Lords Sitting of 18 July 1961

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

LEGAL EDUCATION
2.35 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the criticism of the Inns of Court made by the Attorney General, they will take steps to establish a common system of legal education that would facilitate interchange between barristers and solicitors.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for legal education in England but I know that considerable work has been done by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Council of Legal Education on the subject of a common system of legal education and I hope that that work will soon come to fruition. I am sure that this matter is better left to the two branches of the legal profession to deal with.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while being moderately thankful for that Answer, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether his attention has been drawn to the recent Presidential address of the President of the Law Society, in which he advocated a common system of legal education, and whether he has also considered the criticisms of his right honourable and learned friend in another place, who has stated that the Inns of Court will not get on with the necessary work in this sphere and that nothing is being done by them? In these circumstances, is it not time that the Government took some action in this field?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is, yes; and I have considered the suggestions with great interest. Secondly, I am sure that the Inns will carefully consider the remarks made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, but I should point out to the noble Lord that my right honourable and learned friend was speaking as head of the Bar and not in his ministerial capacity. The answer to the third point is, as I said, that I still have great hopes of progress being made, and although, as I said further, it is no business of mine, if anyone wishes my help, it is at his service.

CONTROL OF PAKISTANI IMMIGRANTS
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: 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 steps they propose to take to prevent the agreement with Pakistan on immigrants from being circumvented by Pakistani nationals, who leave Pakistan—without complying with the terms of the agreement—by declaring themselves pilgrims to Mecca and who arrange with Pakistanis, already living in Britain, to book air tickets for them from airports in the Near East—outside Pakistan—onwards to London.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, no formal agreement exists. The controls on the movement of migrants from Pakistan to this country were imposed by the Pakistan Government, and any evasions are therefore entirely a matter for them. Where circumventions of these controls come to our notice we bring them to the attention of the Pakistan authorities.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke for his reply, the last sentence of which has already, I am afraid, answered the supplementary question I intended to ask.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, in view of the great shortage of

513
housing which was disclosed on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill last week, will Her Majesty's Government give preference to the comfort of the overcrowded 'ratepayers of this country; and will they now come to a decision to impose a temporary quota on migrants which, from India and Pakistan, number 6,000 in each case for the first five months of this year?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I think I am justified in saying that that is an entirely different subject. I can, however, say that the matter of immigration is under consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

PRICES OF FAT CATTLE
2.40 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: 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 is the reason for the low market price of fat cattle which results in a subsidy of over £3 per cwt., and whether they are satisfied that imports of meat have not been excessive.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, present low prices are the result of a combination of factors. For several weeks now, substantially more cattle have been marketed than is usual at this time of year. Some came forward unusually early because of the forward grass season, but more recently shortage of keep has also brought unusual numbers to the market. It is also possible that some farmers may have been misguidedly attracted by the high rate of guarantee payment to market their stock prematurely. As might be expected in these conditions, quality has not always been of the best. Coinciding with all this, the spells of tine weather we have been enjoying seem to have turned interest away from beef, particularly from the least choice cuts, towards other meats and poultry, supplies of which are plentiful. Imports of meat so far this year are lower than last and cannot be regarded as excessive.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but may I ask him what proportion of
514
the subsidy now paid is being passed on to the consumer?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I am clear as to the point my noble friend is trying to make. Is he referring to the retail prices?
LORD ALLERTON: Yes.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there are no precise figures of retail prices, but I understand that there have been reductions over recent weeks, particularly in the prices of the cheaper cuts. We hope that butchers will keep in mind the desirability of stimulating demand for beef, and this is one of the points that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food raised when he met representatives of this trade a few days ago.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does this not seem to point to the fact that, if you want to continue what was intended to be not only the maintenance of beef production but also a cushion for the consumer, there should be a proper control of prices right through?—because it is quite certain that the difference between, say, 180s. and 115s. in the market is not being passed on in that proportion to the consumer.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it is true that the low market price has not been reflected in a similar reduction in the retail price but, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows, these things do not always follow at the same time. Of course, the butchers continue to have their overheads, and they average out prices over their various products. As for the other suggestion the noble Viscount made about control (I think he was suggesting that one should control retail prices as well) that, of course, is a matter of Government policy, on which he will not expect me to comment.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the previous questions, would it not be possible for the noble Lord to recommend that consideration be given to the possibility of some supplementary publicity or information which would give some greater reassurance to the public that the high cost of subsidy to the Exchequer now really does in some way get tied in with prices to consumers? Some of us who are farmers are much

515
alarmed at the high subsidy that we obtain for cattle which does not seem to be coming through to the retailer. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could give consideration to some kind of supplementary publicity.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his supplementary. Of course, there is anxiety among some farmers that the subsidy seems to be running too high—that is to say, it represents too large a proportion of the total price—but I think it is too early to say at this stage how the total subsidy will work out at the end of the year. This is generally believed to be an exceptional case, due, as I pointed out in my original Answer, to the flush of grass, in the first place, followed by a prolonged drought, resulting suddenly in a shortage of keep in the second place, with the added influx of cattle to the market which would not normally have been expected. It is thought that this condition is purely temporary.
As for the noble Lord's suggestion, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister will pay special attention to his remarks. I have no doubt that they will be read by the organisations which represent the butchers and the retail trade, and I have no doubt that the purport of his remarks will not fall on deaf ears.

HISTORIC HOUSES
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 progress they have made in compiling or approving lists of buildings 'of special architectural or historic interest, and when they expect that 'this work will be completed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, in England and Wales the Minister of Housing and Local Government had by June 30, 1961, issued statutory lists for 978 out of the 1,474 local authority areas. A further 256 local authority areas had been partly listed. If the present rate of progress is maintained the work of survey for
516
listing will take a further five years, and it will be some time thereafter before the issue of the statutory lists is completed. In Scotland, only limited progress has been possible with statutory listing because of the very considerable search work in connection with titles for purposes of the necessary recording in the Register of Sasines, but about two-thirds of the country has been covered by provisional lists. I am sending my noble friend a copy of a recent circular which sets out the position in Scotland.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, are the Government aware that, in the 'opinion of many official bodies, the present staff coping with the provisional lists appears to be far too inadequate? Would the Government consider increasing the staff for this purpose?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would certainly agree with my noble friend that one of the reasons for the delay in this matter has been the shortage of clerical and other staff, in particular clerical staff. But, of course, there is a global shortage of clerical staff, and there are many other competing priorities. However, I will, of course, take note of what my noble friend has said.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that there are several bodies responsible for carrying out this work? There are the Ancient Monuments Board, the Royal Commission and, I think, the local authorities. Is the noble Earl satisfied that the work is more expeditiously carried out in this way than it would be if it were carried out by one authority?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the question of trying to centralise this whole process is under study within the Government at the present time, and I do not think I can go further than that in my answer to my noble friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that if we have not completed the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill by 10 o'clock, it will be adjourned until Thursday evening. It will also be necessary to adjourn for dinner this evening, and I suggest that the time of the adjournment be fixed nearer to the dinner hour.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
EYEMOUTH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ARMY AND AIR FORCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BARRISTERS (QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a and passed.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to make advances for construction of vessel]:
(3) If interest on any sums advanced by way of loan under this section is at a rate exceeding four and a half per cent. Per annum, the Minister and the Company may, notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, agree on terms which provide for a part of any sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section being by way of grant (instead of by way of loan) but which in the opinion of the Minister do no more for the Company than place them in a position which is, within a reasonable degree of approximation, equivalent to the position in
518
which the Company would have been if every part of the sums advanced under subsection (1) of this section had been by way of loan, but had carried interest at the rate of four and a half per cent per annum.
(5) A copy of any agreement between the Minister and the Company regarding the making of advances for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no part of any advance or grant made under this section shall be used for any purpose other than the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I rise to move does not concern the unwisdom of replacing the "Queen Mary," a view which is held, as is known, by a very significant number of informed parsons; and, according to reports in the Press, it would seem that there is a very significant number of shareholders of the Cunard Company who are equally opposed to this proposal. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the advance of money to the Cunard Company; in short, to subsidise what is mistakenly called free enterprise. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that none of the Government money is used to undermine Government enterprise—namely, to undermine and to compete with B.O.A.C.
The Chandos Committee, whose Report we have not been permitted to see, stated that the Cunard Company could not find the £30 million out of its own resources; that it could find only £12 million; and that is why the Bill proposes that the Government should advance £18 million. The statement of the Chandos Committee may have been correct at the time when it was written, but subsequent events have disclosed that it is not wholly accurate, because the Cunard Company could find an extra £6 million, which they have diverted, or propose to divert, to the Cunard Eagle Airways Company, a company which proposes to compete with B.O.A.C. In short, this subsidiary company of the Cunard Company proposes to purloin a large share, or a large element, of the goodwill of B.O.A.C. and to pay nothing for it, a goodwill which has been built up by State money, State assistance and State guidance. Really this is something in the nature of plundering the nation's

519
patrimony. Even in the worst kind of take-over goodwill is wholly or partially paid for, whereas this proposed competition with B.O.A.C. is to be free. My Lords, this is the fine flower of Tory free enterprise: the handing over of State assets free to private enterprise as soon as they become profitable, rather than competition by free enterprise, is regarded as a virtue, whereas it is nothing of the kind; it is an operation and an exercise in purloining.
The company which is formed or is to be formed, to be known as the Q 3 Company, will be a subsidiary, wholly owned, as I gather, of the Cunard-White Star Company, and Eagle Airways will also be a subsidiary. Whether it will be a wholly-owned subsidiary I do not know, but it is not material for my point. However, it is the case that the Cunard Company, who are to be the guarantors of this advance of £18 million, could divert, temporarily or otherwise, some of the money put up by the Government to purposes which would really be giving assistance to the Eagle Airways enterprise. It would really be a Gilbertian situation that the Government's money should be used, directly or indirectly, in order to damage a Government undertaking, namely, B.O.A.C., and this Amendment is put down in order to make doubly sure that none of this money is in any way used to assist, bolster up or sharpen, the competition or the activities of the Eagle Airways. It seems to me that if, in good faith, this money is to be used only for the purposes provided in the Bill, the Minister will find himself able, indeed may well be a little anxious, to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Latham.)
3.0 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): When I first saw the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down and which he has just moved, I thought it was a rather innocuous one. Then I thought a little more, and I concluded, from its somewhat strange drafting and its content, that he must have intended it as some kind of peg upon which to hang a hat;
520
and indeed it has proved to be so. May I, for a moment, deal with the Amendment itself as such? It is, of course, completely redundant. What the noble Lord wants is already stated in the Bill, and if your Lordships would refer to Clause 1, subsection (1), you will see that the last few lines make that quite clear.
Therefore, I think I must turn for a moment to the noble Lord and the hat which he has hung on this peg, and deal with the first point regarding aviation. I dealt, I thought at some length and I hoped with some degree of clarity, with this matter on Second Reading. I cannot recall off-hand whether the noble Lord opposite heard it or not, or perhaps he subsequently read it in Hansard, but I am quite happy, since he has brought the point up, to deal with the matter again. I said at the time that I thought his argument was quite misconceived, and I went to some further length to explain that there was really no connection between the aviation enterprise and the purchase of Boeing Aircraft to use in connection with it, because, so far as raising the funds was concerned, it was quite separate. I said at the time that Cunard had raised this money on the security of some of their property in the United States. I said at the time that your Lordships could ask why this could not be used for the building of the new "Queen", and I answered that it was a totally different proposition. I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact, as the noble Lord has done to-day, that the Chandos Committee had accepted that £12 million was the maximum amount that Cunard could be expected to find, and the Government had accepted it, too.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say whether at that time Cunard had decided to enter into the aviation field and needed the £6 million?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, I can say that quite easily. They had, at the time, revealed the fact quite openly and honestly to the Chandos Committee, and the Government also knew of it at the time they decided to accept this recommendation. I was going to come to that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: Could I ask what the properties were in America upon which the

521
money was raised for Cunard's own purposes? Was it on the shipping properties of the Cunard Company?
LORD CHESHAM: I have been informed that it was land property which they owned in America.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Held by a shipping company. It was obtained on the shipping properties. I thought that if they wanted to develop the shipping line they would do it, like the P. & O., out of their own resources, instead of coming, for public money.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think I want to go over all my Second Reading argument again, but I would say this: the point is that raising money for these aircraft is a totally different operation from raising it for a ship They have applied those assets they have in America.
LORD LATHAM: That means, the noble Earl will admit, that there will be £6 million less assets available to support the guarantee of the Cunard Company.
LORD CHESHAM: No, I do not mean that. May I go on to make my point? I had already explained on Second Reading—I am sorry to go over this again, but I must do it in view of the arguments that have been put forward—that nobody has ever said that Cunard were unable to raise £30 million. What has been said, to the satisfaction of the Chandos Committee and of the Government, was that £ million was the most they could raise for the purpose of replacing a "Queen"— a slightly different matter. I will go on to make the point, if I may, and that is that raising money for aircraft is a very different matter from raising it for a "Queen". The reason for that is that the aircraft pay for themselves very much more quickly, and that in the event of their not proving successful it is possible to sell them, because they are widely used on services all over the world. Therefore, to raise the equivalent amount of money for a ship would require much wider collateral and there would be no scope for selling the ship if the need arose.
LORD LATHAM: Is it not a fact that in the summary of the Chandos Committee's Report, published on June 1, 1960, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place Vol. 624, column 1441, it says:
"Since Cunard have available only £12 million from their own resources to invest in the project, the Government would have to provide the remainder of the capital cost."
That is precisely 'what I said.
LORD CHESHAM: And it is precisely what I say. The operative words are: "to invest in the project". Nobody has ever tried to hide that it has been said right from the word go that that was the amount they had to invest in the project. This aircraft project has arisen purely and simply on the strength of Cunard's property in America.
The noble Lord said that it was wrong that they should invest this money in aircraft and compete with B.O.A.C. I can say nothing about that. Developments have gone further than on Second Reading, when I spoke. It is known that Cunards have applied for rights on this traffic route. I said then that I could not say much because it was still subject to a possible appeal by B.O.A.C. Today I can say even less, because B.O.A.C. have appealed, and therefore the matter becomes, so far as I am concerned at any rate, sub judice, and I can say no more than that. It seems to me that 'the noble Lord has rather missed the point of this, in that if this ship is not built, Cunard, far from getting large presents from the Government with which to acquire aircraft, will not build the ship and will therefore presumably have, if they wish to employ it in that way, £12 million to put into their aircraft. I should have thought that was a point the noble Lord should have taken with some force. Therefore, these things, as I have tried to show, cannot be connected together.
I would refer to paragraph 6 of the White Paper, which is to re-emerge as a formal agreement with the company, where it says that Cunard are not to call for contributions from Her Majesty's Government except as required to meet the commitments of the Q.3 Company in connection with the building of the ship. I do not think that that leaves me with any other option than to hope that

523
the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and that if he does your Lordships will reject it.
3.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I find this matter more and more curious to understand as it unfolds. We are now told that the Cunard Company could, if they had wished, have provided this sum of £18 million from their own resources. No doubt that is the case. We do not dispute that. What we are disputing is that the Government should produce £18 million out of their resources. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has told us that the company were able to provide a large sum for the purchase of aircraft by mortgaging their assets in America. They could have mortgaged them just the same for the purchase, or to go towards the building, of a steamship or a large vessel of this kind. A person who lends money on mortgage is not particularly interested in whether the person who borrows it is going to build a ship. Why should he be? If a person has a piece of Fifth Avenue and he goes to a mortgage company, all the person at the mortgage company looks at is the value of it—it is the land and the security that he is looking at.
I think there is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Latham says. We have built up these two Corporations at enormous expense to the taxpayer, with an enormous amount of trouble and work on the part of those who have served in the two Corporations throughout the years. Unlike most nationalised industries, they are subject to fierce competition because, in the main, certainly so far as B.O.A.C. are concerned, their operations are outside the country. They have to face competition from other operators. Quite frankly, if any substantial inroad is made into the cream of the traffic they will not be able to make their operations pay. We have to face that fact.
I do not care whether the matter is sub judice or not. We use the phrase "sub judice" for all sorts of things that are not sub judice at all. But whether it is or not, I do not care. But, having been into this carefully throughout the years, and knowing the history of civil aviation, I warn your Lordships that the Corporations will not be able to make ends meet if the cream of the traffic is taken away from them, either on the Atlantic route
524
or on the other routes. That is the only part of the operations that most of these independent transport operators want. They do not want the parts that do not pay; they want the parts that do pay—and they only want them, as a rule, at the peak of the season. The two Corporations have to run their operations all through the year; they have to run on low load factors at certain times of the year. They provide a service.
Whilst I am all in favour of competition—I am very much for competition, and I wish that we had more competition, both in the nationalised industries and also in the private sector, where there seems to be far less competition than even we thought—one must remember that when you are dealing with these airlines you are dealing with a special case, and that up to now the history of civil aviation has been that Britain has never been able to put more than one major line on any route. When more has been attempted it has soon proved to be not profitable, and one or other of those particular airlines has had to cease business.
Those are the facts and, as the subject has been raised on this Amendment, I think it ought to be known that those are the facts. What we are doing in this Bill, it seems to me, is to deal a crippling blow to B.O.A.C.; and by enabling the Cunard Company to have the taxpayers' money to finance their ship, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, so rightly said, we are freeing their assets in the United States for them to buy aircraft. I would suggest a quite simple way out of this. In view of Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's speech at Hawarden Castle on Saturday, and the serious economic position that he states the country to be in—and we have no reason to believe that he is not absolutely right—I am going to suggest a way in which the Government can help Mr. Selwyn Lloyd to save £18 million of the taxpayers' money. It will help him to the extent that he will have to find £18 million less than he would otherwise. I suggest that the Government withdraw this Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that we have been talking about £18 million. In actual fact it is only £,3¼ million. The other money is on loan at an extremely high rate of interest. It is completely guaranteed by Cunard's

525
assets; there is no danger of any loss by the Government. It is inaccurate to talk about a subsidy of £18 million; it is a subsidy of £3¼ million. As we heard in the Second Reading debate, the North Atlantic express sea service has always been a subsidised service. We hear how the American Government have subsidised the cost of building their new ship at 58 per cent. and are giving a 28 per cent. subsidy towards operating cost; the Dutch with a 40 per cent. subsidy of the capital cost, and the French with 20 per cent. subsidy. Are we, the greatest maritime Power in the world, going to be driven off the North Atlantic? We also heard in the Second Reading debate of the dollars that these "Queens" earn—20 million dollars a year, in hard currency. Is that not something? If this country is coming to economic difficulties, as it appears to be, I feel that this is the kind of endeavour we ought to support. We want to support something that is going to redress our balance of payments. I honestly cannot support this Amendment. I think it is nonsense. It is, as my noble friend said, completely redundant.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.18 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "four and a half" and insert "five and three-quarters". The noble Lord said: I think it might be convenient, if your Lordships agree, that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be spoken to as one, because they are linked. I should like to say that, although I was not present during the Second Reading of this Bill, I have read the Report of the debate. It is quite obvious that the Bill had a somewhat lukewarm reception in this House—a fate no worse than it had in another place, because it did not appear there to be welcomed by many people with open arms. Since it was introduced in another place, circumstances, economic and financial, have changed. At least, our attention is being drawn to a circumstance which is now claimed to have changed, though many people have thought it was there all along. What has been said in another place to-day, and what is to be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Tuesday, will surely emphasise that position.
But, as I have said, I read what the Ministers had to say on Second Reading, and there appears to be a certain inconsistency between the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I apologise for drawing attention to something so ordinary as Government inconsistency. In the debate last Monday, July 10, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233 (No. 106), col. 7]:
"From the depth of their own very long experience, the Cunard Company believe that the service would continue to be a commercial proposition even after the retirement of these ships, but they could not find themselves able to provide enough capital from their own resources to replace them with new ships of the same class at current high shipbuilding costs."
Later (col. 11) he said:
"The split between loan and grant will be so calculated as to be equal in value to a loan of the same total sum at 4½ per cent. The only purpose of this change is to make clear the amount of subsidy involved, because we think it right for this to be seen clearly for what it is. It has been provisionally calculated at £3¼ million."
But then in column 46 we see that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, stated:
" But the Committee under Lord Chandos who looked into this matter said it would be unwise for the company … to attempt to commit themselves to paying more than 4½ per cent. for the large sum of money which had to be borrowed."
The first statement of Lord Chesham indicates that the only difficulty was the need to raise the capital from the company's own resources; that some of it had to come from outside. The second indicates an expectation of profitability great enough to pay a 7½ per cent. dividend, if a dividend were to be disbursed, but at least a 7½ per cent. profit, and to repay a 25-year loan in something like 10 to 15 years. The third indicates an inability to pay, rather than an inability to raise capital. Fortunately for Lord Chesham, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, proceeded in the next part of that statement to agree with him, because he went on to say (col. 46):
"The Chandos Committee said that they thought the company would get through all right if they could borrow this very large sum of money at 4½ per cent."
I must say that I agree with that statement of the Chandos Committee and its quotation by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I think the company will be all right if

527
it gets the equivalent of £18 million at 4½ per cent. Who would not be in these days?
But what of the general public, the taxpayers? The Government propose to charge the current Public Works Loan Board rate for a 25-year loan. In the White Paper that is referred to as 6¼ per cent., but the Government have moved in these matters since then. The current rate, as from last week, is 6½ per cent. But they further propose that the sum lent should be limited to the amount which, at current rates, would require the same annual repayment as £18 million lent at 4½ per cent. Eighteen million pounds at 6½ per cent. requires £1,475,000. In the figures I am going to quote there are a number of odd hundreds of pounds, but for simplicity I will ignore them. But these figures have been calculated and checked. Eighteen million pounds at 6½ per cent. requires £1,475,000; at 4½ per cent. It requires £1,213,000. The sum which would be serviced at 6½ per cent. By this lower annual payment is £14,867,000. The difference between these two capital sums is £3,192,000, which would be the amount of the cash grant stated in the Paper at approximately £3¼ million. In explaining that policy the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said (col. 11)—and I am repeating the remarks he made because I think it is worth while repeating them:
"The only purpose of this change is to make clear the amount of subsidy involved."
I venture to suggest that the method proposed by the Government, far from making it clear, most effectively conceals how much of the public resources are being handed over to the Cunard Company.
The difference between a loan of £18 million at 6½ per cent. and at 4½ per cent. requires an annual charge of £261,000. Over 25 years this totals £6½ million, and that is the real, effective subsidy which is being given to Cunard from public funds—an interest-free grant of £3¼ million which would have required, at current rates, £61 million to repay. It does not need much of a calculation to see what that is, represented as a percentage of the capital cost of the ship.
But the Government go further than that. They propose, in the agreement which was tabled as a White Paper, to
528
allow the Cunard Company to earn 7½ per cent. of their equity, and to provide, in addition, for depreciation of the ship before there can be any accelerated repayment of the public loan. Twelve million pounds at 7½ per cent. over a 25-year annuity requires £1,076,000 a year. When this is added to the sum the Government require to service their £18 million loan at 4½ per cent., the total amount is £2,290,000. This is the sum which, on the Government statement, the new ship can be expected to carry; and in the first ten to fifteen years, if we are to believe the Government, it will carry a great deal more, because it is going to repay the whole of the loan in that period.
In passing, it is interesting to note that the shareholders will receive more, a greater cash sum, each year of their £12 million than the taxpayers will receive of their £18 million. It seems to me that this is a proposal which would be difficult to justify if the national position were in every way sound.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the shareholders are the taxpayers. A great deal of that goes back to the Government from the shareholders.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount speaks more correctly than he knows. The public are shareholders in the Cunard Company to a limited extent. The Government hold one £20 share in the Company. That is the only extent to which the public are shareholders in Cunard. If the suggestion the noble Viscount is making is that it is good policy to hand over 100 per cent. in the expectation that you will get back 7s. 9d. in the pound, that seems to me to be even more of the economics of the madhouse than is customarily expressed in these times of so-called crisis. It would be difficult to justify this proposal if times were good; but to continue to put it forward in present circumstances seems to me to be nothing short of iniquitous.
A capital sum of £30 million requires for servicing over 30 years at 5¾ per cent. (which is the figure suggested in the Amendments) a sum of £2,291,000, which is the same to within £1,000 as the aggregate amount required under the Government's proposals. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the figure of 5¾ per cent. is put in to replace the figure of 4½ per cent. It is put in because it

529
does not increase the total financial burden which the ship is required to carry. If it is a proper total under the Government's proposals, it remains the same proper total under the Amendments. What is done is that the burden is shared 'proportionately between the contributions of the shareholders and those of the taxpayers.
This is still a generous deal for the Cunard Company—more, perhaps, than many people would say is justified. But the Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Latham and myself are deliberately restricted to keep the matter within the financial structure of the framework of the Bill. We do not wish the Government to hide off, as they did on another occasion quite recently, by arguing that to pass this Amendment would be to make the Bill unworkable. The Bill, boy the Government's own financial reasoning, would be as workable with the Amendments as in its original state.
But my noble friend Lord Latham and I are not seeking in these Amendments to commit your Lordships to the principle that there should be no subsidy to the Cunard Company. We are even prepared to keep within the framework of the Bill to that extent. Because, after all, the loan at the rate we suggest, 5¾ per cent., would require an annual servicing charge of £1,374,000, which is almost £101,000 less than the 61 per cent. rate would require; and it would be sufficient to servlice a sum of £1,230,000 for 25 years at 6½ per cent. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 propose to substitute the figure of £1½ million for the figure of £3¾ million. The cash grant is equal, with interest, to a real subsidy to the Cunard Company of £101,000 a year for 25 years—a total sum of £2,521,000 being paid to them from the public pocket. If I might repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, quoted from the Chandos Report, the company will still be doing all right.
The present dividend on Cunard's shares is 6 per cent. per annum. Their £1 shares were quoted last night at a middle price of 15s. I can see in these figures no justification Whatever for guaranteeing to the shareholders of Cunard for the next 25 years a dividend of 7½ per cent. on the £12 million which they propose to invest in this new Q.3.
530
It is even more difficult to justify in present circumstances, because he would be a bold man who would predict that the outcome of the events through which we are going just now will be to guarantee that over the next quarter of a century the money policies which animate the present Government will be perpetuated—and it is only a continuation of these circumstances which could begin to justify what is the equivalent of a guaranteed 7½ per cent. dividend for the shareholders.
I have one final proposal to put forward, and this has nothing to do with what is in the Amendments, other than by direct consequence. We appreciate that if the Amendments are carried the agreement with the Cunard Company will have to be rewritten. The present agreement allows the Company to keep earnings up to 7½ per cent. on their equity, and it is only after they have received that, plus various other sums—depreciation and the like, including the nice little titbit thrown in, that the money is not to be compounded until the ship actually sails: and I may say here that some of the nationalised undertakings would be very appreciative of getting their interest not compounded until a scheme was completed—and after the 7½ per cent. had been retained, that the accelerated repayment of the loan may take place. I think it would be equitable if, in the proposed agreement, the figure of 5¾ per cent. were substituted for the figure of 7½ per cent. presently in the agreement. I should not be averse, and I do not think my colleagues would be averse, to any surplus that existed after that being divided proportionately between the taxpayers and the shareholders: three-fifths of anything after 5¾ per cent., shall we say, going towards the accelerated repayment of the loan, and two-fifths being permitted to remain with the company to do with as they please, either to retain within their resources to buy more aeroplanes to compete with B.O.A.C. or to distribute in dividends to their shareholders.
To sum up, the effects of the Amendments will be that the shareholders, like the taxpayers, will receive an initial rate of interest of 5¾ per cent., requiring, as I have said, the same total annual sum as the Bill requires at present. The cash grant, the gift, will be £1¼ million,

531
with an ultimate value of £2½ million, instead of a gift of £3¼ million with an ultimate value of £6½ million. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("four and a half") and insert ("five and three-quarters"). —(Lord Hughes.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I am naturally delighted to join with the noble Lord opposite in dealing with all these Amendments together. I am sure he will not mind my saying that his argument has been a little on the intricate side to follow, and I hope that neither he nor the Committee will think I am being in any way unco-operative if I do not follow him in quite the intricacy and length to which he has gone in moving the Amendment that he has put before your Lordships. However, there are three quick points that I should make, and make as clearly as I can, because it seemed to me that there existed some slight misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Lord—or some misconception, perhaps—as to the actual position.
The first thing is that, as I understood him to put the case, it seemed to me that he was quite determined that the 7½ per cent. which is mentioned was in same way some kind of guaranteed return to Cunard.
LORD HUGHES: No.
LORD CHESHAM: That was the impression the noble Lord gave me, whether or not he gave it to the House.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry; the fault must be mine, but I thought it was quite clear that what I was putting before was what the noble Lord had stated, what the Government had stated: that there is no acceleration until the company have earned 7½ per cent.—and I repeated the word "earnings". That is not to say have distributed as dividends. They could make a nest-egg of it if they wanted; but they are allowed to earn 7½ per cent. before there is any acceleration of payment.
LORD CHESHAM: That is exactly what I said. I did not take the noble Lord's words down, and I shall be quite prepared to withdraw later if I am
532
wrong, but I certainly understood the noble Lord to refer on more than one occasion to a guaranteed return of 7½ per cent. I willingly apologise to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but that is how I understood him to put the matter.
LORD HUGHES: May I repeat what I said, because I have my note here? I said the Government proposed to allow Cunard to earn 7½ per cent. on their equity, and to provide for depreciation, before accelerated payments will take place.
LORD CHESHAM: That is what the noble Lord said on that occasion. I do not want to argue with him, because it is rather important that we get on to the substance of the Amendment, but I still have that impression, although I am prepared to stand corrected. If the noble Lord had said up to 7½ per cent., it would have made the matter very much clearer, but they have to earn that. That is the point of the accelerated payments. But the noble Lord implied that that was a lot of money to allow Cunard to earn. I would have put it rather as limiting the amount they could earn in this regard. That is the point I wanted to get straight.
The second point is this. Cunard's contribution of £12 million is equity capital. It is completely at risk; whereas the Government's loan, in the form of a debenture, is not. The Government's interest in this matter which they receive from Cunard, the repayments, and so on—because I think we have driven a very hard bargain with Cunard on this—are, as near as anything can be, assured. Cunard's £12 million return by way of equity interest is not assured at all. That, I think, is the position.
I ask the noble Lord to forgive me if I do not follow him, as I said, very intricately into what he said, but the point I must make is this. I rather hesitate to use this term, because it sometimes has a slightly offensive connotation, and I certainly do not mean it in that way; but, either consciously, or probably much more likely unconsciously, this Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward is tantamount to a wrecking Amendment. That I am bound to say.
LORD HUGHES: Why?
LORD CHESHAM: The reason I say that is because the essential point is that 4½ per cent. on this loan is the most at which Cunard can do the job. I must ask your Lordships to remember that the Chandos Committee, expert as they were, worked very hard, almost exhaustively, on all these matters.
LORD OGMORE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? How can we possibly remember that when they have not produced the Chandos Committee's report? The noble Lord is imputing to us knowledge we cannot have, because they will not give us the report.
LORD CHESHAM: It appeared to me the other day that the noble Lord had not become acquainted with the summary of their report which has been published, but I hope he has now. I thought perhaps he would have done.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say that, if serious Amendments are moved in Committee stage, we are then to be told that they cannot be dealt with because they would wreck? What is the good of a Committee stage if that be the case?
LORD CHESHAM: If I had an opportunity to develop my argument, I should be able to inform the noble Lord just exactly what I meant. I have been interrupted twice consecutively, and it is rather difficult to give these answers, which I am trying to do. Perhaps I may go on.
The essential point is that the Chandos Committee had exhaustive evidence presented to them which, as your Lordships know, was given under a pledge of confidence by the Chairman of that Committee, as otherwise it would not have been obtained. I explained that at some length the other day. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Committee that 4½ per cent. is the maximum at which Cunard can do this job. There has been an alteration, as I told your Lordships the other day, of form: to a higher rate of interest on a lesser sum of capital, plus a grant, to make things (as the noble Lord pointed out) crystal clear. The sense in which this is a wrecking Amendment is that, if this Amendment were accepted by your Lordships, this venture would collapse.
534
Cunard would not go on with it, and the ship would not be built. In that sense, I must say, without wishing to give offence to the noble Lord (because it is quite probably not meant like that at all), that that is the effect of the Amendment; and therefore I must ask your Lordships to reject it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not accept that this is a wrecking Amendment at all. It is fixing a different rate of interest. The only point on which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, thinks it is wrecking is because he considers that 4½ per cent. is the maximum that the Cunard can pay in respect of the loan. I do not Think that is at ell the case, especially if you wait for a few weeks to see whether they lose their application for a licence. I am quite certain that this is not a wrecking Amendment. This is an Amendment to do justice by the British taxpayer in relation to the loaning of public money for, in the end, private profit. Therefore, should think it is quite proper, in the interests of the protection of the general public, to go to Division.
LORD CHESHAM: If I might add a point to that, I tried to point out (perhaps was too hasty) that I used the word "wrecking" in a technical sense, and not in any way a personal sense. I hope noble Lords opposite will accept that. But, as I have tried to explain, we are convinced that this is the maximum rate of interest at which this ship can be built. Perhaps I should have added that since the Chandos Committee reported and their recommendations were accepted by the Government there have been two wage awards which affect the Cunard Company in their operations and which were not anticipated beforehand. These will make a considerable difference to this operation, or so I am told.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say at once that the noble Lord must not talk of wage awards in this connection. Otherwise any time there is a wage award in the country you will be getting an application for a special grant of public money.
LORD CHESHAM: That has nothing to do with it. I was merely saying that if at that time 4½ per cent. was the most

535
that Cunard could carry, and was the maximum burden they could face, it has now become a little more difficult. That is all I am saying. I am merely adding that fact to the weight of my argument. But if an Amendment is moved which, as clearly as I can foretell, would, if carried, result in this ship not being built—which is the sole purpose of the Bill— then I think I am justified in saying that I cannot think of any other term to apply to it than that of a wrecking Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot possibly accept that as a fair interpretation of what will happen under the Bill. The noble Lord referred to the circumstances which exist and to changes which have taken place. Four-and-a-half per cent. was apparently stated by the Chandos Committee, according to the Summary of its Report, as the most that the Cunard Company could pay. That was conditioned by another set of circumstances: provided they were to be left with sufficient resources to leave them with earnings of 7½ per cent. on their equity. That might have been appropriate when the Chandos Committee was considering the situation, because over the previous two years the Cunard Company had paid a dividend of 8 per cent. Therefore, 7½ per cent. might be regarded as a fair comparison with the current dividend. But the report presented a month ago shows that in the last year the Cunard dividend was only 6 per cent.; so it would be fair to relate what they might earn in the immediate future with what they are earning at the present time, bearing in mind the fact that the 6 per cent. is not covered in the year's operations. A reference to today's Financial Times will make that perfectly clear; you do not have to take my word for it.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): Could I just say, in reply to the noble Lord, that he is talking about the Cunard Company and its earnings, whereas 'this venture is a separate one? It is a separate company with a separate balance sheet and it will have to stand on its own earnings for this new venture. The noble Lord is trying all the time to make us think that this is the Cunard Company's whole operations. It is nothing of the sort.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask one question, because it strikes me as extraordinary that either the noble Lord or the Chandos Committee can be so categorical as to say that 4½ per cent. is the most that the Cunard-White Star Company can pay for this loan? I have not the report with me, but I think I am right in saying that the Chandos Committee estimated that the ship would not cost as much as £30 million. Surely what matters is the amount of money that has to be paid out in capital charges against the earnings of the ship. How can anybody say that 4½ per cent. is the absolutely God-given maximum they can pay on £30 million? If they get the ship for £28 million, then the rate would be different from 4½ per cent. It seems to me difficult to accept the statement that there is a line drawn and they would pay up to that amount and could not possibly pay any more.
LORD CHESHAM: I think the answer to my noble friend's question is that they went into every foreseeable and fore-tellable facet of this matter, including future trends of every kind, and on that examination it was decided on Government aid to the extent of a loan of £18 million at 4½ per cent. It so proved that, if they had to borrow that money at a larger interest rate, the operation would not succeed. The anticipation for the future, as best they could work it out, indicated that if the company had to pay more, the operation would not be possible.
The last point which my noble friend made, about what would happen should the ship in fact cost less, was one of the points of divergence between the split (so to speak) that was set out in the summary produced by the Chandos Committee and published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on June 1. The point was that the Government negotiated with the Cunard Company that should the ship cost less than £30 million, the Government contribution should go down pro rata. That was not the original recommendation, but from our point of view we regard it as a slightly improved arrangement. It is to be found in the White Paper. I think that that takes care of the second point that my noble friend raised.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON had given Notice of two Amendments, the first of which was, in subsection (5), to leave out "copy" and insert "draft". The noble Viscount said: I think the Committee will readily see what is the object of these Amendments; it is simply that whatever agreement is eventually made between the Government and the Cunard Company in this matter should be brought before Parliament for approval. It seems to me to be a grave fault in this Bill that that is not provided for, and I cannot for the life of me see why that is so. The ancillary agreement in regard to insurance, as your Lordships will see by referring to Clause 2 (2), will be placed before both Houses of Parliament in draft, and the Minister is bound not to enter into the agreement until the draft has been approved by Resolution
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30: Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L.

Listowel, E.

Rusholme, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Simon, V.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Sinha, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Walston, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Hardwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Airlie, E.

Ferrier, L.

Merrivale, L.

Allerton, L.

Foley, L.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Freyberg, L.

Monson, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Furness, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gosford, E.

Newall, L.

Bird wood, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Brecon, L.

Haddington, E.

Northesk, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Robins, L.

Chesham, L.

Howe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Congleton. L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigton, L.

Jessel, L.

Salisbury, M.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Spens, L.

Deramore, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Digby, L.

Luke, L.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Tenby, V.

Dunleath, L.

Mac Andrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Dynevor, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Twining, L.

Effingham, E.

Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of each House. Why should not a similar procedure be laid down in regard to the main Agreement.
I imagine that what I shall be told is that the Government have published a White Paper, which we have here, called The Memorandum of Points of Agreement, but, as I took occasion to point out on Second Reading, all that it says in this Memorandum is that it is intended to enter into an agreement based upon the Memorandum. The actual words are:
"This Memorandum is being used as the basis on which the Agreements have been prepared."
It seems to me that "basis" is a fairly general word, that an Agreement substantially different from this one could quite correctly be brought forward and that the Minister could tell us, with perfect truth, that it was on the basis of this Memorandum.
Furthermore, I would call attention to the fact that although this Memorandum has been circulated with the preamble to it, there is no connection between the Memorandum and the Bill. The White Paper is not referred to in the Bill; it does not appear as a Schedule or anything. If the Minister were to come at a later date with a completely different agreement, although no doubt he would very properly be subjected to some fairly severe criticism, he could say, turning to Clause 1 (5), that what he was doing was perfectly legal, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent him from bringing in any agreement, subject only to the limitation on the amount of the subsidy contained in subsection (4). It seems to me that this is a bad principle.
If an agreement is being made with a private company it is right that the terms of that agreement should be placed before Parliament for scrutiny and discussion. Fortunately, in this House we have fairly broad Rules of Order, otherwise I suppose it would not be in order to discuss the terms of the agreement at all unless somebody put down a Motion to discuss the White Paper, because it is not in the Bill; and presumably when considering the Bill we can discuss only what is in the Bill. For that very reason, I do not want to talk about the terms of agreement, but surely they are so important a part of this matter that they ought to be in the Bill; or if the fact is, as we assume, that agreement has not been reached, then there should be some provision that when agreement is reached the matter should be brought before Parliament for approval.
I was a little disturbed during the Second Reading debate when the noble Lord, Lord Mills, in reply to a question of mine, said that he understood the position to be that the Government were so far committed that certain alterations could not be made. That seems to me a curious position, too. Here are the Government entering into negotiations, and, it appears, committing themselves so far that they can honestly say, behind their staunch umbrella, that they are not susceptible to any criticism about it at all. I realise, from my own experience, that when you enter into negotiations you have to get a certain distance before you can produce anything like
540
this Bill, and I make no complaint about the Government's having negotiated with the Cunard Company to find out what measure of agreement could be reached; that is quite proper and necessary. But I should have thought that the Cunard Company, in the position in which they stand, would be perfectly willing to understand that any agreement they might reach with the Government would be subject to Parliamentary approval. If that had been put to them, I cannot imagine that they could have raised the slightest objection to it.
This and the following Amendment (and with your Lordships' permission I am speaking to both of them) are aimed at getting the agreement brought before Parliament. If I can put the matter quite distinctly, it is that if an agreement is already negotiated, why cannot it be brought before Parliament and put in the Bill? And if it is not already negotiated, then I ask the noble Lord who represents the Government to tell us that they will accept this Amendment, so that we shall have a subsequent opportunity of discussing the terms of the Agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("copy") and insert ("draft").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHESHAM: My noble friend is perfectly right about one thing—namely, that he is going to be told from this Box about the existence of the White Paper; and because of that, I am bound to say that I find the two Amendments in my noble friend's name (quite correctly discussed by him together) are unnecessary. The substance of the agreement has been set out fully in the White Paper, which has now been before your Lordships and everyone else for quite a long time. It has been perfectly possible during the passage of this Bill, both in another place and here—and what we are doing is to give effect to the provisional agreement with the Company—to discuss any part of the White Paper and any provision in it by proposing Amendments to the Bill. That is really what we have just been doing, in a sense, in discussing the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
The purpose of the formal agreement is to do no more (however much one may argue about the meaning of the word "basis") than put the provisions

541
in the White Paper into legal form. One could hardly ask the Cunard Company to sign on the bottom of that. Those provisions would have to be put into legal form, and that is what the formal agreement is for. No new points of substance, or anything of that kind, will be included in it. On the other hand, my noble friend referred to the insurance agreement which is to be subject to the approval of both Houses, and he drew a parallel from that. But it is not a parallel, because Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to see the substance of the insurance agreement, and, therefore, it is perfectly proper and reasonable that that should be subject to approval.
There is another objection to this Amendment, and that is the effect it would have on the timetable to which everyone is trying to work in this matter. We shall not know for certain until the tenders come in at the end of this month, but it is certainly hoped that some at least of the tenderers will be able to offer completion by the spring of 1965. That is important and no doubt will be a significant factor. Obviously, you want to start a ship of this kind at the beginning of the summer tourist season, and not in the autumn. Therefore, the only practical alternative to the spring of 1965 is the spring of 1966. Not only would that year's delay be the loss of what would quite likely be a very valuable earning year for the ship, but there is the fact that to keep the "Queen Mary" running for another season at that stage would be extremely expensive in terms of repair bills and of lower earning power. In fact, I am told that it might not be possible to keep her running; in which case we should have to abandon the weekly service, at any rate on a temporary basis, for a year, with all the loss of goodwill that would be entailed.
The timetable to which we are working requires that the Government should be in a position to sign the formal agreement with the Cunard Company during the summer so that no time will be lost—and I think your Lordships would agree as to the importance of this aspect—in giving a firm decision to the successful tenderer. If it were necessary to await the affirmative approval of Parliament, which could not be given before the beginning of next Session, obviously and inevitably that would
542
mean delay which in turn would make it very unlikely indeed that the ship could be put into service in the spring of 1965. In view of that explanation, I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I confess that I do not feel too happy about that reply. I recognise, of course, that there is an important time element, and that if this scheme is to be proceeded with it is right that it should be done quickly. But it seems to me that the Government, if I may say so, have brought this upon themselves. This is in fact an agreement, and it could have been put into the Bill, or something could have been put into the Bill. It seems to me such a bad principle to bring forward a Bill of this kind and not to have the substance of the agreement in the Bill itself, not even as a Schedule. Of course, the noble Lord 'has much greater knowledge of the timetable than I have. If the agreement is ready, I do not know why it cannot be tabled immediately. If the agreement is not ready, then clearly it is impossible to go ahead with the timetable. I do not find this very convincing. I still feel strongly that this is an issue on which we ought to press the Government, either to accept this Amendment, or to meet it in another way by adding a Schedule to the Bill containing the terms of agreement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I say a word about this matter? I am very interested in it, and I have been from the time I saw the Amendment on the Paper. But I am afraid that I should find some difficulty in going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, for reasons of Parliamentary procedure to which we have been accustomed. In this case, there is in the Bill a provision that will mean that the agreement is laid before Parliament. The only process we have adopted in the past is that, where it is necessary to move specifically through a Minister proceeding with a statutory order procedure, we have an order laid in draft so that we can debate it. But I think that, with a Bill of this kind, if you are going to lay an order to show what the agreement is, the House should have before it, during the discussion of the Bill, the actual terms of the agreement. The

543
Government say that they are trying to do that in the form of a summary. I must say that, when large sums of money are involved, I think we ought to have the actual agreement that has been entered into. But I do not think I could press for this form of Amendment which would upset, in my rather ordered Parliamentary mind, the procedure for this kind of thing. It is going to be laid. I think you could make quite a nice opening for debate on the agreement when it is laid.
LORD CHESHAM: Might I add something, for the sake of complete clarity, because I would not wish in any way to appear to be concealing anything from my noble friend, the noble Viscount or the House. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, but, of course, the agreement at to-day's date is not ready. It will be ready during the Recess. As the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has pointed out, when completed it will be laid. In view of the delay that will be caused, which might be serious to the ship and in getting the service going, I hope my noble friend may think again about pressing his Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: It is the case that the agreement could be modified. It is not yet concluded?
LORD CHESHAM: I have just said the opposite to that, if the noble Lord recalls. I said that we had produced this White Paper. The reason for producing it was so that the substance and the points that would be in the agreement could be looked at and debated in the course of the passage of the Bill in either House—as, indeed, they have been to a certain extent—and that the formal agreement would only be the legal form, as it were, of the agreement and will no doubt contain a great many more words than the White Paper does, That was the object of the White Paper, to disclose what were the provisional terms of agreement; and the formal agreement will only be the legal engrossment—is that the right word?—of what is in the White Paper.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry to press this but the noble Lord's reply does not
544
accord with what is stated in the White Paper. The first paragraph says
"This Memorandum is intended to record the main items on which"—
and then comes the important word"—
"provisional agreement has been reached".
"Provisional agreement" means that it is provisional. So surely it is susceptible to modification.
LORD CHESHAM: Obviously it must say provisional, because the Government were not in a position, before the Bill was passed, of having Parliamentary authority.
LORD LATHAM: That was not the case. You really must read the sentence as a whole:
"…to record the main items on which provisional agreement has been reached".
Not agreement as a whole, but the main items on which provisional agreement has been reached.
LORD FERRIER: In supporting the principles enunciated by my noble friend Lord Simon, I feel, like the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, that if It is a matter in which, if 'the Amendment were carried, it would mean delays, I should not be prepared to go into the Lobby, but in my short experience in your Lordships' House this is the second time I have felt bound to take this position: that I feel it is the duty of Parliament to watch every word, to provide against the possibility of decisions being taken and being laid before Parliament as a fait accompli. To that end I would repeat my support for Lord Simon's Amendment. However, if the noble Lord at the Despatch Box can convince us that it would mean delay, I should not necessarily go into the Lobby.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think it is clear that I should accept the advice of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who along with nearly all noble Lords in this House has far greater experience of the Parliamentary world than I have. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

HUMAN TISSUE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, after the decision in your Lordships' House in the ease of Chapman v. Chapman, the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, which your Lordships considered three years ago, restored the law in England to what it had been thought to be—namely, that the English courts had power to sanction an alteration of trust purposes on behalf of potential beneficiaries or of persons under age. In Scotland, however, such power is an innovation, which this Bill seeks to enact in Clause 1, subsection (1). This and all the other proposals in this Bill except Clause 5 are based on the Ninth Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Walker.
Circumstances often arise in which it would be greatly to the advantage of the beneficiaries of a trust to alter the purpose of the trust or to enlarge the powers of the trustees. If all the beneficiaries are capable of agreeing, and do, in fact, agree, the trust can usually be altered in the desired way. If, on the other hand, some of the beneficiaries object, that ends the matter, and rightly so, since at least some of the people concerned feel that the proposed variation is against their interest. The Committee pointed out, however, that variations to which there is no objection at all and which would clearly be advantageous will be prevented if some of the beneficiaries are for one reason or another unable to give legally effective consent. They accordingly recommended that the court should be empowered, as it is now in England, to approve variations of trust purposes on behalf of potential beneficiaries and on behalf of beneficiaries who cannot approve for themselves. This, then, is the justification for subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill. It does not, of course, empower the court to give effect to any variation of trust purposes; nor does it enable the court
546
to step in if some of the persons whose consent is required cannot be found or if someone competent refuses to give consent.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 deals with a subject which is, I understand, peculiar to the law of Scotland. This is the alimentary provision: that is to say, a provision of income under a will or other settlement which cannot be varied under the existing law, even with the consent of the beneficiary. The subsection empowers the court to authorise an arrangement varying or revoking an alimentary provision if the beneficiary has consented or if the court itself consents on behalf of a beneficiary who suffers from legal incapacity.
Clause 2 clears up a difficulty which has arisen under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921. Under that subsection it is not clear whether some classes of trustees have power to undertake certain transactions, including the sale of land. In order to get a completely unquestionable title to land sold by such trustees, it has been the practice for the purchasers to require the trustees to obtain the express authority of the court for their entering into the transaction. The result of this is that the trust estate is involved in an expense which is often burdensome. Subsection (1) removes this difficulty and provides that the validity of the transaction in such cases, and of any title acquired thereby, shall not be challengeable on the ground that the transaction in question was at variance with the terms or purposes of the trust.
Clause 3 provides a new definition of judicial factor for the purposes of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, thereby putting right a difficulty to which attention was drawn many years ago by the father of the present Lord President of the Court of Session. Clause 4 adds to the general powers of trustees a power to acquire heritable property in order to provide a suitable residence for occupation by any of the beneficiaries.
Clause 6 deals with a point of difficulty arising from the interpretation in Scotland of the Accumulations Act, 1800. This is an Act intended to check the mischief which it was anticipated might arise from directions for the accumulation of income for prolonged periods. There is some doubt about the period of accumulation that is allowed in the

547
case of a trust which provides for an accumulation of income for a minor beginning during the life of the settlor. It would seem from the wording of the Act that the settlor could choose either the balance of his own life or the minority of the beneficiary. In Scotland, however, it has been observed by certain judges, though never absolutely decided, that accumulation must cease on the death of the settlor, should that occur before the end of the minority, notwithstanding a direction by the settlor that it should continue during the minority of the beneficiary. This view is thought to be contrary to the intention of the Act and it has not been so interpreted in England. Clearly there should be uniformity here, especially as liability to death duty is often involved. Opportunity has been taken not only to clear up the difficulty but to re-enact in Clause 5 the substance of the Act of 1800.
My Lords, this is a useful Bill which corrects the uncertainties and defects in the law of trusts in Scotland to which I have referred. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I am not one to claim superiority for the Scots system of law, because it appears to me that both systems are complementary and each can borrow from the other. This is not the occasion to suggest to your Lordships how England could, with advantage, borrow from Scotland, although I may have a later occasion to do so in another connection. The aim of this Bill is a laudable one, in my humble submission, because it will be of great benefit to many people in Scotland. It has a very respectable ancestry, because it is based not only on the English Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, but also upon the unanimous Report of the Law Reform Committee which went into this matter in Scotland.
As the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has told your Lordships, the old-fashioned trusts, where the aim of the settlor was to preserve the estate, are unsuited to modern conditions. When money values were constant it was all very well to tie up the estate against the spendthrift son or the woman who got hold of the son and spent his fortune, but in these days different considerations apply, and there is no doubt that the fact
548
that Scots courts could never vary trusts in the same way that English courts could has resulted in great hardship to many people in Scotland, and the result is that during the lifetime of the life rentor the income was very often swallowed up in income tax and at the death of the settlor the estate was swallowed up in estate duty. This Bill will make it possible to do what has never been done in Scotland before, namely, to get the court's approval in place of the consent of beneficiaries who, due to their incapacity, were unable to consent.
It also deals with the special problem of the alimentary life rent which has been a vexed question in Scots law for some time, because, strange though it may seem to your Lordships, an alimentary life rentor or rentrix cannot renounce their life rent. The presumption was that it was put in the deed for their own protection and, therefore, although everybody was anxious that the trust should be wound up, the court decided they had no power to allow the alimentary life rentor to renounce the life rent; so the trust had to go on with the results I have described. The Bill provides that the alimentary bar will no longer operate.
I understand that the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, has been of great benefit in England and is widely used, and I am certain, from my own limited contacts in Scotland, that there are many in Scotland who will be ready to use this Bill as soon as it becomes law. Indeed it would be unreasonable that a benefit which was already in operation in England should be denied to the people of Scotland. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending the principles of this Bill and its provisions to your Lordships as being something which will be of great benefit to many people in Scotland.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill by my noble and learned friend, Lord Guest, and I only wish that he, with his greater experience, had moved the Second Reading. Clearly he finds the Bill easier to understand than I have done. Also, I would tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has expressed his regret at being unable to be here, and said that he, too, supports the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING BILL
4.38 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. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, in any licensed premises to which section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies and which are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing, for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises, musical or other entertainment in addition to substantial refreshment as required by that section (the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor being ancillary to that refreshment and entertainment), the time added by that section to the permitted hours on weekdays shall extend until one o'clock in the morning, and during that time the sale, supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor shall not be restricted in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of section seven of this Act:
Provided that this subsection—

(a) shall not apply to any part of the premises not habitually set apart for the provision of the refreshment and entertainment, nor authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor for consumption in any such part of the premises or for consumption off the premises; and

(b) shall not authorise any sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on a day on which no entertainment is provided, or at a time after the entertainment or the provision of substantial refreshment has ended, nor any sale or supply not in accordance with paragraph (a) of the said subsection (4) to a person admitted to the premises either after midnight or less than half an hour before the entertainment is due to end.

(2) Where subsection (1) above applies to any premises or part of premises, nothing in section one hundred of the Licensing Act. 1953, shall prohibit or restrict the consumption in the premises or part during the first half hour after the entertainment ends of intoxicating liquor supplied before it ends.
(3) In this section "entertainment" does not include any form of entertainment given otherwise than by persons actually present and performing; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, no premises or part shall be treated for
550
the purposes of this section as used or intended to be used for the purpose of habitually providing refreshment and entertainment, or as habitually set apart for that purpose, unless it is used or intended to be used, or is set apart, for the purpose of providing them after, and for a substantial period preceding, the end of the general licensing hours on every weekday or on particular weekdays in every week, subject to any break for a period or periods not exceeding two weeks in any twelve successive months or on any special occasion or by reason of any emergency.
(4) This section shall not authorise the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor except with the sanction of an order of the licensing justices made on the application of a person applying for or holding a justices' licence for the premises in question, and any such order shall lapse when the licence granted is superseded on renewal or transfer or otherwise ceases to be in force, but may be renewed or varied by a further order under this subsection or be revoked under subsection (8) below.
(5) Where the use of any premises or part of premises for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above is, or is intended to be, limited to a particular period or periods of the year, licensing justices may make an order under subsection (4) above to have effect for the whole or part of the period or periods in question, but excluding any period of less than four weeks.
(6) Licensing justices may refuse to make an order under subsection (4) above, or may in such an order limit the operation of this section to a particular part of the premises or to particular periods of the year or to particular weekdays or to a time earlier than one o'clock in the morning (and may impose different limitations in relation to different parts of the premises, different periods or different weekdays), if it appears to them reasonable so to do having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the comfort and convenience of the occupiers and inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.
(7) Licensing justices shall not make an order under subsection (4) above unless it is shown that the condition of subsection (1) above as to the use or intended use of the premises is satisfied in relation to the premises or part of premises, to the periods, to the weekdays and to the times for which the order is to have effect, and that the premises or part in question is structurally adapted for the purpose:
Provided that licensing justices, in making an order by way of variation or renewal of a previous order, may assume unless they see reason to the contrary that the conditions for the making of the previous order were and still are satisfied.
(8) Licensing justices shall revoke an order under subsection (4) above if they are satisfied on an application made by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated, either—

(a) that use has not been made for the purpose specified in subsection (1) above of the premises or part of premises for which the order has effect; or

551

(b) that it is expedient to revoke the order either by reason of the occurrence of disorderly or indecent conduct in the premises or part or by reason of the conduct of persons resorting to the premises and any annoyance resulting or likely to result from it to the occupiers or inmates of premises in the neighbourhood.

(9) Before making an application for an order under subsection (4) above to be made otherwise than by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation), a person shall give notice of the application to the persons, in the manner and at the times required by paragraph 2 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act on an application for a new justices' licence for the premises; but if through inadvertence or misadventure he fails so to do, subparagraph (7) of that paragraph shall apply.
(10) Where an order under subsection (4) above is made with respect to any premises or part of premises, the holder of the justices' licence shall within fourteen days give written notice of the making of the order to the chief officer of police, and shall send with the notice a copy of the order: and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(11) The provisions of subsection (6) of section ten of this Act as to the posting of a notice in licensed premises where section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies shall have effect in relation to this section as they have effect in relation to section one hundred and four; and the reference to section one hundred and four in subsection (4) of section ten of this Act shall include a reference to this section.
(12) The powers of licensing justices under this section shall be exercised in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by rules made, by the Secretary of State.
(13) Where this section applies to any licensed premises or part of licensed premises on a Saturday, nothing in the Sunday Observance Act. 1780, shall apply by reason of the provision there of entertainment (in addition to substantial refreshment) before the time to which the permitted hours on that Saturday may extend by virtue of this section.
The noble and learned Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I promised the House that I would invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed a somewhat more limited extension of hours, at the discretion of the licensing justices. This is, as the first lines show, an extension for dealing with the licensed premises to which Section l04 of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies. This Amendment has a remarkable inspiration, in that when the subject was mooted in another place the suggestion received support not only from all quarters of the House but from those
552
who had been active in supporting the temperance point of view and also from those who had considerable ministerial experience. With that happy beginning, I want in a few sentences to make clear the safeguards that we have attached to the provision.
The new clause after Clause 8 deals with extended hours in restaurants, et cetera, providing entertainment; and the new clause after Clause 28, which is Amendment No. 58, deals with extended hours in premises of registered clubs. Amendment No. 62, to the Third Schedule, and Amendment No. 76, to the Ninth Schedule, are consequential. As all your Lordships who are interested in this subject know, it is not a question of extending a matter to clubs—they are already within the existing law.
Let me now summarise the substantial safeguards which have been introduced in regard to my proposal—,namely, the facilities for the sale or supply of drink up to one o'clock in the morning as an ancillary to substantial refreshment and entertainment. First, the facilities will not be available to all licensed premises or registered clubs which ask for them. The premises or club must have satisfied the licensing justices, in the case of the premises, or the magistrates, in the case of a club, that they are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, for the provision of, first, substantial refreshment, and secondly, entertainment to which the supply of liquor is ancillary. The second point is, that even then the premises will not qualify unless the refreshment and entertainment are habitually provided for a substantial period before the ordinary closing time. Those responsible cannot just lay it on after the public houses have closed. In addition, there are other safeguards against people using them merely for the purpose of a late drink.
The third point is that the licensing justices or the magistrates may refuse an application outright, or grant it only in limited terms—for example, until only midnight, instead of one in the morning, or only for certain days of the week—if they think it reasonable to refuse or restrict the order having regard, in particular, to the comfort and convenience of neighbouring residents or hospitals or the like. The neighbours and other people concerned will have power to object to the application. Finally, in

553
general an extension order, if granted, will come up for annual review. In addition, the police may at any time apply for revocation of the order on grounds of disorderly or indecent conduct, or annoyance to neighbours or the like. With these safeguards, the provisions can be recommended to the Committee as providing reasonable facilities for persons wishing to enjoy a modest evening's entertainment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Just a sentence in support of the Amendment. I have no questions to ask. I am pleased with this Amendment. Many of my friends in another place are pleased, too. We like the safeguards in it, and also the fact that the justices have an honourable mention. They have been rather criticised—not for themselves, but in relation to the absence of their effect. We welcome the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on grant of justices' licence for premises on special roads
".—(1) Premises shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' licence if they are situated on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority, and for the time being used, for the provision of facilities to be used in connection with the use of a special road provided for the use of traffic of class I (with or without other classes).
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "special road" and "special road authority" have the same meanings as in the Highways Act, 1959, except that "special road" includes a trunk road to which by virtue of section nineteen of that Act the provisions of the Act apply as if the road were a special road; and

(b) "class I" means class I in the Fourth Schedule to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section twelve of the Act, but if that Schedule is amended by such an Order so as to add to it a further class of traffic, the order may adapt the reference in this section to traffic of class I so as to take account of the additional class."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is an Amendment of which I gave notice in my speech on Second
554
Reading. Your Lordships will remember that I said that we would propose a statutory ban on the establishment of licenced premises on motorways. This Amendment also implements an undertaking given on the Report stage in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Subsection (1) of the Amendment has the effect of prohibiting the grant of a justices' licence, whether "on" or "off", and including a restaurant or residential licence under Part I of the Bill, in respect of premises on land acquired or appropriated by a special road authority and used for the provision of facilities in connection with a motorway. In practice, such land, which is known as "service area", is leased by the special road authority to persons who there provide petrol stations, restaurants and the like. Your Lordships will remember that a "special road authority" is the Minister or a local highway authority—in practice, generally a county council, which constructs a motorway in accordance with a scheme confirmed by the Minister.
Under subsection (2)(a) the ban on licensed premise's will also apply to certain trunk roads specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959, which, by Section 19 of that Act, are to be treated as special roads. These roads are in every respect similar to motorways—indeed, some of them will form part of projected motorways. That is, in short, how the clause will effectively prohibit the establishment of licensed premises on motorways. I have carefully considered the objection that the absence from motorways of restaurants that can sell drink will encourage people to fill themselves up with drink before they enter the motorway. That was an objection which was sent to me by correspondents. In answer I would say this: that a man who is determined to get a drink will go a long way for it. But it is, I believe, true of the majority of people that if drink is not available on the motorway then they are less likely to take it. We must remember, too, that people who go on the motorway may be driving their cars at 80 or 90 miles per hour, and if they meet with an accident it will probably be a fatal accident. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' support for this ban of which I gave notice on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We desire to welcome wholeheartedly the new clause which is proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, because it fulfils a pledge, after debates in another place which revealed a weakness in the Bill, and in many other ways seeks to reduce accidents on the road. As to people who think that there still ought to be drink provided on, say, a motorway like the M.1, if I recall aright drivers are not supposed to stop on them at all. If you are going to have people going off and coming on again, that is exactly the way in which accidents will happen. The Government have made a most necessary Amendment in regard to this matter, and I hope that the clause will be passed.
LORD OGMORE: I, too, should like to support this new clause, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount has moved it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Miscellaneous amendments as to grant of licences, proceedings and fees]:
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment really forms part of Amendment 24B, and it may be convenient if I deal with both Amendments now. This Amendment has been submitted to meet the views of the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is therefore my duty to declare an interest since, like some other noble Lords, I have the honour to be a Vice-President of the A.M.C. Subsection (3) of Clause 16 says:
"Licensing justices may grant an ordinary removal to any premises in their licensing district from any premises in the same county or county borough or in a county or county borough adjoining that county or county borough (and not only from premises in their licensing district or the county of which it forms part.…)."
That is the law as it stands to-day. But my submission is that, while it is a step in the right direction, it is still unnecessarily restrictive. May I illustrate the point by taking an actual example? A county borough may have to develop an overspill area beyond a Green Belt, and the new overspill area may not be in
556
the county which adjoins the county borough. That is a general statement.
The particular instance is the City of Manchester, which proposes to build in Glossop. By some accident of geography Lancashire does not adjoin Derbyshire; there is a small strip of Cheshire which separates the two counties. I would submit that there is no particular merit in restricting facilities to a county which adjoins. The case which I should like to ask the Committee to consider is this. Manchester City Council have in hand extensive slum clearance schemes. As part of comprehensive planning, licensed premises in these slum clearance areas are purchased, at approved and agreed figures, of course, by the authority, and the licences are then put in suspense, and there is no compensation payable to the brewers or anybody else in connection with the licence or licences put in suspense. But as a corollary to this, an agreement has been reached with the trade for a fair and equitable allocation of removal licences as and when sites become available in the council's overspill areas. This important and, I venture to think, valuable social experiment in regard to licences in slum clearance areas depends for its successful working on the good will and co-operation of all the parties concerned: the licensing planning authority, the trade, and the licensing justices responsible.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): Now that the noble Lord has reached this point, it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I told the noble Lord now that I can accept his first Amendment, for many of the reasons he has mentioned. But the second, for doubts we have on the reasons which I think he is about to mention, I cannot accept.
LORD BURDEN: There is no point in continuing, then. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept the first Amendment, that substantially meets the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out from ("premises") to ("(and") in line 44.—(Lord Burden.)
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord has explained most clearly the purposes of his Amendment and I accept what he has been saying. As the noble Lord has kindly indicated that he will not move Amendment 24B, possibly it would not be worth talking about it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Public service vehicle excise licences
".—(1) An excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which this section applies, authorising the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of any intoxicating liquor for consumption in the vehicle whilst operating on any specified service.
(2)(a) This section applies to a public service vehicle which is constructed or adapted for the supply of food to the passengers carried therein, and is certified by the Traffic Commissioners to be suitable or of a type suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service;
(b) in any certificate granted for the purposes of this section in respect of any public service vehicle the Traffic Commissioners shall specify the service or services whether of stage carriages or express carriages, upon which intoxicating liquor may be sold in the vehicle, and the Traffic Commissioners may from time to time vary the services so specified in any certificate;
(c) the Traffic Commissioners shall have power to revoke a certificate granted for the purposes of this section;
(d) any certificate granted for the purposes of this section shall unless previously revoked remain in force so long as the holder of the certificate is the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle to which the certificate relates;
(e) the holder of a public service vehicle licence who is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Traffic Commissioners to grant a certificate in respect of the vehicle to which the licence relates or to specify any particular service in the certificate or by the revocation of a certificate granted in respect of the vehicle, may appeal to the Minister of Transport and subsections (6) and (7) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, shall apply to appeals under this subsection in like manner as those subsections apply to appeals under that section.
(3) A licence granted under this section in respect of a public service vehicle shall cease to have effect as respects that vehicle if the holder of the licence ceases to hold a public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle, but may be transferred, on the application of the holder of the licence, so as to attach to
558
some other public service vehicle to which this section applies, and of which the holder of the licence is the owner.
(4) Section one hundred and twenty of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which provides that no intoxicating liquor shall be sold by retail without a justices' licence) shall not apply to any person holding a licence under this section.
(5) Any licence granted under this section shall be carried in the public service vehicle.
(6) It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle.
(7) In this section—
the expressions 'public service vehicle', 'stage carriage' and `express carriage' have the meanings assigned to them by the Road Traffic Act, 1960,
`specified service' means a service of stage carriages or express carriages specified in a certificate granted for the purposes of this section, and
'the Traffic Commissioners' in relation to any public service vehicle means the Traffic Commissioners by whom the public service vehicle licence in respect of that vehicle was granted."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ampthill and myself. As your Lordships may be wondering whether this is the appropriate Bill for endeavouring to insert a new clause dealing with public service vehicle excise licences to authorise the sale by retail to passengers on the vehicle of intoxicating liquor, I would remind your Lordships that, according to Erskine May, in the sixteenth edition on page 503, it is said that:
"Amendments must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill".
I would humbly submit to your Lordships that this Amendment is relevant if we consider the long Title of this Bill. We see that that reads as follows: this is
"An Act … to make further provision about the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor … and for purposes connected therewith."
Therefore, I humbly submit that it is in order for me to move this Amendment in this Bill.
The Committee will see on studying this Amendment which is a complete new clause, that it is the traffic commissioners who would be empowered to issue a certificate stating that the public service vehicle was constructed or adapted so as to be suitable for the sale of intoxicating liquor to the passengers while the vehicle is operating on any specified service. Not

559
only must the vehicle be approved as suitable for the purpose by the traffic commissioners, but they would also have power to determine on which services such a certificate could be granted or not. Here I would state that the two terms which are mentioned in the Amendment—that is, "express carriage" and "stage carriage"—are clearly defined in Section 117 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I would add that this Amendment does not cover contract carriages, because I feel that your Lordships may worry with regard to charabancs which call at pubs under contract licences. It has nothing to do with that form of public service vehicle operation. It deals purely with long-distance coaches—in other words, express carriages and stage carriages— although naturally one would not expect operators to wish to serve alcoholic drinks at Piccadilly Circus on such a type of stage carriage.
Since the traffic commissioners are already responsible for issuing public service vehicle licences I trust that your Lordships will agree that they would be the appropriate body to issue such certificates; and it would be the same traffic commissioners who issued the public service vehicle licence who would be issuing the required certificate. Therefore, they would have complete knowledge as to the services run, particulars of the vehicle, and so on. It would be only after the traffic commissioners had issued this certicate that the holder would be entitled to apply for an Excise licence.
When a similar Amendment was moved in another place in Standing Committee on April 25 of this year, I think it was rightly stressed that it was only on that form of long-distance transport that alcoholic beverages could not be served. They are already being served on aircraft, on board ships and on trains. During the debate on this Amendment concern was expressed, too, with regard to the question of alcoholic drink being given by anyone on board—whether it be the steward, stewardess or passenger —to the driver while in charge of the vehicle. That point has now been covered under subsection (6) of the Amendment, which says:
"It shall be an offence for any person travelling on a vehicle licensed under this section to supply the driver thereof with alcoholic refreshment while the driver is in charge of the vehicle."
560
Therefore, as I said, it would then be a statutory offence for anybody to serve such a drink. In fact, any driver who partakes of alcoholic refreshment while in charge of a public service vehicle is immediately discharged by the operator himself.
I think that it may be reasonably said that public service vehicle drivers are not prone to insobriety. It may interest your Lordships to have some figures with regard to the most important long-distance public service vehicle operator —that is, express and stage service operator—that we have in this country. During the last 42 years, during which time this company have carried 4,880 million passengers on their vehicles, there have been only eight passengers out of that large number who have suffered fatal injury while travelling on their vehicles. Taking the industry as a whole, the 1959–60 statistics of the Ministry of Transport show that during that year, for each fatally injured person there had been 188,350,000 passenger journeys made. That, I think, shows that, anyhow from the point of view of the effect of drink on drivers, it would definitely not appear that drivers of public service vehicles are likely to indulge too much in alcoholic beverages.
I should now like to refer to a passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee E of April 25, and specifically to a statement made by the Minister, Mr. Dennis Vosper, in column 1249. The Minister's words read as follows:
"My hon. Friend makes no provision for an Excise licence in these passenger vehicles, whereas for other forms of transport—by sea, rail and air—an Excise licence must, of course, he obtained. That provision is made under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which also exempts those forms of transport from obtaining a justices' licence, Therefore, technically, the Clause is not acceptable because one would have to make some provision here for an Excise licence, in parallel with other forms of transport."
In this Amendment provision is made for an Excise licence, and the reason for wishing to insert this provision in this Bill is the fact that there is a great diversity of circumstances in which public service vehicles are operated. Your Lordships are no doubt well aware that, as has been stated by the Minister, although he did not mention the Act, the various Excise licences—that is, passenger aircraft, passenger vessel and railway vehicle Excise licences—are granted

561
under Sections 152, 153 and 154 of the 1952 Customs and Excise Act. There appears to me to be the greatest similarity between an aircraft carrying passengers and flying between two places in the United Kingdom and an express carriage public service vehicle also carrying passengers and operating between two places in this country.
I would say that this similarity extends, too, to the layout and equipment of the special vehicles themselves. Last Tuesday I was one of those Members of your Lordships' House who were taken round one of these specially-constructed vehicles, and I must say that it is a most luxuriously fitted-out, double-deck, long-distance coach. As in an aircraft (I do not wish to weary your Lordships with details, but I think they are important because they do show how the vehicle is fitted out, and that does have a bearing, I think, on this Amendment), it has a galley or servery, from which food and refreshments, but not at the moment alcoholic drinks, are served to the passengers of the vehicle by a steward or stewardess. There is a toilet; a washing basin; luggage storage; parcel racks; individual reading lamps; adjustable seats and small individual tables. So, from the point of view of equipment, it is very similar to a passenger-carrying aircraft. In spite of these adequate facilities, there is ample room for moving around in these vehicles, for they seat 50 passengers instead of the normal 76. I may say at this point that I have had a certain amount of experience with commercial and public service vehicles. They are extremely well-designed, well-built, and the workmanship is of the highest order.
At the moment there are only a certain number of these vehicles in service. There are 31 coaches, and they operate on six different long-distance routes. I understand that four more long-distance services are about to be initiated, but at the moment there are only six. The distances are quite considerable. If one considers only the Lancashire-Midlands-London service, that covers 253 miles; and if one considers the Keswick-London service, that is 302 miles. I mention these distances, and I will also mention the question of time, because I think that has a bearing as well on this Amendment. These services operate both during the day and during the night. If I may
562
take the service from London to Carlisle, I think it could reasonably be said that the time taken by train is approximately 5½ hours. By coach it is 12 hours.
The question of cost is also, I think, an important factor. A second-class return fare to Carlisle by train costs £5 10s., while a return coach fare from Carlisle to London costs £2 13s. Therefore, I feel that if one does not allow for similar facilities to be provided on these long-distance coaches, one is unfairly penalising the poorer section of the community. One section of the community which would also be affected is the elderly and retired people, who certainly have the time, but possibly not the money, and therefore cannot go by the faster route—that is by train—and have to go by the slower and cheaper way—by coach.
Your Lordships may feel at this juncture: Well, these vehicles can stop en route, so that passengers may partake of food or refreshment. But the fact is that there are wide variations in the standards and scope of refreshment facilities around the country. This fact is causing operators to extend the provision of food facilities to the vehicles themselves. I am advised that it is not uncommon for 20 coaches, carrying in all approximately 800 persons, to pull up at the same halt, and at a similar time. Your Lordships can appreciate the difficulty in obtaining any form of satisfactory service when there are hundreds of passengers to be served all at the same time. If your Lordships would like me to quote one place in particular where these conditions do appertain, I would mention Penrith.
I also think that there will be an increased demand for the facility for which I am endeavouring to obtain the approval of your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government, because there are in train at the present time regulations to extend the length of public service vehicles by 6 feet. I feel—and operators have told me this—that they would more than likely use that 6 feet extra length to provide on single-deck coaches the facilities I have mentioned which are already on these double-deck vehicles.
I am moving this Amendment for one other reason. At the moment it is perfectly legal for a passenger to board a public service vehicle carrying either a large number of beer bottles, a bottle of

563
whisky or gin, or a flask of brandy in his hip pocket. I should have thought that it would be a much neater method of serving alcoholic drinks if they could be served in specially—and I stress the word "specially"—fitted-out vehicles under the control of a qualified steward or stewardess. Here I would add that it sometimes happens that passengers board coaches after probably having (if I may use the expression) "one too many for the road". If that passenger makes a nuisance of himself and cannot (shall I say?) be amiably coerced by the steward or stewardess to adopt a more reasonable attitude on the vehicle, then in that case the driver halts the vehicle at a police station and the person is off-loaded. On speaking to one of these stewardesses last Tuesday, I felt that one of the factors that did influence operators in their choice of such personnel was that they should have a pleasant manner, and should be capable, particularly, of exhibiting the art of handling people. I feel that this is a reasonable facility for which I am asking the approval of Her Majesty's Government and your Lordships in order that drinks can be served on these long-distance coaches, because it would seem to me a much neater method than having people board a coach, as is done at the moment, carrying bottles of beer or alcohol. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Merrivale.)
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Every one of your Lordships will agree that everything that could have been said by my noble friend Lord Merrivale in favour of this Amendment has been said. But I ask not only your Lordships but also my noble friend not to press the Amendment, in favour of which he has so forcibly argued. I want my noble friend to know that I am always prepared to consider and respect a minority view; and he knows, as I am sure most of your Lordships know, that this Amendment was defeated by a narrow majority in Committee in another place. It was not called on the Report stage, and therefore it did not get into the Bill. The fact that it was defeated in that sort of Division shows that this is a matter of very great controversy indeed.
564
I need hardly assure my noble friend that those who opposed it in another place, and who felt strongly against it, are of varied background. It is opposed by temperance organisations. It certainly does not commend itself to all those who travel on coaches. My right honourable friend, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, pointed out that many letters had been received in the Home Office strongly opposing the proposal. He went on to state that the letters did not necessarily come from temperance organisations. They included passengers in the vehicle and, to quote his words:
"There has been very strong public representation against this proposal."
I cannot help thinking for a moment of those happy days when I was a boy and used to read adventure stories. It was almost an invariable incident, in historical adventure stories, that the boyish hero, aged about sixteen, had to ride in a stage coach and next to him was always an enormous lady who drank continuously from a bottle of gin throughout the journey. I cannot help feeling a sort of spiritual presence by my side, of the heroes of those old adventure books who objected so strongly to that position.
But I want to do justice to the arguments which my noble friend has advanced. I think there is certainly a great difference between trains and coaches in this regard. With regard to aeroplanes I think that my noble friend must admit that there is a stronger analogy. There are obvious difficulties which will occur to noble Lords who are accustomed to travel. Another point which will be of interest to the Committee, because the Committee have just had the advantage of hearing my noble and learned friend in quite another context, is that my noble and learned friend Lord Guest was Chairman of a Committee, which considered the Scottish licensing laws and which submitted its first Report last October. I concede at once to my noble friend Lord Merrivale that this had special relation to Sunday bus and coach parties. The Committee recommended that the consumption of drink should not be allowed in public service vehicles. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place:
"Always hearing in mind that we are considering much more limited and specialised conditions, I should have thought that if this matter were publicly examined, as it was in

565
Scotland, there would be a very strong body of opinion opposed to this provision, just as there was in Scotland."
LORD MERRIVALE: The operators concerned are perfectly willing to do anything that is required. The granting of a certificate is subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners, and if they felt that any service going to Scotland should not have a certificate they would not grant it. Secondly, I should like to mention that the operators are perfectly willing either not to carry alcohol on vehicles when going to Scotland or have it off-loaded at the Border, or to lock up the alcohol in the vehicle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that my noble friend has appreciated the point I am making. My noble and learned friend Lord Guest and his Committee inquired into the matter in Scotland (I want to be perfectly fair) with special reference to Sunday coach parties, and found that there was a considerable and serious body of opinion against this provision and against the serving of drink on public service vehicles. I hope that my noble friend will understand that I am being studiously moderate in this matter. This is a very controversial proposal which, as I say, was defeated, though narrowly, in Committee in the House of Commons. A number of noble Lords may put it more strongly, but I am sure that others will agree with me when I put it in this way. Public opinion is not ready for this at the present time. This is not a case Where one can put the argument, which is often a very fair argument, that if people do not want the drink, they need not have it. If they do not want to drink on a public service vehicle, they cannot help being brought up against it, and the only alternative is not to make a journey by public service vehicle. So the classical argument against opposition does not apply.
My noble friend said that he had gone part of the way to meeting objection in providing in his Amendment that an excise licence may be granted to the owner of any public service vehicle to which the clause applies, but, of course, his Amendment does not say what the excise duty shall be. The Customs and Excise could not accept that an excise licence should be issued without any duty being payable, and there is no case for singling out public service vehicles
566
operators and allowing them to sell liquor without payment of an excise duty when all other people who sell liquor under the authority of an excise licence, including railways, aircraft and passenger vessel operators, are required to pay duty. I do not think it is right to put it to your Lordships that it should be without a duty. My noble friend is in this dilemma. Either he wants an excise licence without a duty or an excise licence with a duty. In the latter case, it would be necessary, if his Amendment were inserted in the Bill and it went back to another place, to seek a Ways and Means Resolution to cover the new excise or taxing charge imposed by the new clause.
I should be the last person to use the argument that your Lordships cannot introduce a new provision, but for this House to introduce a taxing provision, to disagree with another place, and send the Bill back to another place so that they would need to have a Ways and Means Resolution for it—I am trying to put it moderately—would be a very unusual exercise of our position.
LORD MERRIVALE: There have been a number of precedents for this, when the House of Commons have been willing to waive their privileges. Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1946, became, if I recall rightly, Section 152 of the Customs and Excise Act with regard to allowing alcoholic drinks to be served aboard aircraft. In that case, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Ways and Means Resolution, and he said that
"an Excise duty of £1 shall be charged on licences, to be taken out annually by the owner of a passenger aircraft or his agent, authorising the sale of intoxicating liquor to passengers in the aircraft."
If the words "public service vehicle" were substituted for "aircraft", would it not be possible for a member of Her Majesty's Government to move a similar Ways and Means Resolution in another place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All things are possible, but some things are not expedient. My noble friend is asking the Government to go back to another place and there put down a Ways and Means Resolution to carry in another place, at the instance of your Lordships' House, a financial provision

567
which they have rejected. Of course it is possible, but one must keep a certain comity of relationship between the Houses, and to ask us to do that is, I think, an unreasonable request.
But it does not stop there. At the moment the Amendment is defective, and equally in subsection (6) it creates a new offence but does not specify the penalty which it to be imposed if a conviction takes place. As I have said, this is a matter of great controversy, and where there is such a division of opinion it would be wrong to force it on the members of the public. Secondly, I say that it would be far more suitably dealt with by a Bill which concentrated on this point rather than by a Bill which, on the whole, deals with entirely different subjects. I suggest to my noble friend and those who are interested with him that it is a matter in which they could test the opinion of both Houses of Parliament by a Private Member's Bill dealing with this special subject. This is such la controversial matter, as I have said, and is so bitterly opposed, that I would ask my noble friend not to press the Amendment; and if he does, I would ask your Lordships to reject it.
LORD BURDEN: A phrase used by the noble and learned Viscount has brought me to my feet. I do not see in this proposed new clause any protection for the travelling public using the vehicle. That brings to my mind one of the rules in the railway rule book which runs something like this: "In the event of any passenger being drunk or disorderly to the annoyance of others the guard must use all reasonable means to abate the nuisance, failing which he must have the passenger removed at the next station." Is it proposed that if anybody gets drunk or disorderly he will be dumped on the roadside?
LORD MERRIVALE: The noble Lord did not hear my argument. I mentioned that at the moment, should such circumstances arise, a steward or stewardess who could not take the action mentioned by the noble Lord would instruct the driver to stop at a police station.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.36 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Licensing justices
". A justice having an interest in the profits of any premises shall not be thereby disqualified under subsection (4) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953, or otherwise from acting under that Act or this Act, if he would not fall to be treated as having such an interest but for the fact that he has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body having an interest in those profits, and if his beneficial interest in the shares of the company or body does not extend to shares of a total nominal value greater than twenty-five pounds, or to more than one-hundredth in nominal value of its issued share capital or of any class of its issued share capital.
In this subsection 'share' includes stock, and 'share capital' shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments while I endeavour as briefly as possible to state the background and circumstances which provide its justification and purpose. Section 48 of the Licensing Act, 1953, states that no justice of the peace shall act in any case that concerns premises in which he is financially interested. On the face of it, that is reasonable and justifiable, but practice has disclosed quite a number of anomalies and, indeed, some injustice in the strict interpretation of this section of the Act.
The Government have been aware of these difficulties for some time and have endeavoured to search for a remedy. In the original Bill that was presented in another place the Government sought to deal with this situation in Clause 13 (1), which allowed licensing justices to hold shares up to a value of £500 in any concern that may be involved in the application to the justices. That clause was withdrawn on the Committee stage in another place, but the Government spokesman indicated that, although it was appreciated by many that the amount suggested in the clause was rather too high, there certainly was need to deal with the intolerable situation that had been created by the Licensing Act, 1953.
This Amendment takes the place of the original clause, but brings the shareholding down to the almost trivial amount of £25, which I believe, judging from debates that have taken place in another place, would be acceptable to the Government. The operation of this clause has a bearing upon many organisations and many

569
individuals associated indirectly with firms and concerns of various kinds. But the difficulties of co-operative societies, in particular, have been highlighted in debates in another place, with especial reference to the Barnsley Co-operative Society. It is for that reason that I make mention of it, and would, in passing, indicate that I, too, have an interest in being a member of a co-operative society.
Special difficulties have arisen in the County Borough of Barnsley, although, as I shall endeavour to point out later in my speech, this does not apply solely to Barnsley, and the set of circumstances I shall describe apply to many other towns and citizens in Great Britain. The Barnsley Co-operative Society has a membership of 140,000 and it is an extraordinarily high proportion of the population: indeed it is greater than the total population. The figure is explained by the fact that the membership reaches outside the county borough, and 99 out of every 100 families in the county borough of Barnsley contain a cooperative member. That Society has a number of off-licences, and I would point out that with one exception every justice of the peace for the County Borough of Barnsley, is a member of the Barnsley Co-operative Society. Those are the circumstances in Barnsley.
Under Section 4 of the Licensing Act, the licensing justices in the county borough have the sole authority for the granting or renewal of licences. Therefore, the situation in Barnsley (and I must apologise for constantly using this place as an illustration of my argument) is that there is no tribunal that can adjudicate upon any application on behalf of the Society, not even for the renewal of an existing off-licence held by the Society. I know that the problem could probably be resolved by a number of these members resigning from the Society, adjudicating upon the Bench and, when the decision is made, rejoining the Society. But such a method would not he satisfactory—indeed, is not satisfactory—and, furthermore, would be a complete mockery of the law.
There is no suggestion of politics in this matter, for the chairman of the Conservative Party in Barnsley is a member of the Co-operative Society and also a magistrate. Barnsley, I might say, is a very enlightened community.
570
Some might suggest that one could find non-co-operators as justices of the peace. But I am quite confident that those responsible for the appointment of the justices would recognise my statement that that would mean the destruction of the fundamental principle that is employed in the selection of justices on the basis of merit and suitability. I have indicated to your Lordships that the Barnsley case is not an isolated one. There are many other cities and towns that are affected, but I will not trouble your Lordships with the exceedingly long list that I have in my possession.
The idea of this Amendment is not new: there is nothing new in it. It is copied from the Local Government Act, which provides that a member of a local authority who has indirectly a pecuniary interest in a firm not exceeding £200 in shares, or one-hundredth of the total nominal value, can consider and, indeed, vote on any contract relating to that particular firm in relation to the local authority upon which the councillor serves. Later that amount was increased to £500—I forget the precise date when the increase was made. Therefore, the principle is already accepted. There is nothing new in terms of principle in the Amendment that I put forward. The Amendment reduces the amount to the trivial figure of £25, and I am quite sure your Lordships will appreciate that such a small holding could not affect judgment.
Incidentally, I may say in passing, making reference once again to the question of co-operative justices, that in that regard the interest is a fixed one and, therefore, quite irrespective of the profitability of the venture. It has no bearing whatsoever on the remuneration that can be derived from the holding of those shares. I must say that this applies to many other organisations apart from co-operative societies. Persons who have investments in the increasingly popular unit trusts, and persons with very small investments in various companies, can hardly be aware of the implications when they sit upon the licensing bench. I am quite sure your Lordships will be appreciative of the serious difficulties that almost unconsciously arose out of the original Licensing Act. I would say that, unless we seize the opportunity to deal with

571
this situation now to provide the solution which is indicated, we cannot solve this problem for a matter of two or three years at the very least. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Peddie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that anything lengthy is required after, if I may say so, the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. As he said, we have considered this point, and we have tried to find the best way of meeting it. I think the noble Lord will agree that his suggestion today is very like the one put by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General in another place and, therefore, without more ado, I advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before we accept this Amendment, does not the fact that a total nominal value of £25 is mentioned in this Amendment raise precisely the same difficulties the noble Lord has mentioned in regard to unit trusts? If the licensing justice had to calculate his holding in terms of one-thousandth of a unit to see that his share did not amount to as much as £25, is that not going to lead to great difficulties? Must there be a limit of some kind?
LORD PEDDIE: I do not think that involves any serious difficulty whatsoever. Originally, the suggestion was made for an amount of £500 nominal value, and then £250. There was a problem there in that while one may have £250 nominal value, the real value may be considerable. It could be argued that it could have some bearing upon the judgment of the person. In this regard £25 is so small a sum, that, even in the case of a holding in a unit trust, a person's share would have such a wide spread of investment that it is quite obvious that there would be no possibility of the holding of a few shares in a unit trust having any bearing upon the case. If you had a unit trust which confined itself exclusively to brewery or similar shares, and which was involved in an application, the man himself would have to calculate it. Personally, I can see no difficulty at all with regard to the £25.
572
That amount is purely nominal and should create no difficulty in that regard.
LORD HAWKE: In fact, a holding in a unit trust, even if on calculation it amounted to more than £25, would not disqualify the justice from acting in that way? Do I understand that aright?
LORD PEDDIE: Quite frankly, I do not follow the point. If any person has £25 in a unit trust, then there has to be some measure of calculation as to what amount may be invested in the particular concern that is making application to that bench. As the law now stands, irrespective of any interest whatsoever, no matter what it may be, if you have any interest at all you cannot adjudicate in a case before that bench. That is the principle which is challenged in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
Overspill areas
".—(1) Where in an overspill area the Minister of Housing and Local Government is satisfied that there has been a comprehensive allocation of sites for licensed premises and has so informed the licensing justices for the licensing district or districts within which that area lies, then, if the holder of a legal or equitable estate or interest in land within that area applies to the licensing justices for the licensing district in which the land is situated for the removal of a licence to premises comprised or to be comprised in that estate or interest, the justices shall grant him a licence unless they are not satisfied that—

(a) the premises are fit and convenient for the purpose;

(b) the applicant is not disqualified by the Licensing Act, 1953 or any other Act for holding a justices' licence and is in all other respects a fit and proper person to hold a justices' licence; and

(c) the existing provision of licensed premises within the licensing district is such that there is no need for the premises which are the subject of the application to be licensed.

(2) In this section "overspill area" means either—

(a) any land acquired by a local authority other than the local authority for the district in which the land is situated, under Part V of the Housing Act, 1957; or

(b) any land designated under section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 and acquired under sections 37 and 38 by a local authority other than the county borough or county district in which the land is situated; or

573

(c) any land authorised to be acquired by the receiving authority or by any other local authority under section 6 of the Town Development Act, 1952."

The noble Lord said: While I am appreciative of the noble Earl's acceptance of my former Amendment, I want briefly to run over the points in this Amendment in order that we may hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say in regard to it, and because I fear, as I will explain later, that the former Amendment alone may lead to difficulties between the licensing planning authority and the justices responsible for the licenses in the overspill areas. Subsection (1) of the new clause explains the circumstances in which the justices would be obliged to grant the removal of a licence to an applicant holding an interest in land in an overspill area, whose application derives from a comprehensive allocation of sites for premises agreed with the trade in the town from which the overspill area comes. That, of course, indicates what I have said previously, that the allocation of a removal licence depends upon the co-operation of the three parties—the licensing planning authority, the trade and the justices responsible for the allocation of licences in the overspill area. Therefore, I think it is very important that good will and co-operation should be maintained.
Before this obligation is placed upon the justices, the Minister of Housing has to be satisfied that the area complies with the definition of an overspill area, which is in subsection (2) of the clause. Now this is an important point, which I would ask the noble Earl to consider. Paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (1) are based upon the provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1953, which restricts the powers of the justices to refuse the removal of a licence in a licensing planning area, an area defined by the Secretary of State, which has suffered extensive war damage. Now my proposed new clause endeavours to apply the principle that was applied to areas which had suffered extensive war damage, to areas which are subjected to slum clearance, where the licences are put in suspense.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) maintains the discretion of the justices to the proper extent of considering whether there is a need for the licensed premises, having regard to the needs of the
574
licensing district as a whole. I would emphasise this point. It does not take away the power of the licensing justices in the overspill area to refuse a removal licence, if the needs of the district are already met by the existing licences. The licensing justices have still to consider the position as a whole in their licensing area. But where it would restrict their power is here; it would restrict their powers to give a licence, whether small, moderate or large, to a new applicant while there are these licences in suspense in an overspill area—licences in suspense which have been the subject, as I have previously said, of a comprehensive planning agreement which has been of considerable value.
While I have emphasised the case of Manchester, I am advised that it is not a problem only for Manchester. I am advised that, for example, Wolverhampton is likely to be confronted with the same problem, and I rather thought that my second Amendment was necessary in order to make for the amicable working of an arrangement which, I am sure, is well known in certain quarters. I hope the Minister will be able to help me in regard to this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Burden.)
EARL BATHURST: In the noble Lord's last Amendment I accepted, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we grant that no geographical limitations are necessary for the removal of a licence from one set of premises to another, but, in spite of what the noble Lord has told us, we believe that his second Amendment would mean that, due to his complex juggling with the town and country planning laws and regulations as they exist, the receiving licensing justices and the populations, too, in those receiving areas, would be bound to accept the owner of a removal licence, with no chance of objection and with no chance of considering any local applicants or interests for that particular licence. We believe—in fact, there is no doubt—that the noble Lord's Amendment would remove the discretion of the receiving licensing justices. It would be most complicated to work, as I fancy your Lordships will appreciate from what the noble Lord has said, with re-

575
gard to the planning regulations, and we believe that there would probably be so few cases that such complicated regulations would not be needed.
I will certainly agree with the noble Lord that, if the removals are amicably settled in the new receiving areas under the existing legislation, with the Amendment that the noble Lord moved first, I do not think there wild be any difficulty. The difficulty arises when the removals may not be so amicable, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, we believe unfairness would be caused in the receiving areas.
LORD BURDEN: I should be the last one to want any measure of unfairness, but I see the point made by the noble Earl. It all depends upon the good will of the receiving licensing justices, if I may put it in that way. I suppose it would be wrong to assume at the outset —and I take it that that is the Government's case—that the receiving justices would be obstructive and would not be willing to consider the case of a removal licence from the area from which the overspill population came. But after all, I think there is something to be said for those licences which have been operative in the slum clearance areas—a similar sort of licence for the population which has transferred itself to the new area. However, I see that the noble Earl is reluctant to put a measure of compulsion—that is what it comes to—upon the justices responsible for the overspill area, and I am afraid that I must, in those circumstances, leave it to both parties to negotiate their problems in a spirit of good will and co-operation, in order that the scheme which is working now, and will be working, may be successful. In those circumstances, thanking the noble Earl for his points and for his acceptance of the first Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new Clause.
New provisions for protection of young persons
".—(1) Subject to section twenty of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly sell
576
intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume intoxicating liquor in a bar, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
(2) A person under eighteen shall not in Licensed premises buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor, nor consume intoxicating liquor in a bar.
(3) No person shall buy or attempt to buy intoxicating liquor for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under eighteen.
(4) In the foregoing subsections, and in sections one hundred and twenty-six and one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which contain other provisions for the protection of children and young persons), references to a bar shall not apply to a bar at any time when it is, as is usual in the premises in question, set apart for the service of table meals and not used for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor otherwise than to persons having table meals there and for consumption by such a person having table meals there and for consumption by such a person as an ancillary to his meal; and nothing in subsection (1) or (2) above shall prohibit the sale to or purchase by a person who has attained the age of sixteen of beer, porter, cider or perry for consumption at a meal in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of meals which is not a bar or in a bar at any such time as aforesaid.
(5) The holder of the licence or his servant shall not knowingly deliver, nor shall the holder of the licence knowingly allow any person to deliver, to a person under eighteen intoxicating liquor sold in licensed premises for consumption off the premises, except where the delivery is made at the residence or working place of the purchaser, nor shall any person knowingly send a person under eighteen for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor sold or to be sold as aforesaid from the licensed premises or other premises from which the liquor is delivered in pursuance of the sale:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the person under eighteen is a member of the licence holder's family or his servant or apprentice and is employed as a messenger to deliver intoxicating liquor.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section (other than an offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(8) Where a justices' licence is forfeited under subsection (6) above, justices of the peace shall have the like power to make a protection order under subsection (3) of section twenty-three of the Licensing Act. 1953, as they have in a case falling within that subsection, and the

577
provisions relating to transfers of licences shall apply accordingly.
(9) In subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (under which the holder of a justices' licence is guilty of an offence if a person under eighteen is employed in a bar of licensed premises when the bar is open for the sale or consumption of liquor), the word "justices'" shall be omitted.
(10) Subsections (1) to (3) and subsection (9) above (but not subsection (4)) shall apply in relation to any canteen (within the meaning of the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954) in respect of which a licence is in force under that Act as if the canteen were licensed premises, but with the substitution for any reference to a bar of a reference to the canteen; and in subsection (6) above the references to a justices' licence shall accordingly include a licence under that Act.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (6) above a conviction of an offence under section one hundred and twenty-eight or subsection (1). (4) or (5) of section one hundred and twenty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1953 (or under any of those enactments as applied by the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, or by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956) shall be taken into account in the same way as a conviction of an offence under this section other than an offence under subsection (2)."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 60, 77 and 78 and it deals with another point on which I gave notice at Second Reading, and that is to extend the present prohibition of sales of liquor to persons under 18 to cover sales for consumption of sales on the premises. The clause also has the effect, by the use of the words "licensed premies" in subsection (1) and elsewhere, of applying prohibition to premises which have a retail excise licence only, as well as those with a justices' licence. The practical effect is to extend the under-18 prohibition to the bars of theatres, where drink may be sold under excise licence only. This repairs a no doubt unintentional omission of the present law, for there can be no logical reason for prohibiting the sale of drink to a young person in the bar of licensed premises but allowing it in a theatre bar.
The other kind of excise licence affected is the occasional licence. The sale of drink to young persons under an occasional licence, at a race meeting or a dance or the like, is already prohibited by the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956, which the last of the above Amendments consequentially
578
repeals since the prohibition is now embodied in the new clause. For the rest, the opportunity has been taken to consolidate in the new clause the provisions of the existing law and the Bill about the sale of drink to young persons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Penalty for unauthorised sales of intoxicating liquor]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, leave out subsections (4) to (8)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Miscellaneous relaxations of laws as to licensed premises]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (1). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Liqueur chocolates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 31, after ("supply") insert ("purchase, delivery").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Conditions for supply of intoxicating liquor by clubs
21.—(l) No intoxicating liquor shall on any club premises be supplied by or on behalf of the club to a member or guest, unless the club is registered under this Act in respect of those premises or the liquor is supplied under the authority of a justices' licence held by the club for the premises.
A person supplying or authorising the supply of intoxicating liquor in contravention of this

579
subsection shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both.
(2) No intoxicating liquor shall, on any club premises in respect of which the club is registered, be supplied by or on behalf of the club for consumption off the premises except to a member in person.
6.3 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (1), to add to the first paragraph:
"and no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied at any time to any person under eighteen years of age in any club to which this section applies."
The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships are rather surprised to find this Amendment on the Order Paper following the new clause we have just carried. This Bill shows a great interest in young people. It makes provisions in various ways to try to safeguard all those under 18. A young person under 18 may not be served in a public house and may not be served at off-licence premises; but here they may be served in a club. The temperance movement, —and on this issue I am speaking on their behalf, as well as on my own personal behalf—do not understand this differentiation.
I do not think it necessary to give many figures, but I ought to mention one or two which have been sent to me to show how important it is to have provision in all legislation to safeguard the youth of both sexes. I have here a paragraph headed "Increased drunkenness amongst young people". It states:
"Concern is expressed at the increase in convictions of males under 18 for drunkenness; 39 per cent. higher in 1960 than 1959, girls nearly 30 per cent.; a combined total of 38 per cent. Another disturbing feature is the increase in the number of convictions concerning purchase and attempted purchase of intoxicating liquor. Males under 18, increase of 44 per cent.; females under 18, an increase of 68 per cent.; combined increase of 48 per cent. This means that young people who have hardly left school are indulging more and more in the drinking habit."
Just one other quotation—it comes from the Chief of Police of the County Borough of Wallasey:
"A disturbing factor is that no fewer than four youths of 16 years and twelve of 17 years were before the courts on charges of drunkenness. I am conscious of the fact that some of these youngsters obtain their liquor from 'out-door' departments or off-licences; also from registered clubs, particularly those
580
organising dances, but I do ask every licensee to assist in preventing this type of offence by making sure that anyone served on his premises is at least 18 years of age."
There we are—different directions, but the same support; to take in every precaution to safeguard those under 18.
The only argument worth mentioning that I can find, which was used in another place, is that clubs are so like home; that clubs are home from home; they differ so much from pubs; that pubs are anything but that. That is the argument. I do not accept that. Clubs can be pleasant places over a period, but to suggest that what is right in the home is right in a club because a club is so much like a home is, to me, a wrong type of reasoning. In the home one has parental control. One of the Members of Parliament to intervene told us about a father giving a glass of sherry to his daughter of 19. Well, who could object to a father doing that in his home? Maybe the same father would do it in a club. He may not understand that the temperance movement is against this; and so is the Government, which has shown a real interest in those under 18.
The Lord Chancellor himself has just moved a comprehensive clause which satisfies the temperance movement in every sense. We are pleased with the provisions made in that clause for those under 18 with regard to "off-licence" and "on-licence" premises, but we are unable to understand why the Government are not prepared to do it in clubs, because we do not understand or accept the argument that a club is like a home—a home from home. We hope that after further consideration, this Amendment may be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL BATHURST: I would ask the noble Lord and all your Lordships to bear in mind that we are dealing with two quite different types of clubs: on the one hand, the respectable bona fide club, which will receive a registration under this Bill; on the other, the undesirable, if not illegal, club, which will disappear as a result of Part III of this Bill. I do not believe that what the noble Lord has just been saying when moving his Amendment will apply in the cases of

581
young people. Her Majesty's Government are indeed concerned with the increased drinking by young people but what the noble Lord did not mention is that the Bill increases the penalties for selling drink to persons under 18 in the public houses. He did mention that under the Amendment which your Lordships have now passed it prohibits off-sales to persons under 18.
The noble Lord argues that it is logical as well as desirable to go on and deal with the supply of drinks to young persons in clubs—and I am now talking of bona fide clubs. The noble Lord says that some clubs already have in their rules a prohibition on the supply of drink to persons under eighteen. That is so. But the comparison between public houses, on the one hand, and the clubs, on the other, is not an apt comparison; and I think that the noble Lord himself has already given your Lordships good reasons why that is not an apt comparison. There is nothing to prevent any club which so wishes from continuing to prohibit or restrict the supply of drink to a young person. A club of this kind is perfectly capable of making and enforcing its own rules on this matter, without the need for legislative intervention. I have already said that respectable clubs only will survive in future. Is Parliament really to say what a parent or a friend shall do as regards a respectable club for a young person who is perfectly legally in that club?
The prohibition which the noble Lord would like to see would be very difficult to enforce in the absence of police right of entry into clubs. The police cannot enter a club at will, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept any suggestion that they should be able to do so. This being so, it would be almost impossible to prove the commission of an offence, and it is undesirable at any time to introduce into the law a provision which cannot be effectively enforced. This applies particularly in the present context which the noble Lord has mentioned, where the law is being strengthened and being made more enforceable in other respects. We do not believe that the absence of this provision will, in fact, increase drinking among young people. I would, above all, ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the undesirable, if not illegal, drinking clubs will no longer exist, due to the later
582
provisions in Part III of this Bill. I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's Amendment—or it may be that I have assured the noble Lord that his Amendment is not necessary.
LORD DENNING: May I say a word upon this point? Certainly clubs can and should be divided into two, the bona fide club, the members' club, and the underhand proprietary club. They are of an entirely different nature. Although it may be that the Amendment is too wide in referring to all clubs, I would have suggested that certainly proprietary clubs, which are very much on the same level as an ordinary licensed house, could be made subject to the prohibition that there should be no sale of liquor to children under eighteen. Indeed, there is a later Amendment to suggest that the police should have a right of entry into proprietary clubs for that very reason. It is all very well to say that undesirable clubs will be blotted out by Part III. I venture to doubt whether that will be so. Proprietary clubs will remain; they will require strict supervision, and I suggest that it would be a very desirable Amendment to put them on the same footing as ordinary licensed houses in the other Parts of the Act to protect people under eighteen. Without going to the full extent of this Amendment, I should like to see some provision at a later stage to give some protection in respect of proprietary clubs.
EARL BATHURST: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I am sure the majority of those proprietary clubs will not be eligible for registration owing to their rules, and so forth. Those proprietary clubs which are decent and proper places will have to obtain a licence in exactly the same way as a public house obtains a licence, and will therefore have all the rules and regulations applicable to a public house, which will be enforceable by entry of the police. I assure the noble and learned Lord that when we get on to the club provisions he will see that in fact those provisions which he has just mentioned are all right.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: May I ask one question of the noble Earl? In all this effort to protect young men or women under eighteen, is it not extremely difficult at

583
times to determine who is a boy under eighteen?—because so many boys under eighteen may be putting themselves up as being twenty or 25. When a boy under eighteen comes in and calls for a drink I wonder whether anybody can decide whether he is under eighteen. I do not know whether that is relevant to the present discussion.
EARL BATHURST: The term "knowingly" is used as a safeguard for the public house keeper, or of course for the club proprietor in the case that I have just mentioned to the noble and learned Lord. That is a well-known term in licensing legislation. It is the public house keeper or barman's responsibility to make quite certain of the age of the person to whom he sells. If he is in doubt he must ask. If he is told a lie, the word "knowingly" is a defence, but it is the responsibility of that publican to know the age of the person to whom he sells.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I in the first place thank the noble Earl for his very kind, clear, cogent, convincing arguments. He has not quite taken me with him all the way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has already said was in my mind before he said it. I think I will not press this Amendment to-night, but I may reconsider and frame a different Amendment for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Qualifications for registration
22.—
(3) Any renewal of a registration certificate shall be for one year from the expiration of the period for which the certificate was issued or last renewed, except that on the second or any subsequent renewal the certificate may, if the court thinks fit, be renewed for such number of years (not exceeding ten) from the expiration of that period as may be requested in the application for renewal or for any less number of years.
(7) A club shall be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises (whether in the first instance or by way of renewal), only if no arrangements are, or are intended to be, made—
584
(b) for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club to members or guests, apart from any benefit accruing to the club as a whole and apart also from any benefit which a person derives indirectly by reason of the supply giving rise or contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club.
6.19 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has not arrived, may I venture to say this quite briefly to your Lordships? A great deal of trouble has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this Bill in controlling the registration of clubs. A registration certificate now shall have effect for twelve months and a renewal shall be for one year. The Government now leap to such magnanimity that they propose, if the court thinks fit, to let that renewal run up to ten years. Surely we have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Five years is bad enough, but in ten years what cannot happen? Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on in these clubs. They may keep themselves clear from the police under these new licensing hours; but you know what occurs, how often they break the law, and I would beg your Lordships to consider reducing that term to five years instead of ten. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)
EARL BATHURST: Again I must ask the noble Baroness and your Lordships to remember that there are two types of club—the bona fide club, which would be a club which will most likely receive a ten-year registration from the magistrates, and the other sort, the proprietary club which has a sporting chance of receiving no permission from the magistrate to exist at all.
I do not think I need go into this Amendment in great detail. It was gone into at great length in another place. I assure the noble Baroness that the club which she has in mind—the illegal club, as it will be under this Bill—will not be able to exist. Only the sort of club which is a right and proper place will receive a ten-year registration. Should there be any doubt at all, full discretion is left with the magistrates to decide

585
for how long the registration should be allowed. If that club does not conduct itself according to the most stringent regulations under this Bill, it can of course be closed down effectively, which has not been the case up till now.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I thank the noble Earl. I personally still think that five years for any club, respectable or not, is safer than ten years. However, I will ask for permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is a small Amendment, which I hope puts into effect what is Her Majesty's Government's intention. The difficulty about the phrase "two days" is that I rather think there is judicial authority on this sort of expression, and that it would result in something like the following situation. Supposing one applied to become a member of one of these clubs on a Tuesday and the phrase "at least two days" remained in the Bill, it might be considered by the courts that two clear days should elapse before one could become a member. Therefore, having applied on Tuesday one would have to wait all Wednesday and all Thursday, until one could become a member on Friday. Heretofore, I do not think there has been any sanctity in the length of time of 48 hours, but none the less 48 hours has been the time. I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that this should be continued and that instead of "two days" there should be inserted "forty-eight hours", which would make quite clear the length of time which one would have to wait before becoming a member. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, leave out ("two days") and insert ("forty-eight hours").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
EARL BATHURST: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I hope that I shall convince him that the effect of his Amendment is exactly the opposite way round. I must admit that I was convinced by his Amendment at first, but I hope to show your Lordships that in fact our wording in the clause is the correct wording. Cause 22 (5) provides that the rules of a club must require an interval of two days between application for membership and admission
586
to any of the privileges of membership. This Amendment would make that interval 48 hours. The similar provision in the present law, which is Section 144, is in terms of 48 hours. The change to two days was made deliberately to make enforcement easier.
The effect of making the interval 48 hours rather than two days can best be seen by considering an example. Suppose a man applies for membership of a club at 7 p.m. on a Friday, the 48 hours' interval which the noble Viscount would like expires at 7 p.m. on Sunday and the two days interval (in effect two clear days) ends five hours later at midnight. If the man is found paying for a drink in the club at noon on Sunday the question of a breach of the club rules arises —action can be taken against the club under Clause 23. The club records will show that he applied for membership on Friday but are most unlikely to show the time of day at which he applied; and I think it would be difficult to see that club registrars or secretaries put down an accurate time for the application. It would be difficult to prove that that man applied later than noon on Friday, and that there was therefore a breach of the 48 hours' rule. The breach of the two days rule would, however, be completely clear, and much easier to enforce. Therefore, my objection to my noble friend's Amendment is that, in practice, it allows clubs to cut the interval to as little as 36 hours with impunity. I hope that I have made myself clear to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble friend for that explanation. The fact is, however, that it appears that Her Majesty's Government's intention is to change this long-sanctioned 48 hours. If that is the case I ask for permission to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.27 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I ask your Lordships to consider this Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Its effect is that a club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate in relation to any premises having more than one hostess for every

587
twenty tables. Your Lordships know perfectly well what goes on. I know what the noble Earl has said about these clubs, and of the definite desire to curtail and control them. If we bring in this proviso and thus prevent a hostess having fewer than twenty tables to look after, we might reduce the terrible evil that these women do in these clubs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 6, at end insert—
("() A club shall not be qualified to receive a registration certificate for any premises if at those premises there are employed, at any time, more than one "hostess" for every twenty tables used for eating or drinking at those prenlises.")—(Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston.)
EARL BATHURST: I must again ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind what I said about reputable and responsible clubs as opposed to those that are irreputable and will probaby be illegal when this Bill comes into force. The whole concept of "hostess" as the noble Baroness and her noble friends understand it seems quite incompatible with the type of club that will qualify for registration—namely, the club which is run by and for the members, with a proper constitutionally elected committee. Accordingly, this Amendment might, if anything, carry the implication that, notwithstanding the incompatibility of hostesses with a club being a genuine members' club, a club may nevertheless qualify for a registration certificate provided that the proportion of 'hostesses in that club does not exceed that of one to twenty tables as laid down in the Amendment. I am quite certain that that would not be the effect that the noble Baroness would wish. This would be unfortunate from the point of view of the general principles laid down in Part III of the Bill, as well as from the point of view of the noble Baroness on the matter. Secondly, if the object of the Amendment is to ensure that hostesses of an undesirable kind are not employed in clubs, this will not be achieved merely by the limitation of their number. In fact, there are already better safeguards in the Bill against hostesses of an undesirable kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Where?
EARL BATHURST: I have already mentioned to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that if such clubs carry on undesirable practices they will not qualify for registration. Therefore, they will be outside the law. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 23 have the effect that objection may be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, or an application may be made for the cancellation of an existing certificate, on the ground, among others, that the club premises are habitually used as a resort of prostitutes. That is yet another safeguard which I was going to mention had the noble Viscount not intervened just at that moment.
To sum up, the night clubs which at present employ hostesses are unlikely to qualify for registration certificates in any case; and, in so far as the Amendment may suggest that hostesses are compatible with the usual kind of members' club, this would be mast unfortunate. A limitation on the number of hostesses is not in itself any guarantee that a club, or the hostesses, may be respectable. The Bill already contains safeguards, which I have described, against the undesirable practices that may arise. So I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment on the grounds that it would not be effective to meet the case which she requires it to meet. But I do assure her that there are safeguards in Part III of this Bill, which we believe will do so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the noble Baroness is enticed into withdrawing this Amendment, perhaps some of us on this side might have a word about it. There is one thing for which we are very grateful, and that is that the noble Baroness has been putting down Amendments of her own, and in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Stonham, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, for the purpose of getting a great improvement, if possible, in the standards of these clubs.
When one reverts to the discussions which have taken place, in another place and in your Lordships' House on the earlier Bill, when we were dealing with street offences, one knows how difficult this position.is in many of the clubs. I should thaw thought that a better answer would have been available as to what

589
the Government intended to do to improve the situation than merely what is in this Bill. I do not gather from what the noble Earl has said that anything very effective is going to be done to improve the present situation; and the growth of these undesirable types of club in the West End of London—a matter which was referred to, I think, on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Stonham—is really rather frightening. It does not seem to me that the Government are taking sufficient steps in this Bill to meet that situation.
I am not saying, and I do not suppose the noble Baroness, Lady Ravensdale, would say, that we can guarantee that this particular Amendment is going to do everything that we want—not by any means. I have listened carefully to the noble Earl (he will forgive me if I have misunderstood him) but if there is anything in the argument that a different number of tables, 15 or 20, might do something to improve things, then all I can say is that I know quite well that in a club of any kind, whether it is registered or not, anything which increases the number of ladies who will act as hostesses—not as waitresses, but as hostesses: danding and ordering the drinks; and ordering them ad lib. pretty often—will have a great effect upon the partners who dance with them. I do not think that the Government are taking this matter quite seriously enough. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I feel grateful to her for the stand she has taken in this matter. It always wants a great deal of courage to take up this kind of question: people look at you askance, and that kind of thing. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking it up, and I hope that the Government will be able to give a better answer than we have just had.
6.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say this to the noble Viscount?—because I am very anxious to take him with us on our intentions. What I suggest is that when we have gone through the various club provisions he should examine this problem again. From what has been brought to my knowledge, I should myself consider that the night club that goes in for hostesses—and that is really the kind of club we have in mind—would have extraordinarily little chance of registration when this
590
Bill becomes law. One could quite imagine (the noble Viscount and I know of such gatherings all over the country) dance clubs which are the most harmless and admirable gatherings of young people; but they are real clubs. I should have thought that the appearance of hostesses was almost instantly concomitant with the fact that the club concerned was a proprietary club. You have someone in the background, as the noble Viscount has described, who puts the girls forward to attract men to order more drink. I should have thought—and I should like us all just to consider this again—that that is almost entirely the place where there is a proprietor and where the essentials of a club for our purposes, with the members controlling the liquor, and not somebody who is going to make a profit out of it, are entirely absent. My own view, therefore, is that it is as safe as it can ever be in a prognosis to say that this type of club, the club that puts forward hostesses, would not obtain a registration certificate under Clause 22. I believe that the night clubs will recognise that they will have to obtain a justices' licence if they are going to carry on.
I am always anxious to consider doubts from the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—and, indeed, from my noble friend Lady Ravensdale—and I will consider the point he has made. But I would suggest that, when we have further considered the position, and any other doubts that may be expressed on the club part of the Bill, the noble Viscount should consider this special problem in the light of our examination of the Bill. It is certainly not our desire to make it easy for the kind of clubs that the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount have described. I believe we are right—I certainly hope we are right —in feeling that they will be driven out of the club field altogether. Having said that, I would add that I will willingly consider the problem, and I will ask Mr. Butler to consider it, too, in view of what the noble Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I just point out that even if you are going to restrict these dance hostesses, you cannot prevent a great increase in the number of waitresses in these clubs. What is to stop a waitress from doing the job of

591
a dance hostess? I rather think that you would probably have a great number of men waiters replaced by waitresses. This is an extremely hard thing for which to legislate, because if a club really wants to get round the law it can do so by employing waitresses who are not always waitresses—I mean, waitresses who behave as dance hostesses, and perhaps behave as they should not. It is an extremely difficult thing to legislate for.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount has just mentioned one of the methods by which this can be evaded, and, of course, there are many others. But I notice that neither the noble Earl who answered, nor the noble and learned Viscount, said anything about the merits of this Amendment. If it is conceded that it is undesirable to have an unduly large number of hostesses at these clubs —and we know that the main purpose behind them might well be to induce clients to consume more liquor—and we are told that the matter will be looked at from that angle, then I think, by all means, the noble Lady will be glad to look at it again in relation to the whole of the provisions concerning clubs in the Bill. But if the Government would also look at it in relation to the question of the undesirability of having an unduly large number of hostesses, and of methods by which legislation can be evaded, as the noble Viscount pointed out, then I think we have gained something by this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only reason I did not deal with the point was that I was rather starting from the terminus a quo that, where you had hostesses, you probably had not a bôna fide club. That was the only reason I did not deal with the actual point, but I will consider it. Noble Lords know that I cannot give any commitment on the matter, but I will certainly consider it, because, as I say, we are most anxious that the Bill should deal with the problem.
LORD OGMORE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider this point too. I am not sure that, if any provision like this remains in the Bill, it would not do more harm than good, because I am very surprised
592
to learn that there might be hostesses in a club of this kind. If one reads the provisions of Clause 22 and sees the sort of club the clause envisages, one wonders what hostesses are doing there. That is what I cannot understand. Presumably the magistrates will have to decide this question; they will have to decide whether they are going to give a club a registration certificate or, in certain cases, whether they are going to remove one. The magistrates will see this provision; and what will the average magistrate think? He will probably say, "Parliament evidently believes that there should be some hostesses there, because it provides for a maximum number of hostesses". I think that is quite outside the whole idea of a club as envisaged in Clause 22. I should like the noble and learned Viscount—I am sure he has the point in mind, because he has indicated that he has—to feel that some of us, at any rate, are with him on this. I should have thought it was a rather dangerous Amendment to accept.
EARL BATHURST: With respect to the noble Lord, that is one of the reasons I pointed out earlier, and really the reason why my noble and learned friend and myself are not keen on this Amendment. I tried to point that out to the noble Lady without causing any offence to her, but that is the basic reason why we do not wish to accept this particular Amendment.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I am not in the least convinced by the noble Earl's reply, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount opposite. I will withdraw this Amendment provided only the noble and learned Viscount will reconsider it, and put this point to the Home Secretary in the other place, because I know the Government are trying to do their best. If I may hope for that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. But I should like to point out again to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston that we are really asking for something higher than she is. We are asking that hostesses and a club should really be considered as incompatible; that is our approach. But, subject to that, I want to make clear to my noble friend that I was not seeking

593
anything lower in the scale than she wanted, but really something higher. Of course I will consider her point.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: I thank the noble Viscount.
LORD STONHAM: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that, through circumstances completely beyond my control, I was delayed, and I certainly do not wish to enter into the debate now. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has given an assurance that he will write to my noble friend Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston on this point. As he will be aware, my name has also been mentioned, and I should be grateful if he would also write to me. I hope it will be possible for us to hear something of the Government's intentions before the Report stage, so that, if necessary, we may table this or another somewhat similar Amendment on Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly I will do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: This is intended to be a drafting Amendment only: that is to say, the intention of this Amendment is to put into what I hope is clearer language what at present seems to me to be somewhat vague and unclear. In matters of language I do not think one needs a great deal of advocacy. I put it forward in good faith, in the hope that it will improve the language of the Bill and will make explicable what at present I find exceedingly difficult to understand. If the noble and learned Viscount, who I understand is going to deal with this Amendment, does not like it, I am perfectly willing to withdraw it; but I hope he will think that it is an improvement, or at any rate is worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 16, leave out from ("guests") to ("from") in line 20 and to insert:
"provided that any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain from the carrying on of the club and may form part of any pecuniary benefit accruing to the club as a whole and to any person deriving benefit").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am anxious to deal with this matter sympathetically, because I understand that it has the legal support not only of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but also of some other lawyers; and individually and collectively I respect the noble Lord's opinion and the opinions of others. Paragraph (b) is concerned with the application of the bar receipts in a club. It provides, in effect, that, with two exceptions, no person shall derive any benefit from those receipts. The exceptions are, first, that the club as a whole may benefit; secondly, that where the receipts are paid into the general funds of the club, a person may derive a benefit from those funds even though that benefit is made possible only by the bar receipts. It was represented to us, first, that it was not clear that "general gain" might be made up in part or in whole of the bar profits; and secondly, that where without the bar profits a club would show a loss, a benefit derived from the general gain was derived directly from the bar profits, and so—although this was not the Government's intention—was prohibited by the paragraph.
In reply to the first of these points, it can be said that the words "apart from" make it clear that what follows is an exception to the general rule, and that the general rule is concerned with "any pecuniary benefit from the supply of liquor". The words "giving rise or contributing to a general gain" make it clear that both the case of the bar profits preventing a general deficit, and the case of the bar profits adding to a general surplus, are covered.
In reply to the other point that he made, I would say that any benefit derived from a general fund made up of two or more particular funds is derived indirectly from each of the funds. There is also this difficulty about the Amendment: it is not properly a proviso to the first part of the paragraph. The words
"any profit derived from the sale of intoxicating liquor may form part of the general gain"
appear to be a statement of an accountancy principle. "Sale" is the wrong word to use, as there may well be no sales at all in most clubs. The words
"any person deriving benefit"
appear to be left in the air.
I have stated this, not in any desire to be argumentative, but simply so that

595
the noble Lord can have a chance of considering the point, about which my colleagues and I were worried when we were considering it. I understand that neither the Law Society nor the noble Lord has any quarrel with the clause, but they doubt if it is effective to carry out our policy, I will gladly have another look at it and if any bright ideas strike me or those working with me, I will let the noble Lord know before the Report stage.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has let the cat out of the bag. The Amendment has been suggested to me by the Law Society, a body which, unlike any other body interested in this Bill, has no axe to grind at all. It is wholly concerned that the wording in the Bill should be as clear as possible. This applies to the other Amendments which I am going to move. I gladly withdraw the Amendment in the light of what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, would it be possible to construe the clause in such a way that any person engaged in the liquor trade selling liquor to a club would satisfy this definition, and thereby invalidate a club applying for a licence?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so, but I will consider the point. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his help.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: Subsection (7) of this clause provides that a club may be registered if no arrangements are made
"for any person directly or indirectly to derive any pecuniary benefit from the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of the club …".
The position with the proprietary club is that in many of them the proprietor, financially, is the club. The whole intention of the Bill, and particularly of Clause 22, is to ensure that the supply of liquor shall be completely under the control and for the benefit of club members. The word "club" in paragraph (b) makes it possible for a proprietor to benefit from the sale of liquor, because often he owns and runs the club, and the membership is fictitious, certainly purely nominal. There are many ways in which a proprietor can indirectly
596
benefit from the sale of drink—for instance, he can charge an abnormally high rent. I think that that kind of thing could be avoided if we substituted the word "members" for "club" in this paragraph, and once more make it clear that the supplying of intoxicating liquor can be only for the benefit of the members. It seems to me that this Amendment is in keeping with the general intentions of the Bill and I hope, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, leave out ("club") and insert ("members").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DENNING: The word "club" is not defined in this Bill at all. In law there are two kinds of club, of entirely different natures. There is the members' club, in which the property belongs jointly to all the members, though it may be held by trustees for their benefit, and the proprietary club, in which the property belongs to the proprietor. This clause says that there should be no profit from the supply of intoxicating liquor except in so far as it goes to the club as a whole. If you are speaking of a proprietary club, that means the proprietor as a whole; in other words, the proprietor would get the benefit. If, as I gather from earlier discussions, members' clubs are to survive and proprietary clubs are to go away, it is not done by this Bill. Unless it is made clear that the proprietor does not get anything in the case of a proprietary club, apart from any benefit that accrues to the members, we are leaving a loophole whereby the proprietor can get a benefit. I support this Amendment, as it clears away any ambiguity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say at once that there is no difference between us at all about what we want to do. The last thing that the Government wish to do is to benefit the proprietor in the way the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning have suggested. If it is Lord Stonham's purpose in substituting "members" for "club" to exclude any possibility that the words "benefit accruing to the club as a whole" at line 17 and the words "benefit of the club as a whole" at line 30 might otherwise be read as including any benefit which the proprietor derives in the case

597
of a proprietary club, my view is—and I ask your Lordships to consider it—that the answer is that it is perfectly clear from the context that the words "club as a whole" cannot be so construed. Any pecuniary benefit which the proprietor of such club derives from the supply of intoxicating liquor is either caught by the opening words of paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of Clause 22 as if it accrues to him as a benefit which he derives indirectly by reason of the supply contributing to a general gain from the carrying on of the club, or it is caught by the closing words of that paragraph. I have not been able to see any justification for saying that there is ambiguity about the words "club as a whole". The word "club" was carefully chosen in these provisions to express the required meaning and is used in the same sense as in other provisions of the Bill. To alter it in these two places would merely cause confusion and would be undesirable for the reasons that I have given.
If I may put these objections to changing the wording once again, I would point out that the term "club" is used extensively in Part III and in the Schedules, and if a change is to be made here, that will throw doubt on the meaning of the term elsewhere. Many members' clubs are incorporated—for example, the clubs registered with the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893—and in the case of incorporated clubs the term "club" is clearly more appropriate to members. I am sure that both noble Lords will give consideration to this matter. I do not know that I need trouble the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with legal references, but I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning is never troubled by legal references and always adorns any legal reference that is sent to him by improving it. I would ask my noble and learned friend to consider the definition of Sir John Latham in Bennett v. Cooper, which is reported in 76 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 570. He defined a club as:
"a voluntary association of a number of persons meeting together for purposes mainly social, each contributing a certain sum either to a common fund for the benefit of the members or to a particular individual for his own benefit."
598
Then my noble and learned friend might have a passing glance at Lord Lindsay's judgment in Wise v. Perpetual Trustee Company, which he will remember is in 1903 Appeal Cases, page 149. If he will also look at Halsbury's Laws of England, the Third Edition, Volume 5, at page 52, he will find it gives this definition:
"A club may be defined as a society of persons associated together for social intercourse, for the promotion of politics, sport, arts and literature or for any purpose except the acquisition of gain. The association must be private and must have some clement of permanence. The purpose of social intercourse should be combined with any other purpose, subject to the exception named."
The sense in which "club" is used in both textbooks and authorities is generally the same, and I think we carry that general idea with us. But in view of the different kinds of clubs, all of which may be entirely respectable, it would be difficult to insert a definition in that sense into the Bill. What we are trying to do is to lay down clear and severe rules which will prevent what we have called the bogus club from existing. That is the purpose of Part III. I think it can be done without a definition. I quote these examples—and I think they are fair quotations—in order to show what we are talking about when we refer to a club.
As noble Lords will see, I do not share their difficulty as to "club" here possibly meaning the proprietor; and if I did, I would agree to Change it at once. But in view of the fact that both noble Lords are worried about it, I will have a look at it again and see whether, on reflection, I find a difficulty which I have not observed at the moment. I may say to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I hope he will believe this is simply a matter of getting the best drafting. It is not a matter on my part of trying to prevent hitting exactly the same target as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning want to hit.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the Lard Chancellor, and I hope that that satisfies the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and my noble friend Lord Stonham for the moment. My anxiety about it is this. It seems to me that the whole of this part of the Bill is to

599
provide machinery for registration of these clubs, many of which have not been registered before, under what conditions they will be carried on, and what complaints can be made against them in order to remove undesirable offences and to secure penalties. Therefore, it seems to me that the definition of a club in those circumstances is vital. While I pay great respect to the legal precedents that learned lawyers like the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, can bring forward, I do not see why you should not make a precedent in order to secure a great moral advance in the State.
LORD DENNING: May I say that it was just because of the difficulty of these precedents, and because in Halsbury it refers to members, on the one hand, and to proprietary clubs of an entirely different nature, on the other—we are dealing with two different kinds of animals—that I thought the courts might find some difficulty and I considered it desirable to make the matter clear. However, in view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, perhaps it can be reconsidered.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was quite right to turn half right when he quoted the legal references. For my part, I am sure he would not have quoted any legal references which might have supported the other point of view, although no doubt there may be some. But in his careful explanation, for which I am grateful, he underlined the need for this Amendment, because if a club is not defined, and if, as it were, the definition has to be built up, as I agree it must be, with these various clauses, subsections and Schedules, then it would appear to me desirable that we should be quite explicit in this particular subsection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that we are dealing with two different animals, and how right he is! Some of the gentlemen (I will not use the word "animals") who own these proprietary clubs are very wealthy people and can afford to pay for the most expensive legal advice. That has for years allowed them, as it were, to laugh at the law, which we know has been inadequate and which we are now amending in my view very well, with a most valuable Bill.
600
It is the case that a proprietor can own virtually everything about or in a club. If he is going to get registration for that club, then nominally, at least, the members must control the purchase, sale and benefits from any liquor consumed in the club. The law will work in that way only if it is adequately supervised and if any infringement will come to light. One of the weaknesses of the Bill as it now stands is that it will be difficult to get evidence of those infringements—a matter we shall deal with later. I believe that if we insert the word "members" here it will strengthen the Bill, and make it more difficult for it to be evaded. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance that he will have a look at it again. I know it goes no further than that, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"(14) Where the rules of a club make provison for a class of members to have limited rights or no rights of voting in relation to the affairs of the club, any question whether the requirements of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of this section are satisfied in relation to the club, or whether the rules of the club conform with the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall if the court determining the question so directs be determined as if the exclusion of that class from voting to the extent provided for by the rules were authorised by the provisions of that Schedule as to voting at general meetings or elections; but the court shall not so direct unless satisfied that the provision so made by the rules is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members for facilitating the membership of persons who are precluded by distance or other circumstances from making full use of the privileges of membership, and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control over the affairs of the club."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 67 to the Sixth Schedule. Your Lordships will remember that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs the voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. These Amendments provide for the case of country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living

601
more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote.
It is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment could take the form of a simple addition to the classes already in the proviso to paragraph 2(4). The existing classes are such that the proviso does not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit. That is vitally important on this Part of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to allow me to repeat that we must not allow a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members run the club for their own benefit, because it would be easy to organise a club in London so that the control of the club was in the hands of a very few members, the large majority of the members being non-voting country members. The Amendments, therefore, give the magistrates' courts power to investigate the arrangement and to refuse to register the club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is
"part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interest of the club as a whole and of that class of members … and is not designed to secure for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control".
I do not think your Lordships are vastly interested in this at the moment. I want to say here that I think I am dealing with a point which is of vital importance from the aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was mentioning. That is, it would be very unfortunate if we allowed clubs to be run by a minority with voting rights and to have a large membership of people without voting rights. That is why we have drafted the Amendment in this way, so that the court must be satisfied that it does not take place. There has been much pressure to add to the classes of non-voting members in the proviso to paragraph 2(4) of the Fifth Schedule; and, indeed, if I may anticipate my Lord Chairman, for the purposes of illustration, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, goes almost as wide as to say, "all members who do not pay their full annual subscription". Your Lordships see that one can get quite easily to the position that the noble
602
Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, feared.
You collect a few people who pay an extra subscription—I mean the nominees of the proprietor—and then you say that no one who does not pay the full subscription shall have voting rights. This is something we must watch and here, perhaps, I am being more "anti-bogus club" than some of your Lordships. At any rate, that is why I attach importance to this Amendment, and I attach great importance to our not falling into that rule of allowing a minority to run the club with a majority of non-voting people. For the reason that these Amendments will help in that direction, I ask your Lordships to accept them as assisting our general purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I shall, of course, study what the Lord Chancellor has said. I am most grateful for the introduction of this Amendment in support of what I think is a sound principle, that a minority of members ought not to be allowed to get control and, therefore, vitiate the purposes of the Act. But I do not think there is any argument against the Amendment which we discussed a few moments ago. After all, if members did not pay their subscriptions they would not be members. And if, by some artificial means, the numbers were reduced, the club has to have a minimum of 25 members otherwise it cannot be registered at all. I am quite sure that it would be easy for a proprietor to get 25 cronies, particularly if the club was a successful and expensive one. Although I welcome this provision, I do not think it is a sound argument against the arguments we have previously adduced.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Objections to and cancellations of registration, and disqualification of premises
23.—
(2) An objection to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate may be made on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say,—
(d) that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose,

603
or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect;
7.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2) (d), to leave out "habitually" and insert "frequently". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I beg to move this Amendment, and with it I hope it will suit the convenience of the Committee if we deal with Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, which are on precisely the same point. Paragraph (d) is one of the objections which can be made to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate, and it reads:
"that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of persons to membership or to the privileges of membership or in any other material respect."
In paragraph (e) the word "habitual" is attached to
"used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes or …"
persons being habitually admitted and supplied with intoxicating liquor. My noble friend's Amendment proposes that in each of those three cases the word "frequently" should be substituted for "habitually".
I think this is a sound administrative point, because it must be much more difficult to get evidence that the premises are used in such a way as habitually to disregard the law, because one would assume that it means that the law is flouted virtually every night, and it is extremely difficult for the police or for other authorities to get evidence of that kind of thing. But it would be much easier if the word "frequently" were used and then, for example, it would be possible for a police officer to get evidence, perhaps, three times in a week, which I think would be regarded as a frequent breach of the conditions of the licence and would more nearly meet what we have in mind.
I say that because, in the cases which are brought to court now, one usually finds that the police officers who collected the evidence took observation, perhaps, on three or sometimes four occasions—not necessarily consecutive occasions, but three or four occasions
604
over a fairly short period, which of course would be regarded as a frequent breach of the law. There, again, it is one of those points which may be described as a lawyer's point, but I think it has the practical value that it would make a successful prosecution easier than if we adhered to the word "habitually". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 27, leave out ("habitually") and insert ("frequently").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a most interesting exercise in plumbing the well of English undefiled, because if you look at the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary you will see that "habitually" is defined as:
"in the way of habit or settled practice, constantly, usually, customarily",
and "frequently" is defined as:
"at frequent or short intervals, often, repeatedly".
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will at once see that a very serious and considerable—in the strict sense—argument could be put up that the Amendments are restrictive, rather than enlarging. A thing done regularly at fairly lengthy intervals—for example, a month—may be regarded as habitual before it can be regarded as frequent. That is the difficulty.
Now let me come to another point, which noble Lords will appreciate from their own vast experience, especially the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. Habitual is the word used in Section 144, and there, noble Lords will remember, paragraph (b) says that the club can be struck off on the grounds that
"… the club is not conducted in good faith as a club, or is kept or habitually used for any unlawful purpose".
Of course, in the clause of the Bill the words that we have to look at are:
"habitually used for any unlawful purpose"
which are the same words as the words used in Clause 23 subsection 2 (e):
"or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes".
The practical position is that these words were critically examined in another place and they were strongly attacked in some quarters as being too restrictive, because, as you see, we have

605
gone a good deal beyond merely "any unlawful purpose" in order to try to meet the points of our discussion. The practical point, which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is this: that if it were clear that "frequently" were a better and more attacking word than "habitually", then there would be a great deal to be said for it. When, on the definition, it is, to say the least of it, doubtful whether it really helps you—I say it with all deference to those who have thought out this point, and I can make a shrewd guess who they are—then I hope that noble Lords will not throw the gain we have got by putting these words into the melting pot again. I put the position completely frankly. I have given the noble Lord the definitions both ways, and I do not think, really, that what we gain here is worth a candle for lighting up once again all these points which were argued in another place. If there were any real gain, I should take a very different view.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not want to prolong the discussion on this matter. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount far the explanation he has given, and I am bound to say that, looking at subsection 2 (e), one sees there is a great need there to cover many of the offences which one would fear might occur. But what I am very interested in—and I am bound to ask the question—is why, in subsection 2 (e), you find it necessary to use the words
"habitually used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays, or as a resort of criminals or prostitutes",
but for drunkenness you use the word "frequent". I should have thought, after that very learned exposition from the Oxford English Dictionary and other sources, which we had from the noble and learned Viscount, that he might explain what is the exact difference between "habitual" and "frequent" in subsection (2) (e).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, I did not pick up the reference.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is the third line of Clause 23, subsection (2) (e), which says, "habitually used", and then "frequent drunkenness". Which is which? You think that you can pick up all the other breakers of the law and semi-criminals
606
by the use of that term, but when you come to drunkenness you refer, in that particular subsection, to "frequent".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to that, as the noble Viscount knows, is that the words "habitual drunkard" are used in another sense in law, and I think they have used the ward "frequent" so that there would not be any confusion on that point. It just goes to show that between "frequent" and "habitual" there is a very, very narrow line. That, I think, is the historic reason, and I congratulate the noble Viscount for putting this poser to me. Really, he is wasted in politics and the co-operative society. He ought to have been at the Bar. That is meant to be a compliment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The late Sir Norman Raeburn once said that to my Chairman, but he came down against me in the end.
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount said that this was a nice exercise inquiring into the well of English. My particular trouble is that I am delving with my bucket into the well of my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and I may not have dredged up exactly those pearls of wisdom which would have come from him, had he been putting his own Amendment. Also, as I moved this Amendment at fairly short notice, I did not have the advantage of a brief or of looking up the Oxford English Dictionary; otherwise, I might have got another dictionary. But there is a very real problem here, and while giving full rating to what the Lord Chancellor has said, I am concerned with one thing and one thing only: will it make it easier for the police to get a conviction if the word "habitual" is used, or will it make it easier to get a conviction, if an offence is committed against this clause, if the word "frequent" is used? It seems to me that there are so many contradictory uses for these two words and, as my noble Leader has pointed out, we have both words used in the same subsection apparently meaning very much the same thing.
The noble and learned Viscount will be aware that if a man over 30 has two sentences of imprisonment, he is liable on a third conviction to sentence as an habitual criminal, though he may not

607
have offended very frequently. His number of offences may be only three sentences of imprisonment spread over his whole life. I am also thinking of offences which are, happily, no more—for example, street betting. The offence there normally was not that somebody was habitually street bookmaking but that the constable saw the man frequently taking bets; and he was convicted because he was frequently taking bets. I assure the noble and learned Viscount that I have not read a single word of any of the deliberations in another place. I have come to this Bill with a fresh mind, and I certainly come to this particular Amendment with a completely fresh mind; and I do not know that I could come to it better. But it certainly seems to me that on a matter of conviction, "frequently" would be better than "habitually". I wonder whether, in view of what has been said, and in view of the fact that the two words are in the same subsection, it would not be better in each case in this clause to use the word "frequently" than "habitually." Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Appeal to quarter sessions]:
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin I should like to move this Amendment on his behalf, to make sure that provision is made in the Statute-to-be, for serving with notice of appeal. My noble friend thinks this Amendment makes it clear, and more just, and I hope very much that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 8, after ("be") insert ("served with notice of the appeal and shall be entitled to be").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very willing to consider this point, but I ask the noble Viscount not to press me for a commitment because we have
608
considerable difficulty about it. Clause 26 (3) provides that where a club appeals against the decision of the magistrates' court any objector shall be a party to the appeal; and the Law Society represented that it was wrong to make an objector a party to an appeal against his wishes, as it would make him liable to an order for costs even though he took no part in the proceedings. This Amendment is intended to allow the objector to elect whether to be a party to the appeal. Your Lordships see the position: someone objects; his objection is successful; the club appeals to quarter sessions; quarter sessions takes a view in favour of the club, and therefore if the objector is party to the appeal there is a risk of his being condemned in costs. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the Law Society would say that although he had objected, he could himself choose whether or not he was a party to the club's appeal. They would leave it to him.
I hope that I have made the position clear, and that is what leads to the difficulty with us. It is true that under Clause 26 (3) the effect would be that on appeal an order as to costs may be made—I stress the words "may be made"—against an objector who has objected at the first stage and taken no part in the appeal. Now in one case it is clearly right that quarter sessions should have this discretion as to costs. If an objector is successful before the magistrates and the club is ordered to pay his costs (and the reference there is paragraph 3 (4) of the Seventh Schedule) it would be wrong to allow him to keep these costs if the club succeeded in its appeal. I think that is quite clear. He objects; the club loses and is ordered to pay his costs; the club then appeals to quarter sessions and wins. It is very hard that someone who has objected below and succeeded there, but is then found to be wrong on appeal, should retain the costs that have been allowed him through a mistaken decision of the first court. Yet this Amendment would allow the objector to keep his costs if he elected not to be party to the appeal. He could go home with the costs in his pocket.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that not reasonable in such a case, where an objection is largely

609
in the public interest, and the appeal to the quarter sessions is purely on a question of law?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: An appeal to quarter sessions would be on a question of fact. It is not an appeal to a Divisional Court; it is an appeal to quarter sessions, and it would be a re-hearing of the same issue. Since quarter sessions is a higher court its decision stands. The higher court having said that the club ought to win, it seems to me that the objector should not be allowed to go home with the costs which, in the view of quarter sessions, he does not deserve. It may be argued that in other cases the clause will bear hardly on objectors. That is, you might have (I am trying to put the other side) a neighbour who took a poor view and said, "I do not want this club here, I do not think it would have a good effect on the family," and so on. He might be a successful objector and he might not want to go to quarter sessions. That is the sort of person (I have over simplified it) that they have in mind. We think that the real answer to this difficult problem is to leave the costs in the discretion of quarter sessions. I have taken the case where quarter sessions has decided in one way. But, broadly, my forty years' experience teaches me that the more complete the discretion that is given to a court as to costs, the more likely justice is to be done in art infinite variety of different cases.
I have taken the two extremes. For example, I should be very surprised if any court of quarter sessions made an order for costs against the individual objector whom I have described. I think really the discretion can produce a fairer result than a rigid provision which would 'be written into the However, again. I will look into it, and perhaps the noble Viscount could say to his noble friend, Lord Silkin, that if when he has read the debate he has any further point that he would like to put before me, if he would care to come and see me I should be happy to discuss it with him. But at the moment I would ask the noble Viscount not to press for a decision, because I think he will see that I have said enough to show it is a very difficult point, and all we want to
610
do is approximate as closely as we can to justice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged. After what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and I will have a discussion with my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at seventeen minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half past eight]:
Clause 27 [Inspection of premises before first registration]:
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police", and to insert:
"an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority".
The noble Earl said: Clause 27 of the Bill provides that, where a club applies for the issue of a registration certificate in respect of any premises, any constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police may, on giving not less than 48 hours' notice, enter and inspect the premises at any reasonable time on such day, not being more than fourteen days after the making of the application, as may be specified in the notice. The clause gives a similar right of inspection where a club applies for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. The clause gives the like rights of inspection to an officer of the local authority.
Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police—and also by the local authority, and by any person affected by reason of his occupation of or interest in other premises—to an application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the grounds set oust in Clause 23 (2), including the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character and condition and of the size and nature of the club. Provision is made for inspection of club premises by the police in order that they may be able to decide whether or not to make objection on this ground.
The provisions of Clause 27 authorising police inspection of club premises

611
have been much criticised by clubs and club organisations, and as a result of the Report stage fin another place my right honourable friend undertook to move Amendments in your Lordships' House on the lines of those put down by the honourable Member for Newport, which would allow inspection by the police only if the chief officer of police was satisfied that there existed special reasons making inspection necessary. These Amendments have been put down in pursuance of that undertaking. The effect of the Amendments is to allow inspection by the police on first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional, or enlarged premises only if the chief officer of police is of the opinion that special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.
As I have said, Clause 23 allows objection to be made by the chief officer of police Ito en application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate on the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view of their character. The police may not need in all cases to inspect club premises for the purpose of deciding whether or not to make an objection on this ground, butt in some cases they may need to do so, for example, whether the premises are a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership. In such a case the police should be able to inspect the premises to decide whether reasonable order could be maintained in the premises and whether objection should, or should not, be made to the application for a registration certificate. The Amendments would allow inspection in such a case, but not in any other cases where the chief officer of police was not of the opinion that special reasons existed making inspection necessary for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.
Paragraph 2 (4) of the Eighth Schedule has the effect that the police will not in any event be able to inspect the premises of a club on first application for a registration certificate under the new pro-
612
cedure if the club has for the three years preceding the coming into force of the new procedure been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises. The right of inspection by the police which Clause 27 confers, as it may be amended by these Amendments which I am moving, will therefore be exercisable only in respect of a club which has not been in existence for three years or which, baying been in existence for that time, applies for renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("premises") to ("may") in line 19, and insert ("an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD STONHAM: I understand that the noble Earl has been speaking to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 merely amount to the transposition of the phrases concerning an officer of the local authority and a police officer, and there is no objection to that. The only Amendment of substance—and it is an Amendment of considerable substance—is Amendment No. 51, which says that
"a chief officer of police shall not … authorise a constable unless … special reasons exist making it necessary"
for him to do so. I think this is a very regrettable weakening of the Bill; a weakening of the powers of police officers. I should like to know how a chief officer of police is to know that special reasons exist unless he can make an inspection of the premises.
The noble Earl said they might be basement premises, and therefore obviously undesirable from that point of view. Of course, it may be that the particulars which have to be supplied in the registration application may indicate that they are basement premises; I do not know. But it would seem to me entirely necessary, if the intentions of the Bill are to be carried out, for the chief officer of police, if he thinks it necessary, to authorise one of his officers to go and make an inspection. I cannot see that the noble Earl has made out any case at all for this Amendment.
It is perfectly true, as he said, that this Amendment has been set down to honour a commitment made by his right honourable friend in respect of an

613
Amendment moved by the honourable Member for Newport in another place; but although, naturally, I am impressed by that fact, I am not sufficiently impressed to think there is any sense, rhyme or reason in it. To me, the important thing about the regulations we are considering regarding the registration of a club is that they should be policed. It is absolutely no earthly use putting regulations in a Bill, and clauses and subsections in a Bill, which look all very well on paper, if, in later sections, you tie the hands of the police so as to make it virtually impossible, except in exceptional circumstances, for them to carry them out. If you do that, we are really wasting our time.
Now it has been my misfortune to see some of the places in which clubs are run and in which clubs exist. They perhaps have been in fairly small-front-age buildings; tall buildings, with two or three floors. It is quite impossible, just looking at them from the outside, for a chief officer of police to say with any degree of certainty at all, as he must, that he cannot recommend that a certificate of registration should be granted in a particular case because the premises are unsuitable. And yet the particular Amendment which we are now asked to insert in the Bill makes it necessary for him to say that there are special reasons. They must be reasons within his knowledge why he should give one of his officers the authority to go and inspect the premises.
I really do not know—and, with respect, the noble Earl did not tell us—how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons. I should have thought that in the case of an application for registration, if there are any police factors in it they should be known; that is, apart from things like character. I believe we are talking only about premises in Clause 27, and not about the character or antecedents of the applicant, or all those other reasons why the police should tell the magistrates that, in their view, registration should not be granted. We are talking about premises. I agree that there is no restriction on an officer of the local authority visiting the premises That is still in the clause. It has been shifted up a few lines, but it is still there. An officer of the local authority can go in.
614
Why is it that there is this fundamental objection to the police? I put it to noble Lords that it often falls to our lot to run a function, perhaps for charity, such as a dance or a ball, and an application is made by the organisers for a special licence to sell alcohol, which is usually granted if made in the proper form. A little certificate is given which the publican, or whoever is running the bar, pins up. An officer of the police always comes in during the evening—usually there are two—just to look at the licence and to see that the conditions are being observed. These officers are always in uniform, and they come into a happy party of people enjoying themselves. I have never known that to be resented; it is regarded as a matter of course, as the police doing their duty. I should like to know, first of all, how a chief officer of police is expected to know that there are special reasons, unless one of his people goes and has a look. Secondly, why is it that the Government are apparently so afraid, or have been so intimidated, into agreeing to these Amendments which weaken the power of the police, and are based on the belief, it seems, that honest people resent (which I do not believe is the case) inspection by the police?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to point out to the noble Lord that this is only a question of whether or not the premises should be inspected; it is not a question of whether the chief officer of police should oppose. If he will look at the words of our Amendment he will see that it says:
"… unless in his opinion"—
and I stress "in his opinion"—
"special reasons exist…".
That is to say, it is a subjective matter, for the chief of police to decide whether there are "special reasons". I am not going to compete with the noble Lord about knowledge of the way the police work; but, of course, the chief of police will receive reports from his force, and they will receive information from many people, as to what conditions prevail in the club concerned, and it will be for the chief of police to decide whether the premises require inspection. My noble friend Earl Bathurst gave the example of a basement room which is intended to serve as a bar for a club with a large membership, because that is exactly the

615
sort of case as to which a chief constable would ask himself, "Can they in that room maintain reasonable order?" On the second point the noble Lord put, we have to face that he takes a very strong view that any decent club would not resent inspection. As a matter of fact that feeling is not, as he knows, universally shared. There are plenty of members of the most decent clubs who resent this. The noble Lord thinks that they are wrong, but that is a fact.
One is also bound to take into account the universality of feeling in another place. When the suggestion is put forward—I put this merely as background; I am not going to discuss whether it is right or wrong—by so senior a member of the Opposition, who has held such distinguished ministerial office, it is bound to be something that one must take into account. And if he suggests that there should be this minor limitation—in my view, it is minor, because it is entirely for the chief of police to decide—I think that the Government would have been regarded as ungracious had they not gone some way to meet this universally held opinion. From the practical point of view, I do not think that it will have the bad result which the noble Lord fears, because I am sure that every chief officer of police who has the slightest idea that there may be danger or difficulty in any premises will consider that a special reason. Therefore, I hone that the Committee will accept the Amendment, which is to meet a general consensus of opinion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 26, and insert ("a constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 27, at end insert ("but a chief officer of police shall not so authorise a constable unless in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should he inspected for the proper discharge of his functions in relation to the registration of clubs.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Rights of fire authorities in connection with registration of clubs.]
8.46 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in Clause 28, to insert as a new first subsection:
"(1) As regards any matter affecting fire risks the local authority if they are the fire authority, shall have the like rights in relation to the inspecion of premises under section twenty-seven of this Act on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate for the premises as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate."
The noble Earl said: May I take Amendment No. 55 and its two consequential Amendments, Nos. 56 and 57, together? Clause 28 gives to fire authorities the same rights of inspection of club premises as are given to local authorities under Clause 27. Clause 27 gives a right of inspection on a first application for a registration certificate or on an application for renewal of registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises. When Clause 28 was moved at Report stage in the House of Commons the honourable Member for Islington, East, suggested that the fire authority and the local authority should be given the same power to inspect club premises on every renewal. My right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General conceded that it could be argued that fire is perhaps a special case, and said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would very carefully consider what had been said in the course of the proceedings. This point has been considered and it has been decided to give fire authorities a right of inspection on every renewal of a club's registration certificate.
The first Amendment provides that, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the local authority, if they are the fire authority—for example, a county borough council—shall have the like rights in relation to the inspection of premises under Clause 27 on any application for the renewal of a registration certificate as they have in the case of an application for the issue of a certificate. Under subsection (2) of Clause 28, a fire authority which is not a local authority as defined in Clause 31 (3)—that is, a county council or a combined authority—will have, as regards any matter affecting fire risks, the same rights of inspection as it would have if it were the local authority and

617
thus will have the additional rights under the new subsection (1) added by the first Amendment.
The second and third Amendments modify the existing subsection (1) of Clause 28 to provide that a fire authority which is a county council or a combined authority shall be given notice by the clerk to the justices of the making of an application for the issue and every renewal of a registration certificate. A fire authority which is also a local authority will receive copies of the club's application for the issue or renewal of a registration certificate by virtue of paragraph 2 (5) of the Seventh Schedule.
As has been pointed out above, it was represented in the Commons that local authorities, as well as fire authorities, should be given the right to inspect club premises on every renewal. The Government do not accept that it is necessary to give local authorities a right of inspection on every renewal. Plainly the right to inspect club premises should be kept to the minimum necessary. It is proposed to give to fire authorities only the right to inspect on every renewal, because there may be such changes in the premises affecting fire risks (for example, in the means of escape from the premises, including the disposition of furniture, and so forth, which may affect means of escape from the premises) that the fire authority should have the opportunity to inspect the premises more frequently than other authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD STONHAM: My noble friends and I warmly support this Amendment which we think is extremely necessary and welcome. I believe it is true to say that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary was moved to agree to Amendments of this kind because of the disaster at Bolton. For that reason, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could answer one or two questions on this point. In moving the Amendment be has referred only to clubs. I should like to know whether this provision will apply only to registered clubs, or whether it will also apply to licensed restaurants.
The reason I ask this is that, as he is well aware, in some licensed clubs, and
618
again in licensed restaurants, performances are given of the nature of theatrical performances, and sometimes to audiences of several hundred; in other words, on those occasions the premises are in fact a theatre. I have in my hand the rules and regulations with regard to theatres under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and they run to ten closely printed foolscap pages. Every conceivable danger which can arise, so far as I can see, is thought of and provided for in these rules and regulations, and I believe they are all highly necessary and essential for the protection of the public. They include exits, entrances, curtains, fire appliances and precautions, the number of attendants, and so on. So far as I am aware, these restaurants and clubs which are at present giving performances—where, as I say, there are hundreds of people quite close to the artistes, and sometimes close enough to touch them—have virtually no provisions of this kind at all in the way of regulations, either local authority or otherwise. The noble Earl will be aware that the London County Council, for example, has most stringent by-laws in respect of theatres.
Therefore my question is two-fold: first, will these precautions, which are most welcome, apply only to licensed registered clubs, or will they also apply, as I think they must—and if they do not, then we shall have to put in an Amendment at a later stage—to the licensed restaurants where performances are given? It will indeed be tragic if, merely because it is limited to clubs, this right of inspection by the fire authorities should miss out some of these other places which, in my belief, are extremely dangerous and where they are fortunate not to have had a tragic happening before this.
My second question is: do the Government have it in mind that, where the fire authorities have the right of inspection in this way, they will be able to recommend regulations and requirements similar to those required in theatres when the conditions are comparable? These regulations apply to very small theatres seating under 100 people, so it is a fair comparison. If the noble Earl could give the information on these two points, or say that it is provided for elsewhere in the Bill, I

619
should be extremely grateful. Otherwise, if he will write to me, we can consider it and see whether the point has to be raised again so that the cover, as it were, the right of inspection by fire authorities, can be enlarged to cover other registered establishments, and not only clubs.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord is quite right: this particular Amendment does not apply to ordinary licensed premises, whether restaurants of the type the noble Lord was describing, or any other type of restaurant. Premises of that sort are looked after in Part I of the Bill, and, as the noble Lord knows, there are very stringent regulations with regard to the music and dancing licences issued by the London County Council, or by the music and dancing licensing authorities elsewhere in the country. If there is any dissatisfaction with regard to the fire precautions in such a licensed restaurant, then a music and dancing certificate or licence will not be given. If, again, the magistrates or the licensing justices are not satisfied with regard to the fire precautions taken in such an establishment they, too, will refuse to allow a licence to sell alcohol.
The noble Lord appreciates that this Bill is concerned only with licensed restaurants, and I am quite certain that Part I of the Bill—and we moved an Amendment with regard to the issue of new licences and inspection by fire authorities—covers all the points for licensed restaurants and the premises the noble Lord has in mind where alcohol is served. But I will look at the point he has brought up with regard to theatre regulations and, should it appear that I am wrong, I will certainly let the noble Lord know, without, of course, committing my right honourable friend in any way. I think I can safely assure the noble Lord that the Part I provisions cover those places which serve alcohol that he has in mind.
LORD STONHAM: Does that mean that, so far as the restaurants are concerned, the fire authorities already, under Part I of the Bill, will have the right of inspection and of recommendation?
EARL BATHURST: And objection.
LORD STONHAM: That answers one of my questions extremely satisfactorily, and I am most grateful. But on the
620
other part, whatever the regulations may be, I can assure the noble Earl that there is absolutely no comparison whatever between the regulations in respect of a theatre—it may well be that the point has not yet been considered in respect of a theatre—and those which apply to these establishments which give a precisely comparable performance. For example, the Windmill Theatre is a theatre, and it is completely subject to the Lord Chamberlain's regulations. Raymond's, or any of the other places such as the Panama, which give a comparable performance and have hundreds of people there, have virtually no safety precautions at all. Therefore I am most grateful for the noble Earl's offer. If he will look into that point and communicate with me, it may be possible for us to extend this safety provision.
LORD AIREDALE: I would add just a word in support of this Amendment, and I should like to mention the Member in another place, the Member for Bolton, West, who was keenly interested in it, for it was in Bolton that the disaster occurred which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned just now. It was a tragic disaster of a serious fire in club premises in which human life was lost. If this Amendment succeeds in ensuring that on club premises fire-fighting equipment is not only initially provided but is maintained at all times, which of course is as vitally important as providing it initially, then this Amendment may well prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy and will be, of course, of the greatest value.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am very much in favour of this clause, like my noble friend: but will the noble Earl give me a reference to Part I of the Act, in which this matter is taken care of as regards other places like restaurants and so on? I cannot find a similar provision, myself. Of course, I know the difficulty that there is in tracing it. Reference is made to Acts of Parliament, and therefore, this is a sort of legislation by reference to legislation, and that is always a difficulty. It is rather a pity for that to happen. But if the noble Earl can tell us where the authority is, I shall be satisfied.
EARL BATHURST: Unfortunately, on our new Marshalled List we have not

621
got a reference, but it was in Amendment No. 3 which we moved. That is one of the Amendments. I think we can give an assurance to the noble Viscount that this provision will be looked into, and, if it is not as I have said, I will communicate with the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful for that. Amendment No. 3 was "Page 5, line 38, at end insert …" and it is, as the noble Earl said:
"that the authority or an officer designated in that behalf by the authority desired in connection with the application to have the premises inspected for purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above".
That is the authority he mentioned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 44, after ("issue") insert ("or renewal").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 45, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 3 on page 41.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:
Extended hours in premises of registered clubs
.—(1) Section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act shall apply in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered as it applies in relation to licensed premises, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) for any reference to licensing justices there shall be substituted a reference to the magistrates' court; and

(b) an application for an order under subsection (4) shall be made by the club, and notice of the making of the order shall be given under subsection (10) by the secretary of the club; and

(c) an order under subsection (4) shall lapse on the club's registration certificate ceasing to be in force or on the date from which the certificate is next renewed after the date of the order or, where that certificate has been renewed for a period exceeding a year, on such earlier date (if any) as may be specified in the order; and

622

(d) subsections (9), (11), (12) and (13) shall not apply, except in so far as subsection (11) relates to subsection (4) of section ten of this Act.

(2) Section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall have effect, in relation to club premises in respect of which a club is registered, with the substitution for the references to the licensing justices for the district in which the premises are situated of references to the magistrates' court; but where in the case of any such premises the magistrates' court has been satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section (or at the time that this section comes into force licensing justices have been and remain so satisfied) the requirement of that section that the court shall be so satisfied shall be treated as fulfilled until the magistrates' court declares that it is no longer so satisfied.
(3) In the foregoing subsections "the magistrates' court" means, in relation to any club premises, a magistrates' court having jurisdiction in relation to the issue and renewal of the club's registration certificate for the premises; and in sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relate to special hours certificates), the expression "the magistrate" shall have the same meaning.
(4) An application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be made by way of complaint against the club where the application is for the revocation of a special hours certificate, or of an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act, or for a declaration that as respects any premises the court is no longer satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and four of the Licensing Act, 1953; and, subject to paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act. subparagraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any such complaint as they apply in relation to a complaint for the cancellation or variation of a registration certificate.
(5) In relation to any application made to a magistrates' court by virtue of subsection (3) other than an application to which subsection (4) applies, subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of this Act and paragraphs 2 and 3, subparagraph (1) of paragraph 4 and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall (subject to paragraph 6 of that Schedule) apply with any necessary modifications as they apply in relation to applications for the issue of a registration certificate:
Provided that paragraph 2 of the Seventh Schedule shall not require public notice to be given of an application for an order under subsection (4) of section (Extended hours in restaurants etc. providing entertainment) of this Act to be made by way of renewal of a previous order (without variation).
(6) Accordingly at the end of subsection (4) of section one hundred and nineteen of the

623
Licensing Act, 1953 (which enables the Secretary of State to make rules for the procedure on an application under sections one hundred and thirteen to one hundred and eighteen of that Act), there shall be added the words "other than an application to a magistrates' court."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I have already put before your Lordships the reasons for this new clause, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who was good enough to say that the Opposition agreed with them. I do not think I need repeat myself, and I can say simply that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I believe that this clause means that clubs can get a special extension up to 2 o'clock in the morning in the provinces and to 3 a.m. in London, even when a club, under certain provisions of this Bill, lets the premises for the evening to another organisation. I am raising this question because this doubt exists in respect of a very ancient and honourable club which has this practice. The members have gained the impression that they may stay open under the extended hours business only until half past one in the morning. It is a question which really comes from the Back Benches opposite, and they have asked me, as an authority—quite wrongly—whether it is the case that under these extended hours, under the provision of this clause which the Lord Chancellor has moved, in the provinces a club may have its hours extended to 2 a.m. and in London to 3 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was here when we discussed the series of Amendments after Clause 8—to insert the new clause Extended hours in restaurants, etc., providing entertainment—that was the first Amendment we dealt with to-day. That was the Amendment of which I gave notice on the Second Reading of the Bill; I gave notice of my intention to invite your Lordships to consider a proposal under which suitable premises catering for people with more modest purses would be allowed some more limited extension of hours; and we are dealing with a more limited extension of hours in that
624
series. The present clause makes a similar provision on the same line for clubs, and if the noble Lord would be good enough, as it is a special case, to write to me about it I shall be very pleased to look into it for him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 28 to insert the following new clause:
Constable's powers of entry
".—(1) A constable may, for the purpose of preventing or detecting the commission of an offence against this Act, enter the premises of a proprietary club which is registered under this Part of this Act.
(2) If the proprietor of such a club or any person in his employ or acting on his behalf fails to admit a constable who demands entry to premises in pursuance of this section, he shall be liable on a first conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
The noble Lord said: I am hoping that this is the last contentious Amendment that we have to deal with, but certainly it is one which my noble friends and I feel quite strongly about, because we feel that the Government, by limiting the constable's power of entry, have gravely weakened the Bill. You will notice that this Amendment refers only to the premises of proprietary clubs, and therefore avoids the objection (to which the Lord Chancellor has already referred this evening) which some members of very respectable clubs feel to a constable having power of entry. I think that unless this Amendment is accepted we shall have reason within twelve months very much to regret the fact that a constable's power of entry is no stronger than it is at present.
I particularly welcome the reference which was made to this matter in the letter from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches who, in fact, while welcoming the Bill's provisions with regard to clubs, strongly supported what I said on Second Reading in this matter and asked that the police should have fuller rights of entry. It is reasonable to assume that all the leaders and executive officers of the Temperance Council of Churches are members of well-conducted clubs, and it is therefore greatly to their credit, and a measure of the importance of their advice, that they should nevertheless press that the police be given fuller rights of entry. I was

625
particularly struck by something which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said last evening. In replying to another Amendment he said that it would bring me great comfort because when there was a special hours certificate the police would have the same rights of entry as they would into ordinary licensed premises. I can see that that is so.
But here we have this anomaly, and I would submit it to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. An honest restaurateur or club proprietor applies for an extended hours certificate and thereby makes himself liable to immediate and automatic entry by the police for the purpose of inspection. That is because he has honestly said, "I am going to keep open till 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock. I want a special certificate to that effect." Therefore he is open to inspection. But the dishonest club proprietor who intends to go on serving drinks or carrying on until 3 o'clock in the morning, whatever he intends to do there, does not lay himself open to the right of automatic inspection by the police. He can say to the police, "You cannot come in here", and the only way the police can obtain evidence against the dishonest club proprietor who flouts the law is to wangle themselves in as members, in disguise as it were, pay a great deal of money for the so-called entertainment that they receive, illegal entertainment, and then bring a prosecution.
I do not know whether the Government have considered that point, but it seems to me quite unanswerable; you quite rightly make the honest people who apply properly for extended hours licence open to inspection, but you give immunity, under the Bill as it now stands, to the dishonest people who get up to all sorts of skulduggery. This Amendment is a very modest one, because it will confine the constable's power of entry to proprietary clubs, and the great majority of clubs would therefore be immune unless a justice issued a search warrant after receipt of information on oath, which is precisely the condition which rules at present. I cannot see why there should be any valid objection whatever to granting a police constable the right of entry to a proprietary club. It cannot or should not be offensive to the members.
I would point to this. The proprietors or managers of public houses have to be persons of very good character; otherwise they would not get licences. Indeed their applications for licences going back over a period of years are investigated most stringently before they are granted a licence. But the manager of a public house is not only liable to automatic inspection of his premises by the police, but his own private rooms where he lives are open to automatic inspection and he cannot make any objection. It is, to my mind, quite impossible for the proprietors of licensed clubs to argue that in so far as their premises are concerned they should be given an immunity which is denied to the managers or proprietors of licensed premises.
I believe that unless the Government accept this Amendment they will, despite this Bill, give the green light to some of the worst and most undesirable establishments in the country. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is aware that I am president of the Association for Moral and Social Hygiene, and in January of this year my Association addressed a very strong latter on this subject to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We strongly welcome the provisions of this Bill in relation to clubs, but we are of opinion that there must be an extension of police powers to cover the right of entry. Of course, I shall listen with great care to the Government's reply on this point; but I hope that the reply will cover the point which I made about this apparent anomaly.
I would emphasise that not only am I thinking of the comparatively small number of West End places, which are in fact nothing more than expensive houses of procurement; I am thinking of the many smaller places which are, often enough, not only horrible little drinking dens but purveyors of every form of nastiness imaginable. I know that in such places the proprietor is supposed to give the so-called members the right to enjoy the profits made from drink. But he can do that quite properly and easily, because under this Bill he will make enormous profits from other activities. Some of them run special late, unadvertised shows for which people pay up to £5 as an entrance fee.
I am informed that these shows are so disgraceful that even the ordinary

627
strip-tease girls will not perform in them. I know many of these places. But the police know them far better than I do. The point is, however, that the police are at present virtually powerless to deal with them. I submit that unless this Amendment is accepted, because they are proprietary places the police will still be powerless to deal with them. I would ask: are we, therefore, to continue to give immunity to some of the most miserable wretches on earth? I hope the Government will be true and firm to their first intentions in this matter, and have the courage to do what is necessary, to take the advice of the Churches and to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
9.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the great attention he has paid to this subject matter, he is under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of this Bill on proprietary clubs. The Bill does not make it impossible for a proprietary club to become a registered club, but it would not be possible for a proprietary club in which the liquor was under the control of 'a proprietor to register. That is clear from Clause 22 (6) (c).
As the noble Lord made clear—indeed, it was the burden of his complaint—it is from the supply of liquor that the proprietor of an undesirable proprietary club obtains his profit, and it may be expected that no such club will be able to register when the provisions of the Bill come pinto effect. So there is no case for singling out proprietary clubs in the way suggested by the new clause, because they have either got to put themselves right on the question of the control of the liquor by their members or they will not get registration. Otherwise—if they do not get registration—they Will have to apply for a justices' licence under Clause 30 instead of seeking registration; the justices have unfettered discretion whether or not to grant a licence, and such clubs would, as licensed premises, be open to police inspection at all times.
628
One comes to the point that if we had dealt with the question of proprietary clubs by that means—that they must put themselves right and under the control of their members or not be registered—is there still a case for the police inspecting without warrant? I would remind your Lordships that Clause 29 of the Bill provides for entry by the police into club premises on the authority of a warrant
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for believing"—
not that it exists, but that there is reasonable ground for believing it to exist—first,
"that there is ground for cancelling (in whole or in part) a registration certificate held by a club, and that evidence of it is to be obtained at the club premises or any of them;…"
The second ground is,
"that intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied by or on behalf of a club in club premises for which the club does not hold a registration certificate or a justices' licence, or is kept in any club premises for sale or supply in contravention of"
Part III of the Bill.
Now we believe that, in the circumstances and conditions, and with the effect which we think this Bill will have, this is surely a sufficient power; and the Government could not accept the principle of entry by the police without warrant into club premises at any time, which is inherent in the proposal made by the new clause. 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. There is a real difference between the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself and my friends on this point, and I can only say that on that he must select whether he divides the House or not.
LORD STONHAM: Could I ask the Lord Chancellor to deal with the point I made: that a proprietary club which applies for an extended hours certificate is subject to automatic entry by the police, whereas if it does not apply for an extended hours certificate it can carry on into illegal hours but can bar the police from entry? That seems to me an injustice and an anomaly, and I should like him to deal with that point before we leave this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The position is that it is the existing law that all those who ask for extended hours must subject themselves to this police investigation. If the club does it illegally, then they will be liable to the procedure of warrant which I have described.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I do not feel very happy about this. I understand the line of argument that the noble and learned Viscount has taken, but I do not think he is meeting the views of the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, which is what we have been anxious to secure. I think my noble friend Lord Stonham has really put the point in question to the noble and learned Viscount, and it is the important issue. However, he says to-night that it is impossible to concede what we want. It is also impossible for me to look for any support of any size in the Division Lobby. The Business has been of such extraordinary arrangement in the current Session that it is very difficult to get a House on Bills like this so late at night.
However, I should like to say to my noble friend that, while we cannot press this Amendment to-night, we will have to take further counsel with the Temperance Council of Christian Churches, and we may have to make further representations to the noble and learned Viscount, because on that two-pronged question which my noble friend put to the noble and learned Viscount I feel we have not had an adequate answer. If the position that I have put appeals to my noble friend, I think he may agree to withdraw the Amendment now, knowing that it is probable we shall raise it again on Report.
LORD STONHAM: I am going to accept my noble friend's advice and withdraw the Amendment, but since I feel that certainly on one point the Lord Chancellor was unable to give me an answer—at least not a satisfying answer—we shall have to return to this matter on the Report stage, when we hope that there will be a larger number of noble Lords present. With that I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation, and transitional and consequential provisions]:
EARL BATHURST: This is purely a short technical Amendment which does exactly what it says. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
("() Any power to make orders conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State includes power to vary or revoke an order made in the exercise of that power.").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Short title, citation, repeal, extent and commencement]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential on No. 25. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("the Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Supplementary Provision for Polls in Wales and Monmouth-shire]:
9.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON) moved, in paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert:
"() Where on any poll a greater number of persons claim to attend the counting as observers than is allowed under sub-paragraph (2) above, the county returning officer or mayor in choosing between them shall have regard to their opinions about Sunday opening (if known to him) with the aim of designating, as far as he can, those for and those against Sunday opening in equal numbers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by the Government in another place. Its effect is that where a number of persons applying to attend as observers of a local poll is greater than the number of counting clerks, the returning officer and the mayor (who I am sure will have sufficient local knowledge) will be able to see that there are among the observers equal numbers of those who support and those who oppose Sunday opening. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 6, at the end, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Brecon.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to know a little more about this Amendment, because I am somewhat like my noble friend Lord Stonham: I have not been a deep student of the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the debates in another place on this matter. Apparently the Minister, Lord Brecon, seems to think that a pledge was given. This is extraordinary wording to me, and seems as if somebody is going to try to find out the opinions of those who are to be observers at the poll, and come to a decision whether or not there are too many on one side or too many on the other. Is that what this really means? Who asked for this particular concession in the other place? I do not quite understand.
LORD BRECON: It was the Member for the constituency of Caernarvon, who I believe is a great supporter of not opening on Sundays, and this really meets his wishes that the observers shall be drawn, if possible, and if it is known, equally from those who support and those who do not support.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I suppose that, if it is to meet his wishes, it is all right. But it seems an extraordinary thing to have a sort of local inquiry as to what this one or that one agrees to, and what his opinions are. So far as I can remember, I have never seen such a thing before in legislation.
LORD BRECON: I said at the beginning that I thought the returning officer and the mayor had sufficient local knowledge of this matter to see that fair play was done.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In a village station?
LORD BRECON: The returning officer is the clerk to the county council, in the one place, and the mayor of the county borough in the other.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Adaptations of Licensing Act, 1953, Sections 113 to 119 (Special Hours Certificates) for Areas outside Metropolis]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 12, leave out paragraph 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Licensing procedure and appeals]:
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment requires the clerk to the licensing justices to make available for inspection by the public during the fourteen days preceding each licensing sessions (general annual licensing meeting or transfer sessions) a list of applications which have been made for the grant of a new justices' licence or for the transfer or removal of an existing licence. The fee, if any, for inspection will be prescribed by the Secretary of State under Clause 16 (1). There is a somewhat similar provision in Scottish licensing law. These applications must in any case be advertised in the local Press, under the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 2 (1) (c) (ii), but it was represented in the House of Commons that it would further assist the public if a list were available for inspection at the office of the clerk, and that it would be little burden on the latter, since he would have to draw up a list in any case for his own purposes, and Her Majesty's Government undertook to introduce an Amendment in your Lordships' House accordingly. This Amendment is generally welcomed by all concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 6, at end insert—
("(7) The clerk to the licensing justices shall for each licensing sessions keep a list of the persons giving notice under this paragraph of their intention to apply for the grant of a justices' licence; and the list shall show the name and address of the applicant, the nature of the application and the situation of the premises to be licensed, and for the fourteen days preceding the sessions shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any person

633
on payment of the appropriate fee (if any).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

PROVISIONS AS TO CLUB RULES
Management of Club
General meetings
(4) At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights:
Provided that—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another of the Amendments in which I am trying to deal with the point that we do not want a club to be run by a small minority of the members. We are trying to deal with all foreseeable circumstances. Your Lordships will have noticed that paragraph 2 (4) of the Fifth Schedule governs voting at general meetings or elections and provides that all members must be entitled to vote, with the exception of the classes of members listed in the proviso. This Amendment provides for the case of family membership. Many clubs have rules that provide that the husband or wife of a member may become a member on payment of a reduced subscription but may not vote. Sometimes this concession is extended to the children of members. This Amendment adds this family class of non-voting members to those classes already in the proviso. I think that your Lordships will realise that this is a sensible proposal to meet a situation which often arises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 5, at end insert—
("and
(c) if the rules make special provision for family membership or family subscriptions or any similar provision, the rules may exclude from voting either generally or on particular matters, all or any of the persons taking the benefit of that provision as being members of a person's family, other than that person.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that this is a good addition to the Schedule, and welcome it. In the interval between now and Report stage, I am going to pay a little
634
attention to see whether the Government have carried into effect all that they said would be carried into effect in these provisions. For example, I want to be satisfied that there is not a sort of proprietor's place; that he is not going to hand out special rights to members of his family or maybe have a consortium of a limited number of members with shares or voting qualifications upon the number of shares held, whether they are fictitious shares or not, in order to get complete power centred in the proprietor. But as regards dealing with the possible misuse of family voting rights, to the exclusion of the rights of the rest of the members, I think that this is good and we accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 4 (4) to add to the proviso:
"(c) the rules may exclude from voting members who are temporary, country, overseas or service members or who do not pay the full annual subscription."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has the intention of adding yet another sub-paragraph to the provisos in paragraph 2 of the Schedule in circumstances in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just set out for your Lordships. It would have the advantage, if it is accepted by your Lordships, of allowing sporting clubs such as golf clubs and other varieties to have a provision in their rules which would not allow certain classes of members, such as country and part-time members, to have full voting rights, but such clubs would still get the benefit when they came up for registration or for renewal of licence which is given to them by Clause 22 (9) of the Bill. It seems that there are many clubs in this country of the golf club type which at the moment have some such provision in their rules, and this provision is not in any way operated to the detriment either of the club or the public. It would therefore seem right that some such provision as I suggest should be included in the Schedule, so that these clubs with this particular variety of rule should not lose the privilege given to them under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 5, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross always moves his Amendments in a very attractive way, but I feel that this one goes too far. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 59 of the Bill, you will see that the general rule in sub-paragraph (4) is:
"At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights."
That is the central point on which I am afraid I have been rather harping tonight. There are two provisos. The first is:
"the rules may exclude from voting, either generally or on particular matters, members below a specified age … women if the club is primarily a men's club …"
The second proviso is:
"If the club is primarily a club for persons qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's forces, the rules may exclude persons not qualified."
That refers to a sort of British Legion club, where it is confined to people who have been in the Services and they may have other members who have not been in the Services and are not entitled to vote. Then, with the approval of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, we added the provision that if they had a female membership the wife and children would not necessarily vote.
But now my noble friend wants to go far beyond that. He wants to exclude from the voting
"temporary, country, overseas or Service members or"—
and this is his last class—
"who do not pay the full annual subscription."
With great respect to my noble friend, that Amendment would have the effect of allowing a club so to arrange its affairs that a minority of members could run the club for their own benefit. To take an extreme example, the proprietor of a club could choose rules under which he and a relatively few friends (the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, reminded me that it was 25, but that is still, I think, relatively few) paid a larger subscription than was to be paid by any other member, in this way ensuring that he retained control of the club, however large its membership became.
I was worried about the earlier part, because I have great sympathy with my
636
noble friend's idea about Service members. I have not so much sympathy about "temporary", because that is a well-known method of getting round the true position of a club. But with regard to "service", I take it that what my noble friend has in mind is that "service members" may be intended to refer to Servicemen who are allowed to pay a reduced subscription because they are stationed at a distance from the club, and so can use the premises only infrequently. If this is so, the Government Amendment on country members would cover that, so they are all right.
But then there is the other case—and I think this is more likely—to cover the case of a club which offers Servicemen stationed nearby non-voting membership at a reduced subscription. That is what worried me, but it has not proved possible to relax the requirements of the Bill to allow this practice to continue. The club will still be able to offer hospitality to the Serviceman, either by making him a voting member or by making provision in the rules for sales to Servicemen stationed in the neighbourhood. It is true that sales are subject to the veto of the court, but this is a necessary safeguard and there is no reason to think that it will be used unreasonably. I feel there is a real danger here, against which I am trying to provide, and I think my noble friend's Amendment would not only breach the walls but undermine them. Therefore, I must tell him that I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend for his explanation. I see that it may weld be that this Amendment goes too far. I wonder, however, whether my noble and learned friend could tell me what sort of effect the inclusion of some such rules as I have outlined in this Amendment in the case of a perfectly bona fide golf club would have when they come to registration or renewal. Would the provisions of Clause 22 make it much more difficult for them if they put in this sort of rule?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, they would be acting contrary to paragraph 2 (4) of the Schedule, and by doing so they would be in danger. But on the question which I think my noble friend has in mind, about visiting members to golf clubs, perhaps he would

637
consider putting that down on Report and we might have a discussion on that. I do not want to be unreasonable in the matter, and I know that instead of paying a green fee, at certain golf clubs they make you a member for the day. I think that is a practical point of life which we should like to consider from a practical point of view. If my noble friend would put down an Amendment on Report I would consider it. I am always anxious to be reasonable in the matter without breaching fundamental rules. Perhaps that would suit him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend.
LORD AIREDALE: I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider again the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, so far as it relates to overseas members? It seems that in paragraph (4) of the Schedule voting is to be in the hands of members who are entitled to use the club premises. I believe it to be the case that in many clubs members who are overseas, and who pay a reduced subscription, are not entitled to use the club premises. I think that is a rule in the case of the club to which I have the honour to belong, and I have no doubt that it applies in many other cases, too. If the overseas member returns home and wants to use the club premises, he has to pay an increased subscription before he may use the premises. I really do not see why an overseas member who is not paying the full subscription, and who is not entitled to use the club premises, should be entitled to vote, because that would seem to run counter to the principles stated in paragraph (4) of the Schedule.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would broadly be covered by the provision as to country members. May I look into it again? I think I have got it right, but I will certainly look through it again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble and learned friend for his undertaking to look at this again, and I will try to make some further Amendments in the Report stage in rather narrower terms, in order to cover
638
this subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Requirements to be complied with by club's application for registration certificate]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 2:
"or will be so qualified if, as regards any provision of the rules specified in the application, the court sees fit to give a direction under subsection (14) of that section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is really consequential on Amendment 38, but may I just spend a moment on it, in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? These Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, provide for the country membership. Many clubs have rules which provide that persons living more than a specified distance from the club may become members of the club at a reduced subscription—the same principle as he put to me—and it is impossible to define country members in such a way that the Amendment would take the form of a simple addition to the classes mentioned in the proviso to paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (4); and there is the difficulty which I mentioned. But these Amendments, Nos. 38 and 67, give the magistrates' court the power to investigate the arrangements and to refuse to register a club unless they are satisfied that the non-voting country membership rule is part of a bona fide arrangement made in the interests of the club as a whole and by that class of members, and is not designed to receive for a minority of the members an unfair measure of control. Clearly, the case which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, put to me would fall within that definition. It is a perfectly honest and honourable idea providing for people who see the club only occasionally. Therefore, I think it will help him, but it does not mean that I will not look at his point again carefully.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD AIREDALE: I am much obliged. I still think that there is a distinction here. The country member usually pays a lower subscription

639
because he can use the club premises less often; but he may use the club premises and I suppose that he would be entitled to vote under paragraph 4. The overseas member cannot use the club premises: there is, therefore, that distinction. I think it still applies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 68.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 29, at end insert ("annexed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must have been misinterpreting this, because I understood that the noble Lord's questions were on the previous Amendment. If that was not so then they were quite foreign to my intelligence. But do I take it that we have now passed No. 67?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems to me that we are all not so well qualified. If you have passed it, I do not want you to look at it again, but at any rate I am not satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount will see, when he has considered it, that this is permissible only if the court says that it is part of a genuine scheme. The club cannot do it itself. It must be approved by the court. I am sorry if I took it a little shortly, because I was really trying to get to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised. But I really do not think that the noble Viscount will find there is anything to worry him. If he does, perhaps he will have a word with me, because I can genuinely assure him that, in my view, this does not break into the general rule which I am trying to clear.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would just add a note that I was trying to connect the place it would go into paragraph 2 of the Schedule, and I was taking the two together. I shall not be satisfied until I have had that word with the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
Procedure for Registartion of Clubs, and related matters
(2) On any application or complaint made to a magistrates' court by or against a club under Part III of this Act, and on any appeal by a club under section twenty-six of this Act, the club if not represented by counsel or a solicitor shall be heard by the chairman or secretary.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in paragraph 3 (1), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "twenty-eight" [days]. The noble Lord said: Paragraph (2) of the Seventh Schedule deals with application for the registration of a club which is to be made to the clerk to the justices and the clerk is required to submit copies forthwith Ito the police and local authority. Any objection must be made within 21 days, and Those of your Lordships who have had experience of local authorities will know that, bearing in mind the meeting of the appropriate committee of the council, 21 days is not a long period and should there be any delay on the part of the clerk to the justices in transmitting copies to the local authorities there may be difficulties regarding the making of an objection.
I am sure it is not the desire of the noble and learned Viscount that local authorities should be put to the inconvenience of calling a special meeting of the appropriate committee of the council to deal with any objections which it is felt necessary to make. Therefore my Amendment seeks to substitute a period of 28 days for 21, and even 28 is running the thing rather tight for many local authorities. I believe I am correct in saying that 21 days follows the Scottish precedent, but there does not seem to be any particular reason for saying that because there are 21 days for Scotland there should be 21 days in this country. Very strong representations have been made by the people concerned, and I would ask the Lord Chancellor to look favourably on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 9, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Burden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Plainly, local authorities must be given reasonable time in which to decide whether or not to lodge an objection. I accept that. It is rather difficult, as the noble Lord

641
shows that he appreciates, that an applicant for a justices' licence is required to give no more than 21 days' notice to a local authority of his intention—that is in the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 1 (2). As the noble Lord said, Scottish licence law requires an objection to the granting of a renewal of a club's registration certificate to be lodged with the local authority within 21 days of receipt of notice of the application. Of course, as a Scot I appreciate the compliment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that in Scotland we get up very early in the morning and may not require as much time as the nation that lies some 200 miles to the South. Still it is a precedent; and, of course, the 21 days' notice only is required in the case of an application for a new licence for a hotel or restaurant or public house.
May I leave it this way? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, with his immense experience of these matters, tells me that it might be difficult to lodge objections within the 21 days. I should like to make some inquiries, because I want to hold the balance fairly between the parties who are affected. So may I leave it to-day that I will look sympathetically at the noble Lord's suggestion? I know the Association of Municipal Corporations very well and that they would not put it forward unless they were worried about some of their authorities. If I may give it sympathetic consideration, I will write to the noble Lord about it before Report stage.
LORD BURDEN: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL BATHURST: Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 are technical Amendments which allow a fire authority to object if the local magistrates or licensing justices should extend the time of objection, rather on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, mentioned with regard to local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 13, at end insert (",fire authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 16, leave out ("local").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment provides that on the hearing of an application by a club for the issue, variation or renewal of a registration certificate, a magistrates' court shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I think your Lordships agree that is a reasonable power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 22, at end insert ("and in relation to any such application subsections (1) and (3) of section seventy-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provide for compelling the attendance of witnesses), shall apply as they apply in relation to a complaint.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Repeals]:
9.58 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 48, column 3, leave out ("subsections (2) and (3)"), and insert ("subsection (2) and, except as respects the regrant of licences granted before the coming into force of this repeal, subsection (3).")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 41, column 3, after ("nineteen") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 50, column 3, leave out from the beginning to end of line 51 and insert—
("In section one hundred and twenty-seven, in subsection (1), the word 'justices".
Sections one hundred and twenty-eight and one hundred and twenty-nine.").
—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the last Amendment. It is consequential and would not merit further words, but I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and everyone in the House, for their cooperation. I do not think that we have skimped or scamped our consideration tonight, yet noble Lords have co-operated in securing the end of the stage by an almost mathematical exactness which is hardly ever known in the annals of Parliament. But for that, and for all their kindness, I should like to thank them very much. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 41, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 42.

The Occasional Licences and Young Persons Act, 1956.

The whole Act.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD STONHAM: May I be allowed to thank the Lord Chancellor very much for his kind words, and also to thank
644
him, together with his noble friends Lord Bathurst and Lord Brecon, for their kind consideration of all our Amendments and for their courtesy. I think that noble Lords on both sides may congratulate ourselves in that we have finished much earlier than we thought might be the case.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
STATIONERS' AND NEWSPAPER MAKERS' COMPANY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

RIVER WEAR WATCH (DISSOLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.