Lords Sitting of 14 December 1961

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
"I thank you for your loyal and affectionate greetings on my return from my visit to West Africa. The enthusiastic welcome which my husband and I received from the Commonwealth member countries of Ghana and Sierra Leone, and from the Gambia and from Liberia and Senegal, touched us deeply. We were both moved and delighted to see for ourselves something of the great and diverse developments which are taking place in these countries. We were also happy to note the degree to which my people in the United Kingdom are contributing to these developments."

PRICES OF FAT CATTLE AND BEEF
LORD WALSTON: 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 what have been the percentage changes in the monthly average prices of fat cattle since January 1, 1961, and the percentage changes over the same period in the retail price of beef; and further, what were the total sums paid to farmers as deficiency payments on fat cattle during that period, and during the corresponding period of 1960.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, with
418
permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information about monthly average prices for cattle. Taking January, 1961, as 100, they show a steady decline from about 105 for March to about 72 for July, and a gradual recovery thereafter to about 89 for November. Prices are, of course, normally lower in the summer and autumn months, and higher in the winter and early spring. In answer to the second part of the question, I cannot give exactly comparable figures for retail beef prices, because the published index of retail prices does not contain an item for beef alone. The index gives a figure for meat including bacon, and during the period January to October the retail price fell by 7 per cent.
In answer to the third part of the question, I would say that in the period January to November the total sums paid under the guarantee on cattle were £43·74 million in 1961, and £8·87 million in 1960. The higher expenditure this year reflects not only lower market prices, but also larger numbers of home-produced cattle and the higher rate of guarantee awarded at the last Review.
Following are tile figures referred to in the foregoing Answer:

U.K. monthly average prices for fat cattle certified for guarantee

Comparison based on January 1961=100

January

100

February

98·9

March

104·6

April

102·7

May

94·9

June

81·4

July

72·4

August

75·4

September

81·7

October

83·8

November

88·7

LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive, or fairly comprehensive, Answer to my Question, but I should like to ask him this supplementary question. In view of the fact that there has been this staggering increase in the deficiency payment of something over five times the amount in the previous year, coupled with the fact that there has been a very considerable decline in the price paid in markets to the farmer, is he satisfied with the fact that the decline in price for meat as a whole has been so very small and, in particular, as I think most people who actually have to pay for beef know, that

419
beef prices have, if anything, gone up and have not fallen at all? In view of that, will he not agree that the present method of deficiency payment, which is costing the taxpayer so much, is failing completely in its first purpose of giving confidence to the farmer (because he realises that these deficiency payments cannot keep on indefinitely), and in its second and possibly more important purpose of reducing the price to the consumer? And, that being so, will he not give an undertaking that he and his colleagues will seriously reconsider the whole system of deficiency payments in meat marketing?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, that was a somewhat long supplementary question. It is not possible to generalise about retail prices, which vary according to the quantity and quality of different cuts of meat in different parts of the country and at different times. They also depend to a certain extent on the pricing policy of individual butchers. But there have been, as I said before, substantial falls throughout the country in the retail prices. The noble Lord went on to ask whether I would agree that the deficiency payment system had failed. I would agree with no such thing. I think that it would be quite unjustifiable, because this year there was a high deficiency payment, to throw the whole scheme out, when it is doing what it is designed to do: to give a guarantee to the farmers to supplement possible low market prices.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Earl aware, my Lords, that the Answer he has given shows that from March to July the price of fat cattle dropped by over one-third, the retail price of meat dropped not at all and the additional cost to the taxpayer was £35 million, for which the consumers got no benefit at all? In those circumstances, and having regard to the fact that I myself have frequently pointed to a similar situation with regard to other guaranteed commodities, how can the noble Earl possibly stand at the Box and say to my noble friend that the present system of support prices is justified and he does not propose to discuss with his right honourable friend abandoning the system? Does it not mean that the
420
Government are squandering the taxpayers' money without benefit to the farmer, without benefit to the consumer—merely to inflate the profits of the middle men?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords, those are not the facts. The noble Lord said that the consumer had not benefited at all. The retail price index shows that the meat retail price has fallen in the period, January to October, by 7 per cent. That is not "nothing at all". I have some figures from an individual chain of shops, which show that retail prices have fallen very considerably, especially for the cheaper cuts. I have nothing further to add.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Earl undertake that his Ministry would inquire into the retail prices of beef over the last twelve months and report to the House?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the figures of the retail prices of a large number of items are known to the Government. The Ministry of Labour collect information about prices for all goods and services, including beef. But what I explained to your Lordships is that individual items collected for the purpose of compiling the retail index are not disclosed.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is about time that we disclosed them individually, if the subsidy is given on an individual item of food? Quite clearly, individual figures must exist, otherwise the Ministry of Labour would not be able to produce a comprehensive index for meat. They must know the index for beef separately, and I would suggest that they should be willing to disclose it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the question of the disclosure and the publication of individual items of the index of retail prices does not fall to me to answer. I should need notice of that question, and then it would not be for me to answer it. That is all that I can say in reply to that question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I take it that in the ordinary course the Government will be reconsidering the whole position

421
before the Review of prices next February; and would not the Government take into consideration that when beef on the hoof falls to 105s. to 102s. per cwt. there is very little difference in the retail price? If we are to have a standard price to farmers, then we ought to have a reasonable standard price to the consumers, and does that not mean proper control of prices to consumers, as they are controlled to farmers?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, of course these matters are all taken into consideration. I think that we should not view this matter with too much pessimism. The noble Viscount is correct in saying that prices fell in July to about 100s. a cwt., but I am glad to say that they are recovering now. As a matter of fact, the latest figures I have are something in the nature of 134s. a cwt., which is very little different from what they were at this time last year. Of course, these facts will be taken into consideration in connection with the next Annual Review of Prices.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, if it is right for the Government to reconsider the position and the whole policy before the next Price Review, would it not also perhaps be reasonable for the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his hostility to the Common Market?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will be glad to pass that on to the Farmers' Union. They will enjoy it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may revert to beef prices once again, the noble Earl is doubtless well aware that the International Labour Review publishes from time to time retail prices of different cuts of meat and other foodstuffs in certain countries, including our own country. In order to allay any suspicion that there may be that there is an attempt to mask the issue with regard to beef, would he not provide us at some future date with figures culled from this source, if from no other, showing in fact how the seasonal changes have taken place in regard to items of meat—for example, sirloin of beef without bone, which is one of the figures actually published in the Review.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put down a specific Question I will try to give a specific Answer. But I am sure he would not expect me to carry these sort of figures in my head. The prices of beef are substantially lower in this country than in most other European countries.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether his Department investigated the evidence which was produced by the B.B.C. and the Observer of a beast being sold in the market for £58 and in a butcher's shop for £123, and was that found to be accurate? And what are the noble Earl's comments on that?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, without having notice of that question, I cannot say whether that particular story was investigated or whether we were asked to investigate it, but I will find out.

"PAY-AS-YOU-VIEW" TELEVISION
3.20 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: 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, in view of the prospective development of "pay as you view "television and the possible availability of a separate channel for this purpose, to indicate how far the Post Office is technically equipped to provide such a service, and whether any investigations have been conducted to ascertain the extent to which "pay as you view" television facilities could be linked with the telephone service.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord has based his questions on the prospective development of "pay as you view". But the number and type of television programmes for the future awaits consideration in the light of the Report of the Pilkington Committee. This is expected in the spring. It would be premature to conduct specific investigations as to methods of provision at this time.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but, while

423
allowing for the fact of the sitting of the Pilkington Committee, and their possible recommendations, I should like to ask him, whether the Post Office is at this moment technically fitted to undertake such a service with regard to programmes. My question is now a direct one: and it is, quite simply, whether or not the Post Office is fitted to undertake such a service.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to technical skill, then the answer is, Yes; but if he is asking whether it can be undertaken without either cutting into capital and manpower resources, the answer is, No.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has quite answered my noble friend's question. If I might put it again, it was: Is the Post Office in possession of equipment; is it in possession of the necessary technical knowledge of this particular type of project to be able, without perhaps too great cost, to put on a "pay as you view" programme, or facilities for it? Furthermore, has the Post Office made the information on this subject available to the Pilkington Committee?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it may be that I was mistaken, or it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was mistaken, but I do not think his noble friend in fact referred to the possession of technical equipment. Technical equipment the Post Office does not at the moment possess; technical know-how it does possess. I understand that the technical problems concerned in such a development would not be very great, but they would be very costly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will kindly read the Question he will see that he was specifically asked to indicate
"… how far the Post Office is technically equipped to provide such a service …"
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with all respect to noble Lords opposite and to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, I think I have answered the Question; in fact, I think I have answered it twice. The equipment necessary to introduce such a service is
424
not available; the know-how for developing such a service is available.
LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Lord has told us—for which we are much obliged—that the Post Office possesses the know-how, such as technical knowledge. I understand that the Government do not wish to make up their mind before they receive the Pilkington Report; but, policy considerations aside, are we to take it that it would be practicable for the Post Office to do this?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my impression is that I have also answered that question. It would be technically possible; it would be also very expensive, and it might mean either adding to the Vote of the Post Office or cutting into the available manpower and capital resources.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, mention has been made of the expense of operating such a service. Am I right in thinking that the Post Office would have special facilities with regard to the collection of such personal fees that were paid which would not be available to the private operator in this particular field?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want ever to be evasive, but that seems to me to be a very different question. If the question of installing such a service must be left to the Pilkington Committee's recommendations, then surely the methods of collecting fees must also be left to them.

BOMBS FOR UNITED NATIONS IN KATANGA
3.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: 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 what reply, if any, they have received from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the representations and the request for clarification made by them with reference to the supply of bombs to the United Nations for use in Katanga; and whether they have any statement to make on the present position.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE:) My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, a request was made to us by the United Nations for 24 1,000-lb. bombs for use by Canberra aircraft. We were reluctant to accede to this request, since it did not seem to us that bombs of this type would be appropriate for defensive action, but an appeal was made to us on the ground that United Nations troops were in danger from attack by "pirate" aircraft and that heavy bombs were needed to destroy these aircraft on the ground. We therefore agreed on December 7 to supply these bombs, subject to the assurance given in the Secretary-General's letter of December 8, which I quoted to your Lordships the day before yesterday and which stated
"I should like to confirm the assurance previously given you by the United Nations Secretariat that these bombs will only be used in preventive action undertaken in self defence confined to aircraft used for military purposes in the Congo".
We were a little surprised to find, after our agreement to supply the bombs for this defensive action, that we were not asked to deliver them for another eight days, and were greatly concerned both by the nature of the fighting in Katanga, and by the alleged statements of United Nations personnel in the Congo, some of which have since been corrected, which appeared to be inconsistent with the Secretary-General's assurances. We therefore thought it right to express our concern to the Secretary-General and to inquire once more as to the purpose of the United Nations action in Katanga; and I am glad to say that he decided to withdraw his request for the bombs in a letter to our Representative at the United Nations. I am sure that Your Lordships will agree that the Secretary-General's action was both courteous and considerate. It was agreed that this letter should be published simultaneously in London and New York at 4 p.m. yesterday by our time, which is of course 11 a.m. by New York time, and I was therefore unable to refer to it when answering the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, at 2.45 p.m. yesterday, but I arranged for copies of the letter to be handed to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, at 4 o'clock.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government find it difficult to understand the recent course of military events in the light of
426
the Acting Secretary-General's assurance that the objectives of the United Nations forces are to restore freedom of their communications and to defend themselves. Attacks have been reported against industrial installations and on other civilian targets which do not in the Government's view appear to fall within the Secretary-General's definition. In these circumstances the Government feel that it is essential that a cease-fire should be brought about as soon as possible and that it is the duty of the United Nations to bring about at the earliest possible moment an end to hostilities and a return to the path of conciliation and negotiations.
They have therefore called on the Acting Secretary-General to secure an immediate cease-fire in the Katanga, in the hope that this will create conditions in which, in a united Congo, a peaceful and just basis for co-operation may be negotiated. In reply to these representations, the Secretary-General has decided to lay our request before the United Nations Advisory Committee on the Congo, which is expected to meet to-morrow afternoon. In taking this action the Government have noted the Acting Secretary-General's own references to reconciliation and have assured him of their readiness to assist in bringing about a cease-fire and a very early meeting between the central Government and Mr. Tshombe.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the very full reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that this shows extraordinary weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in having agreed to supply these bombs on December 7 and then, within a few hours, arguing with the United Nations Secretariat as to whether or not the bombs should be delivered. Was not the time for satisfying themselves as to the conditions under which they should be used, before they agreed to supply them, and not afterwards? Secondly, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in fact, these same bombs are not going to be provided by Canada and India? Further, could the noble Earl give us the terms of this courteous and considerate communication from the United Nations? I was under the impression that I had seen it. If that is the communication, it was very abrupt indeed, and I thought

427
that the United Nations, or the Secretariat, were somewhat displeased with ourselves—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Good!
LORD SILKIN: —and were giving us up as a bad job. May I further ask the noble Earl whether he regards the question of the cease-fire simply as a matter for the United Nations? Having agreed that the United Nations went into Katanga for self-defence, is it for them to say that they will cease fire without any agreement on the part of Mr. Tshombe and the Katangan people? This is surely a matter which must be negotiated on both sides, and should not be a unilateral decision. Finally, could the noble Earl give us the exact date when he received the communication from the United Nations Secretariat?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be kind enough to help me in trying to recapitulate the six or seven supplementaries which he has asked. With regard to the last question, I think I have already given the date on which the reply was received. I had it yesterday morning, and it was agreed that it should be released simultaneously at 11 a.m. New York time, which is 4 o'clock our time. I arranged for a copy to be given to the noble Lord at that hour because the question which he asked me was an hour and a half too early to enable me to refer to it.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, had the answer already been received at 2.30 yesterday—was it received before that time?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I have said that already. It was received by us with an agreement, a stipulation, that it should be released simultaneously in London and in New York, and we had to observe that condition.
LORD SILKIN: Therefore, the noble Earl was aware of this answer at the time that he was making the Answer to the Question?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Did not the noble Lord understand that from my original Answer?
LORD SILKIN: No.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then may I read it again? I am sorry, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this kind of thing. I said:
"It was agreed that this letter should be published simultaneously in London and New York at 4 p.m. yesterday by our time, which is of course 11 a.m. by New York time, and I was therefore unable to refer to it when answering the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, at 2.45 p.m. yesterday, but I arranged for copies of the letter to be handed to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rea"
soon after 4 o'clock. Surely the noble Lord understood that? Also, I mentioned it privately to him earlier this afternoon.
Another of the noble Lord's supplementaries was whether these bombs were going to be supplied by someone else. He mentioned Canada and India. I do not know whether they are going to be supplied by anybody else, and I think it is yet to be seen whether they will be required at all.
Then the noble Lord suggested that the letter from the Secretary-General was not, as I stated, a courteous and considerate one, which I think it was, but an unfriendly one. I am very sorry that the noble Lord should interpret the letter in that light. As it was published in the newspapers this morning, I do not know that I have a copy with me, but I thought its terms were perfectly acceptable and proper and I repeat that in our view it was a courteous and considerate action on his part. I have answered three of the noble Lord's supplementary questions. If I have missed out any he thinks are more important, I should be glad if he would remind me of them.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl of one of them about the cease-fire. I asked whether he would not agree that the question of a cease-fire was not one that the United Nations could decide upon unilaterally. They have gone into Katanga for self-defence, and they could not, on their own initiative cease fire.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should have thought that was obvious, my Lords. What we want the United Nations Secretariat to agree to is to offer a cease-fire as soon as possible, because we are deeply apprehensive that if fighting goes on in the way in which it is

429
going on, it may develop into heavy street fighting with large civilian casualties in Elisabethville, which might make it impossible to have a peaceful solution at all.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, subject to what my noble friends and other noble Lords may wish to ask the noble Earl, I would propose to delay any further questions until the debate we are to have on Monday, which I think would afford a very favourable occasion, with the Foreign Secretary present, for ventilating these matters much more fully. But I imagine that some of my noble friends might wish to pursue this.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, might I ask the Minister of State one question arising out of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said? Has there been any clarification by the Secretary-General of the purpose for which these great reinforcements of United Nations troops have been flown in, and the attacks which they have made on installations 60 or 70 miles away from any place where they have been stationed in self-defence?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have, of course, made representations on these matters. There is nothing which the Secretary-General has said in reply which he has authorised us to publish. Perhaps I might say that we are satisfied that he personally is doing his best in very difficult circumstances. Perhaps I might add that there are two of his deputies at present, Dr. Bunche and Mr. Gardiner, who are in the Congo, and who will no doubt give him advice on the subjects which the noble Earl has just mentioned.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask one question? In the letter which the Government have sent to the Secretary-General—I think the noble Earl quoted from it this afternoon—there is a statement to the effect that attacks have been reported on non-military targets, installations and so forth. Would the noble Earl say what is meant by, "have been reported"—by whom?—and whether the targets which, in a normal way may be non-military, have been attacked by military personnel firing or taking any military action which called for defence by the United Nations' personnel?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have a few reports here, mostly from our Consul in Elisabethville. There were attacks on the road and railway between Jadotville and Elisabethville where a bridge was destroyed and two railway engines damaged. Then there was an attack on Luili not far from Kolwezi upon a mining installation. In and around Elisabethville, the railway station and post office were attacked, and an office block in the main street of Elisabethville was shelled and machine gunned by aircraft. The Katanga radio transmitter was temporarily put out of action and a Coco-Cola plant and brewery were damaged. On another occasion some 20 mortar bombs landed on a school and hospital and adjacent buildings causing civilian casualties. The sort of reports we are receiving are:
"December 7, shells have gone through the roofs of three houses occupied by British subjects. I visited four houses hit by 75 millimetre shellfire."
"It is difficult to see the motive for the attack on the Luili plant which is a dozen miles from any military objective."
Again:
"Air attacks have put out of action a brewery."
"At 12.20 to-day, December 12, United Nations aircraft attacked an office block in the main street of Elisabethville. The Interfena building was shelled and machine-gunned."
There are many others, and some of them may be explainable, but others are difficult to reconcile with purely defensive action.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, of course that is the whole point. If these houses had been nests of Katangan troops firing, naturally they would draw defensive action. If mortar fire hits a building it may have been a bad shot. Have any of these incidents occurred from the Katanga side? After all, the Government are using this as a very important argument in their change of policy, and I think we ought to know whether these things are occurring on both sides in the course of action, or whether the suggestion is that the United Nations are deliberately hitting or firing at and bombing civilian targets.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think one can say with certainty that a great many civilian targets have been attacked and some of them damaged.

431
As for a change of policy, we have had no change of policy at all. Our policy has been the same all along. We are doing oat best to support the United Nations and we want to bring about a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible moment.
LORD HENDERSON: The only point I want to say on that, my Lords, is that the Government have declared many times that they recognise the right of the United Nations forces to defend themselves—I repeat, to defend themselves. These instances are cited as though they were non-military targets deliberately attacked by the United Nations forces. I think that is creating a quite wrong impression in the minds of the public.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, has the noble Earl any reference—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think in a matter of this importance it would be helpful if my noble friend could be given the opportunity to answer one set of questions before another set of questions is put.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if the civilian objectives had been used as military posts and this had not been mentioned in their reports by their own accredited observers, that would be reprehensible as an act of bad faith? We must take it that things are as they say.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we are not pre-judging these matters and we are not making any charge of bad faith. We are merely giving these instances, I think rightly, as very strong arguments and support of our case for the earliest possible cease-fire. If fighting develops in this way, it may lead to consequences which may be irretrievable and which may have even fatal results to the survival of the United Nations.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has asked whether these places which are being bombed are not being used as snipers' nests, or something like that,
432
by Katangan troops—a very fair question. But is it not a fact that a number of these installations which have been bombed in Katanga, such as the Union Minière refinery, are 20, 30 or 40 miles from any place where there are any Katangan troops, or at least where there is any fighting going on?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I mentioned in a previous answer that some of these targets attacked were a very long way from any possible military objective and that we found it difficult to reconcile these attacks with the defensive nature of the action which is taking place.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would try to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about attacks by the Katangan air force? The noble Earl has come down equipped with a number of statements about attacks by the United Nations air force; bas he come down with any information at all about attacks which we know are being made by Katangan airmen?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the day before yesterday I gave the latest example of that—I think the noble Earl may remember, as he was in the House—when I mentioned that there was an attack on the night of December 10–11 on the Elisabethville airport. I am now just looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT to make quite sure I have it right. Yes, I said this the day before yesterday [col. 231]:
"Elisabethville airport was bombed the night before last, December 10–11, and allegations have been made that the aircraft came either from Kipushi or, more generally, from abroad,"
and I added that Sir Roy Welensky had denied these allegations.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of reports appearing from reputable correspondents in a paper like the Daily Mail, which are described as giving these things from the point of view of those on the airstrip, from the point of view of the Katangan airmen?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Very likely, my Lords. All I am saying is that if these things go on and develop and become

433
worse, the United Nations may find themselves involved in an interminable war of suppression in Katanga, and the more of these instances that happen, the more difficult it may be to prevent them and to bring about an early peace. That is why we think it is so urgent that a ceasefire should be achieved as soon as possible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I suggest that perhaps we should be called to order by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for going on too long, but it is a very important question. May we know from the Minister of State, subject to what transpires in the debate in another place to-day, whether we are to understand that the Government's policy in this matter has been the subject of consultation with and agreement with the United States? We are very anxious about the position in general, and I should like to know whether the statements in the Press this morning as to the views of the United States are correct and whether they were the subject of consultation with the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I say how delighted I am to see the noble Viscount back in such good form? As regards the current action in Katanga, I do not think there is any difference in broad policy aims between ourselves and the United States. We both believe that the United Nations should not seek to impose a solution of the Katanga problem by force. We both support these efforts at conciliation and we have both been doing everything possible to promote a meeting between Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe. On the question of appreciation of the immediate situation, there is at the moment this difference: that we think it will be the advantage of everybody that a cease-fire should take place at once, whereas—as the noble Viscount has probably noticed this morning—the United States spokesman has said he thinks a cease-fire should take place a little later when certain "minimum objectives" have been achieved. While that is a perfectly reasonable attitude, we should like to be sure that these "minimum objectives" do not involve heavy street fighting and heavy civilian casualties, which might make any peaceful solution impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it is clear, from what we have been told this afternoon, that, whoever is responsible, the continuation of the present fighting is deplorable and may be disastrous. At the same time, judging from reports which some of us have read in the newspapers, it does not seem that the Secretary-General sees any need for undue hurry in giving an answer. What I wanted to ask was this—I do not want to put it in too crude a form—have the Government put any time limit on an answer to be given by the Secretary-General, or is the situation to be allowed to drag out without any reply from the United Nations? I do not say he should not be given sufficient time, but ought there not to be some time limit there for an answer to be given?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, no one could be more anxious for a speedy cessation to hostilities than Her Majesty's Government. I think it would be a mistake in the present circumstances to seek to impose a time limit on the Secretary-General, Mr. U Thant, whom we believe personally to be doing his best in very difficult conditions. He is under pressure from all kinds of people, including the Russians, who have a vested interest in disorder in the Congo.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1961
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, these Regulations are primarily intended to deal with minor difficulties which have come to notice since the passage of legislation in 1957 as regards retirement pensions for widows. Since 1957 widows receiving national insurance widows benefit qualify for retirement pension on their own insurance. To help them do this, they may take over their husband's contribution record up to the date of his death, and thereafter are credited with a contribution for each week in which they are entitled to benefit. The difficulties I have mentioned relate to these credits, in that circumstances have come to notice in which the credits cannot technically be awarded although the widow could reasonably be expected to receive them. These regulations make it possible to award such credits, to fill the gaps in the widow's contribution record, which might otherwise result in a retirement pension being payable at a lower rate than widow's pension.
The widows mainly concerned are some who have been abroad, some who cannot receive widow's benefit because they are receiving some other payment, some whose claims for widow's benefit were late, and some who had become entitled to widow's benefit only as a result of 1956 legislation. I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I, on behalf of my noble friends, approve these Regulations? They do indeed introduce new provisions. The noble Lord will agree with me that many married women had the feeling that the original regulations embodied an injustice which I think has
436
now been removed. Therefore these Regulations are perfectly satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKING METERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order).

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the necessary changes in the law so that we can ratify the Convention relating to co-operation for the safety of air navigation, known as Eurocontrol, and fulfil our obligations under it. Each year brings more and more rapid advances in the speed and efficiency of aircraft. Twenty-five years ago the average transport aeroplane would have a cruising speed of about 150 miles an hour; now the equivalent speed would be 550 miles an hour. Twenty-five years ago these aircraft would fly at a height of not more than 10,000 feet; now they fly at a height of anything from 30,000 to 40,000 feet. At the same time there has been a very great increase in the volume and density of air traffic. It goes without saying that if air travel is to remain safe and reliable, ground services must keep pace in improving their air traffic control systems, so as to be able to cope with the continual increases in speeds, operating altitudes and rates of ascent and descent of modern aeroplanes.
Her Majesty's Government have had these problems continually in mind. In 1957 the national airways and Air Traffic Control Development plan was announced. This plan, which is going ahead, includes new radar stations which will give complete cover of the United Kingdom airways system. Information from this will be linked into new air traffic control centres with joint control rooms which will bring civil and military air traffic control together. Plotted radar displays will take the place of position

437
reports from pilots. As the system moves towards automation, computers and automatic display will be used more and more. This plan is aimed not only at increasing safety but also at making the fullest possible use of limited air space. Similarly, we have in this country the Air Traffic Control Board, an interdepartmental committee under an independent chairman, to formulate policy and co-ordinate the work of different departments. Also, in Royal Air Force Air Traffic Control Radar Units, joint teams, civil and military, keep watch on something like 90 per cent. of upper air space.
There is one essential limitation to all these plans which Her Majesty's Government have in hand for the future safety of air traffic: they can apply only to the internationally agreed limits of United Kingdom air traffic control regions. Aviation is the most international form of traffic; aircraft cannot stop at frontiers, and it is impractical, with modern speeds and conditions, to control them only within a small area. Collaboration with air traffic control administrations in neighbouring countries has done much to help. More widely, there is the existing International Civil Aviation Organisation machinery for establishing standards, et cetera. But looking ahead, the planners reach the point where, in the limited and busy airspace of Western Europe, the need to move from co-ordination to integration becomes evident. And it does so, in the first place, for the upper airspace.
A group of countries in Western Europe first embarked on common study of this problem. This led them to the desire to collaborate, in the interests of air safety, to formulate an international system of control in the upper airspace. Her Majesty's Government welcomed the opportunity they were given to join in these preparatory studies. It was decided that a joint organisation should be set up to deal primarily with the control of the upper airspace of its members, but with the possibility of extending, by general agreement, to other airspace also. This organisation, now called Eurocontrol, was to undertake the responsibility for providing an efficient system of air navigation for general air traffic—that is to say, civil aircraft and those military, customs and police aircraft
438
which conform to the procedures of the International Civil Aviation Organisation—and to ensure that there is proper co-ordination with the activities of other military aircraft.
The Eurocontrol organisation is to consist of two parts: the Commission, which will be the policy forming body, and the Agency, which will be responsible for the actual administration. Both the Commission and the Committee of management of the Agency will be composed of representatives of the contracting parties to the Convention, and so the member Governments will have a constant voice in all questions of policy and management. The United Kingdom signed the Eurocontrol Convention in Brussels on December 13, 1960, in company with Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the Federal Republic of Germany.
As I have said, this Bill is designed to make the necessary changes in the law so that we can ratify the Convention and fulfil our obligations under it. It is also an appropriate vehicle in which to include provisions to enable the Minister to raise charges for navigation services provided by him. This was foreshadowed in the White Paper on Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigation Services.
Clause 1 of the Bill defines the Convention, and the organisation, which includes the Commission and the Agency. Clause 2 defines the status and privileges of Eurocontrol. Subsection (3) gives inviolability to the archives and premises of the organisation. Under the proviso of this subsection, constables, courts of inquiry, inspectors of accidents, et cetera, are not precluded from access in the circumstances mentioned. Clause 3 enables the Minister to make payments to the organisation, and to provide the organisation with land, premises, installations, equipment or services they may require, for which purpose his powers under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, are extended in subsection (3).
Clause 4 deals with charges for air navigation services. Subsection (1) empowers the Minister to make regulations by statutory instrument requiring payment for navigational services provided by the Minister or the organisation. The services provided by the Minister are those I have already referred to. Subsection (2) provides that liability for

439
charges may be imposed on the operator of the aircraft or on the aerodrome, or may be shared between the two. Subsection (3) provides that the Minister shall determine the amount of the charges and that the regulations may contain dispensation from such charges. Subsection (4) empowers the Minister to make regulations requiring operators or managers of aerodromes to keep and produce records. Subsection (5) provides that regulations are subject to a Negative Resolution by either House of Parliament.
Clause 5 provides for the admissibility of records as evidence in proceedings for recovery of charges or for failure to obey the directions of Air Traffic Control. Clause 6 deals with offences and maximum penalties under the Bill. Clause 7 (1) applies Part VI of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, to Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill. The effect of this is, among other things, to give extra-territorial effect to regulations made under Clause 4 so far as United Kingdom registered aircraft are concerned, and to preclude application of Clauses 4 to 6 to Crown aircraft, except as provided by Order-in-Council. Subsection (2) provides for the detention of aircraft for the purpose of securing payment, or ensuring production of records. Subsection (3) confers jurisdiction over claims for charges under Clause 4 if the defendant lives outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Under a Protocol to the Convention, a provisional Eurocontrol Commission has already been formed to undertake preliminary planning. Much good work has already been done. It is heartening to see the degree of co-operation which has already been achieved between this country and our friends in Europe in the field of aviation. It is no less gratifying to state that already other Western European countries are showing an interest in what we are doing. One can certainly visualise future additions to the Eurocontrol family. The establishment of Eurocontrol will be an historic event in the annals of aviation, and Her Majesty's Government believe that, in co-operation with the efforts and resources of its member countries, it will make an inestimable contribution towards the increased safety and efficiency
440
of flying. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
4.5 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while, clearly, we must welcome this Bill, I am a little surprised at the rather cursory explanation that has been given us. The noble Lord went through this, as I think, most complicated matter at extremely high speed. I should have thought that this was a Bill which requires a good deal of attention from some of our legal colleagues in this House. I say this with some hesitation, because the last time I was involved in legal matters, on the Carriage by Air Bill, the weight of legal opinion was such that, by the end of the debate, I had slipped my disc. Therefore I shall be a little more careful on this occasion.
I should like to make one or two quick general remarks, and then to refer to certain matters on which I hope perhaps we may have a little more explanation. It is perfectly clear that there is a tremendous need for this international control organisation, and I should like to congratulate the Government on their initiative and on getting it brought into effect. It is unfortunate that it is still only confined to certain countries. I think it is particularly unfortunate that Italy has, so far, not found it possible to enter into the Convention, for the very reasons for which this European control is being set up—namely, the difficulty in harmonising their requirements with those of other countries against their military aviation requirements.
This is a matter on which I hope the Government, through diplomatic and other channels, will bring pressure, because it is of importance that as many European countries as possible should enter this Convention. In the process of doing this, I hope we shall have regard not only to our main national interests, and to the operation of the Commission and the Agency, but also to some of the smaller interests within this country. In particular, I have in mind the question of the operation of air corridors in relation to an island like Jersey. Whether there is consultation on these interests I do not know, but there is certainly an impression abroad that they are apt to

441
be lost in the deals that are made between the French and British Aviation Ministries and the other interested parties.
Having said that, I should like to ask the Government whether they can give us any idea of the sort of installations which are to be set up. Are they likely to be on our airfields? Are they likely to lead to employment for many people, either from this country or abroad? Is it a subject on which the Government have concern at the extent to which British equipment will be used?
Furthermore, is the expenditure that will arise from this Convention likely to be yet another difficult factor from the standpoint of the balance of payments? And here, I have a serious criticism. It is most difficult to tell from reading the Convention what this is going to cost us. We have been told that it is likely to cost about £3 million at the beginning, and thereafter £2 million a year. Clause 3, which is the money clause, says that:
"The Minister may from time to time pay to the Organisation such sums … being sums for … which Her Majesty's Government … are liable under the Convention."
We are entering into a pretty heavy commitment. I think we should enter into it, but the commitment suffers from the disadvantage that it is almost impossible for any parliamentarian to understand it. If one looks at the Convention, and at the relative clauses, one finds that certain of these payments are calculated as a proportion of the gross national product and certain are not; and in a different way this raises quite serious questions with regard to Parliamentary control over the nation's finances. Clearly, the Government must be able to commit us, but can we be told whether (they are satisfied that calculation in relation to the gross national product is, in fact, the right way of proceeding?
Are other countries which are not members of Eurocontrol going to pay proportionately higher? As I understand the relevant Articles, they will do so. It is perhaps a pity that the Convention is not included as a Schedule to the Bill, as was done in the case of the Carriage by Air Bill All the Bill says, is that the Minister may pay "such sums" as are liable, and I think that we are entering into what is likely to become a very heavy national commitment,
442
indeed. On the other hand, I can see a further advantage in this, in that it is likely to lead to greater equalisation in the different types of support which Governments give to their own aviation. Since we know that our own civil aviation is at a disadvantage compared with others, because of our enormously high airport charges, perhaps this will lead to some measure of equalisation and an equivalent level of subsidisation, at least so far as the control services are concerned.
My Lords, I should like to turn very briefly to some of the legal provisions of this Bill. In a debate in another place the Minister said, in so many words, that no man should be condemned on the record of a computer, and that it should not be regarded as conclusive. This is rather ominous. The day is obviously not very far away when we shall be not only condemned but, in fact, judged by computers. Our learned colleagues may bear a less attractive human aspect than they do at the moment.
My Lords, what does this mean? Presumably all kinds of records are admissible, or are likely to be admissible, as evidence. Does this mean that records will be permanently kept? Or for how long will they be kept? And will records be kept from the computers, which presumably will take over more and more of the operations of Eurocontrol? Then, how far will the individual citizen have access to those records in any action that he may wish to bring? We understand that by process of the court, or some similar legal process (again, my learned colleagues will be better able to deal with this point), they could have access to them. This seems to me to be a matter of some importance; all the more so, since a degree of admittedly limited diplomatic privilege is being granted to the authority in this country.
The final point to which I should like to refer is the public accountability of these particular activities. I am not at this stage complaining about it, but, as I say, there is an unknown liability which in the future may grow very large. I can see no provision under this Bill for a report—although I may have missed it—on the operations of Eurocontrol. It may well be that this will be provided for under the Civil Aviation

443
Acts. But if the Public Accounts Committee, or some other Parliamentary watchdog, wish to look into the operations of this international body, how far will they be enabled to do so? It has always been an important part of our public activity and public expenditure that Parliament should be in a position to investigate, but I am not sure whether it will be able to do so under this Bill. I see no reason, indeed, why all the Parliaments involved should not have similar privileges, to establish that the interests of the taxpayer and the public interests are continually under review.
My Lords, I am sorry if I have sounded a little critical. I am not critical of the Government in general terms on this matter, and I think that they have done a good job of work in advancing it so quickly. But I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that we are right to have some sort of anxiety, both as to the extent of the commitments we are taking on, and as to the extent to which our type of Parliamentary control in this country, and our type of legal process, will be properly protected.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I welcome this Bill, and I would add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government upon their initiative. To the relief, no doubt, of those of your Lordships who are still with us this afternoon, much of what I was going to say has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, opposite, and I do not propose to repeat the points. However, I should like, if I may, to ram home one particular point.
To me, the great benefit of this Bill is simplification of air control which, as I said in your Lordships' debate on civil aviation, is one of the biggest contributors to air safety. But we still have duplication in the area which this Bill covers, in that it is responsible only for the air space above 25,000 feet. The majority of air traffic in Europe is still below this altitude, and it seems to me that this Bill, although it represents a big step which might fool some of the people some of the time, leaves outside its control more than half the flights in the area it covers. No doubt the Commission will look upon this as one of
444
the problems to be solved. I would only ask Her Majesty's Government to put this point before their members of the Commission, to see that we secure proper unification at the earliest possible moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned that Italy is not a party to this Bill. It is unfortunate that in Italy there have been accidents, due to their lack of control over their military aircraft, and it is for just that reason, as I understand it, that they will not come into this Convention at the moment. It seems to me that it is very urgent, indeed, that Italy should be pressed to solve this problem, so that the danger to civil aircraft flying in Italian air space can be lessened at the earliest possible moment. Finally, my Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to give this Bill the highest possible priority, so that the Commission can get down to work at the earliest possible moment.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is one point that I have been asked to deal with on Second Reading, and that is the question of the access to documents under Clause 2 of the Bill. Under this clause there is provision for access to documents if there is a dispute between a citizen and the Organisation, but there is a very strong, indeed an overwhelming, limitation against the possibility of access by any individual in the case of a dispute with the Organisation. Indeed, under subsection (3) (a) of Clause 2, access is limited to constables and other persons acting in the execution of a warrant or other legal process. But, as the House will have in mind, it will often be relevant to a person who brings an action against the authority to be able to require them to produce in court documents, records and so on, which will be material in deciding whether or not the authority is liable. Therefore, it is essential that, unless there are overwhelming reasons of security, it should be possible for a person bringing such an action to enforce the production of these documents.
This matter was raised in another place on Second Reading, and also in Committee. In Committee, on December 4 last, the Minister in charge gave an

445
assurance that the point would be considered. He said that the representations made in speeches from all parts of the House would be considered by the Government, and, presumably, that some statement would be made of action taken. It is proposed to put down an Amendment to the Bill on this point when it comes before the Committee here, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is dealing with this matter could say whether the Government have in fact considered the matter, and whether they have any statement to make as a result of that consideration.
4.21 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, but some remarks fell from my noble friend Lord Gosford about the airspace above 25,000 feet. It may be that we shall have to examine this more closely during the Committee stage. It seems to me that in the defence, not only of this country but of Western Europe, we have a lot of early warning radar stations which are already in being, some of them in this country. There are three joint civil and R.A.F. radar stations working very happily and very well together. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether the whole of the N.A.T.O. Early Defence Warning System will be used, in conjunction with civil aviation, to scan the increased altitude line, the airspace above 25,000 feet, for the purpose of their exercise and to keep them on their toes; and whether they will co-operate with the Civil Air Control.
4.23 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and also to thank them for the broad, general support that they have given to this Bill. It is a measure which Her Majesty's Government feel strongly is very necessary so that we should have Eurocontrol. First, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for speeding through the provisions of the Bill. I assure him, and the rest of the House, that I intended no discourtesy by this; but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, it is quite a complicated Bill, and if I were to have gone into all the clauses in detail I would have taken a considerable
446
amount of your Lordships' time, and there is other business to go through. I thought it would be better if I went quickly through the provisions in my initial speech, and then tried to answer any questions that your Lordships had as I wound up.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Gosford both said that they thought it a very great pity that Italy could not see her way clear to remaining in the countries of Eurocontrol. Her Majesty's Government very much appreciate the fact that the more countries that come into Eurocontrol the better, and they hope that other countries will be joining—and, indeed, Italy, too. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me about Jersey. There is close consultation between the United Kingdom authorities and the Jersey authorities on air traffic control. I can give the noble Lord that assurance. The next point that the noble Lord raised was whether expenditure under Eurocontrol was likely to affect the balance of payments. My information is that it is not likely to affect the balance of payments significantly so far as can be foreseen now. It might do so more, say, twenty years hence—and, as the noble Lord is aware, Eurocontrol is to last initially for twenty years. Our contribution to Eurocontrol can be in kind as well as in money: that is, the services we provide, the equipment, et cetera, are taken into consideration in our contribution as well as the money payments. There is just one other point about that, and that is that if we did not incur this expense, the expense for supervision of the airspace, via Eurocontrol, we should have to spend it on our own national system for much the same purpose, and, I should imagine, in much the same amounts.
The system of calculating the payment of countries by reference to gross national products will, of course, be under review. Broadly, for the first three years of operation the contributions will be in proportion to the gross national products of member States averaged over the last three years for which details are available. Thereafter, contributions to capital expenditure are based on a gross national product formula, while contributions for recurrent expenditure will be based partly upon gross national product and partly in proportion to the

447
value of services rendered by the organisation to civil aircraft registered in the territory of each member State. The value of the services will be determined by the Commission and revised every five years. Of course, this method of assessing the costs has been looked into very thoroughly, and it is considered to be the best method.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether it is the fact that this country will be bearing about one-third of the cost of the whole of this particular operation?
LORD DENHAM: That is a fact, my Lords, under present G.N.P.; but, of course, there is another aspect of this question. Our voice in Eurocontrol will not be quite as great as one-third, but it will be at least a quarter: that is, our vote in the weighted voting will be the highest.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord unduly, but I am sure the House would like to know how we can possibly control or get paid for aircraft under our control which overfly us. Most of the big jets to-day are flying from America to various parts of Europe, and we shall have to control them. I should very much like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, how we can get paid for our facilities when they overfly us.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope the efficiency of Eurocontrol will be such that tracking systems will enable them to know which aircraft are using the air space, and from where they are coming. If records are kept, they would be paid for aircraft that overfly, just as much as those which actually use our airports, because they will be using the control system.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also mentioned computers. My right honourable friend in another place pointed out that although this Bill enables computers to be used as evidence, they cannot be taken as absolute evidence. They are not infallible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really do not understand
448
what he means. I do not know whether "absolute evidence" is a legal term, anyway. I should have thought that on these rather tricky points we might have had the help of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, because these are very difficult points.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will try to go more fully into this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, may I be permitted to explain the point which I think my noble friend has in mind? There may be a great deal of incontrovertible evidence. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, looks at the clause he will see that the records are
"produced from the custody of that authority or person"
as evidence. That is, they are admissible in evidence, and receivable in evidence; but, of course, the matter can be corrected by evidence on the other side. If the noble Lord has any difficulty, I can send him a note about it or I will be very pleased to deal with it on Committee stage, but I wanted to help him out on this point at once. I hope my noble friend does not mind my intervention.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for helping me on that matter. The other point which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned was accountability to Parliament. I think perhaps I could best quote what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said on this subject in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 649 (No. 19), col. 1779]:
"The House will have the Annual Estimates, which can be debated, in which the moneys due to Eurocontrol will figure. Hon. Members will be able to put Parliamentary Questions to my right hon. Friend on the actions of his representatives on the Council, and we are promoting the idea of an annual report being published by the Organisation which could be deposited in the Library for the information of the House, as is the custom with other international organisations".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very sorry—the noble Lord has been very patient—but the point I made went rather deeper. It was directed to the extent to which the Parliamentary Committee system and Public Accounts

449
Committees were able in fact to make direct investigation, with the powers they have at the moment, with regard to our home operations; and to whether they would be able to investigate, send for papers or persons, and do the sort of investigation they carry out with regard to nationalised bodies or Government services.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think, if the noble Lord will permit me, I will look into that point and let him have that information in fuller detail. Then, my noble friend Lord Gosford spoke about the upper air space, and, as he said, in this country the upper air space starts at 25,000 feet. That is not the same as in some of the other countries of Eurocontrol; in some of the other countries the upper air space starts at 20,000 feet, and exactly where the upper air space starts is one of the subjects which Eurocontrol will have under consideration. There is always the possibility that, at a later stage, Eurocontrol will take over for the same countries, by agreement, control of the lower air space as well.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is he saying that other countries will take over the lower air space over this country, the United Kingdom?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords. Under the Eurocontrol Convention, there is the possibility for one country, by agreement, to have control of its air space, upper or lower, taken over by others; but it would not be possible for that to happen to any country which did not want it so to happen. My noble friend Lord Waleran also asked whether the Early Defence Warning System would be integrated in the Eurocontrol system. So far as is possible, present installations will be integrated and use will be made of existing systems whenever desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Silk in, raised the question of inviolability of archives and premises of the Eurocontrol organisation. This is another fairly complicated legal subject, I am afraid. The position is this. Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that it is necessary for Eurocontrol to have this inviolability of archives. In fact, if we did not make provision for that in this Bill, we could
450
not honourably ratify the Convention, because the Convention calls for that from its member countries. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has an Amendment down at a later stage dealing with the point that the noble Lord has in mind, so perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if further discussion were left to the Committee stage.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have no objection to that, but I do not know how Lord Ogmore can possibly have an Amendment put down to a Bill which has not yet had its Second Reading. I presume he has told the noble Lord informally that he proposes to move one. The reason why I inquire is this. I do not expect the noble Lord to enter into the merits of the question, but will he let the House know whether, as promised, the Government have given further consideration to all the arguments which have been put forward in another place on Second Reading and in Committee? Is the noble Lord now giving us the result of that consideration or is he telling us what induced the Government to put this provision into the Bill originally?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am telling your Lordships both. Her Majesty's Government have made a very full study of all the arguments in another place, and they are still of the opinion that the archives must be given the protection they are given in the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
4.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the conclusion of the Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me to make a short statement on Third Reading about the matters on which he and my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, had put down Amendments on the Committee stage and about which I had subsequently written to both the

451
noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he thought this would save time on Third Reading, and I readily undertook to do as I was asked.
I will deal first, if I may, since the point is a short one, with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which would have placed clerks to justices under a statutory obligation to notify probation officers at the higher courts as soon as a prisoner had been committed to one of those courts. We are all, of course, anxious to ensure that the necessary information should be given to the higher courts' probation staff at the earliest possible moment. The only question is how best to achieve this result.
As your Lordships will remember, the recommendations in Part B of the Streatfeild Report deal with the information with which the courts ought to be provided to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders. These recommendations all hang together, and they appear to me to be essentially matters to be dealt with by administrative arrangements. The provision of reports for probation officers will require close co-operation between the probation service, the police, the prison service and the courts. This was, I think, a point that was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lord Raglan, when he spoke on Lord Silkin's Amendment. Arrangements are being made to issue instructions and guidance to all concerned so that the recommendations in Part B can be brought into effect by administrative means, and I think it would be inappropriate to single out this particular matter for a statutory provision. I should prefer to leave the arrangements as flexible as possible, unfettered by any statutory requirements, until we have had time to see how the new scheme of things is working.
However, I want to assure the noble Lord that I am satisfied that I have power under the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, and the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to make a rule to the same effect as the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should the need arise. On the principle that one should not flog a willing horse, if I may so refer to clerks to justices, I should much prefer to trust to the co-operation
452
which they have habitually given whenever I or, for that matter, my successors at the Home Office have suggested any improvements in administrative practice. But I say again to the noble Lord that, should it be necessary the remedy is there.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount leaves that point, I think it would save time and a speech from me if he could give me an assurance that in fact the clerks will be asked to do this. I follow what the noble and learned Viscount has said—that he does not want it to be made statutory or even want to make a regulation at the moment—but if the clerks will be asked to do it and the results watched and, if necessary, a regulation made, I think that would go a long way to satisfy me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is certainly the intention of the Home Office, as I understand it. To be quite frank, I have not the actual method more fully in my mind that I have explained in my speech, but I know that that is the intention and I am sure that everything will be done to see that the noble Lord's wish is achieved.
I now turn to the Amendment which my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard withdrew on the Committee stage on my undertaking to look at the matter again. It was designed to enable me to compel boroughs with more than 65,000 inhabitants to petition for a separate Committee of the Peace or a separate court of quarter sessions. I undertook on the Committee stage to consult the Association of Municipal Corporations about this proposal and I have now done so. The Association say they are confident that persuasion will secure the co-operation of borough councils in achieving the end which my noble and learned friend has in mind, but they are strongly opposed to any form of compulsion. They rightly point out that if a recorder were to be forced on an unwilling borough, it might lead to a great deal of unpleasantness and to disagreements which could do nothing but harm to the good administration of justice.
I have no reason to think that any borough council would decline to petition for a separate court of quarter

453
sessions if it were suggested to them that it was their duty to do so. I can find no instance of this ever having happened, and the task of those responsible for these matters has been to restrain unsuitable applicants rather than to stimulate petitions. There has, I think, been some misapprehension about the financial advantage to a borough of not having its own court of quarter sessions. In general, this is negligible.
Although the theoretical justification for increasing the number of separate courts of quarter sessions may appear to be strong, I do not think there are many places where there is any practical need to do so. But I should like to consider this point, in view of the most interesting speech of my noble and learned friend. One can rule out straight away boroughs like Newport, which was the instance given by my noble friend Lord Raglan, where county sessions are held but which do not have separate sessions for the borough itself. In cases of this kind, there could be little advantage and a good deal of wasteful duplication, if a separate court were to be set up for the borough. There are a number of other cases where any inconvenience arising from the distance of the place at which county sessions are held from the larger centres of population in the county can be counteracted by holding county sessions at different towns in turn or by their sitting in more than one division.
I concede, however, that there may be a small residue of cases where a borough's size and geographical position justifies its having a separate court of quarter sessions. Barrow-in-Furness, which has recently been granted its own court, is a case in point. The special position of this borough may be familiar to other noble Lords. My noble and learned friend Lord Goddard referred to Swindon and to the difficulties of getting from Swindon to Salisbury or Devizes where the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions are held. However, I understand that Swindon has now resolved to petition for a recorder of its own. I must not say anything which may appear to prejudge the consideration of its Petition, but clearly the geographical factors mentioned by the noble and learned Lord will be borne in mind.
He also mentioned other large towns, such as Ilford, Slough and Luton, which
454
have no recorder; but in this connection I think it is most important to bear in mind the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, not only in the Greater London area but elsewhere. The review of local government areas now in progress throughout the country does in many cases provide a very good reason for postponing action on these matters at the present time. I can, however, assure your Lordships that I shall not hesitate in appropriate cases to take the necessary steps to ensure that separate courts of quarter sessions are available in the bigger centres of population which clearly ought to possess them. I am sure, however, that your Lordships will agree with me that in these matters, as in so many others, it is much better to achieve one's end by persuasion than by wielding the big stick; and this I hope to do.
There is only one other point that I think I ought to mention, in view of the interesting leading article in The Times to-day. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, tabled a number of Amendments which dealt with three points connected with the issue of insanity: the question of allowing an appeal against a verdict of guilty but insane; the question of allowing the prosecution to raise the issue of insanity where the defence is diminished responsibility; and the procedure for finding an accused person unfit to plead. In the course of the debate I indicated that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had decided to refer the first of these issues to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and that he was also considering reference to the Committee of the second question. As regards the procedure for finding an accused person unfit to plead, I indicated that this was a difficult matter and that I should like to consider further with my right honourable friend the question whether it also should be referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
These matters have been under consideration in the meantime, and my right honourable friend has had further correspondence on them with the Lord Chief Justice. It has not, however, yet been possible to come to a final conclusion on the question whether they should be

455
referred to the Committee, and if so, in what terms. Your Lordships will appreciate that the question of unfitness to plead is, in particular, a difficult one, and as some of your Lordships may remember, it has been considered by highly qualified bodies. The Atkin Committee considered it before they reported in 1923, and it was also considered by the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, so far as capital cases were concerned.
I need not go into the conclusions of these bodies, but I want to say this. In view of their conclusions, it is necessary to consider very carefully, first, whether new evidence has come to light and whether the situation has changed in such a way as to make it desirable to have a further inquiry into the subject; and, secondly, if so, what would be the most appropriate way to undertake it. These are questions which need proper investigation and consideration, and I regret that I am not able to-day to let your Lordships know what the answer may be. But in view of the most interesting manner in which this was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley (I see that he has now returned to the Chamber, and I said this before he did so), and the leading article in The Times to-day in which the noble Lord's points are developed, I wanted to assure him that it is receiving and will receive full consideration.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to have taken up this time, but the three points with which I have dealt are points that were raised by noble Lords, and it is only right that I should deal with them on this Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.55 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I much regret that, owing to absence at the other end of the world, I was unable to take part in the earlier debates on this Bill, but I hope it is not too late to give it a little long-delayed word of welcome. It is even now less than a year since the Streatfeild Report was signed, and it cannot but be a great
456
satisfaction to myself, as a member of that Committee—not to say a vociferous member—that our recommendations should have made such speedy headway towards the Statute Book. It is true that this Bill does not yet do quite everything that some of us might wish it would do. Some of us were perhaps hoping that further advance might now have been made on the Amendments which were moved by my noble friend Lord Chorley, on which the Lord Chancellor has just now reported. We are very glad to learn that certain of the points raised will be considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and I hope that we may soon hear that the extremely difficult problem of unfitness to plead may be further and fruitfully explored by his own researches.
To the lay mind (and perhaps it is somewhat imprudent for a layman to enter into this extremely difficult field) it appears that in the case of unfitness to plead a distinction is emerging between unfitness to plead, which is apparent before the presentation of the prosecution's case, and unfitness to offer a defence, which is a slightly different matter and might appear at a later stage. I think, also, that some of us had in mind that already in the Mental Health Act a distinction has been drawn between the finding by a court in the form of a conviction and the finding by a court that a person has done the act with which he is charged, but that in that case it merits no conviction. It is possible that in these areas there may lie a hint as to solutions for this very difficult matter that at least deserve consideration. But no doubt a layman should not say more on that topic.
Certainly the Streatfeild Committee hoped that the recommendations embodied in this Bill would do much to rationalise and expedite justice. I should like to refer to the extended jurisdiction of the magistrates, and particularly to the extension which gives them the right to try "breaking" cases. As many of your Lordships are aware, in a great number of these cases the distinction between a charge of larceny and one of "breaking" is hardly more than a technical matter, and there seems no valid reason why both should not be dealt with by the same court. It is reasonable. I think, to hope that this extension of

457
the justices' jurisdiction will greatly relieve the pressure upon quarter sessions, while at the same time perhaps not unduly overworking those willing horses the lay justices.
I see that in the Second Reading debate some of your Lordships expressed surprise that in this extension of jurisdiction breaking into dwellinghouses was excluded, even though often breaking into shops and warehouses involved very much larger sums of money and more damage than housebreaking. Your Lordships may be aware that what was certainly in the mind of the Streatfeild Committee was that the sum of money involved is not always the major consideration, and that what puts housebreaking into a special category is the alarm which is caused to the house-owner. For that reason, they were not prepared to include housebreaking in the extended jurisdiction of the magistrates.
I should also like to refer, with pleasure, to Clause 15 of this Bill. Her Majesty's judges often say in private conversation that it is their custom, in passing sentence, to take into account any period that an accused person has already spent in custody and they sometimes say this in particular cases publicly, when they are passing sentence. But they have hitherto been under no obligation either to take this period into account or to say that they have done so when they have. This new provision, I think your Lordships will agree, is yet another step towards the principle that justice must not only be clone, but must be visibly done.
As has been implied, this Bill deals with nearly all the recommendations in the first part of the Streatfeild Committee's Report. One minor, incidental consequence of this rapid acceptance of Part I of the Report has been that Part II has had very little discussion in your Lordships' House. The Lord Chancellor has told us that, with one exception, practically all the recommendations in Part II are matters for administrative action rather than for legislation, and therefore they do not come within the purview of this Bill. We are glad to hear that serious consideration is being given to the administrative steps necessary to give effect to them, for I am sure that those of your Lordships who have studied this Report will share the view that many of the
458
recommendations in Part II are at least as important as those to which effect is given by this Bill.
I hope I shall not be deemed to be out of order if, in the debate upon the Third Reading of this Bill, I make a brief reference to some of the most important of those recommendations. In Part II of the Streatfeild Committee's Report, your Lordships will find a fairly exhaustive analysis of the factors which need to be taken into consideration in this day and age in determining the appropriate sentence to be passed upon an offender. I think it is implicit in this analysis that passing sentence is not only an extremely complex matter, but that it is also a matter of which knowledge is being accumulated by research, and in which skill can be acquired by appropriate professional training. In this implication there may lie far-reaching consequences for the future of legal education. Lawyers are notoriously conservative, though a few distinguished exceptions are to be found among my noble friends on these Benches. I think it is remarkable that, in spite of the conservatism of the legal profession, this Report was signed by two Queen's Counsel, and that the Chairman of the Committee who signed it was himself a High Court Judge.
This Report has gone very far in indicating the large part which actual research and new knowledge now means to play in the determination of sentences. The Report went so far as to state that sentencing is in a sense an emergent branch of the law, and that the accummulated knowledge and experience of this branch may in time be expected to reach the stage of development at which a new text book on the subject will be required. They state, too, that no amount of paper information—I paraphrase the exact words—fully compensates for visits to penal institutions in enabling one who has to pass sentence to grasp what that sentence implies. These are developments which, as I have suggested, may have very far-reaching consequences, and it is a particular pleasure to see that they have been accepted by the distinguished representatives of the law who were members of this Committee and with whom I had the privilege to serve on it.
In the meantime, I hope that we shall hear soon from the Lord Chancellor

459
what steps are being taken to see that the new knowledge which is now becoming available about the effect of sentences as a result of scientific research is brought to the attention of those upon whom devolves the onerous duty of passing sentence in criminal cases. In principle, I think we on these Benches welcome this Bill very much; and I am glad that the opportunity has been given to me, though late, to say a word in support of it.
5.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is very glad that the opportunity has presented itself to enable the noble Baroness to speak upon this Bill. It also gives me a further opportunity of thanking her, in particular, and her colleagues in the Streatfeild Committee in general, for the most valuable work they did. I was glad that she could give the Bill her general blessing and that she should call attention to-day to two particular aspects of the Bill itself. As the noble Baroness is aware, one question which the Committee considered before making their proposals which now form the basis of the Bill, was that of local criminal courts on the pattern of the Liverpool and Manchester Crown courts. This question has been one which, I know from the Report, gave them a lot of thought, and, of course, there has been some discussion upon it.
Two of my main objectives since I have been Lord Chancellor have been, first of all, to make the various courts, by their jurisdiction and location, available and convenient to the people who are likely to have to use them, either voluntarily or involuntarily. The second point is to give access for these people to the civil courts and, indeed, to the magistrates' courts, by the extension of legal aid. On the first point, I am glad that the noble Baroness has given her approval, because I feel it was necessary for us to deal with the nation-wide problem first: that is, to get Assizes into the form which would be more convenient and to extend the operation of quarter sessions and the jurisdiction of petty sessions, because they deal with the country as a whole. As I said on Second Reading—and I think the noble Baroness will again support me in this—if, after we have dealt with the nation-wide problem,
460
we find certain local problems are even more pressing than we thought and not dealt with by a nation-wide remedy, then we can consider them again. I want to make that clear.
I am glad again that reference was made to Part II of the Report, because the first of the questions—the information which is to be provided before courts decide which is the best method of treatment—is one that I can assure the noble Lady is very near the heart of my right honourable friend Mr. Butler, because he considers it so important a part of the general operation in dealing with crime to-day. I also think that what has been said in the Report and to-day about sentencing is again valuable, and will receive wide consideration. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the discussions on this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will now give it a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 16 [Police inspection of clubs]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out Clause 16. The noble Viscount said: Throughout the course of the Committee stage on Tuesday there were two threads which ran through the burden of my noble friend Lord Craigton's song. One of them was that, unless the circumstances made it inescapable, we should not depart from the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest. The other was—again, unless it was inescapable—that provisions north of the Border should be similar to those south of it. In the case of Clause 16 these two principles come inevitably into conflict

461
because, on the one hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and his Committee reported that the provisions which are contained in this clause should be the law in Scotland, whereas during the progress of the Licensing Bill before your Lordships in the last Session such a step was categorically rejected in England and Wales.
That rejection came in the face of an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The noble Lord, from his great experience of the seamiest side of the underworld, referred with great fervour to the deplorable state of some of the clubs which he knew and in the areas with which he is familiar; and to judge by what he has said those clubs were to be deplored very much indeed. Yet when he moved that the police should have the power of entry which is now proposed in this clause for Scotland, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor spoke the words which were quoted to your Lordships on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He said, if I may quote a very brief sentence [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 11 I), col. 628]:
"The vast majority of opinion of all Parties accepts that to allow the police to enter club premises without warrant at any time, except for the limited purpose covered by Clause 27 of the Bill, would be an unjustifiable interference with private liberties."
Those are strong words. And when the matter was debated on Second Reading in your Lordships' House the only excuse that my noble friend Lord Craigton could find for this remarkable difference which has now come about in less than six months—that the Government are proposing to impose upon Scotland this "unjustifiable interference with private liberties"—was that, as noble Lords know, England is England, and Scotland is Scotland, and what is right for one is not necessarily Tight for the other. Well, I understood that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was a Scotsman, and proud to be a Scotsman, and if his opinion of what is an unjustifiable interference is not to be attended to, I do not know whose is. I think that to-day we want a very considerably more amplified explanation from my noble friend on the Front Bench than that which he gave on Second Reading to the effect that this is simply, as it were, a technical matter and he had not yet gone into the merits of whether such
462
entry is, or is not, an unjustifiable interference.
Your Lordships can all form your own opinions upon this subject and I have no doubt that there are clubs in Scotland which certainly require a great deal more supervision than can be given by the law as it stands to-day. But are those clubs so much worse than those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that this is a measure which can be justified in Scotland on that ground alone, whereas it must be categorically rejected in England? I do not believe that to be the case, and I certainly have no reason to suppose that the Guest Committee had evidence before it to show that to be the case. Such being the facts, I consider that the noble Lord has a lot to answer to your Lordships this afternoon. I should very much like to hear how he justifies this amazing departure from the attitude of Her Majesty's Government so short a time ago, and if this step is to be introduced I cannot see how it can justifiably be done in this Bill while England remains free from the restriction. I therefore beg your Lordships to support me this afternoon in striking out this unwarrantable interference with the freedom of people in Scotland and to support me in having this clause left out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON):Though I still think that Scotland is Scotland and England is England, I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to state briefly the reasons why Clause 16 is in the Bill. But I must make it quite clear to your Lordships that I do not consider I should come to any final conclusion until I have heard the views of your Lordships. The Government did not lightly accept the recommendation that the police should have the power of entry without warrant into clubs. They recognise that this is to some extent an interference with private rights. It is not, however, a new principle which they are applying. It is inherent in the present licensing laws that, if those parts of the law which control the supply of liquor to the public are to be enforced and enforceable, then there must be

463
control of the clubs which supply liquor to their members.
I am sure the noble Viscount would agree that the law must, as it does, prevent loosely organised clubs, which supply drink and of which anyone found in them can claim to be a member, from evading all the restrictions on supply. This is the basic purpose of the present law relating to registered clubs. The Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Guest, have found that the present law is being abused, but that this is not a defect in club law itself but in the arrangements for its enforcement. The Government are satisfied that it is very difficult for the police to spare the manpower for the enforcement of the law as it at present stands—for the long watch over the premises to get the prime facie evidence necessary; the applying for a warrant; and then the police raid. The right remedy appears to the Government to be the one suggested by the Committee.
Although, as I said on Second Reading, the police would, I am sure, act in a tactful manner, I do not for one moment suggest that the provision is one that all clubs would welcome. But there are circumstances in which the power would be welcomed by the club. Every club secretary has experienced the difficult situation in which members, despite his protests, break the law—ignoring permitted hours, getting drunk, and so on. Often the police, when they discover breaches of the law, find the committee and the secretary are genuinely anxious to see the law observed, but they cannot control the offenders. There is no alternative, if the abuse continues, but to apply the full rigour of the law. Then follows the police raid, with all its attendant publicity. In such cases it would have been better avoid all this trouble, expense and publicity, and that police powers should have been used to nip the abuse in the bud.
Although similar proposals for England and Wales were adversely received, the Guest Committee's recommendation on this subject has been singled out for a particularly warm welcome in Scotland, and received support on Second Reading from four Members on both sides of your Lordships' House—my
464
noble friends Lord Haddington and Lord Ferrier and the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Stonham. In view of these facts, I am convinced that the Government are right in including Clause 16 in the Bill, but I will now listen most carefully to your Lordships' views.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I listened with great interest to my noble friend the Minister of State, and I am still unconvinced that Clause 16 should remain in the Bill. I feel very strongly about this, as I warned my noble friend two days ago. I heard what he said about England being England and Scotland being Scotland, but he did not go on to say that never the twain shall meet. On this occasion the twain will meet, because England and Scotland can get together, I hope, in opposing Clause 16. I am also in grave doubt—not convinced, but in grave doubt—whether the police want these powers. It only makes them unpopular to go barging, unwanted, into other people's premises. Where they know there is bad behaviour or bad management, let them get a warrant and go and do their duty. I know we are told, as a sort of soporific, that the police will not bother you unless they have to, but I object to their being given these overriding powers. They have not got them in England. I regard it as an indignity that Scotland should be saddled with them.
I do not know whether any learned gentleman present will correct me, but I maintain that the members of a club own the furnishings, and they own the food and bottled refreshments; it is their property and therefore they should be entitled to consume it without police interference. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but that is my view. On this question—which I applaud in many respects—of sticking to the recommendations of the Guest Committee, of course, the Government have already made a hole in their own case by departing from the recommendations of the Guest Committee in other respects, so really that argument no longer holds water. That is the Government's own fault, not mine. I object seriously to retaining Clause 16 in the Bill, and I shall want a great deal of convincing before I hold a contrary view.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I should like to support the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Viscount and also by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I would put some further considerations before your Lordships. We have had the view of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on this matter in so far as England is concerned. I think it is extremely strange that a Party one of whose principles is to maintain our ancient institutions should move in this direction; I just do not understand it. After all, the clubs of our country are institutions which I believe are worthy of support. There are different kinds of clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, talked about loosely organised clubs, and the kind of clubs that he was speaking about were clubs with which some of us have little or no acquaintance. I think that clubs fall into three different categories: there is the residential club; the social club, bridge club and that kind of thing; and then there is the drinking club which masquerades as some kind of social club. If the law is being abused in certain of these clubs, then let the legislation be applied to them; but why rope in every club and put them under the same restrictions? That does not seem to be altogether fair or indeed to be altogether reasonable.
I do not know that I want the law of Scotland always to be similar to the law of England. The reason is that I consider the law of Scotland immensely superior to the law of England. I have no objection at all to bringing the law of England into line with the law of Scotland, but there are exceptions to that general rule, and, in my opinion, this is one of them. It is a matter of grave inconvenience to those of us who have to visit England arid who are members of English clubs to find that when we are here we are free of all interference, and then when we arrive back in our native country anti go to the club we may find a gentleman in blue standing on the front doorstep. That might be bad for our nervous systems and it is something to which we should not be subjected. I cannot find any good reason for the introduction of this provision by the Government, and I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment and reject the clause.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to support the Amendment. I was fascinated by the speech of the Minister of State, which was really a Second Reading speech in favour of a provision which is not contained in the Bill for England. The noble Lord said that this was most warmly received in Scotland. I can assure him it is going to be most warmly received in your Lordships' House if he persists in his effort. The arguments have been well put already. There is only one further point I would suggest. The club, to many unmarried men, is in fact the home, the social centre. It may well be the same for some unfortunate married men, but that is not the particular point I am trying to put. For many men who are not married it is their home, and this is a proposal that there should be a right of entry into what is in effect their home.
In this age of restriction, direction, permits and control, it is indeed a retrograde step for a Conservative Government to come forward with such a proposal as is contained in Clause 16. The recommendations of the Guest Committee have not been followed right through, and therefore the argument that this is a Guest Committee proposal is not really a sound one. Apart from that, I can think of no other reason for this differentiation between Scotland and England, except that a predominantly English Cabinet wished to take revenge on Scotland for thirty years of moral, commercial and educational superiority, and I trust your Lordships will not allow that to happen.
LORD LINDGREN: The Minister seems not to be getting very much support from his own friends. I hope it will not embarrass him if I come to his aid now. The club that is well run, the club that has nothing to hide, does not worry about the possibility of police visits. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the debate on Tuesday informed me that some pubs in Scotland were not all they ought to be. I do not doubt that there are some clubs in Scotland that are not all they ought to he. It is the provision of such regulations as this which gives the police easy opportunity to check excesses and abuses of the privilege which a club licence gives. I say this as a member of a club which is

467
affiliated to the English Club and Institute Union. I was one of those who argued for such a clause to be inserted in the English Bill.
I think it was a tragedy that the wartime Regulation 55C, which worked extremely well, was ever repealed. Whatever noble Lords may say about club members, it is not only they who have to be considered, but those who have the responsibility of running clubs—I refer to the stewards and stewardesses. On many occasions, in working men's clubs in England (of course, I cannot speak for Scotland) stewards have said to me, "I have one of the most difficult of jobs. I do not have one boss; I have a committee of twelve. They all think they are 'the boss' and they all sometimes want preferential treatment. If we had Regulation 55C I could always turn to a club member who wanted me to transgress licensing hours and say, 'This is my job. I do not want to risk my good name and association with the Club and Institute movement'." Regulation 55C went, and of course with it went protection for the steward or stewardess against club members, or committee-men in particular, who wish, I will not say to break the law, but badly to bend it. The club which is well run has nothing to fear. If the good class hotel is open to police inspection, if the good class pub is open to police inspection, what has the club to fear or to hide?
I know from my own experience of the British Club and Institute Union that the affiliated clubs are extremely well run. Although they are opposed to this proposal—I think they are perhaps a little jealous of the fact that they have some privilege over others—I think everybody ought to be on the same level. There is a feeling among some folk that the licensed trade is—I was going to say an evil trade. They think that the result of drinking is evil to the community. Then let us have everybody, the pub and the club, on the same level. Where there may be abuse the police would have the right to go in and check that abuse. If that is done there will not be, as there sometimes now is, whispering behind the scenes about the goings on at this or that club, whether it be a working men's, a Conservative or a golf club. I am in favour of Clause 16, and if
468
it comes to a Division I shall support the Government.
LORD AUCKLAND: During the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill I gave qualified support to this clause, but having re-read the clause, and having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I find myself utterly convinced that it is a bad clause. Clause 16 empowers a constable to enter club premises. That may mean a young policeman of nineteen or twenty who has had little experience of life in general, and certainly little experience of clubs. If the clause were worded so that policemen of the rank of inspector or above were allowed to enter in extenuating circumstances, then there might be some reason for supporting this Amendment.
The other point I should like to make is that most of these clubs have as members people from all classes of society. I am a member of a men's club in Epsom, where I live, the members of which comprise people ranging from managing directors to jockeys. It is a well-conducted club; everybody is extremely friendly, and I am quite certain that the last thing that the steward would want would be police interference. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has made a most convincing case for his Amendment, and I, for one, will support it.
LORD FERRIER: Had it not been for the Minister of State's saying that he would perhaps reconsider this clause, and would be interested to hear what the Committee have to say on the matter, I should not have taken up your Lordships' time. But I feel without in any way disagreeing with the noble Viscount in what he or those who have supported him have said, that the clause as it stands is not a good clause at all. I agree, as I said not only in Second Reading but on Tuesday last, that one of the effects of this Bill may be a more rapid increase in the number of clubs which are designed, as one of your Lordships said, to operate as third-class clubs, loosely got together, for drinking only. I can understand the wish of the Government to have some power in regard to their compliance with the law. It occurs to me that it might help if the Government were to consider another method of approaching

469
the matter—namely, to give the police powers to enter clubs, whatever they may be (whether golf, residential or drinking clubs) during licensed hours or, say, half an hour either side.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I find myself in the rather unusual situation of being in agreement with the noble Lord opposite. I really think that, as he said, no properly constituted club has anything whatsoever to fear. I feel that the police to-day have an increasingly hard time to maintain order, and I personally am in favour of assisting them in all possible ways. I once had the misfortune to be stationed in Glasgow, at the extremely unpleasant barracks called Maryhill. I have some unpleasant recollections of some of the clubs round that area. Perhaps things have changed since then. But I cannot understand the great objection to this clause. I quite agree that if any St. James's Street clubs were entered by the police we should be naturally much annoyed; but the police have no reason to enter those clubs. In these matters the police are most tactful. They enter a club only if they have good reason to suppose that there is something going on that ought not to be going on. Therefore, I cannot support this Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Might I ask my noble friend whether he would apply that argument to England?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Unfortunately, I came in after by noble friend's argument was deployed. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is going to explain to us—perhaps he has already—why we do not apply it in England. Obviously, the Government have a good reason for its not being applied in England.
LORD LINDGREN: The reason why it is not applied in England is pretty obvious: it is pressure, particularly from the political clubs who wish to avoid the possibility of police inspection. It is only in surrender to the pressure of the political clubs in England that this clause is not in the English Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I indicated on Second Reading that this was one part of the Bill in regard to which I should find myself in agreement with the Government. The Minister has been supported
470
so little on his own side of the House, that I am not at all sure that he will find it helpful to have a small measure of support from myself on this side of the House, but I will try to justify this support, on perhaps sounder grounds than the noble Lord who has just sat down, because he has been reinforced merely by the simple faith that, if the Government do it, then it must be right. I do not have that consolation. But I should also like to say that he must agree that he was much luckier than I was when he was in Maryhill Barracks. My first six weeks in the Army were spent there, and I can assure him that during that period they never gave me any time to find out if there were any clubs in Glasgow. But perhaps I was fortunate in that respect.
Speaking seriously, my Lords, I do not think that the clause merits all the attacks which it has received from noble Lords opposite. It has been made quite clear—and I think it could not have been put better than it was put by Lord Strathclyde and by Lord Balfour of Inchrye—that there are different categories of clubs and some of these do not require any supervision or police intervention of this kind. On Tuesday, the Minister of State said that he did not think this Bill would result in an increase in the number of clubs which were got together merely for the purpose of providing drinking facilities. With that point of view the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has again disagreed, and I am afraid that it is my opinion that in the long run, if the Bill goes through in its present form, Lord Ferrier is more likely to be right in this matter than is Lord Craigton. If that proves to be the case, then, obviously, there will be a need for greater powers than the police have under the status quo, because it is almost impossible to bring an unsatisfactory situation to an end with the procedure that must be followed at the present time.
It may be that Clause 16, as it stands, is not necessarily the right answer to that situation, and I should be very much surprised if, when the Minister replies, he does not feel himself obliged to say that he will have another look at this matter. If he does not, then he is going to run the risk of having nothing at all to consider. But I think it would be equally wrong to take the clause out

471
without being prepared to put something else in its place. As we stand this afternoon, there is no suggestion of amending the present law to make it satisfactory, either for the situation which exists at the present time in relation to some of these so-called social clubs, or for the situation which may arise if this Bill becomes law. If nothing is in the Bill, then it will undoubtedly not be satisfactory for Scotland.
While I wish to support the Minister on this matter, I obviously cannot give him completely unqualified support, because I disagree fundamentally with many of the reasons for which he does particular things, even though I arrive at the same destination. Certainly, I cannot work it out on the basis that "England is England and Scotland is Scotland", or that the Guest Committee recommended it or did not recommend it. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, earlier in the day, I do not know how he can possibly remember where he is in the Guest Committee's Report, because he keeps turning somersaults on it, at one moment accepting what the Committee are recommending and the next opposing what the Committee are recommending. If I cannot commend him for anything else, I can certainly commend him for a most excellent memory.
But in this case I think the answer lies in altogether another clause in the Bill. If the Minister followed the main recommendations of the Guest Committee regarding public houses, then the clubs need have no future terrors for the Government in Scotland. Similarly with Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is moving later on, the main problem arises from a continuation of the Government's policy of refusing to open the public houses on Sundays. I do not know yet what I intend to do at the next stage, but it may be that I will furnish your Lordships with a solution to this problem and the other one by moving either the same Amendment as I moved on Tuesday, or something else which accepts—if I may quote, without risk of retort, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn—that this would be a case where the right thing is that England is England and Scotland is Scotland, yet the twain must meet.
472
I certainly hope that the Minister does not succumb at this stage to the very considerable pressure which has been put upon him by those whom he is normally accustomed to describe as his noble friends, even though they are being quite unfriendly in their support to-day. But if he does feel constrained to do something about it, he should not go further than a promise to examine the situation, to find out whether he can accomplish the necessary object in relation to the social or drinking clubs in another way. But if this is the only way in which he can control these other undesirable aspects, then he ought in the last analysis to stick to Clause 16 as it stands. It certainly is better than the present completely unsatisfactory situation.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord who has just sat down. In fact, in this matter I am grateful for support from any quarter at all. But it has been a valuable debate, and I wrote in my notes before standing up that I appreciated that this was a question on which strong views were held. I think that would be not overstressing the case. Before I make a general reply, I should like to deal with two points. Why it is that my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn always raises these points, I do not know. He said that he doubted whether the police would welcome this power. I do not know what grounds my noble friend has for making that suggestion, because I understand that before the Guest Committee the police expressed their strong dissatisfaction about the present position, under which their only power of entry into a badly run club is by a warrant, with all the difficulties that that involves. One other point made by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn was that in a club the members owned the drinks and so on, and the club was virtually the members' home. He was wrong, because in a proprietary club the members do not own the drinks and, in any club, whether it is their property or not, they are controlled as to the hours in which they can drink. The club is not, in that respect, accommodation which is akin to their home, as he implied.
Surely your Lordships must feel, as the Government feel, that, in the face of the very substantial evidence that the

473
present situation is unsatisfactory, we should all be wrong to make no effort at all to ensure that the enforcement of the law was made more effective. I am sure that my noble friends would go with me as far as that. We realise that there is substantial opposition to the clause as it stands. My noble friend Lord Ferrier made some constructive suggestions which should be carefully considered. I must say to my other noble friends that I have seldom listened to a debate in which noble Lords had so few constructive suggestions to make, except that they just did not like the clause and thought it ought to be different. But what we should really be trying to think of for Scotland is how clubs ought to be controlled.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that we have given further consideration to this difficult question. What I would ask of your Lordships is not to resolve the question to-day, but to give the Government time for further study. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake that we will re-open the whole question and will have discussions with the chief constables and other interested persons. As your Lordships will understand, I can make no promises. There is clearly no easy solution, but if a way out can be found we will put clown Amendments on Report, when your Lordships will still be free, of course, as you are to-day, to take whatever action you think fit.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think your Lordships have succeeded in mollifying my noble friend to a most admirable degree. The cardinal point that has arisen from your Lordships' debate, I think, is the admission by the noble Lord Lord Hughes, that there are certain clubs which do not require supervision, and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to make that the cornerstone of his considerations when he comes to go further into this matter. I am delighted that he has said he will do so, and I shall look forward with great pleasure to seeing what the results of these deliberations may be. If the noble Lord can find some way of reducing at any rate the degree of this interference, then I think your Lordships may well be satisfied. It is not that any of your Lordships would doubt the tact and the good manners of the
474
police in Scotland; nor that you would wish evasion to go undetected or unpunished. None the less, there is a widespread fear at the moment that this clause as it stands would be an unjustified interference. I will therefore accede to the noble Lord's suggestion and will withdraw this Amendment, at any rate at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 171 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959
"In section one hundred and seventy-one of the principal Act (which provides for the procedure on application for grant or renewal of certificate of registration of a club), at the end of subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words ' and the registrar shall require the applicant to advertise a notice giving concise particulars of the application in two newspapers circulating in the locality of the club. The advertisement so published shall contain the information required by Part I of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act, and shall be inserted on at least two occasions, the last being at least ten days before the grant or hearing by the sheriff of the application'."
The noble Viscount said: There seems to me to be a gap, yet another gap, in the law regarding clubs and the restraints that are to be put upon them. Section 171 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, allows certain people to object to the granting or the renewal of a certificate of registration of a club. Among the people who can object are the chief constable, the town council or the district council. Further, there is provision by which the procurator fiscal can object; and so can any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the premises occupied by the club. This is in line with the provisions by which people can abject to the issue of a public house licence. The gap, however, exists in this respect. Whereas the chief constable, the town council or the district council are by statutory requirement notified of the application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, the person who occupies adjoining property is not; and, so far as I know, there is no method by which he can find out that a club is going to be opened up next door to him or within whatever the limit is to the term "adjoining property".
It may very well be that he is the person who has the best possible grounds for objecting to the opening up of a club. This is not a Scottish case, but I remember that when I lived in South Kensington a club opened up not very far away. I wished then that I had become aware in time of the fact that this was going to occur, because I would have objected very strongly, as I did afterwards.
My Amendment is an attempt, at any rate, even if it is technically inaccurate, to provide that the person who occupies adjoining premises will have at least some chance of finding out that a certificate is being applied for, because if this Amendment were to be accepted the application would have to be advertised in the newspapers at a certain stated time before the application was made. This, I believe, would give the adjoining owner a chance to make an objection in the proper way, and so to safeguard his rights and perhaps the peace and quiet of his house. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.]
LORD CRAIGTON: On its merits, this Amendment has something to be said for it, but not very much. The provisions which it amends are of long standing, dating originally from 1903 and last revised in 1913; so this could not be said to be a matter of urgency. It is true that under the 1959 Act only the chief constable and the local authority are informed by the sheriff clerk of the application, so that, as the noble Viscount has said, without newspaper advertisement, anyone owning property in the neighbourhood who is entitled to object at the time of the application may not learn of the application in time.
But under Section 175 of the Act a competent objector can raise an objection at any time, and if it is found proved, then the sheriff has discretion to cancel the club's registration. So, on its merits, this Amendment would do no more than give the potential objecting householder the opportunity to object a little sooner to the first application. Application for renewal would not be affected, as the objector, with or without this Amendment, would not have to wait for the renewal date before lodging his
476
objection. The noble Viscount follows me so far?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
LORD CRAIGTON: But there is another very valid reason for asking your Lordships not to accept this Amendment. This is not a Bill about Scottish club registration law, which has at least stood the test for a very long time and which cannot be said to be in urgent need of revision. This is a Bill, much overdue, mainly to deal with Sunday drinking and permitted hours. It does not attempt any general revision of the licensing law, and it would be inappropriate to do that while the Guest Committee are still sitting. Nevertheless, as it stands, even though it is narrow, the Bill is substantial and controversial. Whatever individual views may be on some aspects of the Bill—and we had them on the previous Amendment—I think we all want to see the Bill on the Statute Book.
But parliament has other important Scottish legislation to consider, which is starting on its journey in another place. We in the Government could have widened the scope of this Bill, but we exercised a self-denying ordinance in order to keep the Bill short, limiting its contents to matters of urgency. I would humbly ask your Lordships to help us by not opening up a new avenue of discussion by approving this Amendment—an Amendment which, in some form or another, could have been made at any time in the last 50 years. On those grounds, and not because the point made is not a valid one, I would beg the noble Viscount to see his way to withdrawing his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If it has not been made at any time in the last 50 years, it has at least been made now. I wonder whether my noble friend could tell me whether he has some sort of list in his Department on which he puts down this sort of point, to be taken into account when he comes to drafting the next Licensing (Scotland) Bill on a wider basis. If this point can be registered, at any rate, as being something that should be looked at, and if it may perhaps see the light of day in later legislation, then I think the desired end might have been achieved.
LORD CRAIGTON: As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde knows, there are lists and lists of points such as this awaiting a suitable legislative vehicle, and I can assure the noble Viscount that this point also will go on the appropriate list.
LORD HUGHES: And if it takes its appropriate place on the list, it may well be 50 years before it is the noble Viscount's turn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If Her Majesty's Government think it is really going to be a clog in the works, 1 have no option but to beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a small point, but one, I think, really covered by the scope of the Bill. We have already had discussions in your Lordships' Committee about the age at which people ought to be allowed to take liquor away from a shop to which they have been sent as messengers to buy it. My noble friend Lord Craigton was convinced that 18 was the minimum age at which they should be allowed to do this. Such being the case, it astonishes me that there is still no provision in the law of Scotland which prevents anyone under the age of 18 from serving in a bar, or at any rate in a club where intoxicating liquor is sold. Of course, anyone under the age of 18 cannot do so in a public house, yet there is no restriction of this nature at all in a club, and it was in order to try to fill this gap that I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16 insert the following new clause:
Persons under eighteen not to be employed in registered clubs
(". The provisions of section one hundred and forty-four of the principal Act (which provides that persons under eighteen shall not be employed in bars or licensed canteens) shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply and have effect as if registered clubs had been included therein.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am afraid that I must start by telling my noble friend that I am advised that his Amendment,
478
as it stands, is ambiguous, and on that ground alone cannot be accepted. Section 144 of the principal Act makes it illegal to employ persons under 18—and this is the provision which he seeks to amend—in the bar of licensed premises (that is, in part of the premises) or in a canteen (that is, the whole premises). It is not clear from the Amendment whether the illegality would consist in the employment of an under-eighteen in the club premises as a whole, or in only the part of the club where drinks are served. As the noble Viscount refers to registered clubs and not to the premises of registered clubs, the assumption is that his Amendment will probably make it an offence for any club to employ a person under 18. That rules out golf clubs with caddies and green-keeping staff under 18 years of age, and young gardeners, where the club has grounds. If it is only on the club premises that under-eighteens are not to be employed, that still rules out pages and boots. If the Amendment seeks to prevent under-eighteens from serving drinks, it is virtually impossible satisfactorily to define that part of the club where drinks could not be served by under-eighteens.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They could not be served anywhere.
LORD CRAIGTON: Let me finish. We are by no means unsympathetic to the intention behind this Amendment, and it may be possible to find a form of words which simply prohibits persons under 18 from being employed for supplying and serving drinks in clubs. If my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment, I make no promise, but I will look most carefully at this matter before the next stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. That seems to me entirely satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on carrying exciseable liquor in public service vehicles and private hire motor buses
". If any person carries or causes or permits to be carried on any public service vehicle

479
used as a contract carriage or on any private hire motor vehicle chartered for a private party exciseable liquor for consumption by the passengers (except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction thereof be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
The noble Lord said: The Sunday "boozing bus party" of "bôna-fide" travellers is one feature of the way of life in Scotland to-day which is a disgrace. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but I will go on to say that, as I know your Lordships are aware, this objectionable practice springs from the present state of the law, which this Bill is designed to alter. The Guest Committee referred to this evil in their Report, in Paragraphs 42 to 46. They did so in restrained terms, but I imagine I am not alone in the experiences which I have had, one of which I will describe.
I was returning to St. Andrews on a lovely summer afternoon by car with my wife and youngest daughter, who was then a schoolgirl, and on a quiet country road we came upon two buses standing by the roadside surrounded by the passengers, who were in various stages of intoxication. One was being sick in a ditch, and two others were relieving themselves otherwise on the road. Others were reeling about with bottles in their hands. The liquor was coming from cases in the open boot of the vehicle. Now, this sort of thing happens all over Scotland, despite what the Guest Committee said. They said "in various parts of Scotland", but it happens all too widely in Scotland on summer Sundays. It is an offence to all decent people, besides, of course, being an offence in law—but I shall refer to that aspect later. As the Guest Committee reported, it has become a "firm habit"—they are the two words I would quote from the Report; but it is a regular practice, call it what you will. A police sergeant once said a surprising thing to me when I asked him how things were going. He said: "Oh, we are getting ready for the drunken bus season ", which was his description of the summer.
Such conduct as I have described admittedly is disorderly, but it occurs
480
in remote places and at irregular times, so that the police cannot be expected to protect the public or to carry out their task of bringing disorderly scenes to a stop. In any case, as I shall show, on Sundays they are busily engaged in the villages, burghs, and country towns, dealing with the same problem of excessive drinking in the high streets. Recognising this position, the Guest Committee went on to say, in paragraph 46 of their Report:
"It seems to us, however, that it would be practicable, and certainly desirable, to devise measures which … would nevertheless check the grosser abuses which occur on Sundays and to a lesser extent on week-days. With that object in view we recommend that it should be an offence to consume liquor on any public service vehicle: and that it should be an offence for the proprietor knowingly or by the hand of his servant to carry liquor in quantity, for example in crates, in a public service vehicle used as a contract carriage."
This Bill, thank goodness, abolishes the "bôna fide traveller", but this very fact—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made this point, not only to-day but on Tuesday and on Second Reading—may increase the tendency to carry liquor in buses.
My Amendment, which I may say has been drafted on legal advice by the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, is an honest attempt to go part of the way to meet these difficulties. I say "part of the way", and I emphasise "part of the way" because it expressly accepts the right of the individual to carry his own refreshment on him, even as his baggage. I think it is notorious that part of a Scotsman's luggage often is corked. Let us accept that. But this sort of thing needs careful organisation. What I mean is this. For a party to set off in a bus with their pockets full of bottles, or with suitcases or haversacks packed with bottles, means organisation at the start. It is not easy to arrange, because one must remember that many of these buses pick up passengers from door to door and from road-end to road-end.
What is more, it is an open secret—indeed, it is obvious—that the organisers of bus parties arrange for liquor for the trip to be loaded in cases in the bus, when it can either be retailed (again an offence), or the cost is included in the cost of the ticket which is purchased in advance; and this, though it may technically not bring about the

481
offence of retailing liquor, means to a Scotsman that every drop has to be drunk before he gets back, if it has been paid for.
As drafted, my Amendment would not interfere with the carriage of liquor on regular bus services, or the like, about which the Guest Committee were a little ambiguous in their Report. The words relating to the vehicles affected in the Amendment (which go further than those used by the Guest Committee) specifically say:
"any public service vehicle used as a contract carriage or on any private hire motor vehicle chartered for a private party."
These are important words, and I would repeat that they omit the question of the stage carriage.
I am tempted to describe another incident which occurred to me which makes a point of what I have to say. I was driving to Edinburgh one Sunday through the town near which I live, and as I drove up the High Street the Edinburgh bus left the town in front of me, just as a figure, I will not say staggered, but very nearly staggered, out of a public house—this was about 6 or 7 o'clock. Obviously the man was desolated because he had missed the bus. I had an elderly retainer in the back of the car and she was horrified when I stopped and said to the man, Missed the bus? Do you want a lift? ". "Where are you going?", he said. "Edinburgh", I replied. "That will do", he said. He got in and I drove off.
About a quarter-of-an-hour later, having sort of steadied himself, he began to pour out torrents of thanks for what I had done. I asked him where he lived, and he named a place which was some thirty miles in the opposite direction. "You are going the wrong way", I told him. He said, "I know that, but I would do anything to get away from there". This man had got picked up in this bus business and found it was really a booze. He did not like it, but already had had far too much to drink. He admitted to me, "If you had not picked me up I would have been back there and under the counter. I want to get back to the wife and family".
I recite this story because there is no doubt that we have an obligation here to do what we can to prevent temptation
482
of this nature from coming in the way of men who fall easily for this sort of thing. They are on the bus and they are stuck there because it is their only way of getting home; and if they are carrying liquor, for which they have already paid, the bus is not going back until every bottle is empty.
May I say at this stage that I was speaking to my noble friend, Lady Elliot of Harwood, yesterday, and she asked me specifically to say that had she been able to be here she would strongly have supported my Amendment, feeling, as she does and as I and other noble Lords do, anxious to support any effort which can be made to limit this disgusting practice. It is not only the countryside that has these troubles to face; villages and county boroughs have their High Streets rendered the scene of disgraceful spectacles regularly every Sunday. The town with which I am associated has issued a by-law whereby all hired buses must be out of borough limits by 10 p.m. This is the best they can do to prevent decent people in the town from the hideous experiences which take place on Sunday evenings.
Now it is hoped that the closing of public houses will solve this problem, but the bus parties may still be a menace. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will agree with me when I say that we cannot be too sure about bus parties, but your Lordships will see that I have another Amendment to move with the idea of protecting licensed hotels from the sort of thing which the Guest Committee described. One hopes that matters will be better eventually under the new Act, but I have met no one, especially in authority, who does not support this Amendment. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as an ex-Provost will bear me out. I have spoken with another well-known ex-Provost, and, of course, with the Provost of the burgh near my home. He is emphatically in favour of this Amendment. If the wording of the Amendment is defective, as it may be, it really should not be beyond the power of the Parliamentary draftsmen to alter it to give effect at least to the intention which lies behind it.
As I said before, I am not an abstainer—far from it—and I see no objection to an individual decently

483
taking his dram or his glass any day of the week. But, as I said on Tuesday, I visualise an increase in the number of clubs, especially in the cities, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on Tuesday in his excellent, if unavailing, speech, he feels the same. I see no reason why the man who wants his drink on a Sunday should not get it, and if he is a Scotsman he thinks about it ahead and provides for his own refreshment and that of his family without having to be landed in the position of being more or less locked in with large supplies of liquor. The clubs which may spring up may add to the complications, but let us hope they do not. However, this revolting practice of setting off Sunday after Sunday on a deliberate booze is detested by the bulk of the people of Scotland, especially the womenfolk, and, with due respect to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, many of us feel that in not including a clause of this sort in the Bill the Government are departing from a specific recommendation of the Guest Committee. I appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Ferrier.)
LORD HUGHES: This is a case where I cannot support the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has put forward an unanswerable case on this Amendment. I believe it would he correct to say that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the reason why the Government had not accepted the Guest Committee's recommendation was because of the difficulty of drafting a suitable clause to cover the matter. I can well accept that it is beyond the wit even of Parliamentary draftsmen to bring forward a clause which will accomplish perfection in this matter, and it may well be that in the clause suggested by the noble Lord there will be many ways in which people will be able to go about the country and take drink with them. I am afraid that that will probably be the case. But this clause will undoubtedly make it more difficult for many of these organised drinking parties. It will make it so inconvenient for many of the organisers that they will not attempt it.
484
I cannot believe that the people who go on these drinking parties do so just because they want to drink away from home. They go because it is a way in which it is possible for them to get drink on a Sunday which they cannot otherwise get, and they can easily drink two or three pints, or two or three gallons, by doing it this way. But if they have to make their own arrangements of buying individually their supplies for Sunday in advance, then I am firmly persuaded that they will not go away in a bus carrying the stuff with them in order to drink it; they will drink it somewhere else where they are less likely to be a nuisance and a danger to other people.
I think this is a case where the Minister has no justification for declining to accept the Amendment. I say that, accepting the fact that he is perfectly sincere when he says that it is only drafting difficulties that have compelled the Government not to accept it. I do not believe the Government or their advisers are so completely incapable of getting something in this matter, and I think the best way of effecting an improvement in the present position is to insert this clause in the Bill as it stands. If it is not as effective as those of us who are supporting it think it will be, then I am fairly certain that between now and the Report stage the Parliamentary draftsman will be able to devise a form of words which, while not achieving perfection, will at least cure some of the evils. This is one of the real blots on Scottish licensing laws, and we shall be completely failing in our duty to Scotland if we permit this Bill to leave this House without something in it to reduce, if not abolish, this evil of what is nothing less than perambulating public houses on Sunday.
6.22 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the Government are in full sympathy with my noble friend's case and with the intention of the recommendations of the Guest Committee about liquor in buses. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading I explained the difficulties of enforcement, and that rowdy bus parties, to which my noble friend referred, were often in breach of the present law. I made the point that difficulties in enforcing the law could not

485
be solved by making new laws which were no easier to enforce; and I described fully the Government's difficulty in devising a form of offence which would be both understandable and acceptable to the public and not capable of easy evasion. We are grateful to my noble friend for trying to succeed where we have failed. Unfortunately, I must tell him that I have consulted my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate on this clause, and it is the Lord Advocate's view—with which I must agree—that its provisions are open to serious objection. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has a sort of feeling that we are not really trying to find a solution, and that drafting difficulties can be overcome, even if we do not achieve perfection.
LORD HUGHES: If I have given that impression, then I apologise to the Minister, because I do not feel so. My charge against the Minister is that he has given up too easily.
LORD CRAIGTON: I think it is important for your Lordships to realise the point made by my noble friend in his excellent speech, that his Amendment is one which might be described as a professional effort; that is to say, it is an attempt by skilled people, who had the benefit of seeing what was said by myself and others on Second Reading, to draw up an Amendment. I think I must spend a few minutes looking carefully at the wording of this seriously produced and well-attempted Amendment.
First, there is the use of the word "carry". It is used at the start of the clause:
"If any person carries or permits to be carried …"
In what sense is it used there? And who is the person who commits the offence? In the case of the contract carriage, it seems reasonable to take it as meaning, "carriage by the bus"—that is, that the offence is committed by the bus operator or his servant, the driver, or by both. But when we come to the hired car—because the clause appears to apply to hired cars—is this reasonable? The hirer of the car has little control over the use to which a hire car is put and could hardly be held responsible for the carriage of liquor in it by the people to whom he has hired it.
486
The word "carry" is used again in the words in brackets,
"(except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements)".
But again the meaning of the word is ambiguous. It may be intended to mean "carried by the person all the time he is on the bus". But, if this is the intention, it is doubtful if the drafting achieves it. A person who brings a suitcase on to a bus and places it on the rack or in the boot could possibly be held to be "carrying" the suitcase from the place where he gets on to the place where he gets off. But if "carrying" is interpreted as holding in one's hand, would it be reasonable to have a law which made the question of whether a criminal offence has or has not been committed turn on whether the passenger keeps his bag of bottles on his lap or gets tired and puts them on the floor?
But the Government's main difficulty relates to the vagueness of the words "private requirements" in the bracketed phrase. All drink is, in one sense, for some individual's "private requirements", since the only useful end to it is down somebody's "hatch". The law rightly requires a high standard of evidence for a conviction, and, if a passenger claimed that the liquor found on board the bus was for his "private requirements", it would be up to the prosecution to prove that it was not. It does not seem to my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate that the prosecution could be expected to do this. It is notorious that some people's "private requirements" of alcohol are much greater than others. Furthermore, is it not indeed the case that carriage for the "private requirements" of passengers—for consumption by the passengers during the bus outing—is exactly the activity which the Government and your Lordships' House are anxious to restrain? Carriage for some other purpose—to present a bottle to auntie at the end of the journey—would hardly give grounds for complaint.
It may be suggested that the words
"carried by individual passengers for their private requirements"
would at least prevent the carriage of crates. If so, this would be easy to evade by "breaking bulk" and distributing the bottles around the passengers, perhaps before they entered the bus. But

487
I am advised that it is not entirely clear—bearing in mind the difficulty about the meaning of the word "carry"—whether the phrase would prevent the carriage of crates, which I understand from my noble friend it is intended to do. If it is the case that it is not confined to carriage on the passenger's person or lap, there is nothing to prevent individual passengers, as a matter of convenience, putting the liquor provided for the "private requirements" of each into one or more crates for the purpose of carriage on the bus.
Then, consider the position of the bus operator and his driver. First, how are they to find out whether the passenger has liquor in the luggage he has brought on the bus? They could hardly insist on a search, and the liquor might be in a suitcase. And secondly, should an ordinary bus driver seeking to avoid criminal prosecution be asked to interpret such a provision, and to convince a protesting passenger that his interpretation is correct? And is it right that the operator should be at risk of prosecution if his driver interprets it wrongly?
These are, I am sorry to say, destructive criticisms; but they are no more destructive than were our own criticisms of the many similar drafting efforts of the Department, the draftsman and the Ministers concerned. I have dealt with this at some length, because I want my noble friend to be satisfied that his proposals would really not be effective, and I do not want him to feel that his much appreciated effort is being lightly cast aside. In view of what I have said, I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment, and I can assure him, and other noble Lords, that we shall continue to seek the solution that we should both like to find.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLIn some ways I hope my noble friend does not withdraw his Amendment. I fully understand the difficulties put forward by my noble friend Lord Craigton, but in this day and age so many people are inclined to regard your Lordships' House as being out of touch with the 1960's, that if we make no attempt at all in this Bill to deal with what is acknowledged to be the most scandalous facet of drink in Scotland I think people will say we are completely "ostrich-like"
488
and have no idea at all what happens in the world around us. Therefore, I feel it is better to have something in the Bill, even if it is defective and taken out at another stage and something else is put in, rather than to have nothing at all. At least it will get publicity for this problem, and it will show that we have made an effort to solve it.
LORD CRAIGTON: May I say this before my noble friend decides? If your Lordships were to put into a Bill an Amendment which could have the criticism brought upon it which has been mentioned, I do not know whether that would add high repute to your Lordships' House.
LORD FERRIER: While thanking the noble Duke for his support, I should like to point out that he said something which I had omitted to say, perhaps because I tried to conceal from your Lordships my strong feeling that this is a highly important matter to which this Committee must give grave attention before they pass it on. The noble Lord the Minister for State said that the Amendment which I have proposed could not be effective. But I have shown that the existing law is not effective. We all know of the disorderly conduct which occurs all over Scotland every Sunday, and the law is not effective. I, for one, would much rather see this Amendment in the Bill, and as much success achieved with it as is achieved with the existing law against disorderly conduct.
I am sorry that I am not impressed at all by the legal reasons advanced by the Minister of State. I say so for several reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has supported what I said, that a little consideration could adjust some of the difficulties. Take, for instance, what my noble friend Lord Craigton said about the word "carried". All right, let us use the words "loaded upon". Surely the Parliamentary draftsmen can get over that one. I can understand the criticism of the private hire vehicle bringing within its scope the smaller vehicle. All right, let us call it "a private hire vehicle with more than six seats" or something like that. But let us make some effort to put this thing right. I also feel that some of the pundits who have got down to providing the Minister's brief are insulting the sheriffs sitting in their courts.

489
Is the suggestion that the officers of the law in Scotland are not competent sensibly to interpret a clause such as I propose? Really, it is quite wrong that the suggestion should be made that the police would bring before a sheriff an individual or individuals against whom there was a very flimsy case and, if it were a good one, that the sheriff would dismiss it.
I really do not know quite what to do in regard to my Amendment, because if I press it I shall not be able to ask the noble Lord to spend the Christmas Recess in sounding the strength of opinion in Scotland on this matter: and not only the strength of opinion among the people, chiefly the womenfolk, but also that among the police and sheriffs. I believe it would be an absolute eye-opener. I do not feel that I can withdraw my Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I wonder whether I could plead with my noble friend Lord Ferrier in this matter? Everyone is agreed that this is a scandalous state of affairs. The Minister knows full well that it is, and he has said so. But I should not like to lose the opportunity of putting something into the Bill. It might be something of a much more simple nature; it might not be completely watertight, but at any rate it might be a considerable deterrent. The Minister has given his undertaking that he will look at it again, and that if he can possibly find a way round, it he will do something about it. If my noble friend does not withdraw the Amendment and the Committee divide on it, and it so happens that he is defeated, that is the end of the matter; whereas otherwise we have an opportunity for further thought and consideration and it may be that something will come of that. I would therefore press my noble friend to consider again whether he should not withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to say that I shall not agree to this being withdrawn. I think to do so would defeat the whole object. The only thing which will force some possibility of consideration is a form of words going into the Bill which will not be acceptable to the Government and so place on them the onus of finding some alternative form of words. I think the Minister has made
490
it perfectly clear that, as at presently advised, he can see no prospect of evolving, in his own Department, a form of words which will be satisfactory. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that he ought not to withdraw the Amendment, and that he should endeavour to get the Committee to insert it in the Bill to-night and place firmly on the Government the onus of improving it, if that is possible.
LORD CRAIGTON: Just for the record, I want to tell the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, what I said. I said that I can assure your Lordships (or words to that effect) that we will continue to seek a solution which we should both like to find.
LORD HUGHES: That is so, but one must recognise the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has told us that there is no possibility of his succeeding in finding a form of words. I should say that he has left us in no doubt that he cannot find a form of words.
LORD CRAIGTON: "Cannot yet" is right; and "very difficult" is right; but we have not given up trying.
LORD HUGHES:I think you should be given this very strong incentive to make a real effort.
LORD FERRIER: I cannot quite make out what the Minister has in mind. I feel that it is proper to take most seriously the advice which has been given to me by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. But can the Minister say whether he is going to try to introduce a measure in this Bill which will limit this, or is he going to give it up? I cannot get that clear.
LORD CRAIGTON: Even if I were to say that I was going to give it up, this Bill has to go through another place. We all know that this is a recommendation of the Guest Report, and the same pressure will be brought on Ministers in another place as is now brought on me. I can give my noble friend an assurance, behind my own assurance: that the Government will and must, by mere Parliamentary pressure, continue to try to find some way of implementing in some respects what the Guest Committee wanted, what we want, and what Scotland wants.
LORD FERRIER: I feel that the proper course, despite the assistance I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which I greatly value, would be to say to the Minister that if something is not put in the Bill, then I shall raise the matter again at a later stage. With that clear declaration, and with thanks to the noble Lords who have supported me in this, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: Before agreeing to that, can I have the firm assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that if an Amendment along these lines is not tabled at the next stage by the Government he will reintroduce this Amendment, or an Amendment in a similar form of words so that we shall have an opportunity in this House of inserting something in the Bill, whether the Government admit success or failure in their own efforts?
LORD FERRIER: Certainly. I have the greatest pleasure in giving that implicit undertaking, provided I am able to be here on my feet.
LORD HUGHES: On that, with great reluctance, I will not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 151 of principal Act.
". Section one hundred and fifty-one of the principal Act (under which it is an offence for any person to attempt to enter a public house while in a state of intoxication) shall apply also to a person attempting to enter any licensed premises (not being premises where he is residing), and any person who after the coming into force of this section contravenes the said section one hundred and fifty-one shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds (instead of the fine not exceeding forty shillings provided for in that section)."
The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as I can be, as there is very little to say.
LORD CRAIGTON: May I suggest we discuss this with Amendment No. 47, which is consequential?
LORD FERRIER: It happens that in studying the Bill I came upon this particular position under Section 151 of the principal Act whereby, as your Lordships
492
are aware, the police have power to prevent an intoxicated person from entering a public house. Now no public houses are going to be open on a Sunday, but the police have not the power to prevent an intoxicated person from entering a licensed hotel. The general object of having the clause is that it will strengthen the powers of the police in dealing with disorderly conduct on the part of persons under the influence of drink, and in particular it will make it an offence for bus parties who may be the worse for drink to stop at hotels, and will also be a contribution to curtailing excessive drinking on Sundays.
I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading when I drew attention to this lacuna in the new Bill, but I will say that, at that time, I said that powers should be given to the police to interfere with a drunken person who was entering a club. My noble friend on the Front Bench has satisfied me, in consultation, that that would be quite wrong for various reasons; and, indeed, it would be wrong to prevent a person in such a condition from entering the licensed hotel in which he had his residence. To that end, I feel, and I hope your Lordships will agree, that the feelings of this House are well met by the Amendment as it stands. Further, it is well known that fines paid under many of these Acts to-day in terms of the present value of money are derisory, and it is to that end that I have suggested that a maximum fine for an offence of this nature should be raised from 40s. to £10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved⅀
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ferrier.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for moving this new clause and for his co-operation with us in drawing it up, together with the consequential Amendment to the Second Schedule. We agree with both the wording and the intention of the Amendment, and I would ask your Lordships to support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
First Schedule [New Forms of Certificate]:
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to move this Amendment formally. It has

493
already been discussed with Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved⅀
Page 20, line 39, leave out from ("except") to end of line 46, and insert ("as follows, that is to say—

(a) the certificate holder may sell or supply such liquor to persons taking table meals in the said premises, for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal;

(b) the certificate holder may sell or supply such liquor to persons residing in the premises, for consumption by such a person or his private friend bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, and may supply such liquor to any private friends of such a person so entertained by him, for consumption by such a friend entertained as aforesaid;").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 50, leave out from ("premises") to ("for") in line 51.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON': This Amendment is formal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("so entertained by him") and insert ("bona fide entertained by him at his own expense").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Amendments of the Principal Act]:
LORD CRAIGTON: This and the following ten Amendments to the Second Schedule are all Amendments to the 1959 Act. They make no innovations in the law. They amend the 1959 Act in accordance with the general principles of this Bill and apply the provisions of the existing law to the new provisions in the Bill. As I have already explained to your Lordships, the most important purpose of the Schedule is to assist those who have to operate the licensing law, by writing into the 1959 Act the effect of the alterations made to that Act by the substantive provisions of this Bill. These eleven Amendments improve the Schedule and assist towards that desirable end. Unless your Lordships wish a detailed explanation I will move them formally and ask Lord Ferrier to move
494
his Amendment, No. 47, in the same way.
Amendment moved⁁
Page 22, line 38, leave out from ("certificate") to end of line 39.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 22, leave out from ("and") to ("or") in line 23 and insert ("for the words 'as aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words ` in pursuance of section forty-two of this Act or, as the case may be, subsection (2) of section ten of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961,'").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 27, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (5), for the words from 'section' onwards there shall be substituted the words 'and to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of section ten of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961, the provisions of this Act relating to the procedure to be followed in applications for the grant and confirmation of a new certificate shall apply also in relation to applications for the provisional grant and confirmation of a certificate, and for the purposes of this subsection section forty-two of this Act shall be deemed to apply in relation to an application for the grant of a new off-sale certificate '.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: Amendment 43 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, leave out from ("held") to end of line 6 and insert?—
("(a) in subsection (1), after the word 'reconstruction', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'or extension', for the words 'a hotel certificate or a public house certificate' there shall be substituted the words 'a certificate (other than an off-sale certificate)', after the word 'canteen' there shall be inserted the words '(being a reconstruction, extension or alteration which will affect a public or common part of such premises or any communication with such a part)', and after the word 'reconstruction', in the second and third places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the word 'extension';
(b) in subsection (2), after the word 'court' there shall be inserted the words 'shall not give their consent under this section to any reconstruction, extension or alteration which will materially alter the

495
character of the premises in question, and', and after the word 'reconstruction' there shall be inserted the word 'extension';
(c) after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection?—
(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "public part" means a part open to customers who are not residents or guests of residents; and

(b) "common part" means a part open generally to all residents or to a particular class of them.'").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: Amendment 44 removes an error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 49, leave out ("clubs and licensed canteens") and insert ("and clubs").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 50, leave out from ("hours") to end of line 2 on page 25 and insert ("at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following proviso—
'Provided that this subsection shall not apply to off-sale premises, nor in the case of premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held, to any part of such premises which is specified in a condition inserted in such certificate by the licensing court by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1961.'").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: The next Amendment corrects a clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("if the liquor is sold or supplied for the consumption of") and insert ("the liquor is sold or supplied for consumption by").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: In moving this Amendment, I should like to fill a gap in what I said before and thank the noble Lord on the Front Bench for the endless patience he has shown in discussing this matter with me and in helping me in the drafting of some of my Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
("24. In section one hundred and fifty-one (which provides that any person attempting to
496
enter a public house while in a state of intoxication shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings), in subsection (1)—

(a) for the words 'a public house' there shall be substituted the words any licensed premises (not being premises where he is residing)';

(b) for the words 'forty shilling' there shall be substituted the words 'ten pounds'.").—(Lord Ferrier.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 47, at end insert—
("27. In section one hundred and eighty-nine (which contains provisions regarding the trial of offences), in paragraph (e), after the words one hundred and fifty-seven ' there shall be inserted the word ' or ', and the words ' or one hundred and sixty-six ' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This paragraph was omitted in error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 5, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2), for the words `one hundred and forty-five' there shall be substituted the words one hundred and forty-eight' and the words ' one hundred and sixty-six ' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 1, leave out from second ("premises") to ("for") in line 3.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("so entertained by him") and insert ("bona fide entertained by him at his own expense").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Repeal of Enactments]:
LORD CRAIGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 52. Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and eighty-nine, in paragraph (e), the words 'or one hundred and sixty-six'.

497
In section one hundred and ninety-one, in subsection (2), the words ' one hundred and sixty-six'.")—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Sdhedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.