How far we have come

The views of Sir Cyril Osborne on homosexuality in 1966 during the debate to legalise it

Sir Cyril Osborne(Louth)

rose—

Hon. Members

Oh, no.

263

§Sir C. Osborne

I hope that hon. Members will not make up their minds, at least until they have heard what I want to say.

I beg leave to oppose the Bill and I will be brief. I believe that the Bill could have such grave social consequences that it is the duty of all hon. Members who are not already pledged to vote against it. I will give three practical reasons for so claiming. The first is that the sponsors have never explained why the Bill should not apply to the 600,000 men in the Armed Forces, nor how discipline will be maintained if private buggery is permitted to civilians and denied to the soldiers, sailors and airmen. [Laughter.] Hon. Members gave my opponent a fair hearing. I hope that they will give me one.

Nor have the sponsors explained how discipline could be maintained if this licence were given to our fighting men. I believe that the result of the Bill would be an increase in the very crime, the bestial habits, which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) deplores. The very fact that the Bill would increase the penalties for crimes against boys under 16 and youths under 21 surely emphasises the immense dangers that could result if this filthy habit were to increase.

My second practical objection is this. I claim that the sponsors of the Bill have no mandate whatever for the Measure. I hold in my hand the three party election manifestos. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Socialists did not put one word in their manifestos about this so-called homosexual reform. I therefore say that the sponsors have no mandate whatever for the Bill. Why was there not a word in the party manifestos? We are all politicians and we have all sought votes. The framers of our manifestos knew full well that the ordinary people of Britain, to whom we go for our votes, would not have stomached this proposal.

The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the Army Act and to "disgraceful conduct" of "an unnatural kind". Ordinary people are horrified at the thought that this sort of thing might increase. I am certain that had it been put in the party manifestos it would have been rejected by the electorate.

264 The Bill would appear to give Parliamentary and public approval to this revolting form of immorality. Thus, I put it to the House that the sponsors of the Bill, who have previously claimed that there are about 1 million "homos" in this country, cannot really make that claim. I do not believe it. I do not believe that our country is as rotten as all that. It is an awful slur on the good name of the country to say such a thing.

Further, if this House is representative of the nation, it would mean that there are at least 30 "homos" in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names."] The allegation comes from the benches opposite, not from me. I am denying it. it is exactly 21 years today that I first had the great honour of being made an hon. Member of this House. During those years I have had the great privilege of having friendships with hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the House will allow the hon. Member to proceed.

§Sir C. Osborne

Dirty minds come to dirty conclusions. I have never come across one case of a "homo" in this House.

How can the sponsors of the Bill be so certain that this practice is so widespread? Will the hon. Member for Pontypool say how many "homos" he has known in Parliament during his membership of the House?

The third practical objection I have to the Bill—[Interruption.] I regard this as a desperately serious matter and I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the Gangway, to take note of this—is that there is no Parliamentary time available for the Bill.

§>Sir Gerald Nabarro(Worcestershire, South)

Hear, hear.

§Sir C. Osborne

No Private Members' Bill can be made law unless the Government of the day find the necessary time. I have more confidence in the northern common sense of the Prime Minister than to believe that he would give Parliamentary time for this Bill, and thus have the odium of this dirty Measure tied to his party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Shame or not, I am standing up for what 265 I believe to be right. The Government's timetable is already choked. Eight major Bills are already going through and more are waiting to go through.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have from time to time complained that no Parliamentary time is available to discuss urgent public problems like Vietnam and the Common Market. We have not been able to discuss them because of the lack of Parliamentary time. Indeed, a week last Thursday the House was told seven times during one hour that the Government would like to bring in certain reforms, but that the necessary Parliamentary time was not available.

266

§ It is scandalous that the hon. Member for Pontypool and the sponsors of the Bill should claim that the private privileges of homosexuals should, from the point of view of Parliamentary time, come in front of the urgent matters which hon. Members want to discuss. I beg hon. Members, with my whole heart, to vote against the Motion.

§Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

 

Do Zombies have to pay Inheritance Tax?

No

Inheritance Tax is not payable by the living dead. Apart from life time transfers Inheritance Tax is only payable on death. Death is the complete cessation of all biological functions.
      The ability to walk about groaning and eating human flesh is clearly a biological function.
     If you remove the flesh eating bit, walking and groaning is a common phenomenon amongst men. Often greeted by a total lack of sympathy and much rolling of eyes from women.

Last chance for a lap dance?

Whether or not a person is self employed or an employee is an issue which continues to tease. Quite a few eyes were raised last year when it was held that lap dancers, who where paid by the punters, and not the club where they worked, were employees of the club. Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie has now found its way the the Court of Appeal.
      Ms Quashie was a lap-dancer at Stringfellows who claimed she'd been unfairly dismissed.
The EAT decided she was an employee and that there was a contract of employment in existence on the nights that she danced.  She was required to provide her work personally and the club was obliged to provide her with work. Stringfellows had a degree of control over her because she was subject to the disciplinary regime of fines.
     The Court of Appeal have now stated that Ms Quashie was not an employee. Whilst she worked under a contract, and there were mutual obligations of some kind in place when she was actually working, the court held she had not been engaged under a contract of employment. The manner in which Ms Quashie was paid made it clear that Stringfellows were under no obligation to pay her anything at all.  Ms Quashie negotiated her own fees with clients and took the economic risk of being out of pocket on a particular night.
     The court concluded "It would, I think, be an unusual case where a contract of service is found to exist when the worker takes the economic risk and is paid exclusively by third parties."
      The case is interesting as it widens what is meant by mutuality of obligation. You may think if you are not paying someone they can't be an employee. Unpaid volunteers are not employees  We now have authority which states if a third party pays you are not an employee.
      However that's the law this week!


As always this is just my ramblings and isn't meant to be taken as 'legal gospel 'you can rely on. The law is a tricky business and you should always taken specialist advice.