Lords Sitting of 14 April 1953

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Provisions as to payments for depreciation of land values]:
  (2) The proviso to subsection (2) of section sixty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the proviso to subsection (2) of section sixty-one of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which provide for invalidating assignments and assignations unless notice is given within a prescribed period to the Central Land Board), shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have applied to any assignment or assignation affecting any such claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section, being an assignment or assignation made or granted on or after the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two (whether before or after the passing of this Act), but, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, no such assignment or assignation shall be of any effect unless and until it has been approved in writing by the Central Land Board.
  (3) In the exercise of then powers under subsection (2) of this section the Central Land Board shall act with a view to securing that, as far as may be, any such claim made in respect of an interest in land enures either wholly for the benefit of some person having an interest in all that land or to the appropriate extent (but only to the appropriate extent), for the benefit of some person having an interest in part only of hat land and where any assignment or assignation (whether made or granted before or after the passing of this Act) either—

  (a) only operates to transfer the beneficial interest in a claim made in respect of an interest in land to the person beneficially entitled to that interest in that land
  674
  or to some interest in which that interest has merged; or

  (b) does not operate to transfer any beneficial interest in the claim.

  the approval of the Central Land Board shall not be necessary if, whether before or after the passing of this Act, notice in writing of the assignment or assignation is given to the Central Land Board within one month from the date of the making or granting of the assignment or assignation or from the date of the passing of this Act, whichever last occurs.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT had given notice of several Amendments in subsection (2) the first being, after "assignation"(where that word first occurs) to insert "whether made or granted before or after the passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: The first Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper really marches with Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5, and I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I briefly discussed the point involved in all four of these Amendments. A noble Lord sitting behind me has rather unkindly pointed out that so complex and complicated is the purpose of this Amendment that it would not much matter in which order we discussed the Amendments to this clause. That is not strictly so, and I think this is an Amendment which should commend itself to the House.
  Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause provide for control over assignments—what are rather charmingly called in Scottish law "assignations"—of claims on the £300,000,000 fund. So long as payment from the fund was to be automatic, it was a matter of no consequence in whose hands the right to any payment lay. The 1947 Act therefore provided that claims should be freely transmissible so long as notice of any assignment was given to the Central Land Board within a period to be prescribed—that period, indeed, was prescribed in the 1947 Act. But under the Government's new compensation proposal; to be embodied in next Session's legislation, payments will be made only as and when restrictions are imposed on the development of land or land is acquired by a public authority, It therefore becomes important that in the meantime the right to receive any payment should so far as possible run with the land.
  To meet the changed situation, subsection (2) of this particular clause provides that an assignment made on or

  675
  after November 18, 1952—that, of course, was the date on which the Bill was introduced into another place—shall be of no effect unless and until approved in writing by the Central Land Board. Subsection (3) lays down the principles by which the Board are to be guided in giving and withholding approval, and it excepts from the need to secure positive approval all assignments of claims which will result in the claim and the relevant interest being in the same beneficial ownership and all assignments of claims made by trustees to other trustees for the same beneficiaries, if notice of the assignment is given to the Central Land Board within one month from the passing of the Bill or from the date of the assignment where that is later.
  These arrangements do not, as the Bill stands at present, touch assignments made before that introductory date of November 18, 1952, which are still governed by the provisions of the 1947 Act, under which notice had to be given within the prescribed period to which I have just referred. However, the period prescribed expired at the end of last year, and it has become clear since then that there are a number of cases in which an assignment was made but no notice given, and the assignment is, therefore, or would appear to be, of no effect. As the Bill stands, the only course open to the parties would be the cumbersome one of making a fresh assignment which would then be governed by the new provisions. The effect of the Bill, as amended by the proposed Amendment, will be that these assignments will be validated if notice is given not later than one month after the passing of the Bill. This is achieved by making subsection (2) apply also to assignments made before November 18, 1952, and then introducing these into subsection (3) as a third class of assignment in respect of which notice only need be given. I am afraid it is a complicated and technical point, but I think it is a need which must be met. I believe that this Amendment which I am now proposing meets that need and, therefore, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, after ("assignation") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  EARL JOWITT: I agree that this is a very difficult subject I am afraid that I
  676
  have not studied it, and though the noble Lord who has just spoken is generally very clear, on this occasion I do not think he has made it clear to my mind. I suspect that that is my fault, or it may be that it is impossible even for the noble Lord to make this matter crystal clear. I should like to see if I have it right. Originally there was going to be a definite charge on the £300 million fund, and although that would not be paid in the immediate future, yet one was perfectly entitled to assign one's right to anybody. That was the law. Then came this Bill, if I follow it aright, which took away that right of assignment unless certain conditions had been fulfilled. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that after the introduction of this Bill or before—take either case—you had assigned the right for the benefit of creditors or under a marriage settlement or what you will. Am I right in thinking—I am only asking for information, for I am rather lost—that that assignment would have been destroyed by this Bill unless and until this Amendment came forward? And am I right in saying that this Amendment has therefore really a beneficial effect?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, that is so.
  EARL JOWITT: It restores. I take it, subject, no doubt, to certain steps which have to be taken, the agreement which the parties have come to beforehand. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a desirable Amendment, because it would obviously be undesirable to interfere by ex post facto legislation with an arrangement which the parties had come to in all good faith amongst themselves. If I have got this matter right, presumably I am correct in saying that this Amendment will be beneficial.
  LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, of course, is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 9, leave out from ("section") to ("but") in line 12.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3) (a), to omit the word "has" and to insert:
  "merges by virtue of the same instrument or as part of the same transaction or has already."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I am sorry to say, is no simpler and no clearer than the one I have already moved. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I are marching together. I hope that I shall carry him with me on this Amendment, as well as the last one. The purpose of the Amendment is to meet yet another legal difficulty which I think one or two noble Lords touched upon in the course of the Second Reading debate, and which arises in the defining of the first of the classes of assignment which do not need the positive approval of the Central Land Board.
  As I attempted to explain in moving the previous Amendment, the general intention is that claims on the £300 million Fund should remain, so far as possible, in the hands of persons interested in the land to which the claims relate. Where a claim and the relevant interest in land are to be in the same hands after assignment of the claim, and no question of a division of the claim arises, there is no need for the Board to scrutinise the transaction and a simple notice of it is sufficient. The wording of this clause as it stands is sufficiently wide to include cases where the transfer of the claim and the relevant interest in the land is effected by the same instrument; but doubts might arise as to any cases where by the same instrument a claim and the relevant interest in the land were transferred to a person already holding a superior interest in the land. For example, a leasehold interest in land and the claim in respect of that interest might be transferred altogether back to the freeholder. In such a case the freeholder would not be, at the time of the assignment, the person beneficially entitled to an interest in which the leasehold interest had merged. The Amendment makes it clear—or I hope makes it clear—that, provided the merger takes place on the same occasion as the assignment of the claim, the exact order of the process does not matter, and only a notice of the assignment of the claim need be given to the Board. The matter is not, I am afraid, crystal clear to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, judging by the expression on his face, but I hope he will take my word that this is a useful and necessary Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 28, leave out ("has") and insert ("merges by virtue of the same instrument or as part of the same transaction or has already").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  EARL JOWITT: I will take the noble Lord's word for it, and leave it at that.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
  ("; or
  (c) was made or granted before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("Board") to the end of line 36 and insert ("not later than one month after the passing of this Act or, if the assignment or assignation was made or granted after the passing of this Act, not later than one month from the date of the making or granting thereof.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2. as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Savings and special provisions]:
  (2) Nothing in section one of this Act shall entitle any person to the repayment of any sum paid before the passing of this Act by way of development charge in respect of any development of land within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, where, after the payment—

  (a) compensation has been or falls to be, paid to him under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the first-mentioned Act or under subsection (1) of section twenty of the second-mentioned Act in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of his interest in that land by virtue of the revocation or modification of permission for that development; or

  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved to omit paragraph (a) of subsection (2): The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next also go together. I think I am safe in saying that, compared with this Amendment, the previous two were simplicity itself. The provision made in

  679
  Clause 1 of this Bill for the repayment of development charge in cases where no part of the development had been begun before November 18, 1952, gives rise to the possibility of double payment if the land concerned is compulsorily acquired or is the subject of an order modifying or revoking a planning permission. That is because, under the 1947 Act, the fact that development charge has been paid entitles the owner to additional compensation in these circumstances, and that additional compensation will still be payable, despite the fact that development charge has been or is to be repaid. To prevent this, subsection (1) of Clause 3 provides that if the development charge has been or falls to be repaid under Clause 1, the compensation on compulsory acquisition or on a revocation or modification of planning permission shall be assessed as if that charge had never been paid. That, however, is not enough. The compensation on the compulsory purchase or revocation or modification order may already have been paid or become payable before Clause 1 takes effect. To meet this possibility subsection (2) provides that in such circumstances no refund of development charge shall be made.
  This will work well enough in the case of a compulsory purchase or revocation order totally extinguishing the planning permission in respect of which the development charge was paid. The whole of the development value attributable to the permission will then be included in the compensation payable and the owner will get his money back that way. But in the case of an order modifying a planning permission, on the basis of which development charge has been paid, the amount of the compensation payable in respect of depreciation in the value of the land may be quite small; it will, of course, depend entirely on the extent of the restriction which the order imposes. It would, I should have thought, be quite wrong that payment of a small sum under this head should disqualify the owner from receiving a larger sum by way of repayment of development charge. That, however, appears to be the effect of subsection (2) as it is now drafted. The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to this matter from one
  680
  or two professional sources, notably the Estates Gazette.
  The net result now of these Amendments is that the amount refundable under Clause 1 in such a case will be reduced by the amount already paid or payable in compensation for depreciation in the value of the land, instead of no refund at all being made. This is achieved by deleting paragraph (a) of subsection (2), so confining that subsection to the case where the land concerned is compulsorily acquired, and inserting a new subsection (3) to deal with the case where a revocation or modification order has been made.
  I hope that the matter is clear. It is, I suppose, as complicated a one as your Lordships could possibly be asked to tackle. All I can say is that the matter has been examined very carefully, in the face of some outside professional criticism, and this is the attempt of Her Majesty's Government to meet that legitimate and well-meaning criticism. I hope that it does so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Pace 5, leave out lines 38 to 44.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the noble Lord will be the first to agree that this matter is not crystal clear, and I agree that it is not his fault. We feel that the best thing we on his side of the House can do is not to raise any objection to this matter at this stage of the Bill. Between now and the Report stage of the Bill, we shall be able to consider most carefully the observations which the noble Lord has made. I shall then have the great benefit, I hope, of having the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to advise me on this matter—he is out of the Chamber at the moment, but he will be back in a few moments. We shall be able to look at it more carefully and critically then. Studying carefully, as we shall, the words which the noble Lord has used to-day, we shall no doubt see what it is all about. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the broad principle which attracts me is this. It is to leave out lines 38 to 44. As a broad general principle, I think the more of this Bill that is left out, the better. However this proposal has my support. I only wish that the proposal went much further.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
  ("(3) Where—

  (a) any sum or sums has or have been paid before the passing of this Act by way of development charge in respect of any development of land within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, or of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947; and

  (b) after the payment, compensation has been or falls to be paid to a person under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the first mentioned Act or under subsection (1) of section twenty of the second mentioned Act in respect of loss or damage consisting of the depreciation in value of his interest in that land by virtue of the revocation or modification of permission for that development; and

  (c) but for the provisions of this subsection, the said sum or sums would have fallen to be repaid to that person under section one of this Act,

  the repayment of the said sum or sums under the said section one shall be restricted to the amount, if any, by which it or they exceeds or together exceed the said compensation.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Cause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is my privilege to commend for your Lordships' approval the Second Reading of this short but, I think, rather valuable Bill. After the matter which has just been before the House, I think your Lordships will find that this is child's play. Under the 1937 Act of the same name, the Secretary of State for Scotland is empowered to authorise the expenditure of up to £5,000 by local authorities or harbour boards, or other such bodies, in what are colloquially known as the "crafting areas" in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, for the construction, maintenance or repair of harbours, piers, ferries, slipways and such works without recourse to
682
Parliament in London. For the expenditure of more than £5,000 it is necessary for the promoters of these works to come to London and to promote what is known to your Lordships as a Provisional Order a procedure which is of course expensive, both in money and in time.
Your Lordships will, I think, agree that £5,000 to-day does not go very far in constructional or repair work of this nature. Indeed, the cost of getting the necessary machinery and plant to these remote places may well amount to several times that sum before the work itself is even started. It is therefore sought by this Bill to increase the maximum or £5,000 to £25,000 as being a much more realistic and suitable figure. The area concerned comprises the Scottish counties of Argyll. Inverness, Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney and Shetland, where, in many instances, your Lordships will realise that the struggle for subsistence is hard; and in sonic cases, particularly in the case of some of the Islands, there is a temptation to abandon the land to the seagulls and the sheep. Development of transport, particularly of water transport, in those areas is therefore of the greatest importance to the crofters. But the imposition of additional local taxation, in the form of rates and other taxes, to meet the cost of discussion in London, the briefing of Parliamentary agents and putting through each separate action as art Act of Parliament, simply because the cost of the operation is more than £5,000, is, I submit, really an unfair burden. Not only is money involved, but your Lordships are well aware that in the North of Scotland the period during which marine works can be undertaken is very limited, and rough weather often makes those works quite impossible for many months at a time. It is therefore conceivable that the delay caused by coming to London for a Provisional Order would put in jeopardy not only the livelihood but even the lives of some of these seafaring folk in the North of Scotland.
I would emphasise that this Bill does not seek authority for increased expenditure in any form; nor does it seek to bypass Parliamentary authority. All expenditure is and will be controlled and scrutinised by the appropriate Government Department, whether that expenditure be £100 or £100,000. What this Bill does seek to do is to extend the very great

683
benefit of getting quickly, locally, and inexpensively the approval or the veto—and I would underline the word "veto"—from the Secretary of State for Scotland for projects costing up to £25,000, instead of up to merely £5,000. Your Lordships, I am sure, are aware that a children's school, costing, say, £100,000, can be built to-day without any necessity for the promotion of a Provisional Order. It does seem more than a little unfair that, under the present law, and with no apparent benefit to anybody, these very deserving Scottish areas should be penalised by what is, in effect, merely a matter of procedure.
This Bill is nothing more than a small amendment to the existing Act in order to rectify a hardship which I feel sure was not envisaged in 1937. I would only add that the Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill, was fully examined by the Scottish Standing Committee in another place, and emerged from that Committee with unanimous approval and support. It then passed through the other place with similar unanimous enthusiasm and with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government. I very much hope that your Lordships may see fit to endorse that view, and I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rea.)
3.0 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I do not think that there is anything I need add to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, for which he is responsible in your Lordships' House. As a result of representations which have been made by the Highland Panel and Scottish local authorities generally, the Bill has the full support of Her Majesty's Government. The
684
Panel and the Scottish local authorities have represented, as the noble Lord has said, with justice, that it is anomalous that authorities who can build schools, undertake housing schemes and make themselves responsible for other works, involving considerable expenditure, without having to seek a Provisional Order, should be so closely restricted when it comes to marine works. Indeed, the raising of the quite inadequate limit of £5,000 to £25,000 will, I think, very much help to simplify this procedure.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to add my welcome to this Bill. The only question that arises in my mind is whether the limit has not been fixed rather on the low side, knowing what things cost to-day. That is the only question in my mind. Otherwise, I warmly welcome the Bill.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords. I, too, should like to support this Bill. May I ask the noble Lord opposite why Ross-shire does not appear on the list of counties affected?
LORD REA: My Lords, I must apologise for not mentioning that Ross and Cromarty is amongst the counties affected—it was a mistake on my part. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I would say that the promoters or sponsors of this Bill were, in the first place, anxious that the limit should be increased to £60,000 or £70,000. This did not meet with complete approval by the authorities concerned; it was considered that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and that it was safer to go for a figure that they would accept rather than one which they might not accept. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his reply on behalf of the Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, in recent years we have had a number of discussions in this House on the subject of crimes of violence. These discussions have, I think, reflected the anxiety that has been felt, not only in this House but in the country as a whole, at the serious increase in violent crime that has taken place since 1939. In order that the House may appreciate the extent of this problem I feel that it may be useful if, before I go any further, I give your Lordships the latest relevant statistics. Of course, we are here concerned with the crimes classified for purposes of the criminal statistics as felonious wounding, malicious wounding and robbery. In 1938, the total of such offences known to the police in England and Wales was 2,277. By 1948, this figure had more than doubled, and stood at 5,294. Since then, the trend has been steadily upwards as the following figures will show: in1949, 5,320; in 1950, 6,198; in 1951, 6,323; and in 1952, 6,891—an increase of a further 30 per cent. over five years.
I am sure that the House will agree with me when I say that these figures are disturbing. I do not wish to exaggerate the problem in any way, and it is perfectly fair to say that many of these offences do not necessarily involve the use of weapons. On the other hand, far too many of them do, and in the circumstances it is perhaps hardly surprising that there should have been a strong and persistent demand for action on the part of the Government. As your Lordships are aware, hitherto the action that has been most frequently suggested in this House has been the restoration of corporal punishment as a judicial penalty. It was a penalty which, up to 1948, could be awarded by the courts for robbery with violence. I know that this is a subject upon which very sincere and strongly differing views are held in various parts of your Lordships' House. May I say at once that the last thing I want to do this afternoon is to reopen that particular controversy? But this much, however, I feel bound to say: that
686
although crimes of violence in general have increased steadily since 1948, those crimes of violence which were formerly punishable by corporal punishment have not so increased—in fact, they have steadily decreased. So we did not feel that at this stage, at any rate, on the evidence at our disposal, there was any justification for going back on the experiment initiated by the late Government in 1948.
Nevertheless, we did feel it our duty to see whether any further action was possible and appropriate in our endeavour to check, and ultimately to reduce substantially, this evil which has grown up in our midst. Unfortunately, it is impossible to eradicate crime merely by passing legislation, and our attack on crime must, I suggest, be far wider than this. I would emphasise, therefore, that the Bill which is before the House this afternoon represents no more than one aspect of a larger campaign. Other more important steps include the improvement of our penal system and the full development of the reforms instituted under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, especially those which deal with persistent offenders and with juvenile offenders. Another step is to make good the police strengths in the big cities where shortage of recruits still persists. Finally, I would remind your Lordships that even these measures must be of limited effect unless we can arrest the decline in moral standards which confronts us to-day.
For all these reasons I do not want to claim too much for this Bill. What I do claim is that it will bring an immediate strengthening to the forces of law and order in their fight against crime. I should like to add that in this opinion the Government are fortified by the views of responsible chief officers of police, who have assured my right honourable friend that a provision of this kind is likely to be of great value in placing a curb on violent crime. Let me make one point straight away. I do not claim that the Bill will be effective in stopping the determined criminal who deliberately sets out on some criminal enterprise, taking with him such articles, including weapons, as he considers will contribute to the success of that enterprise. But there are a large number of people on the fringe of the criminal community who will resort to crime only, if the opportunity presents

687
itself, yet amongst whom there is a growing tendency to slip a weapon, possibly a knife or a knuckleduster, into their pocket. It is primarily against that type of person that this Bill is directed. Let me emphasise again that it is the view of responsible and experienced police officers that the knowledge that the mere possession of an offensive weapon carries a liability to a substantial penalty will have a salutary effect.
Now, my Lords, let me turn to the Bill itself. What does the Bill do? First of all, it makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in any public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Next, it empowers a police officer, if he has reasonable cause to believe that an individual is carrying an offensive weapon, to arrest without warrant in certain specified circumstances. The Bill sets out what those circumstances are, and they are as follows: first, if he is not satisfied as to the person's identity or place of residence; second, if he has reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest the individual in order to prevent the commission by him of an offence in which an offensive weapon might be used. I think I should remind the House that the police already have at Common Law certain powers of arrest without warrant. Many Acts of Parliament give them that power in relation to certain offences. A great many of those offences are not felonies. To give one illustration, Section 41 of the Larceny Act, 1916, empowers any constable to arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that person of having housebreaking instruments on him by night.
That, very briefly, is what this Bill does, and your Lordships will observe that in it we seek to do something more than merely to deal with an offender when he has committed a crime. Prevention is better than cure, and what we are trying to do is to stop these crimes of violence from being committed. In order to do this, we have felt it necessary to take powers which normally we should be reluctant to take. In particular, in proceedings under this Bill the onus of proof is shifted, as respects articles made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, from the prosecution to the accused. There are, of course, precedents for this departure from normal custom.
688
For example, Section 23 (2) of the Firearms Act, 1937, provides that
"If any person at the time of his committing or at the time of his apprehension for"—
then the Act lists a number of offences—
"has in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm, he shall, unless he shows that he had it in his possession for a lawful object, be guilty of an offence."
Then may I also remind your Lordships of Section 28 (2) of the Larceny Act, 1916, which provides that:
"Every person who shall be found by night having in his possession without lawful excuse"—
Then are added the words—
"(the proof whereof shall lie on such person)"—
and certain implements of housebreaking are mentioned—
"shall be guilty of a misdemeanour."
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the onus of proof is shifted in the same way there as it is shifted in this Bill.
I am going to suggest that Parliament has always shown itself ready, where the circumstances require it, to place the onus of proof on the accused, and in the view of the Government the circumstances of this particular measure—those circumstances being the figures that I have given to your Lordships—justify the procedure which we are adopting in this Bill. I go further. I venture to think that no one in this House will object to these powers, in so far as they strike at the criminal or at the potential criminal. Surely we must all be at one in our determination to deal with these social pests. It is, of course, almost inevitable with a Bill of this kind that some apprehension should be felt lest the Bill, in striking at the criminal, should enmesh in its net the ordinary law-abiding citizen who, it may be feared, suddenly, without evil intent, might find himself arrested without warrant, and might then be forced to prove his innocence of an offence which he had no intention of committing. That apprehension seems to have found expression to-day in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to reject this Bill.
Let me say straight away that I can think of no one more suited to represent the respectable citizen than my noble friend, and I fully respect his vigilance for the rights and liberties of his fellow-citizens. But I hope that, despite his perfectly legitimate suspicions, I shall be

689
able to show that this Bill is not a measure which need alarm the law-abiding citizen—indeed, the very reverse is the case. It is a measure designed solely for his greater protection and safety. In the first place, let me point out to my noble friend that the provisions of this Bill apply only to weapons carried in a "public place," which term is clearly defined in the Bill. Therefore, so long as my noble friend remains on his own property, he may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. Clearly, of course, if he has firearms he will need the appropriate certificate. Apart from this his house may be a veritable arsenal, and he will still be committing no offence under this Bill. This fact is valuable from another point of view. It covers such people as night watchmen, who may possibly carry a life-preserver, or some other such weapon—and do so quite properly—in order to carry out their duties on their employers' property.
Next, let us suppose that the ordinary law-abiding citizen is rash enough to stray from his own premises while armed. If he does, he cannot be searched by the police, because there is no power of search in the Bill. He still has nothing to fear from the Bill unless one of two things happens.
A NOBLE LORD: Not after he is arrested?
LORD LLOYD: He has got to do a lot of other things before he is arrested. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will show him what I mean later. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the police must have reasonable cause to believe that the person concerned is, in fact, carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Clearly, if, like my noble friend Lord Saltoun, the man is a good Scotsman and is carrying a skean-dhu in his stocking, or if he should be a Boy Scout carrying a large knife in his belt, the police might have reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying an offensive weapon, but—
A NOBLE LORD: Would not the same be true if it were only a walking-stick?
LORD LLOYD: I will deal with that point in a moment. It comes in a special category of offensive weapons, and one
690
to which particular circumstances apply. Clearly, in these particular cases which I have cited to the House, the police might have reasonable cause to believe that the individual was carrying an offensive weapon but, as I shall show in a moment, it is highly improbable that any action would be taken against him. If, on the other hand, he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, the police would not normally have cause to believe that he was doing so. Supposing, however, that the police did have reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he still could not be arrested unless he could not satisfy the police officer as to his identity or his place of residence. This, it seems to me, is a very substantial protection for the law abiding citizen—he has only to establish his identity, and if there has been no indication of a disposition to use the weapon, any further proceedings could only be by summons.
If, however, the individual in question was found loitering by the police in a suspicious manner, and if he could satisfy the pace neither as to his identity nor his place of residence, I admit he could be arrested under this Bill. Furthermore, if, after arrest, it was confirmed that he was carrying an offensive weapon, he might then have to prove that, despite the extremely suspicious circumstances in which he was found, his intentions were absolutely impeccable. Frankly, these are not circumstances in which by the widest stretch of imagination I can visualise my noble friend or any other respectable citizen, for that matter. If, in such circumstances, an individual is found in possession of a weapon such as a knuckleduster or bludgeon, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be asked to prove that he was up to no harm.
The only other circumstance in which a person will find himself in trouble under this Bill is if the police have reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest him to prevent his committing another offence involving the use of a weapon. Noble Lords who have had anything to do with the police—the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt. I am sure knows this—
EARL JOWITT: Have I anything to do with the police?
LORD LLOYD: Naturally I refer to the noble Earl in his official relations with the police. If he has relations in any other capacity, I beg his pardon! But he had a certain amount to do with the Home Office in the late Government, and he will know perfectly well that there are many ways in which it may come to the notice of the police that a person is carrying an offensive weapon. In the normal course of police duties, police officers often have occasion to keep persons under observation, and it may well be that they know that certain persons habitually carry offensive weapons and engage in criminal enterprises. This Bill is to enable the police to deal with the "cosh boy" before he has used his cosh, and it will then be up to the "cosh boy" to prove for what lawful purpose he was carrying a bludgeon or a life-preserver. So far as the ordinary law-abiding citizen is concerned, he is not normally kept under observation by the police, nor, I submit, are the police likely to have reasonable cause to believe him to be carrying an offensive weapon. There is a perfectly good safeguard provided in the Bill for the ordinary citizen. We must remember that a police officer has to satisfy the court that he has reasonable cause to believe that the individual concerned was going to commit an offence and, as noble Lords will be aware, if he cannot do this, he lays himself open to proceedings for wrongful arrest. I cannot, therefore, feel that in this Bill so far there is much cause for apprehension by the ordinary law-abiding citizen.
Nevertheless, let me stray a little farther into the field of the improbable. Suppose some law-abiding citizen imprudently strays, fully armed, from his house and by some exceptional mischance is charged under this Bill. What happens? In the first place, a great deal depends on the kind of weapon he is carrying. If noble Lords will look at the definition clause, they will see that it divides offensive weapons into three categories: articles made for causing injury to the person—that is, articles deliberately made for that express purpose; articles adapted for use for causing injury to the person; and, finally, articles intended by the person carrying them for such use. I would suggest that from the point of view of the law-abiding citizen the most important category is the third, since it
692
is that category which covers the ordinary everyday utilitarian articles he is most likely to have about his person. For example, if he is a mechanic, he may have a hammer or spanner, or if he is an ordinary individual, he may have a pocket-knife or possibly a bicycle chain which he may be bringing back after having it repaired, with perfectly lawful intentions, though, as we all know, a bicycle chain can be used as a most fearsome weapon. All these are perfectly normal articles which come into the third category—that is to say, they are not specially made for offensive purposes nor adapted for that purpose, but are susceptible to such use in their ordinary shape and form and may be carried round by anybody. Your Lordships will observe that in the Bill in the case of these weapons the police have to prove that the individual concerned intended to use the article for an offensive purpose. The onus of proof lies upon the police to prove that any article in that category was being carried and was intended to be used for an offensive purpose.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Maybe the boot on his foot?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, a hob-nailed boot.
LORD LLOYD: I do not think we should be too fanciful about this. I do not think noble Lords would suggest that the police should go round arresting everybody with boots on. If we look at this fairly, we see that it is only when an individual is carrying one of the articles in the first category—for example—a pistol, a stiletto or a knuckleduster—or one of the articles in the second category—for example, a razor blade stuck into the peak of a man's cap, or a sock full of sand—that that individual would have to provide a reasonable excuse for carrying that weapon around.
Here I come face to face with the specific point on which I understand my noble friend. Lord Saltoun, is going to move his rejection of this Bill. I do not know what my noble friend is going to say, but from the terms of his Amendment I understand that he takes the view that an ordinary law-abiding citizen ought to be allowed to provide for his own defence by carrying a suitable weapon, possibly a cosh or a stiletto, particularly

693
in areas where crimes of violence have been prevalent recently. On that point I can only say that, of course, there were times in this country when every citizen was compelled to go around armed for his own safety, to protect himself either against his enemies or against robbers and footpads, which in those days abounded. But we have progressed a long way since then. To-day we have a first-class police force whose duty it is to keep the Queen's peace and to guard ordinary citizens. And I must say straight away, and as emphatically as I can, that Her Majesty's Government take the view that it would be most unfortunate if anything were done to encourage further the carrying of offensive weapons by any section of the population, criminal or otherwise.
We believe that the carrying of offensive weapons is anti-social. What is more, I should like to put this to the noble Lord, because I think it is perhaps the most material argument against his point of view as I understand it—and if I have misrepresented him he will correct me when he comes to speak. If the ordinary citizen were allowed or encouraged to carry weapons for his own defence, I believe that it might have an effect exactly opposite to what my noble friend desires to achieve. The trouble is that the more the ordinary citizen arms himself, the more excuse is there for the person who intends to perpetrate something unlawful to arm himself so that he can achieve his end. I have always understood that to be the classic argument for not arming the police with firearms. If that is the noble Lord's argument I am afraid I must join issue with him and say that Her Majesty's Government believe that the task of protecting the citizens of this country should be left to the police. If the noble Lord suggests that the police force is not strong enough—and we all agree that in our big cities it is not strong enough—then let us speed its recruiting, as we are trying to do. I know that results are not entirely satisfactory, but recruiting is improving every year. Or let us try and strengthen its hand, as we are trying to do in this Bill. But let not the ordinary citizen usurp this function.
We feel, therefore that where an ordinary law-abiding citizen is found, in the circumstances which I have described,
694
and despite the many safeguards in the Bill, carrying a weapon in one of the first two categories, it is only right that he should be asked to show that he has a reasonable excuse for carrying it. I am sure my noble friend would agree that if a man used the weapon and seriously injured somebody, he should be called upon to account for his action. Surely, if that is the case after he has done an injury, it is reasonable that he should also account for his action in carrying around a weapon of this kind which might cause serious injury. I do not think I need say anything further. We believe that this Bill is both useful, and necessary, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships. In view of the explanations I have given to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, I hope he will not press his Amendment. If he does, I believe he will be doing the opposite of what he really wishes to see done: he will be weakening the police force, and will not assist the preservation of law and order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given notice that he would move, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Her Majesty's Government know, from the earliest moment I told them of my opposition to this Bill. I therefore thought it only fair, when this Bill was read a first time in this House, to put down on the Order Paper a Motion for its rejection at this stage, in order that the Government should know exactly how I stood in the matter and that none of your Lordships should be at a disadvantage. That is what I have done.
When this Bill was introduced in another place the Government gave figures of the increase over the last dozen years of crimes of violence in this country, and they must have given your Lordships a considerable shock. I know that they made an impression on my mind very different from that created by figures given on various occasions in your Lordships' House to my noble friend Lord Howe, when he asked questions on the subject. For the moment I was greatly puzzled. Then I recalled the Irish priest in the West of Ireland who was pleading, with truth and great earnestness, to a famine relief committee the poverty of

695
his parishioners, when one of the committee interposed and asked him how he reconciled the figures he was then giving with those he had given a year before when he was trying to promote a branch railway through the parish. For a moment the worthy gentleman was stranded; and then, drawing himself up with great digniy, he replied: "Them statistics was compiled for an entirely different purpose." The reverend father was afloat again, and so was I; my faith in Her Majesty's Government was restored. Speaking seriously, however, I think we have made a great advance, in that we are all agreed that crimes of violence are on the increase, that the situation is serious, and that the matter should be dealt with. I do not agree, however, that this Bill is the best way to deal with the matter, and that is what I shall try to show your Lordships this afternoon.
In the first place, the Bill does nothing whatever to promote the housing of the police, or to render that service more attractive. If there is one thing about which we are all agreed I feel sure it is that one of the most important needs in dealing with crimes of violence is an increase in the numbers of police. Again, the Bill does nothing to give to the magistrates the powers which they have indicated they require in this matter. The only thing the Bill does is to make illegal the carrying of any weapon. I agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Lloyd that the prohibition in the Bill is not likely to be regarded by those who habitually disregard the law, especially since the penalties provided are very small. But it is likely to be regarded and observed, to their hurt, by people who habitually have regard to the law.
LORD LLOYD: My noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. I am afraid I did not say anything like that. On the contrary, I said that I thought it was the opinion not merely of Her Majesty's Government but of many responsible police officers that the Bill would have a strong and definite deterrent effect upon those who habitually disregard the law. The noble Lord is not correct in suggesting that I said anything different from that.
LORD SALTOUN: Of course, I accept what my noble friend says. I thought I heard him say that there were some people who, when they were setting about a crime would, none the less—and so on and so on. However, I may have misheard him. It is a small point and not worth arguing about. The Bill says:
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an, offence…"
A point there is that if this Bill becomes law the courts will require proof. I do not see how anybody can prove that he has reason to fear an attack, when he does not know from what quarter it will come. Yet it may be common knowledge that the locality is dangerous. I will leave that point for the moment, because it will come in again
I want now to come to the term "offensive weapon." I understand that "offensive weapon" is a term known to English law. But I submit that it is not good in this context, because, if I am not wrong, it was used in old Acts connected with smuggling and poaching—I think it was limited to running a cargo within five miles of the shore, or something like that—which said that where anybody caught doing either of those things was carrying an article commonly used as a weapon, that aggravated the offence. Your Lordships will observe that in such a case the circumstances naturally lent themselves to the presumption of offence; that the weapon was used for offence; and if the man was not guilty of the crime of running the cargo or of gang poaching, then the charge of carrying an offensive weapon fell away at once. That is not the case with this Bill. After all, a weapon of itself is neither offensive nor defensive—that lies in the hand and the mind of the user. From the moment when the first weapon was shaped by some mammal, not yet man, I put it to your Lordships that the primary object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope on better terms with strength. A knife or a cosh can be used equally for defence.
Take the razor, also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and which was given to me by a police friend as the offensive weapon par excellence. I would remind your Lordships that every tailor and every seamstress carries a razor blade to split seams; and I expect that

697
many of your Lordships carry a razor blade with which to cut your cigars. It is just this ability of weakness to cope with strength that this Bill is framed to destroy. It does not add any appreciable penalty to the rascal who uses the weapon and commits some crime of violence, which is something I should very much welcome.
I am afraid that the Bill will be used in order to make up a defect in evidence against some one whom the police suspect, possibly quite rightly. If they find him with a bunch of keys or a spanner, it may serve to establish a case against him. A moment like this, when I think all of your Lordships, and not least myself, owing to recent events are nourishing an uneasy feeling that we may have hanged a man for something he did not do, is not a moment to extend the law of presumptive evidence in the way we are doing this afternoon. If the Government are of the opinion—and they have said that they are—that crimes of violence are on the increase, the proper course for them to take is to do everything they can to promote the recruitment of police, to increase the police force, to increase, if necessary, the penalties for such crimes, and to take the people into their confidence and ask them to assist the Government as much as possible, partly by not exposing themselves to attack and partly by being ready to defend themselves if they are attacked.
Some twelve years ago, when we were menaced by German "cosh boys," the voice of the Prime Minister rang through the country and called on us to defend ourselves by every means which we could; and I think even to-day he must be proud of the way in which his appeal was received. But that is very different from the voice which sounds through this Bill to-day. As a matter of fact, if the Government were to take the line I suggest they would not have very much to do, because people for long have been ready to defend themselves, and they are doing so to-day. May I give your Lordships an old example? As long as I remember, the fisher girls, who follow the herring round our coasts and who are brought by that employment into some of the worst quarters in Britain, always carried with them their sharp gutting knives; and they were always left severely
698
alone by everybody. They passed unscathed through the worst quarters, because everybody knew that they were perfectly ready to use, those knives if they were molested. I believe the recent sobriety of the country and the knowledge that the girls are not to be touched with impunity has led to a discontinuance of that practice, but if any fisher girls were molested again you would find exactly the same remedy being invoked.
I know many young girls in humble circumstances who have to go out to work at night, and who carry with them something with which to defend themselves. I will give your Lordships three short examples. One evening about two years ago a woman was walking along Sloane Street when she was attacked by a man who tried to get hold of her bag. Two young men were walking along the pavement towards her and she thought that she was going to get help. But the young men were of the same opinion as my noble friend Lord Lloyd and, apparently, as the Government, which is that these matters are best left to the police, and so they crossed the street. However, a taxi-man, who shared my views, drove boldly up on the pavement and pushed the assailant in front of him with his wing and got him loose from the bag. He said to the woman, "Jump on my luggage platform and I will take you away." He drove her to Knightsbridge and said, "Only last night I rescued another women who had been beaten to her knees under that lamp-post." I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one question which arises out of the Bill, and of which I have not given him notice because this question must have been familiar to him from early youth. Of the two parties, the young men who took the Government's view or the taxi-man who took my view, which was the neighbour of the woman who fell among thieves in Sloane Street?
Not long after that incident a girl was attacked after dusk on a lonely common that I know. She struggled, and by good fortune she had about her something that she could use as a weapon. She wounded her assailant in the face and he promptly dropped her and ran off. Later on, because of his wound, he was picked up by the police. No doubt the fact of the attack could be said to show that she had reasonable excuse for carrying a weapon.

699
But if she had been crossing that lonely common with something to defend herself before she had been attacked—she could not foretell—according to the very interpretation which my noble friend Lord Lloyd gave of this Bill she would be in danger. Now I think it is contrary to public interest that young women of good character should be liable to arrest and to a charge because they carry something for their own protection at night. The very insufficiency of the police forces upon the people of this country their time-honoured duty of defending themselves as best they can, and I think that every man and women is a constable in his or her own defence.
I will relate another incident which is probably fresh in the memory of the Governent. The other day in Glasgow, school teachers who had to work late were subjected to persistent attacks by young ruffians, and the police could afford them no protection at all. As your Lordships will well understand, when a policeman was present no attack took place, but as soon as there were no constables about then the attacks were made. So the women took the law into their own hands and armed themselves with water pistols which they charged with a very powerful and pungent alkali. Word went round amongst the ruffians that the women were carrying acid, and the attacks ceased at once. It may well be that the Government will say that they had a reasonable excuse, but what I want to know is how many women must be injured and how great must be the injuries before we are allowed to consider that there is a reasonable excuse.
If I myself were to go on foot at night to a part of London I did not know and which I thought to be dangerous I would certainly take something with me for my defence. It would be far better for me that I should have to go to prison for two years if I happened to be caught doing so, than for me to be hit with hammers and perhaps left paralysed, to spend years lying in some hospital—because that is what happens to some people to-day. I do not think any Government have the right—though they may very well have the power—to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves. With courage and a
700
weapon of some kind—I do not say a pistol—even a weak woman can make head against one or perhaps two assailants; but with empty hands she is absolutely helpless. We can be sure of this: that unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd has made the position of the Government clear, but I prefer to take the exact words used in another place on this very point of self-defence. It was said:
"The Government do not wish to lend themselves to the support of the proposition that it is right or necessary for the ordinary citizen to arm himself in self-defence. The preservation of the Queen's peace is the function of the police."
Now those words may sound very wise and profound, uttered in an Assembly where the worst wounds dealt are those dealt with words, from the mouth of a Minister who enjoys or who can enjoy police protection, and to us who drive to and fro in the comparative safety of our cars; but they sound very different to people who know what is really going on and how little protection the police can afford. I think they will sound to many injured people to-day more like a cynical mockery. The other day, on my return from your Lordships' House to my home, a woman signalled to me and asked whether I could help her to find a policeman. I put her in my car and we went on a merry expedition to Sloane Square, King Street, Cadogan Place and Sloane Street; and at last I remembered that there was a police station in Gerald Row. The first policeman we saw on this journey was, in fact, at Gerald Row. I want to make it quite clear that I am not imputing the smallest blame to the police: I have nothing but admiration for them. It is astonishing, when one considers the real and artificial crimes with which they have to cope, that they manage to do what they do. But the police force are hopelessly inadequate in London, and I would remind your Lordships that crimes take place where the police are not. The Government have shown in introducing this Bill how much more the public are dependent on their own efforts at self-defence than they were a few years ago. The Government's own figures answer their question as to whether or not it is necessary for people to be prepared to act in self-defence.

701
I should now like to say a word or two on another aspect of the subject—the right to act in self-defence. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and from the Government what I think is a revolutionary doctrine. I have always held that the preservation of the Queen's peace was the duty of every one of her subjects, and that the police were only citizens with special responsibility. I speak with diffidence in the presence of so many people who know so much more about laws than I do, but I have consulted Lord Halsbury's Laws of England. In Volume 9 of that work he deals with the power of arrest without warrant. There are many paragraphs on the subject. I do not propose to read them all to your Lordships, but perhaps I may be allowed to read one or two. One paragraph says this:
"An arrest without a warrant may be under a power conferred by common law or by statute, and may be by a private person or by a peace officer…"
and so on. The next paragraph says:
"At common law the power of a private person to arrest is limited…"
to certain cases. Paragraph 114 says much the same thing. Paragraph 115 says:
"A private person may also without a warrant arrest anyone who…commits a breach of the peace…so as to justify a private person in arresting…when there is an actual assault…"
Those of your Lordships who remember Lord Halsbury will recollect that he was not a very large man, though he was a very determined one. I think those who remember him will agree that if he was proceeding in any case of actual assault to arrest somebody, he would not limit himself to his bare hands: he would take very good care to use anything that he thought suitable for the purpose. All the more so since, as your Lordships will be aware, the generation in which he lived would have considered it unthinkable that such a rule should prevail. Their youth had been engaged upon discussion as to what was the best weapon to take with them at night for defence against the gentle garrotter. Your Lordships will be aware that in the 1860's the garrotter was just as big a menace as the "cosh boy" is to-day.
There are one or two other paragraphs which perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read from Lord Halsbury's
702
great work. Paragraph 116 reads as follows:
"Peace officers, that is constables and other persons…have at common law the same powers of arrest that private persons have and certain additional powers."
Paragraph 118 says:
"If a police officer sees a breach of the peace committed, or is assaulted or obstructed in the arrest of a felon he can, if there is a reasonable necessity, call upon a private person for his assistance in arresting an offender, and such person commits an indictable offence if he refuses to aid the constable."
Paragraph 119 says that there are a large number of other Statutes which say very much the same thing.
I think that that disposes of Lord Lloyd's argument that the preservation of Her Majesty's peace is the peculiar function of the police. All these passages that I have quoted deal with powers and duty of arrest without warrant. They certainly include self-defence. Indeed, in the generation in which Lord Halsbury's work was written, the idea that a man was not entitled to defend himself with any means in his power was, as I have said, unthinkable and would not have been entertained for a moment. This is not, I think, the first time that it has been sought to make the, police into a privileged class, but the attempt has always been rejected, and I hope that it will be rejected again. I do not think this is a moment to try to put the police into a specially privileged class, and I do not think that the crime wave from which we are now suffering should be used as an argument to that end.
If this foreign doctrine does come in, I think certain consequences must follow. First, if I am not allowed to defend myself, the Government become responsible for my defence, at any rate in all public places. I understood Lord Lloyd to be ready to accept that responsibility. Well, my Lords, if I may not defend myself except with my bare hands, how can I reasonably be asked to assist the constable? He is young, able-bodied and armed with his truncheon. How can I, who cannot help myself, help to defend the police? That surely will have to go by the board if this Bill goes through. Moreover, if—as, I am sorry to say, often happens—a policeman loses his life, in the execution of his duly, his widow gets a pension; but if I am called to his aid and get killed, my widow does not get a pension. On the contrary the Inland

703
Revenue swoop down and pick my bones; and the Chancellor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, is glad to have the opportunity of saying that the returns from death duties are showing some improvement. It is no use saying that the other side of his official face is suffused with tears: you cannot have it both ways.
Theoretically, to-day I have the duty of defending myself, but after this Bill becomes law the situation will be changed. The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared to accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have undertaken? If no one is to be allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence is to become a peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it must be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her Majesty's subjects, with the right to shear, kill, or let die as best pleases themselves. I am sure they would not say that for a moment.
I think that in this Bill the Government have taken up an impossible position, and I am sure your Lordships ought not to support them without grave thought. They have openly said that they seek a position for the police which has always been resisted and which, if granted, will impair public confidence in the police. I think, too, that we ought to be very slow to allow a Bill to pass which imparts a presumption of guilty intent from circumstances which may be entirely and completely innocent. As for noble Lords opposite, I will say this to them: that on many occasions in the past they have complained that noble Lords on this side do not criticise Conservative measures when a Conservative Government are in power. I do not know whether they have said that merely to rub a sore in the House of Lords for Election purposes, but if they seriously mean it—and I believe that they do—then here is a chance to criticise the Government, and I trust I have given noble Lords opposite some very good reasons for so doing.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Saltoun.)

TUBE TRAIN ACCIDENT
4.1 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I am sorry to intervene just now, but I want to read a statement in similar terms to one that has just been made in another place on the unfortunate accident that happened on the railway at Stratford.
At 6.55 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, an eastbound passenger train on the London Transport Central Line ran into the rear of a similar train which had stopped about 400 yards east of Stratford station. The first two coaches of the moving train were partly telescoped and were pressed against the sides and roof of the single line Tube tunnel. I regret to say that ten passengers lost their lives and six passengers and the motor man of the moving train received serious injuries. I am glad to hear to-day that the injured are progressing satisfactorily. About forty-one others were slightly injured. The relief work undertaken by the London Transport Executive's staff and the local emergency services was most efficient but the conditions in the restricted space were so difficult that the last two injured passengers could not be released until about 4.0 a.m. on the following morning. A formal inquiry will be opened in public by an inspecting officer of railways on Thursday next, April 16, and your Lordships will appreciate that I cannot make any further statement at present. The London Transport Executive have announced that they will accept liability for all proper claims for compensation. Your Lordships will, I am sure, wish to be associated with an expression of deep sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives and those who were injured.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, for making the statement as soon as he could. On behalf of noble Lords on this side, I would hasten to associate myself with the expression of sympathy which the noble Lord has made to those who have been bereaved. It is not my purpose this afternoon to make any comment except this. I hope the noble Lord will see that the report of the inspecting officer is available to your

705
Lordships as soon as possible, because I would remind the noble Lord that we are still awaiting the report of the inspecting officer of the inquiry into the terrible accident at Harrow. Unfortunately, we shall have to deal in due course also with the report of the inspecting officer into the tragedy of the "Princess Victoria" in the Irish Sea. Now, there is this unfortunate accident. The noble Lord's reputation is proof that these reports are not intentionally withheld, but I would remind him that, in respect of the first, six months has elapsed since the accident occurred. We think that that is ample time for a report to be prepared and presented to your Lordships' House.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the report in this case will be produced with all speed, and will be available immediately afterwards. In respect of the other accident to which reference has been made, I ought to say that it is now a long time indeed since that happened but the inquiry was a far more embracing one, with very wide repercussions all round. I am sure that the usefulness of that report, when it is produced, will show the wisdom of taking the full time in making it.

PREVENTION OF CRIME BILL
4.5 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I confess that I am not at all happy about this Bill and equally I am bound to say I am not at all happy about the reasons which the noble Lord has just advanced for not giving it a Second Reading. If he will just consider what he has said, I think he will realise that he went much too far. He said he did not advocate the use of pistols. Why not? Logically, on his argument, it would follow that everybody ought to walk about armed to the teeth with pistols. Indeed, a poor frail girl who was being set upon by some thugs would be much better off if she had a pistol than any kind of stick or knife which would probably be difficult to get out. I venture to think that the Government are completely right in saying that it would indeed be panic legislation if we were to say that the state of affairs today is so bad that peaceful and law-abiding citizens should walk about the
706
streets armed to the teeth to protect themselves. Surely they are right in saying that the primary duty of protection rests upon the police.
The noble Lord is, of course, right in saying that if two citizens see a girl being attacked by thugs, their duty, as a matter of good morals, good law and good sense, is to go to her assistance, whether or not there is a policeman there I venture to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has never had an easier question to answer than the one which the noble Lord put to him—that is, whit two men ought to do when they see a girl being attacked: should they cross the street and leave her to her fortune, or should they go to assist her? The answer is obvious. But if the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is going to advocate the doctrine that, because there are difficulties to-day, because there is a shortage of police, people must now go out with arms to protect themselves, then logically it follows that they must have the most efficient arms with which to protect themselves; and the most efficient arms would be some kind of revolver or sawn-off shot-gun. We should all see each other walking about the streets with these appalling weapons, and in the last stage things would be worse than they were in the first. Therefore, I am opposed to the underlying reasoning of the noble Lord.
On the other hand, I am not happy, and I do not suppose anybody in this House, representative of the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor or anybody else, is happy about this Bill. Speaking for myself. I know, of course, that it has gone through the other place unopposed, but I think it behoves this House to look at it with some care and anxiety to see if we can improve it I take it we are all acting here from the same point of view. We realise the danger. We want to strengthen the hands of the police with regard thugs in arty way we possibly can. On the other hand, none of us much likes—I assume I speak for the whole House here—the drastic powers which are here being given to the police and which may affect the life of the ordinary citizen in all sorts of ways.
I remember very well in the days of the last Government introducing a Bill which provided that if a company was

707
convicted of a crime, it was to be presumptive evidence that every director of that company had been a party to the crime, unless he proved that he had nothing to do with it; and I remember the howl of indignation which this proposal evoked from the other Benches. I was glad to see such vigilant watchdogs of the citizens'rights—and noble Lords who took that view of course won the day. But this Bill seems to me to go very far indeed. Just consider the effect of what is here defined as "an offensive weapon." It does not matter what it means in other Acts of Parliament; it is defined here as
"any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person"—
such, for instance—recollecting my childhood—as a sort of cane or ash plant that was used for beating small boys. I suppose that would be a typical instrument to come under this description. The definition goes on to read:
"or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him."
I know that people take out a walking stick or an umbrella, intending that if anybody does set upon them they are going to try to get in a crack with the walking stick or umbrella. As I read the definition, that might be regarded as an offensive weapon. Therefore, I think we must look rather carefully at the definition, because obviously that is not what is intended.
LORD LLOYD: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Earl—he is a much greater expert on this question of definition than I am—but I understand that an article such as a walking stick or an umbrella will come into the third category. There is a great difference between that and the other two categories. I should not have thought that the two articles mentioned by the noble and learned Earl would come into the categories where the onus of proof lies on the individual; but I may be wrong on that point.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Earl resumes, may I remark that I think he has made one of the primary points which I raised—namely, that this Bill does import a sort of moral quality into an inanimate object. That is exactly my point.
EARL JOWITT: I am not going to argue one way or another about this matter. This is the Second Reading of a Bill which, I take it, will be carried, whether or not the noble Lord opposite seeks to oppose it. All I am saying is that I think we want to look at it rather carefully from that point of view when we get to the Committee stage. Hitherto no one has succeeeded in finding any better definition. Although I trust the police completely, it seems to me undesirable that a citizen carrying an article of that sort should be subject to arrest and to be locked up for the night, or something of that sort, unless and until he has proved that he is a perfectly innocent person. I think we must take such steps as we can to avoid that result.
If it comes to a question of a vote on the Second Reading, I shall support the Government, because, frankly, I want to give the Home Office and the authorities drastic powers to deal with thugs. At the same time, I want, if I can, to save innocent people from being troubled. I feel that the reason why this Bill will probably work all right is because, taking it by and large (and thank God it is so!) the police have great common sense. I suspect that in practice the awful results which we all now envisage will not result. But that leads me to suggest to the Lord Chancellor (I do not want an answer now) that this is the sort of measure which might be considered on the basis of an annual Bill. By adopting that method we should see how in practice the intention of the Bill was working. I rather suspect that it will work all right and that these eventualities will not arise, but if, by any chance, they do arise, then I think we might keep a hold on the matter by having a provision of that sort. I should like the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues to consider in due course whether this Bill might not be suitably dealt with in that way, to ensure that these dreadful results are avoided.
For the rest, as I have said, if it comes to a vote I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. I merely rise to say that I think we must all pool our ideas in Committee, to see whether we can draft a better form of phraseology, because obviously there is a danger here of the innocent liege being interfered with. But in so far as there arises the question of giving the police greater power to deal

709
with thugs, then. I am wholeheartedly in support of the Bill. For those somewhat mixed reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, I am sure we must look carefully at this Bill in Committee; but at this stage I should advise your Lordships to consent to the Second Reading of the Bill, in order that it may reach the Committee stage.
4.16 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, when I first read this Bill I thought I should be supporting my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I visualised circumstances which might arise when I myself might be arrested. In my own rather deserted part of the country (at least, part of it is rather deserted) there used to be bands of poachers who attacked keepers and sometimes other people. I thought, suppose that happened again and I wanted to take an evening walk on the moors. Almost for certain, I should take with me a rather unusually large and heavy walking stick that I have. It might be that on that walk I should meet a police officer who was new to the district, who asked me who I was, where I lived and why I was carrying such a big stick. And when I told him, probably because the clothes I wear in the country are not always very respectable clothes, he might disbelieve my answers and say to me, "You are carrying an offensive weapon. I must arrest you and you must come to the police station with me." After a walk of some six or seven miles we should come to the police station, and the station sergeant would recognise me and, with many apologies, would tell me to go home. By the time I had got to that stage in my imagination, I was becoming quite heated. I could not see why a perfectly innocent person should run the risk and ignominy of arrest and have two or three hours of his time wasted. So I thought that this was clearly an occasion for a strong speech on the liberties of the subject.
But I thought that, before I made that speech. I had better go rather more fully into the matter. I consulted various people whose advice I value, and I read all the debates on this Bill in another place. Quite independently of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, I have to inform the House that, in the circumstances which I visualised and which I have outlined, there is not the slightest chance of my
710
arrest; and so I am afraid noble Lords will not hear my speech on the liberties of the subject. What I am going to say will, I am afraid, repeat to a large extent what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, but I think it ought to be said from the Back Benches, and by a noble and "unlearned" Lord. It seems to me that there are, quite clearly, three adequate safeguards against an innocent person being arrested, particularly when all three are taken in conjunction with each other. The first is that there is no power of search by the police. The police cannot search a person in the streets; nor can they say "Turn out your pockets" and, when they find a large clasp knife in one of them, base a charge on that.
The second safeguard, as has already been said, is that a police officer must have reasonable cause for believing that a person is carrying an offensive weapon. The police, of course, have various methods of obtaining information that a person is carrying a weapon. As a rule, they suspect the person; they watch him, they see him actually in possession of that weapon, and, as often as not, about to use it. But the strength of this safeguard, in my view, lies in the reverse of it. A police officer, not having reasonable cause for believing that a person is carrying an offensive weapon, who arrests an innocent it individual is running a very great danger. Apart from the fact that he will not get a conviction, the newspapers, quite properly, will almost certainly get hold of the matter and will make a "song and dance" about it. Then the police officer will have to explain to his superior officers how he came to make such an idiot of himself. I think the net result will be that a police officer will make an arrest under this measure without a warrant only when he is, for all practical purposes, certain that the person concerned is carrying an offensive weapon.
The third safeguard is in the definition of "offensive weapon." In the first category come the two classes of weapons which are made purely for offensive purposes—for example, the cosh (so far as I know the cosh can be used only for coshing) and, secondly, articles of ordinary use which have been altered so that, in effect, they can be used only as offensive weapons. A bicycle chain which has had the links

711
filed so that they have razor edges, and which is carried under the coat collar, cannot be used again for its proper purpose as a bicycle chain, owing to the sharp edges: it can be used only as an offensive weapon. I think it is not unreasonable to ask a defendant to show that such a weapon is intended for an innocent purpose.
If I may revert to the thick stick which I took on my imaginary country walk, so long as it is a simple walking stick it will clearly be an article of every day use which has not been made an offensive weapon; it has not been altered in any way to make it into an offensive weapon. But if I took that walking stick, split it, and into the split inserted the blade of a dagger, and wired it in, I think it would not be unreasonable to ask me to prove that I normally used that somewhat fearsome weapon for cutting off the heads of dandelions. If, in fact, I do use it for cutting off the heads of dandelions, I shall have no difficulty in proving it, because people will have seen me carrying out that practice. With regard to this category of weapons, comprising those two sorts, it is, of course, the case that a defendant has to prove his innocence, rather than that the prosecution has to prove his guilt. But in the other case, the case of articles of every day use which have not been altered, the prosecution must prove that the person concerned intended to use the article as an offensive weapon. From a common-sense point of view, how can that be proved unless a police officer or some witness has seen the person using the article or about to use it? My walking stick cannot be an offensive weapon within the meaning of this Bill unless somebody sees me attacking someone with it.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will deal with that point as regards the offensive weapon. What many people, I think, would like to know respecting the second category of weapons—that is articles not made or altered to be offensive weapons—is this. If any article in that category is, in fact, used in defence, does it automatically become a defensive weapon and not an offensive weapon within the meaning of this Bill? I believe that it does. It would certainly be a reasonable
712
excuse that one was defending oneself, and I believe that the article would no longer be an offensive weapon. With regard to what Lord Saltoun has said about carrying a weapon, if people are frightened they do carry weapons—for example, a walking stick such as I have mentioned. For ladies, a hatpin may be the chosen defensive weapon, and if the ladies are fisher girls they may well carry their gutting knives, though I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Saltoun that they would need only to carry them in Scotland; they would not need to carry them in Scarborough. In Scarborough, we were always law-abiding in the days to which the noble Lord was referring. I would submit that if things of this sort are carried, they are not offensive weapons as such; and that if a person likes to carry a heavy stick, a hatpin or some tool of his trade—such as a gutting knife—then, within reason, he cannot be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. So I would recommend friends of the noble Lord to choose their defensive weapons with care.
Personally, I think that in view of this present wave of crime this Bill is necessary; and, in particular, it is necessary for what I believe to be its main reason—the prevention of crime amongst young people. A very good example was given in the debate in another place. This was the example. Supposing a Fascist meeting was held in the East End of London, and at the back of the crowd at that meeting there were three or four young men, each carrying a broken bottle. Under the provisions of this Bill, the police could arrest those young men before they used the bottles, and the crime of which they would be accused would not be a very serious one. But if they were allowed to use those bottles a much more serious charge might result—it might well be a charge of murder. For that reason, I believe this Bill to be necessary at the present time.
If I may be so bold, I should like to say that I very much agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in being rather unhappy about the Bill in one respect. I would ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack whether, instead of the Bill becoming—as the noble and learned Earl has suggested it should—an annual Bill, it would not be possible for a clause to be inserted whereby it would remain in force for

713
consecutive periods of three or five years—let us say three years. In that case, it would come before Parliament at the end of each period of three years, and it would automatically lapse unless Parliament specifically renewed it for a further term. The advantage of that system, as compared with the annual one, is that it would give Parliament a proper length of time to see how the measure worked. Apart from my not being very happy about this being a permanent Bill, I certainly support the Second Reading.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I am sure that we have all followed with very great interest Lord Derwent's walk upon the moors, but I think he would have been less happy about that walk if he had reflected on two matters. In the first place, he might have considered how matters would have stood if he had not been a well-known citizen of Yorkshire—as he is, so that the apologies from the police station would quickly and automatically follow the mistake of the new constable. The second point is this. I hope he is right about his reading of the last category of weapons, and the effect of the other clauses, but I am not at all so confident of them.
Like the noble Lord, I am a layman, and I shall be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he can answer one or two questions which are worrying us, and if he can give us assurances, for which I think we ought to ask, because I am certain that noble Lords wish to do everything we properly can to deal with this horrible outbreak of violence. But do not let that natural and proper desire stampede us into doing panicky things which will pass into the body of law, and which may become the means of abuse in days to come, as has happened before. It is our duty to scrutinise carefully this kind of legislation. When in London, I live where I did when I was a Member of Parliament for Lambeth, in Lambeth. People there go for walks along dark streets in very poor neighbourhoods, and they would not always be recognised and apologised to if, by mistake, they were taken up in circumstances similar in character, if not in location, to those of the noble Lord's walk upon the moors. In a case of mistaken identity, humble people who have
714
no powerful friends and no ready means of establishing that they are law-abiding citizens find it difficult to prove the innocence of their actions.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord realises that my whole case was that I could not have been arrested because I was not carrying an offensive weapon.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: That is where I think the noble Lord is in error. I wish he were not, but I feel he is; though I hope the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to tell me that he is right. It is one of the most unfortunate things in working-class neighbourhoods that people are in terror of "getting in wrong" with the police. Everybody who knows working-class areas in big cities knows the sort of feeling which prevails, especially in a man who at one time or another has done something wrong. However small his offence may have been, he goes through the rest of his life in fear of again falling into the hands of the police. I think that sort of man will be placed in great jeopardy under this Bill.
I would ask the noble Lord to look at the words in Clause 1:
"Any person who without lawful authority or without reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon…"
An offensive weapon is clearly defined in subsection (4). Let us take the last category about which we are talking. An offensive weapon means any article whether adapted for use for causing injury or intended, without being adapted, to be used for causing injury. The noble Lord went for a walk with his heavy stick, and although it was not adapted in any way for offence if he intended to use it for an offence it was, by definition, an offensive weapon.
LORD DERWENT: That could not be proved.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: But the onus of proof is upon the noble Lord. The Bill says:
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse…has with him an offensive weapon…"
and an offensive weapon is an article intended to be used as an offensive weapon. I see no words for transferring the onus of proof in this matter from the defence to the prosecution, and I should

715
be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he could say that the onus of proof is transferred in some magical way from the defence to the prosecution just because the walking stick has not been adapted. There is nothing in the Bill which says so. It is all right for the noble Lord. He arrives at the police station, and there they say, "My, if it isn't Lord Derwent with his old cudgel! We are terribly sorry. Of course, we are sorry." But in Lambeth a heavy stick, although not adapted, may, in the opinion of the police—and in the perfectly genuine opinion of the police, who, after all, have a hard time of it—be an offensive weapon in the hands of the person arrested; and the onus of proof that the arrested man had no such intention lies upon him. That is my view, and I shall hold that view until the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tells us that is wrong, which I hope he will do. This is a menacing Bill, particularly to people who have difficulty in establishing at once their bona fides.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, surely, according to the words of the clause, the only onus thrown on the defence is to prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse. That is the only point where the onus is thrown on the defence. Of course, if it is a matter of excuse the person setting up the excuse must always prove it, because nobody else can do so. In regard to the point about offensive weapons, the onus is on the prosecution.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I listen with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on a matter of this kind, but I cannot give up my point on that. It is not easy for a person who at one time or another may have slipped from the path and who is suspected by the police to prove that he has a lawful excuse for carrying a heavy stick. It is not necessary for a bicycle chain to be filed to make it an offensive weapon; a chain as it comes from the bicycle may be a nasty weapon and may be carried innocently and lawfully. In the case of mistaken identity, where the police have picked up the wrong man because they have reason to think that he was intent on a crime, it is terribly hard for such a man to prove his innocent intentions. Sometimes I should find it difficult to
716
prove my own. And how on earth is it going to be done by someone who knows nothing of the ways of the laws and is embarrassed, flustered and frightened by these circumstances? I suggest that it is the duty of all of us, in scrutinising a Bill of this kind, to see to it that in attempting to curb the actions of the criminal, we are not imperilling innocent people.
4.38 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I regret that I was not here at the beginning of this debate, but there is one thing that occurs to me that happened soon after the First World War. Round where I lived, people were often held up at night on the road, and many of us used to put a revolver in the pocket of our cars. I always used to put one in the pocket of my car, in case anybody switched a light on me and told me to pull up. It never happened, but I had the revolver, and I should have used it if anyone had attacked me. In this connection, an amusing episode took place in a bus which was packed with people and which had in one corner a man, very drunk, who was fast asleep. A man held up the bus. He came to the door of the bus and shouted, "Hold up your hands and turn out your pockets." This woke up the man who was drunk. "Let me get at him," he cried, jumping up—and the man who held up the bus made off as quickly as he could. I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, supposing there was a recurrence of the sort of thing that happened when I first went to live in the area where I am living now, should I be justified in putting my revolver in my car in case of need?
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that this Bill was produced because of public agitation. I myself feel that the agitation for corporal punishment made it necessary to do something to satisfy the public clamour, and this is the result. It may be a good or a bad Bill, but it is a response to newspaper criticism. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Wilmot said about the attitude of humble folk to the police. I represented for some time St. George's, in Wapping, which is a very poor part of London. I knew the people very well; many of my

717
friends from time to time have been involved with the police, but they were very decent people. I feel that this is, in a way, tipping the balance a little against them; and, in fact, it creates an interest. The police will get more powers under this Bill. Therefore, I listened with some sympathy to what my noble and learned Leader, Lord Jowitt, said about putting a time limit on the Bill. I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider that, because it seems to me just the way to deal with it.
If it is a good Bill—and I do not challenge that—but what may be called a temporary Bill, then it is better to give Parliament the right to bring it to an end when it sees fit. If you allow that, the question is how it should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, suggested that the Bill, when it had become an Act, should lapse unless an Affirmative Resolution was presented to the House. I have never heard of that being done in respect of any Act. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would accept that; I should not think he would, But if he would, and the time limit were suitable, that would be a perfect way of dealing with it. But the way suggested by my noble and learned Leader was that the Act should be included in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That is an excellent suggestion. There need not be any discussion if the Act is all right; but if it is not, it is competent for anybody to move that it should be omitted from the Schedule. That is much simpler than introducing a repealing Bill. There would be this further advantage if we put it into the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In this House we have plenty of time for our work, but that is not the case in the other place, and there the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is exempted business. Therefore, if we adopt the suggestion of my noble and learned Leader, it would give Parliament, and any Member of Parliament, a complete and unfettered control. Therefore, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will give us some encouragement in regard to this suggestion.
4.42 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I did not intend to speak this afternoon, and I desire to address only a few words of appeal to the Lord Chancellor. Many
718
minds—I do not say great minds—seem to think alike, and it appears to have occurred to a number of your Lordships simultaneously that the right way to deal with this Bill is to have it on some form of continuation basis. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will look into that point carefully. Undoubtedly, this is a Bill that has come forward as the result of popular clamour, and it is one of the duties of this House to try and save the nation from what may be its own precipitate folly. I do not say that this Bill is unduly precipitate, or that it is a folly; but if we give it three years, we can see how things go, and by doing that I believe the House will have done its duty to the nation.
4.43 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, I did not come down to the House to-day with any intention other than of voting whichever way my leaders directed me to vote. I certainly did not intend to take part in the curious semi-legal discussions that have taken place across the Table. I rise to say only two things, the first of which is that I am sure that all these horrible disasters with which we are threatened will not and cannot possibly take place under the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is always full of a crusading spirit, and I am sure that when he goes out crusading he always expects to find an enormous number of infidels galloping against him and using the most insidious means of tripping him up. However, I assure him that this is all nonsense, and that there is nothing in all these perils that have been described. My criticism of the Bill is otherwise. I do not think it will effect anything at all. I believe it to be a mere piece of eyewash—not on the part of those who put it forward, and who are honest and sincere men, working hard in a way which they believe will cleanse the country of crime. But I do not think the Bill will have the smallest effect on anybody who uses a cosh or a bicycle chain for improper purposes. There is only one way in which the wave of crime among young people can be dealt with, and that is by the rod and the "cat." So long as we go on passing anodyne Bills of this sort, which can affect nothing, so long do we put off a serious attempt to deal with a difficult problem.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like from the Back Benches on this side of the House to say a few words in support of this Bill. Personally, I do not feel the nervousness about it which many of your Lordships have expressed. It seems to me that, quite apart from the present wave of crimes of personal violence, there is a great deal to be said for making it a criminal offence for people to go about armed in the way that has been described by several noble Lords this afternoon. Most of us can remember the time when it was perfectly legal for people to carry firearms without a licence. I can remember that when the licensing system for revolvers was introduced between the wars there was a considerable outcry by conservative people like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that it was an invasion of personal liberty. In a sense that was so. But, looking at it broadly, in the interests of the community, surely, everybody must admit that it was a sensible provision. Likewise, surely, a provision which makes it an offence for men to go about armed with coshes and razor blades let into walking sticks, and that sort of thing, quite apart from the present wave of crimes of personal violence, is a sensible measure.
I agree up to a point with the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, that it is not a very strong Bill. It is not a Bill which will stop the present wave of crimes of personal violence. On the other hand, I certainly should not be prepared to go so far as the noble Lord and to say that the whole thing is eyewash, and that it will have no effect whatever. In that regard, I much prefer the evidence which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has produced from the Home Office and the police. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the men who have the job of dealing with these ruffians know a great deal more about what is likely to be effective than the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, whose experience of these things, great as it has been, has lain in rather a different branch of the administration of the law.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and I agreed with a good deal of it. I am sure he is right when he says that the real weakness of the present situation is the undermanned police force. I am quite satisfied that until we bring the police force up to its proper strength the
720
wave of violence and the general outburst of crime will not be satisfactorily dealt with. There are various methods by which the police force could be adequately recruited and built up, and I hope the Government will give serious attention to seeing that they are used. So far as this Bill goes, I think it is a useful Bill, and I am sure that that is the view of the majority of your Lordships. The case brought against it by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun—a case which has been echoed to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot—is that under it there is a danger of some innocent people being wrongly accused, and the noble Lords muttered dark things about its being made use of by the police for picking up people for whom they have a dislike and whom they suspect, and that sort of thing. After a not very intensive but fairly long experience of criminal administration, I do not believe these stories that the police look around for excuses for behaving unfairly in this way.
LORD SALTOUN: I hope the noble Lord does not think that anything I have said gave rise to that thought, because I can assure him that nothing was further from my mind.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: And if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I should like to say that I made no such suggestion and I have no such opinion. I think the police discharge their duties in most difficult circumstances with astonishing speed and fairness, and I make no such suggestion.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very glad indeed to hear that fall from both noble Lords, because I had a feeling that it was being suggested that the police would possibly make a wrongful use or, at any rate, a mistaken use, of the powers which are given to them under this Bill. This Bill is being introduced for the purpose of assisting the police, and it seems to me most unlikely that the police will use it in a way which will be unfair. It is possible to make out a theoretical case of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was making out about his walking stick, although I really could not follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, when he suggested that an ordinary thick walking stick was a weapon of offence. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, made the answer very clear in his interjection, and did not

721
leave anything for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to clear up. After all, all those of us who have had any experience of the administration of the criminal law and, indeed, of the law generally of this country, know quite well that it is the common-sense administration of it which is the strength of our legal system. There are all sorts of things which can be done technically under the law but which would be most absurd and which would be worse than absurd—they would be really wrong. Now and then, out of the tens of thousands of cases which are dealt with one does come across a case where some silly stupidity of that kind has taken place, and it is blazoned abroad in the newspapers. But, by and large, and in a much larger proportion than 999 cases out of 1,000, the law is sensibly administered with that deep common sense which is characteristic not only of our police force but of the administration of our whole law. I am sure that we can rely upon them for the sensible use of this Bill.
The Bill is directed, in its rather narrow way, for the protection of large numbers of men and women, and particularly women, who are in a very real danger in some parts of our cities and, indeed, in some country districts at the present time. If it should happen that here and there somebody like the noble Lord is subjected to a little inconvenience for an hour or two, surely he should be ready to put up with it if, in return for that, even a few dozen people are in fact protected against molestation and, indeed, against worse—against serious physical violence at the hands of young ruffians and hooligans of the kind which has become only too common in our streets during the last few years. Therefore, I am quite sure that in terms of convenience this is a sensible Bill, and I hope your Lordships will support it.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, nobody can complain of the reception which this Bill has received in this House. It is a Bill, your Lordships will remember—and I think this has been referred to in this House—which passed the House of Commons without a Division. It is a Bill which was introduced in answer not merely to popular clamour, but to informed opinion.
722
In its general tenor and in its actual words it was submitted to the Opposition before it was introduced to the House, and Sir Frank Soskice acknowledged in most generous words the way in which his help had been sought. Therefore, although I agree most heartily with what fell from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that the language of the Bill must be scrutinised in the closest possible way, I think it may be found difficult to find words more apt than those that are in the Bill to give effect to its purpose. But I welcome from him or from any noble Lord in this House, any suggestion which will give the effect that we want without unduly weakening the provisions of the Bill.
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has moved is immediately before the House, and I should like to say just one or two words about that. What the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said is exactly what I would have said; and he said with all the weight and impressiveness that he commands. This is not panic legislation. It is a moderate measure designed to assist the police in the prevention—and I emphasise that word—of what, to use a popular but perhaps too emphatic a phrase, is called "a wave of crime." To my mind, to give effect to the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has made would be panic legislation of the worst kind; to reverse the trend of centuries, to say to a citizen that he is to take the law into his own hands and turn the country into an armed camp. I could not imagine anything worse than the sort of encouragement which his words gave—an encouragement which was in direct defiance of Acts of Parliament which have been passed these many years. For it is a crime to-day for people to do that which the noble Lord would advocate.
He says they are to go armed. Armed with what? He gives us an example—armed with pistols which may discharge obnoxious liquid. Section 17 of the Firearms Act, 1937, makes that a crime. In some respects the, noble Lord's law is impeccable. It is absolutely true that it is the duty of every citizen to aid in the preservation of the peace. It has been picturesquely said that a policeman is a citizen in uniform. Every citizen has many of the same rights and duties as the policeman to preserve the peace. But is the policeman armed? He is

723
armed with a truncheon, which does not go nearly as far as the noble Lord would suggest. According to him, every citizen is to be armed with what he thinks adequate for the preservation of his own safety. He gave examples of the fisher-girl with her gutting knife, and somebody else with a pistol, and so on. I venture to ask your Lordships to resist the Amendment which the noble Lord proposes, which is the rejection of this Bill, and to proceed after Second Reading to its proper consideration.
The noble Lord further challenged this Bill upon the ground that it made no provision for housing or for increasing the police. Of course it does not; it is not a Bill which has that purpose. The noble Lord challenged the definition of "offensive weapon." Certainly we should welcome his assistance, and, indeed, that of any other noble Lord, in defining what is an "offensive weapon." Some definition must be found. I venture, therefore, to hope that the noble Lord may be persuaded to withdraw his Amendment; but if not, that at least your Lordships will not give effect to it.
Now I come to deal with certain of the criticisms which have been made of the language of the Bill. I should like, first of all, to reply to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, and, I think, by one or two other noble Lords. The onus of proof in criminal trials is, of course, a most important matter. Generally speaking, there is a presumption of innocence. I think that Parliament is very slow to depart from that presumption—although in a number of cases it has done so. But it has not done so in the case which the noble Lord suggests. Let me glance for a moment at the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill provides as follows:
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon.…"
Now let us read for this purpose the single category of offensive weapon with which we are concerned. Then, it would read thus:
"…has with him in any public place a weapon intended by him for such use…"
That is, for the purpose of causing injury. Well, my Lords, I hate to be dogmatic, particularly about a matter which, if the
724
Bill passes in its present form, may have to be considered in the courts but I have little doubt, as had the Lord Chief Justice when he intervened, that those words put on the prosecution the onus of showing that the weapon is intended by the defendant to be used for the purpose of injury. It is quite true that if that has been proved by the prosecution it will then lie with the defendant to say "Oh, yes, but I have lawful authority" or, "Yes, but T had reasonable excuse." This would be a difficult thing for him to prove if it has already been proved against him that he intended it for injury. I have no doubt at all that there the burden of proof remains with the prosecution and is not thrown upon the prisoner.
The words to which the noble Lord has referred:
"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,"
have a very important bearing upon the other categories of offensive weapons. The other categories of offensive weapons are weapons made or adapted for causing injury. Now if a person in a public place carries with him a weapon made to cause injury it does not seem to me to be going very far to require him to prove that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for carrying it. Why should a man go into a public place carrying a bicycle chain or a razor blade? No, let the burden in such a case be put upon him.
Then the question arises, how is the offence to be dealt with? That is covered by Clause 3 of the Bill. Although, like the noble Lord, I at first felt a little unhappy about this, the more I came to study it the more it appeared to me that there were adequate safeguards. In fact, my mind went through very much the same process as that of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who delivered, if I may say so, a most cogent and instructive speech, in which he interpreted this Bill in a most lucid way. I was not altogether happy at first, as I say, but it did appear to me that there were so many safeguards, not only in Clause 1 but in Clause 3, that there was little apprehension to be entertained that an innocent person could suffer under this Bill. I must differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. This surely is not a Bill in which the balance is tipped against the

725
poor person. It is a Bill which is intended for the protection of all people alike. I think it is giving a wrong balance altogether to the matter to suggest that it favours one section of the community rather than another. I should be sorry indeed if it were to go out from this House that that thought had any place in the minds of any of your Lordships.
Before I go any further, perhaps I may be allowed, by way of illustration of a point which has arisen, to refer to the umbrella or the stick. If a person goes out with an umbrella or a stick it is quite clear that something more has to be proved against him than the mere possession of the umbrella or the stick. It has to be proved that he intended to use that umbrella or stick for the purpose of causing injury. I conceive that it would be very difficult to prove it against him; and if that were all that there was to it in the Bill I should be inclined to subscribe to the view which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. But there are articles which, although not normally used for purposes of injury, are capable of being so used; and I conceive that it may be possible in certain cases for the police to prove that such articles are carried with that intent. For instance, in the case of a bicycle chain carried in a mackintosh pocket, the police may suspect a man because they have known him to use a bicycle chain before for the purpose of causing injury.
I come now to a substantial point made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and others; that was whether this Bill should become part of our permanent law until repealed, or whether it should be an annual measure subject to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I need hardly say that representations that have been made on this matter will be conveyed by my noble friend Lord Lloyd to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I would say, quite frankly, that I do not hold out too much hope on that point. It would not be right for me to suggest to the House that it had not been considered: I know that the Home Secretary has considered it, and on the whole has come to the conclusion that it should find a place in our permanent law; but no doubt the representations made on both sides of your Lordships' House on the matter will weigh with him. I am
726
quite sure that noble Lords can take it that the matter will be reconsidered. There are no doubt matters which can be considered on the Committee stage of this Bill; but on its general principles which, if they have not the universal support of the House have the support of at least a good majority, I hope your Lordships will think I have said enough.
5.9 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am going to answer the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on one particular point, which is this, They both attacked me on the ground that I said citizens should go about armed to the teeth, bristling with weapons. I think the Lord Chancellor said that I recommended that they should carry pistols. I think the only time I mentioned the word "pistol" was when I said "not a pistol"—but possibly the noble and learned Lord's wig was my enemy, and he did not hear it. But what the noble and learned Earl opposite meant when he said "armed to the teeth" was exactly how people are going about to-day. Is it wrong for the Glasgow school-teachers to defend themselves on their way back from their work in the dusk? Is it wrong for a girl who is crossing a lonely common to have something which will enable her to repel an assault? Or are the Government prepared to have a policeman ready to accompany every girl home? The thing is impossible. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor asked me to define a defensive weapon. That is one of the points I made. A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is entirely a matter of intention.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, opposite for a singularly sympathetic speech, with every word of which I agree. I have been asked whether I intend to divide the House on this Bill. If I am going to divide it on this Bill, it is on an important principle. The reason why I am going to divide the House is this: that here and in another place it was said—and it is perfectly true, T believe—that the effect of this Bill will be to make the police into a special force different from the ordinary citizens. They will be armed with coshes or truncheons, whatever you like to call them, while the

727
rest of the population have no right, apparently, to carry anything at all for self-defence. I say that is wrong, and I am prepared to divide the House. I should be wrong not to divide it when I oppose that principle, which is being introduced for the first time into our law. For that reason, I will certainly divide the House on my Amendment.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: In view of the assurances given by the Lord Chancellor on the points which I raised, I hope that the noble Lord will not take this to a Division.
On Question, Whether the Amendment be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 3; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Middleton, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Portman, V.

Lloyd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Swinton, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Merthyr, L.

Archibald, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Monson, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Burden, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Dundonald, E.

Cherwell, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Jowitt, E.

Chesham, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Onslow. E. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Sandys, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Schuster, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Derwent, L.

Sempill, L.

Gifford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Devonport, V.

Haden-Guest. L.

Silkin, L.

Goschen, V.

Hawke, L.

Teviot, L.

Harcourt, V.

Henderson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hudson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Hyndley, V.

Iliffe, L.

Wolverton, L.

Long, V.

Kenswood, L.

Woolton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

GATESHEAD EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.