Lords Sitting of 19 February 1957

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

MILITARY REQUIREMENTS AND ELECTRICITY CHARGES
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider, or cause the Central Electricity Authority to reconsider, the policy whereby consumers are called upon to pay excess charges for electricity when the supply line to point of use has to take a more expensive route because of military requirements, as in the case of the supply to four small-holdings at Ascott in the county of Oxfordshire.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, in any particular case, such as that referred to by the noble Lord, if persons requiring a supply of electricity are not satisfied about the fairness of the area electricity board's proposals, it is open to them to make representations to the area electricity consultative council which is the independent statutory body appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of consumers; and that council, if it thinks fit, can in turn make representations to the Central Electricity Authority and ultimately to the Minister. Speaking generally, however, I should say that there are many requirements besides those of military authorities which often lead to the adoption of a more expensive route for an electricity supply line: for example, the requirements of local planning authorities, amenity organisations and landowners; and. I do not think it would be justifiable to single costs for special treatment additional costs arising from military requirements.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my
986
grateful thanks for the fullness of his reply? I take courage from his concluding remarks. Would be not agree that any extra or excess charge arising from any cause of the kind to which he referred in his concluding remarks should be borne by the over-riding price structure of this monopoly? And would he not further agree that, unless this policy is adopted, the charges for electrification of the rural areas of this country will result in undue hardship falling on the shoulders of land workers and smallholders, usually people of modest means?
LORD MILLS: I would not dissent from the noble Lord's contention that in general the cost of rural electrification should fall on the whole body of consumers. But this is a specific instance where an aerodrome had got there first, and in consequence a more expensive route had to be adopted. I do not think it quite comes within the definition given by the noble Lord. I would suggest that this case should be dealt with locally between the area board, the county council and the consultative council. The consultative council are there to advise consumers quit to protect their interests, and I am quite sure that this particular matter could be settled in that way.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, if, as I understand, the route has been lengthened for the convenience of the military authorities, surely the civilian taxpayer should not pay in the form of an increased price for his power.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, there are many things in life which we should like to do and for which we may think we should not be charged. But in this case something has got there first and therefore we cannot just cut across it. Obviously, that principle must be taken into account.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In view of the interesting opinion just expressed by the noble Lord, I hope that the representative of the Minister of Agriculture is listening with both ears open, for I feel certain that if a case of fie kind which is cited here were repeated in any way elsewhere, small people who have to farm land would be very much injured by such a definition as would seem to arise from the opinion expressed. I hope that the Minister will consent to have a talk with

987
the Minister of Agriculture about this particular matter, if he has not already done so—I am not suggesting that he may not have done so—and that he will keep in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, because one set of agricultural producers ought not to be put in a worse position than others as a result of the length of route occasioned by an obstacle which has been placed by State developments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I seize with alacrity upon the noble Lord's acceptance in principle of my suggestion that this should be an overall charge and upon the principle that "a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse," I am now quite prepared to leave this matter between the area board, the local authority and the consultative council.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the existence of a military requirement, which is a matter of national safety, is not just as important an obstacle as, say, an arm of the sea or any other natural feature?
LORD MILLS: My Lords. I believe I have already made that clear in my previous reply.

PLANT PATENTS
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will consider amending the patent laws so as to include living plants and thereby give protection and encouragement to British hybridists and raisers of new plant varieties, particularly roses; at the same time ensuring a flow of foreign currency to this country, which is at present lost.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, the problem of protecting and encouraging the raisers of new varieties of plants, whether by plant patents or by other means, is about to be studied in all its aspects by the Committee on Transactions
988
in Seeds. Any recommendations the Committee may make will be given careful consideration.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that, quite apart from the difficulties involved, there are many of us in this nation of gardeners who do not desire to see unnecessary artificial obstacles placed in the way of the freest possible exchange of knowledge and gardening products amongst gardening enthusiasts all over the world?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether the law in the Netherlands, where a great deal of interesting experimental work on the production of new types is in operation, is the same as the law in this country? If the noble Earl is not able to reply to that, will he see that this inquiry which he says is about to take place considers in particular what is the practice in the Netherlands?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if I may, I will reply to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, first. I am afraid I cannot give him at the moment the comparable position in the Netherlands, but I can assure him that the Committee will be considering what is the practice not only in the Netherlands but in other countries as well. I fully appreciate that opinion is by no means unanimous on this matter. That point, of course, will be borne fully in mind.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. May I have the temerity to answer the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the only country of prominent plant-raisers in the world that does not protect its raisers of rare species and new varieties is this country. The Netherlands have a patent law which applies, and so have America; hence the present incongruity. May I further ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that this country suffers from a great disadvantage which is well illustrated by the fact that an American hybrid rose is now on sale in this country—a beautiful rose

989
with a beautiful name: "Queen Elizabeth"?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are far fewer rose-growers in the United States than there are in this country?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There are not.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think it will be obvious from what has been said in this House to-day that opinions on this matter are by no means unanimous. The amount of evidence which will have to be taken by the Committee is considerable, and their deliberations, I am afraid, may take some time.

REBEL ADEN CHIEFTAINS
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm or deny the Press report stating that 22 Aden Protectorate chieftains, claiming leadership of 60,000 tribesmen, have declared their readiness to use force to drive out the British.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, these so-called chieftains are, for the most part, renegade members of leading families who have been disowned and discredited by their leaders. They and any Protectorate tribesmen who have crossed into the Yemen are incited to rebel against their own Rulers by lavish promises of arms and money. Numbers are difficult to estimate but must be presumed at any time to be in direct proportion to the bribes and subversive efforts of the Yemen.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. Arising out of it, may I ask him, first, whether any of the so-called chieftains are Rulers who are in treaty relations with Her Majesty; secondly, whether any of them are still residing in the Protectorate.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am afraid that I have not the exact answer to those questions. Certainly, the majority of these people are, as I have said, so-called chieftains and, in fact, renegades. I might observe that all these activities are
990
in flagrant contravention of the 1934 Anglo-Yemeni Treaty.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the occurrences out there, which are very disturbing to us in all parts of the House—we receive propaganda from the Yemeni Legation from time to time—has the time not come to consider urgently whether this matter should be referred by this country to the United Nations Organisation?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think that is another question. If the noble Viscount will put it down some time we can consider it in that context.

STANDING ORDERS
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments on the Order Paper standing in my name. With the approval of your Lordships, I would propose to move them together. They are all consequential on recommendations in the Report of the Procedure Committee which was approved by the House last week. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made to the Standing Orders on Public Business:—
Standing Order No. 46, in paragraph 2, leave out ("three-minute") and insert ("four-minute"); and leave out ("three minutes") and insert ("four minutes")
Standing Order No. 50, line 1, leave out ("a") and insert ("any"), leave out ("upon any stage of a Bill")
Standing Order No. 63, last line of paragraph 2, leave out ("and the Committee for Privileges is to be appointed")
Standing Order No. 63, last line of paragraph 3, leave out ("and the Committee for Privileges appointed")
Standing Order No. 65, line 1, leave out ("All the Lords who come to any Committee for Privileges shall be of that Committee, but") and insert ("A Committee for Privileges shall be appointed at the beginning of every Session; sixteen Lords shall be named of the Committee, together with any four Lords of Appeal;")
Standing Order No. 65, line 4, leave out ("or more")
Leave out Standing Order No. 66.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

SILO SUBSIDIES (ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME, 1957
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Draft Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 6th of February, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I real cannot open this discussion, connected as it is with Agriculture, without a brief reference to the loss which that greatest of our industries has suffered in the death of my noble friend Lord Hudson, to whose efforts during the last war agriculture owes its restoration to the long lost place it once held in the economy of this country. Under his stimulating leadership as Minister, agricultural production was almost as potent a weapon as the actual instruments of destruction in the protection of these islands from the assaults of our enemies. Thanks largely to "Rob" Hudson's initiative and unremitting energy, the nation's debt is deep and acknowledged, and the principle is established that a prosperous and expanding agriculture is perhaps the most necessary of our industries. When he came to this House he had retired from active politics, but those of your Lordships who listened to his speeches cannot have failed to have been impressed, not only by his knowledge of agriculture in all its various aspects but also by his vision of what could be. As a friend he was a severe and uncompromising critic, never hesitating to say what mistakes he thought one had made. But he was equally generous in his praise, if he thought it was deserved; and because of his honest criticism his praise was all the more to be valued. We shall miss him sadly in our deliberations, and agriculture is the poorer by losing a true leader and a great pioneer.
Now, my Lords, if I may turn to this Scheme, it is the first to be made under the Agriculture (Silo Subsidies) Act, 1956, since it received the Royal Assent in December last. Your Lordships will remember that the Act is purely an enabling measure under which Ministers were authorised to make schemes for a silo subsidy. In moving the Second Reading, I explained the main principles of the first Scheme which we proposed
992
to make under the Act, and an outline of the conditions of the Scheme was placed in the Printed Paper Office before the Second Reading debate. The Draft Scheme now before the House fills in this outline and on one or two points adds a few necessary details.
I will not weary your Lordships with a recitation of the detailed provisions of the Scheme, which are, I think, self-explanatory, but there is one point upon which I should perhaps enlarge slightly. Your Lordships will remember that I explained during the Second Reading debate that in order to save time, so that work on silos could start in the autumn and be ready in time for use this coming season, we had already invited farmers to start submitting their projects for silos. No payments, of course, could be made until the Scheme itself had been approved by Parliament, but your Lordships will see, from Clause 3 of the Draft Scheme, that the period during which the Minister may approve works of construction or improvement of silos began on November 19 last year. This was the first working day after the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. This very exceptional arrangement was practicable only because the Bill dealt with a very limited class of building, and because the Government made available to Parliament at the time the Bill was considered a full statement of its proposals. Our last debate on the Bill revealed a gratifying measure of support for the Government's proposals and I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to approve this Scheme which gives effect to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1957 reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 6th of February be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I rise only to associate noble Lords on these Benches with what the noble Earl opposite has just said about the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson. The sudden decline of his health came, I think, as a great shock to all of us, remembering so vividly, as we did, his robust figure and fine resonant voice in our agricultural debates. The independence and fair-mindedness with which he always stated his view, and the honest criticism to which

993
the noble Earl alluded, were as welcome to us as to members of Her Majesty's Government. We should also like to express cur sympathy with the members of his family, and to say that those of us who knew him have a sense of personal loss, as well as an awareness of the loss that the House has sustained.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SILO SUBSIDIES (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1957
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I rise to move that the draft Silos (Scotland) Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on February 6, be approved. Apart from some minor drafting matters, this scheme is identical with that for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the Draft Silos (Scotland) Scheme, 1957 reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 6th of February, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT
The Committee considered the proposal made by Lord Merthyr in the House on the 23rd of January, 1957, that when any proceedings in this House stand adjourned till the following day, and owing to the length of sitting it has not been possible to publish and circulate the Official Report in full next morning, the unpublished part of the Report may be made available in the Printed Paper Office not later than one o'clock on the day following such proceedings. The Committee found that certain difficulties were raised by this proposal as it stood, but that it would be possible to place carbon copies in the Library the next morning. The Committee accordingly
994
recommend to the House that one or more carbon copies of the unpublished part of the first day's debate in such circumstances be placed in the Library by one o'clock on the following day.
2.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the appropriate Royal Commission scales of pay for the Clerk of the Records, Assistant Clerk of the Records and Temporary Assistant Archivist, and authorised a further revision as from 1st April next in the salary scales of the Clerk of the Records and Assistant Clerk of the Records.
3.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1956–57
The Committee approved the Supplementary Estimate submitted to meet the anticipated excess, due mainly to revised salaries.
4.—CLERKS IN THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. E. D. Graham as a Senior Clerk in the Parliament Office from 1st January, 1957.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of an annual allowance to Mr. P. G. Henderson, Secretary to the Clerk of the Parliaments, with effect from 1st February, 1957.
5.—RETIREMENT YR OF ACCOUNTANT AND TAXING OFFICER OF JUDICIAL COSTS
The Committee were informed of the voluntary retirement of Mr. P. Johnson, O.B.E., Chief Accountant in the Parliament Office and Taxing Officer of Judicial Costs, on 28th February, 1957, after 41 years reckonable service and sanctioned the payment to him of a pension and addition allowance under the Superannuation Acts. The Committee expressed their appreciation of the manner in which he had carried out his duties.
6.—GRATUITY TO A HOUSEMAID
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under section 40 of the Superannuation Act, 1949, to Mrs. M. Jacobs, whose services terminated on 1st December, 1956, after 9 competed years.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL, OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I do not think that there is anything in this Report to which I need draw your special attention and therefore I beg to move that it be considered and agreed to.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Some of your Lordships may have asked the same question that I have asked myself—namely, why I am moving this Bill to-day? Before I answer that question, may I say that I do not think that I have any interest to declare, except that possibly, as a shareholder, I have some remote interest in licensed premises. Otherwise, I have no interest in the retail liquor trade at all. On the other hand, I am not a teetotaller and I have no interest in, or membership of, any temperance organisation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What a pity!
LORD MERTHYR: The noble Viscount says. "What a pity!" So I think I can claim to take part in this debate from a completely impartial standpoint. Why, then, am I moving the Second Reading of the Bill? The answer, shortly, is that, as I see it, there is a serious defect in the law, which results in a grave injustice and which is growing daily worse, and that if this moderate, mild and small Bill were passed, it would go a small way towards reducing this injustice.
This Bill deals with clubs, although the word "clubs" does not appear in the Title, and with nothing else. May I quote two or three figures to indicate the growth of the number of clubs in recent years? Roughly speaking, in the last fifty years clubs have grown in number from 8,000 to 23,000. On the other hand, the number of licensed premises has gone down from 89,000 to 72,000. During the years 1953 and 1954, there was a net annual increase of between 400 and 450 clubs—that is, since the well-known Defence Regulation 55C was allowed to lapse in 1952. The only comments I would make on the fact that the Regulation was allowed to lapse is that, in my view, experience since then has shown that it was a mistake. I want to say a little about Regulation 55C. Why was it made at all? It was made because this country was at war and a great effort was needed. One may say, quite properly, that this country is not
996
now at war; but would one say that a great effort is not now needed? In my view, that would be going too far. Without further comment on Regulation 55C, I would say that the Bill partly restores that Regulation.
I need say only a few words in explaining the Bill, because if your Lordships have been good enough to read the Memorandum which is attached to it, I think you will have found all the explanation that is required. Clause 1 (2) enacts that the police shall be told when there is an application for the registration of a new club, and under Clause 2 the police may object to that registration. If there is no objection on the part of the police—and under the Bill no one else may object—then the registration of a club is automatic, as it is at present. If there is objection by the police, then Clause 4 operates, and a club may then, and no doubt would, apply to the justices for an order authorising the registration of the club. Clause 3 sets out in detail the grounds upon which the police may object to the club. As I have already said. Clause 3 is partly taken from Regulation 55C, but is partly new ground. It will by my contention that I have taken the best provisions of Regulation 55C and added to them the best ideas that have been thought of since.
I should like to draw particular attention to Clause 3 (f) (ii) and (iii) which make provision for those under eighteen years of age. I think it will be agreed that in recent years there has not been an alarming increase of drunkenness in this country, but I think it will be agreed, also, that such increase as there has been has been among young people. I think it would be true to say that those who consider these things are disturbed, and rightly so, about the increase of drunkenness among young people. To me it is rather striking, because, as I see it, there is no overall increase in drunkenness. But it is causing concern, and here may be the reason for it: the increase of clubs in which, as I shall show in a moment or two, those under eighteen years of age have privileges and rights which they do not enjoy in licensed premises.
On Clause 4, I should like to emphasise that the burden of proof will be on the police. It will not be for the applicant on behalf of the club to prove his case, but for the police to satisfy the court

997
affirmatively that the club should not be registered. Clause 6 gives a right of entry to the police. That may be one of the most contentious points, because they have no right of entry now, although they had it under Regulation 55C. I want to emphasise, however, that it gives the police a right of entry only before the first registration of the club, and not afterwards. I should have thought that there could be little opposition to that. After the club is first registered, the police will have no more rights than they have now, would ask your Lordships this question: would you object to that right being given in respect of any club of which you are a member, or of which, perhaps, you are president? I have asked myself that question and I cannot see that I should have the slightest objection. Would any member of any respectable, reputable club have any objection to that? I cannot think so.
Next, I should like to give some examples of what I call the unfairness of the present law, first of all in regard, to the opening of new premises. To open new licensed premises the applicant must go before the licensing committee of the justices at a public hearing, and at that hearing anyone, the police or other people, can attend and oppose his application on any ground. He must establish that he has an unblemished character, reaching back over at least seven years, and must produce references accordingly. He must prove that his premises are suitable, no doubt after careful scrutiny by the police. He must prove the need in the neighbourhood for the opening of the new premises. If he succeeds before the licensing committee, he must then go to the compensation and confirming committee and prove his case all over again. On the other hand, to open a club, what has he to do? He has to fill in a form, supply a copy of any sort of rules, and, pay 5s. He can then open the club. There is no inquiry as to his character or his antecedents; no-one can object, not even the police; there is no inspection of the premises, and there is no inquiry as to the need, no matter how many clubs or licensed premises there are in the neighbourhood. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? Is it fair?
I can give your Lordships an actual example that happened only twelve days ago. An applicant appeared before a bench of magistrates, as I know well,
998
applying for the taking over of an existing public-house, and, therefore, applying for a new licence for himself, since he wanted to buy the house and run it. In making his application, he was opposed by the police, and the result was that before the court, the public and the Press some embarrassing details about his private life were brought forth, including his morality, a conviction for a crime and so forth. As a result, the justices, no doubt quite rightly, came to the conclusion that, in law, there was no alternative but for them to say that this man was not a fit and proper person to run a public-house. The moral of that story is this. There was nothing in the world to prevent that man, on his way out of the court, from paying 5s. to the justices' clerk, filling up a form, supplying a copy of the rules and opening a club in the same town. One wonders if that state of affairs is right.
I pass now to supervision. In the case of licensed premises, the justices and the police have a great deal to say about cleanliness, sanitation and structural alterations that are needed, whether there is hot water in the bar and many other details. The police may enter the licensed premises at any time of the day or night, any day of the year, so long as they are in uniform, without a warrant. They may prowl about the place, spy through chinks in curtains and listen for the clink of glasses. Those of your Lordships who are magistrates will be only too familiar with the story, as I am. But what about clubs? In the case of clubs, there is no supervision by the police or by the justices; there is no right of entry, except with a warrant obtained from a justice of the peace on sworn evidence that there is something wrong with the club. How is it to be found out what is wrong with the club if there is no right of entry in order to find out? How is the evidence to be obtained?
I come now to hours of opening. In the case of licensed premises the hours are fixed by the justices, not for each premises but for the whole division, and all premises must comply. There is a rigid enforcement of the hours, and a publican, as we all know, entertains even his friends at his peril. In the case of clubs, what have we? First, the hours of opening are fixed by the members. So long as they are restricted to eight hours a day, they can be any hours that the members like.

999
There is no reference to the court, and if there are a large number of clubs in a town each club can have different hours from the next, so that it is quite possible, if one is a member of a large number of clubs, as is perfectly possible, to obtain a drink almost all day. I tested this by selecting an English town—I know of nothing which leads me to suppose that it is in any way different from any other town. It is a perfectly average English town, with a population of about 95,000 people. In that town there are fifty-six registered clubs. I have here, and I have studied carefully, the exact hours of opening of every one of those clubs, and I find that from 10.30 in the morning until 10 at night—that is, eleven and a half hours—you can get a drink in one club or another at any time within that period in that town. So you can drink almost all day if you pick and choose sufficiently carefully.
I come now to the serious part. It is now being noticed that when the public-houses open, people who are drunk appear at opening time, instead of, as used to be the case, at closing time. On this question of hours of opening, I cannot refrain from mentioning the rather special subject of Wales. Section 111 of the Licensing Act, 1953, is so short, and so much to the point, that I am going to read the whole of the section. It reads as follows:
"There shall he no permitted hours on any Sunday in licensed premises in Wales and Monmouthshire."
I shall not express to-day any opinion, one way or the other, on this troublesome question of whether it is right or wrong to drink on Sundays: I expressly refrain from informing your Lordships what I think about that matter. But I will say most definitely that, in my view, it is not both right to drink in England on Sundays and wrong to drink in Wales on Sundays. Your Lordships may say that that is immaterial to this Bill, but what is material is that, in my view, it is not both wrong to drink in licensed premises in Wales on Sundays, and right to drink in clubs in Wales on Sundays; and I ask your Lordships to agree with that statement.
Parliament created this state of affairs—that is, your Lordships created this state of affairs—and I ask your Lordships to correct it to-day. It is, of course.
1000
becoming notorious in Wales that, because licensed premises are compulsorily closed on Sundays, not only do bus-loads of people go across the Border into England to drink, but it is possible to obtain a drink at almost any hour of the day in a club without crossing the Border. That is, to my mind, an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is small wonder that the percentage of clubs to public-houses is higher in Wales than in the country as a whole. Only last week, long after the First Reading of this Bill, I was told that in the next village to mine a new club had been opened. I asked, "For what purpose?", and they said, "Well, of course, to drink on Sunday." That is typical of what is going on. Meanwhile, the publicans, for whom I have no brief but who are entitled to justice as much as anyone else, must stand idly by and see their customers going into clubs and drinking on Sundays when they cannot do it in the public-houses.
I pass to the question of young persons. A few weeks ago your Lordships gave an unopposed Second Reading to a small Bill which I ventured to introduce to extend the licensing law to occasional licences. There was no opposition, not even from the Liberal Benches, though the noble Lord, Lord Rea (I am sorry not to see him here to-day, but I understand that he is ill), made some remarks about tiny tots being able to obtain rather more than tiny tots in public-houses on occasional licences. The present position is this. In licensed premises, no one may be employed, without creating a criminal offence, under the age of eighteen years. No one under the age of fourteen may be in the bar. No one under the age of eighteen may be served with an alcoholic drink. That is on licensed premises. Yet in clubs, a person of thirteen can be employed doing the same work as he would do in a public-house. There is no age limit to those who may be in the bar. That is where the noble Lord's "tiny tots" come in. Anybody, of any age, even children in perambulators, can be served with any sized tot. I hope that nobody to-day, least of all from the Liberal Benches—I understand that there will be a speech from a noble Lord from that quarter—will say that I am interfering with the liberty of the subject, because was it not a Liberal Government which did more than any

1001
other Government has ever done to complicate the licensing laws of this country?
I pass to taxation. The position, as I understand it, is this. All publicans have to pay a heavy tax for what is called a monopoly value—that is, they pay a tax to a general fund which is paid out in compensation to those who close public-houses. That is said to be, and I have no doubt it was at one time, of value to the holders of licences. But having regard to the opening of clubs, where is the monopoly value to-day? The monopoly value is riddled through and through by the opening of clubs; and clubs pay nothing at all. Furthermore, if a club is struck off under the Licensing Act, as it can be, there is nothing in the world to prevent the same people from opening another club immediately; and there is a great deal to prevent a publican from doing so.
I have spoken of England, I have spoken of Wales, and I now pass to Scotland. This Bill does not apply to Scotland. Why? Because there is no need for this Bill in Scotland. For what I want is already, broadly speaking, the law in Scotland. Most of the Bill is already the law in that country, including police scrutiny of new applications for clubs. I should like to ask: has any complaint arisen from over the Border against this law, and, if so what? And why should there be this difference between the two countries? I, for one, am never tired of trying to take the best points in the law of both countries and having them as the law of Britain.
I must occupy a few more minutes in dealing with what I suppose may be some of the objections to my Bill. I am told that the police will not want this extra duty thrust upon them. The answer is very simple. The Bill gives no extra duties to the police; it merely gives them powers. It only enables them to do something if they want to; it compels them to do nothing whatever. I have already touched on the thorny question of the liberty of the subject. The liberty of the subject is a rusty, double-edged sword which can be used, abused and misused. Of course, if one went only by the liberty of the subject, a great many of the Bills which came before your Lordships' House would have no chance whatever. To go no further back than yesterday, what about the Shops Bill and the liberty of the subject there? Then I am told that
1002
it is wrong that small people who run clubs should have to go before magistrates and have to go to court, with all the trouble and costs that would ensue. Quite so. But what about the publicans? They have to do it. Some of them at least are as small as those who run clubs. Seriously, I ask your Lordships: why the difference? I venture to say that this is a question which must in the end be answered even if it is not answered to-day.
I have received, of course, one or two communications about this matter. One letter says:
"This unhappy country suffers from too much liquidation."—
At least that is what the word looks like; it may be meant for "legislation", but it looks uncommonly like "liquidation".
"If a disorderly people want to run disorderly clubs, why not?"
I hope to try to answer that question this afternoon. Here is a point seriously arising. This, I apprehend, may be the most serious objection to this Bill, but it is not one, in my submission, which ought to invalidate it. It may be said—I rather think it will be—that clubs are private premises and so people can do what they like there. Technically, that is a perfectly sound legal point, as I understand the law. I admit it. But it will not do if one goes outside the law and into the wider issues. Clubs are so easy to open these days, so easy to join, so easy to enter as a guest—anybody can enter a club as a guest, no matter what his age. There is so little supervision that no responsible social worker, knowing these facts and having the welfare of the country at heart, could possibly agree with this argument. I have observed in a paper for which I have a high regard, the Economist, a very reputable paper, an argument against the Bill. They say:
"It will end up in stopping bottle parties and private parties."
We all know the old debating trick. If you cannot find a good argument against a Bill, first read something into it which is not there and then say that it goes a great deal too far. That is just what that comment is doing. There is not a word in the Bill, of course, to justify that criticism. I hope the House will not be deceived by such an argument.
It may be objected that the real remedy is not to pass this Bill but to alter the law with regard to licensed premises. I

1003
concede that there is more than something to be said for that argument, but I must respectfully ask your Lordships, if you are of that opinion: what are you going to do about it? I believe that, on the whole, taken by and large, the licensing laws of this country are reasonable and in the interests of the community. I do not think we could get on without licensing laws, though I should be the first to admit that the present laws are amenable to reasonable amendment; but they must be fair to all classes of the community. Can your Lordships justify the present distinction between the law relating to clubs and the law relating to public-houses? If you can, may I respectfully invite you to say how you do it?
One more criticism that is made against this Bill by the Economist, is this. It is said:
"Magistrates are seeking immense new powers."
Again there is nothing at all to justify that statement. Magistrates do not seek new powers. This would only mean more work for them. They do not seek to restrict liberty, but they are disturbed at the present situation, at the gross inequality that exists in the law to-day and at the results that ensue from that inequality. Sitting in their courts, they see it daily—and it may be appropriate that I should be moving this Bill in February, which is the month of the Brewster Sessions all over the country. Every magistrate sees this almost every day. They are obliged to sit there and administer the law. It means simply that they are putting shackles on to one competitor in business and allowing the other competitor to go entirely free, and they can do nothing about it.
In conclusion, may I again say that, in my view, this Bill, in relation to the whole problem, is a very mild one indeed. It will not touch the respectable club. It will only touch in any way at all an existing club in so far as it very slightly increases the chances of its being struck off the register as undesirable. With that exception, no existing club will be affected by this Bill. As regards future clubs, they will not be dependent on the whim of the police, because the Bill contains ample sanctions to prevent any irresponsible objection. Justices will have the power of stopping every sort of
1004
frivolous objection and will have the power, under Clause 4 (3), of awarding costs against the police if they come across anything in the nature of a frivolous objection to a club. That is the sanction against that sort of thing. If Her Majesty's Government will not move in this matter of their own accord, then I venture, with great respect and humility, to suggest that private Members of your Lordships' House must get up and try to do something to put right what I believe an increasing number of people think is a wrong.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether any noble Lord opposite wanted to get up and support this Bill. I do not want to interfere if that is so, but I should like, if I may be permitted, as I have another engagement to go to, to say a few words about the Bill. We all have a great respect for the noble Lord who has moved its Second Reading. We know him so well in the day's work of the House that we appreciate what meticulous care he gives to all the details of any measure he may be likely himself to lay before your Lordships. I look at this Bill very much in the light of our knowledge of the personality of the mover. At the same time, I must say that I feel he has a great deal of courage in bringing forward this particular Bill.
When he spoke a little with regard to our Liberal friends in the House, and the pre-First World War legislation, I felt "Well, it may lead to all kinds of emotions and activities". I remember so well sitting in a Nonconformist church in Weston-super-Mare in 1907 and the pastor preached a magnificent sermon, all devoted to the text, "Where the carcase is, there the eagles are gathered together." He drew long lessons from the line about development of empires and states and their ultimate destruction through corruption; and then, at the end, he said simply, "And the place which only last week threw out the Licensing Reform Bill is likely to follow the same fate." Well, we are still here on this occasion. I quote that remark only to show what great feelings may be excited upon this class of legislation.

1005
In spite of what I have said about the noble Lord and his courage in the matter, I should like to support the Bill. Undoubtedly the anomalies he has mentioned exist to-day. In the latter part of his speech he said that no existing club would be affected by the Bill. We shall have to see what happens in Committee, but it seems to me that any clubs may he affected on application for renewal of registration. I am not quite sure about that, but we will see from the details when we come to the Committee stage. One knows of cases that have gone through the London courts in the last few years, resulting in quite undesirable clubs being completely wiped out; so far as one can tell, the people concerned "pop up" in some other place and, by a quite simple method, are able to start a new organisation of the same kind. That is a great pity.
When we come to deal with the class of club which the noble Lord referred to in the Principality, which I am sure he knows much better than I do, I see a possible danger, to which I am sure he will be willing to give attention in the later stages of the Bill: that we ought not to do anything that would in any way undermine the great part which is played throughout the whole of the United Kingdom by respectable clubs which are well run by labour groups of people and, for their own defence, registered through such established organisations as the Club and Institute Union. Very often they are non-political, though sometimes they are political on one side or the other; but as a rule: hey are extremely well run. I should be very sorry indeed if we did anything which would give powers which could be used against them unreasonably.
On the other hand, there is no doubt at all among those of us who have any idea at all as to progress in the matters which might be covered by such a measure as this, that it is most important to have some control, equal to that which is already exercised in licensed premises, over the age at which the ill-effects of alcoholism may be developed or prevented. I should like to see that point submitted to the attention of your Lordships at a later stage of the Bill. I do not propose to say anything more. I could say a good deal about each of the clauses—I have read them carefully—but I think we might leave that to the Committee
1006
stage. I content myself with saying that, on the whole, I think we may welcome the Bill and that we should be glad to support it on Second Reading.
3.33 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, it is with some difficulty that I rise to speak on this Bill because, in general, when the noble Lord. Lord Merthyr, brings forward a measure in this House I find myself to a great extent in agreement with what he says. But I am bound to say that on the present occasion I have not the feeling which I normally have. I think he has produced a Bill which, although it his some quite good points, has certain objectionable qualities which seem to me to outweigh the good points. One of the things I do not suite understand is this. It has been said, quite rightly, that the number of clubs in this country has risen greatly in the course of the last fifty years. Surely that must mean that the clubs are filling a demand of the people, and that they are giving to the public something that the normal public-house does not give them. It may be that it is the time at which they open; it may be that they give rather more amenities than the ordinary public-house. But it seems to me that we should not say, that, because more clubs are opening, therefore, we have to control them, so that, in effect, the public-house and the brewer may be protected. I think that is a very poor argument.
The second point I do not like in this Bill is the fact that the person applying to open a club has, in the first place, to do so through the police. He must ask for what one might call permission to open a club. At present, applicants go before the magistrates. That seems to me quite sufficient, because bringing in the police will only make the matter more complicated. Broadly speaking, I do not think that the police know very much more about the demand for a club than the person applying for permission to open the club. Furthermore, if we have more people involved in an application for permission for a club to be opened, it gives an opportunity—I do not want to suggest anything against the police or the magistrates—for some vested interest to "put in a spoke." I cannot be more definite than that. I am sure that as a matter of general principle that is quite a sound point. That seems to me once

1007
more to be playing on the side of the brewers and the public-houses rather than keeping the matter free to the public.
Coming next to the objections which the police can make (provided that the Bill is, in fact, passed) there are two that are important. I entirely agree that the people who open a club should have reputable antecedents. We have seen too much of the opposite in the past, when, time after time, rather unpleasant people have opened clubs. I should also like to see something done to control the hours of people who drink in clubs. If the police have no right of access—and they have not much—this is a difficult thing to control; but I cannot believe that something cannot be devised by somebody with a better legal mind than my own.
I have another objection to the Bill: it says that one ground of objection may be that remises are to be used purely for drinking or for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. If I and twenty-four of my friends—it may be twenty-four Members of your Lordships' House—wish to open a club solely for the purpose of consuming intoxicating liquor, I cannot see why we should not do so. There is already plenty of control in this country. We are told that the figures of convictions for drunkenness are not as great as before the war. As far as I remember, they have been steady for the last four or five years. If, as the noble Lord says, the number of convictions for drunkenness among young people is increasing, it means that the convictions for drunkenness among people of my age and over must be falling; and there is no reason to suppose that that state of affairs will not continue in the future. That appears to be the present tendency. Therefore, my Lords, I can see no reason at all why there should be any change in the law at the present time. I must say that I regard this Bill as a rather restrictive and tiresome measure to which I trust your Lordships will not accord a Second Reading.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Amulree for rising as he was about to speak: I had not seen that there was a list of speakers on this Bill. But I repudiate the suggestion that one must put
1008
one's name on a list in order that one should address your Lordships upon any subject—I am thinking of the old days when we in this House used to rise and then give way to each other. I promised to support my noble friend Lord Merthyr on this Bill. A number of people are concerned at an evil which is increasing and which they believe is likely further to increase, and they feel that either Lord Merthyr's Bill should be given a welcome by your Lordships' House or the Government themselves should take some steps. It is for that reason that I am supporting Lord Merthyr.
I do not know whether I have an interest to declare. I believe that, legally, a club has to number at least twenty-five people. I belong to a club which is 196 years old and which consists of twenty-four people and has no premises. I do not know what would be our position in law to-day; and even if a club must consist of twenty-five people, I do not know whether, if it could be formed and licensed without premises, it can, after it has been licensed for a year or two, begin to acquire premises. What would be the position in that case? Those are just questions which can be dealt with at the Committee stage. I beg to support my noble friend Lord Merthyr in asking for a Second Reading for this Bill.
3.41 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very interested in this Bill and propose to support my noble friend Lord Merthyr. I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot agree with my noble friends in the Liberal Party, but as I am a National Liberal perhaps that is understandable. I will tell your Lordships a story of something that happened to me—incidentally, in the Principality. I was addressing a packed audience in a school on a very cold night. All of a sudden the door opened, and in came a man with a very red nose. He pushed his way most rudely to the front of the meeting, sat down on the knees of two or three people and said: "Now I want to know from you, as the speaker, are you in favour of local option?" I said, "Yes, I am." He said, "Well you don't get my vote," and he walked out. Until that moment I had had a very cold meeting, but after that it was perfectly delightful and we all got very friendly. I

1009
believe that if, on the Committee stage, we were to go into the question of local option, as I think we could do, it might help to solve some of the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has in mind—that there is not much local control and that there is an increase in the number of clubs, which appears undesirable in that, to a great extent, young people are enabled to drink more than is good for them. I believe that the spirit of local option may help that condition. I think it is right that people living in small towns and villages should have freedom to express their opinion and to bring about legislation on these matters.
3.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think it most desirable that some Tory should rise to express his disagreement with everybody who has so far spoken, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Amulree. I do not profess to have studied, before taking part in this debate, either the relevant provisions of the present licensing laws or all the provisions of the Bill so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Merthyr: but let me start with a point he mentioned, namely, the Defence Regulation which was withdrawn. Let me say most emphatically, as a believer in liberty, that whatever the merits of the substantive proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I am perfectly certain that it was right to withdraw the Defence Regulation. The reasons were given most convincingly at the time by my noble and learned friend the present Lord Chancellor when he occupied the great position of Home Secretary. I need not trouble your Lordships with the arguments, but, clearly, if it is desirable to have permanent provisions laid down by law, it should not be done under what was intended to be a temporary Emergency Act and by a Regulation imposed for a temporary war purpose; therefore, whatever the provisions of the permanent law should be, it was right to withdraw the Defence Regulation.
Now the substance of the case made by my noble friend Lord Merthyr, as I understood it, was that there was a contrast between the liberty enjoyed by clubs and the restrictions imposed on public houses. Suppose that proposition were to be granted, it still leaves open the question: which should be remedied?
1010
Should we lighten the restrictions on public houses or impose restrictions on clubs? I say that, prima facie, as a believer in liberty, I would lighten restrictions on public houses and would not impose additional restrictions on clubs. Perhaps that is because I am so old-fashioned that I believe liberty to be a valuable thing in itself and something that should be interfered with only when conclusive reasons are given for such interference.
Great harm to the concept of liberty is done by the characteristic attitude of many people in this country who object to the general conception of liberty and feel that someone who is doing what he likes is "taking a liberty," as though that were a wrong thing to do. It is suggested that in enjoying himself he is taking a liberty. A similar injury to the whole concept of liberty was done by a celebrated American President who thought that liberty was a thing to be classified and given numbers, and talked about "the Four Freedoms." It is generally impossible to remember what they are. But the whole idea of numbering freedoms would occur only to somebody ignorant of the general nature of freedom. I personally have the greatest sympathy with the American child who named, as cue of the Four Freedoms, "Freedom from thought."
If my noble friend Lord Merthyr wants a concrete example of where I feel that this Bill is an unreasoning attack on liberty, I would ask him to look at the very first ground on which an objection can he made. It is set out in Clause 3 (a). The noble Lord said he had selected the best reasons, so let us see which he puts first:
"that having regard to existing facilities for social amenities, recreation and refreshment or for cultural or political activities and to the objects of the club, the club is not required to meet a genuine and substantial need;"
Why on earth should the police and the magistrates be the judges of that? If people wish to meet and form a group, why is there prima facie anything wrong about that? Why should there have to be a substantial reason why people should want to do it, when there is no reason why they should not? Why should it be an objection that they cannot prove that the demand is substantial? The words can be based only on the idea that liberty is in itself a harmful and most dangerous

1011
thing which cannot be allowed to intrude its ugly head. I object to that whole conception of liberty. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that the figures quoted by the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, of the great increase in the number of clubs, are conclusive evidence that they are serving a purpose and meeting a demand. If, in the view of the police and of Her Majesty's Government, that increase has led to great evils, then no doubt the noble Viscount who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will say so. But unless there are very substantial evils and unless there is some demand by the police (in which case we should like further details), I say that prima facie such an attack on liberty is completely wrong.
My noble friend who introduced this Bill said—I think I have got his exact words—that liberty of the subject was a rusty, double-edged weapon. I have never heard it called that before. But if it is a rusty, double-edged weapon, I think we must remove the rust and make it an effective weapon. I think the need in this country is not for less liberty but for more. I think we are much too much inclined to restrict liberty on the mere plea that, in somebody's opinion, the liberty may be abused. Since I do not wish to produce any Border incident I will not comment on the condition of the laws of Wales. As regards the contrast of our laws with the laws of Scotland, I would say to my noble friend that I gather that there are many more people moving from Scotland to England than in the reverse direction. My noble friend can make what deductions he likes from that. My substantial point is that liberty is a good thing and that restrictions on liberty should never be made unless the case for them can be proved. On these grounds I oppose this Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to say just a word in support of my noble friend Lord Conesford. So far as I can see, this Bill is designed to do away with any evils that may arise in private drinking. I do not believe that the Bill will do it. If there are people who abuse private drinking—if there is such a thing—they will go on doing so. I agree with Lord Conesford that what we want is something to make it easier to drink in public.
3.52 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, there are some objections to this Bill, but I am not going to raise any objection to what the Bill seeks to do in the way of limiting and controlling clubs. I think that that is very necessary, because of the evil that clubs cause in this country. I believe that the point made by Lord Merthyr, as I understood him, that, along with the growth in the numbers of clubs, there has been a great increase in the numbers of convictions among young people for drunkenness, is a very strong one. The point I wish to make is simple. I do not want to indulge in a philosophical speech like that of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I rise to say that I am quite mystified by Clause 6 of the Bill. I am surprised that greater care should not have been taken in the drafting of the Bill in order to make a better clause than this one. It deals with the "right of police to enter premises". That seems quite a good rubric to read at the side of the clause. But when I read the clause itself, I find that it runs:
"Any person authorised in that behalf by the chief officer of police may enter and inspect the premises of a club at any time after the application for registration of that club has been made and before the club has actually been registered."
That means that there is a period of fourteen days in which the police can have a look at the premises, perhaps look at the people who are going to run the premises, but not make investigations as to how the premises are going to be used.
I think this clause should be strengthened by giving the police the right of access to the premises at any time in order that they may see how the premises are being, run, and to make sure that the membership of the club does not involve anything objectionable from a police or a licensing point of view. That is the only point I desire to make. Perhaps the mover of the Second Reading of the Bill can give me some explanation, if he has the right to reply to this discussion. Perhaps he can explain why the police should have the right to enter these premises only before the premises have actually been brought into use as a club.
3.55 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill and to congratulate him on the courage which

1013
he has shown in doing so. I think that to everyone who has a real interest in social problems, the festering sore, one might almost call it, which is caused in some parts of the country by the existence of these quite unfettered clubs is known and deplored. The difficulty in the way of the noble Lord is that there is a vested interest which has grown up over the years during which there has been no real sort of control. The result is that it requires not only courage on the noble Lord's part to introduce a Bill, but great courage on the part of either of the two great political Parties to accede to it. I should be very much surprised indeed if the noble Viscount who is going to reply for the Government were to say that he accepted this Bill. But surely the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has brought to your Lordships' attention so many injustices and so many areas in which real public mischief is being operated by the law as it stands at the present time that the Government ought, at any rate, to be prepared to make a careful inquiry into the situation.
This is one of the great areas of social mischief—if one, may so describe it—into which no real investigation has been made by a Royal Commission, by an inter-departmental committee or by anyone else, so far as I know. I suggest to your Lordships that it is time that a really careful and searching inquiry was made into the law relating to clubs, which has no doubt been sufficiently and adequately described by Lord Merthyr, into all the social problems in regard to the serving of children, and in regard to hours and all these other matters and their impingement on life and work in the industrial towns, particularly, where so many of these clubs exist. I suggest that the time has come when there should be some control.
Lord Conesford and I remember the time when we used to discuss in the philosophy classes at Oxford the question of the point where liberty ceases and licence begins. I suggest that his very touchy sensitiveness with regard to what he describes as liberty has, from some points of view at any rate, led to his falling over backwards on the side of licence. Who would maintain that there should be liberty for small children to be taken into clubs of this kind and provided with drink, which is a thing that everyone
1014
knows to be done up and down the country from time to time? And there are many other happenings which are not really a question of liberty at all, but obviously a question of licence. This sort of thing, I maintain, ought to be inquired into, and after having an inquiry we may perhaps get a basis upon which reasonable action could be taken. This is a matte: upon which both Parties ought to combine forces, otherwise it will be exceedingly difficult to overcome the real amount of opposition which there will be to legislation. Legislation of this kind can be effectively put through only if people of good will of both Parties are united to support it.
3.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not suppose that anyone will deny my noble friend who proposed the Second Reading of this Bill a generous weed of acknowledgment for the care that he has devoted to tie subject or congratulations, both upon the moderation with which he put his case and upon the interesting and lively debate to which it has given rise. It now falls to my lot to indicate the views of the Government on the proposal, and as Governments are on such matters notoriously glow to express an opinion at all, to temper these generous measures of rather restrained criticism with one or two dashes of my own opinion, which I hope your Lordships will forgive me for expressing even from this Box.
It seems to me that the really important question of principle is whether one gives a Second Reading to a curate's egg. I do not suggest that it is intrinsically impossible to conceive a respectable measure which would improve the law relating to clubs, and I suppose, by a great effort of ingenuity, it would be possible so to emasculate this Bill that it would even achieve this object, but my own conviction is that the effort would hardly be worth while. Experience of the subject tends to show, and I think has shown abundantly in the past, ever since the Royal Commission reported in 1931—if I may refer to it, having regard to what the nobly Lord, Lord Chorley, said—that legislation which is designed to interfere unduly with the rights and liberties of bona fide clubs and their members is on the whole not acceptable to Parliament.

1015
I would concede, of course, that it is possible to bring evidence of the existence of bogus and undesirable clubs, particularly in the metropolis, and I should not like to say on behalf of the Government that a rather more modest measure which provides that the persons who desire to form a club should submit to some kind of scrutiny of their antecedents and the bona fides of their wish to form a club may not be desirable; but I approach this matter in a somewhat pragmatic spirit, looking at the measure which is proposed, considering the degree to which it is likely to infringe present liberty and then comparing it with the evidence which has been adduced in support of the proposals. I cannot help finding on balance that the infringements of liberty are quite serious and that the evidence sought to be produced in its favour is disproportionately exiguous.
It is true that there exists a contrast between the law of licensing as it has come to be imposed upon the public and the relative freedom with which people are still permitted to register a club; but, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said, from these premises it is as legitimate to infer that it is desirable to render less onerous the law of licensing as it is to infer that it is desirable to control more strictly the law of clubs. I confess that my withers would be unwrung even by the bold charge of inconsistency with which my noble friend Lord Merthyr threatened me if I did not adopt either of these extreme conclusions. I feel like Walt Whitman who, when charged with inconsistency, said, "Well, if I am inconsistent, I am consistent." I believe that both propositions are true, and I see nothing necessarily wrong in thinking that the law of licensing is no more disreputable than the law of licensing necessarily must be to achieve its object, and that the law of clubs is as reasonably free as it is necessary to achieve the purposes of the people who want to form a social connection with one another.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, talked about vested interests. I confess that I did not have a wide licensing practice at the Bar, but I have some knowledge of this subject, both at the Brewster Sessions and in relation to this proposal relating to clubs. My experience has been that there is always objection to drinking facilities, which is always fostered partly
1016
by a highly organised lobby and partly by an unholy alliance between that lobby and a highly-organised vested interest. The existing publicans are always against a club and they ally themselves with the temperance reformers. In this case, they have concealed their unholy alliance behind the impeccable front of the President of the Magistrates' Association.
What is the evidence that the law of clubs is being abused? We learn that the number of clubs in the last fifty years, during which, I may say, the population has not remained stable, has increased from 8,000 to 23,000. But what evidence is there that the increase has resulted in an increase in disreputable clubs? I have heard no noble Lord, even among those who have supported the Bill, suggest that that increase is largely made up of disreputable clubs. I should have thought that it was a good thing if clubs increase. It shows an increase of sociability amongst the population. Then it is said that there has been an increase of drunkenness amongst young people. But what evidence is there that this is associated with clubs? I should have thought that membership of clubs was more often associated with middle age. At any rate, I know of no specific evidence on this point, and if there is any, it has certainly not been adduced in the speeches made in support of this Bill. So I am bound to say that on the evidence I find that there is no case to answer. I believe that if one is going to introduce legislation for the express purpose of limiting the liberty of the subject, one ought to furnish oneself with considerable evidence before doing so, because, at least in my judgment, the burden of proof is on those who want to destroy that liberty and not on those who want to support it.
I come now to the actual terminology of the Bill, which I find to be a crucial matter. We were told, and told rightly, that much that is in the Bill owes its origin to the terminology of Regulation 55C, but Regulation 55C was introduced during the war, and was justified as a temporary measure only because, owing to the threat to our sea communications, it was necessary to husband supplies to an extreme extent. Among the supplies which had to be husbanded so carefully was the raw material out of which alcoholic liquor, amongst other things, is made. I cannot conceive of any analogy between the situation which justified a

1017
Defence Regulation of that kind and the present situation, however serious our economic condition may be. I know of no evidence which justifies the view that this country is so nearly on the verge of bankruptcy that people cannot be allowed, without sometimes almost grotesque restrictions, to join together for social intercourse and a glass of beer in a club.
I am bound to say that the evidence which the Home Office has is that this Bill would be highly unpopular in some quarters. It is opposed by the Workmen's Clubs an, Institutes Union, by the Association of Conservative Clubs, an association for which I have a very warm feeling in my heart, and by the National Golf Clubs' Protection Association, with which I have no connection whatsoever. The crux of the Bill is, of course, in Clause 3. That clause sets out the grounds upon which the police may object to registration of a club; and I must say, in modest correction of my noble friend who introduced the Bill, that they can also object to the renewal of its registration. My noble friend was under the impression that his proposals did not infringe the liberties of existing clubs. I must say that that is not the view of the Bill which I have formed, or which I am advised is the true view, on the construction of Clause 5, because the renewal of registration may be opposed on any ground upon which the original registration can be opposed. I propose during the course of my remarks to point out that each one of these objections to an original registration can be made every year by the police upon any club, no matter how old, how distinguished, or how respectable. I consider that no case whatever has been made out for so serious an infringement of liberty.
Let me read the first ground upon which the police can object. It is:
"that having regard to existing facilities for social amenities, recreation and refreshment or for cultural or political activities and to the objects of the club, the club is not required to meet a genuine and substantial need."
I can conceive that during a war that may have been a necessary measure of control to conserve supplies. Even before the abolition of Regulation 55C, however, these words were considered so onerous in times of peace that the words "cultural or political activities" were removed by order of a Labour Home
1018
Secretary. Who are the police to say whether or not political activities are sufficiently provided with facilities in a particular locality? Who are the police, and who are the magistrates, to say that cultural activities are sufficiently met by facilities of this kind? Where are we getting when people are prepared to propose legislation in a free country to say that police and magistrates may tell us whether we have enough political clubs, and this can be done without a strong protest from all three political Parties?
Suppose that somebody wants to start a Liberal club in some part of the country. Who are the magistrates to say that he shall not?—even though most of us may be fully satisfied that one would meet the political needs without the additional facility. Suppose somebody wants to start a new Party. It would mean, if he wanted to drink a glass of beer while deciding what its principles and policy should be, that the magistrates of the locality, who are not always immune from political connections of their own, would be able to say: "You cannot do that. The political needs are fully met by the Labour Club, on one side of the toad, and the Conservative Club, on the other." They must not then drink beer while discussing politics. These needs are met; the police say so, the magistrates say so and the Licensing Bill, or Act, as it would then be, says so. Although, frankly, the Government's attitude is one of rather malevolent neutrality on this Bill, I confess that I personally am slightly shocked by this proposal. It seems to me to be wholly contrary to the whole spirit of political and cultural freedom that these suggestions should be made.
Then we find the second possible ground of objection:
"that the premises of the club are, or their situation is unsuitable for the purposes thereof."
That is all very well. But who are the police to judge whether the club is suitable "for the purposes thereof"; and who are the magistrates to say? If two or three people, not having much means at their disposal, want to start a club with makeshift premises, why should they not do so? These words, too, were considered so tyrannical that they were removed from the Defence Regulation by a Labour Home Secretary long before

1019
the Defence Regulation was abolished by my noble and learned friend now on the Woolsack, when he sat in another place. I agree that one could make a Bill out of paragraphs (c) and (d), if one altered the words rather considerably. I concede that paragraph (e), if the period of five years were considerably restricted, might not be unduly onerous. But then we come to paragraph (f). If I took my son to the Carlton Club and gave him a glass of cider, I should be endangering the registration, according to this, although I could well take him to the Savoy Hotel and do exactly the same without infringing any law at all. It seems to me that this kind of legislation is restriction run riot. I must say that if Clause 3 goes from the Bill to the extent that I have indicated, I very much doubt whether anything is left which is worth passing at all.
The position is made abundantly worse by the provision in Clause 5, that the renewal of a registration can be objected to on the same grounds as an existing registration, no matter how old or respectable the club. The police can object to the renewal of the registration of the Reform Club, the Carlton Club or the Athenæum Club, to mention only three respectable clubs; and they can say: "We think the cultural facilities have so improved that the Reform Club is no longer necessary. After all, you can all join the National Liberal Club." They can say that the premises have become unsuitable for the purposes. They may be too big. Premises can be just as unsuitable through being too big as through being too small. The police can do all these things, if my noble friend's Bill is passed.
Then the police are given the power of entry. It is true that the power of entry is limited to the period before the club has been registered. That, I think, is a mark of grace. But why should entry, without warrant, be granted to the police at all in connection with this matter? I suppose the reason is that it is absolutely necessary in order to enable them to judge whether the cultural facilities are adequately met by the proposed premises, and whether the premises are structurally suitable. I cannot imagine that it is necessary for any other reason. But if, in fact, the grounds of objection
1020
which I have mentioned are in themselves unreasonable, how can a right of entry which is granted only in order to give ground for those objections be supported at all?
The end of the story seems to me to be as I began. It would, I think, be possible, by the exercise of great ingenuity, to make something of this Bill. My deep conviction is that it is not worth while, and that if, in fact, a modest measure to tighten the law of clubs by insisting on the bona fides of the application, and the respectability, so far as is known, of the applicant, is necessary, the best course would be to bring in another Bill. For that reason, I confess that, speaking on behalf of the Government I cannot advise your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading, and my personal advice would go even further than the official Government advice, restricted to that negative.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount said that his attitude was one of malevolent neutrality; and my interpretation of that is that he is against the Bill. As one would expect the noble and learned Viscount to do, and as he has done on many previous occasions—principally, I confess, from the Back Benches—he has amused us immensely. But has he helped us at all? I think our attitude on this side of the House may be one of neutrality without malevolence. I was rather impressed by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who I thought made a wise observation. Whether or not the pubs should be free, or whether the clubs should be restricted, is a debatable point. But at least he said he thought there should be some kind of equity in the law to guard against those things against which I think the majority of your Lordships would wish to guard.
If the noble Viscount opposite will forgive me for saying so, great play is made on the point that the police have no right to dictate cultural habits, or to say whether a political club should be started or not; and that makes for good humour. But does it make for sense? If your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading all these things can be altered at your Lordships' wishes. Your Lordships are not being asked to pass this Bill into law. Your Lordships are

1021
being asked to give this Bill a Second Reading so that your Lordships' House may have the opportunity of seeing whether the Bill can be so amended as to make it fit what, I think, is in the minds of the majority of your Lordships—that is, that there are sonic things we would rather see eradicated from the way in which these places are run at the present time. If your Lordships decide that the Bill cannot be amended, you need not give it a Third Reading.
Our attitude on this side of the House will be to attempt to amend it, because we believe that we have a responsibility at least to try, and not to be led away by the heap of red herrings which the noble Viscount, to our amusement but not to our education, has drawn across the trail. What we shall do is to support the noble Lord who proposed the Second Reading, if he so desires to test the feeling of your Lordships' House in the Division Lobby; to give this Bill a Second Reading, and allow your Lordships at least the opportunity of seeing whether it can be shaped to meet your general wishes.
4.23 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in replying to the debate. I can raise only a few points. First of all, I should like to correct a mistake which I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, made when he said that under this Bill the club would have to apply to the police for permission to open. That, of course, is not so. In the vast majority of cases the police simply would not come into the ken of the club proprietor at all. This Bill merely gives the police the power to object to the registration. There is no application to the police whatsoever.
The noble Lord then dealt with Clause 3 (g), and spoke about the objection on the ground that a club provided only facilities for drinking. On that I should like to make this comment. The justices may not agree with the police in that objection. It is entirely a matter for the justices to decide whether is it reasonable to open the club, or whether the club, if opened, would not give reasonable facilities for members and their guests, other than facilities for drinking. There is no question here of a law which lays down that every club is banned if it does not give those facilities.
1022
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, dwelt at some length, as I rather expected would be the case, with the whole question of the liberty of the subject. If you find grave inequality between the liberty of the public-house and the liberty of the club, as I think everybody must admit is the case, what is the remedy? That, I admit frankly, is the question before the House this afternoon. You can do it in two ways. If you have two men and keep one in prison and one out, there is an inequality of liberty of the subject. You can remedy it by letting them both out or putting them both in. The question is: which are we to do, or shall some compromise be effected, as I have suggested in this Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, objected again to Clause 3 (a), the first ground under which the police can object. I quite expected that opposition. The question I ask is: What about the public-houses? If it is right that the police should be able, as of course they can, to object to the licensing of public-houses in this matter, why should they not be able to object in the case of the clubs? The noble Lord, Lord Dement, said, "Make it easier to drink in public." But, as I pointed out, technically and legally, clubs are not public; and if this Bill does make it a little more difficult to drink in private, I would submit to him that his anxiety to make it easier to drink in public is irrelevant this afternoon.
The only criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was that this Bill, and in particular Clause 6, does not go far enough. I did say in opening that this was a very modest Bill, and I can only repeat that. The noble Viscount who spoke for Her Majesty's Government talked about the serious infringement of liberty involved in this Bill. He asked me for evidence of the figures of disreputable clubs, but I have already pointed out how difficult it is to obtain evidence of anything that goes on in a club, because of the fact that the police are not allowed to enter except on a warrant. The noble Viscount said that Defence Regulation 55C was justified because it cut down during the war the supplies of alcohol that had to be brought from overseas.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The raw material.
LORD MERTHYR: Yes, the raw material. The noble Viscount then went on to criticise the wording. "Facilities … for cultural or political activities"—he was not a little scathing about that. I would draw his attention to the fact that this paragraph is copied word for word from Defence Regulation 55C (4) (a). What in the world is the connection between the supply of raw materials from overseas in war time, and the cultural or political activities in clubs?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: if my noble friend wants the answer, it is this. The object of Defence Regulation 55C was to limit the amount of drink which was consumed, owing to the undesirability of importing grain and other substances; and it was thought that if the number of clubs was limited, for whatever reason, including the one which my noble friend has given, the quantity of alcohol consumed would be decreased.
LORD MERTHYR: I cannot hold the noble Viscount responsible for Defence Regulation 55C. I am quite certain that he was away fighting for the country when it was made. But if that Regulation had said that there shall be a diminution in the amount of alcohol consumed in clubs, I could have understood it. It went on to refer to "existing facilities for social amenities, recreation and refreshment, or for cultural and political activities," and so forth. I am only copying in this Bill a Regulation made by Her Majesty's Government. Need I apologise for that?
I must make one admission, and that is that in what he said about Clause 3, the noble Viscount was right and I was wrong. I did make a mistake, and I apologise to the House. The police can
object to the renewal of the registration of a club but they cannot enter the club once it has first been registered: at least, they can enter only in uniform, with a warrant obtained on evidence. The noble Viscount said, "Who are the police to judge?" With respect, he knows perfectly well that under this Bill the police do not judge, and they never will under this Bill. The judges are the court. The police are advocates and not judges.
The noble Viscount asked, "Who are the magistrates to say whether a club shall be opened or closed?" Who are the magistrates to say whether a public house shall be opened or closed? That raises the whole issue, and it all comes down to this: will your Lordships do something to remedy this inequality? If your Lordships will not restrict the clubs, will you make it easier for the licensed premises? I have come here this afternoon with, in my respectful submission, a constructive proposal. Your Lordships may not agree with it; your Lordships may think it is a bad one; but at least I hope you will admit that it is constructive. The noble Viscount who replied for Her Majesty's Government, I must submit, was not exactly constructive. He did not say that he had any alternative to put before the House. He did say that, if the Bill was whittled down until it assumed almost minute proportions, it might possibly be acceptable, but of course he could not do better than that. In those circumstances, I must ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Chorley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Listowel, E.

Dowding, L.

Merthyr, L. [Teller.]

Lonsdale, E.

Haden-Guest, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E.

Kershaw, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Som ers, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Mathers, L.

Winster, L.

Archibald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Albemarle, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Perth, E.

Salisbury, M. (Lord President.)

Dundee, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Cholmondeley, M.

Gosford, E.

Goschen, V.

Willingdon, M.

Munster, E.

Hailsham, V.

Monsell, V.

Denham, L.

Leconfield, L.

Soulbury, V.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thurso, V.

Digby, L.

Milverton, L.

Dinevor, L.

Moyne, L.

Aberdare, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Newall, L.

Amulree, L.

Freyberg, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gifford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hawke, L.

Rockley, L.

Chesham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Salter, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Waleran, L.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Amendments agreed to.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, having so recently opposed the Second Reading of a Bill, I trust that in proposing the Second Reading of this Bill noble Lords who voted in the other Lobby so recently will heap coals of fire on my head by assisting the passage of what I hope your Lordships will agree is a useful measure. In dealing with a Bill which I genuinely believe to be uncontroversial, I find it rather difficult to know exactly how far I should go into detail. To some extent, I am compelled to do so by the fact that the Bill is really a series of different details in procedure. With some minor exceptions the Bill is designed to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee under Sir Reginald Sharpe, to whom I am sure your Lordships would wish me to offer a tribute of thanks for the public work that he and the fellow members of his Committee gave in shaping the recommendations which are so largely embodied in this Bill.
The purposes of the Bill can best be expressed, I think, by looking at its clauses. The first clause is designed to give to magistrates' courts the power to act on a written admission of guilt. The present situation is that where a defendant to summary proceedings writes to admit his guilt, the magistrates are not empoyered to act on the admission to the extent of dispensing with the attendance of witnesses, and, in particular, even where the attendance of some of the less important witnesses is dispensed with, a sufficient number in each case, including the prosecuting policeman, have to be in attendance, notwithstanding that the defendant himself has not thought it
1026
worth his while to come and notwithstanding that he admits his guilt in writing. The Committee found that this defect, as I am sure your Lordships would consider it to he, in the Metropolitan Police District alone took the equivalent of the full time of 89 policemen a day and I should respectfully suggest that this fact alone would give an overwhelming case for accepting the recommendations of the Committee on this point.
The recommendations are limited to summary offences, for reasons which I hope will seem good to your Lordships. It was not thought right to confine it to motoring offences in name, although it is supposed in practice that the procedure will be invoked for motoring offences rather more commonly than for other cases. The criterion is whether a sentence of net more than three months' imprisonment can be imposed, although your Lordships will see from a particular provision in Clause l that before the court proceeds to the imposition of any sentence of imprisonment or disqualification, it is necessary to grant an adjournment in order to provide the defendant with an additional opportunity to attend. The procedure is voluntary; that is to say, whether it is invoked at all depends upon the concurrence of the prosecutor, the defendant and the court. To that extent, therefore, the defendant's position is safeguarded. Moreover, it your Lordships will look at the provisos to Clause 1 (2), you will see that a number of safeguards are provided, including the option to the defendant to withdraw his notice of a plea of guilty at any time before the hearing.
The second clause in the Bill deals with a somewhat similar kind of difficulty in relation to the identity of drivers of vehicles. In the absence of a witness, it is at the moment impossible to prove the identity of a driver of a vehicle who was guilty of a minor offence—for instance, a parking offence—simply upon

1027
a written admission. An oral admission, of course, has to be proved by a witness indeed, a written admission would have to be proved by a witness who saw the document made or knew the handwriting. The provisions in Clause 2 deal with that situation. It is considered necessary since, upon the introduction of the new codes relating to parking meters and to parking, there will be a large number of cases of this kind, and it is proposed to use this clause in connection with Section 113 of the Road Traffic Act in order to dispense with the attendance of witnesses in that case.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the proof of previous convictions. As the law stands at the moment, a defendant who does not attend the hearing cannot have previous convictions proved against him owing to the practical impossibility of adducing evidence that the person supposedly before the court but not in fact present is the same person who was convicted on the other occasions of which the police may know. To some extent, of course, endorsements on a driving licence provide a safeguard against that, but they are by no means a complete safeguard: and, in any event, even in cases to which they apply, they are removed after a lapse of time, or may be removed on the application of the driver after a lapse of three years, I think, from the time of the offence to which they relate. The result is that under the existing law it is wise for persons with a long record not revealed on their driving licence to absent themselves from court when charged with motoring offences and to leave the police in the position of being unable to prove previous convictions, with the result that those offenders are dealt with as first offenders. This is not considered satisfactory. The police can, of course, have a warrant issued for the arrest of the offender who adopts this course, but they usually consider (and, in my judgment, rightly consider) that such a course is extreme and unduly harsh. The result is that the offences are not proved at all.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides that:
"Where a person is convicted of a summary offence by a magistrates' court, other than a juvenile court, and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in the prescribed manner, that not less than seven days previously a notice was served on the accused in the prescribed form and manner specifying any
1028
alleged previous conviction of the accused of a summary offence proposed to be brought to the notice of the court in the event of his conviction of the offence charged, and the accused is not present in person before the court, the court may take account of any such previous conviction so specified as if the accused had appeared and admitted it."
That really concludes the provisions of the Bill since Clause 4 covers machinery. Her Majesty's Government consider it provides a useful amendment of the law relating to summary offences. The interests of the subject are adequately safeguarded, and in those circumstances I would commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
4.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, having had some mildly critical observations to make about the speech of the noble and learned Viscount upon the last measure, may I now, not heap coals of fire on his head but rather turn the other cheek and say how much I applaud the conciseness with which he has explained this Bill to your Lordships. Perhaps he has been a little too short, because although this is a Bill of only three clauses, it marks, in my view, a turning point in the legislation of this country, and as such is deserving of considerable attention. I propose to ask the noble and learned Viscount a few questions, of the majority of which I have taken the opportunity of giving him prior notice.
This Bill is a compromise—and I believe a very good compromise—brought about, as the noble Lord has said, as the result of the deliberations of the Sharpe Committee, as between having in this country traffic courts solely concerned with road vehicle offences, which take up such a large amount of ordinary police time, and going to the other extreme, which is in vogue in other parts of the world, of fining on the spot. There was difficulty in seeing what was the proper thing to do between these two courses while at the same time—and this is very important—seeing that justice was done. Although I have some slight mental reservations, I believe that Her Majesty's Government, in accepting this Report, have done the right thing. My mental reservations may be a sign of old age, but I must confess that I still rather

1029
cling to the old-established precedent in British law that it is not at any time advisable to convict anyone of a crime in his absence. I am quite prepared to admit that the modern procedure is for the majority of motorists to write pleading guilty, because it has proved cheaper to do so than to spend time and money in attending court to defend their case.
That brings me to my first point. I remember having, upon all stages of the Road Traffic Bill, some most friendly and enlightening discussions with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. If he will permit me to repeat what I then said, he was extraordinarily helpful not only to us but also to those who have the administration of justice all over the country. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said, this Bill deals with the hearing of summary offences, in the absence not only of those who have pleaded guilty but also of the prosecution. I should like to have the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount—it can be only his opinion—as to whether he thinks this will have the tendency of removing the present police practice of giving warnings. Statistics show that in 1955, the last year for which figures are available, there were 543,018 offences. Of those, 176,389 were never brought to court because the police thought justice was done by giving warnings. I hope that that practice will still prevail, and that we shall not see an increase in the number of people brought to court for what I might call really petty offences which the police to-day consider are met by a warning.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, during the debate which we had on the severity of sentences, in countering the view that was expressed that one of the real reasons for the increase in accidents was that the law had got into disrepute through the laxity of magistrates, resisted pleas that heavier sentences Should be imposed by saying that he thought the right course was for magistrates to use the greater, more salutary weapon of suspension of licence. This Bill really nullifies itself if that advice of the noble and learned Viscount is taken to any great extent, because while magistrates can impose a fine in the absence of one who has pleaded guilty, they cannot impose either suspension of licence or imprisonment unless they adjourn for the purpose of giving the
1030
convicted man a chance of attending. It may he that that will not be so, but I should like an expression of view from the noble and learned Viscount on that question.
The Sharpe Committee went into this matter very thoroughly. Does it rest with the police—f it does I do not mind—whether they issue the summons under the old or under the new procedure? If they issue it under the old procedure will it be for some specific reason? If so, for what reason? I suggest that the reason would be Oat the police viewed the matter so seriously. Would that prejudice the magistrates and prejudice the case of the accused person? It might be that the police had knowledge of his previous convictions, and if the magistrates dared to ask why the procedure under the existing law had been adopted, and not the procedure under the law now proposed, would that in any way prejudice the case of the accused? It may be that it would not but I should imagine that nineteen times out of twenty the chairman and the bench of magistrates would hazard a guess that the reason the police had not brought the proceedings under this Bill—Act as it would then be—was because of the previous bad record of the accused. I think that that is a point which might be looked at. I believe that it is mentioned on page 18 of the Sharpe Committee's Report. It was discussed by the Committee, who came to the conclusion that that ought to be the procedure. I believe, though, that there was some discussion as to whether the clerk to the justices, and not the police, should state the case.
A further matter which I have in my mind is tins. Will the benches of magistrates of the country have any instruction from the Home Office about the way they should deal with an accused person?—or a guilty person, if you like, because I am thinking of a person who pleads guilty by letter because he thinks he will get away with a smaller fine than if he attends court. Perhaps he writes a very nice apologetic letter the thinks that that will be cheaper than paying the expense, perhaps of a long journey, engaging a solicitor, and so on. He thinks that the most that can happen is that he will be fined. The worst case of road offences with which this Bill, I believe, can deal, is that of driving without due care and attention. The

1031
maximum penalty, on first conviction, for that offence is, I think, £40—a not insignificant sum. The usual fine imposed is from £3 to £5, and the man concerned may well think that to pay a fine of £5 is cheaper than paying his fare to the court and the other incidental expenses.
But suppose that a man finds the penalty imposed is £25. In such a case, how are the means of the person taken into consideration? I believe that it is the duty of magistrates to take an individual's means into consideration before they fine him: they have to pay some regard to his ability to pay. Can the noble Viscount tell me at what stage in the proceedings the accused person's means can be considered? If I, as an accused person, write to the bench and say, "Yes, I am guilty; I am very sorry ", at what period do the bench learn what are my means? The police, when they stop me and warn me that proceedings may be taken, cannot very well say to me: "In case proceedings are taken, will you tell me what your means are?" And if I do not appear in court how are my means made known to the magistrates and taken into consideration? I have searched the Bill and I cannot find anything in it which covers that point.
Another matter is this. Supposing I have pleaded guilty, hoping that I am going to get away with a small fine, but the police evidence and the facts generally lead the magistrates to adjourn the case. That would give me a broad hint. They will, no doubt, have to write to tell me that they are adjourning, and I shall gather from that, and the fact that they are requiring my presence, that they take a serious view of the case. Can I alter my plea? I pleaded guilty hoping that I was going to get away lightly; it has become obvious, however, that I am not going to get away lightly as the magistrates have adjourned the case. So I know that I am probably going to get it "good and strong", and that my licence may be suspended. Can I alter my plea to not guilty, and ask whether I can have a lawyer to argue my case in mitigation of sentence? Or, having once pleaded guilty in the hope of getting off lightly, am I bound by that plea?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: A plea in mitigation of sentence could be made
1032
only if the plea of guilty was not altered. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does the noble Viscount think that that is fair? Is that what is intended in this Bill? It may be that it is right. I only want the noble Viscount to tell me. I am raising these points only with a view to obtaining information in order to see what action it is necessary to take on the Committee stage, and whether we shall want to alter the Bill in any regard. We might want to amend it on the point with which I have just dealt. I speak with a certain diffidence because I am not a magistrate. I should think that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House present at this moment who is not a magistrate.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not a magistrate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I am in good company for once. What we have to remember is: let justice not only be done, but appear to be done. In our efforts to streamline legislation like this and turn it into mass-production, conveyor-belt production, do not let us overstep the mark either way.
Next as to the matter of service of summons. I do not like it. We see that service of summons can be by personal service, it can be by registered letter, it can be by leaving the summons for the individual concerned at his last known address with someone who is there to give it to him when they see him. There might not, in the ordinary way, be too much objection to that, but when the case is adjourned and previous convictions are going to be brought up I do not think it is right for notice of a person's previous convictions to be sent by post for anyone at his address to open and read in his absence. I do not think it is right, and neither do the Committee. The Committee recommend that one of the methods of serving a summons prescribed by Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Court Rules, 1952—that is, by leaving it for the defendant with some person at his last known or usual place of abode—should not be a permissible way of effecting service of a notice of previous convictions. I think your Lordships will agree that that is right. The man's employer or his wife might get it.

1033
Then what is the acknowledgment going to be that the man concerned has received the notice? I suppose he will have to acknowledge it. The notice can be sent seven days before proceedings. I suggest that that is not long enough. It should be sent to him at the time when he is notified that the court has adjourned the case for his appearance, because that is the only time when previous convictions will come up. What kind of receipt will be given? I should be aghast if I thought that the receipt I was asked to sign as a true record of my previous convictions was not so. What would I do? Am I to admit it?—because there have been cases where records of previous convictions have not been accurate. If the noble Viscount will look at paragraph 55 of the Report, he will see that it is the Committee's view that there should be same better procedure, and I see nothing about it in the Bill.
I have only two more points. The whole facts of the case have to be sent to the accused. Suppose the chairman of the bench is not satisfied with the fullness of the statement sent to the accused and asks the police a question and they answer it? Does that nullify the whole proceeding? Are magistrates going to have instructions on that point? My second point is, why is it that the Fourth Schedule of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, is excluded? The last paragraph of Clause 2 reads:
"Provided that this section shall not apply in relation to any offence mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1956 (which relates to offences in respect of which disqualification for holding, or endorsement of, a driving licence may be ordered)."
If the courts have to be satisfied with the procedure in Clause 2 for the identification of drivers in the case of parking offences, why cannot it be so in other cases? In many cases where drivers have to be identified, they have to pay heavy costs, because sometimes it is necessary for a police officer to travel from one end of England to another to give evidence of identity. I should have thought that Fourth Schedule offences could be included with the others under this new identification procedure.
I apologise to your Lordships for raising these detailed points, but this is the only chance we have of raising them until we see what attitude we shall adopt on Committee stage. Of course, we shall give
1034
the noble Viscount this Bill because, by and large, we are in favour of it; but this is a new type of legislation and there may be snags. Let us see that in the desire to save thousands of pounds in police time, wasted day in and day out with pettifogging cases, we do not swing the other way; because it will be possible to convict people who plead guilty without even the attendance of the prosecution. Many noble Lords have experience as magistrates, and I think it is the duty of this House to tidy up this Bill so that it can go to another place without blemish, a tidiness which is always a feature of the legislation which leaves your Lordships' House. We wish the Bill well. It goes a long way to meet the views of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who gave such thought and attention to this matter when the Road Traffic Bill was before the House. I take it that this Pill is an aftermath of the discussions on that Act. We on this side give it our blessing.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Viscount rises, I should like to put a special plea for the inclusion in this Bill of either a clause or a subsection which would prevent magistrates from endorsing a driver's licence without due reason for doing so. I do not think we realise how serious this endorsing of a licence is, it labels a driver for the rest of his driving life as an irresponsible driver, or as a dangerous one, and prevents him from joining certain motoring organisations. It is a serious penalty for any driver to pay. Unfortunately, at the moment, a magistrate who has not due conscience en the matter can endorse a licence for a slight offence. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is here in the House and I hesitate to speak about magistrates in front of him, but I fear that there are a good many who have a virulent attitude towards motorists and who do the worst they possibly can within the law towards them.
I would mention the case of a young motorist, whom I know to be a responsible driver, who was driving in a restricted area at about one o'clock in the morning. There could hardly have been anything else on the road at the time. He was driving, I suppose, slightly over the thirty-mile limit, and he was overtaken by a police car. For that

1035
offence, which caused danger to nobody and which was purely what I might call a theoretical offence, his licence was endorsed and he was fined £5. I would not say that a fair-minded magistrate would have done so, but one must admit that there are magistrates who are not fair-minded towards motorists. Therefore, I think that this serious penalty of having one's licence endorsed should be restricted to offences which either have caused physical injury to another person or have caused serious damage to another person's car or property. I hope that the noble Viscount will think of this as a serious suggestion.
5.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, when he said that some magistrates have a virulent attitude towards motorists. He also spoke of the action of magistrates in endorsing licences without due reason. I can speak only of one bench, but that certainly has not been my experience. I think that magistrates consider the matter carefully before endorsing a licence. I do not think that they are infected by a virulent attitude towards motorists, but they are possessed by a deep sense of duty towards the community in view of the appalling figures of road casualties. That, in my view, does affect their attitude.
As regards the Bill itself, I am most favourably disposed towards it, but I think my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised some pertinent questions to which an answer is required, and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill will, to the best of his ability, give answers which will satisfy my noble friend. I confess that, as a magistrate, I have been repeatedly shocked by the spectacle of the court filled with policemen waiting to give their evidence, which, when it is given, amounts to a recitation of a formula. At a time when the police force in London and the suburbs is so much under strength, I think it is a desirable object to try to save this waste of time on the part of the police. That waste of time is not confined to their appearance in court, because there is a preliminary meeting when they consult about their evidence. Moreover (though I am not absolutely certain about this), it is within my recollection that I have been told that when
1036
a policeman comes into court to give evidence in one of these "speeding in a built-up area" cases, while he may be occupied in the witness box for only a matter of minutes, he has the rest of the day off.
Mention has been made about letters which are received by magistrates from offenders who do not wish to appear. It was said that those who write those letters have some hope that they may get off more lightly; and it is no doubt in that spirit that these letters almost invariably contain a final paragraph to say how much the offender appreciated the courtesy and the politeness of the policeman who stopped him and told him he would be summoned. I do not think it is the case that the court impose a lesser fine because they have received a letter of that sort. I believe that, even with such a letter before them, they proceed upon well-recognised principles. On the question of taking means into consideration when the fine is imposed, again I do not think that that operates in the case of motoring offences. If the offender wishes to point that out, he can do so in the letter that he writes. Offhand, I cannot remember any cases in which the question of means has in any way arisen in respect of a fine which a Bench has inflicted. But it is the case, of course, that an offender who has been fined beyond his means can always apply for time in which to pay, and I have never known a Bench reject that plea.
I am sure that a man with anything like what he thinks is a good case will come to court to argue it. I have noticed that about motorists as a class: if they feel they have any sort of answer, they like to argue it out, and they do so with great pertinacity and often with great ingenuity. Then it is said that the court "may" adopt this procedure. I do not think they will opt to do that if they think the case before them presents any points about which they feel that, for justice to be done, it is desirable to see the man.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I might interrupt my noble friend. My reading of the Bill is that the prosecution, meaning the police, decide whether they are going to proceed along the lines of the new or the old legislation—not the court, but the police.
LORD WINSTER: In the Explanatory Memorandum the words used are "the court may ".
LORD MERTHYR: Possibly I can help here. If the noble Lord will look at lines 10 and. 14, on page 2, he will see that the court, as well as the police, has an option.
LORD WINSTER: I imagine that in any serious motoring offence—and I confine my remarks to motoring offences, although I know that the Bill has a wider application—in a case of driving without due care, for example, it is unlikely that the bench would proceed without first seeing the offender. I know that so far as my yoke was concerned on the bench, in the case of driving without due care or dangerous driving—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Dangerous driving is outside the scope of the Bill.
LORD WINSTER: That is so, of course. But in a case of driving without due care, which may involve a serious penalty, I should want to have the defendant present because, in my experience, in such a case it is desirable to see and hear the witnesses. I think it is desirable to hear the answer to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Whilst I have said that I am favourably disposed towards the Bill and deplore the waste of time, which the present procedure imposes upon the police, yet I feel That even that waste of time would be preferable any procedure which made the defendant feel in any way that he had not had a fair chance. On my reading of the Bill, I think the procedure outlined is such that an offender must continue to feel that he has had every opportunity of putting forward his case, if he so desires, and the procedure will be adopted only by motorists who know very well that they have not a leg to stand on and do not want to waste their time.
5.28 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I think there is a slight tendency for the debate to range rather outside the provisions of the Bill. With regard to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I would only say that I am sorry I cannot agree with him; but I am strongly tempted to invite the noble Lord and the noble Lord,
1038
Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to dinner together and then quietly disappear and leave them to it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I might accept that invitation.
LORD MERTHYR: I should be glad to have a record of what was said. This Bill, which in my view is an excellent one, has for its prime object, if I understand it aright, the saving of time. In my opinion, it will save a great deal of time, and it that way, although it is a small Bill, it will be nothing less than a landmark in the history of justices' courts. I agree with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and other speakers, when they said that, however valuable the saving of time is, none of it would be justified if it resulted in the smallest injustice. I have said on many occasions that if there is one virtue above all others which is required in a magistrate it is patience and the ability to waste time in a good cause, because, after all, no one need be a magistrate unless he wants to. Therefore, I entirely agree with what has been said, and no amount of trouble on the Committee stage of this Bill will be wasted if we can make absolutely sure that in this process of saving time no injustice is done. I will say only that, in my reading of the Bill at present, if there is any risk it is not an appreciable one, and that, if it is found to be one of substance, it can be removed.
There are some Committee points with which I will not trouble the House to-day, but I should like to mention one recommendation of the Sharpe Committee which has not been carried into effect in this Bill. The Committee recommended—I think it is in paragraphs 49, 50 and 66—that this Bill should apply to young persons—not to children, but to young persons. I see that there may be administrative difficulties in carrying out that recommendation. If it were applied to young persons it would save more time. But one gets this sort of case. A boy of sixteen and a boy of seventeen are jointly charged with the same offence. It is inevitable, but awkward, that one has to go to the adult court, and the other to the juvenile court. Apply this Bill to that situation, and you get yet a wider difference in the treatment of those two

1039
persons. I bring that point to the attention of Her Majesty's Government to see whether they can carry out the recommendation of the Committee in that respect. Many people have asked me since this Bill was published: Is it not a pity that it does not apply to young persons? None of them wished it to apply to children.
May I say a word about Clause 3? I am especially interested in this clause, if only because in 1948 I introduced an Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which, if I remember aright (I have not compared it) was almost word for word what is now Clause 3 in this Bill. But the noble and learned Earl who then sat on the Woolsack was not impressed by my Amendment and rejected it on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I am only the more glad to see Clause 3 in this Bill because for twenty years at least I have been asking for this very thing. The noble Viscount said that it was illegal to hear the previous convictions in the absence of the defendant. I am not disputing that statement, but I am saying that, illegal or not. I believe it is frequently done to-day in, among other courts, the courts of the Metropolitan magistrates in London. It certainly is done, to my knowledge, in courts in the country, and in order not to get myself into trouble I think I had better not say any more about that aspect.
Of course, it is almost intolerable to the interests of justice that any man should escape punishment, or should receive a lighter punishment, merely by absenting himself from the court. Yet to-day, if the strict law is carried out, that must happen time and time again. A man may have twenty convictions for the same offence and be charged, and then absent himself. Either the police must take immense trouble to prove those convictions formally and legally, maybe by calling witnesses from distances away, or, if the law is carried out strictly, those twenty convictions will be unknown to the court in passing sentence. That, as I say, is something which is almost intolerable in my view, and I am delighted to see that this Bill sets that position right. Of course, it must be hedged about with qualifications to make it absolutely safe.
It has been pointed out to me, in criticism of this Bill, that it is too com-
1040
plicated, but I think the answer is that, if it it is to achieve its purpose satisfactorily, that is inevitable. Another probable reason is that this Bill must not formally contravene any of the sections of Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, with which it will be considered in future. Another suggestion I should like to make is that the prescribed forms which, I suppose, will be necessary if this Bill is passed, should be incorporated as Schedules in the Bill. I do not know whether that would be too difficult, but I feel that it would be helpful to magistrates and justices' clerks to have the Bill and the forms all together in one document. I should like to throw out that suggestion to the noble Viscount.
I was very interested, if I may say so, in the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who, I do not hesitate to say, although not himself a magistrate, must know a good deal more about the work of magistrates than many magistrates do themselves. The noble Lord asked: Will warnings cease to be given by the police because they will no longer fear that they will lose time in bringing the case to court? I think that is a good point. I can only say that it is a matter not for the justices but for the police to answer, and I cannot attempt to answer it. For myself, I think the answer is, "No". I certainly hope so. But if the answer is not, "No", I can only repeat that it is a matter for the police authorities and not for the courts. The noble Lord asked: Will justices fail to disqualify because, after they disqualify, they will have to adjourn the case? That is a question for justices and, if I may say so, another good question. Time alone will supply the answer. We cannot say to-day what justices will do. I will say only that of course the answer ought to be, "No", and that I hope and think it will be. It is a point which ought seriously to be considered, if, of course, the noble Lord's fear turns out to be justified, it would be a bad mark against this Bill but, as I say, I hope and think that it will not.
The noble Lord then asked: Would the use of the old procedure after the passing of this Bill prejudice the accused's case? Again, I think not. I concede that there might possibly be cases, if the justices were not carrying out their duties properly, when it might, but I really cannot think of a case in which it would be

1041
allowed to do so. Most certainly it ought not to be allowed to do so. The noble Lord must remember that the prosecution, if they want to prove the previous convictions, can use this Bill. Therefore, I cannot see why they should insist upon the old procedure merely in order to bring the previous convictions before the court. I do not quite follow that part of the noble Lord's argument.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord allow me to see if I can help him? My point is this. Suppose, from the initial stages, the police decide that they are going to proceed in the ordinary way and not under the new procedure. The magistrates then, I should think, would guess in nineteen cases out of twenty that the reason is that the police treat the case very seriously and are going to ask not only for a heavy fine but also for the suspension of the licence. Would that prejudice the magistrates hearing the case?—because, if this procedure in this Bill is adopted, the magistrates will not know whether or not it is a serious case until the man has pleaded guilty or not guilty.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's fears are groundless. AS I have said, whichever choice the prosecution make, the previous record of the accused will not be kept out. The noble Lord said: "The police might ask for a heavy sentence." I severely discourage prosecutors from asking me for any sentence. It is a thing that is, to my mind, more reminiscent of Continental law than of British law. Anybody who comes to me and says, "I want a very severe sentence" does not always get exactly what he wants. It is something which ought to be severely discouraged. It is perfectly permissible for the prosecution to suggest in proper terms that this is a serious case of its kind. Supposing that that happens, the question is, will the accused be prejudiced? I have not had an opportunity to think this matter out beforehand, but I see no prejudice to the accused, because, after all, if it is a serious type of case I do not see any objection to acquainting the magistrates with that suggestion. They will decide, sure enough, whether they agree with it or not. Although do not think the noble Lord has a very good point there, I certainly think there is no harm in raising the matter to-day.
1042
The noble Lord said, "Will a man plead guilty because he thinks that he will get a smaller fine if he does?" I doubt whether that point is relevant to this Bill. I am not sure; I do not think it is. But if a man thinks that, I do not think anybody can step him. Then the noble Lord said—and this I do not think is relevant to the Bill—"Will this Bill make any difference to the question of taking the means of the defendant into consideration? He also asked: "How do the bench know of the means of the defendant?" That is an interesting and important question, because, and your Lordships know, ever since the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, it has been compulsory for magistrates to inquire, so far as they are able, into the means of the defendant before assessing a line. Of course, the truth is that it is not always possible to do so. I agree with the noble Lord that if, under this Bill, neither the prosecutor nor the defendant is present, it will be almost impossible to do it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They need never be present.
LORD MERTHYR: They need not be present; but if neither of those persons is present, he must take the consequences of his absence. I do not pretend that I have always been able to take into account the means of a defendant, but I always try to find them out. It is perfectly permissible to ask the prosecutor, after conviction, if he knows anything about the defendant's occupation or how much wages fie gets, and very often a useful answer can be obtained in that way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ask the noble Lord this question only because of his eminent position as Chairman of the Magistrates' Association. This is something new. I always thought it was an injunction to the magistrates that, before passing sentence, they must take into consideration the means of the man to pay. He is adjudged guilty, the fine is assessed, the case is over and. under this Bill, the man never appears in court. Is it justice that, because a man lives a long way away and is of poor means, he has no opportunity of establishing his means?
LORD MERTHYR: I quite see the noble Lord's point, and I think it is a

1043
good point; but he must remember that very often the same difficulty arises now, and this Bill, whilst it may slightly accentuate that difficulty, will not do so seriously, in my humble opinion. It is the case now, time after time, that nobody in court can tell what are the defendant's means. It happens to-day. The only remedy, is to insist on the presence of the defendant so that he can be asked. But nobody in this House this afternoon is seriously going to suggest that we should have the defendant present in every case, because that would not only defeat an object of this Bill but would increase enormously the waste of time in the courts, which it is our very purpose to avoid. We all know that the old criminal law was not intended for the summary trial of a Northumberland motorist in Cornwall, but we have to adjust our law to the circumstances. I do not want to take more time, but there is one more point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, which I should like to mention. I do not agree with him when he says that the notice of previous convictions should only be sent on an adjournment. I cannot agree with that, because, if that were done and insisted upon, the value of this Bill would go.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Lord misunderstood me.
LORD MERTHYR: As I understand it, in only a few cases would there be a necessity under this Bill for an adjournment, and if this Bill insisted that the notice of previous convictions should go out only after an adjournment, very much of the value of the Bill would be lost. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would agree with me on that. At any rate, I hope he will deal with the point. This is a very good Bill and I hope it will be passed into law in the early future.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I expressed the hope that noble Lords might heap coals of fire on my head. I have been deluged with coals of fire, especially from my noble friend who has not only supported the Bill but largely relieved me of the task of answering in detail the interesting questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of
1044
Chilworth. The noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite indicated that perhaps I was too concise in my opening speech. In that case, I must apologise, but it is a difficult task to know where to draw the line in a Bill of this kind. Personally, I had thought it better to find out first by experimentation what questions interested noble Lords who had attended your Lordships' House for this purpose, rather than anticipate what might interest them and possibly choose the wrong points.
It is important that we should all get an absolutely clear picture of the purpose of Clause 1, because it is in the light of that purpose that the questions which have been raised can best be answered. At present, defendants do not come to court on offences which are not very serious, and they habitually write letters saying that they are guilty, believing that the court will act upon them as courts may do, though not legally. The question is, what is to be done when they do? That is the question which this Bill seeks to answer by saying that, provided that certain conditions are complied with, the magistrates shall be entitled to act on an admission of guilt.
Having that circumstance clearly in mind, one can see the answer to a number of the noble Lord's questions. For instance, there is the question of the defendant's means. The noble Lord wanted to know how the magistrates would divine the means of a defendant who, under the new procedure, was not there. The answer which I give to him and which I hope for the purposes of this Bill, at least, he will consider an adequate one, is that they will act exactly as they do now when the defendant is not there. Either they will think that the case is one with which they can deal in the defendant's absence, or they will send for him and make him come in order to find out his means. The defendant is neither better nor worse off because of this procedure. This procedure simply provides that if he writes an admission of guilt the police witnesses need not come in order to prove it. Therefore, on the question of means the situation will be no worse for him in future than it is now.
The same answer applies to the question which was raised about whether the failure of the police to use the new

1045
procedure might prejudice the defendant. With respect, that becomes relevant only if the defendant takes the trouble to write admitting his guilt. Therefore, I should have thought that, so far as conviction is concerned, it could make no difference; and so far as sentence is concerned it could make no difference either, because the sentence would not be imposed until all the relevant circumstances had been disclosed. The only circumstances in which a defendant's case could be prejudiced by the failure of the police to invoke the new procedure would be if it were possible for magistrates to convict, suspecting that the defendant had a bad criminal record concealed behind the failure of the police to use the new procedure. That cannot happen because, for the reason that I have indicated, the new procedure applies only where the defendant has written admitting his guilt. I think that is the answer to that point.
I would respectfully agree with what my noble friend Lord Merthyr said about the warning system, which, incidentally, does not depend upon the Government either, except possibly in the Metropolis, where the police come under the orders of my right honourable friend. We imagine that the warning system will go on as before. On the question of disqualification, the view of those framing the Bill has been that where so serious a step as disqualification is contemplated, the motorist who writes to the bench admitting guilt should be given a special opportunity of knowing what is afoot. That is a provision in the interests of the accused, and therefore no person, I think, could complain that the accused's rights were being infringed. I see no real danger that, in proper cases, benches will fail to disqualify when the new procedure is invoked.
The noble Lord also asked me about an alteration of plea. There again, I venture my answer on the same consideration. People nowadays who write letters admitting their guilt cannot alter their plea because they do not like the sentence. They will be no worse off under this Bill. The only difference will be that the magistrates will act on the letter by itself, without the attendance of the police witnesses. In either event the accused is found guilty, at present by the rather cumbrous and expensive procedure of bringing witnesses to court in spite of his admission, and under the Bill by the
1046
rather cheaper process of acting on the admission which he has sent. Of course, if he desires to alter his plea, if the magistrates adjourn the case for his attendance under the new procedure, he can do so; in fact, the Bill is so framed. But if the magistrates have adjourned for sentence only, he cannot do so, because by that time the letter has already been acted upon. Of course, in any event he can, as now, appeal against sentence if he considers it excessive. There is always the quarter sessions to supervise the magistrates. He will never be worse off, therefore, as I venture to remind your Lordships, than he is now; and in certain circumstances he may be better off.
The point about the service of the summons and the service of the notice of previous convictions I think perhaps we had better deal with on Committee. I see that there may be some justification for what the noble Lord has said about it, and I do not want to prejudice the possibility that we may make an alteration; but at the moment I have no sufficient advice on the subject. He then asked why there was the proviso to Clause 2. The answer is that Clause 2 is the clause which deals with proving the identity of the driver by an admission, and it was the intention of the Government, in introducing Clause 2, to limit its provisions to minor offences, such as parking offences. The introduction of the Fourth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act as a rule-of-thumb method of dividing the really minor offences from the rather more serious offences is a convenient way for which there is no philosophical but every practical justification. That was the reason for that.
My noble friend Lord Merthyr asked me why the Government had not followed the recommendation of the Sharpe Committee in applying the procedure to juvenile courts. He quite rightly reminded the House that in this respect the Government were departing from the Report of that Committee. The Sharpe Committee recommended that the procedure should be applicable to young persons, although they made no recommendation for children. The reason for our departure from the Report of the Committee here is that there are special difficulties about applying this sort of procedure in juvenile courts, and since

1047
the whole of the procedure in juvenile courts is now being considered by another Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, the Government have thought it best to leave the procedure of juvenile courts unchanged for the present, at any rate until we have the Report of that second Committee in our possession.
I turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Som ers. I am bound to say that I think he rather misunderstood the present law and the purpose of this Bill. His friend who had the misfortune to have his licence endorsed was not the victim of an unfairly-minded magistrate, but of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which compels magistrates to endorse licences for offences of this kind, unless a special reason is given. As his friend apparently had no special reason, his licence was, quite properly, endorsed on that occasion. It would not be open to me to accept an Amendment at any stage of this Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act in this respect, since this Bill is not a Bill for the amendment of the substantive law on motoring offences, but only for the procedure to be adopted when a defendant admits his guilt by post. For that reason, I do not think the suggestion would be a practical one. Whether we should accept it as an amendment of the substantive law is a question upon which I confess I have my own reservations. There are some people who think that the endorsement of a licence, which does no more than show that the person whose licence was endorsed has been convicted, and gives particulars both of the conviction, of the offence and of the fine, is a suitable penalty, which motorists mind and which does them no injustice, since it does no more than record the facts. I should like to advise my noble friend that, should his licence have been endorsed, he can relieve himself of the indignity after three years.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But it is on the permanent record. A number of people think that once they have expunged the tell-tale evidence on the licence, that is the end of it. To their
1048
sorrow, it is not; it is on the police records for ever and ever.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, but you would be surprised how often the police lose it. As far as the police record is concerned, the conviction will be recorded until the end of time. As the Greek poet said, the only thing which Providence cannot do is to alter the past. Although one can feel compassion for those who, like myself, have been convicted of exceeding the speed limit, one does not need to think that for that reason they ought to be converted into "plaster saints."
LORD SOMERS: Would the noble Viscount mind my interrupting him? I only wish that what he has told me were more widely known, because I think there is a wide opinion in the country that to have one's licence endorsed is a very serious blot on one's motoring character.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Well, I think that is so in a sense, but it is an experience which many of us who have reached the ripe age of fifty have experienced more than once. For all that, I certainly do not wish to imply that it is not a serious blot on one's motoring character, even for exceeding the speed limit. After all, the law is there to be kept, not broken.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, surely it is most important for the magistrates to know the previous record of the defendant.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is one of the reasons for endorsing the licence, as I ventured to point out in parentheses when I opened this Bill. I believe that covers all the questions to which I was asked to reply. I have not thanked the noble Lord, Lord Winster, for his speech but I do so now. I think it requires no special reply since it was generally in support of the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have given this Bill the welcome that I am sure the House will consider it deserves.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, this is a Consolidation Bill, and therefore I beg formally to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [H.L.]
6.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there are three Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the Third Reading of this Bill. I do not doubt that your Lordships will wish to follow the normal procedure—to agree to the formal Third Reacting of the Bill, discuss the noble Lord's Amendments, deal with the Privilege Amendments, and then, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, make such valedictory remarks as seem proper. If that is your Lordships' wish, I will now formally move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4 [Power of Commissioners of Customs and Excise and their officers to obtain information]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from "power" down to and including "Act", and to insert instead:
"so far only as it may be required to enable them to discharge their duty of collecting or recovering the levy from exhibitors.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for troubling your Lordships with these three Amendments—I know them by heart, and perhaps your Lordships will also know them by heart—but on Clause 4 there is still an issue
1050
between us, not on principle but on machinery. Her Majesty's Government, thyself and my noble friend Lord Archibald are all trying to do the same thing, and have not yet succeeded. I want to be explicit in laying down what are the functions of the Customs and Excise under this Bill. I have made two attempts to persuade Her Majesty's Government to accept Amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, put down on the Report stage an Amendment to which the House agreed and which he thought cleared the matter up. The best legal advice open to me is that there is still genuine doubt. I am told that the courts would decide one way or the other but nobody knows which. I have put down these Amendments to try to make it absolutely explicit.
With your Lordships' permission I will take the first two Amendments together. I ask that Clause 4 (1) shall read:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, so far only as it may be required to enable them to discharge their duty of collecting or recovering the levy from exhibitors, by notice in writing served on an exhibitor, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified;"

Then, leaving out the noble Lord's words "for that purpose", I go on to say:
"and for the purposes aforesaid"—
that means all three of the purposes—
"any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours"
do this or than. Without my first Amendment the Bill reads:
"and for that purpose any officer of theirs."
The best advice open to me is that the words "for that purpose"—in the singular—can refer only to the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). I try to make it specific by saying: "the purposes aforesaid", that being the purpose of the Customs aril Excise to collect the levy. That is the simple issue. That is what the noble Lord wants and what we want. There is no question between us. I do not think it worth while to detain your Lordships to go into a lengthy exposition why we have put it in that way, but my advice is that the noble Lord's wording as it is in the Bill at the present time does not gel away from the disadvantage I have mentioned.
If your Lordships will look at the last two lines of Clause 4 (1) you will see that the Customs and Excise officer may do a number of things. He may require the exhibitor to produce, for examination by the officer, such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify. The only function which the Customs and Excise have in this Bill is to collect or recover the levy. That levy is levied upon the admission price per seat. But the showing of films is only part of the business of a cinematograph proprietor. He sells chocolates, sweets and ice-cream, and it has been said that those are the only things on which he makes any money. He lets out advertising space the levy has nothing to do with that. My legal advice is that as the clause is now worded it would entitle an inspector or an officer of Customs and Excise to examine any books relating to any section of the exhibitor's business when, in fact, the function of the Customs and Excise is in regard to only one matter. I cannot find more simple words than that.
I say, let us sweep away all ambiguity. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment because there is a genuine feeling on this side of the House, fortified by the best legal advice open to us, that it provides the only way to do it. As that makes the point crystal clear, I cannot see any reason why the noble Lord will not accept my Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("power") to ("by") in line 3 and insert ("so far only as it may be required to enable them to discharge their duty of collecting or recovering the levy from exhibitors,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I want to say a word in support of my noble friend's Amendment. I think we should all agree that there are many cases as between the proprietor of a circuit of theatres and the inspector, or between the proprietor of a big urban theatre and the inspector, in which there would be no difficulty. But what we have to look at is whether the matter is so clear as between the humble proprietor of the little cinema and that admittedly rara avis the over-officious inspector as to be beyond any doubt. I
1052
venture to suggest that there will be the rare case of an over-officious inspector who is dealing with a small cinema proprietor in which the inspector will say: "My reading of the Act is so-and-so." And I think it is important that the Act should be so clear that, in such a case, the small exhibitor may be able to understand and assert his rights in the matter. For that reason I ask that careful consideration should be given to the Amendment.
I wish to add only one point, and it is purely for the purposes of clarification—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will help me upon this. Whether we take the present wording of the Bill, or the wording as proposed in my noble friend's second Amendment. I should like to be clear, whether the words are "for that purpose" or "for the purposes aforesaid", that the phrase covers not only the entering of the premises but the requiring of the exhibitor or his employee to produce books and documents. I think my noble friend would agree with me that we are not particularly concerned with the purpose for which the inspector enters. What we are very much concerned with is the purpose for which he requires the production of books, documents and papers. If I am assured that the wording covers both the entering and the requiring, I shall be satisfied. I ask that, either at this stage, or when the Bill goes somewhere else, it should be made so crystal clear that the small exhibitor in the small town may be assured of his rights.
6.13 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support, very briefly, what my noble friends have just said. After all, we are trying to improve this clause; I think that both the Government and we, on this side of the House, have that idea in view. It seems to be a question of the wording. I think that the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth would make a distinct improvement in the clause, because it would make it much more clear. I had the impression during the Committee stage that possibly the Government were thinking often in terms of the big circuit owners, and of counsel in London and so on.
I am very much impressed by what Lord Archibald has said, because I think

1053
we must bear in mind the smaller exhibitor. The big circuit owner has a professional secretary and a legal adviser, and he is in a pretty strong position to interpret the Bill as it should be interpreted. But we must bear in mind the small man in some country village, who owns a small cinema and who is often at the mercy of an over-officious Customs officer. I have the highest regard for the officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but there are exceptions to every rule and in every profession. So I think we must bear in mind that some of these officers possibly will be over-officious in interpreting their duties. I can see nothing wrong in expanding the Bill by inserting these extra words so that it will be perfectly clear, not only to the legal profession, but also to the layman. For these reasons I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, let me begin by giving the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, the assurance for which he has asked me. I can give it to him specifically. The words do cover both entry and inquiry. There is no doubt about that at all; I can state it quite firmly.
Now let me turn to the major point. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, except his argument and his conclusion. I agree wholeheartedly with the purpose of his Amendment. We do not want to give an inspector of Customs and Excise the chance of taking any powers which we do not intend him to have under this Bill. We do not intend to give him the right to inspect either the marriage lines, which we discussed during the earlier stage of the Bill, and which, of course, are right outside the scope of the Bill, or figures about the sales of ice cream—which, again, have nothing to do with the Bill. The cinema proprietor may rightly take exception if an over-zealous Customs and Excise officer should take it upon himself to look at such matters, but in our opinion the Bill specifically prevents him from doing that.
Let me, if I can, make it quite clear, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the noble Lords' fears are ill-grounded. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of course, that this should be clear to the small cinema proprietor as well as to the owner of the big circuit who has an adviser to tell him how the
1054
law stands. I took the precaution this afternoon of putting the question to the proprietor of my own small local cinema. I asked him whether he understood the clause, and he said that he understood it only too well. He proved conclusively that he did thoroughly understand it, and I am sorry to say that he went on to say some decidedly harsh things about the Bill, which, however, are not material to our discussion here to-day.
Clause 4 states that:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act; …"
let us stop there. We are giving them power only to perform their functions under this Part of the Act—that is under Part I. These functions are set out clearly in Clause 2 and are specifically confined to the Levy. Customs officers would have no right to ask about anything to do with other matters than the Levy. I ask your Lordships to note particularly the words
"for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act."
A little further on we come to these words:
"for that purpose, any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises. …"
For what purpose? For the same purpose that we have been discussing—the legitimate purpose set out at the beginning of Clause 4 and mentioned in Clause 2.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has left out paragraphs (a) and (b).
LORD MANCROFT: The words "for that purpose" refer back to the only purpose hitherto mentioned in the clause. They refer back to the purpose referred to in the second line of the clause. Grammatically and in drafting that is the only purpose which has so far been mentioned—that is the one I have just described. I have been given to understand—and I have had the highest legal advice on this—that there can be no other meaning to this than the one which I have put upon it. No other interpretation can be put upon the clause which would enable a Customs and Excise officer to claim the right to look at ice cream figures. As the noble Lord's Amendments really march together, I

1055
must point out that his second Amendment, which would substitute "the purposes aforesaid" for "that purpose" will not do, because by his first Amendment he would strike out "the purpose aforesaid." There would therefore be no purposes left at all for him to refer to.
I can assure the noble Lord, on the best advice of the advisers of the Government, without contradiction whatever, that that is the construction to be placed by the law upon that clause, and it is exactly the construction both the noble Lord and I want. I ask him to take that assurance. I shall be glad to talk it over with him quietly in the cool of the evening outside, and explain it to him, syllable by syllable, but I think that both these march together and refer back to the same thing—that is, to Clause 2—and contain only such a demand on the Customs and Excise as we ought to put on them and is strictly applicable to the levy. I hope that the noble Lord now has his mind put firmly at rest.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not believe a word of it. I am not saying that the noble Lord has not put that story over in perfectly good faith, but my legal advice, which I expect is just as good as his advice, is that the words "for the purpose" can refer only to (a) and (b). I do not know why the noble Lord called to aid his own little cinema proprietor. Poor fellow! It is as much as I can do to withstand the blandishments of the noble Lord, and I am certain that no cinema proprietor could withstand them. The noble Lord could convince him about anything. I am informed that my drafting is better than his, and that there is not a shadow of doubt of the purport of my drafting. But since I cannot persuade the noble Lord to accept it, I will not worry your Lordships any more, and I am not going to divide the House. The two sets of legal advisers can argue this matter now to their hearts' content. We have fulfilled our function on this side in trying to make this a better Bill. I regret very much that the noble Lord cannot accept this Amendment, but it can be argued in another place if they so desire. With that expression of regret, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), after the last word "may" to insert "reasonably". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I just want to hear the noble Lord's argument again on why he will not accept the word "reasonably". I was prepared not to move this Amendment if he had given me the first two, but now I am afraid that I have to press him very hard. My Amendment would require an exhibitor
"… to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may reasonably specify."
If the noble Lord argues with me, as he has done in the past, that "reasonably" is one of those words about which no lawyer can make up his mind, and of which two lawyers will always give a different definition, how does he reconcile that with the fact that earlier in the subsection it says
"… and, for that purpose, any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours …"?
If someone is going to define a "reasonable" hour, why cannot he define what the officer may "reasonably specify". If this word is in the Bill once, why does he object to having it in a second time, when it is highly desirable in both contexts? Perhaps the noble Lord is going to relent at this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour and accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, after "may" insert "reasonably".—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being a little naughty. He knows perfectly well what the difference is between a "reasonable" hour and what an inspector may "reasonably" specify, if an inspector arrives at three o'clock in the morning and knocks up an exhibitor and asks to see his books, a child in arms can tell—and possibly will do so at the top of his little voice—that that is not a reasonable hour. But an inspector cannot tell whether books may be reasonably specified until he has taken them down, opened them and seen them. If we put in the word "reasonably", an exhibitor can say, "No; you cannot see any of these books because they are not concerned with the business at all." Nobody is able to tell unless he is able to take them down and look at them. We have

1057
to give an officer the right to do this, Perhaps the first book has to do with ice cream, and does not relate to the exhibitor's business. He has no right to see that. The second, perhaps, deals with the exhibitor's private affairs; and the officer has no right to see that. The third book may have to do with the exhibitor's business, but how on earth can the officer discover that until he has looked at the books? It is obvious that the officer must be given the right to examine such books as he may specify without this dubious and nebulous word. I think that when the noble Lord considers this calmly, he will agree that putting in the word "reasonably" would be a great handicap on an officer reasonably carrying out his duties.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he has finished, since he thinks that it is possible to specify what are "reasonable hours", whether it is quite so simple? Three o'clock n the afternoon may be a reasonable hour from the normal point of view, but if at that time an exhibitor is handling the queue for his matinée, it may not be reasonable for him; and if "reasonable hours" can be open to argument, surely the "reasonably" that my noble friend suggests cannot be any more open to argument.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, one can tell what is a reasonable hour because one can see the queue. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, the inspector would see that the hour was not reasonable when the exhibitor was doing a roaring business—that it was "all hands to the pumps", and the exhibitor would not want to be bothered by producing books for the inspector.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Who would decide in that case what was a reasonable hour?
LORD MANCROFT: The onus of proving that the hours are reasonable would lie, I imagine, upon the inspector, because he has the right to come only at reasonable hours. But an inspector cannot tell whether books may be reasonably specified until he has got them down and seen them. Do not let us argue further about this; if the noble Lord is not happy about it, the matter can be discussed again in another place. On Third Reading, I do not think that we
1058
should be arguing this minor point. The last thing we want to do is to penalise the small cinema proprietor, or ask him to reveal his innermost private affairs to an inspector.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I only wanted to hear again the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord has made one thing clear—that is, that the Customs and Excise inspector may make a thorough examination of all the things he thinks he has a right to see, at any time he thinks reasonable. If the noble Lord wants it that way, I suppose the noble Lord will have it that way. I do not want to worry your Lordships by going to a Division. Now we have it crystal clear, that the sole arbiter of what it is reasonable to see and do is the Customs and Excise inspector. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move hat the Privilege Amendments he agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill do now pass. It is an important Bill, and we have given it a long and thorough examination, but I should not like it to leave your Lordships' House without dealing briefly with one or two points that have arisen and possibly clearing up one or two doubts that may still be in your Lordships' minds.
This is not a Bill that covers every problem of the film industry. It is aimed primarily at helping the producer, and we intend, if we can, to secure the maintenance of a reasonable level of film production, bearing in mind always the economic circumstances of the exhibitors and, indeed, other and wider considerations. We are trying to implement this policy by doing three things: by ensuring to producers the maintenance of financial support from the levy; by extending the lending powers of the National Film Finance Corporation, and by continuing the protection of the film quota legislation. I think these measures have been generally approved by your Lordships, but there has been dissatisfaction over one or two of the details which attach to them.

1059
First, there is the amount of the levy of course, there is room for endless argument as to what the top and bottom figures should be, or, indeed, whether there should be any top or bottom figure. The only thought on this matter that I should like to leave with your Lordships is that I think it would be untidy and undesirable to leave a nebulous or nonexistent figure in the Bill, and to have lack of precision in future which would lead to endless argument and confusion. Our aim and hope is that we shall possess a flourishing industry, independent if possible, of Government support. I think—and we have argued this point also—that our best hope lies in the steady development of our exports.
The next point that we worried about is the ability of the exhibitors to pay the levy; and the question of entertainments tax has been widely canvassed. All I would do is to repeat the pledge that I have given to your Lordships: that I will make certain that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I know has this point actively in mind, will be given, and asked to study carefully, all your Lordships' observations on this point before finally making up his mind upon the inquiry, which your Lordships know he is now holding. Clause 4 has given us a great deal of trouble over a small point, and I hope that before the Bill becomes law the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will have been persuaded by his legal advisers, or by me in private conversation, that he need not worry along the lines that he has done—quite naturally, as I think.
The next point is the difference in the treatment given to the producer and the exhibitor. I promised the noble Lord that I would look into this matter when we discussed it, on both the Committee and the Report stages. Under the Bill, the exhibitor is liable to a penalty. The reason for this is that there is no provision of general law which would enable us to obtain the information from the exhibitor in regard to his levy liability. That is why we provide for it in the Bill. No penalty is stated in the Bill to be held against a producer who does not produce his books, if required to do so by the authorities who will place money at his disposal, because, as I have said on several occasions, if he fails to provide necessary information he will not get
1060
the money. If he does anything wrong, then, as I told the noble Lord on the Report stage, the producer is liable in criminal law. If he deliberately makes false statements and gets money thereby, he is liable to a maximum penalty for obtaining money by false pretences of five years' imprisonment. If he has done it by means of a statutory declaration, which might well happen, for the purpose of getting money, then, under the ordinary law of the land, he may find himself liable to two years' imprisonment under Section 5 of the Perjury Act, 1911—that is, if he has done it with criminal intent. If he has accidentally got more than he ought to have done and no fraud is involved, then Clause 3 (2) (e) provides specifically for the recovery of over-payments. That is the reason for the difference between the two classes.
I turn now to the National Film Finance Corporation. I should like to emphasise that the provision of risk money for films will remain their primary task, and nothing in Clauses 10 and 11 will alter this. As to the quota law, I agree that some sections of the 1938 and 1948 Acts have not worked well. All I can do is to repeat the promise that I gave to your Lordships and the industry at an earlier stage of the Bill: that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to consult the industry this autumn on possible amendments, with a view to introducing amending legislation, if that proves necessary, as soon as possible thereafter. As a result of this Bill, the producers now have the confidence that the quota protection, in some form or another, is secure for another ten years, They are, therefore, helped by this Bill.
It only remains for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, both of whom have an unrivalled knowledge of the Bill, for the assiduity and skill with which they have addressed themselves to its fairly complicated provisions. Nobody can accuse them of lacking in thoroughness. We have attempted to meet them whenever we thought they had a good point, and have met every point that we thought deserved to be met. I do not think they would take it as a compliment if we accepted a bad Amendment, just for the sake of giving them an Amendment. That would be a poor

1061
compliment to them for the trouble they have taken and the skill they have shown. We have listened carefully to what they have had to say, and whenever we have thought that they had a good point to make, we have done our best to meet them. I hope noble Lords will take that, as it is meant, as a compliment from me. It is the joint wish of both sides of the House to see ultimately an independent, healthy and thriving British film industry which will throw away with relish the crutches with which this Bill provides it. I come back to this point: no amount of legislation can turn a bad film into a good one; only the industry can do that. We have tried here to give the industry all the help in our power to turn out as many good British films as they possibly can. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord m1ancroft.)
6.37 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, my first words must be of thanks to the noble Lord for his courtesy during all the strenuous debates and discussions we have had upon all stages of this Bill. I must confess to being surprised that this Bill has not excited more attention, not only in your Lordships' House but throughout the country. We have been trying to legislate for the next ten years for one of the most vital industries in the entertainment world of this country. From the end of the war until about 1950 we saw going into the cinemas of this country about 4 million people every day, and even last year it only dropped to 3 million a day. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, ended his speech by saying that no Bill will turn a bad film into a good film. The British film producing industry can turn out all the good films it is capable of turning out, but it will never be a success until it can get into the markets of this world; and it will never get into the markets of this world while the dice is loaded aganst it as the Government persist in loading the dice against it.
I read—I expect the noble Lord did, too—a somewhat informed article in the Economist. It made one or two of the usual mistakes made by the Economist, but the one great mistake it made was the same mistake that so many people make, it said:
"The oldest armour in this policy"
1062
that relates to the policy of various Governments—
"is the quota system under which a prescribed percentage of the films that British cinemas show have to be made in Britain."
A film can rank as a British film when not one foot of it is shot—that is the technical term—in Britain, and not one person in the United Kingdom employed in making it. That is one of the principal deterrents that has been imposed on the British producer.
The industry is now up against this particular problem: how to compete with S million private cinemas. There are now 8 million private cinemas in this country, one in every home where a television set is installed. Neither the producer of the entertainment that is provided for television, nor the owner of a television set—which, in effect, is run as his own private cinema—has to pay one halfpenny entertainment tax, while the Government take £33 million a year out of the film industry. That is one of the big problems. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said it was no good our not putting specific figures in this Bill. I can tell the noble Lord quite bluntly that, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget makes a substantial reduction in the entertainments tax, he has no more chance of getting £3¾ million of levy out of the exhibitors of films in this country than he has of becoming a film star. You cannot get that amount out of the industry. This Bill, and every other scrap of legislation, is to-day wrapped up inextricably with the tax that has been put on many things in this country, principally in the world of entertainment, the cinema. For every £1 that is collected at the box office, 6s. 5½d. goes to the Government and 5½d. to the exhibitor.
The great surprise to me is that the Government still persist in this fanciful fiction that the levy which this Bill endorses as statutory for the next ten years is not a subsidy. It is nothing more than a subsidy, and the Government will not admit it. By far the best way for the Government to treat this industry is by a reduction, and a substantial reduction, of entertainments duty; but if they want to make it a subsidy, why the dickens do they not give it a straight subsidy and be done with it? This levy has to be found out of State money, Government

1063
money, taxpayers' money, by way of a reduction and a pay back of entertainments tax.
Those are some of the great problems with which this industry is grappling, and we can do no more about it in this House. I thank my noble friends for the great help they have given me. My noble friend Lord Archibald has supported this argument about entertainments tax through thick and thin. I can tell Lord Mancroft that as regards the levy this Bill is so much waste paper unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make it far more than £3¾ million. That will cover only the first instalment. The industry have put forward a figure in the region of £20 million. If that is not done there will be not 179 cinemas closed next year, but about double that number. These are the serious things with which we have been trying to deal. I believe that the cinema industry still provides for the masses of this country good entertainment, and it has a strong competitor which does not pay a tithe of taxation of the same kind or operate under the disadvantageous circumstances. This is to me—and these are my concluding remarks—one of the most remarkable things that has happened to me in this House—that the case for this industry, which has a capital investment of millions of pounds, has had to be defended minute after minute and hour after hour; its case has had to be stated from this side of the House, with Benches on the other side bereft of anybody. It is a remarkable thing, and I can only hope that the cinema industry of this country value the contribution that Her Majesty's Opposition have made.
6.46 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but there are one or two final points that I should like to make. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, quite correctly and obviously, that no amount of legislation will turn a bad film into a good film. He unfortunately went on to say that only the industry could do that. May I tell him that by the time a bad film has been made it is beyond the power even of the industry to turn it into a good one. Naturally, no producer ever sets out to make a bad film; they all set out to make good
1064
films. But even with the industry in the most efficient form that it is ever likely to be, there will still be bad films made; and that is something we have to accept.
What legislation can do, and what this Bill obviously sets out to do, is not to enable films to be good films—although we all hope they will be that—but to put films in the position of being able to get back the costs of production—I will not say to make profits, but at least to get back the costs of production, because that is one of the purposes of the Bill. Naturally, I support the Bill to that extent. In fact, I think we might say that on both sides of the House there is general agreement with the main purposes of the Bill, these being to provide a stable, solid and at least not loss-making British production industry. I must again return to the point about how that is being done. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I do not think there is anything in the nature of a subsidy involved. What is being done is that some of the entertainments tax is being syphoned off (if I may use the phrase) for the benefit of production; it is still money taken at the box office which is going to be transferred to production.
Having made my main point, that I am in agreement with the main purposes of the Bill, I am sorry that I cannot entirely accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that whenever we have had a good Amendment it has been accepted. Far from it. In fact, to use his own words, I consider that on this Bill he has done a magnificent job of "stone-walling". I feel that some of our Amendments were worthy of greater consideration than was given to them. After all, this Bill is not a Party political issue; it is a practical issue, and not all the wisdom and knowledge is on any one side of the House. I think my noble friends and myself have made some worthwhile contributions, but they have not been accepted. I should have felt it necessary at this stage to register a protest against the rigidity which has been shown in the matter, but for the persuasive charm of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, who at least, when he could not accept our Amendments, gave us, so far as he possibly could, assurances and explanations which went a

1065
long way to soften the blow of his consistent and definite refusals. With those comments, may I just add that I wish the Bill well in its subsequent passage, and I hope that it will lead to ten years of reasonable stability in the film industry of this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, give a pledge that the question of entertainments tax is being reviewed at the moment by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, the whole question of whether or not this very complicated Bill will work rests on the amount of entertainments tax which will be extorted from the film industry. At present, out of £40 million entertainments tax paid in this country, £33 million is contributed by the film industry. The discussions that we have had on this Bill will, I am afraid, he largely academic unless there is a substantial reduction in the, entertainments tax. The question of what is or what is not reasonable will not matter a bit, as there will not be any books for the Customs and Excise officer to inspect because the cinema will have dosed. Therefore, I hope that, when this question is being considered, the Government will think in terms not just of £1 million or £2 million, but of a really substantial reduction—something of the nature of £20 million. I am quite certain that this Bill will not work at all, that it will defeat its own object and that the amount of the levy will not be found unless it is balanced by a substantial reduction in entertainments tax.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
6.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, these Bills are normally taken by your Lordships as purely formal. On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, I beg to move that this Bill he read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.