Lords Sitting of 7 March 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BREAKING UP OF STREETS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House relative to the Breaking up of Streets by Statutory Undertakers do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they concur in the Resolution of their Lordships, That it is desirable that the London Government Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
DEFENCE LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.

ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg
2
to move that in respect of the Royal Wanstead School Bill Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with. The Standing Order requires that this Bill, being a local Bill, should be read a second time not earlier than the fourth nor later than the seventh day after its First Reading. It was read a first time on February 7, and has been waiting for the Attorney-General's Report. That is why I now ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, the purpose of the Bill to which I am about to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to protect the farming interest against the depredations of deer and of ground game, and particularly, of course, of rabbits. Your Lordships are very familiar with the extent of the damage to the agricultural interest which is attributed and is attributable to

3
the depredations of rabbits, and you are also familiar with the proposals which have been made in the case of England and Wales for dealing with the trouble, for a Bill has recently passed through your Lordships' House dealing with that matter. It will be for your convenience, therefore, I think, if I devote the greater part of my remarks to the first Part of the Bill, which deals with the depredations of deer.
The deer forests of Scotland may be said to be of interest in the economy of the country from two quite distinct points of view. In the first place they bring in to the local authorities very considerable revenue in the form of rates. For example, in the case of the five counties of Argyll, Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Inverness the total rateable value amounts to £660,000 odd, and of that amount approximately £161,000 is attributable to shootings and fishing properties. That is to say, something like 24 per cent, of the total rateable value of those five counties is attributable to the shooting and fishing properties. Then again, of course, the sport of deer stalking provides a fair amount of employment, and in one way and another brings a good deal of money into the Highlands of Scotland.
It is sometimes argued, I know, that the deer forests of Scotland have to some extent displaced agricultural activities, and it is true that during the fifty years, let us say, before the War, the deer forests did very considerably increase in extent, with the result that by the year 1912 it was estimated that they covered in all some three and a half million acres. But it would, of course, be an entire mistake to estimate that this was the result of deliberate policy on the part of the landowners. It was nothing of the sort. It was due in the main to economic reasons—to the fall, for example, in the price of wool and in the price of mutton; and it was also due to some extent, I think, to a change in taste on the part of the consumers of mutton. There was a time when the old mutton of the mountains was greatly appreciated, and it may be that some of your Lordships recall two lines written by a Scottish playwright of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—I do not at the moment remember which—in a play entitled "Douglas," which ran as follows:
"Proud and erect the Caledonian stood:
Old was his mutton and his claret good."
4
Well, the taste for old mutton since those days has changed and everybody now demands a tenderer form of joint.
It would therefore be, I think, absurd to contemplate any large change in the character of the deer forests of Scotland from deer forest land to agricultural land. The economics of Scottish sheep farming would have to change very materially before that would be in any way possible. And it is not that, of course, for which the farming interests in Scotland are asking. What both the agriculturists and the landowners agree about is that in recent years the deer have strayed widely from the recognised deer forests and are becoming a perfect nuisance to the agriculturist, at any rate in some parts of the country, and especially on the fringe of the Central Highlands. This was largely a result of the difficulties in controlling deer during the War. Some protection during the War was given to the farmer and the crofter who, under an Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, were entitled to destroy, by any means which were available to them, deer that were found trespassing upon their crops and causing injury to them. This concession, however, was not very effective. The deer, as many of your Lordships know, is an elusive animal, and during the post-War period it is undoubtedly the fact that deer were permitted to stray on to lands far beyond the confines of the deer forests themselves.
I can recall from personal experience the great difficulty of keeping down deer, at any rate during the War years. It was represented to me on one occasion that it was very desirable that the deer should be killed, both from the point of view of providing food and from the point of view of preventing damage to agriculture by a large increase in their numbers. On one occasion, in consequence of this, I obtained six days' leave and proceeded to Scotland, and enjoyed I think as good a six days' deer stalking as I have ever had in my life. In the course of six consecutive days, as a result of fair stalking all the time—for it was impossible of course to find men to provide for driving or anything of that kind—I killed twenty-five stags. And since, in those times, communications were difficult with the remoter parts of the Highlands, I got back from my leave twenty-four hours late, and was severely reprimanded by the authorities for doing so.

5
Very well, that is the present position, and it is to deal with this state of affairs that this Bill has been drafted. Let me deal, very briefly, first of all then with the history of the Bill. My right honourable friend has naturally been most anxious, when embarking upon legislation of this kind, to secure as great a measure of agreement between all the interests concerned as is possible. Since the War various Committees have been constituted to consider the question. Consultations between the owners and the tenants have taken place, and the result has been, I think, to secure as nearly as is possible an agreed measure. We still hope that even if these powers are granted by Parliament and can be made use of, much will be done as the result of voluntary effort to improve the present position, and I should have great hope myself that the mere fact that provisions of this kind were on the Statute Book would stimulate owners, where they have been a little backward perhaps in taking such steps as were open to them to reduce the number of their deer, to do so.
Now let me refer briefly to the actual provisions contained in this Bill. Clause 1 gives the right to the occupier to kill and take deer on his enclosed land, which will, I think, be regarded by everybody as a reasonable proposal in present circumstances. The other clauses of Part I permit the killing of deer on unenclosed land, and I would like to explain to your Lordships the machinery which we propose to set up to secure this object. Let us suppose, for example, that complaints are made to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland of damage through depredations by deer to sheep farms on the fringe of the forest area, and that the Department are satisfied that some action is required. In that event a local deer regulation committee will be set up for a suitable area, consisting of representatives of the landowners, farmers and county council in the area, the purpose of the Committee being to investigate the complaints and to negotiate with the owners with a view to the reduction of the number of deer in that area. If an owner does what is necessary after negotiations have taken place all, of course, will be well. If not it will be open to the Department of Agriculture to take certain action.
They may give, for example, particular occupiers a right to shoot female deer on
6
unenclosed lands on their farms; or they may authorise the local committee to undertake an expedition to kill deer; or they may direct an owner to erect and maintain a deer-proof fence. The Bill does, in fact, give the Department power to apply any one or more of these three remedies, but I should like to say at once that it is not contemplated that the provisions in connection with the erection of deer-proof fences will be resorted to except in very exceptional circumstances. There might, for example, very well be a case in which an owner had a deer forest which had been protected by a deer-proof fence which had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and I can well imagine circumstances in which it would be by no means unreasonable to ask the owner at least to put his fence into a state of repair.
Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 2 of the Bill provision is made for the appointment of a Central Advisory Committee which will consist of persons who are very familiar with all matters appertaining to deer and deer forests. The Committee have to be consulted by the Department before a local committee is constituted, and again on the recommendations of a local committee when such recommendations have been made. At this stage, the Advisory Committee may make such further inquiry as they think fit, and are required to offer to interested parties an opportunity of being heard. Only on the receipt of the Advisory Committee's report will the Department be in a position to take action with regard to the recommendations which have been made to us. The Advisory Committee are also charged with the function of advising the Department as to the number of persons who may be authorised by an occupier to kill deer on unenclosed lands and as to the withdrawal of any authorisation granted to the occupier or any modification of the rights conferred on him. In Clause 8 the Advisory Committee are given the function of advising the Department whether to authorise an occupier, in an area where no local regulation committee has been established, to kill female deer on his unenclosed land. There may be cases where the trouble affects only one or two farms, and where it would be wholly inappropriate to establish a local deer regulation committee. In such cases, as I have said, the Central Advisory Committee can recommend the

7
Department to authorise the occupiers to kill deer on their unenclosed land.
Clause 6 relates to the apportionment of expenses in cases where a local committee enter lands to kill deer. It will be noted on reference to Clause read in conjunction with Clause 7, that where the committee have been of opinion that an owner has been diligent in endeavouring to control the deer upon his land, and has failed through no fault of his own, no charge will lie for a share of the expenses of the committee's operations; but where an owner has unreasonably failed to take steps to reduce the number of deer on his land, he will be liable for a share of the cost. There is a provision for an appeal by the owner to the Department with respect to the committee's assessment of the charges for which he is liable and for a reduction of the charges if there is good reason for it. It will also be observed that the value of the services given by an owner during these operations will be credited to him. The owner will also be liable to contribute to the cost of operations carried out under Clause 5, the object of which, as is obvious, is the prevention of any increase in the area at present devoted to the maintenance of deer. This provision is clearly in the national interest as well as in the interest of individual farmers, since any extension nowadays of the recognised deer forest areas must take place at the expense of the agricultural industry.
Of the incidental and minor provisions in this Part of the Bill, there are only two which I need specially mention. One is Clause 4 (9), which requires that where a local committee has been authorised to enter on lands for the killing of deer it is required to give one week's notice to the owner and tenant and to give these persons an opportunity of assisting in the work. Moreover, no such entry is permissible during the period from April 10 to October 16, which covers, roughly speaking, the breeding and shooting seasons. Your Lordships will also observe from Clause 11 of the Bill that the residual expenses of the operations carried out under the Act—that is to say, the expenses which are not recoverable from the owners—shall be shared equally by the Treasury and the county council concerned. We hope that that will commend itself as a fair arrangement.
8
On Part II of the Bill, dealing with rabbits, it is perhaps unnecessary, as I have already said, for me to say very much. I would inform your Lordships that amendments which have been made by this House to the text of the English Bill have been incorporated in this Bill, and it is desired that the two measures shall follow generally the same lines. There is, however, one important difference in the Bill now before your Lordships' House, for in Scotland it is proposed to vest the administration of the law in the central Department—that is, the Department of Agriculture—instead of in the county councils, as in the case of the English Bill. May I assure your Lordships that there is no sinister significance in this departure from the English Bill? As many of your Lordships will be aware, a great many agricultural services which are in charge of the local authorities in England are administered centrally in Scotland, and it has been made clear to the Government, in the course of the discussions which have taken place with the various parties interested, that it is the desire of all concerned—farmers, landowners and the county councils—that the same practice should be followed in this case.
Under Part III of the Bill it is proposed to effect some amendment of the Ground Game Acts extending from 1880 to 1906. These Acts were, of course, passed a long time ago in circumstances which differed very materially from the circumstances of the present day. Fifty years ago the rabbit was still regarded as an animal of some value and profit, and although the Acts admitted a farmer's right to prevent the rabbits becoming an extensive pest, a number of restrictions accompanied the exercise of his right. These restrictions were no doubt imposed in the interest of game protection generally, and also perhaps in some places to prevent the extension of the rabbit, which was still regarded with a more or less kindly eye. Thus, in the case of moorland and unenclosed land—such, for example, as the great bulk of the area of a sheep farm—the farmer is allowed to kill rabbits and hares only during the period from September 1 to March 31, and he may use firearms for the purpose only from December 11 to March 31. He may not tamper with the rabbits during their breeding season, from April onwards. So it comes about

9
that, however energetic he is in killing off the vermin on his arable land, he may still be sure that the stocks will be replenished from outside by the autumn. At the same time his unenclosed pastures are, of course, being denuded by rapidly-increasing hordes of rabbits of the food required for his sheep and cattle.
The object of the first part of Clause 15 is to enable the farmer to kill rabbits on unenclosed land all the year round, with the exception that he may use firearms only during the period from November 1 to March 31. The extension by six weeks of the period during which firearms may be used is a proposal which your Lordships may very well wish to discuss. It is inserted on the view that ground shooting is practically over by the end of October, if not before, and that some advantage may therefore be gained in the campaign against the rabbit pest by allowing the use of firearms after that date. There is no doubt, however, as many of your Lordships will agree from personal experience, that trapping and gassing are the most effective means of destruction, and that the important thing is to give the maximum of facilities in that respect to the occupiers.
The only other amendment of the Ground Game Acts to which I think I need refer is as follows. In present circumstances, apart from the occupier himself, members of his own household and farm employees, he may only employ one person to trap. Effective trapping, however, requires two or more people, and when the farmer and his hands are busy with farming operations the restriction creates a real difficulty. With the safeguards provided—that is to say, as to the number of additional persons who may be so authorised—I hope that your Lordships will agree that there can be no great objection to this amendment of the, Act, which is asked for by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
The remaining provisions of the Bill, I think, call for no special comment. I would only say in conclusion that, in commending the Bill to your Lordships, the Government hope that it will be generally welcomed, and that not merely as a measure for the assistance of agricultural interests but in the national interest as well. I am satisfied, from what I have heard of the discussions which have taken place and as a result of which
10
this Bill has been drafted, that the proposals in the Bill accord generally with reasonable opinion amongst all parties, including the landowners of Scotland themselves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends can satisfy the noble Marquess on the last matter to which he referred. We do not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill. We have examined it. We think it appears rather cumbersome and in parts rather complicated. One or two of the clauses are very difficult to follow, and we should have thought that the drafting might have been simplified. But on the other hand, there are a great many matters to be taken care of in the Bill, and perhaps that is inevitable. With regard to the remarks of the noble Marquess about the increase of deer so as to become pests in certain parts of the country, my information is that one reason for that is that there has not been enough shooting of hinds in the winter. The reason is an economic one: it is, I understand, that many of the proprietors in Scotland to-day are not in a position to employ enough men to do this. It is at a season of the year when hind shooting is rather inconvenient, as most people who have already been doing it for sport have gone south.
I have another observation to make. The noble Marquess said there had been a good deal of exaggeration about the land which could be used for agricultural purposes and which is now under deer. There has, of course, been a lot of exaggeration about that. Very large areas of the Highlands are only suitable for deer, and I personally hope that they will always be sanctuaries for deer; they could not be used for anything else. On the other hand, vast areas in Scotland which were under sheep or were tilled should be used again for sheep and/or agriculture. The Party for which I speak believe that all these Bills are only tinkering with the subject and that the land problem in the Highlands—and indeed in all Scotland—can only be solved by the whole of the land being taken over for the benefit of the community. We should then be able to say that certain areas are the most suitable for deer, other areas for sheep, other areas for settlement and agriculture, and proceed accordingly. However, we do not expect the Government to bring in a

11
measure of that kind just yet, and we can only wait patiently for our opportunity to arise when that and other problems can be dealt with.
The only other observation I would make is that I note that the Bill does not apply to deer other than red deer. The roe deer are not included. My opinion is that though roe deer have increased they do not do a great deal of damage, and personally I am very glad that these beautiful deer are not included in this Bill. I hope they will be allowed to increase a great deal more in Scotland. Generally speaking, my noble friends will be prepared to give the Bill their support.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, in making the few remarks I propose to make this afternoon on the Bill before your Lordships' House, I should like to make quite clear that I do so in no spirit of hostility to the principle of the Bill. I think I am representing the views of certainly most, if not all, proprietors of deer forests in Scotland when I say that I recognise the grievance that does undoubtedly exist—that is, the damage done by deer to grazing and agricultural ground, especially in winter when they are driven down by storms from the higher ground. I think, too, that we are all agreed in Scotland that there are far too many deer, and that owing to the very poor nature of the soil in most forests there is not enough food for that number. The truth of that is seen in the very inferior heads one finds in most forests, and the reason why deer come to lower ground is to seek better feeding than they can get in the high lands.
As the noble Marquess said, the problem has been discussed for many years and various suggestions have been made to deal with it. I should be only too happy if an agreed Bill passed which would remedy the undoubted evil. Having said that much, however, I feel bound to add that in my opinion there is a great deal of misconception, as has been said, in the minds of the general public about deer forests in Scotland. They are described as vast pleasure grounds which ought to be devoted to agriculture and which are kept entirely as playgrounds for the idle rich. That, of course, is very far from the truth, as has been stated already. In most cases the land is not fit
12
for any other purpose, and I would remind your Lordships that deer forests are really a very valuable asset to Scotland. They bring in money, they give employment to a great many people where no other employment is possible, and in some counties they provide a very large proportion of the rates. If anything were done to diminish the value or abolish the value of deer forests it would, I think, be a very serious matter for the counties themselves.
I realise that this is not the most appropriate moment to go into details, which can be better dealt with in Committee, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. One is the proposal that owners of deer forests should erect and maintain deer fences to prevent deer getting on to grazing and agricultural land. That, if I may say so, is an absolute impossibility. The cost of erecting, let alone of maintaining, deer fences would be prohibitive, and in some cases I know it would be quite impossible to erect fences at all owing to the nature of the ground. Again, I know of places where fences, even if erected, would be laid flat and entirely destroyed by one winter storm. Therefore I think that the proposal to erect fences is not a very feasible one.
Again, supposing deer are found on agricultural land, who is able to say from what forest they come? Who is the owner who is responsible? Who is the culprit? Another point I should like to mention is the composition of, and the powers proposed to be given to, the Advisory Committee, which I think will require very careful examination. I do not propose to say anything further about that, as I know that a speaker who is to follow me will deal with that subject. Expressing a purely personal opinion I should have thought it would be very much better to schedule genuine deer forests and make it obligatory on owners to kill off a certain proportion of the deer on their ground, according to their acreage, and allow all deer elsewhere to be destroyed. But I know that that does not find favour with His Majesty's Government, and therefore I do not propose to say anything further about it. As I say, the principle underlying the Bill has my hearty support, but I think it will be necessary to make a number of Amendments and I appeal to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill to deal with them

13
sympathetically, as I think it is of the utmost importance that a Bill of this sort should be carried with the unanimous approval of all concerned.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, I pray the indulgence of your Lordships as a member speaking in your Lordships' House for the first time. I think in the past few years the habits of deer have changed to a certain extent in the county from which I come. In the forests people have been trying to kill as many hinds as they can in the winter and stags in the stalking season. That is all very well when you have stalkers available, but I am afraid the result has not been altogether too good. It has no doubt driven a lot of deer down into the low country to get away from regular shooting. There they have taken up their home in the winter and have done a good deal of damage. Unfortunately, on the low ground there is no one to push the deer back into the forest. I think that all people who own deer forests will agree that we should like someone to push them back into the forests but the only way to do that is by regular stalking. I do not think extermination in certain areas is practicable. You would only push the deer on to some other area, where they might do more harm than they were doing before. Therefore in my opinion the only way to overcome the damage is for the deer regulation committees to institute regular stalking in areas where damage is being done by deer, and I believe this would have a very good effect in time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, there is only one point I would like to mention, and that is one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone. It seems to me that the erection of fences might do more harm than good. Suppose the deer get through them, you cannot push them back to the forest: you have fenced them out of the forest. Fences may be more dangerous than useful.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I do not wish to claim the attention of your Lordships for more than a short time, but as proprietor of several deer forests I would venture to make a few remarks. Although this Bill may cause opposition in certain quarters, it must be generally admitted that it is long overdue. Owing to a variety of reasons, deer have of recent years increased beyond their bounds. They have done considerable
14
damage to afforestation, and in certain cases they have become a menace to agriculture. Given this state of affairs, it seems advisable and indeed inevitable to take active steps against them. It seems to me the success of this Bill will stand or fall by the members that comprise the Advisory Committee which w ill work in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. No Government Department is remarkable for imagination or elasticity, nor should it be so. Admirable as the Department of Agriculture is, it seems imperative that it should be guided by a Committee composed of men with a personal knowledge of the management of deer forests and of the habits of deer. I may be wrong, but I fear that despite the wording of Clause 2 the Department may find power to nullify the advice of this Advisory Committee. I would like to be reassured on this point. As the Bill stands, the Department has complete control of the situation.
There are other clauses—in chief I refer to that about fencing which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord. But there is also a financial threat to the county councils. Both these clauses must be carefully reconsidered. A general ruling on fencing might cause ruin to a large proprietor, and there is another way of dealing with this question. In this connection I should like to mention the County of Ross, in the Northern Highlands, where the local proprietors have effectively combined to investigate and redress all causes of complaint. This measure has met with complete success in all cases. Your Lordships are aware that a deer forest proper can be managed in such a way as to provide sufficient keep for the necessary deer upon it. Unfortunately, Highland estates have been broken up and the old order has gone with them. Elsewhere winter feeding grounds have been planted over by the Forestry Commission, and again electric power schemes have all tended to drive herds of deer into low land and agricultural areas, with unfortunate results. It will be the task of the Advisory Committee to differentiate between the controlled and harmless denizens of the forest proper where there is no legal claim for such, and the tracks of sheep ground and grass moor bordering on cultivation which recently has become the uneasy habitat of tribes of Goths and Vandals badly stalked and badly super-

15
vised. This differentiation can be no easy task. It may cause unpopularity, but it is very necessary. In supporting an amended Bill I do so for two reasons: that it will grant benefit to the agriculturists and will give quality and not quantity to the deer forest.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, one always hesitates to intervene in a debate in your Lordships' House, which is so full of experts on so many subjects. The fact that there are so many people present who are more qualified than oneself does indeed make one hesitant, but on a measure such as this I feel that it is the wish of your Lordships that those who have deer interests and who have some measure of experience, however small, should give what humble advice they find possible on the subject. When I say those with experience, I mean those who have obtained their knowledge of the habits of deer not just from the autumn when they come to do the stalking, but from watching the deer at all times of the year. And it is only in that way that it can be properly obtained. Those of us who have been endeavouring to tackle this problem for some little time now are all, I think, agreed that there is a very real problem which has to be dealt with, and they are most anxious that the best means should be found to deal with the question.
But I think it would be advantageous if I might point out the reasons why this situation has arisen. It is not from neglect in any form. There are three reasons as I see them. The first and chief one is the economic factor, by which for a good number of years after the War forests remained unlet. The owners were unable to afford to shoot them, and for quite a number of years the deer were not properly dealt with. The second factor which I think had an influence was the fact of the general tendency, if I may say so, of the younger generation, to be less anxious to use the lower portion of their anatomy in the active pursuit of the game; they prefer to sit down and have it driven for them. The third reason was the fact that many forests were not let on lease, and therefore those who had forests let on lease were more anxious to obtain good rates and not so anxious to care for the forest as they should and kill off all the rubbish, which has actually been extended.
16
If I might—I will be as brief as I can—I would like to stress the point that the area which is covered by deer and occupied by deer is divided more or less into two categories. There is the deer forest proper, where, as has already been said, little other use in many cases can be made of that ground. There is ground of course where both sheep and deer occupy the same area, and the second part, the lower ground where, through this general increase with which we are trying to deal, the deer have been induced to stray, and not only to stray, but to stay if the hinds can drop their calves there. Not only have they stayed there because they have been undisturbed possibly, but in some cases they have been encouraged, and it is not an unnatural point of view from those who suddenly find themselves in a position to offer five or ten stags a year on their shooting leases which are an added attraction. Therefore you can hardly blame them if they have not wished to do all the disturbing which should really be done.
But the fact is that those conditions have reached a certain point where they are really becoming a serious menace to the agricultural interest. I am referring to the straying of deer on the lower ground. I would like to say just one word about the two interests, agricultural and sporting. As has already been said, the theory has been exploded that these tracts of ground are kept for sport and pleasure of the owner, because there are very few owners now who can afford to shoot their own places and, except in the case of high deer forests, nearly all ground is used for dual purposes, that is to say, grouse moor and grazing. What is good for grouse is good for sheep, and if you care for the land properly for sheep you are caring for grouse. Both have identical interests. Now we come to a point which I rather want to make. Of course we know that the agricultural industry is vital in Scotland. Most of us who happen to own deer forests are heavily connected with that industry as it is. We realise that, but we must not forget—and I cannot emphasize this too strongly; I think it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elphinstone—that those sporting activities are not now just what they were, they are a business.
There is a real live industry employing an enormous number of men. They are

17
bringing a great deal of money into the country. They are bringing a great deal of money into the revenue and into the local coffers, and making it possible to carry on the administration of the country as it is now in the pretty efficient way in which it is carried on. I refer to police, roads, and other matters. It is through these sporting propensities that Scotland is able to maintain itself at the level it is. Seeing that it is a business, I do impress upon His Majesty's Government to use all the foresight and knowledge they can, and their power when taking these measures to see that its interests are not done away with. And I can say this, that whether the land remains in its present hands, or whether it goes into the hands of the State, they will be ill advised if they allow these valuable assets to disappear, because they bring such an enormous value to the country as a whole in maintaining various activities.
Having dealt with the preliminary case I come to the Bill itself, and I want to say, like all the other speakers, that having studied this measure, although we may not like some of it, yet we are quite convinced that generally speaking in principle this measure is necessary. We are convinced that some form of universal co-ordination is entirely necessary if you are to keep down the deer. Keeping down the deer is not an easy matter. It is not so simple a matter as sending out troops with machine guns, as some people seem to think. The deer do not belong to one forest or to one particular person. They drift enormous distances, and therefore it is only by a measure which can co-ordinate and deal with the problem in the manner suggested by the Government that you will be able to deal with this problem. I, too, would like to emphasize the fact that although this Bill is necessary it does not mean that measures have not been taken privately. They have. Enormous trouble and care has been taken, and large sums of money have been spent already, but unfortunately those efforts have not borne the fruits that we would like to see. The problem still remains a very large one, and one which can only be dealt with in the manner which has been suggested.
Therefore I fully support the Bill as it stands, but bearing in mind the facts that have tried to put before your Lordships. While I appreciate the various safeguards which the Government have
18
given, yet I would emphasize that it is vitally important that they should see that the best men are put on the various committees. They should be men who can command the respect and confidence both of the agricultural industry and the sporting industry, who through their own reasonable activities will, I think, be able to bring some measure of relief in regard to this matter. There are two or three points which I think will have to be amended in the Bill in Committee. One has already been mentioned, and it is the question of deer fencing. My own experience is that it is uneconomic and not practical. The fencing has been erected and maintained at enormous cost, and quite frequently when the drifts are big the fences do not serve the purpose, because the deer simply walk across them. Therefore I think the Government will have to consider whether this should be insisted upon. Another point to which I would call attention is on page 9 of the Bill, where it is suggested that the expenses should be paid half by the Treasury and half by the county council. From my own personal point of view I should be delighted that they should be paid by the county council, but do the Government think the councils will like it? We know already what bitter feelings there are with regard to expenditure which is put upon the county councils. However, I hope your Lordships will give this measure a happy Second Reading.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the Government deserve and will secure support for their proposals to prevent damage by deer and rabbits, and for the destruction of rabbits and the better control of deer as to numbers and straying. This subject is one, however, which it is most difficult to legislate upon, and all sorts of points crop up when the effort is made. While I think the Scottish Office have been on the whole quite successful, they may perhaps feel themselves that this is not yet a perfect measure. They have at any rate done their utmost to secure agreement on the part of different organisations and people who are most concerned, and there will be a general wish to help the Government in securing their object. The aim is right, but the difficulty is how to secure the results. A reference has been made to the example in Ross-shire, and I think this is so

19
striking that it deserves an even wider recognition. It is still not too late, perhaps, to urge that it should be copied by people in other parts. The great majority of owners would welcome a solution of any outstanding deer forest problem, and an end to any grievance, but at the same time no one would wish to see the deterioration of our magnificent highland forests and stags.
At the present moment, while we are considering this Bill there are many who have studied the Report of the Highlands and Islands Committee, and in another place the Access to Mountains Bill is under consideration, and it is most important that neither in the Bill in another place nor in this Bill should any slip be made which will bring a loss to Scotland of local trade and employment. In the South of Scotland, and in other places where we do not have deer stalking, our only trouble is from another kind of deer. The trouble in our case is to the landowners more than to the tenant farmers. The trouble is to our plantations and our forestry operations, which are often seriously handicapped by the large number of roe deer and other deer roaming the country. If the Government would be kind enough to help others in a similar way such help would be very welcome.
Very little has been said, so far, about the rabbits. Speaking as a landowner I would advocate the destruction of rabbits, in the interest of landowners and tenant farmers, as being essential to good farming and afforestation. I am sure that all those who spend much time in personal attention to farming and afforestation realise the importance of the elimination of the rabbit. The amount of food consumed, and the injury done in the fouling of the ground, quite outweigh any possible advantages. Again, it is difficult to legislate for the extermination of rabbits and I think in addition some assistance from public opinion is very important. I would like to see a campaign in conjunction with this Bill from the Scottish Office and from all organisations both working for the landowners and the farmers, and also from the Press, to bring home to the owners of land and all who have the opportunity of reducing their rabbits, the importance of doing so. We know many cases of individual effort and
20
success but in those cases any advantage is generally reduced by the action, or lack of action, of their neighbours. Many others have similar experiences to my own in that respect. Under this Bill I suppose individuals will be expected to report on, or complain of, their neighbours, which will not be a pleasant task, but it has brought out how important co-operation between neighbours to reduce this vermin and this pest is now and will be in the future.
Then again, we know there are many who like to see a few rabbits about the place, or who on humane grounds do not like to see them killed; but I hope it can be brought home to those people that we must look upon this as an economic question. The argument is sometimes used, or the excuse is sometimes made by those who do not kill their rabbits, that if the imports from other countries were not so numerous and the price was better there would be more inducement to kill them; but this argument again is quite wrong, because it only encourages rabbit catchers to keep more rabbits so as to have a better crop the following year. Many tenant farmers think that a five-pound note for their rabbits now and again is worth having, but this is a delusion because the damage to their land and crops far outweighs that consideration. What is needed is a will and a determination to kill the rabbits and a recognition that that is the better policy. I hope, now that the Government have stepped in, that they will be able to take a hand in this. Only last summer I was privileged to take the Royal English Forestry Society through woodlands in Northamptonshire where, less than two generations ago, over 1,000 rabbits a day made a common bag. On this particular day during the course of several hours not one single rabbit was seen, and it was commented on with much surprise by those who take the view that it is not possible to stamp out the rabbit.
There are in the clauses referring to rabbits a few points which require attention. In Clause 12, subsection (1), I think the notice is a little ambiguous, and the proviso in that subsection is far from clear. Then a right of appeal for the occupant was asked for in the case of the English Bill only a short time ago, and I think it is quite fair that it should be included, as it will be required, in the case of this Bill. I would

21
thank the Government for their attention to this very serious problem of rabbits. I do not feel that the noble Marquess emphasized quite as much as he might have done the real damage that is being done to agriculture and forestry and the additional expense caused by rabbits. I hope this disciplinary measure will be useful.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, with the exception of the noble Duke who has just spoken and who directed his main attention to rabbits, all the speakers this afternoon have been forest owners, and the reason that I am inflicting myself on your Lordships for a few minutes is that I come under a different category—namely, that of those unfortunates whose ground up to a few years ago was entirely free from deer but who now, totally against their wishes, are obliged to carry a considerable stock. Perthshire has been largely the centre of the trouble about the excessive numbers of deer, and this has been due almost entirely to the action of one proprietor, who for a number of years after the War did not reduce his stock sufficiently until at last it became so large that one season several waves of deer, many hundreds in number, left the ground for good and spread far and wide. This forest is something like thirty miles from my own ground, separated by large areas of purely agricultural country, and yet there is no doubt that it is from that forest that the deer which are now on my land, or their ancestors, originally came.
Actually while they remain on the high ground, my own experience has been that they have done very little damage, as they seem to come down to the farms only on rare occasions in severe weather. What is more serious is that a considerable number of them are now reverting to the proper habit of the deer, which is a woodland animal rather than a dweller upon the high tops, and are taking to the woods; and once deer get down into thick young woods not only do they damage the plantations very considerably but it is very difficult indeed to extirpate them. It must be remembered that when they are on the edge of cultivated land and in woods of dense or semi-dense character it is hardly ever possible to use a rifle without grave danger to human life. Accordingly, the deer have to be pursued with shotguns, which is a difficult thing, and also a very brutal one, as usually three or
22
four deer are peppered for every one that is brought into the bag.
If we succeed, as I think we undoubtedly shall, in reducing to an absolute minimum the deer which have strayed from their proper haunts, and in many areas in exterminating them altogether, we shall still be faced with the possibility of fresh incursions from the forests, and I am afraid I cannot altogether accept the theory that it is not possible more drastically to reduce the numbers inside the forests themselves. Practically every forest in Scotland, however well administered, carries a certain stock of old deer or young stags which are never likely to be good, either in head or in body, and if proprietors and shooting tenants at the end of the stalking season proper would give instructions to their stalkers to shoot down a considerable number of these bad stags during the winter and early spring, we should, I maintain, avoid a repetition of these great waves of deer which leave overcrowded forest ground. I know that some people do not like the idea, because it means that stags shot after the proper season are unfit for human consumption and can only be thrown away, but the position is sufficiently grave that this waste of potential food would I think be justifiable under the present circumstances.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I do not like to interrupt the noble Earl, but this has been done to a great extent already, and a great many of us are doing it now all through the year.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am quite aware that there are many people who, like the noble Earl, are doing it, but there are a considerable number of forests, especially those which are not stalked regularly by their owners, where that is not the case. A few days ago a friend of mine was coming south by train, and over a few miles of country on the borders of Inverness-shire and Perthshire, but most particularly in Perthshire, he saw, within a fairly short distance of the railway line, vast parties of deer spread over miles of ground, whose numbers he computed at a moderate estimate to be not less than 10,000 head. My friend is himself the owner of, and himself habitually stalks, a very well managed forest, and he is a person of sane views and by no means super-heated imagination. It is true that this was in bad weather, which would naturally drive

23
most of the deer some way down on to the black ground, where they could get food, but still the fact that such a number could be seen is, I am convinced, a sign that there are far too many deer in that neighbourhood in north Perthshire. They will have to be severely reduced, and I believe that that can be done in a very short space of time if owners and tenants of deer forests will give the necessary instructions.
In regard to the rabbit question, I have only one word to say, and that is that I think it is rather unfortunate that in all these Bills dealing with ground game hares and rabbits are treated as one. The hare, although capable of doing considerable damage, is by no means such a pest as the rabbit, and can be much more easily controlled; and, particularly in regard to high ground and moors, I think it might be advisable on the Committee stage not to include hares with rabbits, as otherwise there will be considerable abuse of the right to pursue ground game towards the end of the shooting season. I should like in conclusion to express my entire agreement with the objects of the Bill, which, subject to various emendations in Committee, will, I am sure, go far to remedy what is a very real scourge at the present time.
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, the matters contained in the various clauses of this Bill have been so adequately dealt with that I need not take up your Lordships' time, but, if the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill will permit me, there is one small point I should like to raise for his consideration. We have in Scotland now a National Trust. As many of your Lordships will know, it is in its infancy as compared with the National Trust in England. Our National Trust for Scotland to-day owns at least one large area which was in the old days deer forest, which has always been deer ground, and which I understand is entirely surrounded still by ground devoted to deer forest purposes. It is consequently impossible, and it would be in my view undesirable, to exterminate and to keep out always the deer from this area. I need hardly tell your Lordships that under the arrangements of the National Trust this large tract of land is open to the public to walk over where and when they will, and it would be a great loss were they not able
24
to see some deer luring the course of their travels.
I have been asked to put to the noble Marquess the point as to whether any provision tan perhaps be made in this Bill whereby the National Trust will be treated in a way slightly different from the ordinary landlord. It has to be pointed out that this land is held by the Trust not for sporting purposes. It is not for that purpose at all that they acquired it, nor is it I believe taxed on such a basis, and those who are responsible for this rather young production, of which many of us in Scotland are very proud, are anxious lest the provisions of this Bill may operate against the National Trust in a way which nobody would desire. I therefore in that general way put the point to the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, for his kindly consideration.
Dealing with the Bill generally, here is a Bill which we from Scotland all welcome. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has touched on the point that some landlords in his area do not properly kill their deer. That is exactly why we want this Bill; that is the reason for the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that there is room in Scotland to-day for a drastic reduction in the number of deer, and it is for that purpose, I take it, that the Government are bringing this Bill before your Lordships to-day. Turning for a moment to the question of rabbits, with which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch dealt, when it comes to rabbits it seems to me men are divided in two camps—those who wish to destroy them and those who cannot bear to be unkind to them. Between these camps is fixed a gulf which is deep and wide and cannot in my view be crossed. Either you are going to destroy your rabbits or you are going to be kind to them; you cannot do both. There is no halfway house. I speak from considerable personal experience when I assure your Lordships that if you are going to destroy your rabbits, you have to destroy them in every way you can, and at all times. There is no other way of doing it. I am sometimes interested to see the number of people who urge the destruction of rabbits and then loudly decry the use of any form of trap or method of killing them which would in their estimation be cruel or unkind to "poor little animals."
Finally, here is a Bill which, in principle, we all want. We welcome it. Deer

25
have undoubtedly done great damage for many years. Rabbits I regard as one of the enemies of British agriculture. If they can be reduced and kept within their proper proportions, and the deer within their proper areas, the country of Scotland will benefit, and I can think of nobody who will not be pleased.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE: My Lords, everything on this Bill has been so well said that I would not venture to intervene in the debate except as a deer forest owner. It would be deplorable if any debate in your Lordships' House allowed the idea to spread for a moment that the owners of deer forests were in any way antagonistic to the measures proposed by the Government. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord on the other side of the House recognise that in his speech. Undoubtedly deer forest owners and deer forests do lend themselves to Party capital and propaganda. I only rise to say, as a deer forest owner myself, that I am sure all the proprietors in Scotland recognise there are too many deer. They would like to see them cut down, and in many cases, they make great personal efforts to do so. For the last five years I have, myself, spent the winter in Scotland and have studied the question. Undoubtedly the damage which is reported in the newspapers is frequently non-existent or largely exaggerated. I have tried to localise where the complaints have come from, and I have here a letter from the Department of Agriculture in which they say that complaints from individual landholders are comparatively rare. At the same time there is a feeling of grievance in Scotland, and I welcome this measure wholeheartedly. I believe that if it is worked with good will on both sides, a great deal of good will be done.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in welcoming this Bill. There is only one point of criticism I would venture to make, and that is that Clause 14 (2) on page 10, at line 23, may require some very careful wording. The noble Marquess who introduced the Bill talked about stimulating owners. I am not at all sure that occupiers do not require at least as much stimulation. I have known more than one case where the proprietor killed every head of rabbit on his property, and in at least one case the property was restocked, in part at
26
any rate, by the occupier. It is possible that Clause 14 (2) might tend to diminish the natural sporting interest of the proprietor in his property, and in the end might not be very successful.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is very gratifying to find in all quarters of the House warm approval of the principles underlying this measure, and it looks very much as if by the time we have finished with the Bill it will prove to be an agreed measure. I was grateful to the noble Lord who is leading the Opposition for his support. His chief criticism of the Bill was that the drafting of it made it difficult to follow, that the text was complicated. I agree with the noble Lord, but that is my experience of every Bill that comes before your Lordships' House. I always find great difficulty, myself, in understanding the language of Bills. In that matter we have to trust largely to the skill of the draftsman and accept his word for it that the words he uses are the words which must be there to express the intention which we have. It was gratifying to find that support was given to this Bill, not only by those who are keen agriculturists, but also by the owners of the deer forests themselves. Many of your Lordships have spoken with great knowledge both of agriculture and of deer forests, and amongst them may I include the noble Earl, Lord Dalhousie, who was addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, and whom I would like to congratulate upon his intervention in this debate. May I express the hope that we shall in the future often have the advantage of the noble Earl's contributions to our discussions?
Such criticism as there has been has concentrated in the main on two points. The first is the provision with regard to the erection of deer-proof fences. My noble friend Lord Elphinstone said that in many cases it would be impossible to set up a deer-proof fence. Of course I entirely agree with the noble Lord: I know places myself where a deer-proof fence would be an impossibility. But may I remind your Lordships that these powers will be exercised by the Department after consultation with the Central Advisory Committee? That Committee will contain men who have intimate knowledge of these problems, and it would therefore be very unlikely that the Central Advisory Committee would advise

27
the Department to ask the owner of a deer forest to set up a fence where it was clearly for practical reasons impossible for him to do so. Nevertheless, I am very willing, and my right honourable friend is very willing, to listen to any further representations with regard to that particular aspect of the Bill which your Lordships may wish to make to us. When the Commttee stage is reached, we shall be very willing to consider any proposal which any of your Lordships may make with a view to providing, let us say, further safeguards against the arbitrary use of this power. The other main point upon which, I will not say criticism, but comment has concentrated is the personnel of the Central Advisory Committee and of the deer regulation committees. I agree entirely with the noble Lord who stressed the importance of a careful selection of the persons who are to serve on these bodies, and he may rest assured that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will of course be responsible for the personnel of the Central Advisory Committee, has very much in mind the importance of selecting suitable persons.
My noble friend the Earl of Leven and Melville put in a plea for the National Trust for Scotland, and suggested that certain differential treatment should be meted out to the Trust. I need hardly assure the noble Earl that, as chairman of the sister body in England, I have every sympathy with the object and the wishes of the National Trust for Scotland. I am not sure, however, that I have appreciated precisely what it is that he thinks might be done. After all, the machinery of this Bill will not be set in motion unless there are complaints from persons suffering from the depredations of deer or of ground game. If the National Trust for Scotland own property which can harbour deer without inflicting damage upon the agricultural aspects of the property, then I presume no complaint will be made, and the machinery of the Bill will therefore not be brought into operation. I am, however, quite willing to look further into that matter in consultation with the noble Earl, in case I have not fully appreciated what it is that he has in mind.
My noble friend the Earl of Airlie expressed doubts whether the county councils would be very willing to accept
28
their share of the costs of putting the provisions of this measure into operation. On that point I am able to say that there has been some consultation with the representatives of those county councils which are likely to be most nearly concerned by this Bill. So far as my information goes, there has been no suggestion that they will be unwilling to bear their share of the costs.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I hope the noble Marquess is right.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: If I may interrupt for one moment, I may say that the Perth County Council strongly object to paying any portion of them.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: It may well be that further consultations will be necessary, but, so far as that matter goes, that is my present information. May I say in conclusion with what interest and pleasure I listened to all the speeches, and particularly, perhaps, to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, whose father took so helpful a part in the negotiations which have taken place between the various interests concerned and had so intimate a personal knowledge of all sides of this question, particularly of afforestation and kindred subjects? It was indeed gratifying to me to find that, though he had some comment to make on particular details of the Bill, the Bill as a whole met with his warm commendation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Under the Patents and Designs Acts certain acts, mainly in connection with applications for the grant and renewal of patents and for the registration or renewal of the registration of designs, have to be carried out at the Patent Office within certain time limits. In general those time limits can or must be extended by the Comptroller within further limits if application for extension is made and certain conditions, such as payment of fees, are satisfied. It has been the practice of the Patent Office for many years, unless there was a direct pro-

29
vision to the contrary, to allow such extensions of time even if the application were not made until after the period permissible apart from extension had expired. A judgment of the Patents Appeal Tribunal has shown that this practice, in one case at all events—namely, that arising in connection with the acceptance of complete specifications under Section 8A of the Act—is wrong and may have resulted in invalidating patents granted upon applications in connection with which such extensions of time have been so allowed. This Bill is intended to establish for the future and validate for the past what has been the practice in this connection, and to provide for other cases where extensions of time are permissible but there is no express statement as to whether application must be made before the main period has expired or whether it can be made during the period of the permissible extension.
Advantage has also been taken of the opportunity afforded by this Bill to deal with another old-established practice of the Patent Office as to the validity of which doubts have been expressed. When a complete specification has been returned to the applicant for amendment but has been railed only at the last minute of the period allowed for its acceptance, or at any rate too late for a full examination to be made within the period, the practice has been to examine the refiled specification as soon as possible, and, in cases where it has been found to be in order for acceptance, to accept it "as of" the last day of the period allowed. This Bill validates this practice for the past and establishes it in substance for the future. The Bill is merely one of machinery with the sole object of legalising certain practices which have grown up, but which without the Bill might be considered ultra vires.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have examined this Bill, and on the whole we think it is a pod Bill and deserves support. There are certain matters concerning the patent law, with which I will not trouble your Lordships on this occasion in view of the other Orders on the Paper, but if I may I would like to send a letter to the noble Lord and he perhaps will be good enough to consult with the Department. With regard to this Bill,
30
the only criticism we have to make is with reference to Clause 2. This clause, we think, is somewhat clumsily drafted, and is apt to give rise to a certain amount of confusion more particularly in view of the use of such words as "completed" and "completing." For a long time now such words have been understood and used to mean the step of filing a complete specification on a patent application. But it appears from Clause 2 of the Bill that they are now to have a somewhat different meaning and will tend to give rise to the assumption—incidentally a wrong one—that an applicant for a patent has a longer period than hitherto for filing a complete specification on a patent application.
We think that the possibility of confusion would be less likely to arise if, instead of the words in question, other words are used in the clause, such as "in condition for acceptance," or their literal equivalent. We are inclined to think that the intentions of Clause 2 of the Bill could have been provided in a much more straightforward way, such as by a simple amendment of Section 8A of the principal Act which Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to replace. If the noble Lord will be good enough to look into that particular point, and see if better words can be found, we think the Bill might be improved.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would move to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 28, s. 2 (1)
". Subsection (1) of Section two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by the Official Secrets Act, 1920, shall have effect—
(1) as if after the word 'if' there were inserted the words 'for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State'
(2) as if the words 'or which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under His Majesty or which he has obtained or to which he has had access owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under His Majesty or as a person who holds or has held a contract made on behalf of His Majesty or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract ' were deleted; and
(3) as if after the word 'misdemeanour' there were inserted the words 'and for the purposes of this subsection such person shall be deemed to have so acted for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved'
(4) as if after the word 'misdemeanour' there were inserted the words 'and in the case of any prosecution under this subsection involving the proof of a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, subsection (2) of Section one of this Act shall apply in like manner as it applies to prosecutions under that section'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to narrow the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by the Official Secrets Act, 1920. It is intended to narrow Section 2 of the Act of 1911. As I ventured to suggest on the Second Reading, while the Bill which is now before your Lordships goes some way to limit the intended use—intended by Parliament—of the Act of 1920, it leaves many loopholes for oppression which could be used as long as this section of the Act of 1911 remains unamended. I take it that the intention of Parliament at the invitation of the Government is to make it quite clear that these Official Secrets Acts are only to be used against people accused of espionage or who are directly hostile to or acting against the interest of the State. That was the intention of Parliament, without a doubt, and we were assured of that safeguard for the subject. If we leave Section 2 of the Act of 1911 as it is, there remains a great menace. This is a section which is capable of indefinite expansion to cover not only espionage—which we are all agreed the hands of the Executive should be strengthened to deal with—but to cover all manner of communications and information which may have been received from any one who holds or has held office under His Majesty.
If I may refer for a moment to the Act of 1911, your Lordships will remember that it is an offence for a person to have in his possession or control a wide range of articles—sketches, plans, models, notes, documents—or information which relate to or are used in a prohibitive place,
32
etc. It deals with post offices and all kinds of buildings which really have nothing to do with espionage at all, and if the executive wish to annoy some people, or wish to persecute certain persons, then the unamended Act of 1911 gives them a very wide power to do so. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would of course say—I am sure with complete sincerity—that it was not the intention to use the Acts of 1911 and 1920 oppressively, and if the matter rested with him I would be perfectly satisfied. But it does not rest with him. It rests with the police, and the police can, under the Act of 1911 if it remains unamended, use it very oppressively indeed. In times of stress and public excitement, when there is some crisis on, the police have a habit of proceeding rather harshly in certain cases. I am not making a general accusation against the police or against the Executive, but it is dangerous for them to have in their hands the very wide powers given by the 1911 Act. My Amendment—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): Will the noble Lord pardon me for interrupting him? I have been desirous that he should explain the nature and the extent of his Amendment before I made certain suggestions to your Lordships. The scope of the Bill which has received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House is strictly limited. It deals only with Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, which it is proposed to amend pursuant to an undertaking given in another place. The Title of the Bill, which of course can be enlarged, is merely:
"An Act to amend Section six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920."
The Government are wholly unwilling that this measure should be treated—by Amendments which would be entirely out of order in another place—as a Bill in regard to which the whole of the principles and the scope of the two previous Acts of 1911 and 1920 were to be considered and gone into.
It is far from being my intention to suggest to your Lordships anything more than that you should consider how far an Amendment of this sort ought to be gone into at this time. If you allow it, I do not know myself how you could object to an Amendment, for instance, to introduce something quite foreign to this Bill, such as an Amendment of the Army Act or any Act you please. You will

33
notice that if you do allow these Amendments, which are wholly beyond the scope of the measure which has received a Second Reading, you do two things. In the first place, you allow something which has not been discussed on Second Reading at all to be introduced on a Committee stage, and therefore you allow things that are foreign to the nature of the legislation to escape the necessity of being dealt with on Second Reading; and you also have the result a at you have no limits to the number of matters which may be discussed on such an Amendment.
This very matter of travelling beyond the scope of a Bill has been before this House in a previous case, which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 13, in reference to February 4, 1913. It is recorded there that the Bishop of Wakefield at toe time introduced an Amendment which was objected to by the Earl of Derby on the ground that it was outside the scope of the Bill. The then Lord Chairman, Lord Donoughmore, stated that the Amendment was wholly beyond the scope of the Bill, and the Earl of Derby moved that the Amendment be not considered as it was outside the scope of the Bill. The Lord Bishop at first required his Amendment to be considered, but the Marquess of Salisbury suggested to him that he should not move his Amendment and he took that course. I am, of course, under a bounden duty to be perfectly candid in my statement of this as of any other case, and I would observe that the Marquess of Salisbury, having said that he hoped in the circumstances that the Lord Bishop would refrain from moving his Amendment and putting the House to the necessity of definitely ruling it out of order, then he went on thus:
"I feel very strongly that it would be a dangerous thing for us to agree to a Motion of the sort moved by Lord Derby without very careful investigation, for any such Motion would be regarded as a precedent. As the sense of the House is clearly in the direction that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, I hope the right reverend Prelate will not move it."
I think it is clear that this House is not bound by any definite rule in any matter of this kind, but I do venture to ask your Lordships to consider whether it is your will that Amendments which are completely outside the scope of the Bill—because all the Amendments of the noble Lord are within the same category
34
—should be debated in this House on merits. If your Lordships come to the conclusion that this is right I am content, but I do not think that the matter should be dealt with without some protest, and I hope that your Lordships will receive the advice and assistance of the persons who are much more able to deal with the practice of the House than I—the Leader of the House and the Lord Chairman who is now in charge.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble and learned Lord gave me notice that he was going to raise this point, and so I have looked up the precedent, as he also has done and has quoted it to your Lordships. You will see that the matter has not been raised for some 26 years, and that is the only precedent that I can find which bears on the subject. I need not repeat what the noble and learned Lord has said. He has given you an account of what occurred on that occasion. Of course I cannot give any decision on the matter, I can only give an opinion for what it is worth. It seems to me that unless your Lordships considered that the subject matter of the Bill was anything relating to official secrets, it would appear that these Amendments would be beyond the scope of the Bill. As I think the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, your Lordships not infrequently add to a Bill a matter which is not included in the Title and therefore the Title has to be altered. I remember very well that I was in charge of the Local Government Act, 1929, and a good deal of matter was introduced into that measure in your Lordships' House and the necessity arose for changing the Title. My noble friend behind me (Lord Strabolgi) has recognised this fact here, and he has proposed to alter the Title so as to conform with his Amendments. I need hardly say that your Lordships are well aware that your Lordships are all powerful and can take any course that you please, but if I were asked to give an opinion I should be tempted to say that in view of the fact that the Bill is entitled "an Act to Amend Section Six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920," in my personal humble opinion, which may be quite wrong, the Amendments of the noble Lord behind me would appear to be outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would like first of all to observe that I have not moved any Amendment. The noble and learned

35
Lord Chancellor did not allow me to do so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I followed the precedent that was taken in a previous case of raising the point before the Amendment was moved.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understand. I thought the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was going to correct me on some statement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. I was following the precedent.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thought the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was going to expose the whole case against me. Nor did he, I am sure inadvertently, advise me of the precedent that he was going to cite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry about that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sure it was an inadvertence, but the Lord Chairman has the advantage that the Lord Chancellor has therefore over me. I did get a very courteous message from the staff of the Lord Chancellor to the effect that he was going to argue that my Amendments would be outside the scope of the Bill, but I did not know any precedent was going to be quoted and I have had no opportunity of studying it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry about that. I apologise.
LORD STRABOLGI: No apology is needed. All of us who know the noble and learned Lord are quite aware that anything of that sort would be due only to inadvertence. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor says that this was not discussed on the Second Reading. Not only did I bring this matter up of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, but your Lordships were good enough to allow me briefly to argue it. Now I am very courteously and no doubt properly rebuked by the Lord Chancellor for bringing up a matter which he describes as being outside the scope of the Bill. This obviously touches on a matter of very great importance to your Lordships' House, much more important than any Amendment I could bring before your Lordships or any argument which I could use. We are here invited to amend the 1920 Act dealing with official secrets.
36
That Act in its turn amended the 1911 Act. The object of the Bill now before your Lordships is to safeguard the subject against the too wide use of the words of the 1920 Act which, in a certain case which was quoted on the Second Reading of a journalist, had been felt to be used oppressively and against the wish of Parliament. My humble submission to your Lordships is that if it is your desire to safeguard the interests of the subject and to prevent the misuse of these Acts, you must not only amend the 1920 Act but you must also amend the 1911 Act on which the 1920 Act was largely based.
If I am told that that is improper, that that cannot be done under the rules of your Lordships' House, I, of course, immediately abide by that decision. If I follow the Lord Chairman, he considers that to attempt to amend the 1911 Act would be outside the scope of this Bill. Of course I will abide by that ruling, unless any of your Lordships care to question the matter further. Perhaps I may be allowed to observe this, that what the Lord Chancellor said, that an attempt might be made to amend the Army Act in the case of an Official Secrets Act, is to exaggerate the matter beyond reason. The 1920 Act is an amendment of the 1911 Act. I am, however, young in my experience of this House, and I do not pretend to be a student of Parliamentary procedure, but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this may be a dangerous precedent. My contention is that the purpose of this measure is not carried out unless the original Act is also amended, and I should hate to be the unwilling instrument of creating a precedent which might in future limit your Lordships' action.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): This is, of course, merely a matter of opinion, because neither I nor any other of your Lordships have any right to lay down the law as to procedure in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships settle your own procedure and action. On the whole, everyone would agree with the noble Lord opposite if this had been an ordinary Bill. If this Bill purported to amend the Official Secrets Acts then I think the noble Lord would have been quite in order in seeking to amend the Act of 1911, but that is not the Bill which we have before us to-day. The Bill is drawn very closely,

37
to amend Section 6 of a particular Act. I think that to go outside that section, and still more outside that Act, would be to stretch the rules of procedure very wide. It would be going much further than the House is accustomed to go. I should be the very last to wish to limit the powers of this House as they are limited in another place. There, as noble Lords know better than I do, because I never sat in the other House, you cannot make an Amendment of a Bill which is outside the Title of the Bill. Here we postpone the Title until we have finished, and can then amend the Title if we wish. So we get over that difficulty and extend our procedure, but I think it would be stretching the rules of our procedure beyond reason and beyond our custom if we agreed to the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I hope he will not press it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a few words out of courtesy to the argument which the noble Lord has put forward? As I understand it, he would limit the usual practice of the House—because it is no more than a question of practice—in reference to Amendments, by saying that you might amend any Act if there were a series of Acts amending each other, so that in one sense the Bill before the House was altering some of the previous measures which together created a composite piece of legislation. I perceive the ingenuity of that, and in many cases no doubt it is correct, but I would call his attention, and the attention of your Lordships, to the following facts. This Bill, which the Government have sponsored in order to carry out the pledge to which I have already referred, is of the most limited character possible. It does not alter the nature of an official secret, or the nature of the offences which, under the Acts of 1911 and 1920, become either felonies or misdemeanours. This Bill is confined simply to the question what questions can be asked by a chief officer of police, or by somebody appointed by him, in order to procure a conviction, and nothing more, and the pledge which was given in the other place was a pledge that the power of a policeman in this country to ask questions, in order to arrest somebody who had committed or was thought to have committed a breach of Section I of the Act of 1911, should be confined to cases of espionage, so that in all other cases no such powers
38
could exist. In this sense, that although of course a policeman may ask anything he likes of anybody, he should not be entitled to ask him with the result mentioned in Section 6 of the Act which is sought to be amended: there should not be a penalty for a refusal to answer a question. That is all that is being done, and nothing else.
Now let me just ask your Lordships this. Suppose you have a series of Acts with regard, for instance, to local government. There are sometimes a series of twenty Acts and perhaps a hundred or two hundred sections involved. Suppose a Bill is introduced by the Government of the day, or by a private member, to amend a particular section of one of those Acts—it might be in quite a trivial respect. For example, it might be to increase the salary of a particular official. Is it to be said that because there are all these Acts, there may be moved in such a case, in this House, a far-reaching Amendment of the law of local government as subsisting in this country? As I have said before, far be it from me to presume to advise your Lordships with any force at all as to my own personal opinion. I am, as your Lordships know, a newcomer, but I cannot think it would serve to make people in other places think we conduct our business in the best possible way if Amendments of that character can be permitted, when in fact the Bill before the House is of a very limited description and does not raise the question of the propriety or correctness of the kind of Amendment which the noble Lord wishes to support on this occasion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It may be of interest if I say a few words on this matter, seeing that I well remember the incident in this House to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I remember this incident because I was at the time consulting with my right reverend friend the Bishop of Wakefield. If I remember rightly, the occasion was an amending Bill to a Betting Act, called the Betting Inducements Bill. The Bishop of Wakefield was extremely anxious to bring in on this amending Bill what he considered was a question of far-reaching importance, and he strongly pressed that a matter which is now familiar to us as football coupons should be included. It was pointed out that upon that basis any point affecting the

39
betting laws in the country might be introduced, just as the noble Lord opposite thinks that any matter affecting official secrets might be in this Bill. The Bishop of Wakefield on that occasion was induced to withdraw the Amendment, and I think it was a precedent in this House exactly pertinent to the present case. I only proffer these observations as I remember the episode perfectly well.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to pursue this matter at too great length, though my personal inclination would be to continue the argument with the Lord Chancellor, and I think I have arguments to bring forward. But it is an important matter. I understand from the Leader of the House particularly that he considers that this Bill only amends one section of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, and must therefore be limited to that extent. If your Lordships would look at the Amendment Paper you would see that I also propose to amend the 1920 Act as well as the 1911 Act, and if I understand the advice given to your Lordships those Amendments would be out of order. I would like to be certain of that. If I understand the argument of the Lord Chancellor we cannot even amend the 1920 Act, with which this Bill deals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord misunderstands me. I do not say the House cannot; the House can undoubtedly. All I am suggesting is that in the case of such a Bill as we have here it would be very bad practice to attempt to travel outside it and to amend anything but section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920.
LORD STRABOLGI: Therefore the advice the Lord Chancellor gives to your Lordships is that we can only deal with one section of the 1920 Act. I would only observe to your Lordships that our right to amend Titles of Bills has proved very valuable in the past, and that our wider procedure here has been of value to Parliament as a whole. This matter is very complicated and difficult, and in all the circumstances I do not propose to move any of my Amendments.
Clause 1:
Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 75, s. 6.
1. For Section six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, there shall be substituted the following section:—
40
"6.—(1) Where a chief officer of police is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed and for believing that any person is able to furnish information as to the offence or suspected offence, he may apply to a Secretary of State for permission to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection and, if such permission is granted, he may authorise a superintendent of police, or any police officer not below the rank of inspector, to require the person believed to be able to furnish information to give any information in his power relating to the offence or suspected offence, and, if so required and on tender of his reasonable expenses, to attend at such reasonable time and place as may be specified by the superintendent or other officer; and if a person required in pursuance of such an authorisation to give information, or to attend as aforesaid, fails to comply with any such requirement or knowingly gives false information, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
(2) Where it appears to a chief officer of police that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interest of the State immediate action is necessary, he may exercise the powers conferred by the last foregoing subsection without applying for or being granted the permission of a Secretary of State, but if he does so shall forthwith report the circumstances to the Secretary of State.
(3) References in this section to a chief officer of police shall be construed as including references to any other officer of police expressly authorised by a chief officer of police to act on his behalf for the purposes of this section when by reason of illness, absence, or other cause he is unable to do so."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (2) of the substituted Section 6, in order to make the opening words read "Where a chief officer of police has reasonable grounds to believe" instead of "Where it appears to a chief officer of police." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a very small point. The ones we have been discussing were large in their scope; this on the other hand is limited. It is a point I raised on the Second Reading. The Bill, as your Lordships know, authorises a chief officer of police to submit persons to interrogation when he has reason to think that an offence of espionage or something of that nature has been committed. But before taking that action he is required under this Bill to have the authority of the Secretary of State. Under subsection (2), however, he is allowed to dispense with an application for that authority where the case is one of great emergency, and

41
I think we are all agreed that this is a proper provision to be made in the Bill.
However, the Bill as drafted leaves the determination of the question whether there is or is not a great emergency entirely to the discretion of the chief officer of police himself, and apparently it is not subject to review in any quarter. That, I would submit, is wrong. The ipse dixit of a chief officer of police who may wish to short-circuit matters, and who may not have considered the matter very thoroughly, is not sufficient, and the case should be referable in the last resort to a Court of Law on the question whether or not the chief officer of police was justified in thinking that there was a great emergency. Consequently my Amendment would make the subsection read—not:
"Where it appears to a chief officer of police that the case is one of great emergency…."
but:
"Where a chief officer of police has reasonable grounds to believe that the case is one of great emergency…."
Those words, "reasonable grounds to believe," are well known to the law, and indeed precisely this point has already been raised on another Bill two years ago, the Public Order Bill.
The relevant paragraph of that Bill as introduced in another place was substantially in the form in which this Bill is now drafted, and it provided that a police officer of the proper status would have power to prevent a procession where he anticipated it would occasion a breach of the peace. The point I am now making was raised by an honourable member in another place, and the Home Secretary of that day, Sir John Simon, accepted the Amendment and the Bill as passed into law reads that where the officer of police "has reasonable ground" to anticipate that the procession would occasion a breach of the peace he may take certain action. That is, I submit, an exact precedent for the Amendment I am now moving, and I trust the Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move:
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("it appears to").—(Viscount Samuel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope to be able to satisfy
42
your Lordships, and perhaps even the noble Viscount himself, that there are good reasons for not accepting it. In the first place I should like to admit that this Amendment is directly apposite to the Bill which we are discussing, and that there is therefore no question of its being beyond its scope. Next I should like to remind your Lordships of this. There are three factors involved when you are considering this subsection (2). The first is that the matter is one relating to espionage, and nothing else. The second is that a chief officer of police is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act, the Act of 1911, has been committed—those offences are all espionage offences—and for believing that a person is able to furnish information as to the offence or suspected offence. The third point is that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary.
Now see what the noble Viscount proposes to put into the Bill. It is in effect that the action in a case of great emergency by a chief officer of police is not to be taken unless he can establish that he has reasonable ground for believing that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, or something of that kind. The result of that is this. The ordinary safeguard, that the Secretary of State has to give leave to ask the question of the person who is believed to be able to furnish information on the matter, will be useless if the time that elapses before you can get the consent of the Secretary of State will make it too late to arrest, or otherwise take steps to prevent the espionage being successful. As the result of the noble Viscount's Amendment, as soon as the chief officer of police or the person he has appointed to require the information goes to the person believed to possess the information, and asks the question, he is to be met by the answer: "What reasonable grounds have you for thinking that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interest of the State immediate action is necessary? Unless you can satisfy me that that is the case, I shall not answer your question."
As your Lordships can see, in the first place the person sent may not be able to answer that, because it is the chief officer of police who has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for

43
suspecting that an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act has been committed, etc. The man who is sent to ask the question may not know what particular offence under Section 1 of the principal Act is involved, what plan it is that is being stolen, what information it is believed has leaked out from an important Government office, and he may be perfectly unable to state what the reasonable grounds are. The subsection is drafted as it is because it does seem to the Government that where the case is one of great emergency it is necessary that the chief officer of police should be justified in sending some person who is not below the rank of inspector or superintendent to ask questions of the person suspected without going first to the Secretary of State, because the time that would be involved in taking that step might very likely defeat the whole object of subsection (2) where haste is the most important consideration.
It will be asked by my noble friend, no doubt: "Suppose in fact the chief officer of police has taken a step in a case of great emergency under subsection (2), and suppose he has acted wrongly, what happens then?" I tell your Lordships at once that he will be severely reproved by the Secretary of State, because the Bill provides that if he does exercise his powers under subsection (2) he shall forthwith report the circumstances to the Secretary of State. In other words, all that is involved in this is no more than that in every possible case where there is time these questions shall not be asked without the Secretary of State having approved, but where there is not time, because it is a case of great emergency, the chief officer of police must exercise his discretion. It is a discretion which is no greater or more important than the discretion which police officers have to exercise in countless circumstances in the administration of our criminal law; but in this case when he has done it, because he could not go to the Secretary of State he shall at once notify the Secretary of State of the circumstances, and if he has acted wrongly he will suffer a severe reproof. In these circumstances I must oppose the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Of course I cannot press this matter further in view of the attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord. At the same time I con-
44
fess I have heard his observations with surprise. The noble and learned Lord said that the chief officer of police will not be able to make this interrogatory unless he is able to establish that he has reason to believe the case is one of great emergency, and apparently the noble and learned Lord thinks he has to establish that to the satisfaction of the person interrogated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Amendment is passed.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Yes. The noble and learned Lord thinks that the chief officer of police has to establish it to the satisfaction of the potential informant who is supposed to have facts in his possession relating to a possible case of espionage. Surely not. There is no question of imposing any delay or satisfying anyone before the interrogatory is put. He may be called upon to establish the fact that he had reasonable grounds for belief, but only if subsequently his action is ever challenged in a Court or otherwise. That is the only occasion on which he would have to give his grounds for thinking that it was a case of great emergency, and not when he goes to the person whom he wishes to interrogate. If that person were to answer by saying, "Explain to me why you have not got the Home Secretary's order, and why you consider this a case of great emergency," the police officer would not be called upon to answer anything at all. He would simply put his questions to the person, who would refuse to answer at his own peril and at the risk of penalty. That is the situation as I see it.
Very much the same position arises in the previous case I quoted—namely, the Public Order Act of 1936. There the case is one of great emergency. The Chief Constable has to prohibit a procession there and then if he thinks there is going to be disorder. The Act requires him to have reasonable grounds for the belief before he does it, and if it is not a reasonable case proceedings may, in a proper case, be taken against him. The noble and learned Lord says that this is only one case of the exercise of discretion among countless cases that officers of police have to act upon. But this is the only provision in the whole law of England where an officer of police is able to interrogate any person who is liable to a penalty—the heavy penalty for a misdemeanour—if he refuses to answer.

45
Therefore the matter does need to be carefully safeguarded by Parliament. I say it with due respect and all diffidence, but I cannot feel convinced by the noble and learned Lord's reply, and feel sure the question must be raised in another place. However, in view of the attitude of the Government, it is not possible to carry the matter further here, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I want to ask another question on Clause 1 before the Bill proceeds further. I raised another point on Second Reading and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would look into the matter. It is the question whether an admission made in a case to which this Bill will apply can be used against a person who has answered the interrogatory. Noble Lords will see that here you have a person who is called upon by a police officer to answer certain questions in connection with espionage. He is obliged to answer those questions. When he has answered them, can his statement be used in a Court of Law to his own detriment? It is quite contrary to all the provisions of English law that such a thing should be done. Admissions by accused persons are held to be inadmissible if there is reason to believe that they have been extracted by any threat, promise or process of cross-examination. This compulsory power of interrogation was unknown to English law until 1920, when one of the Acts which is now being amended was passed into law. I raised the question whether a Judge in a case such as that which I postulated would feel constrained to declare that a statement made under the provisions of this Bill would be inadmissible to the detriment of the person who made it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has looked into the matter, as he was good enough to say on the Second Reading that he would, and would now give me an answer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I first looked into the question myself and thought that the answer was that which I stated to the noble Viscount. I am, however, not one of those lawyers who consider themselves infallible, and, having come to the conclusion that the answer I gave was probably right, I thought it expedient and proper to consult the highest authorities available to the Gov-
46
ernment. They have strongly taken the same view: that there is no question but that the reply of the person indicated in the section, compelled as it is by refusal to reply being a misdemeanour, could not be used against him in any proceedings at all. In those circumstances I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: On this occasion I am quite satisfied. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. I hope he does not think me unduly insistent, but the point is one of real importance, and I think it will be useful to have secured an answer given on his high authority.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the Title being postponed now?—because I should like to make one matter quite clear. I have the less hesitation in doing so as I understand that my noble friend Lord Addison is not moving his very important Motion on unemployment. May I draw the Lord Chancellor's attention, and that of the Lord Chairman, to page 3 of the Amendments? In the discussion on procedure I inquired whether the advice given to your Lordships with regard to the scope of the Bill applied to the Amendment of the 1920 Act. My first Amendment applied to the 1911 Act, and the Lord Chancellor was good enough to indicate that in his opinion that was the advice which should be given to your Lordships: that that would be outside the scope of the Bill. Now, however, if the Lord Chancellor would be good enough to look at the bottom of page 3, he will see that I have other Amendments on the Paper to the Bill before your Lordships, and I take it that he does not propose to advise your Lordships that those are out of order.
Your Lordships will observe that the two Amendments are really alternatives. The first is to insert, as a proviso at the end of the substituted Section 6, the following:
"Provided that in relation to any question whether there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed, the said Section one shall he read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted."
I do not know if the Lord Chancellor has occupied himself at all by studying those three later Amendments, which are certainly in order and concerning which I took upon myself to bring to his notice by letter that they were alternatives. If he has studied them, perhaps he would be

47
good enough to give your Lordships his opinion upon them. If not, I can postpone them. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that they are all outside the scope of the Bill, perhaps we can bring them up on the next stage. If, however, he is prepared to state a case on them here and now, I should be glad of the opportunity of moving them—or, say, of moving the first one. They have the same object but are really alternatives, as I thought perhaps the Government might be prepared to accept one in preference to the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite sure of the precise effect of these three Amendments at the end of the printed list, and I am not quite sure what the intention of the section would be if Section I were read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted. I remember them now; for the moment they had rather escaped my memory; but I am unable to say that they are not, within the practice of the House, quite proper Amendments to move. If my noble friend would care to move them now, I am in a position to deal with them.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am advised that these Amendments raise very important matters. I beg to move, at the end of the substituted Section 6, to insert:
"Provided that in relation to any question whether there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under Section one of the principal Act has been committed, the said Section one shall be read as if subsection (2) thereof had not been enacted."
This Amendment and the two other Amendments on the Paper are really alternatives having the same object. The 1920 Act has two main objects. One object, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, is to deal with espionage. But then the Act goes on to give all sorts of powers, as I suggested earlier in to-day's proceedings, to deal with persons who come into possession of documents. We are not satisfied that the interests of the subject are properly safeguarded in the absence of some such words as I sought to have inserted earlier. I do not want to argue the case for words that would have been outside the scope of the Bill. I would only say that the object of this Amend-
48
ment is to make sure that subjects are only prosecuted for espionage, or something to do with espionage, and are not prosecuted for possessing documents, the possession of which may be inconvenient to a Government Department but does not do harm to the State. I may say that I would not have ventured to suggest the Amendment to your Lordships unless I had had respectable legal advice that such an Amendment was needed and would be to the advantage of all concerned.
EARL STANHOPE: From Sir Stafford Cripps?
LORD STRABOLGI: No, I am sorry to say I have not had advice from Sir Stafford Cripps, although I should have been very glad to have had it, and I think the Lord Chancellor speaking as a lawyer would have congratulated me on such advice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I am still not very clear as to the precise object of it, but I must mention that subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1911 and Section 2 of the Act of 1920 are not concerned with interrogation at all. The present Bill, as your Lordships know, is purely concerned with interrogation of persons suspected of having certain knowledge. These subsections with which apparently the Amendment is concerned relate to prosecutions, and were designed simply to facilitate the task of the prosecution by providing that certain facts or circumstances were to be taken as evidence for the purposes of the act with which the accused person was charged.
If this Amendment or either of the alternative Amendments is accepted it would seem that the chief officer of police is not to regard himself as satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting an offence under Section I of the Act of 1911 except on grounds which could be proved in Court without the assistance of the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1911 and Section 2 of the Act of 1920. It would seem, then, that powers of interrogation of the chief officer of police would be restricted to cases where he is already in possession of positive evidence that a person has committed an act for a purpose prejudicial to the safety

49
or interests of the State, whereas the main object—sometimes, at any rate, the main object—of the section is to enable the police to obtain information as to an offence or suspected offence against Section 1 of the Act of 1911. Accordingly the Amendment would have the result of greatly stultifying or taking away the value of Section 6 of the Act. For these reasons I must contend that the Amendment is wrongly conceived and must oppose it on behalf of the Government. I should perhaps mention that it may be that the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the chief officer of police must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence of espionage, and that, except in cases of great emergency, he must obtain the permission of the Secretary of State, and that permission will not be given to him unless there is some real ground for asking the questions which are involved in the law as it appears in Section 6 of the Act of 1920 as it is and will be after it has been amended by the present Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I respectfully ask why the Chief Constable should not also be required to show that he has reasonable grounds for believing that it is a case of emergency?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am willing to answer that, but I am afraid I could only do so if I kept some of your Lordships here for some time. I will answer it in another place.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He will not be surprised to hear that he has not satisfied me, but in the circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ADDISON,LORD ADDISON, who had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government if they have any proposals to deal with unemployment and, if so, of what character, said: My Lords, in reference to my Motion may I be allowed to say that in view of the fact that previous business has occupied your Lordships for a considerable time, it has been represented to me by several noble Lords that it would be a convenience to defer debate on the Question that I had intended to raise. I think it will be generally agreed, whatever our views on the subject may be, that the subject is one of first-class importance which ought to be debated. Several noble Lords have told me that they would have liked some considerable time devoted to the debate, and the most reverend Primate, in particular, told me that it would be very convenient and agreeable to him if the matter could be discussed at a later date. Therefore, if it meets with the approval of your Lordships and those in charge of the business of the House, I should propose to put down a Notice for Wednesday, March 22.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, as far as I know there is only one notice on the Paper for that date. It is a formal Motion by the Lord Chairman of Committees, which I understand will take only a very short time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.