Lords Sitting of 29 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

SHEEP AND CATTLE THEFTS IN SCOTLAND
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 will state the number of cases that have been brought to their attention of sheep and cattle stealing respectively in Scotland in each of the years from 1956 to 1959.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, no cases of alleged sheep stealing were brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1956 or 1957, two in 1958 and one in 1959. No cases of cattle stealing were brought to his attention between 1956 and 1959. As a result of disquiet among their members, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland recently made representations, unsupported by particular cases. They are now seeking detailed information from their Area Committees.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer, which shows, does it not, the inherent honesty of the folk of Scotland.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount has drawn that conclusion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Craigton will be making a statement at approximately 3.30 o'clock on last night's fire in Glasgow. There will also be a statement by my noble friend Lord Chesham on the future of the Post Office.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will there be a statement on the intentions of Her Majesty's Government at the Security Council?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, there will be no statement on that to-day, but whenever my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary finds it possible to make a statement, which may be to-morrow, I will, of course, repeat it here.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl.

GLASGOW CORPORATION CONSOLIDATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this Bill is no stranger to your Lordships. In the last session of the previous Parliament, the Bill passed through all its stages in this House. The Bill before us now is identical with the Bill that was read a third time in this House on July 16 last year. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said on Second Reading on July 2, 1959, a Bill to restore the Common Law of Scotland rather than a Bill to amend or abolish it. It was a better Bill when it left your Lordships' House than when it was first presented, and we are indebted 'to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Reid, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and other noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debates.
I will not therefore weary your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the Bill. I need only remind you that the Bill gives effect to the two recommendations made in the First Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland. In relation to the standard of care which an occupier owes to persons entering his

423
premises, Clauses 1 and 2 do no more than restore the law of Scotland as it was understood until 1929. In relation to the care of visitors to let premises where the landlord is responsible for maintenance or repair, Clause 3 does no more than restore the law of Scotland as it was understood until 1908. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Greenhill, it falls to me very briefly to welcome this Bill on behalf of my noble friends. I understand that it brings the law in Scotland regarding liability of occupiers and owners into line with the law which now obtains in England and has so obtained since 1957. Indeed, I believe that it is also in line with what we were discussing more recently, towards the end of the last Parliament—the Factories Bill, now the Factories Act. We therefore have no observations to make upon it except to note with satisfaction that in Clause 3 Her Majesty's Government, after a lapse of 52 years, appear to have got round a Scottish case which came "unstuck" in your Lordships' House in 1908. The ruling in that case will now be reversed, and when this Bill becomes law the landlord, when he is responsible for repairs and maintenance, will be in exactly the same position as the occupier.
We are also glad that after a somewhat long interval, Her Majesty's Government have got round to implementing the first of the Reports of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, and we hope that others will be following in due course.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, throughout wide areas of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland sea services have traditionally been the basic means of communication. The geographical facts dictate this form of transport, and whatever advances may be made in other forms of transport it is clear that sea services must remain an essential lifeline. This Bill, in Clause 1, sets out its purpose: to provide for the maintenance and improvement of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands.
Under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the meaning of "sea transport services" is so defined as to include not only ancillary services (by which is meant piers, with their waiting rooms, and so on), but also public transport services of any kind, included in an undertaking which consists substantially of sea services. As part of the Government's drive for the improvement of conditions in the Highlands and Islands this Bill gives new powers to provide financial assistance over a limited but essential field. I would remind your Lordships that considerable financial assistance is already available under other Acts for sea services, to which I will refer briefly later in my speech.
Let me take first the kind of help that can be given under this Bill and to whom it can be given. There are three classes of persons to whom the Secretary of State is authorised to give assistance, and they are set out in the three paragraphs of subsection (1) of Clause 1. First in paragraph (a), there are those who are "wholly or mainly engaged in providing" sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands. This, my Lords, is the main provision. The person or company receiving help under it must be a Highland concern wholly or mainly engaged in the provision of sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands. The words "wholly or mainly" are necessary because Government assistance must not filter through to channels not connected with the Highlands. This line of demarcation is made doubly clear

425
by subsection (2) of Clause 2, which prevents the giving of help to a body which may run a shipping service in the Highlands but also provides regular public transport services outwith the Highlands. Secondly, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 1, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may assist
"local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, Act, 1937"—
that is to say, town or county councils—who provide, or may provide, sea ferry services. Lastly, in paragraph (c), my right honourable friend may assist those "who propose to provide such services."
As I have said, considerable help is already available in this field under other Acts. This Bill can help local authorities and others in the provision of sea ferries, but ferries can be helped also, where they are part of a classified road system, under the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act, 1909. This Bill can help any organisation that qualifies in the improvement and preservation of their piers; but the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and the Fisheries Act, 1955, already make provision for help for transport and fishery piers. Last summer the Government announced that they were prepared to spend over £1½ million under these provisions over the next five years.
Turning again to the Bill, Clause 2 specifies the methods by which the Secretary of State may give assistance under the Bill. He can do it by way of either grant or loan, or both; and under subsection (1) (b) of Clause 2 he can do it by building ships and chartering them to operators, though rightly under this Bill the Secretary of State cannot himself operate these ships. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the necessary powers to acquire ships in order that he may charter them for use in the Highlands in accordance with the provisions to which I have referred. Going back to subsection (3) of Clause 2, this requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a draft of any undertaking made under Clause 2 (1) (a) in which the annual advances exceed £10,000. This will give Parliament an opportunity of commenting on the services to be provided, on the rates to be charged and on the amount of subsidy to be paid. Clauses 4 to 6 are formal.
426
My Lords, this Bill is needed for three main purposes. First, it gives the Secretary of State a general power to assist those who provide, or who wish to provide public sea transport services serving the Highlands. Secondly, the Bill will cover the assistance given to Messrs. MacBrayne's. Up to the present the Secretary of State for Scotland has been answerable in Parliament for MacBrayne's, and the subsidy has been charged to his Vote since 1928, but the Minister of Transport, with the Postmaster General, has been the formal contracting agent. The Secretary of State, with his special responsibility for Highlands affairs, will now have under this Bill a full and formal responsibility.
The third main purpose for which this Bill is urgently needed calls for a little more explanation. A small local firm—the Orkney Steam Navigation Company—has for many years operated two ships from Kirkwall serving the North Isles of Orkney. The ships, the "Earl Sigurd" and the "Earl Thorfinn", are both over thirty years old and must be replaced at once. The population of these North Islands has decreased slightly since before the war, but the islands are growing in their importance to agriculture. The cattle population, indeed, has increased by nearly 30 per cent. as compared with before the war, and the sheep population has kept up well. Even so, this good little agricultural community can no longer support its shipping services, as at current prices the cost of replacement of the ships is more than the islands could be expected to bear. The islanders need a better service than is now provided by these rapidly ageing vessels.
The problem has been fully examined first by the Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands and then by an independent shipping expert, the late Mr. William MacGillivray, of Prince Line and Furness Wilily, who at the Government's request carried out an investigation on behalf of the Orkney County Council. The solution is found in this Bill. The Secretary of State proposes to finance the provision of two modern ships for charter to a suitable company to be formed. Full details are still to be worked out, but it is intended that both the Government and Orcadian interests should be represented on the company. The agreement will include conditions

427
as to freight charges, fares and level of services, and since the agreement must be laid before the House the final picture will be fully disclosed to the public.
In providing ships for the new company, and indeed in all the discussions that will take place before Messrs. MacBrayne's contract is due for renewal after 1961, in all the thoughts about these new ships, full regard will be had to the needs of tourism. In all that is being done with regard to the North Islands of Orkney, the Orkney County Council are being fully consulted. Because of the age of the present ships we want to try to have the replacements in service by the summer of 1961; so I hope your Lordships will be able to give this Bill a fair wind. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
2.51 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, again in the absence of my noble friend Lord Greenhill, it is my pleasant duty to welcome this Bill and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the neatest piece of nationalisation that we have had for nine years. Indeed, I applaud the Government's flexibility. Only six months ago they were saying in their Election manifesto:
"We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation by whatever means."
Now they are proposing to spend, in each of the next two years, £250,000, and thereafter, we hope, much larger sums, on building ships, piers, harbours and ferry boats, and in fostering and promoting transport services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It is encouraging to find that the wind of change is blowing in the Orkneys as well as in Africa. We are very glad to find that the Government are not allowing their doctrinaire beliefs to stand in the way of their practical acknowledgement of the fact that the social and economic wellbeing of the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland cannot be improved without a considerable extension of public enterprise. Indeed, when possibly we come at a later stage to discuss the larger ramifications of transport, we hope that they will extend to the British Transport Commission the same consideration and understanding
428
with regard to the uneconomic units which they operate for the social good of our people.
This Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has indicated, will provide in the Orkneys, Shetlands and elsewhere, services similar to those which have been for years provided in the Western Islands by David MacBrayne, Limited, at a public cost which this year amounts to £282,000. But the continued decay and depopulation of these Islands is a tragedy. It was indeed encouraging to hear from the noble Lord that agricultural output is increasing, but I think it is unhappily true that the population everywhere is still declining. We hope that this Bill, welcome and helpful as it will be, is but a forerunner of other energetic measures to foster trade and industry in the Islands so that the present inhabitants will stay and thrive and increase. For that, of course, they must have not merely sea transport services but cargoes to put in the ships, and for that they must have industry.
We also welcome in this Bill the Government's acknowledgement of the imperative need for Parliamentary control over the investment of public money in private industry, by their insistence that the terms and conditions attaching to any advance exceeding £10,000 in any one year must be submitted to Parliament for approval. In other words, they are providing what we on this side of your Lordships' House have persistently demanded with regard to other expenditures of public money but have not got: that is, a statutory instrument giving real control—and it is deplorable that the Government did not make a similar arrangement with regard to the £50 million loan to Colville's. I hope they will certainly do so in future, similar cases.
On this point, I shall be glad if, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord will give an indication of some of the conditions which will be laid down in the contracts which are entered into between firms and the Secretary of State and which are to be laid before Parliament if they cost more than £10,000 in any one year. For example, will the Secretary of State insist that in the contract there shall be a section covering the levels of freight and fares? It would defeat the object of the Bill if we were to give a large sum of money to a private company and then were to give them carte

429
blanche with regard to the level of charges for fares or freight; because one of the major economic problems in the Islands is the high freight imposed on everything that they bring in and everything that they send out. Also, would the Government insist on the appointment of a director to the Orkney Steam Navigation Company, or to any other company which takes it over? Messrs. MacBrayne have a monopoly in their zone, and the Orkney company or their successors will have a monopoly in their area; and since there will be no competition, there should obviously be a Government-appointed director to voice Government policy.
I should also be grateful for the noble Lord's confirmation of certain assumptions that I have made on my reading of the Bill. It is quite clear from the Bill that the Secretary of State would be empowered to help sea transport services, and that means, according to the Bill, public transport services, including the ancillary services necessary for their proper function. But in the Islands the journey by public transport will probably start by bus; then there will be a sea journey by steamer or ferry; and then, possibly, a further road journey. I should like to know what kind of undertakings will be eligible to apply for a grant. Obviously, steamers and ferries will be eligible, because they will be sea transport; but will an undertaking which includes roads, ferries and a steamer service—all three—be eligible in so far as the road section is concerned? Will an undertaking which merely includes—
LORD CRAIGTON: Does the noble Lord mean road transport or the building of roads?
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I meant road transport, and not the building of roads. I was thinking in the main of buses. I take it that since the Bill says that an undertaking which to a substantial extent, wholly or mainly, provides sea transport will be covered, it means that an undertaking which covers road transport, ferries and steamers will be eligible for grant. I should like to know whether one which provides merely road transport and a ferry service would be eligible, though I assume that one which has merely a bus service, whether it is
430
privately owned or municipally owned, would not come under this Bill.
Another point is with regard to piers, jetties and harbours. They are certainly ancillary to sea transport services. In the main, they would be owned by local authorities which are not substantially engaged in sea transport services. I was interested to hear the noble Lord refer to the county and town councils under the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937. As I noted his words, he said that county and town councils which run sea services would be in a position to apply to the Secretary of State. My information is that that 1937 Act affects only county councils, and that the town and district councils do not run any of the sea services: they run sea services, if they do it at all, only as agents of the county councils. Therefore, under this Bill as it stands, it would not be true to say that the district councils could apply direct to the Secretary of State.
If my assumption is correct, I think that that is a major weakness, because there is strong criticism of the apathy and dilatoriness of some county councils, particularly the County Council of Argyll, in applying for necessary amenities of this kind. This is a point about which we feel rather strongly, because obviously the district councils could most nearly represent local interests in this matter and would be more alive to the needs of the people in the areas. I do not think it would be an argument to say that some of them are not very large, in that they have not many people—some as few as 2,000 and up to perhaps about 20,000—living in their areas. Assuming that my reading of that point is correct, we feel that it is a defect of the Bill, and it is one which at a later stage, we shall attempt to remedy by tabling a suitable Amendment.
I should like the noble Lord to deal with a point arising in Clause 2, which precludes the Secretary of State from making grants to persons operating transport services outwith the Highlands. Clause 1 permits consideration of schemes put forward by persons who propose to provide services in the Highlands. Would this allow a company already engaged in the coastal trade—for example, a Clyde-based firm—to submit a scheme, provided that they formed a separate undertaking, to operate in the

431
Highlands? Would a similar scheme be considered if it was put forward by a Scandinavian firm? I ask this because it is hoped that the Outer Seven pacts will lead to a considerable increase in trade between Scandinavia and Scotland, and it is quite possible that if, as we hope, that increase does take place, this could be linked with the provision of services to the Highlands and Islands. I hope that if help from such an experienced quarter is offered we shall be in a position to accept it.
This, in our view, is a useful and welcome Bill which will help a hardy and deserving people who have been neglected far too long. We hope that when it is on the Statute Book it will be used urgently and with vigour. And we hope that before long the Government will produce another measure designed to help these same people to increase the range and volume of their produce and so achieve a better and more comfortable standard of life.
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thought that I was going to be a lone wolf in speaking on this Bill, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has weighed in with his usual verve. But I think the noble Lord is slightly off the rails in his remarks regarding nationalisation. You cannot regard this Bill as a nationalisation Bill. I do not think any of us objects to State intervention for communal purposes; but that is quite different. What we object to is when the State seeks to seize these great wealth-producing industries which produce our standard of living, and destroy that wealth.
In speaking on this Bill I have to declare an interest, because I have spent a great deal of my life in the Western Highlands and Islands and I have also travelled many thousands of miles on MacBrayne's ships. I realise that the immediate purpose of the Bill is to help the shipping service to the Northern Islands of Orkney. I have been round the Orkneys, but I have never been on that shipping service and therefore cannot comment on it. I have, however, a good knowledge of the shipping services in the Western Isles, and it is on the wider aspect of the Bill that I should like to make a few remarks.
432
As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out, we have to look at these shipping services in quite a different way from other shipping services. Here we have scattered communities over an extensive area. The people in the Western Isles look on the sea as the average person on the mainland looks on his trunk road. The sea is, in fact, their road. If a farmer wants to go to market, he usually has to go by sea; everything he buys or sells has to come or go by sea; and if his wife wants to go to a decent shop, she too has to go by sea. It is only right that the Government should support these shipping services, because if the inhabitants are to have a service up to twentieth century standards it cannot be provided by private enterprise, owing to the de-population of the Highlands—although when the tourist industry grows it may be a different matter.
I should like to say a word or two about MacBrayne's. We have had this contract between the Ministry of Transport, the Postmaster General and MacBrayne's since 1928 to provide the conveyance of mails and for maintenance of general services, and I understand that the subsidy is running at about £370,000 a year. This contract expires in 1961. I suppose that it is too early for the Minister to say what form the new agreement will take, but I do ask that in the new agreement the question of freight charges should be closely looked into. The excessive freight charges on MacBrayne's are renowned throughout the whole of Scotland. I will not weary your Lordships with the scale of these charges. Suffice it to say that if a farmer on, say, the island of Mull, of which I have great experience, wants to buy hay, it will probably have to come from Glasgow, and by the time it has arrived in Mull he has had to pay in freight charges the original cost of the hay over again, or at least, up to 70 per cent. of that cost. That seems quite excessive. To a great extent that applies throughout the scales of charges.
Take, for instance, the transport of cars. The Government are anxious for an increase in the tourist industry in the Hebrides. The charges for cars are far too great. If you send your car by MacBrayne's, they can drop it in the sea or bash it around, and you get no

433
compensation at all. A short time ago you had to drive up two planks. It was a balancing act; it was just like a tight rope. If the tide was low you came down with a bang, and it was odds-on that you might go into the sea, But it is now done by derrick, which is of some help.
There are two clauses which I do not quite understand. For instance, under Clause 2 (1) (b) the Secretary of State may enter into contracts for the chartering of ships. How is the chartering freight to be worked out? Is it to be according to the rate prevailing on the Baltic Exchange, or is it to be a rate which the Secretary of State himself decides? In other words, is it to be a hidden subsidy? Also in Clause 2—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned this—I do not understand why the Secretary of State cannot go outside shipping services working in the Hebrides, because it is quite possible that there: may be some shipping service that has never been in the Hebrides and which could perhaps give a far better service than MacBrayne's. I think this clause appears to tie the hands of the Secretary of State. I suppose there would be some difficulty over accounting if a firm from outside which has other shipping services were brought in, but that difficulty should not be insurmountable.
According to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the Secretary of State is to be allowed £250,000 for the first year. If he is to have a new agreement with MacBrayne's; if he is to repair piers, harbours and jetties, and if he is going to build ships, I cannot see how £250,000 is going to get him very far, because it is impossible to build even an ocean-going trawler for £250,000. I hope the Government will not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, so to speak. If we are going to help the Highlands and Islands, I do not think we ought to quibble over £100,000 here or there.
There is one other thing that I should like to ask. If I came to the Secretary of State and said, "I should like to start a shipping service in the Hebrides", I should perhaps get a grant. If I made a profit out of that service, should I have to hand that profit back? I hope that the Secretary of State, if he makes grants, will decide what freights ought to be charged. Of course, it is easy to ask for
434
more money, especially if it is the taxpayer's money. We embark on a terrifying public expenditure of funds to-day, but if Her Majesty's Government will perhaps be slightly more generous with the Western Highlands and Islands, I feel sure that in the future they will retrieve it through a great expansion of the tourist industry.
I am quite certain that the Hebrides and the Western Islands generally have a great future from the point of view of the tourist trade. But we shall have to improve these shipping services. Personally, from a selfish point of view, I am afraid that the tourist trade will spoil the Western Highlands and Islands, because their charm, certainly to myself, is their great loneliness and their beauty. On the other hand, it is obvious that the inhabitants will benefit to a great extent from an increased tourist industry. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on promoting this Bill, and I sincerely hope that it will usher in a new era of prosperity for the Western Highlands and Islands.
3.18 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I welcome the Bill from these Benches? I should perhaps declare an oblique Parliamentary interest in this particular matter, as the Member for these Islands is known to be connected with my Party. Perhaps on his behalf I should demur slightly at two remarks which fell from the noble Viscount who has just sat down. The first is that there are no decent shops in Orkney, and the second that the best hay is grown in Glasgow. Apart from that, I think the Bill is excellent, and I particularly sympathise with the noble Viscount in applauding the proposal to subsidise piers.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I often have to buy quite a lot of hay, and it is impossible to buy it in the Oban area. It has to come from the Lowland area, through Glasgow.
LORD REA: I appreciate the noble Viscount's point. I hope he does not seriously think that I was criticising his charming speech.
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I agree that the noble Viscount's speech was quite

435
charming. He charmed us because he let us into the secret thinking of Toryism behind such matters as are portrayed in this Bill. It is quite a harmless departure from the rigid Tory principle of private enterprise that you can always have a piece of nationalisation as a piece of national assistance. There must be Members of your Lordships' House who were Members of another place with my noble friends Lord Stansgate, Lord Attlee and myself in 1922 (and I see Lord Monsell opposite) and I think that if we were opened up we should find that stamped on our hearts. The number of Motions on the Adjournment that the poor Chief Whip of the Tory Party had to put up with in those days, especially in the fine days of Tom Johnston, are something to remember, and, from our point of view, to remember with delight. And here it is up again in the background, as it were.
It is no longer a question of subsidy, or of influencing in the House of Commons Post Office contracts; this is a direct proposal to make up for complete failure, after decades of public assistance, by getting the Secretary of State for Scotland to enter into an actual piece of national ownership and national direction. You cannot get away from the wording of the Bill. You do not need to go beyond the Memorandum on the front page. It is so simple. It is delightfully simple. It says that
"The Bill enables the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make grants and loans for public transport services provided for the Highlands and Islands in undertakings which consist of, or include to a substantial extent, public transport by sea: and to charter ships for such services."
This sounds like a bit of national assistance.
"For this purpose the Secretary of State is authorised to have ships built for him or otherwise to acquire ships and to hold and maintain them."
What is wrong with the description of my noble friend of this Bill as the first piece of nationalisation for nine years? Of course it is. If you look at the real circumstances of the case which have to be met, there is not the slightest doubt that in this modern age, this age of modern requirements, the people engaged in ordinary agriculture or any other pursuit, industrial or otherwise, in the Highlands and Islands deserve to have
436
modern conditions provided for them. But obviously private enterprise cannot provide them, and so, after years of public grants to these services, the first piece of nationalisation is brought in. Why do not the Government admit what they are doing? Why all this shout against the principle of nationalisation when the only difference between them and ourselves seems to be that however far they go in the direction of national ownership they must always provide, somehow, that it is done in such a way and by such means that private enterprise reaps a substantial profit from it?
We shall have much more to say about this aspect of the case. I have not the confirmation yet from the Chief Whip, but I take it that we shall be discussing iron and steel on Monday. We shall be able to return to the general question and we need not be put off with the answer for the moment of that excellent Minister the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the general principle. We can see the needs of the inhabitants of these beautiful although sometimes wild areas in North West Scotland. We welcome the principle in the Bill to bring to them assistance. But, for heaven's sake, let us have it straight! This is a piece of nationalisation. Congratulations to the Government!
3.26 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have just come from Orkney, from Hoy, to be exact, although it must be much better known to my noble and gallant kinsman, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fraser of North Cape. I should like to say one word on this Bill. It seems to me a small Bill on which to build a Party platform, but I am glad to welcome it and learn, for the sake of my friends in Orkney, that the Government are going to cast a friendly eye on the shipping services of the Islands. It is not before its time, I would add. I do not know much about the shops in Kirkwall but I do know this: that it contains the oldest free public library in Britain and a very learned librarian, and I find as I go north that the culture and learning of the general population increases as you get nearer the North Pole. For that reason I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are keeping the same friendly eye on Shetland as the Orkneys.

437
I have not gone to Shetland by boat for a very long time; I have always flown; but Shetland is never very far from my mind. Unless my history is very out of date, Her Majesty's title to the Orkneys and Shetland is derived from security for the payment of a Queen's dowry; and if we neglect the Shetlands when we ought to take trouble about them I sometimes wonder what situation would be brought about supposing that the Kingdom of Norway wanted to pay the dowry and resume ownership of the Islands. If my history is correct, that is an additional reason for not neglecting the Shetlands but for making them feel that they are part with us, by the way we look after and serve them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? This is an extremely entrancing debate, much more interesting than appeared on the Order Paper. Is it a fact that this is a Bill for subsidising Scandinavian shipping firms in order that the Seven may beat the Six?
3.28 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said that this was a very small Bill on which to build a Party platform. It is, after all, a very shaky and small Party platform that the noble Lords opposite have at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the Bill as the neatest piece of nationalisation, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, gave us a lecture on doctrine. As I was listening to him I could not help thinking that there was one fundamental difference between the two sides of your Lordships' House—that we can learn and we can change in a changing world. We have no Clause 4. We can do the sensible thing when it is necessary. I was glad to hear the noble Viscount refer to MacBrayne's. For twenty years from 1928 to 1948 MacBrayne's, a private company received a subsidy. He said that private enterprise cannot do it in the case of the Highlands and Islands; that we have learnt that private enterprise has not been able to do it since 1928, and we have to face facts as they are. If the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—wio, of course, really does know all the answers—cannot see a dividing line between help with finance, and nationalisation, then I am afraid we
438
shall not be able to explain it to them any more.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is a matter of ownership.
LORD CRAIGTON: There is not a great deal of difference, except in degree, between lending money to build a ship and building the ship and lending the ship. We are lending finance in the form of a ship.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would the Minister answer this question? Is it not the fact that this Bill provides for ships to be built for the Secretary of State for Scotland, and then gives him the right to control them, maintain them and keep them? Is not that the essence of the Bill?
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Viscount said one word that makes all the difference. He said "control" them—no. Maintain them, if necessary, yes; but control them, no. That is the difference. We do not believe that the men of St. Andrew's House can control the ships better than those who are concerned with them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How can the Minister possibly make that statement when you give power to charter—that is, to lend for a fee—a ship which you own and which you have yourselves to undertake to maintain? How can one tell whether what the Minister says is right until one has seen the terms of the charter? I should not accept that until I had seen the terms of the charter, which is a contract.
LORD CRAIGTON: I agree in detail with the noble Viscount, and the. Bill provides that when the charter is a major one the terms will be available to this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked about the level of freight charges in the agreement. The position is that an agreement will be made, which of course will be disclosed to this House and which will, among other things, fix a level of freight charges and fares; and it will probably provide that no change in the general level (we shall not particularise details in the general level) should be made without coming back to my right

439
honourable friend. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, also raised this point. He asked, "What happens if we make a profit?" Another noble Lord said that the charges may be too high. This requires a nice balance between the interests of the taxpayer, incentives to the operator to make it worth while to operate efficiently, and the growing needs of the user for fair transport charges. We have to meet all these three considerations in this contract. It has been done before, and I have no doubt that it can be done again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It sounds like control.
LORD CRAIGTON: Sufficient control to give the taxpayer a fair deal, certainly.
The noble Viscount asked about the appointment of the Government director. I said "Yes" in my speech, and "Yes" to Orcadian interests on the board. Then I was asked for the kind of undertaking that was eligible for grant. I will not read Clause 1 (2), but the position is that it must be a company which operates in the Highlands, and, whatever transport it may have, in its widest sense it must be ancillary to the sea service. We do not think that that will give any great difficulty, because the noble Lord went on, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to ask, was Clause 2 (2) not rather holding back—was it not rather restrictive? The answer is that any firm having a Highland service, however good, which was part of a bigger service, would be able to qualify for assistance under this Bill, subject to everything else being equal, by forming a separate company.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is, a Scandinavian firm?
LORD CRAIGTON: Anybody at all who is going to help the Highlands. But if my right honourable friend were giving finance to a large company, maybe in some other country, which was going to help the Highlands in their shipping services, it would be most difficult to go delving down into the books and trying to check up the use which was being made of the taxpayers' money. But there is no real difficulty in forming a separate company.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked about the position of district councils. The position is that now the county councils have power to delegate authority to
440
them. They are not in the Act to which he referred. But before one alters the position of district councils in this respect (because finance and other things come into it) one would almost require a revision of the whole structure of Scottish local government. It is not nearly as easy as it sounds to make any change there.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord agrees that he was not correct in saying that county and district councils could operate this service, or qualify for grants, because the district councils cannot?
LORD CRAIGTON: I was not going to make the point because the Scottish set-up is a little different from the English set-up. I said that county and burgh councils are included. The district councils are another limb altogether. What I said, the noble Lord can read in my speech, and it was in fact correct.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, supported us, and I am grateful for their support. I am grateful for Lord Massereene and Ferrard's constructive remarks. I noted what he said about the MacBrayne contract. It is too early to say what form the agreement will take, but I have noted his comments, especially on the freight charges. About this quarter of a million pounds, which he says will not get the Secretary of State very far, the answer is that you cannot spend all the money at once, and it is not the end, by any means. We have to negotiate before acquiring ships, and we do not want to show our hand and disclose to those with whom we might have to negotiate exactly how much money is needed. I can assure the noble Viscount that, subject to those magic words, "with the consent of the Treasury," my right honourable friend will find all the necessary money.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, asked, would I keep a friendly eye on Shetland? I can assure him that I have been looking at the situation most carefully. It is very hard indeed to know what more we can do. If there is anything we can do in Shetland, then we shall most certainly do it, and I know that the Shetlanders will do everything they can to help themselves.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GLASGOW FIRE DISASTER
3.38 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will want me to make a statement similar to that which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Your Lordships will have been greatly shocked to learn of the losses which Glasgow Fire Brigade has sustained in a major fire which broke out in a bonded warehouse in the Anderston district of the city last night. I understand that 14 members of the Brigade and five members of the Glasgow Salvage Corps lost their lives. The deepest sympathy of this House, and indeed of the whole country, will go out to their relatives in their bereavement. This disaster is a reminder of the hazards that the members of our fire brigades and salvage corps constantly face with unfailing devotion to duty. The men who were killed have given their lives in upholding the great traditions of their service.
I understand that the heavy loss of life was due primarily to a violent explosion that blew out one side of the warehouse soon after the fire started. Fire-fighting operations are still continuing, but the situation is now under control. The cause and course of the fire will, of course, be investigated in the usual way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House will echo the statement of the noble Lord the Minister. It is a very, very sad business—the loss of nineteen lives in such circumstances as they must have had to face. We think with very great sympathy of their families and their relatives. With regard to the inquiry which is proposed it is said briefly that the cause and course of the fire will, of course, be investigated in the normal way. I do not know exactly what kind of tribunal will be used in such a case, but it is significant that this is the second very large fire that has taken place in these or similar circumstances, with the same commodity, and I wonder whether some special investigation is not required. If Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied that the normal course of inquiry will bring out all the relevant
442
facts, including the possibility of undesirable action, then they may 'have to consider another tribunal. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will give his view upon that.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, under the normal procedure under which we are proceeding the fire will be investigated by the Brigade, who will furnish a report to the Fire Research Organisation which is maintained jointly by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Fire Officers' Committee. This is the third major fire in Glasgow in recent weeks. It is too soon for me to say whether there is a common factor. Should there he any evidence at all of criminal activities a report will be given to the criminal authorities.

FUTURE OF THE POST OFFICE
3.42 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may make a statement about the future of the Post Office similar to that which is being made by my right honourable Friend the Postmaster General, in another place.
The Government has decided to give practical recognition to the commercial character of the Post Office. A Command Paper which is now available in the Printed Paper Office describes how it is proposed to give effect to this.
The Government's intention is to separate the current finances of the Post Office from the Exchequer. A Statutory Trading Fund for the Post Office under the control of the Postmaster General would be set up. All Post Office receipts would be paid into it; all Post Office payments would be met out of it. The Postmaster General's power to draw on the Fund would lapse unless it were renewed each year by an Affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons.
The commercial character of the Post Office has already been recognised in some degree. These proposals will complete this process by giving the Post Office statutory recognition as a self-contained business. They will encourage the Post Office to approach the problems of organisation and management more commercially and to evince an even greater sense of enterprise in providing services which satisfy the needs of the whole community.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl: does that mean the abrogation of what is generally called the Post Office principle of trying to serve the whole of the public and not being ashamed to make losses? Because I was advised, when I was Postmaster General a long time ago, that if we had run the telephone service on strictly commercial lines there would be no telephones at all North of the Highland line. Is that a new turn-out now on commercial principles, or is that being discounted?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this would mean no such abrogation. It would mean, of course—and this is the essential difference between the Post Office if it were a private enterprise business and the Post Office as it will be—that it will have to pay regard to what we might briefly call its social obligations; but otherwise the financial structure of the Post Office seems now to be at a stage when it is better for the more simple understanding of Parliament, and indeed the better control of Parliament, to have things in this way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that answer is a very good and interesting one, but I should like to look at it in print. Perhaps I might ask one or two other points of the noble Lord the Minister. First, all Post Office employees to-day are civil servants: they are direct Government employees. Will this turning of the Post Office into what is called a "commercial concern" in any way affect their terms of employment, conditions of service and the like?
My second point has reference to what the noble Lord the Minister has just said about the control of Parliament and the like. After all the controversy that has gone on as to whether existing nationalised industries are sufficiently accountable to Parliament, is it intended by this change, to reduce the accountability of the Post Office, through Ministers, to Parliament? At present they are subject to specific questions on a day which is set apart in the other place, or at any time in your Lordships' House, when Questions can be put direct to a Minister on the Post Office. Is there to be any change in the standard of accountability to Parliament under this new debased arrangement? As I understand it, the
444
break with the Treasury means that the Post Office will not be called upon to pay surpluses into the Treasury. Is that to be understood? And if the surpluses are not to be paid into the Treasury can we look for a reduction in postal charges under this new arrangement?
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers may I put to him a supplementary question? If there should be a surplus at the end of the year will that automatically go back into Post Office funds? And if there should be a deficit, how is that to be met?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I would say that those are excellent questions. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, he has not yet had a chance to see the White Paper, but if I may I will briefly answer those questions now. So far as the status of employees and staff is concerned, they will remain civil servants, as at present, subject to exactly the same conditions of pay and so on as they have now, so that in that sense there is an exception to making the Post Office fully independent.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, this is of course a very important statement. We realise that it makes for great changes in a very considerable part of the account-keeping of the country. The admirable statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Postmaster General gives us a certain amount of information, and no doubt in the White Paper we shall get a great deal more particulars. It may be, and I believe very probably will be, that this House will wish to discuss the matter later. No doubt if that were so, Her Majesty's Government would give us facilities, should we think it desirable.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that that may be so, and I am sure no impediment would be put in the way of a discussion. In due course there will have to be legislation in this matter, and that will provide yet a further opportunity for discussion.
If I may briefly run through the provisions which noble Lords have not yet had a chance to see, apart from the annual Resolution for the Postmaster General to be able to operate the statutory fund, Parliament would have the following opportunities to authorise

445
by vote the salaries of Post Office Ministers as they normally do, which is another occasion on which matters could be debated. The Postmaster General would be under a statutory obligation to present a report and commercial accounts, which would be in greater detail than at present, and which, of course, could also be debated. The Postmaster General would also give Parliament statements on the prospects for the ensuing year, on the investment programme and plans for financing it, and on the staff employed. The commercial accounts would also be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and would be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee.
In addition, the borrowing of new capital would have to be authorised by legislation, thereby providing a further opportunity, and it is intended to provide that in future all Post Office tariffs shall be fixed by regulations subject to Negative Resolution. At present, of course, some are subject to Parliamentary control and some are not. Finally, Post Office Ministers would continue to answer questions as at present.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would those regulations for fixing prices be laid?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, they would be; they would have to be.
LORD PETHECK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I imagine also that the change would affect the Budget statement very considerably and, as such, the discussion of the Budget in another place. I take it that some chance would be given later to get the position clear from a Budgetary point of view, which no doubt we shall have to consider most carefully.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, no doubt that would be so. It will make a considerable difference, but principally I think the whole thing will be very much easier for everyone to understand. Consequently, with the various opportunities of control which I have just mentioned, it should be definitely easier for Parliament to be satisfied about the necessary controls of the Post Office finances.
There are a couple more questions about surpluses payable. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, subject to whatever it is decided the Post Office
446
will pay as equivalent to taxation to the Treasury, that surplus will be retained by the Post Office for the benefit of its own finances and its customers, for use in whatever way the surplus would permit. Similarly, if there should be a deficit it would be a matter for Post Office financial arrangements within the Post Office, but, of course, subject to Parliamentary control, to put the matter right.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask a simple question? Would it be possible for the Postmaster General to increase the charge for an ordinary letter to 4d. unless the Commons passes a Negative Resolution? It would be very difficult to find time for such a Resolution in the House of Commons.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is not quite as simple a question as that. As I understand the matter the answer is, Yes.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his valuable and interesting answers, may I put a question that was in my mind?—it has been partly answered. I assume that there will be a Postmaster General responsible for the whole of the work of the Post Office and responsible to Parliament and able to be bullied by Parliament about what he does? Is that so?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, yes. I think that, on behalf of my right honourable friend, I must regretfully say, Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it not a fact that he is authorised, unless by Negative Resolution, and he can give instructions to the Whips to see that no one can move the Resolution, in order to be a dictator?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think I should care to accept that suggestion.

GAS BILL
3.55 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

IRON AND STEEL (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LEGAL AID BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BALA TO TRAWSFYNYDD HIGHWAYS (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PAWNBROKERS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FIRST OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greenhill, who is detained in a Committee of the House, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS) BILL
3.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, this is a Money Bill which has been unanimously agreed to in another place and whose only purpose is to correct an error, or at least a probable error, in the interpretation of the War Damage Act, 1943. One of the earliest problems which the War Damage Commission had to face arose from the clearance of the "total-loss" sites. If the rubble or useless remains were removed by the local authority the owner obviously had a great advantage over an owner of a site from which the remains were not removed and who might have to pay for the removal himself. But under Section 20 of the Act the Treasury were allowed, by direction to the Commission, to ensure that Part I of the Act
448
should be applied in conformity with the public interest. It was considered by the Treasury that it was in the public interest, both as regards amenity and also in order that the sites should be ready for development as soon as possible, to have war damaged sites cleared at the earliest possible moment, and it was in the public interest that there should be equality of treatment between the claimants.
Therefore, in May, 1945, the Treasury issued a direction, under Section 20 of the Act, to the War Damage Commission enabling them to pay for the expense of clearance. That, I think everybody would agree, was the right and sensible thing to do, and at that time the Treasury were acting on what was then thought to be good legal advice. Since then the War Damage Commission have gone on acting in good faith on that advice. But lately the Commission have taken further legal advice on the subject and it appears that they have probably been acting ultra vires. This Bill puts the matter right by, first of all, revoking the Treasury direction of May, 1945, but validating all payments which have been made under its authority by the War Damage Commission; and, then, by giving statutory authority, instead of a direction, to enable the War Damage Commission to go on making such payments. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
4.0 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, in a brief and clear statement the noble Earl has laid this matter before your Lordships' House. I should like to say at the outset that this Bill passed without any opposition in the other place, and it is certainly not the intention of those who sit with me on this side to divide the House upon it. Furthermore, I think the only Party in this House which stands unscathed in the matter (if there are any scars to be owned up to) is that of our noble friends who are not at the present moment on the other side of the gangway to hear their clearance from blame. But this is a case where the Treasury, whose fiat generally runs, have been proved mistaken, not through the fault of some individual but through the advice they

449
received. We are obliged to realise that in this case Homer has nodded; because it appears that the direction is considered to-day, at any rate to have been ultra vires, and that everything done under it could therefore be challenged. It is not very likely that anyone would make that claim; but, at any rate, that is the opinion of the highest legal authorities in the matter at the present time, and we are bound to accept that view.
When the, first decision was made, the Caretaker Government was in office, but a very short time afterwards the Government of my noble friend Lord Attlee came into power. During all those years, and during the period of office of the Government of the present day (which, over the years, has undergone various metamorphoses) the mistake, if it was such, was never discovered, and it is only a short time ago that it came to light. No one ever likes retrospective legislation, and I think that view is held equally by all Members of this House. However, in this case retrospective legislation seems to be justified, in my opinion at any rate, and the best thing has happened: those responsible for the present position have owned up to the mistake that was made and in the circumstances have come to the two Houses of Parliament for pardon and asked us to pass this Bill. In view of those facts, I certainly have no wish to say anything against the Bill, and my noble friends sitting with me here make no objection to its passage into law.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended saying anything, but I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions about this Bill. Who is this legal genius who has discovered that, after fifteen years of operation of the War Damage Act, everything that has been done in those fifteen years is illegal? When was it discovered, and who discovered it? And are the Government quite sure that they are right now? I myself am not satisfied that they have been acting illegally. I do not profess to pit my legal views against the high legal opinion that the Government seem to have, but, having read Section 20, I am not satisfied that they have been acting illegally, or that the Bill is really necessary. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain where the Government, whichever
450
Government it was, have gone legally wrong.
Then, could the noble Earl say how much money has been paid out illegally? And can he also tell us what change the Bill makes in future procedure? In my view, they are going on exactly as they have been going on. They are going to make the same kind of payments in future as they have made in the past, though presumably not under the shadow of illegality. I should be interested to know whether anyone has ever complained about the illegality of this procedure; whether any claimant or other person has come forward and said that the Government are acting ultra vires; or whether this is being done in the interests of the purity and sanctity of legal procedure.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that was a pretty fast over. I shall do my best to try to take all six balls at once, if I can, but I may not, perhaps, satisfy the noble Lord altogether in doing so. The first question was: who was the genius who originally gave this legal advice?
LORD SILKIN: No. Who discovered that this was ultra vires?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Who discovered that it was wrong? That was the next question, surely. Never mind. I was going to say that I did not know who gave the legal advice, and that my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons, when he was asked by Mr. Chuter Ede [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 617 (No. 58), col. 1302]
"… how high in the judicial system the person who gave the original ruling has now reached",
replied:
"I cannot give the right honourable Gentleman an answer to that question …".
And obviously I cannot either.
The next question was when it was discovered. It was discovered in 1958, when the Commission obtained fresh legal advice on the subject. After that, everybody agreed that it would be a good thing to have legislation, but this has apparently been the earliest moment at which time could be found for the legislation to be introduced. A much more interesting question, I think, was the

451
noble Lord's third one: am I quite sure that this is necessary and that the legal advice given in 1945 was in fact wrong? That question has also occurred to me, my Lords. So far as I know, there has never been any case in the courts about this—if there has been I am not aware of it. I do not think there has ever been any legal decision; and, not being an authority on the interpretation of law, I do not think I could tell your Lordships authoritatively that the advice given in 1945 was wrong. All I would say is that one usually prefers more recent advice to older advice—and, surely, it is better to be on the safe side. Obviously, it cannot do any harm to make sure that what is being done is legal, if there is any doubt on the subject, and the legal advice which was received in 1958 throws at least very serious doubts on the legality of the action that has been taken since 1945.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, before he leaves that point—this is quite fascinating—can tell us what led the Commission to ask for additional legal advice in connection with a procedure which they had been operating for thirteen years quite happily. It is purely a matter of curiosity, but one likes to know why they should suddenly want additional legal advice.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I suppose they felt doubtful about it; or it may have been that some bright person outside suggested it to them. At any rate, they got this advice in 1958. The final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was: what difference will the Bill make? He said that they will go on taking this action. So they will. The difference is that it will now be done by statutory authority, by an Act of Parliament, instead of by Treasury direction. Therefore there is no doubt whatever about its legality.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, ask one further question arising out of the noble Earl's reply? He told us just now that this was discovered in 1958. If that is correct, and if the Commission's advice, therefore, was that they had been acting illegally up to the middle of 1958, or whenever it was, did they cease acting in that way during the year and some months that have elapsed from that time, or have they been acting on
452
a direction which they themselves thought to be incorrect?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Treasury authorised them to go on doing this in the knowledge that Parliament would put matters right, as it was generally agreed we ought to do; and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has pointed out, there is no final legal authority for saying that it was in fact illegal. It is only because we think our modern advice is superior to the advice which was received by the Treasury in 1945.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Faringdon. What gave rise to this being questioned at all? The Government had been paying out quite happily, and no one had complained.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I certainly do not know, and I do not think it matters in the least how it was found out. The fact is that it was found out and that new legal advice was asked for and given.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by Mr. Marcus Kimball, the Member for Gainsborough. There, broadly speaking, it had the blessing of Her Majesty's Government, who gave considerable help in the drafting, and it passed through its stages "on the nod". I hope that your Lordships will find it equally uncontroversial. It is one of a series of gaming law Bills with which your Lordships have been dealing in recent years, the one that took the longest having been the Scottish Deer Bill. The background of all these Bills is the same. The game laws are, to some extent and in certain respects, out of date. There is big money in poaching nowadays: that leads to gang poaching; and that, in turn, leads to considerable cruelty. All these Bills, as I say, have come forward with that sort of background.

453
This present Bill amends in certain particulars the Night Poaching Act, 1828, the Game Act, 1831, and the Prevention of Poaching Act, 1862. I should say at the beginning that this Bill does not increase or decrease the present powers of a landowner or gamekeeper. The two main things that it does are to increase certain powers of police constables, to bring them into line with similar powers held by a landowner or a gamekeeper (it may surprise some of your Lordships to hear that these particular powers of a police constable are much less than similar powers of a landowner or gamekeeper), and to increase the penalties for poaching, to bring them into line with the modern value of money. I think that is all I need say generally, and I will quite quickly go through the clauses of the Bill drawing to the attention of your Lordships those matters that I think need stressing.
Clause 1 gives the police constable additional powers of challenge and, if necessary, of apprehension of a poacher. These new powers are, in fact, the powers held by the landowner or the gamekeeper at the present time. Under the existing law a police constable can challenge and apprehend a poacher only on the highway. In these days of cars and quick getaways those powers are not adequate for a police constable. Subsection (3) makes clear beyond a peradventure that these additional powers of arrest in no way affect the existing powers of arrest which a police constable has under the Prevention of Offences Act, 1851.
Clause 2 gives a police constable power of entry on to land to carry oat the duties he has been given in Clause 1. Alt the present time a police constable may enter on to land in pursuit of poachers (except in certain rare and unusual circumstances, with which I need not bother your Lordships) only if he is going to the assistance of a landowner or a gamekeeper. As we have given him these new powers of apprehension, it is considered necessary that he should be able to enter on Ito land in the same way as anyone else having these powers. Subsection (2) extends the power of entry for a police constable on to Crown Land and on to the private property of Her Majesty: and after the Third Reading in another place Her Majesty gave approval to the details of this Bill. Subsection (3), I can tell your Lordships at
454
this stage, is not quite correctly worded. I believe that there will be a Government drafting Amendment put down on the Committee stage, and this will make the subsection mean what I am going to tell your Lordships now it does mean. This subsection takes away the power of entry of a police constable in the case of land owned or managed by the Service Departments, by the Minister of Aviation or by the Atomic Energy Authority; and that is on security grounds.
Clause 3 is the amendment of the Poaching (Prevention) Act, 1862., in so far so the provisions as to seizure and forfeiture of game, or what I may roughly term "poachers' gear," are concerned. It deals with the powers of the court as regards seizure and forfeiture. What we are really doing by subsection (2) is to alter the definition of what can be seized and forfeited. Under the Act of 1862, when we were still in the era of muzzle-loading guns, ammunition and cartridges were not included as things that could be seized and forfeited. These have now been included in the poacher's gear. In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) we have brought the wording of what is poachers' gear up to date. The old definition of 100 years ago was a little misleading. It referred to nets or engines and various other things, and an engine at that period evidently meant something different from what it does now.
By subsection (3) we are altering the powers of the court as to forfeiture of game or gear seized. Under the present law, when a prosecution is brought under the Act of 1862 the court has no option, if there is a conviction, but to order that the game and gear be forfeited; and it then has to be sold by auction. What we are doing by this subsection is to make the forfeiture of these things discretionary by the court and not compulsory. The reason for that is that in the last few years there have been a considerable number of cases where the poacher's gun has, in fact, been stolen by the poacher and the police have known who is the rightful owner. Under the law as it stands at present, the gun has had to be forfeited by order of the court; it has then gone up to auction, and if the rightful owner wanted his gun back he had to go and bid for it. By this subsection we make forfeiture discretionary on the court. Presumably,

455
the gun will in most cases still be forfeited, but where it is known to be stolen, and where the proper owner is known, the court need not order forfeiture and the gun can be handed back directly to its proper owner.
Subsection (4) is, to some extent, a tidying-up. Under Clause 3 we have already dealt with new provisions as to forfeiture and seizure under the Act of 1862. Clause 4 provides that if the prosecution is brought under the Acts of 1828 or 1931 the same provisions shall apply to the court as regards forfeiture and seizure as they did in Clause 3. The only special subsection I draw to your Lordships' attention is subsection (5). It is necessary in this clause to have a definition of what constitutes "game". So far as possible we have retained the same definition as in the earlier Acts, with two exceptions. The Act of 1862 included in the definition of "game" the eggs of game birds. This is much more satisfactorily dealt with now under the Protection of Birds Act, 1954. So as to make certain that the sale of eggs is dealt with under that Act (which has a much better procedure) and all the eggs are dealt with we have, as it were, taken the eggs out of this definition of "game."
The only other point in this subsection to which I draw your Lordships' attention is the word "bustard". Personally, I have never seen a bustard, but they still exist and they are adequately protected under the Protection of Birds Act, 1954. In the ordinary way, they would have been taken out of this definition of "game", but by the Act of 1954 the Act of 1831 was amended and the bustard was deleted from the list of game birds. Owing to some oversight, those responsible forgot to delete it from the Night Poaching Act, 1828, so that now, in law, a bustard, poor bird, is game by night and not by day. It does not particularly matter whether it is or is not left in this definition in this Bill, but on balance, and to save any lawyer's arguments in the future, it was considered advisable to leave it in. If anyone does go on poaching a bustard, I think it is almost certain that he will be dealt with under the Act of 1954, and not under these Acts.
Clause 5 increases the penalties for poaching in accordance with the modern value of money. This seems common
456
form in all amending Acts, on almost all subjects, where the original penalties were settled a long time ago; and these penalties were settled 100 years ago. What, in fact, this alteration means is this. At the present time an ordinary poacher—I say "ordinary" as opposed to a gang of poachers—can be fined up to a maximum of £2, however often the offence has been committed. That figure is now to be increased to £20. Where there is a gang of poachers—and this means five or more poachers working together—the maximum present penalty is £5 a head. This is now to be increased to £50 a head. I do not think I need say anything to your Lordships about Clause 6, which is self-explanatory. I think this Bill will help the hands of authority in dealing with the poaching question. I commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now be read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
4.24 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I was surprised in this year of Grace 1960, to find a poaching Bill coming before Parliament. One would have thought that in the long history of the rural parts of this country practically every stress and every sanction that could be put upon a poacher would have been put upon him. We have known for many years that in the rural parts of the country nothing aroused more upset than the question of poaching. Those who did poach and were caught 100 years ago, and more, got very short shrift indeed, and generally found themselves packed off to other parts of the world for their pains.
I personally, having perhaps traditionally more sympathy with the poacher than with the gamekeeper, would look with some doubt on this Bill to-day, were it not for two facts. I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned one of them and it is an important fact—that is to say, that the traditional poacher no longer exists. The poacher of 100 years ago was generally a man whose family had very little protein in their diet and were never able to afford butcher's meat: the only meat they could get was the meat they took from somebody else's land. As in many cases this land had belonged to the public and had been, by Act of Parliament, or even without Act of Parliament, gathered into the demesne of the local squire or local landowner,

457
very often the villagers felt that it was no crime whatsoever to relieve him of a rabbit, a hare or a partridge, as the case might be. Even in my own boyhood I remember the villagers not far from my own home going out and smashing down fences of the local noble landowner whose agent, without any authority whatsoever, had suddenly decided that a piece of the common would be more properly within his property than existing as a common, as it had done for many hundreds if not thousands of years.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to-day the change is important, owing to the fact that poaching nowadays is a highly organised industry, and people go out with vans and lorries, and even sub-machine guns, and shoot down the unfortunate deer or game. This practice, of course, must be stopped—there is no question about that. I, for one, welcome this portion of the Bill which enables the police officers to go on other people's land. The noble Lord said we should be surprised to hear that it was not in the Act of 1828 that a police officer could go on to land without permission. I should rather be surprised if there were, as there was no such thing as a police force in 1828: there were village constables, but no police force. It would be surprising indeed if we found that police officers were permitted in 1828 to go on to the land.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did not say that noble Lords might be surprised to learn that it was not in the Act, but that they might be surprised to learn it if they had not read the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has obviously done.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I feel certain that, on any question affecting land and game, all noble Lords here this afternoon will have read the Bill. Usually, noble Lords in this House are very careful, and rightly so of course, about anything that affects the rural community.
One point which I think has not been made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but which I think has some bearing on the Bill, is the fact that it appears that some of the virus diseases which are so prevalent in the countryside are carried by poachers. This is only suspected, because, of course, we do not know much about foot-and-mouth disease and
458
possibly anthrax, and, also this new disease affecting foxes. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, speaking for the Government, or in his more personal capacity, can give us any information about this disease. Whether we believe in hunting or not—and people hold differing views about that—I think we should all deplore the departure from our countryside of that beautiful animal, the fox. Many foxes are being afflicted with this terrible disease, which is not only a killing disease but a very painful one, too.
There are only two other points I have to make on the Bill; they are minor points. The first is that I do not know why the blessings of this Bill should not be vouchsafed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air, and the Minister of Aviation. After all, if Her Majesty the Queen's lands can be entered upon by a policeman in search of poachers why should not these gentlemen's lands be entered also? The noble Lord cannot tell me that it is so dangerous, that their lands are per se so dangerous, that it is highly dangerous for a policeman to go on to land where a poacher has already gone. I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, should have included subsection (3). I admit that I see some cause for caution with regard to the fourth one, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, if any poacher has the temerity to go on to an atomic station, should there be any game there—and even the game must be suspect round an atomic station—we can hardly expect a police constable to risk his life in this dangerous surrounding. However, I do not think that consideration applies to the other three, and perhaps the noble Lord might consider on the Committee stage giving them the same benefit as the rest of the community.
The other point is on Clause 5; that is the increase in the fines. When my noble friend Lord Swaythling introduced a Bill a week or so ago to your Lordships' House in order to increase various fines before the magistrates and petty sessions he was told by the Government that it was not desirable to do this; that in fact Bills should not be introduced piecemeal to increase fines, and that the Government, in due course, when it felt so inclined, would bring in

459
a general Bill whereby fines generally would be increased to bring the present fines into some relation to the present value of money. Why is there any difference between this Bill and that of Lord Swaythling? Why has the Government given its blessing to this provision? There may be a perfectly good explanation, but I should like to know what it is. Why is the Government prepared in this case to make a piecemeal increase in fines relating to the offences covered by this Bill? If I could have these questions answered—and I am sure they will be, either by the noble Lord or by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government—I shall be quite happy to give my support to this Bill.
4.33 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, this Bill has my entire sympathy, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the poacher is certainly by no means extinct. He may not be the traditional figure he was 100 years ago, but he still exists. The only point I would question is on subsection (5) of Clause 4, which concerns the inclusion of rabbits in the definition of "game". I believe (and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong) that it is now compulsory, at any rate theoretically, for any landowner to destroy rabbits that exist on his land. In fact, of course, it is quite impossible for any landowner to do so, for it would mean keeping an enormous staff who would be doing practically nothing except search for rabbits. However since it is theoretically compulsory, I wonder whether it is not rather a mistake to make rabbits more or less protected under this law. I think possibly it might be a good thing to leave those out.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I live at some distance from London and it may not be possible for me to be present at the Committee stage. Therefore I would take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, whether he will tell us why he has used the word "snipes" in subsection (5) of Clause 4. The Oxford English Dictionary says the collective plural is usually "snipe". There may be some special reasons for taking this unusual course on this occasion, but I am sure we shall all be glad to hear what they are.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, or the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, could hold out any hope that these provisions will be applied to Scotland? I know it would mean a certain amount of change in the various enactments mentioned, but I think it would be a great benefit were such a thing possible.
4.37 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, we have had a great many surprises in the course of to-day in your Lordships' House, but I am certain that among those surprises this Bill was not one. We noticed on the list of speakers that there would be only two speakers and myself, but, needless to say, your Lordships have not failed this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that the Bill went through "on the nod" in another place. Such is the disciplinary power of the Whips on both sides of the House, and especially on Her Majesty's Government side of the House, I fancy, in view of the composition of the Front Bench, this Bill went through "on the nod."
With the somewhat different methods whereby this sort of business is transacted in your Lordships' House, it was obvious that there could be a poacher's friend in your Lordships' House. My noble friend and I were trying to work out who exactly would be the first poacher's friend to speak in your Lordships' House, and I must admit that it was a great surprise to find that so respectable a person as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, should be the one to claim that honour. I am sure that there will be people up and down the country who are most grateful for the words he spoke. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord SoM̃ers, can assure the noble Lord there are still many of the traditional poachers left, and would be only too pleased to introduce him to any number of them in the course of a week-end.
The bird, the bustard, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in the course of introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House, and my noble friend, who is a great expert in these matters, informed me that this bird lives particularly in Spain. He has seen many. There the method of catching him is by more or less running him into the ground with a small aeroplane. Whether, should such

461
a sport be started in this country, it would be classified as sport or poaching, whether by day or night, I do not know.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is mistaken. I think that that is the great bustard.
EARL BATHURST: The only one I have seen was certainly a very big bird indeed. I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, would be the first to admit, along with his friends in another place, that this is a modest Bill and it deals with only certain considerations among the many of the game laws that are existing. The noble Lord said that they are out of date. Most of them were brought to the Statute Book a hundred years ago. Yet there is an interesting factor: that in the midst of all the increases of crime we hear about (except, possibly, some of those crimes that we heard mentioned the other day, such as cursing and swearing in public places and so forth), the crime of poaching, at least on the evidence of the criminal statistics, has in fact decreased very remarkably. In 1958 the number of persons dealt with summarily for poaching or unlawful possession of game was 1,478 compared with an average of 2,324 during the years 1935 to 1939. In the years 1930 to 1934 apparently the average was 3,000 cases in the course of the year.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether that includes salmon poaching?
EARL BATHURST: No, I do not think it does. I think that this is purely poaching for game, as described under these various Acts of a hundred years ago. I am certain that salmon do not come into the noble Lord's Bill.
We have heard described by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that poaching is no longer the sort of
"… my delight of a shiny night in the season of the year"—
the Lincolnshire poacher's concept. To-day it is a highly organised profession—a man with a very fast motor car, with watchers out to "tip him off" if police or keepers arrive. Automatic, pump action, 22 guns, with silencers, are all now part of the "engines of poaching" as they are called in the old Acts. Nevertheless, it is true, as the noble Lords,
462
Lord Ogmore and Lord SoM̃ers, have said, that old poachers exist, and in the words I have here it is certain that my noble friend is not out to deal to-day with the isolated local poacher "sneaking the odd rabbit". I do not think that as Home Office terminology that would be quite correct, and I understand that at a later stage in your Lordships' House there will be Amendments dealing with the question of rabbits. I think probably to-day the more practical terminology would be "knocking off the odd tame pheasant", which is really what in fact happens.
With regard to the point the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised, there is no difference to-day in a policeman being able to go on to somebody's land to stop and to prevent stealing and killing of poultry, which he was able to do, compared with going on to somebody's land to stop the stealing and killing of game. That is really the object of this Bill. This Bill does not attempt to bring up to date all the existing Game Laws—that would be quite impossible. It does, however, sharpen the teeth of the law and make it easier for those teeth of the law—that is, the policemen—to bite. I must mention the police. So far as they are concerned, I am certain that they will find it a useful Bill. It will help them to give better protection to the rights of landowners. But to avoid any misunderstanding or possible misconstruction of the effect of the Bill, I ought to make it clear that it does not mean that the police can be called upon to act as what might be called auxiliary gamekeepers. That is not the purpose of my noble friend's Bill. The police have many other preoccupations, and chief officers of police would not, I am sure, consent to any possibility of their forces being diverted from their usual duties for the special protection of private game rights, and I do not believe that landowners generally would expect them to do so. But perhaps it is as well that this position should be made quite clear to your Lordships. What I think that this part of the Bill will do is to give the police more effective means of carrying out their general duty to enforce the law.
My Lords, I have said that this is a modest Bill. It is a Bill in regard to which help has been given by the Government draftsman to the friends in

463
another place of my noble friend who introduced it; and if your Lordships feel able to pass it, it may well make a helpful contribution to the enforcement of the law of this country.
4.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, rises to reply, I wish to rise to support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in his question about Scotland. I can speak to-day as a completely disinterested person. At one time I was the owner of land in Scotland, but am no longer. It seems to me surprising that this Bill does not include Scotland in its provisions. If I may put the noble Viscount's question in another way: can anyone, either the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill or the spokesman for the Government, give us the answer as to why Scotland is not included?
4.45 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps I may answer one or two questions that have been put—first of all those of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I think that he has had most of his questions answered, except the one about Government land. There will be a small Amendment—a Government Amendment, I am told—on the next stage of the Bill. The reason why the police officer is not given complete powers of entry is on security grounds; but it will be made clear by the new wording that he will be able to go in on invitation. I think that is as far as I personally can go, because this is a Government point. I think they are probably right on security grounds. I believe the noble Lord had all his other questions answered by my noble friend in front. Is that correct?
LORD OGMORE: The noble Earl did not answer me about foxes, but possibly he does not know the answer to that.
LORD DERWENT: That is really outside the terms of the Bill. The point of my noble friend Lord SoM̃ers about rabbits is being dealt with on another
464
stage. As a result of the Bill, I think I can safely say that the Government draftsman has now so arranged the Amendments that rabbits will be game when they are meant to be game, and will be a pest when they are meant to be a pest; but we shall see those Amendments on the Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh does not like "snipes." I am afraid that he must go back to the old Acts of Parliament dealing with this, when they did like "snipes." I am always told by Parliamentary lawyers that to alter for the sake of altering the wording in an old Act leads to endless litigation; and "snipes", I understand, is the old word.
Then we come to the question asked by my noble friends Lord Colville of Culross and Lord Buckinghamshire: why the Bill cannot be extended to Scotland. I think we do not want it extended to Scotland. Let me explain why. Obviously, something as good as this we should not grudge to Scotland; but Scottish law, Scottish customs and Scottish outlook are somewhat different from those in England and Wales. Scotland has for that reason always liked to have her own game laws, and Scotland started amending her game laws before England did. I think that, on balance, for those reasons, and for one other reason, it would be wiser not to include Scotland. The other point is that this Bill has been generally welcomed, except by game poachers (I do not think it will worry the individual poacher, like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and myself), in England and Wales, but I am advised that the welcome is by no means so general in Scotland. I am told that there might be considerable opposition by certain Scottish people to its extension to Scotland. So far as I am concerned, it is therefore most unwise to try to include Scotland in the Bill, because I might lose the whole Bill. I think that really is the case against including Scotland, and I hope that noble Lords will not press that matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.