Lords Sitting of 23 January 1962

Preamble
Reassembling for Public Business after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle

DECIMALISATION AND THE DUODECIMAL SYSTEM
2.36 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry on Decimalisation so as not to exclude the consideration by the Committee of a duodecimal system.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): No, my Lords. The Government were aware of the alternatives to a decimal system when they decided upon the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry. So many countries in the world have now adopted, or are committed in principle to introduce, a decimal system that the Government concluded it was desirable to confine the inquiry to that system.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his Answer. Is not this an opportunity for this country to lead the world once more?
LORD MILLS: There are many opportunities for leading the world, my Lords—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Which way?
LORD MILLS: —but this one would take so long that, inevitably, it would be long after we were all dead before we could think of another system.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while accepting that the Government are now aware of the duodecimal system, may I ask whether this matter
830
ought not to be considered not from the point of view of immediate introduction, but from that of an ultimate move in this direction, which, if the noble Lord has considered it, I am sure he will agree is bound to come sooner or later?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord said that the Government are now aware of it, because they have been aware of it all along. But I do not see any object in going further into this question, because so much of the world is on a decimal system that it would be quite impracticable for us to adopt an alternative.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, for the benefit of the less well-informed among us, could the noble Lord say what the duodecimal system is?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Leader of the House offers to answer, but I would say that the duodecimal system is one based on twelve instead of on ten.
LORD REA: My Lords, does the Minister remember that, when this subject was first mentioned to the House, I asked whether those who objected to the decimal system would be allowed to protest? The answer I got was that they would be allowed to protest. Does that mean that objectors who are not subscribers to the duodecimal system will be heard?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that that is a matter for the Committee.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION
2.39 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to reintroduce compulsory vaccination in early infancy.]
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords. Experience before and since the abolition of compulsory vaccination does not suggest that reintroduction of the scheme would secure better results than the present voluntary arrangements.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to say what number of children below the age of one year were vaccinated in 1960, as compared with the number vaccinated in 1947? Can the noble Lord give me the answer now or will he give it to me later on?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord such information as I have. In the ten years 1929–1938 the average annual rate of vaccination of children under the age of six months was 36.9 per cent. The corresponding rate for the ten years 1937–1946 was 36–8 per cent. Under the voluntary arrangements the rate for infants under one year had risen to 45 per cent. by 1959, although it fell to 41–3 per cent. in 1960.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the years 1948–1960, 27 persons died of smallpox in this country, and 54, or twice as many, died of vaccination? Must not that and many other facts entirely discredit the idea of compulsory vaccination?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if true, that is very interesting information. But I should not like to give any support to the idea of discouraging parents from having their children voluntarily vaccinated within about six months of birth.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, assuming that what my noble friend said is true, as I think it is, is not the trouble that these people were vaccinated for the first time in adult life and it is because they were vaccinated then that the risk of encephalitis was greatly increased? Ought we not to be pressing therefore with all the force we can to get every baby vaccinated in infancy, when it is virtually safe, and when subsequent revaccination, if required, is equally safe?
LORD NEWTON: I am grateful to my noble friend for reinforcing so strongly what I said just now about the importance of voluntary vaccination for children.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that, in the group up to five years of age, in the 20 years or so up to 1960 there was one death
832
from smallpox and there were numerous deaths from vaccination every year?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I frankly do not know, and I should need notice to be able to answer the noble Lord on that point. But I still hope that he is not trying to discourage the general public from having their children vaccinated.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has obtained his information from the death certificates or from the propaganda of the Anti-vaccination League?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the House should remember that it is for noble Lords to ask the Government questions and not for noble Lords to ask the Government to ask questions of their noble friend.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I then ask the Government a question referring to the statistics given by the noble Lord? Even assuming that they are correct and that the noble Lord never makes a mistake in his logic concerning facts at his disposal, would it not be more relevant, if it were possible, to produce statistics of the number of people who have escaped death from smallpox by having been vaccinated at a very early age?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think that might be very helpful, if it could be done.

IMMIGRANTS AND VACCINATION
2.44 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making it obligatory for all persons entering this country to produce an international certificate of vaccination.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is not an effective safeguard in its present form. All five infected persons known to have entered this country in recent weeks had valid international certificates.

833
In the Government's view, better protection is normally afforded by the system of warning and follow-up, backed, where circumstances require, by the extensive powers which port health authorities possess to offer vaccination, to place under surveillance and, if necessary, to isolate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that at least this matter has served to focus attention on the fact that our health regulations are very bad? Perhaps he will recall that on other occasions I have asked that immigrants should produce a certificate declaring that they are free from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is not so dramatic as smallpox, but the medical officers of health of this country are exceedingly concerned at the fact that immigrant after immigrant is coming to this country while infected with tuberculosis, and still we are doing nothing to demand either that they should have a certificate or that they should be examined on arrival.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness says about tuberculosis, but I am afraid that I am not in a position at the moment to answer questions about it.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I have to ask four Private Notice Questions. Perhaps I may put them all in one so as to save time. First of all, I should like to ask whether the Government can make a statement on the armed invasion into British Honduras from Guatemala. Secondly, I should like to ask what communication the Minister of Transport has sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding to-day's wages negotiations. Thirdly, on smallpox, I should like to ask the Government whether they will make a statement 'a bout the outbreaks of smallpox. Fourthly, I should like to ask whether the Government have any statement to make as to whether they propose or do not propose to hold an inquiry into the proposal of Imperial Chemical Industries to take over Courtaulds.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for asking these Questions in such a compendious form. As regards the first three of them, at any rate, statements will be made later. I am not quite sure of the position about the fourth, but there are Questions on the Order Paper of another place, or there is a Private Notice Question in the other place, and I will seek to find out what my right honourable friend is saying there and will endeavour to see that someone says much the same sort of thing here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. On the last point, I understood from hearsay, at any rate, that the Question was being accepted in the other place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it is, but I am not quite sure in what form.

ARMS FOR INDONESIA
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, might I add that there is also to be a statement by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary at half past three on arms for Indonesia.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend with regard to certain matters, and empower Her Majesty in Council to amend with regard to others, the law concerning the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; to enlarge the legislative power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; to amend other law applicable to Northern Ireland; to lay down a rule for interpreting, in the application to Northern Ireland of Acts of Parliament, certain expressions commonly used therein; and to repeal obsolete, unnecessary or spent enactments applying to Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1aand to be printed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Permitted hours in licensed premises, registered clubs and licensed canteens
4—(1)Subject to the provisions of the principal Act and this Act, the permitted hours in licensed premises (other than public houses) and in registered clubs and licensed canteens shall—

(a)on weekdays, be the period between eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon and the period between five and ten in the evening; and

(b)on weekdays, be the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between six and nine in the evening so, however, that for the purpose of the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises there shall be no permitted hours in such licensed premises or clubs on Sundays.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the principal Act and this Act, the permitted hours in public houses shall on weekdays be the period between eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon and the period between five and ten in the evening, and (except as provided in section six of this Act) there shall be no permitted hours in public houses on Sundays.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(other than public houses)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to speak to my Amendment C on Amendment 3A, because they are really two parts of the same proposal. Since the Committee stage of the Bill I have given long and careful consideration to the question of the opening of public houses on Sunday, and I regret that I cannot bring myself to believe that the provisions of the present Bill are an adequate solution. And when I say "regret", I mean that quite sincerely, because all my instincts and upbringing urge me to be against any proposal for extending facilities for drinking. This is a case where sentiment and logic do not in fact go together, and I shall try to be logical rather than sentimental.
It cannot be denied that there are a considerable number of people who wish to drink on Sunday. In the Guest Committee Report, paragraphs 15 and 16, it is stated:
"…It is alleged that the number of genuine travellers is probably very small; that
836
the existing law tends to incite people to undertake journeys on Sunday merely for the purpose of obtaining liquor; that in particular there has of recent years been a considerable increase both in the number of organised coach-excursions on Sundays and in the number of people making journeys from the large centres of population into the countryside by car or public transport with that object in view; and that such persons frequently indulge in noisy and disorderly behaviour and cause considerable disturbance in country towns and villages."
The Committee went on to say in paragraph 16:
"We think that this criticism is on the whole well-founded."
One aspect of this is to be dealt with later in the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, are moving on the matter of carrying liquor in vehicles.
The Committee said something further in paragraphs 23 and 24. I must apologise for quoting so much of this Report, but I really feel that what I am proposing is something which could have been put forward just as appropriately by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, because it is what was in his Report. The Committee said:
"…In other words we accept in principle the view that some system of permitted hours is desirable.
"24. A tempting proposition at first sight would be to suggest that such a system should apply only to hotels, the great majority of which are already open on Sundays for the sale of liquor under existing arrangements, and that public houses should remain closed. On closer examination, however, there seem to us to be several objections to that proposal. In the first place it must be borne in mind that hotels do not provide an adequate local coverage over the country as a whole; there are large industrial areas, for example, with very few hotels. It seems to us therefore that the introduction of a system of permitted hours for hotels alone would not help appreciably in reducing the amount of travelling that is carried out on Sundays for the primary purpose of obtaining liquor, while it might well tend to lead to such gross overcrowding in some premises as to alter the character of the hotels concerned in an undesirable way. Furthermore, a system of permitted hours for hotels only might be expected to encourage an increase in the type of hotel popularly known as the seven-day public house that is to say licensed premises which technically provide sleeping accommodation for travellers and which hold a hotel certificate from a licensing court, but which in practice exist mainly or entirely to cater for public house trade; and we think that subterfuge of that kind is undesirable. There is also the point that in some areas it is the practice for hotels and public houses to he frequented by different social groups, and the grant of permitted hours to one only of these

837
two types of establishment might be felt to be a social injustice. For these reasons we do not consider that we would be justified in proposing that there should be permitted hours on Sundays for hotels only."
Your Lordships will recollect that on November 21 the Minister of State, Scottish Office said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235 (No. 11), col. 814]:
" There are about 2,000 licensed hotels in Scotland at the present time. In the Government's view, the foreseeable demand on Sunday does not require the opening of the 4,000-odd public houses as well".
That statement completely ignores the Guest Committee's closely reasoned objections to the "hotels only" proposal; and I would remind your Lordships that one of the reasons given by the Committee was that of geographical distribution. I also recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, rejected my arguments, characterising them as being arithmetical ones. Now half of the population of Scotland live in the four large cities and in fifteen of the large burghs, and they have 183 licensed hotels; that is, one-tenth of the total. The other half of the population live in rural areas. in small centres of population, and particularly in those areas which are holiday resorts, and these areas have the other nine-tenths of the total of licensed hotels. So it could be said, quite reasonably, that, so far as half the population of Scotland are concerned, the Government's proposals are adequate. But that seems to me no reason to ignore the problems and the needs of the half who live in the mainly industrial areas.
The Guest Committee then went on to say (paragraph 28) that:
"the present situation whereby some people, albeit a small minority of the population, are apparently encouraged by the form of the existing law to spend a large part of Sunday travelling about the country—often in organised parties—in search of liquor is certainly contrary to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland as a whole; and we think that it is at least a debatable matter whether a system which allowed limited facilities for the purchase of liquor in each local area might not be more acceptable than one which in effect gives unlimited scope for the purchase and consumption of liquor on Sundays by those who have the inclination and means to seek it.
"29. We do not consider either that the opening of public houses (and licensed restaurants) in addition to hotels during a strictly limited period of hours would have any substantial effect on moral
838
standards or on the incidence of drunkenness. … It has been represented to us also by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association among others that, whereas at present many of those who purchase liquor on Sundays return home by car, the opening of local public houses might be expected to reduce the practice of driving after consuming liquor and to that extent to decrease rather than increase the danger of accidents on the road. In our opinion a change in licensing hours would not materially affect the amount of money which the average person spends en liquor; at present public houses do most of their business on Fridays and Saturdays and, if our view is correct, the fact that public houses were open also on Sundays would merely mean in most cases that the same expenditure would be spread over an additional day and it might indeed be expected to lead to a decrease in drunkenness on Fridays and Saturdays."
I think that opinion of the Guest Committee is a perfectly sound one and in fact is the explanation of the reluctance of the Publicans' Associations to press for Sunday opening. It is a known fact that there are more proprietors of public houses who would be quite happy to have them remain closed on Sunday rather than those who would have them open, and this is because of the fact that, being Scots, they see no future in spending wages on seven days to attract the same amount of income which they get in six. But, after all, one of the reasons why they are licensed is because they are supposed to be providing a public service, and that sometimes involves people in having to do things not necessarily in the way that is most profitable to them.
Your Lordships know that the Committee headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, consisted of distinguished Scots from all walks of life and that their recommendation for Sunday opening was unanimous. The Government have said that since the Committee reported the Secretary of State has heard the views of a wide range of public opinion. Of that I have no doubt; but obviously the Secretary of State did not again interview all those people who had given evidence before the Committee. One can only come to the conclusion, therefore, that a rejection at the present time was based on evidence less than that which was available to the Committee. Indeed, I suspect that what took place was that those who did not like the recommendations of the Guest Committee on Sunday opening made their views well-known to the

839
Ministers, while those who agreed with the Committee's recommendations, thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the battle was won and rested happily in silence.
May I quote another point of view to your Lordships?
"The first of these is the existing law that makes you travel to drink and denies it to you in, your own area. At a time when Parliament and the public are rightly concerned about road safety, what can be said for a law which encourages the motorist to drive to get a drink and then to drive home again? The second is the annoyance and disturbance which is caused to the inhabitants of the surrounding country by the irruption into it of the wrong sort of Sunday drinkers in their cars and buses. The peace and quiet of the Scottish Sunday is quickly shattered if the hotel in the town becomes the resort of such people."
These strong words condemning the present law are in columns 810 and 811 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of November 21 (Vol. 235, No. 11) and they were spoken by the Minister of State for Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. So far as the people of Scotland are concerned, those words will continue to be almost equally applicable if the Bill is passed in its present form.
Having said and quoted all these things against the Bill as it stands, may I say, further, that I believe that the real reason why there is no provision for the Sunday opening of public-houses is not that stated by the Ministers but the reluctance of the Scottish Ministers to take this bold and difficult step, which is so much against Scottish tradition, without proof that it is absolutely essential. Obviously, a good way of providing that proof is to open the hotels only, and if proof is in fact forthcoming, then the Ministers will be in a strong position to take the next step, and say that they are now going to bring in a law to permit public-houses to be open on Sunday because it has been clearly demonstrated that the "hotels only" proposal is inadequate.
I am prepared to go a long way with the Government in that reluctance, because it is the sort of reluctance in which I instinctively share. I agree that public-houses should be opened on Sunday only if it is clearly in the public interest to do so, but if these Amendments which I am proposing are rejected and it becomes
840
clear that the opening of hotels alone will not solve this Sunday problem, then another Licensing Bill will have to be introduced, probably after much delay, during which time the demonstrated evils will continue to operate.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 22 (3) of the Bill. To save your Lordships looking it up, I will quote it.
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different provisions of this Act or for different purposes of the same provision."
What I ask your Lordships to do is to accept my Amendments on the basis that, in the first instance, the Secretary of State should fix an appointed day for premises other than public-houses. If, as I regret it probably will be, that step is not in itself sufficient, it will soon be evident, in which case the Secretary of State can then, and only then, proceed to fix an appointed day for the Sunday opening of public-houses. I suggest that this is a way in which the Government can accomplish by one Bill the purposes which they would otherwise require two Bills to bring about. No one in Scotland will object to the Secretary of State's refraining from exercising power which he has taken by law, if it is clear that the exercise of that power is not necessary. On the other hand, the population of Scotland will commend the Ministers if they have armed themselves with the power which I suggest, in case it should be necessary.
My Lords, I said that I had given long and careful consideration to this matter. I went further than that. I tried to get assistance from other people, to try to find out what the opinion was in Scotland, and I found myself, at the beginning of last week, no further forward. I wrote to the Lord Provosts and Provosts of the four cities and fifteen large burghs, to whom I referred earlier, and at the end of the day I found that some of them were unanimously against the opening of public-houses on Sunday, some were unanimously in favour of public-houses being opened on Sunday and in one burgh they were equally divided. So, as all of us have to do at the end of the day, I had to fall back on what I myself thought was the right thing to do.
It seems to me that this is something which either the Minister of State should accept to-day or, if this is too difficult, on which he should at least give a serious undertaking, that an Amendment along these lines will be considered when the measure proceeds to another place. I do not think that the Government are satisfied that the hotels proposal is a guaranteed solution. I believe that they are perhaps justified in not wishing to take two steps at the present time, if the second step is not necessary; but having regard to the real difficulties of getting even essential legislation for the whole country fitted into the Parliamentary programme, I should think that the Government would welcome the opportunity of getting two Bills for the price of one. That certainly is the sort of thing which commends itself to the average Scot. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("(other than public houses)").—(Lord Hughes.)
3.8 p.m.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I should like to apologise for my late intervention in the proceedings relating to this Bill. My absences on previous occasions have been due to circumstances beyond my control. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on the expedition with which they have carried into effect some of the proposals of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. Certainly, an overhaul of the licensing laws of Scotland was long overdue. But I am afraid that my congratulations to the Government cannot be wholehearted. In particular, I regret that they have not seen fit to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee regarding the Sunday opening of public-houses.
The proposals which the Committee made in regard to Sunday opening were designed to deal with two problems and two evils. One was the out-of-date provisions regarding the "bona-fide traveller," and the other evil was what has been conveniently called in your Lordships' House the "bus-boozing parties". So far as the first evil is concerned, that will, of course, be corrected by the proposals of the Bill. So far as the second evil is concerned, I cannot
842
see that the Bill will go any way in dealing with it.
I had understood from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in introducing this Bill on Second Reading, that this was to be a liberalising measure, so far as Scotland was concerned in regard to permitted hours. I do not think it can be taken out of account that actually the proposals of this Bill will considerably restrict the hours during which drink can be consumed in Scotland on Sunday. At present the "bona-fide traveller"—and that really means practically anybody—can drink round 24 hours of the clock. It may be that that is not a good thing and that he should be restricted. But under the Bill the drinking on Sunday will be restricted in regard to time and also in regard to place, because there are permitted hours and these permitted hours will operate in hotels and restaurants only.
I think there is a great deal of force in what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on the Committee stage and in his speech to-day: that it is very doubtful whether in Scotland to-day the facilities exist for coping with the demand which will certainly arise in view of the abolition of the "bona-fide traveller". This is particularly so in the large cities, where it is plain from the figures given by the noble Lord that there are not sufficient hotels to deal with the demand which will arise. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that what has primarily to be considered is the public interest. It is not any sectional interest which has to be appealed to, but what is in the interests of the public as a whole.
There may be a possible alleviation in the position if licensing authorities are generous in their grant of the two new types of certificate—namely, the restaurant certificate and the hotel and restaurant certificate, because that would allow drink to be consumed with meals in these establishments. But unless there is a generous interpretation of the new granting of certificates by licensing authorities I fear the Government will be storing up trouble in the large cities, in that there will not be sufficient drinking facilities for the people who want them. It will also, of course, produce to a worse extent the problem of the

843
motorist who drives to obtain drink and who drives after he has obtained drink, because he will find that in his own city there are not the facilities and he will go to the county where there are more facilities.
Time will show, of course, but unless this Amendment is adopted I fear that considerable trouble will be caused in the big cities. It seems to me that the compromise which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has suggested is very reasonable: this Amendment should be accepted and it should be left to the Secretary of State to say at what time Scotland has become a fit place in which Sunday opening of public-houses can be permitted. For these reasons I wish to support the Amendment.
3.14 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before opposing this Amendment, as I rise to do, I should like to welcome the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken and to say how much we on the Back Benches have missed him during the previous discussions on this Bill. Nevertheless, with due respect to his views and to those clearly and sensibly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as I have said, I oppose the Amendment. I will not repeat the views I expressed on previous stages of the Bill, but I should like briefly to say that I regard the decision of the Government as a bold and proper one. I admit that most of us hope (certainly I do) that the day will come—though I believe that it is far off—when conditions in Scotland will make it possible for all public-houses to be open on Sunday. But there are too many areas where there are poor housing conditions, poor living conditions and numerous public-houses of a very unsavoury type. I think there is no question that the public-house in Scotland, particularly in the busy dockside and industrial districts, is little more than a drinking booth; and conditions still prevail in those areas such as led to the excessive drinking of the days which have been immortalised by such songs as, "Glasgow belongs to me".
Despite all that the noble and learned Lord has just said, I feel the danger of the Sunday "bus boozing party" is so great that if public-houses were to be opened throughout Scotland at this day
844
those "bus boozing parties" would not be discouraged but rather would be encouraged. However, that is an expression of opinion. Admittedly, country areas and areas where living conditions and public-house conditions are better will have to suffer through the general overall situation. And the time is also coming—and it may come soon—when the condition of the Scottish public-houses will be such that all will be places like those in England where a man can take his wife and sit down to a pleasant and possibly convivial evening without excess.
One must admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, that the figures show that in the urban areas, where so few licensed houses will be available on a Sunday, numerous mushroom clubs will spring up—and I shall be referring to that again in connection with another Amendment. But I would, in opposing the Amendment, say that I also look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say about the interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in regard to Clause 22 and the possible use by the Government of the dates. The noble Lord and I are at one in saying that the time will come when public houses in Scotland will be open on Sunday. Nevertheless, I believe the time when conditions will justify such a state of affairs is so far away that new legislation for it will have to be laid before Parliament. That being my view, I personally oppose the Amendment.
3.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in opposing the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself, congratulated the Government on taking a bold and proper decision, that decision being, apparently, to close public houses in Scotland on Sunday; and he looked forward to the day, which he said was far distant, when they would be able to reverse that decision and open public houses in Scotland on Sunday, which presumably would be not bold and proper but timid and improper. He also referred to the fact that in some way he regretted the kind of atmosphere in which people could say, "Glasgow belongs to me". Well, if he and the

845
Government have their way, certainly on Sundays the people of Glasgow will not be able to say in any true sense that Glasgow belongs to them.
It seems to me extraordinary that the Government should have taken this decision in the face of the recommendation made by the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, who, after all, naturally considered this matter not only objectively, but very carefully, and having full regard to all the many and in some cases impassioned representations which were made to them. We are, indeed, indebted to the noble and learned Lord in that he has so quietly and cogently and with the facts supported this Amendment. It appears to me that the Government's attitude in this whole Bill is redolent of complete inconsistency, and that for their main decisions—at least, those to which we object—there is no kind of actual basis. It is manifest that they have given way—in so far as the Scottish Bill differs from the English Bill—to particular pressures, whichever pressure happened at the time to appear to be the heaviest. For example, in connection with the entry of the police into clubs, they have taken what I regard as the right and sensible decision, and one which will stop vicious practices. In this respect they have taken a decision which may well be, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, in line with the best Scottish tradition. But it certainly cannot be regarded as the bold and difficult step for which he asked.
I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, say that it was doubtful if facilities existed in Scotland in view of what he described as the abolition of the "bona-fide traveller". I suppose I speak as a representative of the "bona-fide travellers". My limited knowledge, both of Glasgow and of the less populated parts of Scotland, convinces me that under this Bill, if it goes forward unamended, most of the facilities on Sundays will be in the places which are less populated, and that in the most populous places there will be no facilities at all. I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that that really is the point which he has to answer.
It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, that a lot of these places are drinking dens, bothies. But they are
846
such every day of the week, and the answer to that is not to preclude their use on Sundays but to preclude their use on any day of the week if they are unsatisfactory in those ways. They should be cleaned up in some other way, and I am sure everyone in this House would support any move in that direction. But as the Bill now stands it is absolute hypocrisy—it is humbug. It is giving way to prejudice and, what is more, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, so clearly pointed out, it is going to say that it is not respectable to drink on Sundays in the bothies of Glasgow because the kind of people who go to them cannot be trusted to behave themselves, but it is respectable to go 50 or 100 miles outside Glasgow to drink as much as you like, get thoroughly drunk and then come back and run somebody over. That is what this Bill says.
My noble friend Lord Hughes, in extremely temperate language, has invited the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to say: "We are impressed with the arguments. We are not in a position to accept the Amendment at this stage, but we should like to have it argued further in another place and fully considered". To my mind, my noble friend has gone to the extreme limit of conciliation, and I hope that his offer will be accepted as such by the noble Lord. I hope my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division, and that noble Lords in all parts of the House will support him.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say that I hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or promise, after consideration, a similar Amendment. I think that when people whose first aim is normally to seek popularity—and I think that to some extent that is true of everybody who engages in politics—advocate, in the light of their experience, a measure which is bound to be very unpopular in certain quarters, their arguments should be received with special attention, because they are probably dictated by wisdom.
I owe my first allegiance to another of Scotland's great cities, and not primarily to the one over which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, so ably presided. It happens that I have had to visit Dundee and the outlying parts of that city

847
very frequently in the immediate past, and I should like now to pay my tribute to the authorities of Dundee for the magnificent work they have done in rehousing the population and clearing away unsuitable houses. I think, too, that the authorities of Glasgow deserve exactly the same credit, and that the conditions which lead to heavy drinking are rapidly passing away. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, frankly said as much in his speech, because he talked about the bad old days which have disappeared and which he is afraid may be revived by the opening of public houses on Sunday. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, accurately said, if they are not revived by what goes on on Fridays and Saturdays, it is not likely that their opening on Sunday will promote a debacle. I think, therefore, that the time has come when definite steps should be taken in the direction advocated by Lord Hughes. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put forward his case with great moderation and has left the matter in the hands of the Government. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept either his Amendment or something similar.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of this Amendment? I think I am right in saying that further on in the Bill there is a provision which enables licensed premises not to remain open the whole time that they may remain open. I feel that if the public-houses are open on Sunday, the worst ones, which to a certain extent are concentrated in the dock areas of Glasgow, may find that it does not pay them to open on Sundays, because, with the movement of the main centres of population more and more to the outskirts, the people will find it more convenient to drink near their homes than to come in near their place of work and drink there. I think that in two or three years' time the problem may largely resolve itself. For these reasons I hope that the Government will give the noble Lord the promise he wants. If they do not, I am afraid that I shall have to support him.
3.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, the most important task in this
848
Bill is to get rid of the "traveller" provision which required people to travel on Sunday in order to get a drink at all. We have done this, and we have stopped the nonsense of hotels serving drinks at all hours on Sundays. And in spite of what my noble and learned friend Lord Guest said, I am sure he will agree that that was a nonsense which ought to have been stopped. Now those same hotels and licensed restaurants will be able to give service in an orderly way to their local people as well as to tourists. I agree with my noble and learned friend that the licensing courts can give us some help by being fairly free with granting restricted hotel and restaurant certificates. In the last 100 years, while the "bona-fide traveller" provision has been becoming steadily more ridiculous, Scottish pubs have been closed on Sundays. It is not that we are closing them now as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said: they have been closed for a hundred years. Now no one objects to regulated drinking and having permitted hours in hotels, restaurants and clubs; but does this regulation justify the Sunday opening for the first time of similarly regulated pubs?
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, read in detail the recommendations of the Guest Committee; and we have, of course, studied them very carefully. I must thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for his congratulations, and I understand why he cannot congratulate us in this case. Both noble Lords are concerned particularly with the maldistribution of hotels and with social injustice. But those who live in the badly served areas have made no serious representations to my right honourable friend since the Bill was published, and they have known since the Bill was published that the battle, to use the noble Lord's own words, "was not won." The pubs in those areas are not open on Sundays now. The way of life of the people in those areas seems to be such that they have no burning desire for the pub on the corner" to be open on Sundays—indeed, the reverse is true. Nearly all those organisations concerned with the way of life of the people, and many more besides, have expressed to my right honourable friend in no uncertain terms that they do not want, and that the majority of Scottish people do not want, the pubs open on Sundays.

849
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the Government were reluctant to take this bold and difficult step. He knows that Governments cannot govern unless they take such steps, especially where the national interest is concerned; and that we are prepared to do. But this is not such a case. What is at stake is the way of life of our people and the extent to which they wish their Sunday to be a day apart; and for that reason I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has suggested a way out by using Clause 22 (3). As the noble Lord would expect, I have not had a great deal of time to look at this suggestion. But to adopt his Amendment would seem to me

ARMS FOR INDONESIA
3.40 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement about arms for Indonesia. Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned by the dangerous
850
to imply that public-houses ought eventually to be opened whether or not the Government's proposals prove to be adequate or to satisfy the Scottish public, as we think they will. I will give him an undertaking that we will, of course, look at this proposal very carefully; but I cannot give him, and he will not expect me to give him, an undertaking that we will bring forward an Amendment in another place embodying his proposal.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 41; Not-Contents 48.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L.

Grenfell, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Amwell, L.

Guest, L.

Sandford, L.

Atholl, D.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Auckland, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sinclair, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Burden, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Latham, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lucan, E.

Taylor, L.

Denning, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams, L.

Derwent, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northesk, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Furness, V.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ferrier, L.

Mills, L.

Bossom, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Carrington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newall, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Haddington, E.

Perth, E.

Cobbold, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rank, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Home, E.

Reid, L.

Coutanche, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Devonport, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Lambert, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

which has arisen between Indonesia and the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea. It is the firm hope of Her Majesty's Government that a negotiated settlement will be reached, and they are supporting the steps being taken to this end. They are accordingly most anxious not to do anything at this delicate stage which might increase tension in the area or in any way add to the possibility of armed conflict. Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided, as a temporary measure until the situation over

851
West New Guinea has been clarified, that, apart from completing an outstanding order for ground radar equipment, they must suspend the export of arms and military equipment from Britain to Indonesia.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, and the purpose behind the decision is undoubtedly worthy of respect and consideration. We are a little anxious, perhaps, whatever is done on this occasion, as to how far the Government's policy of the control of export of armaments is to run. I understood that there had been some difficulty between London and Washington with regard to the continued export of aeroplanes to Red China. If the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary feels there is no inconsistency in the two matters, all right, but I am just wondering exactly how we should regard them, although I can see a different basis for argument
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I 'think the two matters are different. This is a situation in which, on the evidence before us, war might be quite near. The other matter is one which concerns trade between the West and the Sino-Soviet bloc, and certain elements of that, certain things of military consequence which we do not sell to China. I do not think I will go into the question of the Chinese deal, but I think there is no inconsistency between the two decisions.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, are not the aeroplanes which are being exported to China civil aircraft, whereas the Indonesia decision relates entirely to purely military supplies?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that—I do not want to stop the answer to the noble Earl—is not the basis of the American objection that fittings and other things would be very valuable in the actual mounting of warfare?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question is, Yes, these are civil aircraft. The answer to the noble Viscount is also partly Yes, because some of the things in the Viscount planes are on a strategic list, or could be. I do not think I should like to go into it fully without notice.

GUATEMALAN INCURSION INTO BRITISH HONDURAS
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Perth is prepared to make one statement and my noble friend Lord Newton is ready to follow him.
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice on the attempted invasion (shall I call it?) of British Honduras.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, on January 21 some 30 armed Guatemalan civilians entered the Toledo District of British Honduras. In the village of Pueblo Viejo they are reported to have burnt the Union Jack and hoisted the Guatemalan flag. Some of them went on to the village of San Antonio and beyond. Troops of the Royal Hampshire Regiment arrived in Punta Gorda yesterday morning and went inland to deal with the situation. This morning it is reported that the band has broken up and for the most part is returning, or has returned, to Guatemala. The search, in case any of the band may still be in the territory, continues. Her Majesty's Minister in Guatemala City has been instructed to make representations immediately and to ask for an assurance that there will be no repetition of such an incident.

THE OUTBREAK OF SMALLPDX
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, whether he will answer my Private Notice Question on the present position in relation to the outbreak of smallpox?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords. It may be for the convenience of the House if I repeat to your Lordships the statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, has just made in another place:
"Five persons infected with smallpox are known to have arrived at London Airport from Pakistan between

853
December 16 and January 11. All five had valid international certificates of recent revaccination. So far as is known, there have been no secondary cases to date from three of these persons and only one from the fourth. The fifth was a girl of nine who had been successfully vaccinated in infancy. She arrived on December 16, was admitted to Bradford Children's Hospital on December 23, with malaria, and died on December 30 with no clinical sign of smallpox, which was deduced on January 11 as soon as secondary cases occurred among her contacts in the hospital. Ten of these have been confirmed so far and two are suspected; four have died. All known contacts have been vaccinated and placed under medical surveillance."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He said that five Pakistanis have come into this country with vaccination certificates that were not valid?
LORD NEWTON: With certificates that were valid.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask whether that answer means that all such immigrants are examined to see whether they have available vaccination certificates, and does it mean that if they have not they are excluded?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords. The position is that we in this country have never put into force Article 83 of the International Sanitary Regulations of 1951, which says:
"A health administration may require any person on an international voyage who does not show sufficient evidence of protection by a previous attack of smallpox to possess on arrival a valid certificate of vaccination against smallpox."
The Article then provides that a valid certificate shall be considered as evidence of sufficient protection. But I explained earlier this afternoon, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that in the Government's view better protection is normally afforded by a system of warning and follow-up.
ViscouNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask whether the Government intend to proceed any further with examination of the general circumstances in relation to
854
this question, to accommodate the people among the population who are pressing hard for a system of certificates of health, with regard not only to vaccination against smallpox but to other matters (such as are required, for example, in the United States, where a certificate should be not more than three years old) and to see whether anything has happened at all in this outbreak which would make the Government wish to depart from their present system?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider all these matters as the result of the outbreaks of smallpox in this country. But he is not of the view that so far as smallpox is concerned these international certificates serve any really useful purpose.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask, whether or not with regard to the measure of agreement in Europe upon this matter, effective steps have now been taken to prevent people from a smallpox infected area from coming through the usual procedure—say through France—without having any check upon them? Has it been found that they have got in through other territories en route and have then come through France, thus escaping what would be the normal check upon people from these areas?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, steps are taken to discover whether or not people who come to this country originated from what are recognised as infected areas. The controls now in operation are believed to be more stringent than are in force anywhere else, and so far as we are aware all of these five cases would have entered any other country under the controls which they operate.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when it was discovered that these five suspects had valid vaccination certificates? Was it on entry, or when they were found to be smallpox suspects? Can he further enlarge on his statement that these international certificates are of little use?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the answer to the first question is, I think, on entry. There are two reasons why

855
we in this country have not put into effect the provisions of Article 83—that is the one which concerns these international certificates. The first is that vaccination is not compulsory for our own people since the repeal of the Vaccination Acts; and secondly, the majority of people producing international certificates will do so as evidence of revaccination. The certificate, while it shows that the person has been vaccinated, does not give any evidence of successful revaccination—that is to say, there is no guarantee that the revaccination has taken.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in the case of these five people was there any evidence, apart from the international certificate, that they had in fact been vaccinated recently?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, I do not think there was.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a most scandalous state of affairs, and should we not draw the attention of the Government of Pakistan to the fact that certificates appear to be issued by doctors in Pakistan without the persons' being vaccinated?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I recognise that that is a view which is taken, but I think it is something which is very difficult to prove.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have visited Pakistan and I know Karachi. Is it not the fact that the number of qualified doctors in these Eastern countries is so limited that it is completely unrealistic for noble Lords to ask for certificates? One doubts whether the doctors who for the most part treat these people are qualified in our sense of the word to vaccinate, and therefore we cannot really talk about this matter as though it had a British background in regard to medicine. If you ask all these people to have a certificate of vaccination it simply means that you are limiting immigration in that way.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I did not ask for these certificates. The only people who
856
asked apparently were the immigration authorities, quite reasonably, and these ladies and gentlemen produced them.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: They are forgeries.
LORD TAYLOR: My noble friend says they are all forgeries. That was exactly what I was complaining about. If they are forgeries, then it is a most scandalous state of affairs.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: They have not got the doctors.
LORD TAYLOR: This is extraordinary.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, all five immigrants from Pakistan had the international certificates and they were valid —that is to say, in the judgment of those who examined them they were not forgeries. But, as I have said several times, we in this country do not require people coming into the country to produce these documents. As I said before, we do not think that they serve a very useful purpose.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, to be quite fair to the Pakistani doctors, is the noble Lord aware that many of the doctors who are now busily vaccinating people in Britain are from Pakistan?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, far be it for me to intervene between the trilogy of noble Lords and the noble Lady opposite.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in one sense the situation is going rather in reverse? Not only is Pakistan looked upon as an infected area, but Britain is looked upon by other countries as an infected area. Can he tell us what steps are being taken in regard to that? Are people who wish to go abroad to be asked for a special certificate?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that it is not for us to stop people from leaving these shores if they want to. What we want to do is to make certain that we do not allow into this country people who have already been infected.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the proposed or actual take-over bid by Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, of Courtaulds, Limited, and whether they propose to make an inquiry into the merger?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I should tell the House that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was asked by Private Notice in another place some moments ago a Question, Whether Her Majesty's Government will set up a public inquiry into the effects on the public interest of the proposed merger between I.C.I. and .Courtaulds.
My Lords, in answer to that question my right honourable friend said that
"Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the interest of the House in this important matter. The House will realise, however, that the issues involved are complex. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a statement today, but hope to be able to do so very shortly."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the working class organisations concerned in industry and industrial conditions are most interested to see the attitude of the supporters of the Conservative Government and how they treat a monopoly, or proposed monopoly? They seem to make inadequate plans for dealing with private monopolies, but interfere in every possible case when dealing with the nationalised industries.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I will pursue this matter with the Leader of the Opposition. When the noble Viscount sees the statement that is made, when it is made, I think we shall be in a position to discuss it more fully.

RAILWAY WAGES NEGOTIATIONS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government tell us what communication has been sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wage negotiations?
4.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the communication to which the Question refers was sent yesterday by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, and also to the General Secretaries of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. It has already been published in full in the Press. It reads as follows:
"The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission has at present under consideration.
"In the Government's view, two considerations arc paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140 million, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government arc bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.
"The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained in Parliament in recent months, and in his letter of January 10, 1962, to the Trades Union Congress, the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in in-comes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.
"Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before April I, 1962.

859
"In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration".
My Lords, that is the text. The main purpose of the communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation and the railways themselves are faced at the present time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who made that reply whether he is aware that the reference of this matter to arbitration in the present circumstances is quite extraordinary, after what has already happened? Here we are, getting all our letters, in some cases letters on urgent business, five, six or seven days late, as a result of the action of the Postmaster General, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you bring another threat upon us in regard to this very important section of the transport arrangements of this country. Here is a case where the governing, body of the Transport Commission has made an offer, a specific offer, to the workers in this industry. It has already referred to the date when it thinks it will operate. But the Minister jumps in between, without giving the workers in the industry any opportunity to continue negotiations on either the amount or the date. I think that is a most extraordinary confirmation of the stupidity of the Government and the way in which they have acted in regard to what has always been well-recognised procedure.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN:My Lords, may I suggest that this is really an occasion where we should bear in mind the importance of allowing industrial activities in this country to manage their own business, whether it be I.C.I., Courtaulds, or the nationalised railways? The sooner the railways are broken up into four separate groups, managing their own affairs and not under nationalisation, the better it will be for the convenience of the British public.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we are getting to the stage where a large
860
number of questions are being asked, and I think my noble friend had better deal with one set before taking on another.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was not entirely surprised by the reaction of the noble Viscount opposite, but I must make it perfectly clear—and I think I should be misleading the House if I did not do so—that I cannot quite fathom what it is he is driving at when he accuses the Government of in some way blocking a specific offer which has been made to the railway unions. It is news to me that there is any specific offer under consideration. I must impress upon your Lordships that we have a difficult and unusual set of circumstances in the large deficit which has to he met each year. The Government formed the view that the most satisfactory course was for the matter to go before arbitration in the circumstances laid down, which is in no way stepping outside the agreed machinery, and for the issue to go to arbitration. The Government felt that it was only fair to both parties to make their views known before the meeting which is taking place to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But is it not a fact that negotiations were going to take place to-day in relation to the offer to which I referred—negotiations on the amount?
LORD CHESHAM: No, My Lords. As I understand it, certain requests had been made by the union concerned, and at the meetings to-day the unions, as I understand it, were expecting to hear an answer from the British Transport Commission, not to discuss some specific offer which the B.T.C. had made.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, while we should all, I think, accept the importance of the very grave financial situation of the railways, there is one point which is puzzling many of us. As I understand it—if I may put this in the form of a question—the ordinary position, whether it is in the railways or in any other industry where there is a normal conciliation process, is that negotiations should take place between the management and the unions concerned. Then, if those negotiations break down, the matter should go to arbitration. With

861
respect, I do not see that there is any objection to the Government's making plain what they regard as matters which, in the national interest, have to be considered.
What I should like the Minister to make clear to the House is this. Why in this case was it necessary to intervene in the process of discussion between the commercial management and the unions, and to override all that and send the matter to arbitration? Is it not probable that, if that has been done in this case, it may have a very serious effect upon the whole process of negotiation and arbitration throughout industry?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, when the noble Earl comes to read my earlier replies I think the matter will become quite clear to him. I should make this absolutely clear because I thought—I am sorry if I do him an injustice—that I detected a slight note of compulsion in this matter. Had the communication that I read out to your Lordships been in some sense a direction, I think that what the noble Earl said would be, perhaps, better justified. But I thought I had made it clear why the Government, because of the financial position of the nation, and because of the bad position of the railways themselves, had formed the view that, in order to take all the relevant factors which I mentioned into consideration, they should ask for the matter to go to arbitration. My Lords, I do not think that that can really be written off as intervention or interference.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, among at least two of the railway trade unions, the trade union leaders have had quite distinct trouble in keeping their membership within the bounds of the machinery? There has been a desire among some of the membership to go outside the machinery, but the trade union leaders, quite faithfully, and with a great deal of success, have kept negotiations within the machinery. This action of the Minister, in intervening while the machinery is still proceeding, destroys the stand of the trade union leaders and is a help to those subservient elements who would like direct action.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he
862
has pointed out, and again I think that it would perhaps be more justified if the Minister had attempted positively to interfere with the agreed processes of negotiation. But, as I said, the point of this particular communication was that he was extremely careful to keep within the bounds of the negotiating process.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is it not the case in this instance that the Minister has really resorted to a general direction under the law, which I know he is entitled to make? But is that not in conflict with the electricity case in which, when he was challenged for letting the electricity matter go, he said that he had no power to give a direction to these Boards? Does this not mean that this is a direction; and, if the British Transport Commission are in financial trouble, has that not been caused in part by the legislation of the Government in taking road commercial transport away from them? If the Government rely on the fact that in this industry there is a deficit, what does the noble Lord say about the Post Office where there is no deficit, and where the Government have also interfered with the normal processes of negotiation? Could we have from the Parliamentary Secretary something like a straightening-out of these various contradictions?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord cannot have heard my last answer but one.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did, but I do not agree with it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord heard that answer, I can only think that he must have chosen deliberately to misunderstand it, because what I said and where the noble Lord was perfectly right—was that this is not a direction; indeed, as the noble Lords said, there is no power to direct in this matter. Perhaps, if the noble Lord will have the courtesy to read this statement when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that for himself. But I must make it plain, and any one of your Lordships who has heard what I read out or takes the trouble to read it will see, that this is not a direction. As the noble Lord said, there is no power to give a direction on this matter. It is just no good for the

863
noble Lord to continue to refer to it as a direction, which it is not.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, does it not follow from that, that if there is no compulsion the Chairman of the Commission is free to reject the advice given him by the Minister and proceed to operate the conciliation machinery?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships could reasonably expect me to answer that question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD CHESHAM: If I may have a moment, perhaps I can say why. In my view, that comes under the terms of a hypothetical question and, furthermore, I do not think your Lordships would think it right for me to try to anticipate the result of the meetings that are being held to-day.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord impress upon his colleagues that, whatever may be said in question and answer in this House or in another place, every railwayman in this country knew that the trade union leaders were meeting the Transport Commission this afternoon to receive a reply to the negotiations that have previously taken place? The statement of the Minister will be taken by every railwayman, and pounced upon by subservient elements, to be Governmental interference in the course of wage negotiations.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if that is so—and I am sorry to think that the noble Lord should have to tell me that it is—I am sure that the noble Lord will be one of those, among many others, who will do their best to see that the true position is properly understood.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I should think that my noble friend who has had long experience of railway service has a proper reputation on that matter, but the noble Lord opposite really cannot expect to ask him to take a line against the proper action of trade union leaders in their own unions in this respect. I think that they are now entitled to submit their case upon the matter, not only to the Minister but to the public. May
864
I ask this last question? As the Government saw fit to hive off a very important part of the Commission's operations and put it into private enterprise, and if the rule suggested now by the Chancellor is that remuneration and income should be in accordance with production, will the Government now consider giving directions—as they give them to the nationalised bodies—to those who own the private industry which they have handed back?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, is it not perfectly clear by now that the man largely responsible for all of this trouble is the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is sitting on the opposite side of the House and who, through his activities in another place, nationalised these bodies and dragged the Government unwillingly into these negotiations?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would think it time that I made another statement about a different subject.

EXPORT CREDITS
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would respectfully repeat here a statement which must by now have been made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My Lords, the statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to inform the House that as a result of discussions between the Bank of England and leading banks and insurance companies, details are being announced to-day of new arrangements for the finance of export contracts which are covered by a direct bank guarantee given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The London clearing banks and the Scottish banks have agreed to provide finance for export contracts at a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. for terms between three and five years, while a group of member companies of the British Insurance Association have agreed to lend up to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. where finance in excess of five years is needed.
"The effect of this arrangement is two-fold. First, it means that medium-term finance for exports will now be available at fixed rates more favourable than the present rates. Second, it means that substantial funds will be available to fill the gap between the period of up to five years post-shipment, which the banks are normally prepared to cover, and the longer terms which are normally more suitable for insurance companies.
"These arrangements represent a notable advance on the present position. For the first time the banks as well as the insurance companies will adopt a general practice of providing export finance at a fixed rate, irrespective of fluctuations in bank rate. Moreover, the rates will be markedly better than those obtainable at present. Thus, whereas bank credit would at present generally cost 1 per cent. over bank rate and would change as bank rate changed, it will, if it is provided under these arrangements, cost 5½ per cent. fixed. Only therefore if bank rate were to fall to 4 per cent. or lower would the normal overdraft rate be better than the rate now proposed; and even then the borrower might well prefer 5½ per cent. fixed to 5 per cent. fluctuating with bank rate. The participation of the insurance companies in these arrangements will not only, as I have said, provide a significant amount of longer-term finance, but will also ensure that it is available at about 1 per cent. less than is at present the case. They are to set up a special company to handle this business for them.
"These arrangements are to run for a period of five years in the first instance. The Government 'warmly welcome the action of the banks and insurance companies in making them possible. I hope that other institutions, including, for example, those responsible for pension funds, will feel able in time to participate, so increasing the total amount of finance available."
My Lords, that is the statement that my right honourable and learned friend has made.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will welcome any approach towards more stability in the financing
866
of export trade, which certainly is in need of help to-day. However, I shall want a little time to study what are the actuarial consequences of this fixed rate for five years, and whether the suggestion in the statement is correct that, on the whole, people might prefer this fixed rate of 5½ per cent. right through as against taking the chance of a lower rate. But one thing is quite certain. Stability will be welcomed by the trade, but certainly the banks, as usual, will win, whatever happens to industry.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN:My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether the insurance companies have actually guaranteed this great sum of £100 million?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, they have agreed to lend up to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. The distinction is between the banks, which lend for a shorter period at 5½ per cent., and the insurance companies, which lend for a longer period at 6½ per cent.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "three" and insert "half-past two". The noble Duke said: My Lords, at our present rate we should take at least 50 minutes on Amendment No. 1, but I will try to be brief to see if our average can in fact be improved. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 4 together. They are, in fact, on absolutely the same subject. Amendment No. 1 applies to hotels and Amendment No. 4 to public-houses, but the arguments and everything else about them are the same.
As the Bill stands at the moment, the afternoon break in licensed premises will be from the nominal three o'clock to five o'clock. I say the "nominal three o'clock" because all restaurants are allowed an extra half hour in which to serve wine and spirits to the tables as an ancillary to meals, and all licensed premises are going to be allowed an extra ten minutes for "drinking up". The effect of this will be that the afternoon break will theoretically be an hour

867
and fifty minutes, which will mean a break for the staff of an hour and a quarter at the outside. In the hotels this will be down to three-quarters of an hour because of the extra half an hour allowed. I think that this period is much too short. It does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose at all, and I feel that, if it is possible, it should be extended.
I am told that it would be most difficult to make the evening opening time later than 5 o'clock. Apparently many people like having a drink on their way home and a lot of business is done in the hotels and public houses between five and six o'clock by people on their way home. Therefore, all the licensed trade would be most reluctant to see the five o'clock opening time go. But I feel it is absolutely unnecessary for pubs to be open after half past two in the afternoon. People should have finished their lunch by them, and, in my opinion, they should be back at work. After all, your Lordships are able to arrive here by half past two, so I do not see why other people should not be subject to the same time. This does not apply on Sundays, when the times are completely different. That is the one day on which people might be allowed extra time. But the Government, in their wisdom, have said half past two on Sundays and three o'clock on weekdays. I feel that, if any thing, it should be the other way round. I should just like to point out that you would still be able to drink ancillary to your meal (I think that is the technical expression) until ten minutes past three, and if you were not finished your lunch by then I really think that perhaps you would be overdoing it. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert ("half-past two").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Duke in this Amendment. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to bring the afternoon terminal hour forward by one hour—that is to say, from 3 o'clock to 2 o'clock. The noble Duke wishes to bring it forward by half an hour. There are two points, really, for bringing the terminal hour forward. The first is that, by general consent, there
868
seems to be no real desire to be served with drinks up to as late as 3 p.m.; and the second is that the staff should have a reasonable break during the afternoon before they start again at 5 p.m. with the long, five-hour evening session in front of them. As I said on Committee stage, we feel that the publicans must be considered just as much as the public who want to drink at the public-houses. I withdrew my Amendment, and I think the noble Duke withdrew, too, on the undertaking of Her Majesty's Minister to look into these times very carefully to see if he could readjust them to some advantage. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord on the Front Bench will be able to accept this Amendment, which I think is a reasonable one.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to say that I also support the noble Duke in this proposal. It seems quite obvious that the provisions as they stand give an inadequate time for the staff to accomplish the duties of closing up the public house or bar and reopening, as well as taking an adequate break for themselves. I should be very surprised if the noble Lord, the Minister of State, found it in his heart to oppose this very reasonable proposal, and I should think that, after the shock he recently had, he would not dare risk it.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sure you are all willing to listen to the other side of the story. This Amendment, taking half an hour off the lunch-time week-day drinking time, is not matched by any other Amendment adding that half an hour at any other time on a week-day. This raises two points. First, one wonders whether Scotland should have half an hour less drinking time than the English minimum period. The noble Duke has not given us any reason why that should be. Secondly. one concludes that the noble Duke does not consider that there is any other half-hour period during the week during which there is any greater legitimate demand than the period between 2.30 and 3 o'clock.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Could he tell us the hours in England? I have an idea that they are later throughout the day, and run from 5.30 in the evening until 10.30, which would give the

869
longer afternoon break. But I may be wrong on that.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Duke is quite right; the hours are from 5.30 to 10.30,. So your Lordships are asked only to consider the merits of 2.30 or 3 p.m. closing. The Guest Committee considered this point, and 3 p.m. was their recommendation. Many of your Lordships, in an earlier Amendment, placed great weight on the recommendations of the Guest Committee. The Guest Committee say, in paragraph 82, that an early break gives rise to considerable inconvenience to travellers who wish to have liquor with a late meal. The noble Earl who spoke second said that there is no desire to close at 3 o'clock, As of now, more Scottish licensing areas have a 3 o'clock closing than have any other time. In Committee I have given your Lordships the figures: 38 areas close at 2 o'clock; 47 at 2.30 and 50 at 3 o'clock. I think that all your Lordships agree with the Government that we are in favour of standardisation of permitted hours, but the new policy of standardisation must certainly meet present local needs, so far as is practicable. Why should 50 licensing areas—that is more than one-third of all our areas—close half an hour earlier than they do now, as a result of this Bill?
The staffing problem which has been raised should not be an overriding consideration, for three reasons. First, it is not every trade that has a break at all in the middle of the day, and certainly not one of an hour and fifty minutes. Secondly, of course there are staffing difficulties; there are difficulties in giving service to the public, in giving hall porter or night room service in hotels, in manning switchboards, and the like. But these are real problems which can be met only by careful rearrangement of working methods. The third reason not only answers the staffing difficulty but seems to the Government to justify above everything else the retention of 3 o'clock. The permitted hours are, in fact, permissive; they are not obligatory. A certificate holder can, within these hours, open his premises to meet his own problems and local needs. So for those reasons I would ask your Lordships to reject the noble Duke's Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is only one argument of the noble Lord that I did not quite follow. He said, why should Scotland have shorter hours than England? Your Lordships have just decided by 48 votes to 41 that Scotland should have fewer hours in the week than the English. Therefore, I do not see the force of that argument in rejecting this Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: I was referring to the permitted hours, not to the number of licensed premises open.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.35 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTONmoved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "nine" and insert "half-past nine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' agreement, I should like to discuss Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 together. There are two reasons for putting down this Amendment extending the Sunday evening drinking time by half an hour. First, we want, so far as Scottish conditions permit, to keep in step with England and, as the Bill is framed now, while England has 5½ Sunday permitted hours, Scotland has only 5. So it seems right to give ourselves another half an hour, and this is clearly the right place to take it, on a Sunday evening. Secondly, the Guest Committee, in their Report, made it clear that their recommendation to close at 9 o'clock was influenced by their recommendation that pubs also should be open. Now that this is not to he, the case for an early closing is not so strong. That is the reason for our Amendment.
Now I turn to the noble Duke's Amendment. He prefers from 6 o'clock to 10 o'clock to 6 to 9.30. If he had proposed 6.30 to 10, making in all a hours period, starting and ending half an hour later than we suggest, I should have said that the choice between the two was a matter of opinion, but that the Guest Committee preferred an earlier start. As I have pointed out, this, with drinking with meals, would mean drinking until 10.30 p.m., or until 11.30 p.m. where an extension permitted, which your Lordships might consider to be a little too late. But the noble Lord wishes not only a 10 p.m. finish, but a 6 p.m. start. That means 6 hours Sunday drinking,

871
half an hour more than England has, and half an hour more than we consider to be the right period. It is for that reason, as the overriding consideration, that I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Duke's Amendment and to accept mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nine") and insert ("half-past nine").—(Lord Craigton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I take it that your Lordships are agreed with the noble Lord that Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 be discussed together at this stage.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think it would be more convenient if I spoke now on my Amendment, which I have every intention of moving when the time comes. I think it is ridiculous to stop drinking at 9.40 in clubs, or at 10.10 with a meal in hotels, on a Sunday, which will be the case if the Government Amendment is carried. That is a big improvement, I must truthfully admit, on the Bill as originally drafted, and I should like to thank my noble friend very much for coming half way towards me, but I feel that he might be really kind and come the whole way with me. Scotland, in the summer anyway, stays light very late at night, and many people will remain outside after their tea until 9.30 p.m., 10 o'clock, or even 10.30 p.m., on Sundays, taking healthy exercise, which is a thing which, through numerous debates, your Lordships have encouraged. These people have been in the habit, heretofore, thanks to "bona-fide travellers," of being "bona-fide travellers" themselves and so able to obtain drink up till midnight on a Sunday after they have taken their exercise; and they have found this very convenient and very beneficial, and very restorative.
The second consideration is that an enormous number of visitors who come to our country find our licensing laws immensely complicated, and as I think all noble Lords have said, it will make it far easier for them if the licensing laws are the same throughout the country and for every day of the week so far as possible. There are no church services which start after 6.30 on Sunday, and therefore I cannot see that the argument for having different times for the Sunday
872
morning session or later opening on Sunday evening applies to earlier closing on Sunday evening. I think that visitors and tourists to Scotland would find it much easier throughout the week if the final closing hour were 10 o'clock for the whole week and not 10 o'clock on weekdays and 9.30 on Sundays.
I was going to withdraw this Amendment had the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, been carried, because I think that there is some argument for earlier closing so far as pubs are concerned. Pubs are often built into blocks of tenements in Scotland, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment had been carried, I think it might have been nice for children to have quiet on one night a week at 9.40 as opposed to 10.10. But as your Lordships rejected the noble Lord's Amendment, this will apply only to hotels and restaurants, and I cannot see why they should not stay open until 10 o'clock on Sunday.
The noble Lord says that this will give us half an hour more drinking time in Scotland than in England on Sundays. That is perfectly true. But someone has to lead the way. England has thousands and thousands of pubs where people can drink to their hearts' content on Sundays, and I feel sure that if this applied only to hotels in England the Government would have seen their way in the 1959 Bill to give an extra half hour's drinking time on Sundays. The noble Lord says that I want the evening session to start at 6 o'clock. I have no particular desire for the evening session to start at 6 o'clock. What I am told is that it would be most unpopular with all concerned if it did not start then. I hope that your Lordships will support a 10 o'clock closing time on Sundays and not 9.30.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should be very glad if the Government could see their sway to support my noble friend's Amendment. If a four 'finish a game of golf at 11 o'clock, they cannot go back and get a drink at that hour. There is a lot of prejudice and feeling, without reason, about this question of alcohol, and I could very much wish that the whole question were considered in a much more objective way. After all, alcohol is one of the few medicines which are provided by nature in a natural state and one of the earliest to be discovered by

873
man, as anybody Who reads the Norse account of the discovery of America will remember.
If there is any time at which alcohol is really beneficial to man it is late at night and I would be very glad to see restrictions on the service of alcohol up to midnight removed. The opponents of "the demon rum" tell us that if you give a man a paper or card on which there are marked squares with various numbers, and move the card about and ask him to try to spike high numbers, it is easy for him to make a fairly constant score; but give a man a glass of brandy and he immediately thinks that he makes a better score, while making a worse one. That precisely is the value to man of alcohol. At night, when a man's brain is overtired, he goes to bed and cannot sleep because of the business of the day and anxieties of the future going about like wheels in his head. Then it is that alcohol serves the purpose of a really beneficial medicine and enables a man to rest. I welcome the noble Duke's Amendment and would very much welcome the omission of anything which prevents people from getting alcohol up to at least midnight.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the only point at issue is the merits of 9.30 or 10 o'clock as closing time. The Government's position is that we put five hours in the Bill. The Guest Committee recommended five hours. England has five and a half hours and we have put down an Amendment to make it five and a half hours in Scotland. We do not think that at this stage we should ask your Lordships to agree to any more than five and a half hours.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I feel that the noble Duke has made two valid points on the differences from the situation which exists in England. One is the greater number of daylight hours in summer in Scotland; the other is the fact that we are endeavouring to create a great tourist trade in our country. I honestly think that tourists would like to know exactly when drinking stops every day of the week, and this half hour difference between Sunday and other days of the week seems to me to be quite unnecessary in that connection. The tourist, whether he comes from England or
874
abroad, whether it be from a Commonwealth country or elsewhere, likes to enjoy the Scottish scene for as long as possible during his brief visit to our country, and to say that he cannot enjoy the scenery after the hour of about 9 o'clock, if he wishes to have refreshment, seems to me to be quite unreasonable. Why should he not be able to enjoy the scenery until the last possible moment without having to sacrifice a drink when he arrives back at his hotel or wherever he may be staying?
I ask my noble friend the Minister to take these two points into further consideration before coming to a final decision. Maybe he cannot do anything at this stage in your Lordships' House, but there is another place, to which this Bill will be referred in due course, and the Government may give consideration to these matters when the Bill goes to another place.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I have already said that we have a very open mind about this, but we do not feel at this stage that we can go further than five and a half hours. If noble Lords feel differently, it is in the hands of the noble Duke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to move formally the next Amendment, No. 3, because I wish to divide the House on it.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Duke cannot divide on this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLI,: My Lords, I am told that I cannot divide on this Amendment, in which case I can certainly divide on No. 6, which is exactly the same thing, and occurs later in the Bill. I will reserve my ammunition for it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, is the noble Duke not moving this Amendment?
LORD CROOK: My Lords, can the rest of the House be taken into the confidence of the Minister?
LORD CRAIGTON: The Government wish 9.30 and the noble Duke wishes 10 o'clock. The noble Duke refuses to

875
accept my 9.30 and wishes to insert 10. By refusing to oppose 9.30, I am afraid that he has got it in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, we have accepted half-past-nine, but it is still open to the noble Duke to move that it should be half an hour longer. We are not going to refuse half a loaf, while hoping for a whole one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, does the noble Duke wish to pursue his Amendment?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I very much wish to pursue it. I thought that I had made that clear throughout.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought that I heard the noble Duke say that he had no intention of moving this Amendment. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am sorry. I have every intention of moving Amendment No. 3. I should like to point out, in addition to what I said before, that Lord Guest's Committee said, in their Report:
"It seems to us appropriate, too, that there should be a fairly early closing at night, particularly in the case of public houses."
Owing to a previous decision of this House public-houses will not be open, and I should have thought that 10 o'clock was still a fairly early closing time; certainly, I should not describe it as very late, or even late. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to support me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nine") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no more right than any of your Lordships, but it is usual when we discuss a number of Amendments to reserve the position for a particular Amendment. However, in this case, if the noble Duke wishes to divide the House on this Amendment, then, so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to speak on the Amendment before I put the Question for the last time.
LORD CRAIGTON: Which Amendment is this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is Amendment No. 3 on the Marshalled List.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am not perfectly clear and I should like some guidance on the position. We have inserted "half-past nine" in page 5, line 29, and this is not an Amendment to an Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is this difficulty. I do not think the noble Duke did reserve his position, and really he ought to have divided against "half-past nine" before the House took a decision on the time. He is also in the technical difficulty that the Amendment now applies to a word which is no longer in the Bill, because it is now "half-past nine". I do not know whether, in those circumstances, the noble Duke wishes to press this Division. It may well be that noble Lords thought that in voting for half-past nine they were taking a decision on this particular problem in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am in the hands of your Lordships, but I should like to go ahead with this Amendment. I should be delighted, of course, to press the Amendment to Clause 6, which applies to licensed restaurants. I would point out that presumably if this Amendment is carried we shall get half-past ten, which might be thought to be better still. But I realise that there may be some difficulty about that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Duke wish to press this Amendment? I only want to know. I have no interest in the matter except to put the Question.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If we carry the Amendment to Clause 6, shall I have the opportunity on Third Reading to bring Clause 4 into line with Clause 6?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Duke will have the opportunity, but many noble Lords with great weight in the counsels of your Lordships have deprecated the placing of Amendments on Third Reading. However, the noble Duke can do it, if he so desires.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: With the reservation that in the event of Amendment No. 6 succeeding I can on Third Reading put down an Amendment in

877
order to bring Clause 4 into line, which I hope your Lordships will pass, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHEShad given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should be tempted to move this Amendment, and to take it to a Division, in the hope that we might do something about it, but for the fact that it would be completely against the undertaking given. We discussed this Amendment earlier, and I accepted that the vote taken should be the vote on this Amend
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. We have already discussed it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("nine") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have been listening with great interest to the most enthusing series of Amendments and speeches made on Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may consider this a circum
878
ment also. I therefore do not move the Amendment.
Clause 6 [Restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("nine") and insert ("half-past nine").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mersey, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Northesk, E.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Perth, E.

Bossom, L.

Guest, L.

Polwarth, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Coutanche, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Craigton, L

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Haddington, E.

Sandford, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Sinclair, L.

Auckland, L.

Latham, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucan, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Meston, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor, L.

Forbes, L.

Newall, L.

Teynham, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Furness, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Wise, L.

Gosford, E.

Rea, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

stance which would justify the moving of Amendments on Third Reading, if necessary, in order to clarify matters.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no right to object to Amendments on Third Reading. I was only informing the noble Duke as to the practice of the House. It has often been stated by various Leaders of the House that it is not a desirable practice. I can assure the noble Duke that he is perfectly entitled to move Amendments, and I cannot say anything else.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is not a serious matter. There has been

879
some confusion, but it can be put right either on Third Reading or in another place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What can be put right?,
LORD CRAIGTON: We have an illogicality. We have the public-houses shutting at 9.30 p.m., but the licensed restaurants at 9 o'clock.
LORD SALTOUN: Surely it has never been the practice in this House to refuse Amendments. I have known many Amendments moved on Third Reading. It may be that the Leaders think it would be much more comfortable Parliamentary practice if they were not. The only rule about Third Reading I have ever heard is that Amendments must be printed and circulated.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Seasonal certificates]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "six months" and insert "one hundred and eighty days". The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a much easier Amendment. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to make it possible to have a break in a licence of 150 days instead of six months. My noble friend resisted it, and I must say that I was convinced by his argument that the shorter period would be undesirable. But I still think—and I believe he has come round to my way of thinking—that it would be more explicit to express six months in a period of days. This would make it quite clear that hotels who do not wish to have a licence during most of the winter may have a licence for the period covering Christmas or the New Year, and that that would count as ten or twelve days and not as a broken part of a month, which I think would lead to complications. This is really a drafting Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accepting it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out ("six months") and insert ("one hundred and eighty days"). —(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this form certainly makes the calculation of the off-season period easier. I am more
880
grateful to the noble Duke for putting down this Amendment than for putting down the last one and I recommend that it be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of law relating to State management districts
".Section eighty-two of the principal Act (which restricts the sale and supply of excise-able liquor in State management districts) shall not apply to anything done under the authority of a hotel or an off-sale certificate."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I feel I must apologise for two things: one, that I seem to be talking a great deal, and, two, for not bringing this in at the Committee stage of the Bill. There are various reasons for that, one being that up to then I had not got all the facts which I now have. The effect of this Amendment would be to end the monopoly of the Secretary of State in State management districts so far as hotel and off-sale certificates were concerned but it would still leave him with a monopoly of public houses. First, I think I must go briefly into the history of the State management areas. They were started for security reasons in 1918. In these areas all the licensed premises are owned by the State and are run on their behalf, and the profits from them go presumably towards swelling the general funds of this country. To be fair, I must point out that they, unlike so many nationalised industries, do show quite substantial profits, even after allowing for a fairly high rate of interest on the capital employed.
After the First World War was over these areas were no longer required for security reasons, but they were continued as interesting social experiments. There are three of these areas in the whole of Britain, two in Scotland and one in England. The Scottish ones are known as the Gretna State Management Area and the Invergordon State Management Area. The Gretna one I think is rather misnamed, because Annan, in the same area, is a far larger and more important town and why the area is called after Gretna I do not know.
Subsection (5) of Clause 2 of the Bill before us is going to allow private enterprise to participate in these areas where

881
granted either a restaurant certificate or a restricted hotel certificate. It will not, however, allow private enterprise to participate where granted a full hotel licence, or off-sales licence, or public-house licence. This seems to me as illogical as if we said that Barons and Marquesses still had the right to be tried by their fellows but Viscounts and Earls had not, for the Government seem to have taken the two middle classes and said that they will allow them to get their licences—always subject to the agreement of the local licensing courts—but the most desirable, which I regard as the hotel licence, and the less desirable, the public-house licence, may not. This Amendment would not alter public-house licences—I believe there is virtually none in the area, and there certainly seems to be no agitation for that state of affairs to be altered; therefore I do not think there will be any great merit in altering public-house licences. I would also point out that this Amendment would not force the Secretary of State to get rid of his pubs. He will be able to continue to run them in the same way. It would affect purely the overruling of any future licence's by the Secretary of State.
There are three reasons for this Amendment. One is that the hotels in the State management areas are inadequate in number, and that has a stultifying effect on the tourist trade in those areas. The reason the hotels are inadequate in number is that, in order to make a hotel pay, in the rural areas in Scotland you must have a good bar trade during the winter to carry you through the period when there is virtually no one staying at your hotel. At the moment, no hotels in State management areas are allowed any form of licence at all. They are going to be allowed restricted licences but are not allowed to have a bar trade during the winter, and I think experience will show that very few people, if any, will take advantage of this very restricted form of licence in those areas.
The second reason for this Amendment is the lack of amenities in the districts concerned. The Annan and Gretna district has a total population of 11,000 people, and for this population there is in the district precisely one off-sales licence and three hotels. To give noble
882
Lords some idea of what this means, I would say that in my local village, which has a population of approximately 700, there are two off-sales licences. Normally a district of 11,000 people would have something like five or six off-sales licences; and yet Annan has only one. To give some idea of the situation this causes perhaps I can quote an advertisement which frequently appeared in the local newspaper during the period before Christmas. It read as follows:
"Daily deliveries to Arran and area. No need to queue on the street for your festive season supply of wines and spirits. Just 'phone Lockerbie 248/249. Order with dignity —order with confidence … "
Then comes the name of the firm.
"Wine and spirit merchants, will deliver to your door from their comprehensive stock."
They find the trade so good in Arran that they are prepared to go to ten to eleven miles every day with deliveries in order to get that trade; and they are not the only ones. There is also a firm from Dumfries which delivers two or three times a week in Annan. So it is not as though the Secretary of State has a complete monopoly of the off-sales in that area. Other people come in from outside areas and take the trade away from the local grocers, who are really the people who ought to get it.
The third reason for doing away with the State management areas is that the population in the Annan district has increased in the last ten years from 4,644 in the 1951 Census to 6,051 in the 1961 Census, which is an increase of 30 per cent.; but there has been absolutely no increase in the licence facilities at all. I think you will find no other area where the population has increased so substantially and the licensed hotels and pubs not at all. This Amendment is supported by the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, with particular reference to Annan and Invergordon, the two most closely affected; the Scottish Tourist Board and the Dumfries County Council. All of them have sent me copious letters on the subject and all of them feel most strongly about it.
Lastly, as I believe the Government will not accept this Amendment, I should like to say why I do not think their argument will really hold water. First they will produce that well-known cry, "England has still its State manage

883
ment area and we are trying to bring the licensing laws into line." Someone must take the lead in this particular matter and I do not see in this case why it should not be Scotland. In fact, there is a very good reason why it should be Scotland. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, was explicitly stopped from looking into this business of State management areas of the previous Committees which sat on licensing in England and Scotland and which both reported in 1931, the Scottish one recommended its abolition—not only the Majority Report recommended the abolition of the State management areas, but the Minority Report did too.
I would just quote paragraph 190 of that Committee's Majority Report. It is Cmd. 3894, and the paragraph states:
"We have come without difficulty to the conclusion that the weight of evidence is strongly against retaining these two exceptional districts. Apart from the official witnesses, the evidence laid before us was almost unanimous in condemnation of the system of State management, and we feel we should not be justified in advocating its continuance merely as an experiment, even in its present limited form."
The Minority Report put the same thing even more strongly. The English Committee which sat at the same time was divided on this subject; in fact, eight were in favour of abolition of State management areas in England and eleven were against it. So I think that is a very good reason why Scotland should lead the way in this particular matter.
The second reason I am going to be given why my Amendment is not acceptable is that this Bill is an unsuitable place for it. I simply do not understand that. This calls itself a Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and it seems to me that this is eminently something to do with licensing in Scotland. Moreover, State management is mentioned in Clause 2. subsection (5). I put this Amendment down in a Part entitled "The general licensing system", and it seems to me it would fit perfectly into a general licensing system. The third reason I am going to be given why it is unacceptable is that it is not in the Guest Report. I could not agree more. The noble and learned Lord was told specifically he could not report on State
884
management areas, I strongly suspect because the Government saw one of the few profitable nationalised industries going. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will prove acceptable, if not to the Government, at least to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I do not intend to discuss the merits of this Amendment because it does not seem to me that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. But I should be very sorry to think that this House would vote for ending a State monopoly in these cases upon the inadequate information provided by the noble Duke who has moved this Amendment. The Secretary of State thought it proper to institute an elaborate inquiry whether the permitted hours in Scotland on weekdays and on Sundays should remain the same or should be altered, and the Committee over which I had the honour to preside sat for a matter of twelve months examining this question. We had a number of representations; we heard evidence and we presented to the Secretary of State our conclusions and our reasons which were based upon this evidence. But this House is asked now to embark upon a question which is of considerable moment, as to whether the State monopoly should end in these respects in State management districts.
I should have thought that this House would require more than the Committee's recommendations in 1920 which have been referred to by the noble Duke in order to justify them in taking what is after all an extreme step. I should have thought that this matter would have to be examined by some similar Committee with similar powers, and on information from all sources, not only from the Convention of Royal Burghs but also from the point of view of the public interest in that district. I should deprecate the taking of a step of this magnitude upon a Bill which does not deal with State management districts at all but which deals specifically with permitted hours on weekdays, permitted hours on Sundays and with the question of clubs. I would urge your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, although I see the force of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has said, I think that as the Amendment has been moved it is right to put before Her Majesty's Government some experience in connection with this matter, and my experience has been quite different; my experience is quite different from that which the noble Duke put before the House. I had business during the war in a State management area; it was very arduous and difficult and continued after the war was ended. I had no place of residence in that area and I had to go to an hotel. It was completely impossible for me to do any business during the week because the hotel was entirely occupied with charabanc travellers, for whom the Government were specially catering and from whom I presume they made a considerable amount of money. I had to arrange to do all my business on Saturday and Sunday, because that was the only time when I could possibly be there overnight. The Government in this Bill have just said that we shall not go into a public-house and get drink on Sundays because the Sabbath has to be sacred, and I suggest that if the Government monopoly leads to people concentrating their business on the Sabbath, which they ought to keep for other purposes, it is worth looking into the matter to see whether it ought to continue.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I fully realise that this is not a Bill to deal with State management of the liquor trade, but in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, said, I feel that it is a golden opportunity for adjusting some of the small anomalies which occur in the State management district. The noble Duke is not asking for the sweeping away of State monopoly; he is just asking your Lordships to do one or two things in addition to what the Government are already doing in this Bill. Where else can you adjust anomalies in Scottish licensing laws except in a Scottish licensing Bill? Surely these Bills do not occur very often. Parliament's time is precious enough, we know, Without Bills like this coming up on every day of the week.
The Government have already made concessions as regards two types of certificate, the restaurant certificate and the
886
restricted hotel certificate, in State monopoly areas. I should have thought they might go a little further and extend this subsection to cover off-sales and hotel certificates as well—I do not think it is much to ask—so that the application would not be subject to a veto by the Secretary of State. I think it is an injustice, I think it is almost a farce —I go further than the noble Duke—that grocers in Annan cannot supply their customers there and yet licensed tradesmen ten miles outside the area can do a roaring trade by bringing in daily supplies of drink to the Annan district. What a trade they must be doing! We have to remember, as the noble Duke said, that the State management area was introduced during the war for security reasons which no longer prevail, and therefore it is no longer wanted. We must remember also that the population of Annan has in ten years increased by 1,400 without any increase in the number of hotels and off-sale premises. These are facts.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to ask, during which war? The noble Earl said "during the war". But during which war—the First World War?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I believe they were introduced in the First World War. They have been going a long time—far too long. But as I say, the population of Annan has increased in the ten years between 1951 and 1961 by 1,400 without any corresponding increase in the number of hotels or off-sales premises. I do not want to press this subject much longer. What we are asking for is not the sweeping away of State management, but for a little more elasticity in the matter. Nobody would expect the Secretary of State to approve every application that is put before him. But apparently what happens now is that applications are refused as a matter of principle. A lot of resentment is caused in this way. There would be a far kindlier feeling in the Gretna district, and there would not be all this resentment and distrust, if these applications were not refused as a matter of principle. I believe this to be an unfair situation, and I believe that it could be put right in this Bill without causing a great deal

887
of trouble. I hope that the noble Duke will press this Amendment. I will support him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to elongate your Lordships' debate unduly, but I must say that I disagree with my noble friends the Duke of Atholl and Lord Haddington. It seems to me that this Amendment does neither one thing nor the other. It neither brings the law in Scottish State management areas into conformity with that in the English State management areas, nor does it alter the State management system overall. It seems to me significant that the last Report on the State management system was made in 1931, which is now 30 years ago. For that reason alone I should think that Her Majesty's Government might have some plans to institute some new Report as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has already suggested. Until that is done, I cannot believe that it would be wise to go further into the cases of the Annan or Cromarty areas than your Lordships have already been in the case of the Cumberland and Carlisle area in the Licensing Act which was passed last year.
It also occurs to me to wonder, if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted, would it not be possible for the Annan off-sales licence holders to sell their drink in the Cumberland district across the border? If that be the case, I cannot believe that this would act in a fair way towards those in the English district. That may be a small point, but none the less this is a halfway house which I should have thought would have been unacceptable on the information which your Lordships have.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that this Amendment is indeed a half-way house. It is a major Amendment. Both in England and in Scotland we have a complete and coherent organisation of 45 years' standing—an organisation through which the State sells liquor through its own establishments run by managements who have no financial interest in the sale of drink. Let me say at once that my right honourable friend has an open mind on the merits of the whole conception of
888
State management. There may well be —I heard the speech of my noble and learned friend—a case for a review of the present system, and possibly for the discontinuance of the whole experiment, a case for winding up the present organisation and disposing of the property. But the experiment is, for what it is worth, an experiment in State monopoly. It is not, and should not be turned into, an experiment in competition between the State and private enterprise over a wide field of drink supply, which, as the noble Viscount pointed out, is what this Amendment would bring about.
We all want this Bill. It deals mainly with urgent matters upon which Lord Guest was asked to give us guidance in his Committee's first Report. It is not a Bill about State management. We cannot agree, and cannot advise your Lordships to agree, to the inclusion in this Bill of such additional controversial material as is contained in this Amendment. It is just not true to say that we have breached the principle of State monopoly by excluding from that monopoly the new restaurant and restricted hotel certificates. Under both certificates drink is secondary to the main service provided. Drinks with meals and to residents are being served now in the Gretna Hall Hotel, which is not State owned. In view of the need to attract tourists it is only right that this Bill should promote the extension of that facility.
But a clear line must be drawn here between the service of drinks to residents or with meals, which is what the tourist has a right to demand. and where the danger of drinking too much is much less, and the supply of liquor to nonresidents and without meals. We have already in the interests of tourism gone as far as it is proper to go in this Bill. The noble Duke's Amendment will bring no benefit to the tourist. The Bill now gives the tourists what they want without interfering with the basic principles and intentions of the State management district system, which, whatever our views may be, are not relevant to this Bill at all. Because this is not a Bill about State management and because we do not want to run the risk of losing it by widening its scope, I ask your Lordships most sincerely to reject the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think I am allowed to reply. I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, was being slightly unfair when he said that I had not produced enough evidence. I could have produced far more —I have an absolute mass of it here, but I thought your Lordships would be bored if I produced it, so I did not do so. I quite agree with him that more facts on the subject would be most useful. But, after all, there was this inquiry into the subject 31 years ago, since when nothing has happened; so one has to take one's chances, when they come, even to raise the matter, let alone to get anything done about it.
Secondly, I disagree profoundly with my noble friend that my Amendment would not help tourists and would not enable hotels to come into these areas. If he compares the increase in the number of the hotels in the Gretna area with those in the Lockerbie area (which areas are more or less comparable although Gretna is better placed), he will find in the Lockerbie area the bar system has enabled several new hotels to open since the war, whereas in the Gretna area I think only one has. Nevertheless, I feel that this is the wrong place to fight this particular battle. I hope that some inquiry will be held into State management areas soon, or, if not, new off-sale licences will be granted, which so far as I can make out the Government and the Secretary of State can still run. That would get over the inconvenience to the public which is largely evident in the present situation. Nevertheless, all things considered and subject to your Lordships' approval, I think that I should withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved to leave out "constable" where that word occurs a second time, and to substitute:
"member of a police force of or above the rank of inspector".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. May I suggest that this Amendment be taken with Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14? I believe that that would be convenient to your Lordships and would cut down the extent of the debate, because Amend-
890
ments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are consequential on Amendment No. 10.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that these Amendments be taken together?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, these Amendments go together because they are really all of one piece, relating, as they do, to Clause 16, which was debated at such length in your Lordships' House both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage. These Amendments are designed as a sort of middle course to mitigate what are, after all, the rigours of the clause as it stands; also to bring it into line with the recommendations of the Guest Committee in regard to clubs—certainly to bring it more into line.
In principle, my Lords, we must admit, I think, that a club in its generally accepted form, certainly a genuinely residential club, is a home from home and should be treated as a castle. The same applies in some measure to clubs such as golf clubs and the like. But there are clubs and clubs, and it is fair to recall that the debate on the English Licensing Bill, which has been referred to in other stages of these considerations (though both from my recollections and from my study of the Record, I think the point has not been made in your Lordships' deliberations on this Scottish Bill) the type of club on which Parliament desired to keep an eye in England was the club used as a cover for prostitution. The question of drink as it happens in Scotland did not apply, because in England public-houses are open on Sundays.
I make this point because the type of club we are worrying about, and the type of club I know the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is worrying about, is the type of club of which a few already exist; and I certainly believe that more will spring up in considerable numbers when this Bill becomes law: clubs simply for the purpose of providing drinks on Sundays when the pubs are not open. As your Lordships have decided—admittedly by a narrow margin, but as I imagine Parliament will ultimately decide—they will not be open on Sunday, I therefore feel that these drinking clubs will spring up. However much the well-conducted club may have nothing to fear from this Bill, or even, I have heard it

891
said, from Clause 16 as it stands, we have to face the fact, as the Secretary of the British Council of Churches said on the B.B.C. only this morning, that
"we have got to start from where we are, not from where we would like to be."
Something has got to be done to keep control of these "mushroom" clubs, both those in being and those to be, and to bring them into line with the permitted hours of other licensed premises on Sundays. I would refer your Lordships to the summary of the Guest Committee's recommendations, No. 26 and No. 31, the last of which reads:
"Registered clubs should be subject to the same police supervision as licensed premises."
As I have said, Clause 16, as it stood, was bitterly criticised in Committee, and certainly on principle rightly so. But the fact is that something has to be done to control the "mushroom" clubs, and the Amendments I put before your Lordships, and which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has discussed with my noble friend the Minister, are intended to mitigate the rigour of the clause. No. 9 does this by making it necessary for a constable to call in an inspector or police officer above that rank before entry is made without a warrant, while Amendment No. 10 limits the hours during which such entry may be made under the Act to the permitted hours and within thirty minutes on either side.
I need not trouble your Lordships with the obvious advantages that such a proposal as this second one offers over the words "at any time" which occur in the clause as it stands in the Bill. I think that they are obvious. But I should like to tell your Lordships that I have had the advantage, since we last discussed the matter, of discussions with the superintendent of police in my neighbourhood. He has had much experience of handling clubs of this nature in Glasgow, and it was on his advice and his direct suggestion that I put down the Amendment about using an inspector or officer above that rank", instead of simply "a constable". He told me that it is common practice in the cities for there to be a duty inspector, and he himself told me that a constable would probably have to think twice before entering a club. This would compel him to call the duty inspector and to have second
892
thoughts before entering without a warrant the premises of a club, no matter how disorderly it might appear to be.
While on this subject, I feel that I must digress a little on a matter which came up in connection with clubs. May I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to apply his mind to the question of guests in clubs? It is a matter which only recently has come to my notice through the discussions to which I have referred, that it is possible in these clubs for a good deal of evasion to be introduced by members, of whom there may be a limited number, receiving financial recompense for taking guests in. This affects the policeman, and this is why I mention it here. One of the tasks of the policeman inspecting such a club would be not only to see that the permitted hours were being observed, but also to ensure that those partaking of refreshments in the clubs were members or, presumably, their guests. I hesitate to use the words "bona fide", because we have had enough of that already in connection with the licensing regulations in Scotland. What is a bona fide guest? I throw that out without punning, I assure you, but it might be worth considering. I trust that your Lordships will forgive this slight divergence, on account of its connection with what I am saying. My Lords, I have reason to believe that these proposals are not altogether unacceptable to the Minister, and I urge your Lordships to give them favourable consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member of a police force of or above the rank of inspector").—(Lord Ferrier.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the reasons which have induced my noble friend, Lord Ferrier, to put down this series of Amendments have also impressed me, and I have accordingly put my name to his Amendments. Your Lordships may think this is a failure on my part to stick to the principle I took on the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. None the less, I find it impossible to disregard the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, at the time when he wrote his Report, that some such police supervision is necessary. This opinion is now reinforced by the

893
fact that the public-houses are not now, as he recommended, to be opened on Sunday in Scotland.
I believe that a very special danger may arise as a result directly of that decision of Her Majesty's Government, which will require more police supervision than has hitherto been permissible in Scotland. On the other hand, I have always been, and still am, concerned about the perfectly properly run and genuine club, and I am very much in doubt whether this sort of intrusion into their affairs is permissible, except in special circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that these two limitations, which I hope will now be imposed upon the provisions of Clause 16, will allow such clubs to operate, as before, in a perfectly open, honest, proper way without the danger of police intrusion, or without any interference with their ordinary operations.
My Lords, if my noble friend is right in supposing that Her Majesty's Government may look favourably upon this series of Amendments, I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also feels that the proposed limitations on Clause 16 would not be an intrusion or interference in the proper rights of the genuine and well run clubs. I feel that it is important that something should be said upon this line, on account of the very stern and rigid stand taken by my noble and learned friend when such a suggestion was made in the debates on the English Bill. I recognise that the circumstances in Scotland may be different, and the mischief which it is sought to remedy may allow a different approach to be made. None the less, the words of my noble and learned friend were strong, and I should be glad to know that Her Majesty's Government would not consider some such suggestion as that put forward by my noble friend Lord Ferrier and myself to be any sort of interference, such as my noble and learned friend thought in the case of England. With those words I beg to support my noble friend.
5.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of supporting both the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Viscount,
894
Lord Colville of Culross, in introducing this Amendment. I speak as someone who has responsibility for running a club, and I have always made it plain that I personally have no objection to the police having entry, should they wish to come and visit us during the hours when the club is open and running, as we have nothing to be ashamed of. But I have always been somewhat frightened of what I call the constable, who is somewhat embittered, coming in unannounced, uninvited, and having the right to come in and see the club's papers with no just cause.
Your Lordships may feel that I am taking a slightly harsh attitude about the police, but I have met this difficulty—not in connection with clubs, certainly—with constables who, for various reasons, have not been too satisfied with their job and who have carried out their duty, but in such a manner as to cause offence. I have always been frightened that in a club for which I am responsible such a constable could demand the right of entry, get it, and cause unnecessary trouble where trouble did not exist before. Under these provisions, as I said before, a self-respecting club has no cause to worry if someone wants to go into a club, and has some pretty sound reason for wanting entry; and the person who does not wish to allow entry must have some pretty strong reason for not wanting to allow it.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, all I would say is that it is quite impossible to draw any line of definition. I am not disagreeing with what my noble friend has said, but it is quite impossible to draw a line between a well-conducted club and another club which is a perfectly similar institution but which may not be conducted with similar standards. I happen to be the chairman of a well known club in London—I will not name it, though not because I am ashamed to do so. It is the principle of the thing to which I object. I do not care what it is: I still maintain that the club is the property of the members of the club; the food, furniture and drink therein are the property of the members of the club. I object, in principle, to police entry. I am not going to divide

895
your Lordships on the subject, but I cannot possibly support an Amendment which infringes the principle in which I profoundly believe.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, until the noble Viscount spoke, I understood from the fact that there was no Amendment to delete the clause from the Bill that the principle of police inspection of clubs was accepted. I do not really understand how it can be that, without such an Amendment, the clause could be excised from the Bill. I was relieved to find that the threats of some noble Lords at the Committee stage, that they would move that this clause should be excised, have not been carried out, because if the clause had been deleted I think it would have caused widespread disappointment in Scotland.
My Committee received representations from a number of bodies and, except for one body which represented, quite properly, working men's clubs, not a word was said against police inspection of clubs. It was welcomed, and one might say that there was a great demand from every side, every interest, that there should be this police inspection. I personally have never been able, and the Committee were quite unable, to understand the objection to police inspection. Hotels, public-houses and clubs are all subject to licensing laws. Hotels and public-houses are liable to be inspected by the police, and I cannot understand why a club should be placed in a privileged position. They all have to observe the permitted hours. Why should the police not have the right to inspect a club, to see whether these permitted hours are being observed? Why should the police have to go through the elaborate procedure of watching the club, night after night, day after day, eventually obtaining a warrant to search, and then to go through the procedure of an application before the sheriff to have the club struck off the register?
As has already been said, a well-conducted club has nothing to fear from this right of police inspection, and I feel that the sanction that the police can inspect will ensure that the law is obeyed by all types of clubs. Although I cannot speak for the Committee—I am speaking personally—these Amendments to this clause would certainly satisfy my views as to what should be done in
896
regard to inspection, and they certainly would not detract from the views of the Committee. I therefore support the Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, during the course of the Second Reading of this Bill, I did mention Clause 16, and I said at the time that I thought that a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above should be permitted to enter a club, and that no officer under the rank of sergeant should be permitted to do so. The reasons I gave were, first, inexperience. A young policeman, if he is called upon to enter a club and finds anything irregular, or finds trouble on his hands, surely has to refer it, anyway, to his superiors. I am in no way doubting the ability of the young constable. Many, indeed most, are intelligent young men, but the checking of a club's licence and other formalities of this type is quite a specialised task, and I feel that my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord Colville of Culross have framed a most reasonable Amendment. I agree with them entirely that the rank should be that of inspector or above. For my part, I think that a senior police officer should have the right of entry into a club at the times specified in the Amendment of my noble friends. I hope that the Government, who have not been very forthcoming on some of the more reasonable Amendments to this Bill, will be more forthcoming on this occasion.
6.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have given way on a number of occasions as more and more noble Lords on the other side have got up, and I am pleased that I gave way at least to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, because I had intended to quote two paragraphs of his Report. But he has spoken in such a way as to make it quite unnecessary for me to quote the first and longer of these paragraphs. I was a little disappointed, however, to hear him say that he could not speak for his Committee but that, speaking personally, he thought the Amendments might be acceptable to them. In fact, paragraph 61 of his Report explicitly rejects the proposal which is put forward in these Amendments. I think it is worth while repeating what the Committee said in paragraph 61 because I was also a little

897
disappointed to hear an indication from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that he expected the Government to accept these Amendments. I think it would be a mistake to do so because of what is contained in paragraph 61. The Committee said:
"We have carefully examined the possibility that police inspection of clubs might be carried out by senior officers only, perhaps of the rank of inspector or above. It is of the essence of any worthwhile system of supervision, however, that inspection should be practicable at short notice on receipt by the police of any serious complaint; and we appreciate the force of the argument put to us by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association that in some areas it would be impossible to arrange for an inspector, or even a sergeant, to visit a particular club without undue delay. In these circumstances we think that it would be preferable for the matter to be left entirely within the discretion of the chief constable, as it is already in the case of hotels and other licensed premises. We recommend that registered clubs should be subject to exactly the same police supervision as licensed premises."
For these reasons I find myself now putting forward a third point of view. The two points of view which have been expressed are in favour of the Amendments as printed; and we have heard the voice of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who is against the Bill and the Amendments—and I can well understand his point of view, because the principle in the Bill is the same as that in the Amendments: the Amendment really differs from the Bill only in detail. But f we are to accept the principle, surely it is reasonable that we should accept it in such a way that it will work, rather than accept the principle and then so circumscribe it as to make it almost impossible to operate in certain circumstances. I would agree without any hesitation that, particularly in the case of clubs which have had a long record of being run satisfactorily, the chief constable or the police authorities would normally endeavour to arrange that the inspection was made by a senior officer. I think the situation feared by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland—of a Scotland teeming with young, inexperienced constables just waiting for the opportunity of pouncing on a club at some unexpected and inconvenient hour—is just not the case. As is stated quite clearly here, what is envisaged is that the police will seek entry into a club, not at the whim of any constable but because there has been some com
898
plaint about the circumstances in which that club is run.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Would the noble Lord allow me to say that the constable might want a drink himself? It is possible.
LORD HUGHES: That may well be. I am not expert on the drinking habits of constables or of others.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I am.
LORD HUGHES: Of course, you have held a more exalted office than I have, and therefore moved in different circles.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: No. I am a "pub-crawler." I know. I have "crawled" pubs.
LORD HUGHES: I do not know whether perhaps the noble Viscount's intervention is directed to indicate—because he is opposing the Amendments also—that the higher the rank the higher the desire for consumption, and that the more dangerous person to admit might be a chief constable, because he might want a liqueur rather than a beer. But, seriously, the principle is accepted in the Amendment; and I therefore hope that, notwithstanding what has been said, in this case the Minister will stand by both the Government's decision and the Committee's recommendation—because this is one of the rare occasions on which the Committee and the Government are in agreement.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: May I repeat, my Lords, that, as I said, I am not going to make trouble over this point; but, of course, to do what the noble Lord has just said would be a breach of the principle of the thing, and there would be only one place left—one's own home. I do not know about a Scotsman's home being his castle, but an Englishman's home is; and, after you have accepted the principle of invading a club, there is nothing in the world left but one's home.
LORD HUGHES: I know that double speeches are not supposed to be made, but what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander, and I will therefore read what the Guest Committee had to say on this.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do not care what they said.
LORD HUGHES: There are a lot of people who do not care what they said.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORNI am telling you the truth.
LORD HUGHES: They said:
"It was suggested to us by one club organisation that to institute a police right of entry into a club would be an intolerable breach of privacy in that the club stands in the same position as the member's home. We are not impressed by that argument".
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do not care what they said.
LORD HUGHES: It goes on:
"If it were valid, it would seem to us to apply with equal force to a hotel, which is in a sense recognised as the resident's temporary home in that he is legally allowed to he supplied with liquor at any time and is not subject to the provisions about permitted hours. Under existing law, however, there is already a police right of entry into even the residential accommodation of licensed hotels of the highest standing and repute …".
I gather, from a number of interventions made, that I have not persuaded the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and that he does not agree with the Guest Committee.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: A club is quite different from an hotel. It does not resemble an hotel at all.
LORD HUGHES: I am merely repeating what the Committee said on it.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I heard you. I disagree.
LORD HUGHES: What I have succeeded in eliciting is the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, disagrees with the Committee.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do.
6.7 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for establishing quite clearly the position and the views of the noble Viscount. I will not weary your Lordships by stating at length once again why Clause 16 is in the Bill at all. My noble and learned friend has spoken with great force, and I am very grateful to have his blessing to this Amendment. We, the Government, are convinced that these powers are necessary to deal with
900
the clubs that break the law. We know that the club law is being broken, and that the weakness lies not in the law but in the arrangements for its enforcement. I know that England has not taken these powers, but Scotland is Scotland and England is England; and, as I said before, the problem before your Lordships' House is a Scottish problem.
In essence, the problem, and our desire, is not to have erring clubs struck off the register, but to ensure that they obey the law. The police do now warn clubs suspected of breaking the law. Some clubs heed the warning and some do not. If they do not, as my noble and learned friend said, the police now have no alternative but to start the lengthy and man-power consuming process of securing evidence for a conviction. It is for such cases that the police would welcome the power of entering into clubs. The chief constables assure us that they would not be embarrassed by it. But many of your Lordships, including the noble Viscount, made it quite clear in Committee that they objected to the principle of Clause 16 under which any policeman could walk into any club at any time; and the Amendment to delete Clause 16 was withdrawn only on the assurance that we would examine the whole question again with the chief constables and those concerned. My Lords, this we have done. We wanted to keep the intention of the clause, but to overcome the objection to the right of any policeman to enter any club at any time.
On the intention of Clause 16, after discarding many ideas, we discussed with the chief constables the superficially attractive idea that the sheriff might make an order to grant the police powers of entry over a period, where misconduct was shown. But the chief constables felt that to obtain this would entail the same amount of work and evidence as would be required to get the club struck off the register. Then we turned our attention to "any club". We tried to find some method of distinguishing between the erring or likely-to-err club and others, but it is clear that the distinction, as the noble Viscount said, relates not to the nature or activity of the club but to its sense of responsibility. Such a distinction could not be enacted.
Then we turned to "any policeman". Having reached the conclusion that there

901
is no effective alternative to police entry, could the entry be limited in such a way as to remove at least some of the apprehensions which have been expressed about the admittedly sweeping powers in Clause 16? This Amendment does just that. True, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, the Guest Committee rejected the idea because of the difficulty of arranging for an inspector, or even a sergeant, to visit a club at short notice. But the chief constables, who had been consulted on the principle of this Amendment, considered that the purpose of getting an erring club to break its habits can be achieved; and this Amendment will certainly go some way towards relieving the apprehensions of the clubs if the powers are, as in this Amendment, limited to inspectors and above.
This idea, as your Lordships know, was first mooted in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on Second Reading, and we decided to adopt it, as I have told your Lordships. But when we came to put down the Amendment we found that my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord Colville of Culross had arrived independently at the same conclusion. I can only say "Thank you" to them both. If your Lordships will accept this Amendment, it will no longer be "any policeman".
Now comes the next Amendment. We are now at the stage where only certain very senior policemen can visit any club at any time. The next Amendment suggests it is not essential for even a senior policeman to visit a club "at any time". If we can agree with this proposition it will go a long way towards meeting the objection to Clause 16. Can we safely limit the time of supervision to the licensing hours, plus half an hour at each end? At first glance, this seems a rather curious proposal. It might be argued that for a club to supply drinks at 2 a.m. is a more serious offence than supplying them at 10.20 p.m. But the purpose behind police entry is not to catch people out, but to get clubs to comply with the law and to ensure that only members are served—I think I have covered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—and to see that the club has stopped serving on time. This restriction on the time of police entry will still achieve this object. The club which sells drink at 2 a.m.
902
would be, and should be, raided after police evidence has been obtained in the ordinary way.
We have not had a great deal of time, but the chief constables have been consulted, and while understandably they would prefer no restriction on time, they are satisfied that the limited power would be effective. So in commending both Amendments to your Lordships' House, the Government take no credit for the second one. Once again I thank the noble Lord for putting it down.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I hope the Government will take no credit for accepting these Amendments, which are both infringements of the principle in which I believe. I do not ask my noble friend the Government spokesman—and I hope he is still my friend—
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: —to answer now, but does he really want to achieve convictions of harmless people who are living their ordinary lives? Is that his ambition in this world, or will he not allow them to live their lives uninterfered with by the police?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, move his Amendments formally?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, say a word about this question of permitted hours in the light of what the noble Marquess behind me has said? I feel that it is fair to the police, particularly to the police constable, to make the point that there is not so much any fear of the constable who is officious or working to rule, but possibly there might be the over-zealous young constable, and, further, there might be the young constable to whom, as the noble Viscount said, the possibility of refreshment might be a temptation. It is proper that we should face that. I am not criticising the constable, but the adoption of the higher rank as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, suggested, is a wise one. Nevertheless, I do feel that under Amendment No. 10 it would be confined only to the permitted hours, and thirty minutes either side. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, after ("time") insert ("during the permitted hours and within half an hour before the commencement or after the conclusion of any period of permitted hours"). —(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("a constable") and insert ("such a member of a police force").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("a constable") and insert ("such a member of a police force").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this new clause makes it an offence for a person under eighteen to be employed to serve liquor in a registered club. It is a reasonable extension of the principle embodied in Section 144 of the 1959 Act, that persons under eighteen should not be employed in the bar of any licensed premises. The wording of our new clause is based so far as practicable on Section 144. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, moved an Amendment with a similar intention in Committee, and withdrew it on my undertaking to find a more acceptable form of words than he had used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
Persons under 18 not to be employed to serve exciseable liquor in clubs
(".—(1) A person under eighteen shall not be employed in a registered club if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of his employment is to serve exciseable liquor to persons in that club.
(2) If this section is contravened as regards any club, every person entered in the register of clubs as an official or member of the committee of management or governing body of that club shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves that the contravention in question took place without his knowledge or consent.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be employed in a club where he works notwithstanding that he receives no wages for his work.
(4) Where in any proceedings under this section it is alleged that a person was at any time under eighteen, and he appears to the court then to have been under that age, for the purposes of the proceedings he shall be deemed to have been then under that age unless the contrary is shown.
(5) A conviction for any offence shall not after five years from the date of the conviction be receivable in evidence against any person for the purpose of subjecting him under this section to an increased fine.")—(Lord Craigton.)
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I should like to suggest that the age of sixteen would be the correct age. I have always understood that sixteen was the age of consent in other respects, so why not sixteen in a matter of exciseable liquor?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I fear I disagree with my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. This new clause, as put down by my noble friend Lord Craigton, does exactly meet the point which I was moving on the Committee stage. I am very much obliged to him, and it seems to me a most satisfactory Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, what is wrong with sixteen?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if I may speak again to answer the noble Viscount, the whole purpose of the Licensing Act is to prevent the service of drink by anyone under eighteen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on carriage of exciseable liquor in crates, etc., on contract carriages
".—(1) If the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of any vehicle, either himself or by his servant or agent, or if the servant or agent of such holder, permits any exciseable liquor to be carried on the said vehicle in such a container or other device as is mentioned in subsection (5) of this section at any time when that vehicle is being used as a contract carriage, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) If any person procures or attempts to procure a contravention of the foregoing subsection he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall on conviction thereof be liable—

(a) if he is the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle on which the exciseable liquor in question was carried, in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) in any other case to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(4) Where the holder of a public service vehicle licence is charged with an offence under this section by reason only of a contravention of subsection (1) thereof committed by any servant or agent of his, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the contravention took place without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
(5) This section applies to any container or other device (including a container or device fixed to, or forming part of, a vehicle) constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans or of holding liquid in excess of six pints.
(6) In this section 'public service vehicle licence' and 'contract carriage' have the like meanings as in Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, will it meet the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss Amendments 16, 17 and 18 together? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will be happy with that. Both on Second Reading and in Committee I was under heavy pressure to do something to implement the Guest recommendation that "boozing bus parties" should be stopped. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that his phrase "boozing bus parties" has now become a term of art and is in regular Departmental use. I admitted all along that we wished to do so, and
906
said, when opposing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 236 (No. 22), Col. 487]:
"I can assure him, and other noble Lords, that we shall continue to seek the solution that we should both like to find."
Our difficulty, which is inherent in both the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, which I sincerely hope he will not press, was to create a criminal offence which did not put an impossible onus of proof on the prosecutor, which was not unfair to the operator of a vehicle, and did not interfere with the proper liberty of the subject.
Our new clause meets these difficulties. It creates a new criminal offence in relation to the carriage of liquor in quantity on buses hired for parties. It is to be an offence for a bus operator to carry crates or bulk liquid containers containing excisable liquor, and it is to be an offence for any person to procure or attempt to procure the carriage of liquor in such containers on a bus. The clause makes a servant or agent liable, and subsection (1) makes a bus operator liable for the action of his servant or agent; but, following the precedent of Section 5 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, under subsection (4) it is a defence for an operator to plead that the offence took place without his knowledge.
Subsection (5) defines the illegal container as
"any container or other device … constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans".
The containers must hold more than 6 pints. This minimum was chosen because there is a 7-pint container commonly used for beer. After discussion with my noble and learned friend Lord Guest, we revised the Amendment as first published to include in the definition racks to hold bottles fitted in the buses themselves. If that had not been done, it would have been possible for the bus operator to evade the clause as originally drafted.
This clause aims directly at the carriage of liquor in quantity. It does not interfere with any essentially innocent activity. The offence which it creates is precise and clear-cut and should give rise to few difficulties of interpretation by the courts or the criminal authorities. Because of its precision, the bus operator

907
should have no difficulty in enforcing the provision or in explaining it to the hiring party. Also, the police should have no difficulty in establishing whether or not an offence has been committed, if they find a crate or case, and bottles or a jar which contains or has contained drink.
The Government appreciate that this clause does not go all the way, and that it can be evaded by breaking bulk or by concealing drink on the person or in personal baggage. But if the law is to be enforced, the bus operator must enforce it in the first place. The offence must be related to the carriage of liquor in quantity. I think that we all agree that it would be intolerable to give the bus operator the right to search passengers' personal baggage. It follows, therefore, that carriage of liquor, even in quantity, in ordinary personal baggage cannot be made an offence, since otherwise the bus operator would be guilty of a criminal offence which he could not prevent. The only solution is to limit the offence to liquor in containers specifically adapted for the carriage of liquor in quantity, and not to liquor in any other article, and to limit it to containers which the bus operator would be able to identify without having to search passengers' baggage.
Although this clause does not appear to go the whole way, perhaps it will go all the way in practice. In practice, it will not be easy for these bus parties to handle six or twelve dozen bottles in a moving bus without somewhere to store them, and wherever they are stored, as likely as not, the storage place will come under the definition in subsection (5) of
"any container … constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans".
I commend this new clause to your Lordships. Though limited in scope, it is clear and workable, and we have done our best. Although your Lordships may not agree wholly with this clause, at least it will be in the Bill, and we shall be interested to see whether it can be improved in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new Clause. —(Lord Craigton.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, after what the noble Lord has said, and in view of the Amendment as drafted by
908
the Government, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I think that my object in these Amendments is clear to your Lordships, and I am satisfied if the new clause is enforceable, as the noble Lord has said. I think it fair to say that the noble Lords who spoke on Committee stage and unanimously supported me against the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who was in a minority of one, will be happy that the Government have accepted this principle and I think that people outwith this House in Scotland will be happy, too, although I should have liked to go further. I should like, perhaps mischievously, to say that it is wonderful what the Government draftsman can do, if he receives sufficient spurring from your Lordships' House. I may say that during Committee stage I also gave the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, an undertaking that if the Government did not do something of this sort, I would move Amendment No. 17. I have discussed this with him, and may say that he is agreeable to my not moving that Amendment. So, if the noble Lord is satisfied, I support this new clause.
6.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I think that this is an appropriate time for me to speak. I agree that Amendment No. 16 is preferable to Nos. 17 and 18, in that it is perhaps more capable of enforcement, because it is more narrowly drawn. I cannot say that I am very enthusiastic about the Government's new clause. Perhaps we should have had on a pair of spurs, instead of one, and the draftsman might have done even better. I am not at all happy about subsection (5). I do not think we should need to employ the equivalent of an income tax consultant to be able to drive a horse and cart through it. But I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I appreciate the position.
If I were to state all the objections which I think I could legitimately put forward to the clause, the noble Lord could pick me up later on and say that I had proved his point on Committee stage that it was impossible to draft a clause that was acceptable to all. The clause, if it goes through as it stands, will at least cut down the amount of this bad behaviour which goes on in Scotland at the present time, and I am encouraged in accepting it by the noble

909
Lord's remark that, when the Bill goes forward from this House with this clause included, it is not without the bounds of possibility that in another place a certain amount of further spurring may take place and the clause may be improved still further. Therefore, I think we should be wise to make our mark on the Bill in this form and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, would be wise to accept what he has wrung out of the Government.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should hate to be in the minority of one on this particular occasion, and if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in his reply, can explain the position he will save me from occupying that invidious position. From what he said, I rather gather that it will be a criminal offence if I hire a bus and take 40 or 50 people on a picnic and give them more than six pints to drink. There are a great many factories and such places who fill up buses and take parties to some place where they can enjoy themselves, and as a general rule, at any rate near London, they stop at a public-house and have a drink. But if they go into the country, is it going to be illegal if they take something for these people to drink? Then there is another point. It is true that I do not drink six pints, but l take a small bottle of sherry with me when I travel on a train, and when I eat my lunch I have a glass of sherry. Is that going to be wrong? As it is less than six pints, perhaps that will be all right. Otherwise, is a train not included?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SALTOUN: Then that is all right. But the other matter is serious. I am naturally anxious to make people good and to stop what we call bus "boozing" parties, but I do not think my anxiety would be sufficiently strong to make me inhibit all picnics.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord quite shortly by saying that it would not be an offence if everyone in his respectable bus party were to carry one, two or three bottles of beer. The offence is to bring beer in a crate into a bus. The "boozing bus parties" bring it in crates. If a person carried the beer himself it would not be an offence.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, would it not be an offence to send a crate of liquor by bus? Supposing the noble Lord wished to send me a dozen bottles of whisky in a crate from St. Andrew's House to my home, and the only way he could do it was by bus, would that be an offence?
LORD CRAIGTON: This, of course, refers only to contract carriages.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I correctly understood the noble Lord, I must not provide my party with beer in a crate so that it is properly carried, and I must ask every one of them to put a bottle in his pocket.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes.
LORD SALTOUN: Is that not driving legislation to an absurdity? I am rather ashamed of doing that.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I am glad that the Government have overcome their scruples about introducing a clause which would prevent what is, no doubt, an abuse in Scotland of the drink habits of the country. The position, as I see it, is that the clause does not go so far as the Committee's recommendations ask them to do, but it goes a certain distance. In view of the clamant demand before the Committee that something should he done to regulate this practice, I think the clause deserves commendation.
I realise the difficulties the Government had in drafting this clause, and I think it is as far as they might reasonably have been expected to go. I do not know that it goes the whole length, because I think that problems may arise over containers which are not solely adapted for carrying bottles or cans but which may be used for other purposes. I exemplify a specially strengthened suitcase, which, clearly, would not be covered by it. But at the other end of the scale one does not wish to interfere unduly with the liberty of the individual, and I think the Government are right to limit the restriction to a
"container or device constructed or adapted for the purpose of carrying bottles or cans".
Of course it would deal only with the evil which exists. Something has been said about its being unfair to ask people

911
who go into a bus to take their individual bottles in their individual pockets. But the evil that at present exists is that crates containing large quantities of liquor are loaded on to the bus and it is then taken out of the crates and are consumed by the individuals. I feel that something must be done in order to prevent what has been described as the "bus-boozing parties", and I think this clause goes as far as the Government could be expected to go. I certainly support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIERhad tabled an Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 17. The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, on not interfering unduly with the individual. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the parenthesis in each of my Amendments, which says:
"except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements".
That was in my Amendments, and I am satisfied that in Amendment No. 16, by virtue of its wording, it is still possible for parties such as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, visualised to carry on their person or in their suitcase or the like sufficient liquor as may be required by such a party. With those words, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
6.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Sale of exciseable liquor on passenger vessels on Sundays
".—(1) Subsection (3) of section one hundred and fifty-three of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which provides as regards Scotland that an excise licence for the sale of exciscable liquor granted in respect of any passenger vessel may be endorsed with a condition that no exciseable liquor shall be supplied during voyages on Sundays), shall cease to have effect. but no person shall, except during the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon or the period between six and ten in the evening, himself, or by his servant or agent, sell or supply exciseable liquor on a passenger vessel during any voyage commencing on a Sunday and terminating on the same day. being—

(a) a voyage between any two places in Scotland; or

(b) a voyage in a vessel going from and
912
returning on the same day to the same place in. Scotland.

(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(3) In this section the expression "passenger vessel" has the same meaning as in section one hundred and fifty-three of the Customs and Excise Act. 1952."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, and 21 together, 20 and 21 being consequential on 19. On the Committee stage of the Bill I endeavoured to draw up a new clause to enable passenger vessels plying between ports in Scotland to serve alcohol during the permitted hours on Sundays. Owing to my bad draftsmanship, I withdrew that Amendment. The present Amendment, No. 19, has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and his Department, and I may say that I am extremely grateful to them for drafting me such a fine complicated Amendment, which I could never have done myself, instead of the one I put down on the Committee stage.
The effect of this Amendment is that passenger vessels plying between Scottish ports on a Sunday will be able to sell alcoholic refreshment during the hours at which the same refreshment is permitted to be sold on shore. I think this is a reasonable compromise. On weekdays one can buy a drink at any time on these vessels provided they are at sea, but on Sundays at the moment one cannot buy a drink at all. This provision will go part of the way towards making Sundays and weekdays the same. I should like to point out that the journeys are usually considerably longer on Sunday. The most used one in Scotland is from Wemyss Bay to Rothesay, and on a Sunday in the winter you have to go from Gourock, because Wemyss Bay does not operate on Sunday. The next most popular one is from Gourock to Dunoon. In both these cases, when this Bill becomes law you will be able to get a drink during what I regard as the mose reasonable hours while you are facing this ordeal of a sea voyage. I may tell your Lordships that it is sometimes quite an ordeal. It can be very rough in that part of the Firth of Clyde.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke

913
whether exciseable liquor is a cure for seasickness? I should like to know.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I have found it quite efficacious myself on occasions, but I have no doubt that the purveyors of patent medicines would not like it to go out from your Lordships' House that it was an absolute cure.
LORD FERRIER: A palliative.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that is the right word. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, and that my noble friend will not move his Amendment to my Amendment, in view of the decision to which your Lordships came on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD CRAIGTONhad given notice to move, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in subsection (1) to leave out "ten" and insert "half-past nine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, much as I should like to be able to do so, I do not propose to move my Amendment to the Amendment. After the oratory of the noble Duke about this matter on Committee stage we had second thoughts. I have only to tell your Lordships that we have asked the chief constables about this point and they are satisfied that to sell drinks during permitted hours would not lead to undesirable consequences or to the excesses which led in 1882 to the imposition of this ban. I recommend to your Lordships that you should accept this and the next two Amendments, Nos. 20 and 21
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Amendments of the Principal Act]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. The first Amendment makes the serving of alcoholic refreshments outside the permitted hours on Sunday on board passenger vessels a criminal offence. This Amendment says how this offence must be tried and the various other legal things which tie up the criminal offence. If it is of any interest, I may tell your Lordships that the maximum penalty will be £100, and the prosecutions are
914
to be taken in the sheriffs' summary court. With those few words, and once again thanking the Scottish Office and my noble friend and his right honourable friend for their extremely hard work in drafting these Amendments for me, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 12, after ("offences") insert—
("(a) in paragraph (c), after the words, this Act' there shall be inserted the words 'or any offence under section (Sale of excise-able liquor on passenger vessels on Sundays) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962;'"). —(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Repeal of Enactments]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this Amendment repeals what heretofore stood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 2, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo. 6 & 1 Eliz. 2. c. 44.

The Customs and Excise Act, 1952.

In section one hundred and fifty three, subsections (3) and (4).")

—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.