Mary Whitehouse on the making of a pressure group

Pressure Groups and the Permissive Society* IS well written and, within its limits, well documented though it is not a particularly exciting book. Which is a pity since being involved with a pressure group is by definition something of an adventure.

But the book goes nothing like as deeply as it 'night, or as the reader has a right to expect, in its treatment of the subject. Here is a Matter of very considerable historical interest and it is more than time that the public had at hand some objective comprehensive research into the part played by high powered pressure groups in the successful passage through Parliament of the legislation which so trans, formed' British society in the 'sixties. Rather surprisingly Miss Pym denies, quite categorically, that "Acts of Parliament sanc tioning the permissive society were the direct consequence of radical pressure groups" esPecially as, later in her book, she declares that the campaigning groups saw much of what they had asked for translated into law by the Labour administration of the later 'sixties."

Certainly, Parliament was able to ensure certain modifications to the original Bills, but this only slightly diminished the part played by the Abortion Law Reform Association, British Humanist Association, the Homosexual Law Reform Association and the National Secular Society, especially as Prominent MP's publicly associated themselves with all these organisations.

The truth of the matter is that the previous Labour Government allowed itself to become — by no means unwillingly — the tool of the Permissive reformers. And, while there are signs that Harold Macmillan lived to regret the "never had it so good" slogan which put materialism right at the heart of political Philosophy, there are no signs to date that Mr Roy Jenkins regrets having equated permis siveness with "the civilised society," and there Can be little doubt that the new organisation against censorship has timed its campaign With at least one eye on what can hopefully be achieved while the present Government is in Power, and Mr Jenkins is back in the Home Office.

As Bridget Pym rightly says, "A final factor in the passage of an Act is the willingness of

MP's to vote for it. The reform Acts we have Mentioned were mostly passed on a minority vote in that less than half of the legislature took part in the divisions. But without these Voters, none of the legislation would hat e become law." So, who guards the guardians?

A question which is all the more relevant in view of Miss Pym's conclusion that, "At the Most general level the example (ALRA) indicates that groups are most successful When Parliamentarians are indecisive."

The chapter on 'The Years of Victory for the In-Groups' (the chapter headings are not the best feature of this book!) deals ac very

great length with the activities of ALRA (The Abortion Law Reform Association). It presents, perhaps for the first time in such detail, the history of the campaign which succeeded in changing the law controlling abortion. It is both salutary and encouraging to realise that ALRA's membership was never more than a few thousand and at times as low as two to three hundred. It achieved what it did by a combination of perseverance, luck. the sympathy of the media, and finally. MP's willing to support, and a Government prepared to give time.

It is a pity that Miss Pym has passed over so lightly the part played by the media in the forwarding of the various permissive reforms. But without it no accurate assessment can be made of how it came about that such small, largely unrepresentative groups were able to re-shape the mores of society. Not for nothing did Mrs Margaret Knight declare that "We (the humanists) have some of the best known broadcasters on our side" — and, evidence shows that they made the best use of their contacts! Pressure groups are' powerless without publicity and it is right that they should have it.

But surely :history will record the partiality of much of the coverage of the permissive reforms, the censorship of the opposition, the highly selective reportage of the issues in

volved. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that one of the first books to look objectively at the power of pressure groups during the

last decade; should not have given an account of the infiltration of, and access to, the media

enjoyed by these groups. Wartime propaganda apart, this was the first time in our history that change was initiated on such a scale not by Parliament and people, but by tiny factions largely in command of the media. Radio, television, commentators, columnists, editorials and 'Letters to the Editor' provided the channels through which public opinion was conditioned to accept that for which it had no real stomach.

ALRA, we are told, "was extremely fortunate in receiving favourable publicity throughout the mass media." True. It is also a fact that those who opposed the Bill in the form in which it was presented, whether on medical or moral grounds, were almost always denied access to the media. A process of censorship which underlines how those who oppose censorship do not hesitate to use it to further their own causes!

Miss Pym chastises me gently for "casting doubt upon the legitimacy of pressure groups' involvement in the process of law making," and goes on to say that "many political writers on both sides of the Atlantic have seen pressure groups as significant and positive contributions to the process of democracy." To which I can only give a heartfelt "Hear, Hear," and heaven help us if it were ever otherwise.

I wish to cast no doubt upon the validity of pressure groups — with one qualification. It is vital that they are known for what they are. They need to be idenrified at source — one wonders how many people were aware that the various humanist groups behind the pressure for abortion, homosexual, divorce and other 'social' reforms were, by and large, precisely the same people, sharing, at one time, even the same address? And now, many of the same people are surfacing, in the current campaign against censorship! Perhaps the most interesting and perceptive chapter in the book is the one which raises the question, 'What of the future?' It looks at the link between public protest and Parliamentary democracy, between moral protest and institutionalised religion. How far is the one necessary because the other ceases to be effective in the relevant fields of concern? Miss Pym asks, "Ought the role of groups to be strengthened?" and examines the pros and cons very usefully, particularly with reference to the role of Parliament. And, certainly, one would agree with her that the conventions surrounding Parliamentary "advisory committees and the independent status of MP's ensure that the Parliamentarians can step back and put pressure-group opinion into the wider context of the national interest and the electoral mandate." May it always be so.

The notes and references are detailed and valuable and I can foresee that Pressure Groups and the Armissive Society could be a useful reference book for many school Social Studies projects.

Mary Whitehouse is Hon General Secretary of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association.