called the other day, though not giving his own opinion, something of a frolic in the bushes preceded by a ceremony where the girl was enabled

393
to wear a long white dress. Marriage is something which we prize and which we want to preserve, and, for myself, I do not think that this compulsory divorce is going to help to preserve that position.
I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said just now. She made some quite shrewd observations, and we were all amused at the thought of the man who might find himself stuck with his mistress after this Bill went through, much to his surprise and against his will. But there are great difficulties in considering circumstances in which one should enlarge the area in which divorce should be granted. When I was at the Bar I had a case of a Russian marriage. A Russian lawyer gave evidence (again I think this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet) to the effect that the Communists in their prime—if that is the right word—regarded marriage like birth and death, as a fact of life: either you were married or you were not, much like birds and beasts were mated or they were not. But they found, as time went on, that it did not work, and great confusion was created in society. I do not think it will do for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to say, as in effect she says, that, after all, it does not much matter what happens when you go to the divorce court, because by that time the marriage is finished anyway, so let the rules be what they may, let the people have a divorce. I hope I have not misrepresented what she had in mind.
May I refer again to my experience for one moment more? I tried as best I could to listen sympathetically to the people who came before me and not to censure them, or their morals, in any way. I remember this most clearly, because on one occasion I was foolish enough to say to a petitioning wife that I thought her case had no merits. About a fortnight later I sat next to her at lunch, and she turned to me with a charming smile and said, "You are the man who said that I had no merits". That put me in my place. I hope I did not err in that way again. But I hope that, whether in this House or anywhere else, people will not run away with the idea that judges spend their time censuring married people and imputing blame to one or the other. They know as well as anybody else that there are no blameless people about—and prob-
394
ably blameless people would be most difficult to live with anyway.
Even the kindliest and most humane people, like my noble friend Lord Silkin, use severe language about some of the spouses who take up the position that they do not want to be divorced. He described them—and he was careful to say "some of them"—in language one would hardly expect to hear from him, as "spiteful", "dog in a manger", "wanting to get their own back", "vindictive". That is mild language compared to what we hear outside this Chamber about women. Some 250 years ago Congreave had something to say about the discarded wife:
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned".
For myself, I am not prepared to hold up my hands in sanctimonious horror at the attitude taken by discarded wives in our country. If they bare their teeth, I am not going to blame them.
In that connection perhaps I may be permitted to read just one letter, because I think it must be like many of the letters that your Lordships will have received, and it is not long. It says:
"Many people like myself feel that the present divorce law reform Bill now in debate will not only undermine the stability of marriage but will also undermine the financial resources of the country. We cannot understand, when the economy is at its lowest ebb, why the Divorce Bill is considered for further debate in Parliament. If it is passed it will give freedom from marriage to every deserting husband in the country. As M.P.s Mr. Abse and Mr. Jones have pointed out, each case will have to be thoroughly investigated and there will be trials of reconciliation and the deciding of who is to be given what. This will mean long-drawn-out cases in divorce court. Many tens of thousands of men will be applying for this new-found freedom. This will incur huge masses of money needed from Legal Aid funds. This Bill will not only mean more divorces, but will mean many more desertions, and when men know that freedom can be gained so easily, thus involving much more Government expenditure baying to be found in demands on the national assistance funds which is bound to follow these desertions. Very many people are discussing this outrageous Bill. They have asked me to write to someone who can help them. The marriages which exist will have no protection and they should be considered of more consequence than the legalising of the few living in sin. Desertion will come more easily to a partner's mind if this Bill becomes law. I trust you will help in preventing such an unjust Bill now becoming law."

395
I am not defending the language of this letter—no doubt it is not very sacrificial language—but these women are to be divorced, whether they like it or not, unless they can justify their refusal, and I do not, for myself, see why they should be asked to submit to an inquisition of this kind. I realise that the character who submits himself or herself on the television screen to be cross-examined by professional interrogators has to put up with a lot of what I should call very impertinent questions. They are asked whether they believe in God—things of that kind. Are these women to be hauled up and asked why they are unwilling to give their husbands their freedom? For my part, I do not think it is fair that they should be. Why is the onus to be put upon them to say that the marriage tie should be preserved, even though it is, as the supporters of this Bill say, an empty one?
There is, of course, the financial aspect, which I think I should mention, though I realise that I must not go on much longer. Before I come to that I should like to refer to one instance of the unpleasant situation which this proposal produces. My noble friend Lord Longford and I saw a woman the other day who came to see us with her child. She was a woman with a grown-up child, a daughter of about 20, and her story was that her husband's paramour had been to see her and threatened, "You had better divorce your husband quick. I want him. If you don't, there will be a Bill coming in soon which will enable him to get rid of you." That seems to be a horrible situation, that a woman should be threatened in that way. As the law now stands, of course, she cannot be effectively threatened.
From my own experience, I have known of cases where a woman has been prepared to hold her husband (I am talking always of the woman, but I realise that there is another side to this) when he has been playing about with another woman, flattered by the devotion and adoration which the other woman displayed towards him. The wife has been able to say to her husband, "Don't be a fool. Be your age. We have lived together for years. Why can't we stay together now?" And sometimes, as matters stand to-day, the woman has been able to hold him. Will she be able to
396
hold him if this Bill becomes law? It will be more difficult, I should have thought; and those of us who are anxious to do all we can to preserve the institution of marriage are, I think, right in opposing this.
One word about the financial aspect. When this Bill, or this proposal, came up before, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and I, and many others, laid great emphasis on the impracticability of providing means for the support of these wives who have been left, since the average man in this country cannot afford to pay. We know that because the wage is not enough to keep two homes. Rich men are all right; they can keep half a dozen wives, deducted from surtax and so on, and it is all quite splendid. But the poor people cannot do it, and nobody seemed to be prepared to deal with this. All the speakers in your Lordships' House shook their heads sadly and said, "We are very sorry; we will think about it. Something must be done." But, of course, nothing can be done except by national assistance, which means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has said, that their neighbours pay.
It was not until my noble friend Lord Kennet, in a previous debate, rose to his feet that the position was really faced that there was nothing that could be done; the only defence (and I think it is the only defence which is open on this) is that things are bad enough as they are: the poor will always be with us, and if you have got a deserted wife the position will be just the same. But, of course, it is not quite the same, because when the man marries the paramour (if he does) he will be under an obligation to that woman which will come first before the obligation to this first wife; and not only will she get the money on Friday night but she will have the right to it. So the taxpayer will have to pay. I do not like the selective employment tax very much, but I do not want my card to have on it another stamp for the discarded wives' tax, to cover the expense of keeping these unfortunate women who have been discarded by their husbands.
As I have already indicated, I am substantially in agreement with all that my noble and learned friend Lord Reid said about this Bill, and I have avoided dealing with the detail because I do not want to take up time doing that. Nor do

397
I think it suitable, in a Second Reading debate, to try to deal with matters which could be dealt with on Amendment. I ought to acknowledge that what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said—that, so far as pension rights were concerned, that matter could he put right by insurance policy—was a comfort to me. I accept that. But I do not accept that it is a satisfactory substitute for the husband's obligation to maintain his wife that national assistance would do it for him.
It is a strange fact that women, who exercise the most profound influence on our lives, for good or ill, are treated in this country as inferior creatures. They are left behind in the. "rat race". They do not get the best jobs; they do not get equal pay, unless they are Ministers of the Crown or, apparently, lavatory attendants: in between they do not get the best of the things which this world has to offer. I think that this Bill is another slap in the face for them. In my own occupation we have an enlightened Lord Chancellor on whose recommendation Her Majesty has appointed a woman judge—something that has never happened before. There is one woman county court judge; and there is at least one woman Queen's Counsel. There may be more than one woman magistrate, and certainly there are a great many women lay magistrates—indeed, we have shining examples in this House of women who perform service as magistrates. But, as I say, in the main, women do not get the opportunities that men have in this country in all spheres of life.
I will not take up the time of the House much longer, but I must mention that I am not impressed by the argument—one that I am sure has influenced some persons in favour of this Bill—in favour of the unfortunate bastards. I believe that that argument is very much overworked. I suppose that most of us in this country went to school and were taught history, which probably began with William the Conqueror, who was a bastard, and ever since then bastards have done perfectly well. Nobody, so far as I know, has treated them in any way with any disrespect. We do not know which of our friends are bastards. We are not asked, when we apply for employment, whether we are illegitimate or not; we do not have to produce our parents' marriage certificates. I believe that clerks in Holy
398
Orders used to be required to do that, but that is in the past. Bastardy seems to me to bear no stigma at all, and I cannot believe it is an argument in favour of this Bill that, for the sake of illegitimate children, such stigma as there may be attached to them should be removed.
If this Bill is passed and either party is able to end the marriage whether or not the other spouse agrees, it will, I think it is accepted, bring about a major change in the nature of marriage. And the Christian concept of marriage as a voluntary union for life, already weakened by successive moves towards easier divorce, will be given a further, perhaps final, blow.
7.29 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I would support this Bill on this simple ground: that the divorce law at present is based on a wrong theory; it is based on the principle, so called, of the matrimonial offence. That is out of date and inapplicable, as I will show. It should be replaced by a better principle, which has been well stated by the Archbishop's Commission, presided over by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter; it should be based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. I say this, first, with a short excursus on our history of marriage. Until 1857 the law said, as the Church said, that marriage is the union of one man with one woman for better or for worse, to the exclusion of all others on either side, so long as both shall live. That was too great an ideal for our society in those days, or for ordinary mortals to live up to. So in 1857—and the Lord Chancellor at the time thought it was a terrible monster that we were creating—we introduced divorce on the ground of a matrimonial offence, and in the first year there were only 200 divorces in England.
That developed over the years from adultery to cruelty, to desertion for three years and the like, and that remained the principle. Right up till 1943 you had to find one side innocent, the other side guilty. Then in 1943 in this House, affirming, I believe, a decision of my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson, the discretion of the court was allowed to be exercised in favour of the guilty; and ever since that has been done in favour of the guilty, wherever the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

399
We have many such cases in the courts. The petitioner may be far the most guilty. He may have had three or more adulterous associations while the wife has had only one offence, whatever it may be. But if the court sees that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, discretion is always exercised. So in point of practice the judges have introduced the principle of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage into our law, and we all know that there is no real inquiry into guilt or innocence. If one side wants a divorce and the other does not object, you can always find the grounds. You need not go so far as adultery—cruelty we have extended far enough—and there can be constructive desertion and the like. It can always be done when the other side does not object.
So there we have introduced the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and this Bill, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 2(1), and indeed in paragraph (e), substantially states the existing practice whereby the courts do grant a divorce when there has been an irretrievable breakdown. I say therefore: Get away from the old fiction, from the out-of-date theory of the matrimonial offence. Bring into our law the true principle of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That, surely, is sufficient to satisfy the first part of this Bill. I do not mind paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), but I much prefer paragraph (d) where husband and wife have lived apart and been separated. Then you know that there has been an irretrievable breakdown. Do not go into guilt or innocence; when there has been an irretrievable breakdown let the divorce come about.
What about paragraph (e)? There is the crux of the whole debate. If there has been a separation for five years, is one to get a divorce contrary to the will of the other? The opponents of the Bill suggest that there is an innocent person being cruelly divorced against her will. In how many of these cases can you really decide between the innocent and the guilty? Even when the wife is, in theory, guilty of no legal offence, who knows what trials may have ensued in the past which led to the breakdown? So often in these cases the so-called innocent one has been, at least in part, at fault herself or himself, as the case may be. Very
400
rarely do you have complete innocence. But, even if you do, I would ask—and I think those who look further would ask—that you look to the new union which has been made, with, maybe, quite an innocent woman bringing up children with the man. Are they to be condemned? Is she never to have her position regularised when in truth the initial marriage may have broken down for 15, 20 or 25 years? What is the use of keeping that marriage alive? Surely there should be the same principle. Let the principle be applied. Let the marriage be dissolved so long as you can do it without injustice.
There comes the third point. Can we not secure that it is done without injustice? My Lords, we can. We have the principle, which I hope the Law Commission will recommend, of securing the wife in the matrimonial home in proper cases; of seeing that she is secured with her maintenance and the like; of seeing that she is secured with her pension. But even if that cannot be done, then, in the last resort, the judges can say, "It would be wrong to have a divorce. We will not have it". And can you not trust the judges to do that; to see that, if it is a case of grave injustice to an innocent person, the divorce should be refused?
As I understand it, that is the principle running through this Bill. There could be some criticisms of detail—my noble and learned friend Lord Reid went through many of them—but let them be discussed in Committee if need be. At the moment, your Lordships are concerned with principle, and the right principle for our society of to-day—I am very glad to feel that it conforms with the views of many people on the Episcopal Bench—is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It is for the enshrining of that principle in the law that I would plead to-day, and I would therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.38 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should also like to say something in favour of this Bill. So many of the objections to-day have already been answered that I think I can be quite brief. But there seem to me to be two very important points which have had somewhat inadequate consideration. One is the really regrettable state of the present laws. The

401
noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, referred to the divorce courts as monuments of hypocrisy and contrivance, and I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter referred to the present laws as being unpleasant and discreditable. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that a vote against this Bill is in fact a vote in favour of the status quo.
The second point I would make is that we are all human beings. We are the products of our personalities, our emotions and our biology. The law and biology do not mix very readily, and no laws can take into account every circumstance. Most human problems are basically insoluble, and a compromise is all that we can seek. With this in mind, I would ask your Lordships to reject objections if, first of all, they could be raised against any possible Bill, as some of them obviously could. Obviously, the financial provisions can never be perfect. I think that the objections raised to the wording in Clause 6(2)(b) were really particularly puerile. Surely we understand what is meant by:
"that the financial provision made by the petitioner for the respondent is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances".
Of course it cannot be reasonable and fair, if a man has no money, to make any financial provision; and, therefore, it must merely be "the best that can be made in the circumstances". I think that to use this as an argument against voting in favour of the Second Reading is really the worst of all arguments.
Secondly, I would ask your Lordships to reject objections which are really not objections to this Bill at all but are objections to divorce, full stop. Greatly as I respect the views, sentiments and beliefs of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I think that what he has said, and said with his usual eloquence, is really an objection to divorce. Does he not realise that there already are divorce laws? What we are considering to-day, so far as I know, is not that those laws should now be abolished and that there should be no divorce: we are discussing as to whether this Bill is substantially better than the present state of affairs.
Thirdly, I suggest that your Lordships reject objections which, although they point to certain imperfections in the Bill, do not take into account that the provisions of this Bill, especially the financial
402
provisions and those for the protection of the deserted wife, are far better than they are under existing legislation. With all these points in mind I myself find that the objections which have been raised seem to have very much less substance than some of their promoters seem to think.
7.43 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I am going to speak as an uninhibited supporter of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—and I am sorry that she is not here to receive my blandishments. She does not often have episcopal supporters. but on this occasion she is going to have at least one. The fact that I am going to speak entirely in opposition to the Second Reading does not, of course, mean that I am blind to the various advantages that this Bill may eventually confer. But so much has been said on the other side that I do not think it is necessary for every speaker to repeat all the positive points.
I begin my opposition by guarding myself from the propaganda that is implied in its very title. "Divorce Reform Bill" is a title which in itself makes it difficult for anyone to oppose it, because one is immediately put into the position of appearing to oppose something that is quite obviously good. Whereas, while change is inevitable, not all change is For the better all change is not reform, in the sense of improvement. One could hardly have expected it to be described as the "Easier Divorce Bill". We are told that it does not provide for easier divorce, but we were also told, I think by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, that there are 5,000 cases known to be awaiting the passage of this Bill in order that they may obtain their divorce. So it would seem that at any rate the gates are being opened more widely in that particular direction.
Then, I am not myself entirely converted to this idea of the breakdown of marriage as the principal ground for divorce. This idea has swept through the thoughtful world almost like an epidemic. I think it began in what we used to call the Dominions, and it has won very great support in this country. One can see the attraction of it as an alternative to all the sordid arguments about matrimonial offences. But the fact remains that the word "breakdown" is a word

403
which we usually apply to mechanical objects, and we have the idea that if a car, for instance, breaks down that is not our fault. I am not at all sure whether we are helping the cause of marriage, in the best sense, by suggesting that it is just a lucky chance whether or not it breaks down. We surely have to do everything to keep before people's minds the fact that it is a matter of personal behaviour, attitudes, loyalty and self-discipline: and these are not things that are necessarily conveyed by the words "breakdown of marriage".
It is not easy, in the light of all that has been said and written, to defend the use of the phrase "matrimonial offence", and I am far from thinking that we have the ideal situation there. But there is a danger here. If there is no such thing as a matrimonial offence, is there not the implication that there is no such thing as a matrimonial standard? If you cannot do anything wrong, how can you know what is right? While I think that these changes are probably now inevitable, there is no harm in our noticing the price we are paying for these particular changes.
My difficulties about the Bill concentrate on the two points that have been mentioned so often during this long debate: what may be described as divorce with consent after a two-year separation, and divorce without consent after five years of separation. I am assuming that the generality of cases to be considered will be those of the discarded women. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has a habit—a very disconcerting one—of confronting us all with objective facts to which there seems to be no apparent, or even possible, answer, and I must say that I was myself surprised when he told us that divorces granted on grounds of adultery by women were almost exactly equal in number to similar cases by men. That surprised me very much, and I should like to meditate at leisure on the significance of those figures.
I suppose that if one reflects for a minute it becomes obvious that an act of adultery needs the co-operation of at least one man and one woman; presumably, by the law of averages, perhaps half of these parties—third parties, so to speak—are married; and if there is an
404
equal number on either side of the sex line it produces the statistics which the Lord Chancellor gave us. But I do not think that carries with it the implication that responsibility lies equally with men and with women. I think it is a fact of nature that man's biological background leads him in the direction of polygamy and woman's biological background leads her in the direction of monogamy, if one can use that slightly inaccurate word to describe the situation that I have in mind.
We have already had a reference this afternoon to the cockerel feathering his nest while the hen sits on the eggs. Curiously enough, this picture was in my mind yesterday when I was driving round Leicestershire and saw the not too common sight nowadays of a fine strutting cockerel with about ten hens following him. This reminded me that man on the animal side has the temptations, if we can call them so, arising from his animal ancestry. It is just a fact that man is usually the seeker, the hunter, and woman is the one who is sought, and sometimes found. That being the case, one has to ask oneself whether these new proposed conditions for divorce, and particularly the ones that I have mentioned, are really going to be fair to the woman in the new situation.
With regard to the two years' separation, with divorce by consent at the end of it, the difficulty in my mind is not what happens at the end of the two years. I should be the first to admit that probably after two years' separation and a consent to divorce, the likelihood of any other, happier solution is extremely remote. But when you look at it from the other end, from the beginning of the two-year period, it is an entirely different matter. Very often part of the first year will be spent in weighing up the situation, in wondering what is really to happen, whether the man or woman is going to come back. But when one year has gone by, and only one year is left, there is a most tremendous bias, it seems to me, to lead either partner, or both partners, to think: "In one year's time it will all be over, anyway". I think that that will create in the minds of those who are beginning to feel that their marriage is under a strain a tendency to think very much more positively about divorce than they might otherwise have done.

405
Then one comes to the more difficult question of the divorce without consent at the end of five years' separation. Here I think I must say that I personally feel that a marriage that has been dormant or in decay for five years is, humanly speaking, past resuscitation. I do not think it is in the least likely that, except by some miracle, such a marriage will revive. That does not carry with it the implication that everything ought to be made easy for the partner who is technically (shall we say?) in the wrong. Martin Luther had a phrase, "Pecca fortiter!" which means "Sin vigorously!" When he said that, it was not that he wanted people to sin but that he wanted them to be quite sure they could not be justified by moderating their sin but only by something entirely different; namely, forgiveness.
It seems to me that we are saying here to people, "Sin long enough! After two years of separation, however faulty your behaviour, you cannot have your divorce without the consent of the other partner. But go on long enough; do it for twice as long and one year more; and then you can have everything you want." That seems to me an extremely difficult thing for Parliament to take on its shoulders. There is surely some kind of obligation between the partners entering upon a marriage and society, which for our purposes is represented by the authority of Parliament and the State. I cannot at the moment vote for a Bill which simply ignores whatever remaining rights there may be on the side of the deserted partner.
A great deal has been said about the financial side. I am not going to touch upon that; the question is whether there is anything else to which the aggrieved partner has a right. When we have left out all the cases of vindictiveness, or spite, or sheer obstinacy and stubbornness, and everything that can be laid against the aggrieved partner, is there still something in the actual condition of being the married wife or married husband of a spouse which must not lightly be taken away by Parliament or by the State? The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading tried to make our hearts bleed—in fact, he did almost make our hearts bleed—with the story of the elderly couple who craved above everything else to be put into the right state by the
406
possibility of divorce and re-marriage. But if the purely sentimental thoughts of people in that position are to sway Parliament, is it right on our part to turn our minds and hearts away from those who have the same sentimental and perhaps irrational feeling about the link that they still have?
I personally support very strongly what the most reverend Primate called "the educative force of law". It is very easy to work up a great sense of pity for those who have somehow found themselves in these difficult and embarrassing situations; and we are told about the children who might be legitimated. But do not let us consider these to the exclusion of all those who may have the prospect of a long and happy family life together but who will be exposed to risk if legislation in the Houses of Parliament conveys in a subtle way to the people that, after all, marriage is not so very permanent and indissoluble.
I fully accept that we have gone so far that it may almost be thought unnecessary to worry about going a little further. Nevertheless, I cannot myself vote for this particular Bill. I expect that it will get its Second Reading. If it does, this will in no sense prevent us from trying to do the best we can with it in Committee. But I feel that there are points of principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that Clause 2(1)(e) was absolutely fundamental to the Bill and that it would be intolerable to think of its being taken out of the Bill at the Committee stage. That being so, I feel that the matter of principle is raised by the Bill itself, and I cannot square my conscience with voting in favour of it. I shall vote against it and hope that my vote will contribute some slight indication of our hesitations and doubts about its general principles.
8.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have listened to every one of the 19 speeches which have preceded mine and it will not be surprising if there is very little that I can add to what has already been said. But the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has given me fresh wind and provided one or two points upon which I can, I hope, enlighten the House. Like a number of other noble Lords who oppose the Second

407
Reading, the right reverend Prelate limited his opposition to two provisions in the Bill, the two-year desertion period and the five-year separation. Before dealing with the merits of those provisions I would say that, important as they are, they are Committee points. If the Committee so decides they may be left out and the Bill could still go on. I admit that it would be a very much emasculated Bill and I hope that most noble Lords would regret the absence of those provisions. The fact remains, however, that they are not absolutely vital provisions in the Bill; and I do not understand why the right reverend Prelate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, are going to vote against the Second Reading simply because there are provisions in it which they do not like but which could be eliminated without interfering with the Bill in principle.
What we have really to decide is whether we are in favour of continuing the present system, which has been described as out of date, hypocritical, as encouraging perjury; and which was referred to by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in even stronger terms. Are we going to accept that, and go on accepting it, as the law; or are we going to take advantage of this Bill and see what improvements we can make? That is the issue before us. The right reverend Prelate does not like the term "Divorce Reform Bill". If he looks at the dictionary definition of "reform" he will find that the Bill represents a reform of the divorce law. I would not even say that necessarily a reform would be for the better. A reform is an alteration of the law, although it is generally associated with an improvement, and most of us would recognise this as an improvement.
I listened with particular interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. He put forward a great many objections to details in the Bill and I thought that every one of those objections might have been dealt with in Committee; in fact, I think the noble and learned Lord said so. One amendment he suggested was the substitution of the word "or" for "and", or vice vèersa. But he made the point that this Bill proposes nothing which is different from the existing law. It does not make any basic
408
change. You would still need to establish adultery or desertion or some other grounds on which previously a divorce might have been obtained.
That is not strictly true, because the Bill would widen the provisions and bring them more into line with present-day conceptions. For instance, let me read Clause 2(1)(b):
"That since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent."
That would cover not only cruelty, which admittedly is covered already, but also the action of a man who left his wife because she was an habitual drunkard and he found it intolerable to go on living with her; or because the wife was taking drugs. That is not covered by the existing law. A man is forced to go on living with a woman who is a confirmed drunkard, and there is nothing he can do about it unless she admits adultery or some other conduct—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, he could prove cruelty.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, my Lords. cruelty. I submit that the proposal in the Bill is an improvement on the existing law. The period of desertion would always be substantially more than five years, because it would take a year before the case came up for trial, so it would be six years by the time the case was actually considered by a judge. There will be cases where a husband has deserted his wife or vice versa, not because of any existing misconduct but because they found it intolerable to live together on the grounds that one or other was a confirmed drunkard or drugtaker or because one or other had some trouble which made it impossible for the two people to go on living together.
In a case, where, say, a husband has left his wife, is it reasonable—would the right reverend Prelate say that it was still reasonable?—that in those circumstances the wife should have a veto on divorce? It seems to me utterly unreasonable. Everyone who is opposing Clause 2(1)(e) is assuming, I think, that the husband—it is always the husband—has unjustifiably left his wife and that the parties are separated because of the wrongdoing of the husband. It may be

409
nothing of the kind. In many cases—I will not go so far as to say in most cases; but in a great many cases—the parties will have found living together to be intolerable and therefore the marriage has broken down. I submit that that is a much more human test and a much more reasonable test than the existing tests which have been described in such uncomplimentary terms.
My Lords, there are, I think, eight or nine more speakers and I do not know what on earth they are going to find to say. I hope that we have really made up our minds that this Bill ought to get a Second Reading, even though we recognise that it has defects. I should like myself to improve some of those defects and no doubt others will wish to consider them. Let us have a good, long, uncrowded, unhasty Committee stage. Let us not be pressed to come to conclusions just because otherwise we shall lose the Bill. I hope we shall go through the Bill with a fine toothcomb and try to produce the best Bill we possibly can.
9.9 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is my intention to resist the temptation to join in the controversy over this Bill because I feel (and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was quite right when he implied it) that everything that can be said about this Bill has been said—with the exception of one thing. I am a little disappointed that more noble Lords have not dealt with Clause 3 of the Bill, which deals with reconciliation. Perhaps I ought to say that matrimonial conciliation has been my concern for something like thirty years. As reference has been made to the Marriage Guidance Council, perhaps I ought to declare to your Lordships that I am not only one of its founders, but its present Vice-Chairman. In view of some of the things that have been said in the Press in recent weeks, stemming from the Bill we are discussing to-day, I should like to emphasise that the National Marriage Guidance Council has no policy whatever in respect of divorce. That does not mean that it is not interested in what happens in the field of divorce, because of necessity divorce must affect the whole of family life and the stability of the family, but as it is the Council's concern to provide a skilled and comprehensive network whereby husbands and wives who are ex-
410
periencing difficulties in their marriage can get skilled and expert help, it does not seem to be right that, as a national organisation, it should have a policy with regard to divorce.
I want to deal for a moment or two with Clause 3. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for drawing the attention of your Lordships to this clause and to what is being done in the field of conciliation. I should like to sum up what the noble Lord said in these words. While no doubt we must provide facilities for divorce, we ought to keep in the forefront of our minds that in a progressive society what we want is not a mortuary for dead marriages, for that is what the divorce court is, but a progressive hospital service for sick marriages.
The Explanatory Memorandum, dealing with Clause 3(1), refers to solicitors giving clients the names and addresses of persons experienced in reconciliation work. If this Bill gets a Second Reading, I hope that somebody will think out carefully who these counsellors are to be. It is important that they should be competent persons and really know what is involved in dealing with marital disharmony. Many people in the community think that they are qualified to do this work of conciliation, without realising how dangerous it is to use well-meaning, well-intentioned but untrained people to do it. When two people find that they cannot go on living together and there is no common ground between them, if a sincere and sustained attempt is to be made to help them to overcome the difficulties threatening the security of their marriage, it needs somebody who not only understands the husband and wife relationship but also the reaction of one partner upon another.
There is no relationship quite like marriage. We all know that it can lift people to the heights and it can dash them to the depths below. To end a marriage by separation or divorce affects people in different ways, but it is bound to affect them. People invest too much feeling in marriage to be able to shrug off calmly the effects of its breakdown. It is bound to come as a shock to most people and they need skilled and expert help to enable them to come to terms with the traumatic effect that a breakdown in their marriage has upon them

411
and, what is more, to enable them to make the consequent readjustments. It is one thing to want, work for, and plan a divorce, but for most people it is difficult to accept it without shock when it has taken place.
The ending of a relationship so far reaching as marriage is a form of amputation and the convalescent period can be difficult and profoundly shocking. When we are thinking in terms of divorce, we have to realise that a great deal of personal and social disorder stems from the breakdown of marriage. It affects the children as well as the couple involved. It is the children whose wants and needs should be taken into account, but these are not always known or understood.
The various conciliation agencies, as I do, welcome Clause 3(2), which reads:
"If at any stage of proceedings for divorce it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the parties to the marriage, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a reconciliation."
It is my submission that subsection (2) does not go far enough, and I would ask my noble friend Lord Stow Hill whether anything can be done about this. Conciliation is often of value even though it cannot bring about a complete reconciliation. It is desirable that it should continue in an effort to resolve or narrow the areas of conflict between the parties and so enable more co-operative arrangements to be made about children, their custody or their care and control, their maintenance and what is going to happen to them with regard to access of the parents.
Generally speaking, divorcing couples are in a state of conflict and one cannot expect them to take either a fair or a reasonable view of each other. Conciliation can and does help. Although in the majority of instances it may not save the marriage, it helps the husband and wife to disgorge their pent-up emotions and to release feelings of anger and hostility and make them perhaps more understanding, not only of the contribution which they themselves have made to creating the disharmony, but perhaps to see the other person's point of view, and become much more reasonable in dealing with the various ancillary matters
412
that stem from divorce—and I have given one example, that of the children. To make this possible it may be necessary at the appropriate time slightly to amend Clause 3(2), and I would suggest that wording should read something like this:
"If at any stage of proceedings for divorce or any proceedings ancilliary thereto it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the parties to the marriage or of a narrowing of the areas of conflict the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable such attempts to be made."
I want at this stage to express no opinion about the Bill other than to say that when we are thinking in terms of divorce, let us strengthen to the utmost both subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3, so that we can offer to people who are going through this traumatic experience not only an opportunity of re-examining the situation, but perhaps, if that cannot be resolved, of re-examining themselves in relation to the other partner, so that their areas of conflict can be narrowed and they can be better able to understand what is required of them, particularly in relation to the children.
8.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, told us that everything had already been said in this debate except one thing. Now he has said that, which rather cuts the wind from under the sails of the rest of us. But the experience expressed in that metaphor is to me a very pleasurable and moving one, because I agree with everything that he has said at an intellectual level, and on the emotional level. I have myself undergone marriage counselling, and so can speak with experience as to the truth of almost everything the noble Lord said about it.
To leave the noble Lord for a moment, I should like respectfully to join with what can be called the Dilhorne-Silkin syndrome, and to urge your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading; follow us "Contents" into the bar, in every sense, and let us decide to work long and hard at the Bill in Committee. I am a little puzzled, not to say disappointed, at the attitude of the right reverend Prelate vis-à-vis this Bill. Like many others, I vested a lot of hope in his support for it. It seems to me (and

413
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will agree with me here) that the right reverend Prelate had a disproportionate concern for justice, which is perhaps an appropriate word to use in connection with marriage. I was also puzzled by his suggestion that the punishment of flagrant misconduct in marriage should be to go on being married. This view seemed to me to have a hole in it somewhere.
However, as a professional teacher, I share his concern at what he called the educative effect of the Bill. But I do not altogether share his worry that this need necessarily be adverse. I feel that he was ably answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she said that frankness helps young people, especially vis-à-vis marriage. Young people are, in my experience, Geiger counters of any form of humbug, and I do not think that our existing arrangements are free from humbug. But even the critical young, I think, would have enjoyed with me Lord Longford's jocular and metaphysical approach. The noble Earl might be interested to note (I am sorry he is not here) that the ablest book I know about marriage counselling, about marital breakdown, under that title, is by Dr. Jack Dominion. Dr. Dominion is a Roman Catholic, as well as being a practising psychologist. The noble Earl, Lord Longford said—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester agreed with him—that you underline the moral influence of marriage by excluding ideas of rightness and wrongness. I, of course, believe that this is a useful caveat, but that one needs a great deal of knowledge to make any form of truly moral decision, and knowledge is what we have to go after in this connection.
I liked the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that we have to start much further back. There is talk at the moment of sex education. There has been, I suppose, always talk of sex education, but not much talk about education for marriage, and this is something on which we should place emphasis. There are obvious difficulties in educating young people for marriage. They may start applying the theoretical knowledge they get in the classroom to the actual situations in their homes, with devastating effect. But I believe that there are ways out of this. One encouraging way is that
414
as a teacher one finds that most students are deeply involved in the new and semi-science of sociology, and that a thoroughly professional and slightly distant approach to a subject like marriage finds favour, oddly enough, with them; and you can counteract this distant approach by using literature. Perhaps our greatest experience of marriage outside our own marriages, or the marriages of our parents or immediate friends, is to be obtained from books. I always feel that the greatest work on marriage written in this century is Joyce's Ulysses; in the last century Middlemarch; and we can go back to Othello and Macbeth, and so on for ideas about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not mention one of the great difficulties that I feel in connection with marriage counselling, which is to get people to take advantage of it before it is too late. A possible way to do this is to use the media. There is something relatively embarrassing about being told, or telling someone else, to consult, a marriage counsellor. It sometimes stiffens resistance. But if you see some discussion on television, or hear it on the radio, about marriage it can open up one's attitudes a great deal. People are interested in marriage. Obviously it is a stock, stable theme of most fiction. I notice that recently a Sunday paper has hired a new woman columnist whose total subject is her marriage in almost every detail—her sexual life, her problems with cooking and so on—and this seems to be very popular. Whatever one's views about the propriety of revelation, or whatever it may be, I think that the long-term effect is a good one.
As always, money is needed for this. I was impressed by my noble friend Lady Emmet's command of figures, pointing out that we spend £6¾ million on legal aid, 83 per cent. of which is in connection with matrimonial cases. And I was delighted that from our Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, noted that the priorities were absurd, and that in spending only one-tenth of £1 million on the whole marriage guidance movement we were involving ourselves in bad housekeeping principles. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that he was speaking for himself, but I think he was telling only half the truth, and that he was speaking in a way indicative of our

415
Party's attitude when we come back into power.
I hope your Lordships will follow us "Contents" to-night, not as Casanovas but as caring men, agreed on the principle of the need for reform and intent on committing yourselves to soldiering on in Committee. It is only by caring, by careful scrutiny and hard work, that we can further the cause, not of divorce, but of marriage itself. And behind this, if I may borrow Lord Longford's beautiful quotation, is "a community and destiny of love".
8.29 p.m.
LADY KINLOSS: My Lords, I am speaking to-night because I have been begged to do so by many friends, both Anglican and Roman Catholic. I am myself a Roman Catholic, but I have in common with many of my Anglican friends—and indeed other friends—a belief in the permanence of marriage, in the sacred nature of the marriage bond, and in the Holy Family at Nazareth as the true image and ideal of Christian marriage. I believe, too, that the great majority of women, and of men also, whether they are Christian or not, desire in marriage a life-long and permanent union, even if their philosophy—or sometimes the lack of it—enables them to regard marriage as something which can be experimental or which, in certain circumstances, can be dissolved.
Having so said, I accept the inevitability of the divorce law for those who wish for one. For them the function of the civil power is to devise a divorce law which will be honourable, fair and just to all the parties concerned. I say "all the parties concerned" because, however one defines the marriage bond, both parties have equal rights within it: and because where there are children, they too have their own rights. Indeed they merit an altogether special consideration because, when a marriage breaks down, they are likely to be the greatest sufferers, both in the short and the long term, for a situation for which they are in no way responsible.
When this Bill and its abortive predecessor were introduced I was greatly disappointed that the sponsors did not see fit to include detailed legislation on matrimonial property. I am glad that
416
the Government are preparing legislation in this matter, and that, should the present Bill pass into law in some form, it will be suspended until that legislation has been introduced. I would only comment that it would seem to me more logical if legislation on both matters were to come into operation at the same time. Perhaps I may be given an explanation if I am wrong.
Although I agree with much that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has said, I cannot go all the way with her. The noble Baroness described the Bill as a "Casanova's charter". Myself, I was reminded of a notice said to have been put up outside a church: "Next Sunday; Sermon: 'The Church and Divorce'; Anthem: 'I saw another Angel'". It seemed to me that the noble Baroness had forgotten "other angels" and, in particular, a by-no-means unrepresentative lady named Circe. Perhaps I should invite your Lordships to recollect that Homer depicts her as something rather more than a mere fast woman. She was a goddess, an enchantress who lured men to her temple: and when she had had her will with them, she turned them into pigs. I think, my Lords, that all of us in our experience can recollect just as many Circes as we can recollect Casanovas; and that in marriage, when it breaks down, there are always faults of one kind and another on both sides.
So far from making it easier either for Casanova or for Circe, this Bill would require either of them to satisfy the court that there has been some attempt at reconciliation. It may be that many attempts at reconciliation will fail, but at least it will be something if some attempts prove successful. At least some attempt will have been made to defend the marriage bond. To that extent I can welcome the new concept which this Bill proposes, that there should be an attempt to bring about a reconciliation, and also the new concept of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
There are, however, my Lords, certain highly unsatisfactory features in this Bill. Some of these have already been discussed by previous speakers. I wish to concentrate simply upon two of them. One is that by bringing children into the world married people incur new obligations which did not in fact exist at all

417
at the time that their marriage took place. These obligations are not simply financial. The overriding obligation is to bring the children up properly. I have known of couples who have felt this so strongly that, in spite of the breakdown of their marriage, they stayed together until the children were of full age. It would seem not unreasonable not to free either party until the child, or, where there are more than one, the youngest child, has reached the age of 16. At first hearing this may sound Draconian, but, if it is, it is not one wit less Draconian than saying that, because of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, one party of the other should be enabled to contract a second union, to the inevitable detriment, both financial and otherwise, of the interests of the children of the original marriage.
The other matter to which I wish to draw attention is to me the wholly immoral provision of Clause 2(1)(e). My Lords, twice lately in this House we have been reminded by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that noble Lords speak on their honour. But, my Lords, it is not just noble Lords who speak on their honour: it is likewise the two partners in marriage who make an honourable promise, whether it is in a church or anywhere else. In any other contractual relationship where there are promises exchanged by two or more parties an action is available for explicit performance if one party should attempt to evade the contract against the will of the other. It is indeed only natural justice that where a man or a woman has made a promise he or she must adhere to it unless or until he or she obtains release from that promise by the other party. This clause is wholly contrary to all of what one might call the moral teaching of our civil law: and I need hardly say that this concept of the sacred and binding nature of promises is fundamental in Christian—and indeed in other—moral systems.
Clause 2(1)(e) is open also to all kinds of practical objections and all kinds of abuses. I shall cite one only. I have in my hands a letter in which a woman is losing the use of her hands and her legs from arithritis. She is having very painful treatment, periodically in hospital. She says that because her husband has
418
always been an athlete he cannot tolerate an infirm wife. He has therefore left her and has asked her for a divorce. She asks whether her arithritis is any reason why she should be divorced. My Lords, this is a woman who exchanged promises with her husband in the same words that many of us in this House have done: "For better, for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health …". If Clause 2(1)(e) should pass into law, this woman will be able to be divorced against her own will after five years, for no better reason than that she is arthritic. In short, a divorce will be available to the healthy spouse of every arthritic, or of every other person suffering from a painful or incurable disease in this country.
But what will be worse will be that one bastion on which the social fabric of this country depends—that the freely given word is sacred unless due release is given—will have been breached. I am obliged to say, therefore, that I regard this clause as so objectionable, so contrary to fundamental morals, so contrary to the public interest, that, should there be a Division, I will vote against this Bill without hesitation—even while conceding that there is some good in the rest of it.
8.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, having been engaged in this movement for probably as long or even longer than any Member of your Lordships' House, I feel that even at this late hour I should, to use a term which is common in the religious organisations in which some Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken to-day move, like to testify to my beliefs that this is a very moderate Bill from many points of view, and certainly does not go so far as at one time, at any rate, I hoped. Still, it is a substantial step forward; I do not think there can be any question about that. I therefore find it difficult to believe that your Lordships, who, over these past few years, have won a reputation throughout the country as being at least as forward as the other place in social legislation, will fail to give it a Second Reading to-night.
I found myself, for once, strongly in sympathy with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who said that it was only right that we should deal

419
with the detailed points in Committee and endorse the general principles on which this Bill is based. I hope that that will be so, because sooner or later this Bill—or quite possibly a more radical measure—will inevitably be placed on the Statute Book. Any attempt to stop it will be rather like the action of the famous old lady who tried to sweep back with her broom the breakers from the Atlantic in a famous episode recounted, I think, by Sydney Smith, 150 years ago. So it would be only sensible of those who feel conservative about this to accept this particular measure because, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said in her admirable speech, this is certainly going to govern the law relating to divorce for quite a number of years.
By this time, of course, almost all the arguments in favour of tile Bill, more than the arguments against the Bill, have been put forward and canvassed, and it is very difficult to make a speech without repeating a great deal that has already been said, which I certainly do not want to do. But having mentioned that I have been concerned with this movement for a very long time, I should like to refer to just one or two of the pioneers on whose work this Bill, and indeed the earlier Bills, have been to a large extent built up. On an occasion like this, it is only right and proper that those who have to a large extent borne the burden and heat of the day should be remembered. Sir Alan Herbert has been referred to in passing more than once. As to how much we owe to him, well, if one were to descant upon that it would take quite a time; but it is only right that we should remember the tremendous services which he has made to this cause while we are discussing this measure to-night which in a sense stems from the work which he did in the 1930s.
But long before that, the Divorce Law Reform Society (I think it was called) had been formed and run by a Mrs. Seaton Tiedeman, who was a woman of tremendous dynamism and drive. At a time when the interest in divorce law reform was very lukewarm through the country she did work which I think we should all look back upon, although I do not suppose there are many of your Lordships who remember her, or even possibly have heard of her, and the work
420
which she was doing in the early 1920s and even earlier still. Mrs. Seaton Tiedeman was a woman who gave up the whole of her spare time and energies and carried the banner of this movement up and down the country in the most selfless and tireless way. I like to look back upon the very short association I had with her with a good deal of pride.
I do not want to comment too much in detail on what has been said in the debate this evening—it has been an interesting debate from both points of view—but I should like to refer to one or two of the speeches which have been made. The noble Lady who has just resumed her seat seemed to suggest that in cases where there was a family with children divorce should not be allowed until the children were more or less grown up; and she instanced a case which she knew where that had happened. I myself have known of certainly one case where that has happened, too. If the parents have the self-control and will power to do that, I think it is a splendid thing. In one, at any rate, of the cases I knew it was not altogether successful, although they made a valiant effort to carry it through. I do not myself think that the children really benefited because the tension was very obvious to anybody who knew them. I think that if the noble Lady will think about it she will realise that you just cannot make people behave in this way by Act of Parliament; it is not possible to do so.
I thought that that was an observation which to a large extent applied to some of the other parts of the noble Lady's speech. She seemed to think that one can in fact make people behave in a way of which no doubt most of us would approve by Act of Parliament directed to that end. But it just is not possible. Anyone who has had much experience of trying to administer other Acts of Parliament on these lines, or Acts of Parliament in connection with other branches of human activity, must realise that this is so.
I should like to mention also for a moment or two the speech of the most reverend Primate. I am not sure that he did not say he was going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. He had three reasons, none of which seemed to me to be reasons of principle at all. They seemed to be typical points which, if the

421
Bill is wrong about them, could be put right in the Committee stage. One of them was that the period of separation under Clause 2(1)(d), which is now two years, in his view ought to be three. If there is anything which is clearly a Committee point, I should have said that that was it. Obviously one puts down an Amendment, "Delete 'two' and insert 'three'", and that is the proper way of dealing with it. This is obviously not a question of principle at all.
The most reverend Primate's other points were very much on the same lines. One was in relation to that part of Clause 6 which, I agree in a way, is not particularly good drafting. It deals with the question of how maintenance is to be assessed, and says (I am speaking from recollection) it has to be reasonable and proper or such as in the circumstances is possible, or words to that effect. Obviously, I should have thought this meant that where the respondent, being a well-to-do man, is able to pay the alimony which is reasonable in the circumstances, then that would be the order made against him. But that will obviously not be possible, as has been pointed out in a number of the speeches, in a very large number of the cases because you are dealing with people who are earning weekly wages, and often not very large weekly wages, and the order must be for such sum as is reasonable and possible in the circumstances. Surely, that again is not a reason for voting against the Second Reading of this Bill. If that particular clause is not as clear as it ought to be, and if the most reverend Primate has that view of the matter, then surely it is up to him to put words down at the Committee stage which will make what he wants perfectly clear and will give your Lordships an opportunity of voting upon it.
He had a third reason dealing with the type of case which evokes, so to speak, a public reaction because a divorce in such circumstances would appear to be so very unjust to the general public that it would have a bad effect on public opinion. This point had been advocated in, as it were, an addendum to the Report of the Archbishop's Committee but has now disappeared and is not in the Bill. But here again, surely, is something that could be put into the Bill, or which your Lordships could be asked to put into the Bill,
422
at the Committee stage. Therefore, this again is not a reason for refusing the Bill a Second Reading at all. I should have thought that on the basis of his speech the most reverend Primate ought to have gone into the Division Lobby in support of the Bill when the time comes for the Division later on this evening.
Very much the same, I thought, applied to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. Not only he, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and other speakers to-night, raised a point about which lawyers tend to be very sentimental. Lord Hodson himself realised during the course of his speech that he kept on talking about the wife as being the wronged person, although the statistics which have been given by the noble and learned Lord, and by other speakers, make it quite clear that the wife is just as likely to be the guilty party, going back to that outlook on the law, as is the husband.
Neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, could look at it from that point of view, and it seemed to me that to a large extent this coloured their speeches. So much so that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, for whom I have the highest respect as a Law Lord, seemed to me to give a very inadequate analysis of Clause 4, stressing far too much the expression. "grave financial or other hardships". His whole stress was on grave financial hardships, but there can be other hardships which are not financial at all and which could be equally, or even more, important. To omit reference to that seems to me to be a very one-sided reading of the clause. It leaves out one of the main objectives of the draftsmen. The clause goes on, of course, to deal with the possibility of the judge who tries the case rejecting the petition altogether in a case where it would be wrong to make a decree. That is left open to the judge and it certainly should have been mentioned. I think that is also an answer to the point made by the most reverend Primate.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer briefly before I resume my seat. This again arose on the position of the deserted wife. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley—and I am afraid that all the speakers to whom I have referred are no longer in

423
their places—said she supposed that we would have to support most of these deserted wives. Why should the fund of which the noble Baroness spoke have to support these deserted wives? Most of these deserted wives, like the widows who unfortunately lose their husbands at the hands of death, take up work and do a jolly good job. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lady Birk said about this. In many cases it would be a good thing for some of these women who, in the way described by my noble friend Lord Silkin in an earlier debate, behave in a very spiteful and revengeful sort of way, not to be allowed to get into this frame of mind which, under the law as it stands at present, they are only too likely to do. In the end, as my noble friend Lady Birk suggested, it might be very much to their advantage to be forced to stand up to this situation.
As Lady Birk said, most appositely, in this life we are all to a greater or lesser extent at the mercy of fortune. Some of us are fortunate, others are unfortunate. Some of us have to put up with a great deal of suffering, others with much less. We cannot really legislate against "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune", and I think it would be altogether wrong to concentrate purely on the problem of what one might call the "good" deserted wife. No doubt here and there among the deserted wives there are people who are completely free from blame; but, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, it is fairly obvious that in many of these cases the blame lay just as much on the deserted wife. In a way it was a technicality: she happened to he the one who was deserted, rather than the husband. In many of these cases, on the long view of the matter, it would be much to the advantage of the woman if, by means of this new proposal, she was forced to stand up to "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and to take up the struggle which life thrusts upon all of us at one time or another.
I think we ought not to allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the rather sentimental views which have been put before us in relation to Clause 2(6). We should look at this matter in a common sense light and decide that even if, at the end of the day, we feel there is a good deal to be said from the point of
424
view of the position of the deserted wife, that is no reason for rejecting this Bill, but that it is a matter which we should attempt to put right at Committee stage. Therefore I hope that when the time comes your Lordships will give this Bill its Second Reading.
8.56 p.m.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I will make no technical comments on points of law; but my reading of history has given me an insight into the kind of institution that marriage has been, and it is mainly in the light of this that I should like to say a few things about the Bill. First, it is the aim of the Bill to ensure that marriages that do subsist are happy ones. I anticipate that this will become less important than it seems now. The notion that a marriage should he a happy one is founded in our belief in romantic love, and that is passing out. The peculiar conditions in which it may arise are disappearing. It is an ingredient of romantic love that there shall be a frustration of our appetites. When romantic love arose in the early Middle Ages, marriages were arranged dynastically by parents, often between children, and it was not easy to gratify any of the involuntary feelings one might have had for a woman, as this was to commit adultery.
About the time of the Reformation, child marriages ceased to be customary and under Puritan influence parents became slightly less inclined to arrange the marriages of their children. But men and women still felt romantic towards each other because of the rules about chastity. Now, with an astonishing speed, the immorality that used to be known to just a few of us is being discovered by most people. I think that we shall soon have once more the matter-of-fact attitude towards sex that the Greeks and the Romans had; that we shall take it as a matter of course, like eating.
My second observation concerns the weakening of marriage under the Bill. If the present basis for divorce encourages hypocrisy at law, at least it implies that marriage is a moral obligation, whereas under the new notion of irretrievable breakdown marriage need not have anything to do with morality. It is said that with the passing of the Bill there will be an increase in the rate of divorce. We must consider how much these things

425
will foster the feeling, which is quite common now, that there is no point in marrying at all. My reading of history persuades me that marriage will be left with some degree of vitality.
No other English novelist has explored the old implications of marriage so deeply as Samuel Richardson. As a member of the trading kingdom who nearly took Holy Orders, he said nearly everything that could be said about its moral value. Yet it is impossible to read his novels, or to think about the attitude of our predecessors to the question at all, without feeling that theirs was a very coarse brand of morality, if it could be described as morality at all. Richardson's heroines, like most women of the past, were placed at a financial disadvantage. Upon any division of the family money, they would receive less than the men. They could seldom earn money, and if they did it was less than was earned by the men, and so they ensured, literally, that their virtue should be rewarded. They were chaste because, even if it subordinated them to their husbands, marriage represented a vast improvement in their condition. It was the price these women named to satisfy the concupiscence and desire for paternity of the superior sex.
Now old standards of virtue to which our ancestors paid lip service may be overthrown, inasmuch as we relieve our concupiscence quite freely. Yet the matter of money, which in so many ways the old injunctions of virtue were about, remains important. Clauses 4 and 6 should ensure a less lenient attitude towards procreation. So long as the financial inequality of the two sexes continues these provisions should ensure that women still refuse to have children without naming the wedding ring as their price.
My third observation is that, while this may be a Private Member's Bill, whether we are inclined towards the Right or the Left politically should help to guide us in deciding about it. Some of us may believe that we should be educated to power and responsibility from the womb upwards and that our position is a kind of social birthright. Others think that each individual in every generation should undergo a test and have his place in the community assigned to him accordingly. Which of those two systems is to prevail is deeply interwoven
426
with the durability of marriage. Where divorces are infrequent the family is revered and the hereditary system is likely to prevail. Where divorce is frequent the family is discredited and a meritocracy is more likely to come into being. Thus in the United States there is a vast degree of movement through social space, as, depending on their individual qualities, certain individuals fail and others make their way. I would not pretend that of themselves these observations should weigh for or against the Bill. I would merely proffer them as fresh angles of vision on the question.
9.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we have heard a number of most interesting speeches, and the hour is very late, so I will not detain your Lordships many moments. I think the speaker who most nearly expressed my own views was, perhaps rather surprisingly, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He described it, I think, as a somewhat radical approach. I think my own views might be a little more radical perhaps than that. I am in favour of the Bill because it seems to me that it seeks to legalise divorce, I should say with consent, in view of what the right reverend Prelate said—I was going to say by consent.
It seems to me that it is not necessarily true that to make divorce difficult is to make marriage more agreeable. Perhaps the reverse is the case. If one were in danger of losing one's spouse, perhaps one would be more careful to refrain from giving offence, and I think that this view of the situation of marriage ought to be carefully borne in mind in any expression of opinion as to whether or not we are going to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. To my mind, divorce has little to do with the law and lawyers. It is a matter for families, perhaps for the Church, though this would be of course an individual decision. It is a matter for children, wives and husbands—and I place them in that order deliberately, because I think that that is the order of priority in which they should be regarded when divorce is contemplated and when settlements are agreed. It seems to me that hitherto the divorce laws have been observed very much in the breach, in the giving to each other of the necessary

427
evidence, phoney acts of adultery, evidence by chambermaids who may even perhaps have been recruited for the purpose, and collusion. Let us not blink the facts. It seems evident that a good many learned lawyers have thus been a party to it. It is inconceivable that learned judges did not know that it went on.
I repeat that, in my view, divorce has little or nothing much to do with the law. The law is necessary only to arrive at a settlement. And even this might perhaps be better made by some specialist arbitrator, who might even not be a lawyer. If a contract of settlement is broken, then of course recourse would have to be had to the appropriate court; but that would be a last resort. The question then is: do we need a divorce court? That I do not really know. I doubt whether we do.
Criticism has been levelled at the Bill on the ground that it gives inadequate protection to the innocent party, perhaps the first wife. When a marriage has broken down beyond repair it is best to face the facts and to provide the best settlement available, taking all the considerations into account. It seems to me that the Bill is good because it is realistic. It is better to face the facts of life, however unpleasant they may be. Just to keep the record straight, I may say that I have myself been married to the same woman for more than 40 years, but I have been one of the lucky ones. Many people, many children, many wives, and not a few husbands, have been sentenced by a marriage ceremony to a lifetime of continuing unhappiness. Not everybody is well enough off to be able to provide the necessary evidence. The Bill seeks to recognise broken marriage and to provide relief for the attendant suffering. In my view it does not go far enough, but I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
9.6 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I have rarely been greeted—nor has any other speaker for that matter—by this House with so much satisfaction in the knowledge that we are coming very near the end of this enormously long and protracted debate. My contribution will be relatively brief, but there are one or two observa-
428
tions that I should like to make, even at this late hour, and I hope I shall have your Lordships' forbearance. First, I would apologise that, because of other public duties, I was unable to hear some of the opening speeches. It may be that some of the things I want to say have already been said. I have had a good deal of experience over the years as a lawyer who occasionally practised in the field of divorce. It is a disagreeable field, and as one became relatively more successful one readily discarded it. It is not a field in which many lawyers are very anxious to practise, if they can avoid it.
My enthusiasm about this Bill, about which I have many criticisms, is that it makes the divorce law more seemly and more respectable and it takes some of the disagreeable and unsavoury elements out of the existing law. It is for that reason that I commend it to your Lordships. I should not wish to presume to impose on anyone my own view on matters of conscience. People who conscientiously believe, as many of your Lordships will, that it is wrong to increase the amount of divorce now in existence, or to make divorce easier, will forbear to vote for the Bill. I would urge upon your Lordships who feel like this, however, to consider whether it is right in those circumstances to impose your conscientious views to the detriment of a number of people who are now suffering a great deal of misery and unhappiness on account of the prevailing conditions in this country under the existing matrimonial law. By all means abstain. It seems to me, however, that this Bill will bring a great deal of relief in many cases of unhappiness. Nor do I believe that it will inflict any of the hardships that have been apprehended by a number of speakers to whom I have listened this evening. I have listened to them with the greatest of respect, and they have made cases of great sincerity; but I think that they are based on sentiment and that the fervour of their views has rather influenced their judgment.
One of my experiences is that a great many women who have been deserted by husbands for a period of five years or longer do not feel strongly about preserving the matrimonial bonds, yet feel a considerable repugnance at taking active steps to dissolve the marriage. Quite often in my office I have had women who have

429
been deserted for a long time by their husbands, and who say, "What do I have to do?". You say, "You would have to file a petition and you would have to go into the witness box and give evidence". They say, "That I could not do. That is too distasteful. I should be touching on immensely sensitive areas. I think I will leave matters as they are".
Many of these marriages are preserved solely on account of inertia; they are not preserved because the prospective petitioner in such a case believes that she is retaining anything of any real value. This Bill will bring relief and assistance in these cases. Many of these women will be quite happy to find that steps are being taken for them which they have an instinctive reluctance and unwillingness to take on their own behalf. I do not suggest that that is the case in relation to every such marriage; nor do I wholly agree with one of the observations made in what I regarded otherwise (I do not wish to sound patronising) as a wholly admirable speech from Lord Denning. I do not agree that one can say that in all cases it is "six of one and half a dozen of the other."
Of course there are many women who late in life are deserted by husbands who ought to know better. There are many cases of women who have made admirable wives and whose husbands discover later in life that a prettier face is more acceptable and who then rationalise themselves into the belief that they are no longer in love with their wife. This is a fact that one must face. But I do not think this is a ground for rejecting the Bill, because the question one has to ask oneself is simply this: what is such a woman retaining? What of value is such a wife retaining after a separation of five years? When a husband has absented himself from the matrimonial home for five years, what is there left of the slightest value, even if it is a case of the gravest injustice and hardship; even if, as is often the case, the woman has been an admirable wife and a great matrimonial wrong has been done to her? What are you depriving her of if you deprive her of the benefit of such a husband?
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, made a most moving speech and touched on what was a horrible case. It was a case
430
about which she had received a letter from a wife who was becoming afflicted, or had been afflicted, with arthritis, and whose husband had come to her and said, "I can no longer remain burdened with an arthritic wife. I want to leave you." If, in those circumstances, the husband was so callous and so brutal and so devoid of ordinary human sentiment that he would leave his wife, and if he abandoned her for a period of five years, what conceivable hardship would there be to that woman in dissolving that matrimonial union? Nothing but sentiment can remotely pretend that she was in any way damnified by being no longer able to retain the appearance of a marriage in a case as hideous and intolerant as that one. I do not think that is a case that represents any argument against this Bill. With the greatest respect to the noble Lady, I think it represents a most formidable argument in favour of the Bill.
There is another point that I should like to make. We have been told that the greatest area of suffering and unhappiness that needs to be relieved by this Bill is in the case of people who are living apart, because of desertion, normally by a husband, who cannot remarry but has contracted another union that has every appearance of permanence, and who is anxious to make a home and marriage with a new wife and is prevented from doing so and perhaps has children that he is not able to legitimise. I think that this is a case that needs to be dealt with. It is by no means the only case, however. Under our existing law the most fatal step that a couple can take is to agree to have a separation. Under our present law if a couple agree between themselves, in a civilised and honourable fashion, that the marriage has broken down; that it is intolerable that they should continue to live together, and that it is not in the interests of the children that they should live together, then from that moment onwards it is impossible for them to get a divorce unless one of them is prepared to commit adultery, something which they may have no wish to do. It occurs to me that that is an intolerable situation which will be put right by this Bill, because there is a civilised provision in this Bill which will enable people who have recognised that the marriage has broken down, who have arrived at a civilised arrangement

431
in respect of it, to terminate the marriage by an honourable agreement.
As to the financial provisions, I believe that much has been said that arises from an insufficiently close reading of the Bill by learned lawyers. I think the financial provisions of this Bill, as one might expect from a Bill which has been prepared with every assistance from the Law Commission, are wholly admirable. The financial provisions go as far as it is possible to go. They are to be found in Clause 4 and Clause 6, and I would venture to remind your Lordships of what those clauses contain. Clause 6 is relatively simple. It says that in respect of the two new cases of a right to dissolve a marriage—that is to say, where there has been a five-year separation and perhaps what at present we call the "guilty party" in the marriage takes action: and secondly in a case where there is agreement to dissolve a marriage after a separation of two years (an unlikely case, I may say, for Clause 6 to be invoked, because in such a case the parties would ordinarily have made a part of their agreement the financial arrangements, so that normally Clause 6 will relate to the five-year or longer desertion period where the guilty party can now petition)—no decree nisi is to be made absolute until the court is satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable provisions have been made for the respondent or that the best possible provisions have been made for her.
The suggestion has been aired that we ought to see what further legislation is to emerge before we give this Bill a Second Reading. I can think of no further legislation that can emerge that will add in principle, or even very much in detail, to the provisions of this Bill or will improve it. The judge is given the widest possible discretion: he can make any arrangement he likes under Clause 6 to ensure that a deserted wife is looked after. He can make provision by way of an annual payment; he can make provision by way of a cash settlement; he can make provision by way of a transfer of capital assets. There is no restriction on the type of financial provision that is now available to the judge in relation to these cases. Of course, rules of court will have to be made. There will have to be enlarged
432
indications of the detailed provisions that have been made, but in general terms this Bill says everything that needs to be said.
Clause 4 covers the hardship cases, which it is hypocritical to pretend will not, in certain circumstances, arise. Of course there will be cases where a woman may find herself deprived of a benefit because she has been divorced. A man may provide in a will, or there may be provision in a will where a man's wife is to receive certain benefits on his death. That cannot be duplicated; it cannot be made to read "his second wife". You cannot introduce two wives into the one will, and that is a case where obviously a benefit will be lost. Equally, there may be cases of pension benefits being lost, but I understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated that that might be dealt with by insurance. At any rate, Clause 4 provides for this. It says that where grave financial hardship is likely to accrue as a result of a decree being granted, then the court is entitled to take the most drastic step of refusing a decree altogether. If I may say so, I hope that this will not be regarded by the courts in any sense as a formality. I hope that the courts will regard this as a real provision with teeth, and that they will refuse decrees in those circumstances. Where it is quite clear that some innocent party is to be deprived of a benefit, I hope that a judge will not be argued out of refusing to make a decree on those grounds. I think the financial provisions in this Bill are unarguably sound.
My Lords, I have kept you too long, it is late at night, and the issue is about to be resolved. All I would say is that I have for many years practised in this country under a divorce law that I have regarded as inadequate and often unseemly. I hope you will participate with me this evening in what I regard as an historic moment of making it more adequate and more seemly.
9.18 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, my wife has been deserted all afternoon and my children have been deprived of a father to tuck them up in bed to-night, but at any rate I have the pleasure of rising at least an hour earlier than I thought at one time was going to be likely. I find myself in this position:

433
that I welcome the principle which is said to be underlying this Bill, the principle of putting the breakdown of marriage in place of the traditional matrimonial offence. It has been shown by many speakers—and I think most of us realised it before the debate started—how in practice the idea of the matrimonial offence is very often bogus. Offences are known to be staged, staged quite deliberately so that a divorce can be obtained, legally on the ground of that offence but in fact for some quite different reason. This sort of proceeding obviously brings the law into contempt, and if legislation can eradicate it, it should be welcomed.
Nor is the artificiality of the legal proceedings the only flaw in the concept of the matrimonial offence. The whole concept supposes that in a marriage which has foundered there is one guilty party and one innocent party. We all know that that simply is not so. It takes two to make a marriage, and—perhaps not always, but very nearly always—it takes two to mar a marriage. The eminent psychiatrist, who has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, said in his book Marital Breakdown:
"The branding of one party as the offender has indisputable legal advantages…. Unfortunately in the overwhelming number of cases this view is an utter denial of the truth. The man or woman who commits adultery has certainly offended against the other party But who is to assess the offence of the so-called innocent party and their failure or incapacity to meet the minimum needs of the offending partner? By condemning the overt behaviour of one … the grave risk is run of ignoring the failure, deliberate or otherwise, of the partner who provoked the offence."
He then goes on to show that the power of the courts to consider provocation inevitably falls far short of the almost unbelievable intricacies of human behaviour, and he concludes:
"No court can be expected to evaluate such minutiae of human conduct but no society should delude itself that the discovery of legal guilt exonerates the innocent party from responsibility."
This point was, of course, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
However, to applaud a proposal to substitute the principle of breakdown for the principle of the matrimonial offence is not by any means to say that we must all rush at once to support any Bill which purports to give legislative body to that reform. For my part, I am convinced
434
that this Bill, so far from achieving the desired result, would in fact make the present situation worse. The factors that lead to the breakdown of marriage—and, indeed, the factors that lead to success in marriage—are legion and are highly intricate. They are certainly not comprised in the five points mentioned in Clause 2(1). I would go so far as to say that not one of those five points is a genuine, adequate touchstone of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. So on that principle, the main principle involved—allegedly in Clause 1 but actually in both Clauses 1 and 2—I find the Bill acutely disappointing.
The next principle of the Bill is the principle of reconciliation, but I find the same disappointment in Clause 3. I should join with all of your Lordships in rejoicing if a sound reconciliation procedure could be built into the divorce law. But what do we find here? The unfortunate solicitor who is handling the matter—and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that he seldom now has to practise in this field of law—is landed with the job of discussing with the petitioner the possibility of reconciliation. He has to give the petitioner the name and address of, presumably, a marriage counsellor, or someone with that sort of qualification; but that is all. The solicitor is really wasting his time—and that means his client's money—going through a procedure which is written into the Bill and going through it simply and solely because it is written into the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which obliges the solicitor or the petitioner, let alone the respondent who is an interested party, actually to seek out positive means of discovering what has really gone wrong with the marriage and taking positive steps to put it right. For this reason I consider that the procedure outlined in Clause 3 makes the whole Bill a laughing stock before it is even on the Statute Book.
And what about the tail end of Clause 3, subsections (3) to (5)? They introduce, with the best will in the world (I can see what they are all about), almost arithmetical calculations of dates to prove the comparative degree of villainy, and whether or not a chap is coming back to his wife or attempting a reconciliation—a most extraordinary piece of legislation. It seems to me to prove only that

435
adultery and desertion are still, as they have been for donkey's years, matrimonial offences.
It is upon the basis of those matrimonial offences, and not upon the basis of breakdown, that the divorce will in fact be granted. My Lords, reconciliation should lead to forgiveness. If there is any mathematical formula to be built into a reconciliation clause in a Divorce Reform Bill, it must not be to do with the counting up of days and months and weeks. Pity the poor litigant who worked it out on last year's calendar, forgetting that it was a Leap Year! It must be built on one mathematical formula, and one only: the simple formula of "seventy times seven". I think this was really the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, was making.
There is a point which has occurred to me and which seems to have been missed by some of the supporters of the Bill. Will this Bill encourage people whose marriage is in the process of running on to the rocks to seek to overcome their difficulties, or will it merely suggest to them that the easy way out is divorce? It takes so much more effort to work out your salvation with diligence than it does to take the primrose path. I cannot escape the conclusion, my Lords, that this Bill, seriously and honourably intended to improve an untidy and unlovely branch of the law—to make it more tidy; more seemly, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said—miserably fails in its purpose.
Yet I am convinced that, because this area of the law is untidy and unseemly, there must be reform. It may be that supporters of the Bill will wonder what sort of positive proposals can be put up by its opponents if they reject this present Bill. One can speak only with the greatest hesitation, but I would say that before we can proceed to put into legislative form the concept of marital breakdown, before we can proceed to make proper provision for reconciliation, we must vastly increase our knowledge of the true causes of breakdown, and we must vastly improve our counselling services, as the noble Earl, Lord Cowrie, was himself insisting. In reading the book to which the noble Earl referred, and from which I quoted just now, I was deeply impressed at the number of times
436
the author felt obliged to conclude his consideration of a point with some such phrase as, "Further research is needed here". There is so much in this area of social life which we simply do not know and which we ought to know, and must know, before we can frame laws to cope with the difficulties.
This, I suppose, is mainly a task for the universities and other learned bodies to pursue; but on the counselling side, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred, I know that your Lordships will all join with him in paying tribute to the valiant work being done by the National Marriage Guidance Council, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and other bodies. But the work that those bodies are able to do is constantly restricted and hampered by lack of funds. Their workers are almost all volunteers, with experience certainly, and great understanding, but with comparatively little specific technical training, and in some cases, I believe, none. As your Lordships know, these bodies are supported to some extent by public funds, but also to a large extent by voluntary contributions. If we are to reduce, or even avoid an increase in, the cost to the public purse of the present rate of divorce, we must face the necessity to finance marriage counselling on a scale that will enable the work to grow to the measure of the need.
Even if both these aspects of the difficulty—that is to say, the research and the improvement in the counselling services—are taken in hand energetically, it will still be some years, I fear, before a sound Divorce Reform Bill can be framed. Such a Bill, when it comes, will have to be far more radical than the document before the House this evening. Indeed, I think it will have to cover much more than divorce, properly so-called, taking a fresh look at things which do not appear in this Bill—nullity, for example. I think that nullity was scarcely mentioned throughout the debate; and yet it is closely connected. I seem to recall reading in the papers some years ago of an English judge saying in a divorce court that he considered that a large number of matters which came before him as petitions for divorce would have been better brought as petitions for nullity. I am not quite sure of the

437
grounds on which he said that. But if that could be said some years ago, it must be just as true now.
One of the factors that emerges clearly from the available statistics and has been referred to by a number of speakers to-day is the hazardous nature of marriage for people under 20 years of age. It seems to me quite possible that many teenage marriages which come to nothing may have been no marriage in the first place, because the young bride and bridegroom simply were not mature enough to understand properly the nature of what they were undertaking. This problem will certainly be aggravated when young people can marry at 18 without parental consent. If these marriages, or some of them, are not fully valid—and this is going to be a very difficult point—we must work out some procedure to prevent or discourage such marriages. Here again I think I am with my noble friend Lord Gowrie. In the meantime, until we have a fuller understanding of the problems involved and an adequate counselling service, I fear that we have no practical alternative but to put up with the present system. To proceed by attempting to change the law first and then to arrive later at an understanding of what ought to be done is to put the cart before the horse. In the case of this Bill, it would be putting a pretty dilapidated cart before a blind horse.
9.33 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, at the outset of this debate your Lordships listened with great patience to a very long speech from me. It is late in the evening. I do not think I should be assisting your Lordships' deliberations if I did any more than take a short time for the purpose of resuming what I think are the principal points of controversy that emerged from this debate. It would certainly not be helping your Lordships if I sought to re-argue the general principles or the main issues that underly them. What is the question before your Lordships? The question is whether this measure, this Bill, should be given a Second Reading; whether it should go forward so that the particular points that have emerged in the course of this evening's discussion can be further investigated on Committee.
438
The Bill has had a long history. Your Lordships listened to the speech of my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. He reminded the House of the very many stages through which the thinking passed which ultimately emerged in the form of this Bill. Your Lordships may consider that it is perhaps not altogether irrelevant in deciding whether this Bill should have a Second Reading that this Bill and what I described as its prototype have, in effect, been nearly twice through all its stages in another place—not quite twice, because the prototype did not get past Report, there being a lack of time to give it consideration on Report. This House is, of course, completely and absolutely independent and must come to its own decision; but your Lordships may think that in considering whether it should go forward one should weigh in the balance the fact that it has had such prolonged discussion, as I said before, not only outside Parliament by expert and very learned bodies who considered it, but also in another place.
My Lords, when I consider the many extremely interesting speeches, delivered with very great feeling in the course of this afternoon, based in a number of cases on great experience, it seems to me that one can sum un the main features of the debate in a few sentences. We started off, and most noble Lords started off in their speeches, by considering the existing system under which the law of divorce is operated. I cannot remember a single noble Lord who had a good word for it. When I ventured to open the debate I carefully moderated the language in which I sought to point out what seemed to me the deficiencies of the existing system. The language which I chose was very far exceeded by a number of noble Lords who spoke with great experience and much authority on this principle. The present system is a bad system.
One starts from that, my Lords, and I should, I think, be correctly representing the debate if I said that there was general agreement in your Lordships' House that that was the case. Prima facie, that is a very good reason for reform. One looks to see what is the reform suggested by the Archbishop's Group which underlines the whole of this Bill: that we should discard the matrimonial offence and instead ask, "Has the individual marriage before the court irretrievably broken down or not?" I heard little criticism of

439
that as a general principle. There were some noble Lords who were not prepared to contemplate it because they thought that, in spite of that change, as to which they were lukewarm, the Bill contained some features which they could not possibly accept. But I think I should be fairly representing the effect of the debate if I said that most noble Lords were agreed that to substitute the principle of breakdown for the principle of the matrimonial offence was desirable, on balance. Many noble Lords felt it was not only desirable but necessary, and that it should have been done long ago, because that corresponded far more to reality and led to a much more seemly conduct of divorce cases and the administration of the divorce law in general.
My Lords, if that principle is accepted, most of the rest of the Bill follows. When one thinks back on what has been said if that principle is accepted. a number of individual points at once present themselves, as they emerged from your Lordships' speeches, for far more intensified inquiry in the course of the Committee stage. Most of your Lordships, in terms, welcomed the conciliation provisions, but I think that three noble Lords felt that they should have gone much further. Surely that is a matter which could be further explored in Committee.
I think I should be right in saying that, on balance, most of your Lordships were not averse at all to the two-year separation provision contained in Clause 2(1)(d). Some noble Lords would have preferred three years. Surely that again is a matter which is eminently suitable for further investigation in Committee. If this Bill receives a Second Reading, obviously one must envisage a very intense debate in Committee on paragraph (e) and the five-year separation. If your Lordships decided in Committee to put a pen through that paragraph you could do so and the rest of the Bill could survive. Certainly it is a most important and fundamental provision, in my judgment at any rate, but the Bill without it would nevertheless be what I would describe as a viable Bill: it would operate and would bring into operation the change from the matrimonial offence to the principle of breakdown.
As many noble Lords have said, you cannot simply allow divorce after five
440
years against the wish of the divorced party unless you incorporate in the Bill provisions which adequately safeguard the divorced party in the event of that party being likely to suffer seriously, financially or otherwise, as a result of the decree being pronounced. Clauses 4 and 6, as your Lordships know, are designed to provide just that provision. I have ventured to submit to your Lordships that they are adequate. In his racy and interesting speech with which the debate almost concluded, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, took the same view. Other noble Lords thought that they were quite inadequate; but those, again, are matters which obviously cry out for further discussion in Committee.
In saying that, I think I have probably résuméd, I hope in a reasonably short context, what I believe are the issues that have emerged while the Bill passed through its consideration in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I beg your Lordships to say that it would he a great pity, after this tremendous labour by devoted people, inside and outside Parliament, if the Bill did not at least proceed so far as the detailed and minute examination to which it should be subjected, which nobody would deny, if it gets its Committee stage before your Lordships' House. That, I would respectfully submit, is the question your Lordships have now to answer. Should this Bill have its throat cut now, or should your Lordships examine it further? I earnestly ask your Lordships to say that the answer to that question is undoubtedly that it should go through its Second Reading and go to Committee.
I should like to conclude my observations by thanking your Lordships most earnestly, not only for the patience with which you received my argument, but also for the very careful, thorough and sincere examination to which your Lordships subjected the general principles of the Bill during the course of the debate. I am profoundly grateful to your Lordships and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Motion I now propose, that the Bill be now read a second time, is acceptable to the House.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall now be read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rathcavan, L.

Airedale, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Reay, L.

Amherst, E.

Gifford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Amulree, L.

Goodman, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan, L.

Gowrie, E.

Robbins, L.

Archibald, L.

Grenfell, L.

Royle, L.

Balogh, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beatty, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Davids, V.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Blackett, L.

Holford, L.

Serota, Bs.

Boothby, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Kahn, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burden, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kings Norton, L.

Stamp, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kirkwood, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Cole, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strang, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Coventry, L. Bp.

London, L. Bp.

Strathcarron, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Crook, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Marks of Broughton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Denning, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vivian. L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mitchison, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morrison, L.

Wigg, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Effingham, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Exeter, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Pearson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Falkland, V.

Platt, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faringdon, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot. L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Grantchester, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gray, L.

Mansfield, E.

Audley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barrington, V.

Hodson, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Ilford, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Stamford, E.

Daventry, V.

Longford, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Falmouth, V.

Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL YORK CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

Numbers of Working Days Lost Through Industrial Disputes

Country

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

United Kingdom

…

2,277,000

2,925,000

2,398,000

2,787,000

4,690,000

United States of America

…

22,900,000

23,300,000

25,400,000

42,100,000

*

Belgium

…

443,835

70,131

533,239

181,713

*

France

…

2,496,791

979,861

2,523,488

4,203,509

*

Federal Republic of Germany

…

16,711

48,520

27,086

389,581

*

Italy

…

13,088,609

6,992,856

14,473,551

8,568,433

*

Netherlands

…

43,862

54,607

12,647

6,165

*

Sweden

…

34,000

4,100

351,600

400

*

Sources:

United Kingdom: Department of Employment and Productivity.

Other countries: I.L.O. Year Book of Labour Statistics, 1968.

* Not available.

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER LORD RITCHIE-CALDER asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent Her Majesty's Government is participating in the work of the Inter-Governmental Council for Automatic Data Processing.
LORD SHACKLETON: The Civil Service Department provides the United Kingdom delegate, who is also a Vice-Chairman, to the Inter-Governmental Council for A.D.P. The aim of the Council is to exchange information about data-

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: LOST WORKING DAYS
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES: LOST WORKING DAYS