Lords Sitting of 13 November 1961

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester
The Lord Dudley—Took the Oath.

WAGE NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION
2.5 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have in mind to change the existing structure of wage negotiation and arbitration, and if so what the intended changes are.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, negotiation and arbitration take place within the framework of agreements between representatives of employers and employees in the different industries, and it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with that framework. What the Government think essential is to secure a sensible, long-term relationship between increases in incomes and increases in productivity. As my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in another place on October 23, this means that thought must be given to the modification of traditional attitudes and practices. These are matters which will have to be discussed with the two sides of industry, and I cannot yet say what the outcome of such discussions will be.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, I must confess that I cannot fit that in with what the noble Viscount said in his speech on the Address in Reply to the gracious Speech on November 7. For this is what he said [col. 339]:
"What we"—
504
presumably "we" is "the Government"—
"have in mind is not to overthrow the system but to develop it. Having said what I have, I would try to allay the suspicion, which is undoubtedly genuine, in the minds of those who have complained of what we have done. This is not yet a complete edifice. We have still to build it up and build into it some correcting or governing mechanism which will protect the public interest".
That contemplates, surely, a modification and change of the structure; not of the purpose, but of the structure.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords. I think what I said is exactly in line with what my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour said in another place. Obviously the words were mine, but I do not think the meaning was different.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, are we then to assume that there is no change in structure contemplated—merely an endeavour to relate wages to productivity?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord sees my reply, he will see the answer to that supplementary question.

BROADCAST ON GENERAL DE GAULLE
LORD KENNET: 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 if they are aware that the B.B.C. intend to broadcast to the sixth forms of schools on 15th November a text called "Charles de Gaulle" and whether this transmission falls within the terms of their licence.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords. The transmission of broadcasts is both the function and duty of the B.B.C., and they see schools broadcasts as a vital part of their function. For the rest, as I have often pointed out to your Lordships in the past, programme content is a matter for the Corporation itself.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that such judgments as the following:
"The Head of the French State has in many respects already passed living into history, if not into legend";
and again:
"One man alone was capable of raising France from the rut where she had wallowed. This is no conjecture; it is the irrefutable testimony of history";
and again:
"This man of Providence"—
are appropriate in educational schools broadcasts in languages?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what I should really need to point out to the noble Lord here is that he is not quoting from the broadcast itself, which has not yet been delivered; he is quoting from the text of the leaflet introducing the broadcast. I think that we can leave it to the B.B.C., with their known high standards of impartiality, to do nothing which would offend against the general understanding laid down in their Licence as regards impartiality.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is not a document which is circulated to sixth formers strictly equivalent to a broadcast which may later be made to them?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with respect, I myself should have thought certainly not.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the story of someone whose life has been characterised by patriotism and uprightness, and whose consideration has solely been for the good of his country, is a worthy subject for setting as an example to young men who are starting in this life?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the Question related to the action of the B.B.C. in transmitting a broadcast, and I think it would be out of place here that we should enter into a debate on the merits of the Head of the French State, for whom we in this House all have a profound respect.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the leaflet referred to was printed and published by the B.B.C.?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my understanding is that the noble Lord is quite correct.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, if the suggestion is made that there should be no broadcasts on outstanding people, living or dead, in other countries, will the noble Lord consider whether any information, let us say, about Napoleon should be taken out of the history books as soon as possible?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lady's question, I must again say that programme content is not a matter for Government suggestion but only for Government control if and when it is thought that it may have transgressed the Licence. The only section which enables the Government to require the B.B.C. not to make a particular broadcast is Section 15 (4), and this has never been used to prohibit a particular broadcast but only to request the suppression of a certain range or a certain type of broadcast.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the broadcast content does not necessarily represent the political or other views of the B.B.C., the Government or the Opposition?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A.
Bill read 1a.

TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A.
Bill read 1a.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENT ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move that these three Sunday Entertainments Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Oswaldtwistle, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Camelford, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of West Dean, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill, as your Lordships will see from the Explanatory Memorandum, seeks to give effect to such of the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Business of the Criminal Courts as require legislation.
The Committee, of which Mr. Justice Streatfeild was the chairman and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was a member, was set up by the Home Secretary and myself in 1958 and reported last February, and I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute Ito the Committee for having produced such a fascinating and instructive Report.
The Committee were asked to consider two subjects which it is as well to keep distinct in one's mind. Its first duty was to review the present arrangements in England and Wales for bringing to trial people charged with criminal offences, with a view to ensuring that cases are brought before the courts expeditiously. Its second duty was to consider what improvements can be made in the arrangements for providing the courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders. There is, of course,
508
a close relation between these two problems, but, as I say, it is convenient to keep them distinct.
The second part of the Committee's terms of reference raises most important questions, but, with one exception, which is dealt with in the Bill, they are matters which do not require legislation. Most of what I shall have to say this afternoon will therefore be confined to the first part of the Committee's terms of reference, but I do not wish it to be thought on that account that the recommendations made by the Committee in the second part of their Report are any the less important, and I shall have a word or two to say about them later on.
The Committee were concerned only with persons committed for trial or sentence at the superior courts; that is to say, courts of Assize or Quarter Sessions. The Committee had the benefit of an inquiry made by the Home Office Research Unit into the length of time that persons do in fact spend awaiting trial and sentence. This showed that the waiting periods at present are in some cases far too long.
The figures which the Streatfeild Committee give in their Report relate to the year 1957, but, as they say, it is unlikely that the general pattern has changed significantly since then. These figures show that the average waiting period before trial is five weeks, but it can range from less than two weeks to over four months. In 1957 over 1,200 people had to wait more than three months and 400 for more than four months before being brought to trial. In considering the figures, it is important to remember that 40 per cent. of those committed for trial are committed in custody and not on bail. Of those committed, 76 per cent. plead guilty at their trial. Of the remaining 24 per cent., who plead not guilty, 7 per cent., some 1,700 people, were committed in custody. Of these 1,700, 300 were subsequently acquitted after having spent a varying length of time in custody awaiting trial.
My Lords, it is of course inevitable in some cases that people who are found to be not guilty should spend some time in prison before they are acquitted, but society clearly owes a duty to such people to ensure that the waiting period is as short as possible. The same is true, though perhaps to a lesser degree,

509
of those who are subsequently convicted. The Streatfeild Committee, however, found that in as many as 5,000 cases a year—nearly a quarter of the whole—the waiting period is longer than eight weeks and that, as I have said, 1,200 wait for more than twelve weeks, and another 400 wait for more than sixteen weeks.
The Committee said they regarded these last figures as indefensible, and I think most of your Lordships would agree that this is not too strong a word. No doubt, as the Committee said, the position in this country compares favourably with that in other countries, but that is no reason for complacency. The Committee gave some excellent reasons in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the Report why delays of this kind should be avoided if at all possible, and I refer those to your Lordships.
The Committee therefore concluded that the object to be aimed at should be that no one should have to wait for more than eight weeks before he is tried.
The Committee contrasted the waiting period at what they called the continuous courts—the Central Criminal Court and the Crown Courts at Liverpool and Manchester, which are in virtually permanent session throughout the year—and the waiting period at Assizes and quarter sessions. As your Lordships know, Assizes are held only three times a year at most of the Assize towns, though in the case of the larger towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham, there are four Assizes a year. There are also long intervals between the sittings of quarter sessions, although they are not necessarily confined to four sittings a year.
Not unnaturally, the Committee found that the waiting periods were much shorter at the continuous courts than at the other courts, and they came to the conclusion that what was needed was a change in the organisation of Assizes and quarter sessions which would bring them more closely into line with the continuous courts.
Your Lordships may wonder why the Committee did not take what may at first sight seem the obvious course of recommending an extension of the system of Crown Courts on the lines of
510
those at Liverpool and Manchester, which have worked so well since they were first set up in 1956. The Committee fully recognised the great merits of Crown Courts, but they thought these tended to be outweighed by the risk of staleness and the sense of isolation to which Judges of the Crown Courts are exposed. After giving careful consideration to the Committee's views on this subject, the Government have come to the conclusion that they ought to be accepted, at any rate for the time being. It may well be that the objections to the Crown Court system to which the Committee drew attention can be overcome, but I think that there is no doubt that the Assize system to which we have been so long accustomed is preferable if only it can be reorganised and brought up to date.
What we propose is that this should be done on the lines recommended by the Streatfeild Committee. They thought that on each of the seven circuits into which the country is divided for Assize purposes the itineraries of the Judges should be altered so as to enable Assizes to be held simultaneously at more than one town on each circuit. The Committee have set out in their Report a detailed plan for the reorganisation of the itineraries of the Judges on the lines worked out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. Under this scheme each circuit will in effect be divided into two so far as the itineraries of the Judges are concerned, thus enabling the Judges to spend much longer at each of the busier towns and to visit them more often. This reform is urgently needed, not only in order to enable criminal cases to be brought to trial more quickly but also in order to ensure the more speedy disposal of civil business at Assizes.
At present, in spite of the increase in the number of Judges which Parliament authorised a year ago, the delays are most unsatisfactory and at many of the busier Assizes such as Durham, Leeds and Birmingham, litigants find their cases being postponed not only for one Assize, but often for two, and the delays at some Assize towns have been such that many actions are settled on unsatisfactory terms because there is no early prospect of their being tried.

511
The reorganisation of the itineraries of the Judges does not need legislation, for it can be dealt with by means of an Order in Council made under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, and I hope we shall be able to bring the new arrangements into force in time for the Summer Assizes next year.
But more Judges will be needed for this purpose and Clause 1 of the Bill accordingly authorises the appointment of five more High Court Judges beyond the present statutory maximum of 48. With the latest appointment to the High Court Bench, which has just been announced, the last vacancy on the Bench as the law now stands has been filled and it is essential that there should be power to appoint more Judges. I am not saying to your Lordships that five more appointments will necessarily be needed in the Queen's Bench Division, and indeed I hope it will be possible to work the new Streatfeild itineraries with fewer than that. But it is important that there should be some reserve for contingencies and, indeed, that I should be in a position to take account of the needs of the other Divisions. For example, as I have told your Lordships on a previous occasion, I am anxious gradually to replace the Divorce Commissioners by High Court Judges and I hope that these new powers will enable further appointments to be made in the Divorce Division in due course. If the circuits are split in two there follows the need for assistant clerks of Assize, and there is power to appoint them under Clause 2 of the Bill.
The need for Clause 3 springs from the new arrangements which the Lord Chief Justice and I have in mind for the Assizes on the North-Eastern circuit. That causes a need for a new High Sheriff when Leeds and Sheffield Assizes sit simultaneously. For this purpose the Sheffield Division will be known as Hallamshire. I should like to say that I have discussed this matter with my noble friend Lord Scarbrough, who is the Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding, and he supports the view put forward in the Bill.
I now turn to quarter sessions. The Streatfeild Committee thought that Quarter Sessions, in both counties and boroughs should, like Assizes, sit more often in order to enable cases to be tried
512
within eight weeks of committal. In order to achieve this, they recommended that quarter sessions should be given the maximum flexibility in arranging their business and should be able to sit as often as might be necessary. Provision is made for this by Clause 4 of the Bill. The principal effect of this clause is to remove all restrictions on the times at which quarter sessions may sit, so that they will be free to arrange their timetables to the best possible advantage and dispose of cases with the least possible delay. They will remain subject only to the condition that they must continue to meet not fewer than four times a year, and in view of this it has seemed unnecessary to abandon the ancient title of "quarter sessions".
The clause will permit quarter sessions to arrange as many fixed sittings in the year as their business demands. They will also be able to hold additional "special" or intermediate sittings by adjournment, at which the business to be taken will be entirely at their discretion. By this means it will be possible for them, as the Streatfeild Committee recommend, to arrange special sittings to take a particular class of business—for example, appeals or committals for sentence—without having to deal with any cases which may have been committed for trial since they last met, though they will be free to try these also, or some of them, if they wish.
The ideal I am aiming at is that in every part of the country neighbouring quarter sessions should co-ordinate their arrangements and adjust their timetables so as to ensure that, in any part of the country and at any time of the year, there will always be a sitting of a court due to be held somewhere within a convenient distance to which cases can be committed under the convenient court procedure with a reasonable certainty that they will be disposed of within eight weeks.
Clearly it is best that these matters should be settled locally, and I have no reason to suppose that they will not be. But subsection (1) of Clause 4 gives me a residuary power to direct that quarter sessions for any county or borough should be held at such times as may be necessary for the prompt disposal of business.
I think I ought perhaps to make a brief mention of subsection (4) of Clause

513
4 which is not based on any recommendation made by the Streatfeild Committee. It will enable the legally qualified chairman of any county sessions outside London to deal with a case by himself if no lay justice is available and the chairman thinks that it would be undesirable, owing to the delays involved, to postpone the hearing in order to enable a lay justice to attend. The present need for at least one lay justice to sit with the chairman or deputy chairman can impose a heavy burden on the justices in the busier counties like Middlesex and Kent, more particularly during the hearing of the longer cases which may take several days.
I should like to stress, my Lords, that the very last thing I want to do is to squeeze out the lay magistrates, for whose part in the administration of justice throughout the country I need hardly say I have the greatest admiration, although my admiration has shown itself only in the somewhat doubtful way of addressing them on no fewer than forty occasions since I became Lord Chancellor. But I am satisfied that nothing in subsection (4) will have this effect, for it provides quite clearly that the legally qualified chairman is not to sit alone unless he is satisfied that an adjournment would be undesirable having regard to the delays involved.
The Streatfeild Committee made a number of other recommendations about county and borough quarter sessions to which we have given effect in Clauses 5, 6 and 7. In view of the increased number of sittings of quarter sessions which may be expected when the new arrangements come into farce it is essential to give some relief to Recorders, who are, of course, all of them barristers in active practice at the Bar. Clause 6 will accordingly enable a Recorder to appoint a deputy to sit for him at any number of sessions in excess of four, but the Recorder himself must still sit at not less than four sessions a year. Then in Clause 7 we have provided that Deputy Recorders are in future to be paid by the borough council and no longer out of the Recorder's own pocket, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is only right and proper. Clause 7 will also enable me to make new arrangements for the remuneration of Recorders and Deputy and Assistant Recorders, as well
514
as of the paid chairmen and deputy chairmen of county sessions, in a way which will, I hope, take account of the very heavy burden of work now falling on the busier courts and will bring about some standardisation of salaries and enable them to be kept in line with the salaries paid to other judicial officers.
I have dealt with the new arrangements I hope to see introduced in the course of next year for the reorganisation of Assizes and quarter sessions. I now turn to the other recommendations made by the Streatfeild Committee with a view to reducing the delays which take place before a person is brought to trial. The Committee thought that one way of doing this would be to relieve the burden on the superior courts by extending the jurisdiction of the lower courts. To this end they recommended that some of the offences at present triable only at Assizes should be triable at quarter sessions. These included bigamy and cases of intercourse with girls between 13 and 16.
The Committee also recommended that the jurisdiction of the magistrates to try indictable offences should be extended to cover a number of offences, the most import of which are breaking and entering premises other than dwelling-houses. Effect is given to these recommendations by Clause 9 of the Bill, and I hope that these extensions of jurisdiction will go some way towards easing the burdens falling on Assizes and quarter sessions respectively. There are safeguards which I will elaborate later if it is desired.
The other way in Which the Streatfeild Committee thought that cases could be brought to trial more quickly than at present was by an extended use of the "convenient court" procedure. As your Lordships know, cases are normally committed for trial to the Assize court or quarter sessions for the area where the committing justices act. But the magistrates have power, if a case will have to wait more than a month for trial at the local court, to send it to some other convenient court if they think this would be desirable in order to expedite the trial or save expense. This power was first introduced in 1925, but it has not been used as much as it might have been, partly because there

515
were no regular arrangements for coordinating the dates on which neighbouring courts sit. Such arrangements will in future exist, as a result of the changes in quarter sessions organisation introduced by Clause 4 of this Bill.
Clause 12 extends the use of this procedure by making it obligatory for the magistrates to follow it in cases where the accused is unlikely to be tried or otherwise dealt with within eight weeks of his committal, unless they are satisfied that there are circumstances which would make the use of the power undesirable. For instance, the nearest convenient court to which the magistrates might otherwise decide to commit a case might be the Assize at the last town on a circuit. But if the lists of that town were known to be overcrowded, the magistrate would have a good reason for not sending cases to it. There is a further extension of the convenient court procedure in Clause 12, in that it is made applicable not only to the committal of accused persons for trial, but also to the committal of offenders who have been convicted by the magistrates, to quarter sessions to be sentenced or otherwise dealt with.
The Streatfeild Committee recognised that increased use of the convenient court procedure, and the provisions for the transfer of cases from one court of Assize or quarter sessions to another, would require some financial adjustment between the local authorities concerned and provision is made for this in Clause 15. Again, I shall be very glad to explain further if anyone raises a question.
With the introduction of the new Assize itineraries it should be possible for Assizes to take the longer cases and so relieve quarter sessions of cases of a kind for which they are not really suited. The Streatfeild Committee thought one of the reasons which the magistrates should be entitled to take into account when deciding whether or not to send a case for trial at Assizes, was the probable length of the trial, and subsection (2) of Clause 11 will enable them to do this.
Although the Streatfeild Committee believed that the changes of organisation and jurisdiction which they recommended would enable cases to be brought to trial more speedily than they
516
are today, they recognised that there would still be cases in which accused persons are bound to wait in custody for some time before being dealt with. To mitigate the effect of this and to remove a cause of grievance they recommended that the length of any sentence of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention, should be reduced by the period spent in custody after committal by the magistrates, and provision is made for this by subsection (2) of Clause 14. A minor anomaly will be put right by subsection (1) of that clause, which provides that sentences imposed at Assizes are to take effect from the day on which they are imposed and not, as at present, from the Commission Day.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the one feature in the Bill which arises out of the recommendations in the second part of the Streatfeild Committee's Report, dealing with the arrangements for providing the courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders. This part of the Report opens with a valuable general statement of principles which I should like to commend to the attention of all who have the responsibility of passing sentence on convicted offenders. I refer to chapter 9.
The Committee considered the problem from two aspects. The first was the provision of general information about sentencing for the assistance of the courts. On this I will simply say that the Government certainly intend to do all they can to meet the various points the Committee made. The second aspect of the subject was the provision of information relating to individual offenders, and here the Committee made a series of recommendations for improving the arrangements by which courts can be given information about an offender's personal circumstances and background before they decide how best to deal with him. These are matters which can be dealt with by administrative action, and my right honourable friend and I are studying how the Committee's recommendations can best be implemented.
The one point arising from the second part of the Report which does require legislation, since it affects criminal procedure, is dealt with in Clause 13, which

517
is designed to mitigate the delays which may otherwise result if a case is adjourned after conviction so that a report on the offender can be obtained before sentence is passed. Subsections (1) and (2) will permit such a case to be resumed before some other court having jurisdiction to deal with the offence, if that would enable it to be disposed of more quickly than adjournment to a later sitting of the court which tried the case. Subsection (3) will permit quarter sessions to resume such a case, notwithstanding that the same members of the court may not be available to deal with it.
My Lords, I do not think the Government can pay the Streatfeild Committee any greater compliment, or show their appreciation of its work in any better way, than by introducing this Bill which seeks to do what it has recommended. We are greatly indebted to it for its labours and constructive proposals, and are confident that the implementation of those proposals will confer notable improvements on the system of administration of justice in this country, of which we are so rightly proud. In that spirit I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.44 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining the noble and learned Viscount in expressing appreciation and thanks to the Streatfeild Committee for their very arduous labour extending over 2½ years which resulted in this most valuable social and historic document. It is a Report which I would recommend everybody interested in the social life of this country to study, and I can assure them that they will be amply rewarded in doing so. It sets out the case with the utmost clarity, as one would expect from Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his Committee, and it must be a source of gratification to them that the Government have seen fit to introduce legislation to implement the first part of their Report at so early a stage. One does not often present bouquets to the noble and learned Viscount and his Government, but on this occasion I should like to compliment them on having set up this Committee, with its very important terms of reference, and on
518
having accepted and implemented its recommendations in so short a time.
As the noble and learned Viscount said, the Report is in two parts and this Bill deals almost entirely with the first part of the terms of reference to the Committee—namely, the proposals for expediting the hearing of cases of persons charged with criminal offences. I propose, in the first instance, to say a word about that. The noble and learned Viscount has explained in some detail what is the evil that it is designed to remedy; that there are cases, a considerable number of cases, of persons who are remanded in custody for long periods, sometimes extending to four months, and even more than that, before they are finally tried. This is most undesirable for all the reasons that he gave—among them, that a certain number of the accused are eventually acquitted, and it is most unfortunate that people who are eventually acquitted should have to spend long terms in custody before their trial.
The figures given in the Report and quoted by the noble and learned Viscount relate to the year 1957 and, in some cases, I think, to 1958. But since then the amount of crime has substantially increased, and I regret to say that it shows no sign of coming to a standstill, still less of being reduced. I am afraid that the evil to-day is greater than was the evil at the time the Committee reported. But one of the incidental evils is that our prisons are occupied with a substantial number of persons who are awaiting trial and to that extent, therefore, they are increasing the amount of overcrowding. The Bill, by and large, follows the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee as to the first half. Some of them are debatable. Indeed, there is one particular recommendation, that of increasing the powers of the magistrates' courts to deal with certain offences, which the Law Society in particular think is ill-advised. I do not propose to develop that at this stage. That particular point—and there are many others—can be more appropriately dealt with at the later stages of the consideration of the Bill. In fact, in my view they are not at all major questions and it would not be right to take up the time of the House on matters of detail which the noble and learned Viscount has very lucidly explained to the House.

519
But I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount a number of questions and to deal with a number of more general points that arise on the Bill, and the first is this: How far do the Government consider that this Bill meets the difficulty, having regard to the increasing volume of crime? As I have indicated, the figures upon which the Report is based are already somewhat out of date, and one would like an assurance that there is some slack left so that we can take care of any substantial increase of crime and so that we shall not in the course of a very short time find ourselves in the same position as we are in to-day. My next point is that I should like the noble and learned Viscount to elaborate on the powers which he asks to be conferred on him under Clause 4 (3) of the Bill. This is what the clause says:
"The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide for such arrangements to be made for the disposal of business at courts of quarter sessions as appear to him desirable; …"
These are very wide powers but they are also very vague, and I should like to know what the noble and learned Viscount has in mind. Could not these powers that he requires be somewhat more clearly set out and more definitely circumscribed? As he knows, the power of Parliament to annul a statutory instrument is not really an effective one; in any case Parliament has to take or leave the instrument, and it is not very often that it takes the course of not accepting an instrument, even though it may be satisfactory only in part. I should have thought that the noble and learned Viscount might at least undertake to submit to Parliament a draft instrument for discussion in the first instance, before he introduces the statutory instrument, I should be glad to have his views about that. He is, of course, dealing with the liberty of the subject, and he seems to me to be seeking wide and undefined powers.
The noble and learned Viscount has referred to Clause 1, which empowers him to increase the maximum number of High Court Judges from 48 to 53. I have no quarrel with that and I appreciate what the noble and learned
520
Viscount has said: that he may not necessarily require them all at once. The House may have seen some recent discussions in The Times as to whether we have available a sufficient number of people who are qualified to act as High Court Judges—whether their quality is good enough—and, as a corollary to that, whether, if he did cream off the best of them, the quality of the Bar that would be left would be sufficiently high to maintain the great prestige that the Bar has at the present time. There are differing views about it. I do not propose to express a personal opinion, because my own present-day personal experience is limited and I have not the privilege of knowing a great many members of the Bar. But there are two views about it, and, speaking as a solicitor who sometimes has to brief counsel, I am bound to say that it is difficult to find really good people for all the occasions when one needs to get counsel. From that point of view it would seem to me, speaking without authority, that there is a considerable shortage to-day of really good people, and if you are going to cream them off by taking off the best of them to appoint as High Court Judges, it will very much dilute the quality of those that remain.
Furthermore, that is not the end of the story. I imagine that if you have 53 Judges, then, by natural causes every year—I tried to make a rough calculation based on the expectation of life and promotion and retirement and so on—you might have to appoint six or seven Judges to fill the natural vacancies that would arise; and the question is, have we really got the quality and are they likely to come forward? I should like to have the noble and learned Viscount's views on that point. I am glad to see that the Lord Chief Justice is to speak, and perhaps he would venture to say a word on this point as well. I see that the Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, has expressed his own view on the matter; he thinks there is no difficulty about it at all; that the quality is quite high. But, of course, without making any imputations against the Chairman of the Bar Council, he would be predisposed to take that view, and I should like to have other views as well.
One question is how we are to deal with this recruitment of High Court

521
Judges. I have in the past suggested that one method would be to regard the Judiciary as a kind of ladder; that people might be appointed in the first instance as stipendiary magistrates or county court judges and that there should be a possibility, a real possibility, of promotion all the way up from the beginning. Even from the point of a master of the High Court or a registrar of a county court there ought to be a possibility of promotion. And I say "a real possibility" because it is no good saying that the possibility exists already; I know it does, but the number of county court judges who have been promoted to High Court judgeships could, I imagine, be counted on the fingers of one hand, certainly on the fingers of two, and there must be, and I know there are, far more county court judges than that who are capable of filling High Court judgeships. I should like to have an assurance from the noble and learned Viscount that that will be seriously considered.
Now when we are considering crime and criminal work I should have thought that stipendiary magistrates up and down the country were eminently suitable for promotion to the kind of work for which we are now about to appoint High Court Judges. I should like to know whether there is any inherent difficulty in promoting the best of them to the position of High Court Judges or to recorderships or as the new chairmen of quarter sessions who are going to be paid.
There is one other aspect I would mention, and that is to ask whether there is any reason why suitably qualified solicitors should not be appointed to positions in the Judiciary and in due course take their place for promotion. I know personally a large number of solicitors who would fill these posts admirably. They have all the qualities necessary: the judicial, objective mind, the legal knowledge, in many ways the personal experience, and contact with individuals, which is sometimes lacking in the case of members of the Bar. I do not know whether this would require legislation or whether it is possible to do it without legislation. I know that there are masters at the High Court and registrars in the county courts who are solicitors, and I wonder whether the other branch of the
522
profession could not be brought into this field of the Judiciary.
Now I would ask a question about recommendation (5) (c) of the Committee, which I do not see directly implemented in the Bill, and that is that a certain number of Judges should hold supplementary Assizes in the latter half of September in areas where there is an accumulation of cases waiting a long time for trial because of the long vacation. I take it that that can be carried out without legislation because the Bill makes no provision for it. This involves encroachment on a sacred principle: that in no circumstances must the Judiciary work in the months of August and September. I have on several occasions referred to these extremely long holidays, which interfere, as has been pointed out in the Report, with the speedy trial of cases of people who are charged with offences.
If it is intended to go as far as this, I wonder whether one could not go a little beyond this rather timid approach of having just two or three Judges acting as a sort of flying squad in the second part of September. I am not suggesting at this stage that we should depart from the general doctrine of having no High Courts, apart from Vacation Courts, sitting in these two months, but I should have thought that we could be a little more venturesome and use a number of Judges to a greater extent than is proposed even in the recommendation. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has had conversations with the Judges on this point and what has been the result of any such conversations; but I should have thought that they would be quite willing to agree that a number of them in rotation should take part in this important work.
I want now to say a word about the reasonable remuneration which it is proposed to pay to recorders, deputy and assistant recorders and also, I understand, to chairmen and deputy chairmen of county quarter sessions, who will, under the Bill, in future have to be legally qualified persons. I am glad that the Government are accepting this recommendation, because it is high time that recorders were paid a reasonable remuneration. As the Report points out, the position is somewhat uneven:

523
some are fairly paid, some work for an honorarium, and even those who are paid are usually making a considerable sacrifice. The theory was that it was a great honour to be a recorder, and that somehow there were some benefits to be obtained by a practitioner who accepted the position. That is hardly the case to-day. To-day, it involves an intolerable sacrifice on the part of persons who occupy these positions which we have no right to ask them to accept.
It is all very well for people who give of their time freely in voluntary work, but when it comes to giving of their earning time and their earning capacity and so depriving themselves of a portion of their livelihood, I think it is asking too much; and I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount comes to fix the remuneration he will fix it adequately, having in mind the sacrifices which these officers are being asked to make, and particularly having regard to the extended period over which they will now have to carry out their duties in order to meet the problem. I see in the Report that there is a possibility of making payment on a sessional basis. I would rather deprecate that. I do not think that it is consistent with the dignity of the office that the holder of it should be paid so much a session. I hope it will be a remuneration which will be paid on an annual basis.
The Report points out one extraordinary anomaly—namely, that even though the payment of recorders is in many cases very small indeed, almost amounting to an honorarium, they are not entitled to charge their travelling, subsistence and other expenses for the purpose of Income Tax. I believe that that is not statutory but is the practice of the Inland Revenue authorities. I hope that that will be put right. The expenses incurred in travelling to do one's job are as much a part of one's expenses as ordinary business expenses, and I see no reason why there should be any differentiation between these and other persons.
My last point on this part of the Report is on the question of the costs of the prosecution in indictable cases. I have been asked to raise this point by the County Councils Association, and I understand that the Association of
524
Municipal Corporations are also supporting the plea which I am about to make. As the House will know, the present general principle is that the costs of the prosecution fall upon the county or county borough council in whose area the crime was committed. The point that is made by the local authorities is that these costs ought to be met by the Treasury, as is the case with the costs of defence where the person is legally aided. In the first place, the mobility of criminals to-day is such that it is all very easy for them to operate systematically over a wide area. The hue and cry may often go far beyond the areas where they happen to live, and there is no longer any special significance in the particular locality in which an offence may happen to be committed.
An outstanding example is the Rouse murder case of 1931, in which the murderer conveyed his victim from a county in the South of England where he was living to Northamptonshire, where he committed the actual murder, although his ultimate destination appears to have been a county further to the North. He was not in any way connected with the County of Northamptonshire, but the costs of the prosecution, amounting to £1,700, cost the Northamptonshire County Council a halfpenny rate. They point out that, to add insult to injury, the county council even had to pay in the same case the costs of a charge of bigamy alleged to have been committed in the South of England, even though the prosecution decided in the end not to proceed with that case. They then point out that it seems unreasonable that the ratepayers of a particular area should be called upon to bear the costs of bringing to trial a criminal whose offence had no connection whatever with their area other than some such circumstance as the existence of a government office in whose area an offence may be deemed technically to have been committed.
A glaring example of this was the prosecution about a year ago of a man who lived at Olney in Buckinghamshire, who was convicted on a number of tax offences at the Northampton Assizes. The only reason for proceedings being instituted in Northampton was that the office of the No. 2 Tax District happens to be there. This office covered a wide area which included Olney in Buckinghamshire. Apparently the view was taken that, since

525
certain false returns must be deemed to have been made at Northampton, at the office of the tax district, the proceedings should be instituted there. The trial of that case lasted three weeks, the costs of the prosecution amounted to £3,186, and the local authority was called upon to bear the costs which were equivalent to a threepenny rate. I will not weary the House by developing this point further, but I hope that the Government will see their way to considering this question of bearing the costs of the prosecution in the same way as to-day they bear the costs of a defence.
Now I want to say a word about the other part of the Streatfeild Report which the noble and learned Viscount has touched on but which he has not dealt with except for one small section of the Bill—that is, the part of the Report which deals with the information necessary to enable the sentencer, as he is described in the Report, to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that the function of a court is two-fold. The first is to decide on the question of innocence or guilt, but the equally important question of what is the appropriate treatment to be afforded to the offender has also to be decided. The courts are, of course, well qualified to deal with the question of innocence or guilt, but in many cases they are hardly qualified to deal with the question of sentence.
In the olden days, as the Report points out, it was simply a matter of passing a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, but to-day, with the advance of criminology, social science and so on, we take the view that other factors have to be taken into account, and the purpose of a sentence is to be a deterrent it is punitive; but it must also be reformative. All these factors have to be taken into consideration. It is therefore of the greatest importance that the court inflicting sentence should have adequate information to enable them to consider all three aspects of the punishment before actually deciding upon the sentence. The Streatfeild Committee in this Report have gone at great length into these factors—the kind of information that is needed, who should give it, and so on, and it is, in fact, a most fascinating document.
526
This Report was published at the time when the Criminal Justice Bill was in Committee in another place, and a number of members of the Committee asked that this part of the Report should be taken into consideration in the Criminal Justice Bill of this year. The Attorney General said:
"If we are to make a big reform following upon this Report, it really is not possible to divorce Part B from Part A and to treat them entirely distinctly. The two parts must fit into the new pattern. Legislation will be required for the implementation of that pattern."
Now, my Lords, if that statement means anything it means to me: "When we come to implement the Report of the Committee we shall incorporate both parts of it in the projected legislation". Here we have the legislation but scarcely any reference is made to the recommendations in Part B; they are almost completely ignored. The point was raised again in this House when the same Bill came before us, and on the Report stage the noble and learned Viscount made this statement [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 232 (No. 90), col. 26]:
"…the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, which means that they fully endorse the view that every sentence should be based on comprehensive information about the individual offender."
So there is no doubt about the need to get these full reports on the lines of the Streatfeild Committee Report, before sentence is passed.
The noble and learned Viscount went on to say that the Government were already preparing to take all necessary action with a view to bringing to the notice of those concerned the recommendations in Part B of the Report and to facilitating their implementation. But I understood him to say this afternoon that legislation was not necessary, and it could be achieved by administrative machinery. He also thought that flexibility was necessary and that it was undesirable to lay down a fixed form of Inquiry in every case; and there I agree with him.
The issue really comes to this. The Government accept the Report, they accept the importance of providing the courts with the information before passing sentence, and it is really a question of whether or not legislation is necessary to achieve some of the recommendations in the Report. It is true that much is already being done along the

527
lines of the Report by many judicial authorities, but there is a minority where the information is not being provided or used, and it is for this minority that legislation is required. There are still too many authorities who take the view that this new-fangled stuff about probation officers, reports and so on, is just a lot of nonsense; that the inflicting of the sentence is going to be the deterrent; that that is all there is to be done about it, and that the question of reformation of the criminal or taking all the circumstances into account simply does not arise.
The Committee, itself, gave some consideration to the question of whether legislation would be necessary to implement this part of the Report and this is what they say, in their own words:
"A number of these recommendations will require legislation, but except in obvious cases, we have not attempted to say,"
ourselves, the kind of legislation that would be required. I feel, therefore, that the Government have neglected this part of the Report, which I submit is as valuable as the first part, and they are apparently not proposing to do anything that may be necessary by way of legislation in order to implement it. I have already expressed the view that, on the whole, the machinery recommended in the first part of the Report has been satisfactorily translated into legislation, but I feel it is a great pity that the corollary to that, the section which the Attorney-General in another place said earlier is going to be taken together with the first part of the Report, is not being implemented so far as it is necessary to do so by legislation. I hope that there may be ample opportunities, as the Bill proceeds through this House, to discuss this part of the Report at greater length.
The House will have gathered, therefore, that I welcome the Bill, with qualifications. I think there is a good deal that will have to be considered as we proceed, but I hope that by the time the Bill leaves the House, after we have given adequate time to it, we shall have been able to put right such defects as at present exist.
3.10 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, may I say at once that I
528
welcome this Bill. It may seem to some to be highly technical, but I think that it carries out all that is necessary by way of legislation to implement the Report of the Streatfeild Committee. Those recommendations, it seems to me, go a long way to improving the administration of criminal law, and I certainly think that the authors deserve sincere congratulations. So far as principles are concerned, of course the most important one at which they arrived was the decision that the increase in crime and work generally should be dealt with by a system of extended Assizes rather than by Crown Courts. That, I think, was a difficult decision for them to arrive at. There are arguments on both sides. But I, for one, am quite clear in my own mind that they have arrived at the right decision. I say that against my own personal interests, because I think that the system of extended Assizes is far more difficult to adminster.
May I mention just a few of the matters that weigh with me? It has always seemed to me that the virtue of our Assize system is that the criminal law is administered by what I call the "anonymous Judge". With something like 30 Queen's Bench Judges travelling round the country, one Assize town sees a particular Judge only once in a comparatively long time. They do not know him personally, and he does not know the local officials, the police, the lawyers or, indeed, the prisoners. How different is that from a Judge of a Crown Court, who has to live in the locality, who has to know all the officials, who comes to know all the police, the lawyers and, only too often, the prisoners who come back again and again before him.
Again, there are, as it seems to me, real dangers in the system of Crown Courts. Let me say at once that, of course, there are many notable exceptions today; but. looking to the future it seems to me that it has inherent dangers in the fact that the Judge sitting there trying crime day in and day out is bound to become stale and tray, indeed, become, as it is called, prosecution-minded. Compare that with the Assize Judge, who may be trying crime for something like only three weeks at a time and then goes off to varied duties—it may be the commercial court, it may be civil work, it may be a Divisional Court or a Court of Criminal Appeal. I

529
would add that, having regard to those dangers, I personally think it is difficult—it is bound to be difficult—to get a Judge of the right qualities to man a Crown Court. As I have said, he must live in the locality, he must know the people, and yet he must remain in comparative isolation. Above all, he has to be prepared to try, almost continuously, these sordid cases without becoming stale. Indeed, it seems to me more than any human being can do to continue that work for more than a comparatively few years. How often have I heard, both at the Bar and, indeed, on the Bench, of the prisoner in a provincial town who will say to this legal adviser, "Can't I be tried by the red Judge and not by the local judge?"! It is the fact that the anonymous Judge inspires confidence.
Such experience as I have had leads me unhesitatingly to the conclusion that, if it can be worked, an extended Assize system is by far and away the better and the safer system—I say "if it can be extended and adapted", because it requires the appointment of more Queen's Bench Judges, and it is clear that there are some who deplore that. No one is more conscious than I am of the dangers of which I may call dilution, but I am far from believing that we have anywhere near reached that mark. There are, I am sure, many members of the Bar still well fitted to become Judges. Indeed, it would be odd if it were not so. We in this country have always prided ourselves on having one of the strongest Bars, and it would be odd in those circumstances if there were not a sufficient number of the right calibre to be High Court Judges. May I look at it from a slightly different way? I happened to look up and find that the population of England and Wales in 1861 was (taking round figures) 20 million, and the three Common Law Courts then—Queen's Bench, Exchequer and Common Pleas—consisted of 18 Judges. The corresponding figure to-day, at the moment, is 32. But the population is something like 45 million, so there is little doubt that the number of judicial appointments has by no means kept step with the increase in the population. Quite apart from that, I think it is well recognised that we have, per head of the population, less judge-power in this country than any other country in the world has.
530
Now, members of the jury—I am sorry; I should have said "Members of the House of Lords", but I have just come back from the Court at Liverpool—there is the civil work to remember. Of course, that did not concern the members of the Streatfeild Committee, except incidentally, but it is important to-day that the civil work on Assize should be dealt with, and dealt with expeditiously. One of the objects of this extended Assize scheme is to allow sufficient time, not merely for crime to be dealt with but also for the civil cases—which, unfortunately, only too often to-day have to be ignored—to be dealt with as and when they are ready for trial. Of course, no one can tell what will happen in the future. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, crime is increasing. I think the tendency is for there to be more civil work. Therefore, it may be that at some time in the future we shall have to consider the matter again. But certainly at the moment I am quite satisfied in my own mind that we ought to try to administer the law as recommended by the Streatfeild Committee.
Now, one word on what I would refer to as "the flying squad". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the fact that there was no mention in this Bill that a certain number of Judges should, as recommended by the Report, go out in September to deal with any arrears of crime where necessary. For my part, I do not think that any legislation is required. I certainly have had it well in mind and have tried, I hope successfully, to carry the Judges with me. After all, there is a precedent in that every year one Judge goes down in September to the Central Criminal Court, which is in the nature of an Assize; and it is contemplated that, say, up to five should be available to go to that part of the country where they are most needed. Of course, we all dislike anything which curtails our vacations. I think that is only human nature. Indeed, I would remind the House that the Judges gave up that part of their vacation which fell in October. I know the noble Lord will not take offence if I say that the only people who objected to that were the solicitors.
Finally, as to the recommendations in Part B, certainly so far as the Judges are concerned that part of the recommendations has not been, and will not be,

531
ignored. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is important, and I would only quote what I said in giving evidence before that Committee. I said, and I sincerely believe, that sentencing is the most difficult task that any judge can have, and that he can never have enough information on which to do it. Clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill do implement Part B of the Report, and so far as I know those matters covered in those clauses are the only ones which require legislation. The rest, as it seems to me, can be done by direction and co-operation and, above all, by good will.
3.32 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am rather apprehensive in following immediately after the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, because if I say anything which displeases him I might well find myself absent for a period of six months in a place which I shall not mention. However, I do not believe that he will take any umbrage at any observations which I have to make. I think this is a very important Bill, and Her Majesty's Government should be congratulated upon having introduced such a useful measure. So far as the Report of Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his colleagues is concerned, this is not only an important document but an interesting one. I must confess that generally when I read these reports I find them important but certainly not interesting reading; however, this is a very interesting Report. I see that in one place the honourable Mr. Justice Streatfeild has embarked upon poetry, which, of course, merely indicates me artistic and cultural nature of his approach to this problem.
I do not propose to say very much to-day, because it is quite clear from the presence of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice and other noble Lords that there are many experts in your Lordships' House, and it would be quite out of order if I were to "wade in" and take up public time. However, there is one matter to which my attention has been drawn in other quarters, and that is the jurisdiction of petty sessions. I was wondering whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would care to consider the question of any further increase in the jurisdiction of the petty sessional courts. There is
532
always a certain reluctance, and indeed nervousness, about increasing the jurisdiction of lay magistrates. I would suggest, first of all, that the maximum penalty of six months should be increased to twelve months for each indictable offence. That matter has been discussed, and it is entirely a matter for the Government to decide whether or not it is worthy of further consideration. It might, however, have the effect of relieving the pressure on higher courts.
Then there are certain other offences which, I think, might be tried at petty sessions. I have read the Report in regard to the distinction between warehouse-breaking and ordinary dwelling house-breaking, and I am not at the moment able to follow the Report in that connection. Breaking and entering a warehouse may involve stealing a very large sum of money, whereas breaking into a dwellinghouse may involve stealing a comparatively small sum; and, of course, the very opposite may obtain. But I do feel that if magistrates have power to try warehouse-breaking, they ought to have power to try cases of ordinary house-breaking; that is to say, where a person enters and breaks into a dwellinghouse. There are a few other matters in respect of which I think the magistrates might have increased jurisdiction. I am quite unable to see why they have no jurisdiction in regard to the stealing of horses and sheep. I suppose the real reason is that in some country districts some of the magistrates sitting on the bench are too friendly or too closely related to some of the people who have stolen the horses and sheep, and perhaps find it rather embarrassing. I have heard one or two quite amusing stories in this connection, but it would not be proper for me to repeat them in your Lordships' House. I must apologise for not being here when it was my turn to speak, but I have spoken now because the other noble Lords who are due to speak are not here. I merely put forward these suggestions for the consideration of the Government.
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful for the reception that has been given to this Bill, and I do not in any way resent the points that have been raised. I should like to

533
deal with some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put before the House. The first point was to express doubt as to enlarging the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. Your Lordships will have observed from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that there are certainly two views on that point, but I should like to put this quite generally to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. At the moment, as Lord Meston pointed out, magistrates' courts can give not only up to six months for a single offence, but up to twelve months for two offences. That is quite a considerable sentence. Without going through the list, I should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he would look at the existing list and compare it with offences which are very similar to those in the list which cannot be brought within these courts at the present time. However, as he said, that is a point which we might discuss more fully on the Committee stage and, beyond asking him to take that course, I will say no more at the moment.
He also asked me, did I feel that the proposals contained in the Bill would be adequate to deal with the situation as it exists to-day? I think that with the increased numbers of Assizes, with, as I said, the power given to the Judges to remain longer at the larger towns, and also with the increased sittings of quarter sessions, we can cope with the situation as it exists to-day; but, of course, that is a matter which I shall keep examining the whole time. All I can say is that we have designed the Bill to deal with the present situation, with the present high rate of crime.
The noble Lord asked me about the scope of Clause 4 (3). The object of the rules is to govern the arrangement of business by courts of quarter sessions in such a way as to dispose efficiently of their work. The rule-making power is limited to the arrangement of business and does not extend to rules of procedure to be followed by the courts. As the noble Lord will appreciate, from one point of view the clerks of the peace come in in an important way and from another point of view prison governors have to arrange calendars, and so on; and, of course, the rules will have to be concerned with provision for the exchange of information between the committing courts
534
and quarter sessions. If the noble Lord cares to put down the usual exploratory Amendment on Committee stage, I will give him a more complete answer, but I wanted to show him the type of rules I have in mind. When the noble Lord has considered that, he will make up his mind whether it is a matter for negative or affirmative procedure, bearing in mind the subject matter of the rules and the various precedents in that regard. It is a matter which I am always ready to consider, as he knows, but as an ex-Minister he realises, I am certain, that one does not want to over-weight the procedure in the House of Commons in a case where it is not necessary for effective Parliamentary scrutiny. I leave that for his consideration when he has seen the full scope of the rules.
The noble Lord asked whether there was an adequate supply of potential Judges for appointment. I can say this with my hand on my heart. About a year ago, I recommended the appointment of more Judges at one time than had been done since the Restoration in 1660, and I could have found as many more with the greatest of ease. I should think that it would be no exaggeration, though one hesitates to say anything that even sounds like one, to state that I could have found, with the greatest of ease, three for every one I appointed. That is the position as I see it to-day and it does not seem to me that this danger exists. With regard to the future, I would say that the reports which I get from my brethren in all courts is that the standard of performance in learning and sense at the Bar is a very high one to-day.
The noble Lord also asked me about the ladder of promotion. I agree with him that there have not been many, comparatively, from the lower ranks of the Judiciary, though there have been probably more than one thinks at first sight, if one takes the period since the war. This is not an easy subject, because certain people desire to be in the lower ranks for reasons that seem good to them. The noble Lord suggested that stipendiary magistrates might be promoted. Recently I recommended the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate to one judgeship at the Old Bailey. I think that is the sort of thing which the noble Lord had in mind, and I am

535
glad to be able to say to him that I did so only a short time ago. I shall keep his point well before me. On the general matter, I think that it is the experience of all of us who have to consider this question that there is no difficulty in finding good Judges to-day.
The noble Lord asked me about the recommendation in regard to Assizes in the first half of September. There are two points that I want him to have in mind. The first is that, as he knows very well, there has always been a strong body of opinion in his branch of the profession as well as in mine that there is an advantage in a two months' long vacation, for getting work up-to-date and making preparations. The other point, which again he will appreciate, is that a number of courts of quarter sessions sit at the end of September before the new term starts, and I am glad to say that a considerable number of Judges of all degrees, from Members of your Lordships' House to members of the county court bench, are also chairmen of quarter sessions in their spare time, and that allows them to get in a quarter sessions before the term starts. But, of course, we are prepared to consider this matter and keep it in mind.
With regard to remuneration, I would make only this comment on what the noble Lord said. When it is a question of additional qualified chairmen of quarter sessions, who will perhaps take a smaller number of courts, I think that the noble Lord will agree that in these circumstances we should keep the discretion of making the payment one for work done rather than a salary. But I will consider again what he has in mind.
The noble Lord then made the suggestion, which has often been made before, on behalf of the two associations of local authorities, that the central Government should pay the cost of prosecutions. In the nineteenth century the central Government did pay part of the cost, but I understand that the present arrangement was come to as part of the financial arrangements made when the county councils were set up after the Act of 1888. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the
536
costs of prosecution ranked for the 50 per cent. grant out of the police fund, and nobody has suggested to the contrary. So it is not a question of the whole cost having to be met. Even so, the cost can be considerable. I cannot go further than saying that I will consider carefully what has been said, not only because it has been advanced by the noble Lord but because of the bodies on whose behalf he is advancing it. But the noble Lord will not expect me to give any commitment at the present time, nor can I do so.
With regard to the position of Part B of the Report, if the noble Lord will look at paragraph 431, he will see that the Committee say:
"A number of these recommendations will require legislation, but except in obvious cases, we have not attempted to say, for each recommendation, whether legislation will be necessary. In some cases the need for legislation depends on what is the correct view of the existing law, and it is not for us to decide this; and in others a practice direction of the courts or administrative measures may be found to be an adequate alternative. It may be assumed, that in our view all our recommendations should be implemented by Statute, if necessary."
I think it is clear that the Committee are there dealing with the whole Report and not merely with Part B.
Like my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice I cannot think of any other problem in Part B which requires legislation, except the one I have mentioned. But I want to say again what I said in my first speech: that, as regards the provision of general information about sentencing, for the assistance of the courts the Government certainly intend to do all they can to meet the various points which the Committee made. On the second aspect of the subject—namely, the provision of information relating to individual offenders—the Committee have made a series of recommendations for improving the arrangements in that regard. These are matters which can be dealt with by administrative action, and Mr. Butler and I are studying how the Committee's recommendations can best be implemented. I can assure the noble Lord that we are not letting this matter go by default, but if there is any aspect of it which he thinks could be dealt with by legislation I shall be pleased to consider it.

537
I think those are the main points which were raised. I should like to say I am very glad that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice found it possible to be with us to-day, and to have his support in regard to the usefulness and validity of the Bill. I would take this opportunity of thanking him for all the work he has done, not only in the evidence which he gave to the Streatfeild Committee, but in his constant help of translating the ideas into practical application.
Since I have had the honour to preside over your Lordships' House I have tried in the sphere of the law, if I may put it this way, to advance on four fronts. The first is to make the courts of justice in this country more convenient for the needs of our people. That is why, for example, I asked your Lordships—and your Lordships agreed with me—to extend the jurisdiction of the local county courts. Secondly, I have tried, by extending legal aid, to make it possible for those who wanted to establish their rights to come to court. Thirdly, I have endeavoured to clear away the dead wood; that is to say, those parts of our system which have gone into obsolescence. Fourthly, my effort has been to harmonise the position of the individual whose rights must be infringed in a modern State that is extending its activities, whether in the direction of universities, technical colleges, schools, power stations or anything else, with the conception of giving the individual, especially the small man, a fair crack of the whip, both as to the chance of objecting to what is done and in getting fair compensation for it.
I am very conscious how imperfect my efforts have been and how much there remains to be done. But I feel that this is an important step on the first of my four fronts—namely, that of making the criminal courts accessible and convenient and saving the delays which I have told your Lordships can so seriously affect those ultimately found to be innocent. I should only like to say, in conclusion, how grateful I am for your Lordships' constant sympathy and help in taking these steps. I ask your Lordships now to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACQUISITION AND LICENSING OF FIREARMS
3.57 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the apparent ease with which pistols and revolvers can be legally and illegally come by does not, in view of the present crime wave, suggest the need for some modification of the Law in respect of the licensing of firearms; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We have just listened to an interesting debate on the administration of the criminal justice law; two or three days ago we debated the Home Office Report on the crime of murder; and in the last few weeks we have debated the Government's proposals for increasing and improving the prison service and have also discussed the Government's plans for increasing the recruitment of the police—plans which I am glad to find are meeting with more than a little success. All these debates, I think, are illustrative of the anxiety, both of Parliament and of the public, about the present crime wave and our desire to do everything in our power to bring those crime figures back within reasonable proportions. It is within the general framework of that crime picture that I should like this matter to be considered by your Lordships this afternoon, and not necessarily in isolation.
It has occurred to me, and to others who are interested in this subject, over the last six months that the figures for the misuse of firearms have been undoubtedly increasing. I therefore put down a series of Questions on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House to try to find out how these firearms had been come by. Not surprisingly, it appeared that a considerable proportion of them had been stolen; but it also appeared, rather distressingly, that quite a few had been come by legally. I do not want to place too much reliance upon statistics this afternoon, because I think the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, may be able to give us are not, when taken in isolation, particularly significant; they do not show, I suspect, any very marked trend. But when they are considered in conjunction with the other means of crime, I think

539
they are deserving of serious attention and suggest that we should do something, and do it fairly soon, to see that these figures of illegally come-by and misused firearms are brought down to more reasonable proportions.
Since I put my first Question on the Order Paper there have been no fewer than 46 cases of shooting, affrays or attempted shooting. As I say, I do not know whether that shows any particular trend or not, but I am certain of one thing—namely, that it is 46 too many. I therefore put down also a Question some while ago suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that the time had come for another amnesty. There had already been four amnesties since 1933, but I suggested that the time had come for another amnesty to see whether we could not collect the last batch of illegally held weapons and help to reduce these figures. To my amazement, Her Majesty's Government acquiesced in my request for an amnesty within three days of my Question appearing on the Order Paper
This debate is to be answered by my noble friend Lord Bathurst, who occupies, as Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, a post which I had the honour to occupy myself for three years. I only wish that the suggestions I made when I was actually in the Home Office had been dealt with as rapidly as those I make now that I have left that Department. The figures which my noble friend's Department have now given for the new amnesty are some 54,000 weapons recovered, together with nearly 2 million rounds of ammunition. That is a formidable armoury, because 54,000 weapons and nearly 2 million rounds of ammunition would have kept the Home Guard going for about six months in the early days of the war. That brings up the total to something like 168,000 weapons brought in by the various amnesties.
What I should like to know, rather anxiously, is what is going to happen to those weapons that have now been collected? Is there any chance of their falling back into wrong hands? I ask that question only because I read with a certain amount of apprehension in the Daily Mail of August 9 that a War Office official spokesman had said that serviceable weapons would be sold back to the public through licensed dealers. I can-
540
not feel that that is a very wise remark, even allowing for the fact that it is made by a War Office official spokesman.
Before the amnesty was called for, the police estimated that nearly 100,000 weapons were held illegally in this country. If 54,000 have been collected, there is still a pretty serious gap, and that is the gap which I am wondering about. The fact that we have had this amnesty and achieved a considerable amount of success, and the fact that there must obviously still be a large number of weapons hanging around, makes me think that this is the right moment for a new approach to and a new assessment of the problem, and I suggest that the time has come to examine the existing law to see whether it could be tightened up.
Under Section 1 of the Firearms Act, the unlawful possession of a firearm carries with it a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment and/or a £50 fine. I am not talking about the illegal use of firearms, because that carries, of course, a much more serious penalty; I am talking about the illegal possession. That penalty may or may not be stiff enough, but the fact remains that out of 2,000 people sentenced under this particular section for the illegal possession of a firearm in the last three years, only seven—seven out of 2,000-went to prison for three months. I think this suggests two things: either the law is not being seriously enforced, or a breach of the law is not considered nowadays an important offence. That is the approach I should like now to change. I think we should now establish a principle—and it is a principle to which I should like to have your Lordships' acquiescence—that the fewer people allowed to own a revolver, the better. The fewer people who own a revolver legally, then the fewer who can come by one illegally, because, as I say, many of them are stolen, and many are stolen from people who are loath to admit, when the theft is discovered, that they have ever owned a revolver anyway.
The police state that there are nearly 200,000 weapons now legally held. I should like to know whether it would be possible in future to differentiate between rifles and guns and pistols and revolvers. At the moment, I do not believe it is possible to do that, and my Motion, as your Lordships will see, is

541
concerned solely with pistols and revolvers. Rifles and shotguns are an entirely different matter. Crimes are very seldom committed with rifles and shotguns, though I am, of course, aware of the most unfortunate affray on the Irish-Ulster border only yesterday, and we do not forget the case of that very gallant Welsh policeman who was blinded by a shotgun but a very short while ago. It is with revolvers and pistols that we are concerned, because those are the weapons with which crimes are committed. That is not to say that we should not also look at the regulations concerning shotguns and revolvers, to see whether there is not some need to tighten them up as well.
If we accept the principle that the fewer people who own a revolver the better, should we not now ask ourselves this question: Why should anybody have a revolver? Obviously, there are two classes straight away. First, the Armed Forces. In the Armed Forces possession of a revolver is governed by very strict regulations. Then there are the police. We all know that the police are not armed, and that in order to get possession, for official purposes, of a revolver, the police have to comply with pretty strict regulations. That shows straight away that both the Armed Services and the police take a serious view of the possession and handling of a revolver. One might say, "All right, the police and the Armed Forces; and after that let us ban the use of all revolvers and pistols for everybody." Then we run into trouble. We run into trouble with my noble friend Lord Cottesloe, the Chairman of the National Rifle Association, and with my noble friend Lord Bossom, senior member of the council, because a large number of serious and responsible people enjoy pistol shooting as a sport; and to ban pistols and to take that sport away from them would obviously be unkind and impracticable. It would also seriously imperil my chances of being re-elected President of the Ham and Petersham Club, which office I have held for the last fourteen years.
Therefore, I say we must go the other way round. We must make certain that the strict rules which apply to most decent clubs apply to all. Those rules are that you are not allowed to apply for a firearms certificate until you have passed a test of proficiency in the use
542
of a revolver or a pistol, and your character, sobriety and responsibility are vouched for by the senior members of your club. I should like my noble friend Lord Bathurst to assure me that that strict rule is to become universal. I should like to go further and say that nobody, for any purpose, should be allowed a certificate to possess a pistol or revolver unless he belongs to a recognised club, unless he has passed an elementary test of proficiency in the use of the weapon, and unless his character is vouched for by senior responsible members of the club.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? Does that apply to the renewal of an existing licence?
LORD MANCROFT: I think I would make it apply in future to the renewal of an existing licence. No harm would be done, and I am certain that no man of good will would object.
The question which the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, asked takes me to my next point. On what grounds do the police now issue permits to own a revolver, and upon what grounds do they propose to do it in future? In most cases they carry through an exacting test of character and responsibility, but nevertheless some very odd "birds" have got through the net. One knows of the recent case of a man named John Hall, who shot two policemen and wounded a third and was found to be in legal possession of his weapon. As I told your Lordships, there are various other cases where men of ill-repute have got possession of a revolver. Of course, we cannot make a scheme watertight and foolproof, but I suggest we should do everything possible in the regulations to make certain that the test is as exacting as possible—a test about proficiency, and a test about responsibility.
What about a test about age—because that takes us into the difficult ground of the semi-lethal weapon, the ·22, the Webley, and the air pistol. There we are getting into serious trouble. Go into any store this Christmas-time and look at what a fifteen year old boy can pick up for a Christmas present. If that does not put some doubt in your Lordships' minds,

543
cast your eye over the picture which appeared in the Sunday Pictorial of October 15. The article is headed:
"Bought by boy of 15."
The article reads:
"This wicked-looking gun … was sold to a boy of fifteen in the heart of London. Yet it is every bit as deadly as it looks. Shocked? Of course you are. And here is another shock. The law is not clear about whether this weapon is a killer. I can put the law straight on that. It is.
"The gun is fired by compressed gas. A good shot can place ten slugs within an inch at 25 yards' range. And any one of these pellets will slam deep into a target … like an eye, for instance. The pistol is American made. It is called a Crosman CO2 and is powered by a gas cylinder. Last week I went with fair-haired Mike X to a Hatton Garden post office. He paid ten shillings and got a gun licence, No. YY00418. No questions asked. Then by taxi to a reputable gunsmith's. Young Mike laid thirteen crisp new pound notes on the counter. A courteous salesman passed over the gas gun. No questions asked."
The Sunday Pictorial took the gun to Scotland Yard and experts reported to the Home Office that it was lethal. The Home Office were aghast. I am not surprised, my Lords. Will the Home Office kindly "de-ghast" themselves, examine the law and tell us what has gone wrong to cause this state of affairs to exist?
We cannot keep boys in cotton wool. We cannot always be watching over young men of fifteen for fear they will be doing something stupid; but we can, I think, take elementary precautions to prevent this following state of affairs from occurring. And this is a description of a recent report in the Bedford Juvenile Court:
"Schoolchildren on holiday were playing in a riverside park when two fourteen-year-old boys arrived with air rifles. A fifteen minute 'reign of terror' followed. … A boy was shot in the leg, girls were forced to hold up shopping bags for target practice, fishing floats were shot out of the river, and a rubber bathing ring was deflated by pellets. … One of the two fourteen-year-old boys was charged with causing bodily harm by shooting, and both were charged with damaging floats, the bathing ring and rubber sandals. One boy was put on probation for a year and the other, already on probation, was fined four pounds."
What a boy already on probation is doing with an air gun that can do that amount of damage is a different matter. We cannot, as I said, keep all these boys in cotton wool. Reasonable precautions, however, can be taken, and I should like
544
an assurance from the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State that the Home Office will look into all the regulations concerning these semi-lethal weapons that can slam into an eye at 25 yards' range and see whether we cannot tighten up the age limit at which a boy can be given permission to have such a weapon, and whether we cannot get some assurance from a responsible person, a parent or a guardian, that the boy knows how to handle or is to be taught how to handle the weapon and realises the danger and nature of the weapon he has in his hands. I am sure there is need for a re-examination of the law. I do not say there is a need to stiffen the law but there is a need to enforce the law as it now exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is no longer in his place, made some passing reference just now to magistrates and sheep stealing. Your Lordships will remember the debates we had in this House on the subject of drunken driving. We had them in two successive Bills, with Road Traffic, and now we are to have them again. In both Houses, and on both sides of both Houses, members of all Parties pressed the Government to increase the penalties for driving while under the influence of drink in order, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, "to create a climate of public opinion in which it was no longer considered funny to drive a car whilst drunk".
One of the difficulties was—and I say this with all respect to magistrates—that whereas magistrates do not normally commit bigamy or arson in a Royal Dockyard, they do occasionally drive a car when they have had too much to drink. This point was brought home very noticeably in those debates, and the noble Viscount on the Woolsack undertook to bring to magistrates' attention the desire of Parliament for a more rigorous enforcement of the law about drunken driving. But magistrates rarely possess illegal revolvers. Courts must, of course, be given discretion. Parliament, certainly the Lord Chancellor, cannot dictate to magistrates the way they should enforce the law under their statutory duties, but I should like the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State, to request his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to approach

545
magistrates in the same tactful and gentle way as he did over drunken driving and draw their attention to the need, if the climate of opinion is to grow in the country, that this law should be treated a little more seriously than it has been in the past; because before the amnesty the police expressed great worry about the ease with which weapons could be obtained.
Now, I think, is exactly the right moment for both the police and the courts to clamp down and, by their administrative acts, to draw the attention of the people of this country to the fact that to hold a revolver without a licence is a serious criminal offence. After all, the late Victor Terry, after shooting dead a bank guard in Worthing, was able to buy a shot-gun without any difficulty at all a few days afterwards. A gun has become the status symbol of the crook in this country to-day, and I think there is urgent need to reduce that status and to remove that symbol.
To conclude, these are the points for which I ask your Lordships' concurrence and to which I should like to draw the attention of the Home Office and Her Majesty's Government. I should like the Home Office to examine the existing law in the new circumstances, the circumstances of a crime wave, the circumstances of increased figures bearing directly upon that crime wave. Is the law clear and is it appropriate? I think that in certain cases it is neither. Is it being correctly interpreted? Is proper importance being laid upon age and sense of responsibility of those who are entitled to use a firearm? I mentioned the age of 15, but I say, with diffidence, that there may also come a time when a man is really no more fitted to handle a firearm by reason of advanced age, poor eyesight or infirmity than he is to drive a motor car, for both, in unsteady hands, can become lethal weapons.
I should like to ask the Home Office to see that courts regard these offences more seriously than they have in the past. I should like them to help establish the climate of opinion whereby the fewer people who are allowed to own revolvers to-day the better. I hope they will ask chief constables to accept higher standards of requirements before they
546
issue licences to anybody to own a revolver. I should like them to suggest anything more that can be done to bring about this climate of opinion.
One other question I should like to ask—as I have not given Notice, perhaps I should not even ask it; and perhaps I should not ask it even if I had given Notice. I wonder how many of your Lordships still own a revolver?
4.18 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, we must all be anxious that the incidence of violent crime should be lessened, and I think we should all be glad that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has raised this matter to-day. It is always an extremely agreeable experience to listen to him, although some of us, I think, may be in doubt whether the particular aspect of this matter, the law relating to the licensing of firearms, to which he has directed his Motion is the most fruitful one.
With some other Members of your Lordships' House, I have a particular interest in the law relating to the licensing of firearms to which the noble Lord has referred. As Chairman of the National Rifle Association and Vice-President of the National Small Bore Rifle Association I am concerned with the interests of nearly 5,000 affiliated rifle and pistol clubs and associations all over the country, whose members would number some 150,000 and who make use of firearms for purposes wholly praise-worthy. This is not a matter merely of an enjoyable pastime; it is something which involves the national interest. The National Rifle Association came into existence more than 100 years ago as a counterpart of the great volunteer movement that was produced by the widespread fear in 1859 and 1860 of the invasion of this country by—and it is curious now to think of it—not the Russians or the Germans but the French. Throughout the whole century of its existence the Association has been recognised by the War Department, and indeed by all the Service Departments, as filling an important place in the whole corpus of national defence by providing a great body of men skilled in the use of firearms who can play an effective and valuable part in the expansion of the Armed Forces in a national emergency.

547
The value of the rifle associations and rifle clubs is recognised by the close interest and the very great help which is given to us by the War Department, help that I am happy to have this opportunity publicly to acknowledge, and the close and happy relationships that the National Rifle Association enjoys with all the Services. It seems to me of great importance, therefore, not merely of importance to a large number of law-abiding citizens in the pursuit of their agreeable pastime but of very real importance to the nation, that their activities should not be needlessly restricted by any tightening of the restrictions or strengthening of the law in respect of the licensing of firearms. Nor do I believe that such a modification of the law would be effective for the purposes that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has in mind. If I am not mistaken, it is already an offence against the law for a citizen to carry any offensive weapon whatever and he can be called upon to show reason why it is necessary for him to do so. That is in itself a fairly comprehensive power in the hands of the police, a power they have very properly exercised with the greatest discretion, but a power so sweeping that it is something that one would rather expect to find in a totalitarian rather than a democratic State.
But apart from that more general power, the law in relation to firearms is very strong. Under the Firearms Act, 1920, and the subsequent Act of 1937, no one may, without holding a specific certificate issued by the chief constable, purchase, hire or have in his possession a rifle, firearm and ammunition. That is a very strong power. Firearms certificates are not, in practice, issued without full inquiry into the individual circumstances and the purposes for which the arms are required. I have myself indeed been required on occasion to go to a police station and to answer quite irrelevant questions about my height and my weight and even the colour of my hair—what there is of it—before being able to obtain a renewal of my firearm certificate.
The inquiries that the police make no doubt vary in their intensity in different areas, but they are, in my experience, both thorough and searching. Not only that, but a firearm certificate is not, as
548
some people who do not have one are inclined to suppose, a general licence; it is a licence in respect of only a specified rifle or pistol and a specified quantity of ammunition for it; and any sales or purchases or any acquisition by any means whatever, even of borrowing—any transaction whatever relating to rifle, firearms and ammunition—that is carried out by a holder of a certificate has to be entered on the certificate and approved. The control therefore is already so close as to be at times extremely irksome and difficult for law-abiding citizens, and I frequently receive complaints from perfectly respectable members of rifle clubs, sometimes very well-known international shots, that the police make difficulties over a renewal or a variation of their firearm certificates.
It is true that, under Section 4 (9) of the Firearms Act, 1937, there is some relaxation in respect of a person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle-range or shooting gallery, enabling him to possess miniature rifles and ammunition and to use them without holding a certificate at such range or gallery. I do not think it is suggested that that subsection creates any dangerous relaxation. Then, under Section 4 (8) there is a relaxation in respect of rifle clubs and cadet corps. That subsection reads:
"A member of a rifle club or miniature rifle club or cadet corns approved by a Secretary of State may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as such a member in, or in connection with, drill or target practice."
Some innocent people like myself, ignorant of the jargon of the law, might, I suppose, imagine that that subsection would enable the ordinary member of a rifle club—a club that your Lordships will observe has to be approved by a Secretary of State; and the police make local inquiries, and searching inquiries, into the bona fides of a club before it is approved—to buy or borrow a firearm without the need for a personal firearm certificate. But it is not so.
In the interpretation of the Act which is issued by the Home Office for the guidance of Chief Constables, but is not, to my regret, available to the peaceful citizen who is anxious to keep the law, it appears that subsection (8), while it enables a man to have in his possession a firearm, does not empower him

549
either to buy or to hire or to borrow it. I am bound to say I find it a little difficult to say how else he is to obtain possession of a firearm at all, unless indeed he steals it, and that no doubt would render him subject to some other enactment. So even the club member has to have his personal firearm certificate issued to him, after inquiries by the Chief Constable, before he can possess a firearm at all. What subsection (8) does, as it is interpreted by the Home Office, is to enable the club member to use on the range a firearm belonging to the club, the club itself being approved by the Home Secretary and the club itself having a club firearm certificate on which the firearm is entered and described.
So the powers in the hands of Chief Constables seem to me to be in themselves entirely adequate to enable them to prevent firearms from getting into disreputable hands. And let me add that if there is any step that the National Rifle Association or its constituent associations and clubs can take in helping to ensure that the law is suitably administered and that firearms do not get into the wrong hands, we shall be very glad to discuss the matter with the Home Office and to help in any way we can. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, when he comes to reply to this debate, will be able to give us an assurance that there is no intention either of amending the already very strong law relating to the possession and use of firearms or of tightening the existing practice in its administration.
I would not dissent from my noble friend Lord Mancroft in his view that the law might be so far extended as to bring within its ambit certain weapons that are in fact lethal but at the present time fall outside it. That is another thing. That certainly would be desirable. But, so far as the powers of the law are concerned, I hope to receive an assurance that there is no intention of amending the law or of tightening the existing practice in its administration. It is already quite difficult and laborious enough for those who wish to become proficient in the use of firearms and to practise the art of marksmanship to do so. The fact is that the man who wishes to obtain a pistol for nefarious purposes will generally succeed in doing so whatever the
550
regulations. A tightening of them will not prevent him from doing so; but it will serve as a strong deterrent to the law-abiding marksman and it might well divert his interest into other channels, and probably channels of less value to the nation. We must all wish to see an end of the present wave of crimes of violence, but, in my belief, the cure for it lies in making full use of the powers already existing rather than in their extension.
4.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has already said, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in my particular case, even more so, since his father and mine took their seats in your Lordships' House within a few moments of each other on the same day a number of years ago—a fact which gives me great pleasure to-day in supporting the noble Lord's Motion and trying, perhaps, to fill in one or two small gaps in the most comprehensive speech he has already made, and upon which I should like to congratulate him.
I was a little astonished on arrival here this afternoon to see that there were so few speakers on the list. I ascribe it to that fact that your Lordships felt that the noble Lord would put the case so well that there would really be little need for anybody else to speak unless, of course, he was in total disagreement with the noble Lord's views. We have heard the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, which is precisely the contrary view, except, of course, that he agreed, as we all do, that anything which can be done by the Home Office to reduce crime should be done. On that we are unanimous. But the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, felt that any tightening of the law on this matter, such as is advocated by Lord Mancroft and most strongly supported by myself, might have the reverse effect. I think I am quoting the noble Lord correctly when I say that that is what he said.
I shall not keep your Lordships long. First of all, I think that the warding of the Motion might have been a little stronger. The noble Lord uses the word "modification," which could, of course, be used either way. I should like to have seen him use the words "tightening up" of the regulations on this matter.

551
I think that is really what he meant, but he always speaks so persuasively that perhaps he felt that there was no need to use such strong words, and that his meaning would be quite clear without them.
He mentioned the recent amnesty in which those who possessed firearms could give them in without incurring any penalty or punishment. I believe that nearly 4,000 weapons were handed in. To me, that is a fantastic number, and it rather explodes the view of those who say that weapons of this sort are properly controlled and regulated by pistol clubs, miniature rifle clubs, the police and the Armed Forces. If that number could be handed in all over the country and nobody had to explain at all where they had got the weapons or why they had them, straight away I think that the situation must be a serious one—and in my view a most serious one.
Only a few days ago there was a debate in your Lordships' House on the pamphlet Murder, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I read this pamphlet most carefully. Among other things, it stated that cases of murder by shooting were comparatively few—I think 14 per cent. of the whole—and lagged far behind those committed with blunt instruments, sharp instruments and by strangulation. I think that is probably quite true. But in my view it is quite irrelevant. This is a point that I should like to make, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to it, because it is the main gist of my remarks. I believe that the malefactor armed with a gun assumes a sort of bravado, or perhaps bravery, which he would not otherwise possess. I believe that the malefactor, taken by and large, is a coward—he must be, or he would not be a malefactor. He is a man who wants something for nothing. He will not go to work like other people or take his chance with his fellow men. He wants a quick return. He feels a great deal more brave with a gun in his pocket, than without one, so that whether he uses it or not, the gun has done the harm.
Your Lordships will remember the case not so long ago of Bentley and the Croydon police murder. Two boys went together. One was of an age just sufficient to incur the death penalty. They
552
set out with no intention of shooting anybody—there is little doubt about that. Again, where they obtained this revolver, goodness knows! But they had it. They were surprised in the act of a minor theft. They lost their heads and, in the language of the cinema, they shot their way out. In the course of so doing a policeman was killed. Murder was done through the possession of a revolver. Where did they get it? Why had they got it? Why had the person from whom they stole it got it? Why should anybody have a revolver? Surely there is no answer to that. We have heard about marksmanship and so on. I agree with that. But when the situation has become as serious as it is today where murders are concerned, then we must look again at our pastimes and sports and make quite sure that they are not of value to criminals or potential criminals. If they are, we must abandon these sports or pastimes, however much it may distress us.
To pass on to the categories of weapons, many of your Lordships will say, "I do not like the sound of this. What about my two Purdy guns?". I shall be most concerned about my two Purdy guns. I do not look upon shotguns as being in this category. For one thing, they are far too large for a potential criminal to carry about; they make a great deal of noise and are not capable of being silenced. One can hardly put the shotgun into this category.
Secondly, however, we come to the category of air pistols, pistols and revolvers, and even sub-machine guns—increasingly popular, I believe, in the American underworld, and in the County of Armagh as lately as yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, when discussing this with me some time ago had thought to put in his Motion the phrase "pocketable weapons", but I think it is clear that those types of weapon, pocketable weapons which can be concealed and carried, are the ones to which he refers. He did not in the end put that phrase in his Motion. I think there was a good deal in it. These weapons which are pocketable, easily concealed, and which do so much to boost the ego, particularly of the young criminal, are the nub of the matter. I shall ask the noble Earl when he comes to reply to say whether he is quite happy that everything that can be done has been done

553
to prevent these weapons from getting into the hands of people who should not have them.
As regards pistol clubs, I consulted my gunmaker this morning, because there were one or two points about which I was not quite clear, and he told me—and I am sure he is right—that anybody who wants to purchase a pistol for his own use must join a pistol club which already has a licence for these things. Then there are miniature rifle clubs in this country. The 0·22 rifle with the sawn-off barrel and the short stock becomes very nearly pocketable. These kinds of weapons are kept on club premises, perhaps in a cupboard with a rather flimsy lock. What happens, my Lords? Sooner or later somebody will break in and take them away. The police are called in and there is great excitement for a few days, but they have gone into circulation; and although perhaps they will never be used, perhaps they will be used. If they had never been there nobody could have stolen them in the first place.
That brings me on to the painful question of the N.R.A. and attendant organisations. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, will take it in good part—because I mean what I say as sincerely as he holds his views—when I say that at the beginning of the war I was staff officer in charge of weapon training in the London District and therefore I had a very close association with Bisley, where I spent many happy hours. I should like to assure the noble Lord of that. On the other hand, I think he rather put his finger on the point when he mentioned the year 1859 as the date of formation of the N.R.A., when invasion of this country was a possibility—whether by the French or the Zulus it does not seem to me to matter very much. However, the point is that there could have been art invasion and such associations were formed as a very reasonable means of allowing ex-Service men to keep up with their skills, and of allowing civilians to acquire those skills. I think the noble Lord will agree that that was the basis of it.
But one wonders whether in the year 1961 the rifle or pistol will have very much effect on a rocket-firing jet or, for that matter, nuclear weapons. Are we not really flogging a rather dead horse with that argument? I would agree to
554
talk about the pistol as a hobby or sport, but to talk of its being in the national interest could, I think, be around fifty years late, or at least twenty-five years late.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but has he considered whether or not the Armed Services are still armed with rifles?
LORD WINDLESHAM: After twenty-six years of Regular service, I can assure the noble Lord that the Army still maintain personal arms for their personal defence. But I would say that the proportion of casualties inflicted in recent wars by the man with the rifle, as compared with the number of casualties inflicted by other means, such as artillery, grenades and all forms of atomic weapons, is around 5 per cent.
My Lords, I feel that where these associations and clubs are concerned they may have outgrown their utility, and they provide a possible source of illegal possession of weapons, which is what the Government, the police and the country want to prevent. When it comes to suggesting what should be done, it is not easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will agree. He put it with greater charm and tact than I could ever hope to do, but it is a question of saying "Well, it may not be very satisfactory, but what shall we do about it?"
I offer to the noble Lord a few suggestions which may recommend themselves to him. First of all, I must come out clearly against these pistol clubs and, to some extent, all these forms of small-arms clubs. Why cannot they shoot at clay pigeons? I am well aware that there are clay pigeons at Bisley, and it is a sport which is most popular all over the Continent and in the United States. People who want to acquire marksmanship will find a clay pigeon quite a difficult thing to hit compared with the stationary six foot target, and you are dealing with a weapon there which is of no danger to anybody.
Secondly, losses by Service personnel, which occur from time to time, should be "sat on" very heavily indeed, and not only "sat on" but prevented. I remember a case in the barracks at Windsor—I will not say which regiment

555
was occupying the barracks at the time—when a lorry drove through the gates, and the occupants got into the machine gun store, removed the entire contents and got out again, and nobody was ever caught. That was some years ago, but it was a fact and I remember it well. There are many Army camps and R.A.F. camps where it would not be too difficult, if you really set about it, to get what you want. It is not only in Northern Ireland that these things occur, because they have occurred elsewhere.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, if he will be so kind as to allow me. When he says that they could be easily obtained, does he mean that members of the public could bribe members of the fighting Services to sell them a rifle or a pistol? What does he mean by that?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I mean exactly what the noble Earl says. Not all soldiers, sailors and airmen are saints, and before now soldiers have been known to "flog" arms, as they call it. Of course they have done that, and I am quite clear on that.
Then there is the question of the illegal importation of arms. My gun-maker informed me this morning that one morning an American gentleman walked into his shop in Cork Street and offered him eight brand new Luger pistols, asking whether he would like to buy them. He wanted only £10 each for them. My gunmaker said that he was not interested in purchasing Luger pistols and that, in fact, this gentleman should not have the Luger pistols, so he thereupon walked out again with the pistols. In my view, the only thing the gunmaker did wrong was in not keeping him in conversation while another assistant went to telephone the police at Bow Street, so that a detective could have come along and asked the gentleman where he got them and why he had them. That is where I think the gun-maker slipped up. I do not doubt that story, my Lords, and it points to a very dangerous state of affairs. The Customs authorities everywhere, and especially at airports, should be alerted on this matter. It is for them to suggest means of finding these weapons—it is not for the Government—and it is for the Customs authorities to make sure that
556
these weapons do not come in, although I am told that considerable quantities do come in from the Continent, especially from Germany.
Finally, on the question of sentences for those found in possession of these weapons, the noble Lord has already mentioned this so I shall not labour it. I believe that the maximum sentence, a very heavy sentence indeed, should be given to anybody who is in possession of firearms without a licence. Indeed, why should licences be granted at all? The householder speaks of self-defence, but he is not allowed to use a pistol for self-defence. If he hears what he thinks is a burglar downstairs, he is not entitled to go down and shoot at the shadowy form, because it is quite illegal to do so. Therefore, why has he got it? Admittedly, if the malefactor shoots at him, and he is so armed, he can shoot back, but I think that is taking an extreme case. He is not entitled to defend himself with that pistol, so why has he got it? My Lords, that is all I should like to say. I should like to support the noble Lord in his contention, and I should further like to say that I think this subject has really not been taken seriously enough. It may cut across the wishes of a number of persons, but I believe that the public as a whole would prefer to feel that the possession of firearms was made extremely difficult and the penalties for any abuse of the regulations very severe.
4.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I want to intervene for only two minutes in order to support my noble friend Lord Mancroft, and I do so because, as my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State will find if he looks at his files, I have already had some correspondence with the Secretary of State on this subject. I need hardly say that I had a most courteous and informative answer, but no practical remedy as yet. I am perfectly certain that nobody in this House, except the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would wish to put any obstacle or handicap in the way of the rifle associations for which my noble friend, Lord Cottesloe, has done such noble service, as have other members of his family before him. I cannot share the view, which I gather was that of

557
Lord Windlesham, that England would in future be sufficiently defended by those members of the Liberal Party who engage in clay-pigeon shooting. I do not think we should do anything that would make membership of a rifle club more difficult. After all, administration is a matter of common sense, and when you have an old-established rifle club and the members of that rifle club go to have 'their licences renewed, I should have thought that renewal would have been almost as automatic as getting a wireless licence renewed.
What I am very anxious about is the growth of the danger of weapons, particularly in the hands of the young—indeed, not only in the hands of the young. Just as weapons become more lethal to-day, so certainly do those things which used to be regarded as rather sporting toys become extraordinarily dangerous. Only a short time ago a gentleman (without, I think, any licence to shoot) was shooting with a ·22 rifle upon my moor. Now I was not in the least anxious for the grouse, for I am glad to say that there are so many this year that I should not have minded for a minute if he had shot one or two, but one thing he was absolutely certain not to hit with a ·22 rifle was a grouse. On the other hand, here is a weapon which is lethal, certainly at 1,000 yards and probably at 1,500; and to have people firing these weapons on a moor may be extraordinarily dangerous, certainly to sheep, and probably to shepherds or children.
Then there are the young, and the weapons that can be issued without any inquiry to the young—indeed, which must be issued to them if they go into a shop. These airguns and gas-guns such as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has described are extraordinarily dangerous weapons. I know, because I have been told so by two extremely respectable gunsmiths. They very much regret that they have to sell any of these weapons to any young person of, perhaps, 14 years of age who may come in and ask for it. One of these gunsmiths—I am certainly not going to give names—told me that he knew that a boy to whom he was selling one of these things was the last person who ought to be entrusted with it. Now, nobody wants to handicap the rifle clubs, and I certainly do not want in any way to handicap the sporting proclivities of
558
young boys. Most of those who are really going to make good use of their weapons are boys who are well looked after by their parents, who are taught how to use these guns and who are kept under proper control. But I think that the time has come when the Home Office ought to have another look at these weapons, which are becoming so dangerous, to see whether there ought not to be a permit, issued by the police or some other authority, before a boy is able to buy one of these weapons, with which he can do a very great deal of damage.
I believe the Home Office are as anxious about this matter as we are. What they feel is the difficulty of finding the right way through. I think Lord Mancroft can be satisfied to-day if they promise that they will really have another look at this matter, perhaps getting him in to help, to see whether some fairly simple solution cannot be found.
4.55 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than two minutes, but I have listened with great interest to this debate and I think there is one point that has not been brought out as strongly as some of us feel it should. That is the question of using the weapon to terrify in order to steal. If we look at statistics, we find over and over again cases of theft, burglary and of people carrying weapons breaking into banks; but unless that weapon was fired—and I think this accounts for only 14 per cent. of murders—we do not know from those statistics on how many occasions these burglars got away with their ill-gotten gains because they had what appeared to be a lethal weapon. One hears over and over again of the terror that that causes.
It may be said that if the person had some other heavy weapon it would have the same effect. My Lords, I am sure it would not. It is in those cases, as we have found over and over again—and some of us have come across these cases—that the unfortunate victim has said, "He said he would shoot, and he had this weapon". It is then that things may be handed over and people may have to submit in every way. It is from the point of view of the possible use of these weapons, not merely because of their lethal results but as weapons of

559
terror, that I should like the Home Office to consider the matter also.
4.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has introduced a subject to your Lordships' House in his most forceful and charming manner and has made it, as he always does, a subject which deeply stirs every Member of the House, on both sides. I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject before your Lordships and especially so because it gives me a chance at the Despatch Box to do my best to refute some of the popular misconceptions there are in the countryside to-day with regard to the obtaining of firearms, and of their use. I hope at the same time that I shall be able to allay some of the fears that have been expressed on both sides of the House this evening.
Without further ado, I should like to answer my noble friend, Lady Horsbrugh, with regard to her point about weapons being used for terrorising people in cases of theft and so forth. It was also a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. During the past three years there were 159 offences committed in England and Wales in connection with which pistols or revolvers were used. Of these 124 were robberies or larcenies—an average of just over 40 a year. In addition, 20 people were found in possession of pistols or revolvers at the time of arrest. That is rather a different point from the first one I made, but it is particularly relevant to the point that the noble Lady made. In a further 5 cases such weapons were used to resist arrest. There were also 63 cases where it was believed that the offender was armd with a pistol or a revolver, and these may, or may not, have been genuine firearms. I bring that point to your Lordships' attention because it will be fresh in our minds after the noble Lady's remarks.
We have been moved by what my noble friend has said and by the worry that has been expressed in your Lordships' House. I assure your Lordships that I will look into the publicity that has been given by the Home Office to
560
the most complicated legislation in the 1937 Act that has been described to your Lordships to-day, and I will also see whether it is not possible for there to be some sort of popular guide of the working of this Act that could be made widely known to members of the public. After what I have said this evening, I think that will go a long way towards obtaining what my noble friend desires.
In particular, I would say to both my noble friend and your Lordships, with regard to the "apparent ease" with which he claims firearms can be obtained, that there is in fact real difficulty in obtaining such a weapon for legal use; and it is only "apparent ease" with which we are dealing. I will explain briefly the existing powers relating to the control of firearms, so far as these are relevant to the points which have been raised in the debate. It has been clear from both sides of the House that it is pistols and revolvers which have really occupied our attention tonight, together, of course, with air weapons, which are not in fact firearms, and about which I will say more in a moment.
My noble friend mentioned a recent article in a Sunday newspaper, about which again I shall have something to say a little later, in which the writer said that he took a 15-year old boy to the post office to obtain a gun licence, which the boy was able to obtain without difficulty. Now, my Lords, that may well be true. A gun licence, like a road fund licence or a dog licence, is purely a revenue licence. The Gun Licences Act, 1870, under which gun licences are issued, imposes no limitations on the age or competence of any person to possess or use a firearm. That is true, and I concede that paint to my noble friend.
A road fund licence does not entitle the person who has taken it out to drive the car in respect of which it was issued. Of course, the tax must be paid before that car is used. In the same way, a gun licence does not of itself entitle the person to whom it is issued to use a gun, or that particular gun. The Act makes it perfectly clear that a gun licence does not entitle the holder to use or possess a firearm unless he also has such licence or permission to do so as may be required by any other Act; and this is also made quite plain on the face of the licence itself.

561
I want to underline this, because there is a good deal of public misunderstanding about the point. The controls which Parliament has considered necessary in order to ensure the proper custody and safe use of firearms are to be found in the Firearms Act, 1937, and it is that Act which we are considering this evening. Put very briefly, the position under this 1937 Act is that no person may possess a firearm, other than an air weapon or a smooth-bore shotgun, unless he has obtained a firearms certificate issued by the chief officer of police. That must surely take the point which my noble friend Lord Swinton raised: his friend or acquaintance on his moor must have been without the law if, in fact, he was shooting with a ·22 rifle, or any other form of rifle. That point, of course, was made again by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I think that clarifies any idea as to the possession of a firearms certificate about which he was doubtful.
There are certain exceptions relating to the use of firearms in special circumstances or in certain places—for instance, on ships or on aeroplanes, and in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards—but I think your Lordships would not wish me to dwell on those particular cases. There are certain cases where a chief officer of police is expressly precluded from granting a firearms certificate. He may not grant a certificate to a child under 14 years of age. He may not grant a certificate to any person who has served a sentence of three months' imprisonment or more for any crime until at least five years have elapsed from the date of that person's release. He may not grant a certificate to any person who is subject to a recognisance or probation order containing a requirement that the person concerned shall not possess a firearm. That, again, answers the point that my noble friend brought up.
Quite apart from these express prohibitions, a chief officer of police is required by the Act to satisfy himself, before granting a firearms certificate, that the applicant has good reason for having the particular firearm in respect of which the application is made, and that he can be permitted to have a firearm in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. In the latter connection, the Act expressly provides that a certificate must not be
562
granted to a person whom the chief officer of police believes to be of intemperate habits, or of unsound mind, or to be for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm.
The police have the duty of preventing crime. The chief officers are deeply conscious—they must be, my Lords—of the inescapable fact that the lax administration of the Firearms Act would be detrimental to their own interests in this respect, and to the interest of the public at large. I think we can be confident that, quite apart from the express limitations imposed by the Act, chief officers of police will not allow firearms to be obtained with "apparent ease", as my noble friend mentions (but I know he does not mean it) in the wording of his Motion; and certainly, my Lords, they are not obtained without real reason.
My noble friend mentioned the ease of Hall. That was a very exceptional case. Perhaps it is true that there was a loop-hole. It was complicated by the fact of Hall's leaving the country for some considerable period and then returning. But I do assure your Lordships that a lesson has been learned. My noble friend was particularly concerned about certificates for revolvers and pistols. It is for the chief officer of police to decide, subject to an appeal to quarter sessions in the event of a refusal, whether or not a certificate should be issued in a particular case. For, as I have already explained, he must be satisfied before issuing a certificate that the applicant has good reason for possessing the particular weapon in respect of which that particular application is made. My Lords, it is obviously harder to make out a good case for the possession of a revolver than, say, a sporting rifle—I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Cottesloe will bear me out there.
My noble friend, who, as he mentioned, at one time occupied with great distinction the office which I have the honour to hold—I do not know whether he was paying me a back-handed compliment; I must read Hansard very carefully tomorrow—knows very well that it is not within the province of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue directions to chief officers of police about the way in which they should exercise the discretion that Parliament has seen fit to place in them. Nevertheless, I can

563
go so far as to say that my right honourable friend adheres to the view held by his predecessors, of which chief officers of police are aware, that it should rarely be necessary to require a pistol or revolver for purposes of self-protection in this country, and that, as a general rule, applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection should be discouraged on the grounds that firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means for protection, and may, in fact, become a source of danger, as your Lordships have pointed out. I have little doubt that chief officers generally act in accordance with this view, and that certificates for pistols and revolvers are issued only where that chief officer is satisfied that the issue of a certificate is wholly justified.
I come to the question of approved clubs, of whose association my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is the distinguished President. My noble friend Lord Man-croft suggested that my right honourable friend might approach the rifle associations with a view to some tightening up of their rules in this respect. As my noble friend Lord Cottesloe has explained to us, full inquiry is made into the bona fides of a club before my right honourable friend gives his approval. I do not believe that any rifle or pistol club could start up without exhaustive inquiry and without the full approval of the noble Lord's organisation.
I am sorry that my noble friend has so much difficulty every year in obtaining the renewal of his own firearms certificate. That just shows that certificates cannot be obtained with apparent ease. I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that his organisations are willing to help my right honourable friend and the police with any administrative scheme that may be necessary with regard to the members of clubs, but in fact it is a little outside my right honourable friend's province to say Who should be or who should not be a member of a club. Nevertheless, I am most grateful for the offer of co-operation which the noble Lord has made. I want to make it clear that a certificate could not be issued to any person who is known to the police to be of ill repute. It would be impossible for an applicant to obtain a certificate for use in a rifle shooting or pistol shooting club or in a combined club unless
564
he was known to the police to be of specifically good repute.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft will remember that, in replying to his Question on this point in the last Session, I told him that my right honourable friend was considering with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis whether any action was called for in the way of administrative regulations so far as the Metropolitan Police District is concerned, and he will be glad to know that the Commissioner has reviewed the procedure for dealing with applications for certificates for pistols and revolvers, and has emphasised, in his instructions to his officers, that certificates are to be issued only after a most stringent inquiry under the supervision of a senior officer. Where an applicant claims to be a member of a club, a certificate will not be issued unless it is established that he is a bona-fide and practising member of the club. There is also to be a stringent check upon ammunition.
I now return to the case of the Sunday newspaper to which my noble friend has called attention. Two points arise here. The first is in relation to the weapon itself and the second in relation to the sale of the weapon to a boy aged 15. As I explained earlier, a firearms certificate is not necessary for an air weapon or for a smooth-bore shotgun. The weapon to which the newspaper referred and which my noble friend has described is operated by cylinders of compressed carbon dioxide. The interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts and I am not aware of any authoritative decision on this point. But while my right honourable friend has no authority to interpret the law, he has expressed the view, when asked for guidance on this subject, that since carbon dioxide is not air, this is not an air weapon and consequently does not enjoy the exemption which the Act extends to air weapons. That may not be a very scientific or legal conclusion, but I am certain that it is commonsense. If this view is right, it follows that a firearms certificate is necessary before such a weapon can be lawfully held. If, at some date in the future, a contrary view is taken by the courts, it would be for consideration whether or not the weapon should be declared a specially dangerous weapon under

565
Clause 16 of the 1937 Act. Your Lords-ships will understand that I cannot commit my right honourable friend further at this stage.
I come to the second point raised by the newspaper article. The writer alleges that a boy of 15 bought one of these weapons from a dealer. But under the Act it is an offence for any person under 17 to purchase a firearm and it is an offence to sell a firearm to a person whom the vendor knows or has reasonable ground for believing to be under 17. These provisions apply to firearms of all kinds, including air weapons and small-bore shotguns; so that even if the view is taken that this weapon is an air weapon, not a gas weapon, then a boy under 17 who buys one commits an offence and a dealer who knowingly sells one to a boy under 17 also commits an offence. For full measure, I may add that a person who abets, counsels or procures the commission of such an offence himself commits an offence. I think your Lordships will agree that in these circumstances I should say no more about this article.
I would suggest that parents and firearm dealers should take note of these facts, and I hope that all those who are harassed or even in danger from weapons of any sort will take note of these words. My noble friend Lord Mancroft suggested that no young person should be allowed to buy a weapon without the permission of his parents. I suggest that the present law already goes a long way in this direction. I cannot believe that anyone who is a parent or a relation or close friend responsible for a boy would buy him a firearm of this kind. Whether these provisions of the Act have been as successful as the legislators hoped they would be in controlling the use, as distinct from the acquisition, of firearms is a matter for discussion. That is a different problem and I do not think that this is the occasion on which to go into the complicated practical working of this part of the law.
I now want to say a word about the recent amnesty. As my noble friend has told us, it has brought in nearly 70,000 arms, of which 50,000 were pistols and revolvers. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking those who have handed in weapons and ammunition for
566
their public spirit, and also to thank Members of both Houses of Parliament who have shown such a close interest in this matter. My noble friend asked for an assurance that there is no danger of weapons which are surrendered to the police finding their way into wrong hands. Under the present procedure weapons surrendered to the police are handed over to the War Office for disposal. Those suitable for Army use are retained, but prohibited and unusable weapons are mutilated and disposed of as scrap. It has been the practice to dispose of the remainder by sale to the trade, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft reminded us.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl tell us, on this most important and interesting point, whether those who handed in these weapons were asked where they had obtained them? Did any volunteer that information, or was the question not asked?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, they were not asked where they had obtained them. The whole point of the amnesty was that there were no questions asked and no answers—and the noble Lord might follow it a little further with "no pack drill". If the owner of such a weapon, such as, possibly, many of your Lordships, had not got a certificate for the weapon, it was obviously an illegal weapon and no doubt the police would have noted such an occurrence accordingly. It has been the practice to dispose of the remainder of these weapons by sale to the legitimate trade. This does not mean that they are likely to go back into wrong hands, since, for the reasons I have explained, a person could not get a weapon through the trade unless he had a certificate for it, which I think goes a long way to providing the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. However, it is right that your Lordships should know that the interested departments are now considering whether the practice of disposing of surrendered weapons to the trade should be allowed to continue, and for the time being disposal of these weapons in that way has been suspended.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord that, in spite of that being the position, provided one has a certificate,

567
it is just as easy to buy a new weapon or a second-hand one through the trade. So, while it seems attractive at first sight to say that none of these weapons should be disposed of to the trade, I do not think it will affect the legal possession to any great extent.
My noble friend went on to suggest that, now that the amnesty is over, the penalties for unlawful possession should be increased, and others of your Lordships, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, also suggested that. The noble Lord has no doubt had it in mind that all well-disposed citizens will have responded to the appeal and things should be made tougher for those who, for nefarious purposes, have retained their weapons. My right honourable friend is not satisfied that increased penalties are necessary at the present time. They certainly would not encourage those who have retained their weapons to disgorge them more readily; nor would they help in any way towards detecting unlawful possession; and the penalties would not be effective unless possession could be detected.
The Firearms Act already imposes very severe penalties, ranging up to fourteen years' imprisonment, for possession of firearms in the furtherance of crime of the type that I explained to the noble Baroness. As regards unlawful possession—for instance, possession without a certificate—the fact that the courts have imposed the maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment in no more than 7 out of 2,900 cases where persons have been convicted in England and Wales during the last three years of the various offences against the Act, suggests that there is adequate room for the infliction of stiffer penalties within the law as it stands. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had something to say on that point. It may be that in dealing with cases of unlawful possession in future the courts will have regard to the possibility that the offender had some ulterior motive in failing to respond to the amnesty and will adjust the penalty accordingly. But within the limits laid down by the law, it is for the courts to decide what penalty is appropriate in a particular case, and it would not be appropriate for my right honourable friend to tell the courts how they should exercise the discretion vested in them by
568
law. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft appreciate that there are many variations of the offence of possessing a firearm without a certificate.
I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. I hope he will now be aware, and that your Lordships will, too, that the 1937 Act does in fact have many more teeth to bite upon this problem than may be generally supposed in the country. I have said that I will look into the public relations side of the material that is available about this particular Act and the regulations which it enforces. I am grateful to my noble friend for the courtesy he showed in referring so many of his points to me. I want him to be assured that my colleagues and I have a very specific interest in this problem, and although I cannot accept his Motion, I do assure him that we will keep these particular points, and all those which your Lordships have brought forward, under careful scrutiny.
5.27 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the careful and comprehensive way in which he has wound up this debate. I should like him to know that on many points he has set my mind at rest. I am glad to hear that he shares my view that the law on this subject is complicated. But if he and I, who have studied it slightly—he, of course, more than I—find it complicated, how much more complicated must those find it who are brought into casual acquaintance with this law. I therefore welcome his suggestion that there should be published some sort of child's guide, or perhaps it should be some parent's guide, to the law about firearms. I hope he will give that proposal detailed consideration. I was glad to hear my noble friend say also that he will look at certain of the regulations to see whether they are as clear and as pointed as they need to be. I think the mere fact that we have held this debate this afternoon, and that it has been on the Order Paper for some three or four months, has done a little to generate a climate of opinion along the lines which all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate clearly wish.
I must assure my chairman in the rifle world, my noble friend Lord Cottesloe

569
that I do not go nearly so far as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his views about rifle clubs. What I am suggesting is that the exactingly high standards which most of the rifle clubs entertain should apply to all; that that, and no lower standard, should be the standard throughout the country; that anyone who wishes to apply for a firearm must be prepared to apply the same high standards as my noble friend impresses upon his members, and that no one should be allowed to possess a revolver or pistol without being a member of a club.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with great respect, that is the position as it is now.
LORD MANCROFT: If that is so, I am reassured. I was under the impression from certain information in my possession that it was possible, particularly in the remoter parts of the
570
country, for a licence to be issued to those who do not belong to rifle clubs. I am comforted to receive that assurance. I am very sorry indeed to hear that my noble friend Lord Cottesloe has such a gruelling time when he goes to his local police station. If I can be of any help to him by vouching for his character, I shall be only too happy to lend him my services in that respect. I make no apology for having raised this matter. The mere fact that 70,000-odd weapons have materialised as a result of the amnesty shows that it is an important matter, and the post-mortem upon it which we have had to-day has been worthwhile. I am obliged to your Lordships also for the time and support you have given me, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.