Lords Sitting of 5 July 1962

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

GRANTHAM BY-PASS
3.5 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Grantham By-Pass is expected to be completed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the northbound carriageway will be open in time for the August Bank Holiday. The south-bound carriageway will, I hope, be available early in September.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. May I ask him whether the original date for completion has had to be put forward, as I think I am right in saying that the original date fixed for completion was December 31, 1961?—I should have asked whether the original date for completion has had to be put, not forward but back.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was not quite sure whether my noble friend had finished his supplementary question, but whether technically the date was put forward or back, undoubtedly the bypass is being completed later than was originally contemplated. Apart from the weather, this is owing in the main to unexpected quantities of rock being encountered, and also in another part to landslides due to the presence of blue clay.

AEROPLANE FOLDING STAIRS
3.7 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: 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 it is a fact that the new mechanically operated companion ways fitted to the entrances to aeroplanes render these entrances useless as emergency exits, and, if so, what steps they propose to take to secure the greatest possible safety for passengers.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, some types of folding stairs may render the entrance door to an aircraft unsuitable as an emergency exit, but in such instances the alternative emergency exits have to be increased accordingly.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, I must confess that I am not wholly satisfied. The noble Lord is aware that the most convenient and the best exits are, in fact, the entrances. I wonder whether he is aware, too, that those who are professionally interested in dealing with emergencies in aircraft are most anxious about this particular difficulty, which they foresee in rescuing people from them.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that the most convenient exits are the ordinary doors. But I would tell the noble Lord that in most cases the steps incorporated in aircraft doors are not a disadvantage but an advantage in the case of an emergency. There are, in fact, three types of steps incorporated in aircraft. The first is built into the back of the door itself, and the hinge of the door is at the bottom so that when the door lowers the steps appear. The second type, which is known, I regret to say, as an airscalator, is titled to the Viscount, and in that the steps fold outwards from the vestibule; but when they are in the "shut" position they do not inconvenience exit through the door at all.
The third type, which I think may have given rise to the noble Lord's Question, is that fitted to the Vanguard, where steps again fold out from the vestibule. They are quite bulky when folded up. These are hydraulically operated, but there is a system whereby they can be switched over to manual operation, so that they can be pushed out. In most cases the main entrance will still be

1343
workable in case of emergency. With regard to the second supplementary, suggesting that those professionally interested in aircraft were worried about this, I can only tell the noble Lord that the Air Registration Board are more than satisfied with the emergency exits of these two aircraft, the Viscount and the Vanguard, as they have more than the minimum number of emergency exits required, which in a pressurised aircraft is no small achievement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has completely answered the point of my noble friend. May I ask him whether the Air Registration Board, while expressing themselves as satisfied at the increase in the number of emergency exits, were specifically satisfied also, in the case of the last type of entrance-exit, with the special hydraulic method of lowering which can be achieved by hand? Are they in all the circumstances really satisfied that this is satisfactory? There are certain types of landing of which I am sure the noble Lord will be aware where in fact it would not be possible to lower the steps. For instance, there might be a belly landing.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this third type which I have instanced, although it will work in most cases, is not completely, 100 per cent. foolproof. For this reason it is laid down that there must be the requisite number of emergency exits, not counting the main doors to which these steps are fitted.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am not professionally interested in this, but I shall be flying in a Viscount this afternoon. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me where this additional exit is?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not have cause to find out.
LORD STONHAM: That is not really an answer to my question. The noble Lord will not be about to tell me, so can he please tell me now where the additional exit is?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend make inquiries to find out whether it would be feasible to provide steps for access through the
1344
normal entrance, and whether these could be jettisoned at the same time as the entrance doorway was jettisoned?
LORD DENHAM: I will certainly make inquiries to that effect.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (NUMBERING AND CITATION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, this Bill is to confirm an Order made by the Minister of Transport under Section 17 of the Maidstone Corporation Act. It proposes to authorise the Corporation to use trolley vehicles on a further 6 furlongs, 8·9 chains, wholly within the borough. It is an extension to the route approved by Parliament in 1958 and is to serve a new housing estate. There were no objections to the Order, and there is no other special point at all to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YAR MOUTH NEW BRITANNIA PIER) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this is a Bill under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, which conferred further powers on the Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier Company relating to the alteration and extension of their pier. There was an objection to this

1345
Order, but it was met by agreed Amendments. There is nothing else that I need say. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YAR MOUTH PORT AND HAVEN) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this also is a Bill under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and is to authorise the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners to borrow additional money to spend on the construction, erection and improvement of piers, jetties and other works in their port and haven. It also is to authorise the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the County Borough of Great Yarmouth to guarantee the repayment of the principal and interest of the monies that they borrow. Again there were no objections to the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

JAMAICA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Jamaica Independence Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should like to thank the Opposition for their co-operation in rearranging
1346
the timetable for this Bill, so that it may pass through this House earlier than was originally planned. This change of timetable will enable the Government of Jamaica to complete, by the actual date of Independence on August 6, certain constitutional arrangements which it wishes to make immediately after the inception of the independence Constitution. In particular, there is the question of setting up the Judicial Service Commission, the appointment of the President and other Judges of the new Court of Appeal, and of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, due to his attendance as legal adviser to the Kingdom of Toro at the Uganda Independence Conference, was not, I understand, fully acquainted with this change of plan, and for this reason he is unable to intervene to-day. I say this only because it has almost become the tradition that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, should intervene on occasions such as these.
Jamaica, as your Lordships know, is the largest of the British West Indian Islands and will be, by a short head, the first to become independent. When Jamaica first passed under the British Crown over 300 years ago it was virtually an unknown island, with a population of a little over 3,000 people. Today its population is approaching 2 million. Since the war Jamaica has seen great social and economic changes. Industrialisation has got under way, and in addition to her basic products of coffee, sugar, bananas and tobacco Jamaica has become the world's largest exporter of bauxite. In the constitutional field, progress in recent years has been rapid, and since 1959 Jamaica has enjoyed full internal self-government.
Your Lordships will, I feel sure, agree with me that this is a fitting occasion to record gratitude for the devoted service of civil servants who have contributed so much over the years. The present Civil Service is almost entirely Jamaican and is of a very high quality. Jamaica is also fortunate in having distinguished political leaders, among whom the names of Sir Alexander Bustamante and Mr. Manley are so particularly well known. Jamaica will therefore start her career as an independent nation with considerable political and economic advantages. There are,

1347
however, many problems with which she will have to contend; and the most serious of these is unemployment.
Your Lordships will remember that the Jamaican Independence Conference last February was particularly successful, and this, I think, demonstrated the political maturity of the country and of its leaders. Before the Conference, the two main Parties had reached a very wide measure of accord among themselves, and this enabled us to proceed quickly to complete agreement here in London. The satisfaction at the success of the Conference was very much heightened when it was announced that Her Majesty The Queen would be represented at the Independence Ceremonies by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret, accompanied by Lord Snowdon. Princess Margaret, as noble Lords will know, is known and well-loved in Jamaica and her presence as the representative of The Queen will give great joy.
My Lords, the Bill is in the same form as a number of Independence Bills which have been before your Lordships' House in recent years. This Bill, like its predecessors, is a brief one. Clause 1 provides for fully responsible status for Jamaica. Clause 2 deals with the citizenship question, on the lines already embodied in several previous Independence Bills. Clause 3 provides for consequential modifications to various United Kingdom enactments. I think, my Lords, that all these clauses are straightforward, as also is Clause 4, which gives the delimitation of the country of Jamaica.
Here, my Lords, I should like to draw your attention to a consequence of Jamaican independence which will affect the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. These islands have been linked with Jamaica for nearly 100 years, and on Jamaica's impending independence we asked them what they wished their future status to be. In both cases, after considerable public debate, they asked to remain Colonies of the British Crown; and to this we have agreed. Although their constitutional links with Jamaica will, in fact, be severed after August 6, there is every reason to believe that the Government
1348
of Jamaica will continue their generous help to these Islands. Clause 5 is the short title.
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to commend to your Lordships this Bill. I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of this House will join with me in wishing the leaders and people of Jamaica success and prosperity for their country, and in welcoming their desire to remain within the Commonwealth. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
3.24 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is becoming increasingly frequent, I am happy to say, for Bills of this kind to be placed before your Lordships. It is undoubtedly an indication of the way things are moving, and the way things should be moving, and we on this side of the House certainly give this Bill, and all that it implies, a very warm welcome. There are, perhaps, some rather special reasons for looking with pleasure on this Bill. Not only is Jamaica one of our oldest Colonies; it is, I believe I am right in saying, the oldest Colony so far to achieve its independence—or, perhaps I should say, to achieve its independence in this highly desirable manner. Of course, we had other Colonies on the other side of the Atlantic, which achieved their independence in a somewhat different manner, but on this occasion there is no feeling of recrimination, and there has been nothing other than a certain amount of bargaining round the table before this decision has been arrived at.
As the noble Marquess has said, Jamaica has been a Colony for close on 300 years, and I think that we are entitled to look back on those 300 years with a certain amount of pride, not undiluted with shame. But we have achieved some good things in Jamaica, or have helped the Jamaicans to achieve them. Some of the things of which we could be proudest, I think, are the pleasant, very good relations which exist between Jamaica and ourselves; the fine democratic Government, to which the noble Marquess has referred, which exists there at the present time; the admirable statesmen, on both sides, who

1349
are to be found there; and the very considerable degree of economic advancement that has taken place, particularly in the last fifteen or twenty years.
However, at the same time, there are some things which we should regret, which we do regret. Regarding the immediate past, I think on all sides of the House we regret that it is Jamaica alone that is receiving independence. How much better it would have been if the whole of the Federation of the West Indies were the subject of this Bill that is before us to-day! While not wishing to call up the unsavoury past, I think we should remember, when dealing with this island and this area, some of the less good things which have happened there while it has been a responsibility of this country: the exploitation which took place there; the wealth which was produced in those islands, in Jamaica in particular, and which was not allowed to remain there but came over to this country, where it was spent instead of being used and reinvested there; and, of course, the slavery which for so long was the basis of the economy of Jamaica. My Lords, I am mentioning these things not simply for the sake of recrimination, but because I think it puts these matters into proportion, which we should bear in mind when we are thinking of the future.
Before turning very briefly to the future, I would ask the noble Marquess three specific questions concerning this new constitution. In the White Paper Report of the Jamaican Independence Conference, mention is made, in I think paragraph 49, of
"compensation for certain categories of public officers".
We assume, I hope rightly, that there has been some satisfactory arrangement arrived at as to how those officers are to be compensated; that they will not be left in the lurch, as has happened, as your Lordships well know, on certain other occasions when former Colonies have been granted their independence. There is also reference to the common services, which are of such importance not only to Jamaica but to the rest of the islands; and perhaps the noble Marquess can tell us what progress has been made in ensuring that these common services are, in fact, carried on. In particular, I would refer to the University
1350
of the West Indies, so much of which is in Jamaica itself.
Finally, there is the matter of the Constitution itself. I do not know what is the usual custom in these matters, but it seems to me, without unduly cavilling about it, that we are to-day being asked to approve a Bill to give independence to Jamaica, without, in fact, knowing what the new Constitution is going to be. We have an outline of that Constitution in the White Paper, an outline with which we all agree, but I should have thought it would have been a good deal more satisfactory if, before we gave our final approval to this very important Bill, we were enabled to see the actual Constitution itself to satisfy ourselves that it does in fact fulfil all that is set out in the White Paper.
To turn just briefly to the future, it is a future which, in my view, is full of scope and full of hope. Jamaica is the largest island of the former British West Indies: it is the richest; it has the largest population; and it is at least as highly developed economically, socially and politically as any of the other islands. So the possibilities are very great. As the noble Marquess has told us, it has a relatively mixed economy. It is not dependent upon only one product or one crop. It has bauxite; it has, particularly, sugar; it has bananas; and it has something which the noble Marquess did not mention but which is highly important to it, and that is a flourishing tourist industry which brings in a very large amount of valuable foreign exchange. But all these sources of wealth are vulnerable. If we are in fact entering on a period of world recession economically—and there are many signs to suggest that we are—they will all suffer. The American tourists will not go to the West Indies to spend their dollars, and there will be a severe curtailment there in foreign earnings; the aluminium utilisation in the world may well contract and the earning from bauxite may very well decrease; and your Lordships know well the problems of sugar, of the overproduction in the world, and the vulnerability of other agricultural crops. So we must realise, as I am sure the Jamaicans do, that, bright though the prospects may be for the future of the island, there are some very threatening clouds on the horizon. Not only is the

1351
present unemployment there one of them, but there is the future uncertainty of the economy of the rest of the world.
I hope not only that Jamaica herself is well aware of this but that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of it, and that they are not saying to themselves, "Jamaica now has independence; we need no longer worry about what happens there. If unemployment should rise still further, if the standard of living should fail to rise, or even drop, now that they have independence it is no concern of ours. "We must retain our feeling of responsibility for this island. We must do it because of our past historical connection. And it was for that reason that I mentioned some of the worst sides of our colonial occupation. We must do it for those reasons, remembering the wealth we have taken out of the island in past centuries; we must do it out of gratitude for the services that we have received from Jamaica in two world wars; and we must do it, above all, I believe, because of our responsibility as one of the richest nations of the world to make sure, in relation to those nations which, while far from being under-developed areas, are less well-off than we are, that wealth is more evenly distributed throughout the world. Even at times of slump, even at times of recession, even with the problems of the Common Market which may soon arise in Europe—even with all those things, our responsibility still remains to help Jamaica and all the other areas where we were once so closely connected and where our ties are now somewhat loosened. So long as we remember that, and so long as we give such help as we can to Jamaica, I am confident that, however threatening the clouds may appear to be, the storm will be survived and Jamaica will go on, with the good wishes of all of us in this House and in this country, to greater prosperity and greater development.
3.35 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill I propose to be very brief. The brevity of my speech will, of course, be no measure of my appreciation of the importance of this final step on the road to independence; nor of the affection which I feel for Jamaica and her
1352
people, among whom I lived for five years and whose interests were my own. It is rather a measure, I would say, of the unanimity of the good will which we all feel.
Twenty years ago, my Lords, the first constitutional changes leading to independence were taken, and no one appreciates more than I do the great progress which has been made economically, socially and politically during the past twenty years under the leadership of Jamaica's two outstanding figures, the two cousins, Sir Alexander Bustamante and Mr. Norman Manley. In their different ways, they have rendered immense services to their country. The dynamic leadership of Sir Alexander Bustamante, combined with his shrewd and sympathetic understanding of the outlook and aspirations of the ordinary citizens of the country, has long since won for him their confidence and their affection. He will always, to them, be known affectionately as "Busta", the name they gave him many years ago—to them, the man who first publicly interpreted their struggling need for higher standard's and a better life.
The complementary contribution of Mr. Norman Manley during his period of power has been of no less importance. His brilliant brain, his selfless devotion to public service and his statesmanlike grasp of affairs have always enabled him to see Jamaica in a world setting. Jamaica was very fortunate, I feel, my Lords, to have a statesman of this high calibre in charge during the recent difficult years. Not the least of his contributions to the welfare of Jamaica was, I suggest, his leadership of the Opposition during Sir Alexander's first period of office as Premier. He set an example of how an Opposition should behave, and thereby made a vital contribution to the success of the democratic system; and when we hear people talking of the maturity of Jamaica, we should never forget the debt which they owe to Mr. Manley for this lesson which he gave. Because, my Lords, as we all know, under our political system a responsible Opposition, ever conscious of the possibility that the burden of government may be handed over to them, is called upon to resist any temptation to undermine respect for authority.
I am confident, then, that Mr. Manley will always bear these priorities in mind

1353
during the future difficult period which now awaits Jamaica, and that there will continue a vigilant Opposition combining its traditional duties with a patriotic appreciation of the interests of the country. Incidentally, one of the reassuring aspects of the recent elections in Jamaica has been the complete rejection by the electorate of those who were trying to introduce racial animosities into that country, Which had previously been remarkably free from them. They have failed, and the electorate confined its attention to a choice between the policies of the two leading Parties.
My Lords, it would be foolish to pretend that, despite all its natural advantages, Jamaica does not face difficult problems in the early future. It is an island of surpassing beauty, with much very fertile soil, producing sugar, bananas, coffee, coconuts, and citrus fruits. It has a considerable and growing series of industries. It has a cigar industry of no mean importance; it has large bauxite deposits, and is now, as the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill said, the world's biggest exporter of the ore of aluminimum. Its basic problem is, of course, over-population. Approximately 1,700,000 people, with one of the highest birth rates in the world, have to subsist on 4,411 square miles. Plantation agriculture, mining and its large tourist industry are all peculiarly vulnerable to world economic conditions, as has been pointed out by the nobe Lord who preceded me in this debate. Sir Alexander Bustamante has shown in his recent speeches that he is fully conscious of the problems his Government have to face. He will need, and I am sure he will receive, economic aid, educational assistance, and expanding complementary trade from the United Kingdom, and from Canada, as well as from the United States of America. Canada, of course, with its long connection with the West Indies, is the nearest member of the Commonwealth, and is obviously the country to which Jamaica will look for a great extension of that friendly assistance it has had in the past.
My Lords, I have deliberately refrained from offering unnecessary advice about the way Jamaica should tackle her problems, economic and social. Jamaica is well provided with organisations for this purpose, and she is fortunate in having an ample reservoir of
1354
men and women who are inspired by a sense of public service. I should have no hesitation in saying that there is a greater proportion of people with the ability and the will to render public service in Jamaica than in almost any other of the many Colonies I have known. My own experience there taught me that the educated classes were not lacking in public spirit and constructive ability to translate patriotism into practice.
There are also in this country several organisations (I need not enumerate them) whose purpose is to assist where their assistance would be welcomed. Furthermore, I do not indulge in any vain regrets about the demise of the Federation. It takes more time and better communications to construct a mental bridge across the 1,200 miles that separate Jamaica from Trinidad. The common services which have an organic growth, such as the University of the West Indies and the College of Agriculture in Trinidad, and the many other examples of joint endeavour, will doubtless continue. It may well be that among a group of independent units the feeling of unity and interest will grow in the future, and eventuate in a Federation more strongly based because the idea has grown naturally from practical experience. Be that as it may, we welcome to-day the independence of Jamaica, and we wish its Government, under Sir Alexander Bustamante, every success in the unfettered management of their own affairs. With a competent Civil Service, to which reference has already been made, and which has proved its worth, they have what so many other places have not had—the necessary sub-structure of efficient government.
Perhaps I ought to mention, before leaving this subject, that the Cayman Islands, with the Turks and Caicos Islands, former dependencies of Jamaica, have decided to retain their colonial status. One may confidently expect, too, that these islands, which have in the past owed so much to the friendly economic aid of Jamaica, will continue to enjoy that assistance from the newly independent country. We welcome Jamaica as another independent member of the Commonwealth, and particularly Sir Alexander's unequivocal declaration that her interest and her outlook on life are the same as those

1355
of the liberty-loving nations of the West.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I remind you that the smooth transition to independence owes very much to the last of the British-appointed Governors of Jamaica, Sir Kenneth Blackburne. His patient courtesy, his tact and understanding, and his sincere devotion to the interests of Jamaica, have enabled him to enjoy the confidence both of Mr. Manley and of Sir Alexander Bustamante in their difficult tasks. My Lords, 300 years of close association have been of great mutual benefit, not only to this country but also to Jamaica. There is every reason, I suggest, to expect friendly co-operation to continue undiminished through the years to come. I beg to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I support the Second Reading of this Bill. My reason for speaking is that for many years I used to go regularly to Jamaica, where I had agricultural interests, and I got to know these people in the hills of Westmorland very well. The ordinary Jamaicans are simple, agricultural people. The great thing which struck me was their extreme loyalty to this country. You could go into the shabbiest little hut, and the odds were that you would find a picture of the Queen; in fact, in any schools I went into, I always saw pictures of the Queen, and they really do have a great affection for this country. I think we can rest assured that in Jamaica the freedom of the individual will not be—shall we say?—slightly whittled away, as has happened in one or two other Colonies which have become independent.
The noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Walston, have paid tribute to the leaders in Jamaica. Jamaica is fortunate in her two leaders—who are cousins—in both the extremely brilliant academic mind of Mr. Manley and the great public spirit and sense of humour of Sir Alexander Bustamante. If every statesman had the sense of humour that Sir Alexander Bustamante has, the world would be a far happier place. It was extremely gratifying to see how peacefully the last elections passed off,
1356
compared with elections m other parts of the Commonwealth. The independence talks held over here, fixing the date of independence and the type of Constitution appear to have passed without any recriminations. It all shows the maturity of Jamaican politics.
One of the great advantages of Jamaica is that she has no tribal system. I see that the noble and gallant Field Marshal is not here, but I say this with apologies to him. If a colony is going to have a democratic system of government, it is a great advantage if there is no tribal system. We have heard reference to our extremely old connection with Jamaica, of 300 years, but I was rather sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walston, introduce the subject of slavery. It is a subject that nobody likes, but it was the custom of the time. I have spoken to many in Jamaica whose great-grand-fathens were born in slavery and they bear no grudge at all, so presumably there must have been some kind slave-masters. There is another subject that nobody likes to mention. We have great ties of blood with Jamaica, and Jamaica is all the better for it.
There is one danger that I would mention. A great many people in Jamaica, the sort of people I met, not in Kingston but in the country, are very simple and when they hear of independence they may expect it to work miracles. Of course, independence usually means increased taxes, because they have to pay for the judiciary and other services they did not have to pay for before. I should like to say to Her Majesty's Government that it will be no use for Jamaica to have independence if she does not have every economic help that we can give her. I hope that the Colonial Development Corporation can become a Commonwealth Development Corporation, because it seems extraordinary that when these colonies become independent they cannot embark on any new schemes under the Colonial Development Corporation.
There is another danger, though I do not think it will happen, because they are too sensible. I hope that the leaders of Jamaica will not embark on a great scheme of nationalisation, because Jamaica needs all the foreign capital that she can have and nationalisation would greatly hinder that. Agriculture in

1357
Jamaica is highly developed, though farmers have been rather loth to introduce mechanisation because then they cannot employ so many people. This is a very difficult problem. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that we implement the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and, if we join the Common Market, that Jamaican sugar interests will be looked after.
We also have a new trend in Jamaica. In the last ten years industrial productivity has been going up by about 6 per cent. a year; and there is a danger that those Jamaicans employed in industry will have a far higher standard of Jiving than the Jamaicans employed in agriculture. Some people refer to Jamaica as a rural slum. That is not actually correct, but there is this rapidly expanding industrial economy, with the danger of expectations outrunning the capacity of Jamaican industry to satisfy them. Here, again, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will help Jamaican economy with all their power.
One of the problems in Jamaica is seasonal employment in many sections of agriculture and in the tourist industry. People who do not know Jamaica are inclined to think that if the people there have only seasonal work, they are without sustenance part of the year. But in fact they can eat the breadfruit, ackies, and other wild fruits which are abundant, and they do not need substantial housing, because of the sun. It is far worse to be unemployed in a cold European country. I have known Jamaican agricultural families who have been offered a nice house but who have preferred to stay in their own shack. We cannot judge them by our standards.
There is in Jamaica this great problem of population. While I do not advocate altering the Commonwealth Immigrants Act which we have just passed—we do our part in taking in Jamaicans—I think that other parts of the Commonwealth and America might perhaps help in this respect. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government would bring pressure to bear on other countries in the Commonwealth. I understand that there is a hope of the American Immigration Act being altered so that there may be a quota for Jamaican citizens on the same basis as that for Latin American countries. If we could get America to do that, it would be of great
1358
assistance. The population problem is extremely acute, and I do not see the answer to it.
I should like to pay tribute to the high standard and efficiency of the Jamaican Civil Service, and I hope that after independence any members of that service who come from Britain will be adequately compensated on retirement (as I am sure they will be) by the Jamaican Government. I would say again how happy I am that we have this Bill. I am sure that Jamaica will be a model to the Caribbean and a stabilising factor in that area. She enters her independence with all my best wishes.
4.3 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, has already referred to the fact that my noble friend Lord Ogmore cannot be present this afternoon to give a welcome to this Bill, but I should not like the occasion to pass without someone associating noble Lords on these Benches with the kind words and good wishes which the House is sending out to the people of Jamaica. It is a country that I have never visited and do not know, but I have had the great pleasure and privilege of working with one or two people from Jamaica who have come to study in this country, and they have always impressed me greatly with their integrity, their intelligence and their fine feeling of friendship towards this country. I should like to add my welcome to the Bill which is at present before your Lordships.
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure it will be a source of great satisfaction to our Jamaican friends to know of the good wishes that have been expressed for them in their new independent State (as it will be from August 6) by noble Lords from all parts of the House, particularly as these sentiments have been expressed by noble Lords who have personal experience, and some of them very close personal experience, of Jamaica. I will try to answer the questions that have been addressed to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard referred to the question of compensation for some of the public servants

1359
in Jamaica. The position is that there is at present in existence in Jamaica, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is aware, a limited compensation scheme, and it was agreed at the Jamaican Constitutional Conference that, while this limited compensation scheme should continue for a time after independence, a general compensation scheme should be introduced in 1964 under which overseas officers and all officers designated under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, should, if they wished, be free to retire with compensation. We are at present discussing the details of this general compensation scheme with the Government of Jamaica, and it seems probable that it will be introduced, not in 1964, but in 1963. I think I can reassure noble Lords on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, also referred to the question of the common services. As some of your Lordships will be aware, there is to be a conference in Trinidad of all the West Indian Governments on July 10 when the question of the common services of the West Indian countries will be discussed. Among other things the conference will discuss the University of the West Indies, the shipping services, the meteorological service and so on. Pending these discussions, I am afraid that there is nothing else I can tell your Lordships on this point this afternoon.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised the question of the constitutional procedure. There is nothing peculiar in the procedure that we are adopting on this occasion in the case of Jamaica. It is exactly the same as the procedure adopted in regard to Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Cyprus and Tanganyika. The Constitution of Jamaica will be contained in the Order in Council made by Her Majesty's Government. The Bill that we are discussing today has to be law before the new Constitution comes into effect. What will happen is that the Bill will become law, and then on August 6 the new Constitution will replace the existing one. But in the Order in Council there are to be certain provisions, to which I referred indirectly in my opening remarks, which allow the Jamaican Government, among other things, to appoint the judges of the Court of Appeal. So we are doing nothing different from what has been
1360
done before. I hope that my explanation will put the noble Lord's mind at rest on this point. I am grateful to him for having asked the question, of which he gave me notice. I was able to investigate and satisfy myself on the subject, and, being a newcomer to the office, it was a useful exercise for me.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, and other noble Lords who have spoken feel that there is a future full of hope for Jamaica; and that is the feeling of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, it would be idle to pretend that there are not considerable difficulties with which the Jamaican Government will have to contend, notably the question of unemployment. And, of course, linked and closely related with unemployment is the question of the very rapid population increase, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has referred.
I think I am not misquoting the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when I say that he hoped the attitude of mind of Her Majesty's Government would not be that, after independence, we need no longer worry about Jamaica. Of course, that is very far from being the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and we will continue to do all we can, in men and in money, to help our Jamaican friends. Sir Alexander Bustamante, with some of his colleagues, is at this moment in London and is engaged on discussions about future financial arrangements and defence matters. These talks are still in progress. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to help a country which we hope is going to become a brother member of the Commonwealth. But I think it is only fair that I should put on record in your Lordships' House that what the United Kingdom is able to do for Jamaica is, of course, limited by her great responsibilities to other countries poorer—indeed, much poorer—than Jamaica.
I think it will be a source of intense gratification to Sir Alexander Bustamante, and to Mr. Manley, to read the very sincere tribute paid to them by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—a tribute which, coming from the noble Lord, with all his experience, is of all the greater value. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, my noble friend Lord

1361
Milverton referred to the passing of the Federation. But my noble friend, while agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in regretting this passing of the Federation, hoped that perhaps a sense of co-operation might spontaneously grow up in the countries of the West Indies—and, indeed, that is the hope of us all. I think I should not pass on without referring particularly to Lord Milverton's generous and well-deserved tribute to the last of the Governors of Jamaica.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in referring to economic aid, made allusion to the Colonial Development Corporation. It is not for me to speculate on what the first letter of the initials C.D.C. may one day stand for, but clearly the point which he raised is an important and interesting one. In so far as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is concerned, let me at once assure noble Lords that the Government of Jamaica have throughout been kept in close touch with our Common Market negotiations, and it is our sincere hope that the Prime Minister of Jamaica will play his full part in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' discussions on the Common Market later in this year.
My Lords, I think I have referred to all the points which have been raised by noble Lords, and it only remains for me to thank them for giving this Bill such wholehearted support; and to say once again that, with them, I give all my best wishes to Jamaica in its new independence.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DRAINAGE RATES BILL
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, this Bill was introduced in another place by Mr. Denys Bullard, Member for King's Lynn. It met with no opposition: in fact, I understand that there was no discussion on it at all. The object of the Bill is to save unnecessary work in the offices of drainage authorities and, at the same time, to ensure that those people who are paying their
1362
drainage rates pay no more. There are 400 internal drainage boards, and many of them are small. In many cases the ledgers and calculations are filled in by hand, and they have no elaborate calculating machines. The object of this Bill is to save unnecessary work.
I should like at this stage to assure your Lordships that it makes no change in the basis of assessment and, with certain possible marginal exceptions, no difference to the amount that a person pays in drainage rates. It merely gives the drainage boards an alternative way of working out the sums and doing their calculations. To explain what the Bill does exactly it is perhaps necessary to go back a short way. At the moment, as your Lordships know, the basis on which drainage rates are calculated is on the Schedule A value: in the case of agricultural land on the full Schedule A, and in the case of non-agricultural hereditaments on one-third of the Schedule A value. Those rates are paid under the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
During the passage of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, it became clear that under the method of using Schedule A calculations there were serious anomalies, particularly in the case of post-war built houses which were let. The valuations for Schedule A took place in 1935, but the post-war houses were assessed at present-day values. Therefore, those houses—and it applies to council houses and houses of that kind—were paying more than their proportion of the rates. So a new method was introduced in the 1961 Act, and as from April 1 next year non-agricultural hereditaments will be assessed on their rateable value; that is, on the value in the rating lists, which should be out by the end of the year. The rateable values will he higher than the Schedule A values. Agricultural land will continue to pay on the Schedule A, non-agricultural land on the rateable value. If nothing were done, obviously an undue proportion of the rate would be borne by the non-agricultural hereditaments, so to maintain the balance between the agricultural and the non-agricultural there was introduced into the 1961 Act something called the relative fraction, which is, in fact, the total Schedule A value of the non-agricultural hereditaments in one drainage board area divided by the rateable value of the same hereditaments.

1363
As a result of that you get a fraction, and the purpose of this Bill is to lay down how you apply that fraction to the rateable value to assess the amount that a person has to pay in rates.
Under the 1961 Act it was laid down that this fraction must be applied to the rate levied in the pound. This Bill, if it is passed, will give an alternative method of applying that fraction to the rateable value; in other words, it gives alternative ways of working out the sum. May I give an example? Suppose a person Who is going to pay rates has agricultural land valued at, say, £250, and has non-agricultural land or hereditaments valued at £90, and that the relative fraction is a half and the rates are 5s. in the pound. Under the present system you would take the agricultural land value of £250 and multiply it by the rate poundage, which is 5s. In the case of the non-agricultural land, you would first divide it by three—because non-agricultural land pays only a third of the rate of agricultural land—so that you would then have £30 for the non-agricultural hereditament. Under the present system you would then take 5s., which is the rate in the pound, and divide it by a half. To get the amount paid on the non-agricultural hereditament you would multiply the £30 by the half-crown in the pound. Under the new, the alternative, system, you take the agricultural land valued at £250. You then take the non-agricultural hereditament; divide it by three, which gives £30; multiply by the relative fraction, and then multiply the result by the rate of 5s. in the pound. Therefore, instead of multiplying £30 by half-a-crown, you multiply £15 by 5s.
That sounds very unimportant, but it is laid down in the present Act that you have to divide the rate poundage; you cannot do it the alternative way. The advantage of doing it the alternative way is that in making up the rate book you can put in your agricultural land at £250. You can then take your non-agricultural hereditament and apply the fraction to it, so that you put in your rate book the £15; and you can then add them together and multiply by the 5s. So you have only one rate in the pound instead of two to deal with,
1364
which means, in the case of one drainage board, that you can add all agricultural and non-agricultural land together because you have applied the fraction in the book, and you have to multiply it merely by the one rate. In the case of the smaller drainage authorities I understand that this will save them a very great deal of work.
It was realised that Clause 22 of the 1961 Act, when it was introduced, was going to cause a lot of extra work, but it was not foreseen that some of the work would turn out to be unnecessary. To give an example, if one particular drainage authority had to do the calculations under this Bill they could do them in nine columns, whereas to do the calculations according to the 1961 Act would require 14 columns. Many of these drainage authorities have to do a very great deal of work and do it in a short time. I should like to emphasise that it is not mandatory on a board to use either one of these methods; they can choose which one they use. Several of the larger authorities have very elaborate calculating machinery and will prefer to use the method laid down in the 1961 Act. On the other hand, there are many smaller authorities who wish to use the other method.
The result of using either method is, to all intents and purposes, the same, but there might be a slight marginal difference, because before doing the calculation the rateable values are either rounded up or rounded down, which means that if the odd shillings are below ten you take it to the pound below and if above ten you take it to the pound above. Therefore there can be a marginal difference according to which way you do the calculation, but the difference cannot be more than a few shillings. Therefore, assuring your Lordships that the Bill does not in any way materially affect the method by which the rates will be paid or the amount anybody will have to pay—it is solely to save unnecessary work—I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
4.30 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I want just for a few moments to say a word or two about this Bill, but I can assure

1365
your Lordships I do not propose to go into any figures or calculations. From this side of the House we welcome the Bill, and I speak on behalf of the Association of Drainage Authorities when I say this Bill will simplify matters in their offices and give assistance to them. As your Lordships can realise from what you have heard from the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, very great complications may arise in regard to calculations, but I am assured that it will simplify matters and on that score I wish to bless the Bill. Also it is in a way an inspired Bill, because it has been for some time in anticipation by the drainage authorities, and it has been produced, I understand, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. As the noble Lord said, it provides an alternative method of calculating the amount of drainage rates which should be paid. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a Second Reading and a speedy passage through the House. The passage through the other place was as speedy as it possibly could be, because I can quite understand that the Member who was behind the Bill probably thought it better to be very brief and to let it go through the House in a formal manner. I, therefore, hope the Bill will be passed by your Lordships this afternoon.
4.32 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think I should just say that the Government welcome this Bill as a helpful and beneficial measure.
LORD LATHAM: If only because they do not understand it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The Government understand this Bill perfectly, though I personally am not a Wrangler, senior or junior. I am full of admiration, as I am sure your Lordships will be, for the exposition which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who spoke without notes, or without referring to notes, on this intensely complicated arithmetic.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have not any notes either, but I understand I shall pay a few shillings a year more.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords, that is not so; it is very unlikely that the noble Viscount will pay either more or less. This is a little measure, but very useful, which will help the drainage boards, who often have extremely limited resources, to apply the important provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the 1961 Act with greater ease. That is all it is about. It is a machinery measure. It has the merit of allowing the drainage boards greater flexibility, so that when they do these sums, from the beginning of the next financial year, they will have the option of doing them in the way that this Bill allows or in the way laid down in the 1961 Act. It is not going to cost anybody any more or any less necessarily; the individual sums may work out a shilling or two one way or the other. This Bill is to enable the calculation to be done more simply. It does not alter the basic legislation. It does not alter the basic intention of the Act in any way at all. I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill as a very useful measure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS. BOROUGH: If it is going to make all this saving, what will be the saving in staff?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not know what will be the saving in staff, but there are a number of these small drainage authorities who have not the advantage of even perhaps adding machines, let alone computers. They may write up their drainage demands in pen and ink in ledgers, in books which maybe they have been using for many years. They may be a little old-fashioned, but they are nevertheless very sound authorities, and it is going to be most complicated for them to use the procedure laid down in the Act. As the noble Lord said, it may mean sometimes that they will have to rule up their ledgers in 15 or 16 columns instead of 8 or 9. We think that it is reasonable that drainage authorities should be allowed this option, and that is the sole reason why we think that this measure should be introduced.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the support they have given to this measure. I am sorry if I gave the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, the impression that he

1367
would necessarily have to pay more. He might have to pay a few shillings more; he might, on the other hand, pay a few shillings less. I would again thank noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR GUNS AND SHOT GUNS, ETC., BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill which has already been through another place, where in general it was accepted with enthusiasm. It was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Maldon, Mr. Brian Harrison, and having passed all its stages there is comes to your Lordships' House, where I trust it will be received with equal enthusiasm. It has, to my mind, three fairly obvious virtues: first, it is a short Bill; secondly, it is a modest Bill; and, thirdly, it is a sensible Bill. It is primarily designed to bring some kind of order and regulation of the use of air guns and shot guns by young people, and at the outset I should like to state what the Bill does.
Under this Bill no person under the age of 14 may receive an air weapon or ammunition for it, and no one may give a person under that age an air weapon or ammunition for it. No one under 14 may be in possession of an air weapon unless he is under the supervision of a person who is over the age of 21 or is the licensee of a shooting gallery or club. No one under 17 may have an air weapon in a public place unless it is securely fastened with a gun cover, and no person under 15 may have an assembled shot gun in his possession unless he is under the supervision of somebody over the age of 21 or unless it is securely fastened by a gun cover. Those are the basic provisions of the Bill. I think if your Lordships will study this Bill you will find that what at first sight might appear to be infringement of one's existing liberties is in fact a reasonable and sensible regulation of these weapons when they are in the hands of young people.
1368
I should like to refer first, if I may, to air weapons as opposed to shot guns. The air weapon may be either an air gun or an air rifle, which is a rifled air gun or an air pistol. They are relatively inexpensive to purchase and, as your Lordships well know, are fired with very inexpensive ammunition, in most cases the slug or the dart, which is a hideous piece of ammunition; but this weapon can be bought even for as little as 25s. 6d. One sometimes forgets that these things, though fundamentally what one might describe as toys, are, nevertheless, lethal and highly dangerous, and yet there are no restrictions whatever upon their use.
I am bound to call to mind my own experience with these things. Having reached the age of ten when the war broke out, I found that my major contribution to the war effort for the first few days was to draw an effigy of the Fuehrer on a piece of paper, place it on a tin and endeavour to puncture it in as many places as possible with slugs from my air gun. In retrospect, I fear that neither the Fuehrer nor my marksmanship was particularly talented. But the point was that those shots might well have found a different target from that at which they were aimed. Under this Bill that kind of practice will become unlawful unless the boy is supervised by a person older than himself. I am not for a moment suggesting that it is bad for young boys to handle these weapons or to have any fun which they may derive from them. What I am suggesting and what this Bill suggests is that if young boys wish to handle these things, then they should do so in the company of older and more responsible people.
I have deliberately taken one example that will endear itself least to your Lordships as a situation deserving of Parliamentary action; but if we may look a Little further, I think that your Lordships will appreciate that there are other cases more serious. As I have said, an air gun or an air weapon may be used by a child of any age, and although he is restricted by the Firearms Act from purchasing one, he is not restricted from using one; and the fact is that a great number of these weapons are being used by young people, quite ruthlessly. Young townsmen go into the country at week-ends and fire off at anything they may see, whether it moves or is stationary,

1369
whether it is an animal or human, or even of neuter origin. Frequently, birds are found maimed, with their legs or their wings broken, and cows are particularly favourite targets. If one is possibly to be a little less sympathetic and more mundane, one will at least appreciate that a cowhide when it has been punctured with slugs is virtually spoiled as a hide.
But the danger and the damage does not stop with animals. People are frequently being shot at, and if not being deliberately shot at, at least hit by youths who use these weapons. If I may quote from two letters, I think that the point will be fairly adequately made. The first letter was written to Colonel Wigg on February 23, and the writer said:
"Within the last few days two shocking cases have come to my notice in our own vicinity. In one, a man digging harmlessly in his allotment right behind my house, was shot between his eyes and had to be rushed to Corbett Hospital to have the bullet dug out. In the other, a school friend of one of my children was shot in the eye while walking with her father in Sutton Park."
The other letter which I should have liked to refer to your Lordships, unfortunately has disappeared below the Bench, but it merely expanded on what had happened to the child who was walking in Sutton Park with her parent on a Sunday afternoon and received a shot wound in the head and was sent to hospital.
I am aware of the danger of quoting individual letters as an argument for supporting one's case, but I think your Lordships will agree that those two cases, if they do not prove anything, at least give an indication of what is going on and how dangerous these weapons are. These are not isolated cases. They indicate what is happening, and reinforce the evidence which your Lordships will find if you look at the statistics. In 1957 there were no fewer than 973 injuries from air weapons, of which 120 were serious. Two years later, the number had increased to 1,079, of which 169 were serious. That is an increase of 10 per cent. in total injuries and of 40 per cent. in serious injuries—a marked increase, and a figure which I suggest is too large. In each case, children under 14 accounted for almost exactly one-third of the figures.
In the case of shot guns the figures are different. In 1957 there was a total
1370
of 170 injuries compared with the 970 for air weapons; there were 64 which were serious and 48 which were fatal. In 1959, two years later, the total of injuries had risen from 170 to 246, which is an increase of 45 per cent., of which 96 were serious and 56 fatal. If one may generalise, I think one can say that more accidents, nearly four times as many, are caused by air weapons as by shot guns; but those that are caused by shot guns are much more serious. Nearly 20 per cent. of all reported accidents by shot guns are fatal.
It is in order to protect the countryside and those who dwell in it, both human and livestock, that this Bill has been brought forward. It recognises that these weapons, be they air weapons or shot guns, are potentially dangerous, and, used by the wrong hands and in the wrong place, can inflict serious bodily damage. It seeks to control, and not to prevent, their use by young people. If a young person wishes to use one of these weapons, then he must do so in the company of older people. The Bill also states that, for reasons of public safety, no one under the age of 17 may carry an air weapon in a public place unless it is securely fastened by a gun cover.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to this clause in the Bill. Clause 1 (3) of the Bill says:
"subject to subsection (5) of this section, no person under the age of seventeen shall have an air weapon in his possession in any public place, except an air gun or air rifle which is so covered with a securely fastened gun cover."
It does not say an air pistol. In other words, no person under the age of seventeen may have an air pistol in his possession in a public place, be it covered or uncovered. The reason for that is obvious. These weapons are small. They are easily concealed, either in a pocket or in a jacket. They can be easily produced and just as easily concealed again.
In Clause 2, the age limit for having an assembled shot gun in one's possession is fifteen. The reason for this is that, in some respects, a shot gun is a tool in many people's trades. Farmers, gamekeepers and pest control officers use shot guns as part of the tools of their trade. This is not so with am air gun, which is primarily a toy. That is

1371
why a person of 15 is much more likely to be (with malicious intent when the is going around with an air gun than if he has a shot gun in his possession. Some people may consider that this Bill goes too far. Equally, others may consider that it does not go far enough. I would merely suggest to your Lordships that it is a fair and a just compromise with sometimes quite conflicting interests, and at least it makes a start on the control of these weapons in regard to young people. The gun-makers themselves are in favour of the Bill because, whilst obviously they wish to see their sales increase, like so many people they detest the thought of these weapons being used by people irresponsibly.
I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, is not here because he has strong views on this particular Bill. He wrote to me a short while ago saying that he was wholly behind the Air Guns and Shot Guns Bill, and wished he could have been here to-day to support it. Perhaps I might quote to your Lordships what he said. I think it is of importance, because his views are so widely respected in the agricultural industry:
"I do not know in what way I can help other than empowering you to say that I have been long convinced that a more effective control of the use of air guns and shot guns is imperative in order to curb the activities of rural vandals and dangerous trespassers whose ignorance of country lore and abuse of privilege make them not only objectionable, but dangerous. During my 15 years as President of the National Farmers' Union I was constantly being furnished with evidence that renders the provisions of this Bill the minimum safeguards that ought to be secured by legislation."
My Lords, it is with that thought in mind that I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I trust that you will treat it favourably and will consider it a wise and sensible Bill to be passed by this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long. I do not want to vote against the Bill at this moment, but I am glad the noble Lord mentioned that there will be people looking
1372
at this Bill who would not be against it in principle, but who would think that it does not go far enough. I am one of those people. It seems to me an extraordinary thing when you begin to talk about "a reasonable compromise" as to the age at which to allow youths to have these lethal weapons when youngsters of fifteen are allowed to possess 12-bore shot guns. This is a most extraordinary situation in view of the accidents that have happened. It is perfectly true, of course, that the accident figures in the case of air weapons are higher, but when accidents happen with shot guns they very often have far more serious results. I think the age here is too low. However, the noble Lord has been very good in his explanation, and I do not propose to vote against the Second Reading. But if it is possible for me to be here on Committee, I may possibly move an Amendment.
4.54 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I, too, should like to say a few words in support of this Bill which my noble friend Lord Ferrers has introduced to us in such a clear and informative speech. It is very seldom indeed that I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, but on this occasion I must record my agreement with him. My support of this Bill is qualified only because I agree that it does not go anything like far enough. I have held this view for some time, and have wearied your Lordships on more than one occasion with my views on this subject. I feel that the whole of our approach to firearms, including the law governing them, is too casual. We allow people to have firearms too easily; we do not inquire nearly carefully enough into the reasons why they want them, their qualifications for holding them and whether they have the necessary skill to use them. There are far too many accidents, in my opinion, arising out of the use of firearms; there are far too many crimes resulting from the use of firearms; and they are still far too easily acquired, both legally and illegally. Firearms have to-day become the status symbol of the crook, and I think it is our duty to reduce that status and to withhold that symbol.

1373
This subject was debated in your Lordships' House on November 14 last. In my Motion I was much more concerned with revolvers and pistols than I was with the use of shot guns and air guns. Since that debate there has been a considerable improvement administratively. I have noticed with approval that the police are becoming much more fussy and detailed in their inquiries; they are asking much stricter questions as to why anybody needs to have a revolver at all.
What I should have liked to do would be to put down Amendments of a fairly stringent nature in order to strengthen this Bill a great deal and to widen its scope. But, having been a Member of your Lordships' House for 20 years now, I know that attempts to put down controversial Amendments on Private Members' Bills in the middle of July are not likely to endear one to the Chief Whip. There is enough heavy breathing going on in the Chief Whip's office to-day, without my adding to it. I should not wish to do anything to imperil the Bill by putting down Amendments. As I have indicated, I regard it as a good Bill, so far as it goes, but it does not go anything like far enough.
As my noble friend has pointed out, we are creating new offences, and one is always a little careful about creating new offences. This Bill has been accused in some columns of the Press as being
"yet one more of those examples of grandmotherly legislation against which we should be on our guard."
I think that my noble friend, in his speech, has given us adequate reason for thinking that this legislation is necessary. Although I Should be out of order in quoting from speeches in another place during this debate, your Lordships have only to read the examples given in those cases to see how very necessary this measure is. We all know that boys will be boys, but far too often nowadays boys seem to behave like lunatics.
The very day after our debate last November there was a case in a North Country police court of a boy, aged fifteen, who had gone with a 38 revolver to the pond in front of the town hall and amused himself by shooting the heads off the swans. He was taken to the Magistrates' Court, where he was remanded for a medical report, and in
1374
due course was found unfit to plead. I share my noble friend's view that it is dangerous to build up a case on one example. What I should like to know is how it is possible for a half-witted boy of fifteen to have possession of a ·38 revolver. That is what I think underlies the argument I am advancing: that the whole of our attitude towards the possession of firearms is too casual. I see that a Mr. Davidson, addressing the Methodist Conference on Tuesday, said:
"Instead of railing at Teddy boys, sneering at teenage fashions, mocking art and shuddering at pop music, let us realise that these young people are at the budding point of a new age."—
a point hardly likely to be appreciated by the swans outside the town hall!
I want to ask the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Home Office, Lord Bathurst, one question, and perhaps he will be good enough to consider it. If, as I hope, we pass this Bill, will it be enforced? It will be a difficult Bill to enforce, particularly Clause 2. Nothing is worse than passing legislation which people do not take seriously and which is not enforced. Look at the very sensible Bill we passed a short while ago to try to prevent louts from leaving litter all over the place. How often do we ever see a prosecution under that Bill? Look at what happens when a certain age group tries to get in to see a certain film which is considered to be unsuitable for them. They just pick up anybody passing by and ask him to pose as a parent or responsible person. I hope that we are not going to have that sort of farcical situation with this Bill. We know the difficulty the police have in enforcing legislation which does not have popular support behind it, and which is not treated with serious respect by the magistrate who has to try the case. That is the point upon which I hope the noble Earl, with his great experience of this problem of the law, will give us some satisfaction.
One final point. When this Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book, as I hope it will do, would the Home Office be good enough to review the whole law relating to firearms, with this Bill included, and put out some simple compendium or guide to the whole of the firearms law, so that there may be complete clarity in everybody's mind as to how the matter now stands? That will

1375
have the additional advantage of saving me a lot of "homework" when I have to return to the charge on a future occasion.
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF NORTHESK: I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been so ably presented by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I support it for three reasons. The first is that in my opinion it does not interfere with the legitimate training of young people in the proper use of firearms, whether they be rifles, air guns or shot guns. The proper time to learn to shoot is when you are young and impressionable, and under supervision; and the whole purport of this Bill is to make it obligatory that supervision is there for the young. In my opinion, it does not interfere with the legitimate desire of young people to learn properly the art of shooting, whether for target practice, for game killing or for any other reason.
Secondly, and I think most important, I feel very strongly that it will go a long way to stop these gangs of eight ten, twelve—and more—small boys, and, indeed, larger boys, who roam the countryside in the vicinities of large towns, as well as the open spaces in the towns themselves, as the noble Earl has said, indiscriminately firing at any form of target, moving or not: mostly dogs or cats, and, in the country, cattle. The quietly-munching cow is an object which you can hardly miss, however bad a shot you are, and it does neither the cow nor the farmer who owns it any good. The gangs, which generally between them possess possibly one or two air rifles, or an air pistol, do incalculable damage. The fundamental fault is that of the parents, and therefore I support this Bill, which in subsection (1) of Clause 1 makes it an offence for a person to give an air gun as a present to a child under the age of fourteen. I welcome that provision wholeheartedly.
I will not enlarge on the small gangs with which I am primarily concerned. I live all too near one of the new towns, and these gangs are a menace. The horrible mutilation of some of the small birds that I have seen, as a result of their attempted marksmanship, is terrible; and, in the absence of any animal
1376
target, they turn round and quite without any compunction fire upon the smaller members of the gang, or on any other small child in the vicinity. We have read in the papers all too often of tragedies and near-tragedies—of an eye being lost when a child, perfectly innocently playing with others, has received one of these slugs.
My Lords, I support the Bill, because it is supported by the Gunmakers' Association. They honoured me by asking me to come and see them some time ago, and they gave me their views on this Bill. I am happy to say that they support it wholeheartedly. Naturally, they were concerned as to whether the implications of the Bill might affect their trade in any way, particularly in air rifles. But, although they feel it might very slightly affect their trade, they waive that consideration without any comment at all, because they support the principles of this Bill; that it will control young people in the possession of air weapons.
I should like to take up one point which my noble friend Lord Mancroft made. He said that this Bill was creating new offences. I cannot quite agree with him there. I do not think this Bill creates any new offences. It merely gives power to punish as an offence acts which are already being committed, and which under the present state of the law are not offences. On that, however, my noble friend will probably not agree with me. But, my Lords, I wholeheartedly hope that all of your Lordships will give your support to the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.5 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill very warmly. It seems to me that for a long while there has been a gap in the control of these air weapons, and I have never understood how that could be. They are all potentially lethal weapons, and it is high time that there was such a Bill. In the early part of my fairly long life I was brought up very strictly. My family have shot all our lives, and we have always been very strict about the control of guns—shot guns and the rest. I have never understood why and how there was this gap in regard to the adequate control of air weapons. I warmly

1377
support the Bill; I am sure that your Lordships will all do the same, and I hope that it has a Second Reading.
5.6 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his admirable moving of this very vital Bill. Like many of your Lordships, I have for much of life indulged in the pastime of shooting. I first used a 0.410 shot gun at the age of eight, but I was very nearly double that age before I was allowed to go shooting unaccompanied, which I think was a very wise thing. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition said that this Bill does not go far enough, and to some extent I agree with him. But I think, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has rightly said, that if one tries to amend a Private Bill at this stage of Parliamentary proceedings one runs into considerable difficulties. I think that the importance of this Bill's becoming law is absolutely paramount. But I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Bathurst, who is to reply for the Government, whether, later at least, the Government could bring in some kind of legislation qualifying the ability of a person over 21 accompanying a young person who is to go shooting.
The law of the land at present is that anyone can obtain a gun licence for 10s. I conferred with my noble friend Lord Ferrers a short time ago. There is a possibility that a young person who has no clue as to how to use a firearm can accompany a lad of 14 on a pigeon shoot or on a vermin shoot, and can perhaps increase rather than decrease the danger. But, as I say, this is really a point for further legislation, and I would be the last person to try to prejudice this very good Bill.
Mention has been made of air rifles, and I should like to bring to the attention of the House the menace which passengers on trains and other forms of transport suffer from these. A short time ago at Worcester Park in Surrey, quite near my home, a window of a train compartment was smashed by some mysterious pellet or something from a firearm. At least two people in that train could have been very seriously injured. My Lords, this is not an isolated case. I mention it only because it is a local case. These cases are all too frequent.
1378
I was talking to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents only this morning, and the figure they gave me for the number of cases of their own hearing in 1960 was of 26 people fatally injured by firearms in that year. The total is probably much higher than that, but that figure, I think, covers primarily people in the vicinity of their own homes. It is very easy for a youngster to go into a gunroom and pick up a loaded shot gun, examine it and meet with a tragic accident. There was a case in Essex only a short while ago where a young boy's brother had been shooting. He left his gun, presumably ready for cleaning, on a table in a room in the house. His younger brother got hold of the gun, which was loaded; it went off, and a fatal accident ensued. This is by no means a rare kind of accident, and I think that the provisions of this Bill will help, if not to eradicate completely at least to diminish these tragedies.
Mention has been made by my noble friend Lord Northesk of the cruel damage done to wild life by these marauding gangs of youngsters. I live near a common in Surrey, and often on a Sunday one hears quite indiscriminate shooting, and I myself have seen wounded birds on the common as a result of it. Nobody quite knows who these people are, whether they are youngsters, or whether they come from a nearby town or city, but the fact is that wild life is cruelly destroyed, and I am certain that all civilised people will deplore that. Again, this Bill will help to counteract that kind of thing.
Certain criticisms have been directed against this Bill: that it is an interference with the liberty of the subject. I submit it is just the opposite. It is a Bill—an admirable Bill—which will save life and preserve it. Whilst I think that in certain parts it does not go far enough, I realise that it is a Private Member's Bill. It has been very carefully thought out and moved by the honourable Member for Maldon and by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in this House, and the sooner it gets on the Statute Book the better for society at large.
5.14 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I just say one very brief word about enforcement, which was the question

1379
raised by my noble friend Lord Man-croft? What will be the position in towns I do not know, but I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that in rural areas this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a great help to village constables, not only in dealing with offences under it but in helping them to deal with offences under certain other Acts. The village constable will certainly be anxious himself to enforce this Bill. I thought that as soon as I read the Bill, and I have had it confirmed, indeed, by a village constable.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I wish to support this Bill. I am not, perhaps, quite so concerned with the gaps in the law as with the gaps I find in my greenhouse when I go home at week-ends—to a large extent as a result of the use of air guns. I find that a very great nuisance indeed. But I did not rise so much to talk about the Bill as to appeal to those who have talked in terms of amending the Bill not to proceed unless they are absolutely convinced of the necessity to do so. The fact is that our Parliamentary timetable is very full. We are getting towards the end of the Session; and it seems to me that if an Amendment is moved in this House and is carried, and if it is of a highly controversial nature, when it goes back to the other place there is a distinct possibility that the Bill may be lost altogether. I think that that would be a tragedy. I believe we want this Bill, and I should like to see any little gaps that are left in it deal! with later rather than to have to go again through the procedure that has been gone through up to now, and to lose the Bill. So I appeal to those who are thinking in terms of an Amendment not to proceed at this stage.
5.17 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his very clear exposition of the contents of his modest Bill. We have heard expert views put forward from both sides of your Lordships' House this evening, and from what I can make out there is a general welcome to this measure from both sides. I am sure that all Mem-
1380
bers of your Lordships' House will appreciate the noble Earl's motives in putting this Bill forward and will join with him in deploring the damage and injury caused by irresponsible and, in many cases, malicious use of air guns and shot guns, particularly air guns, by children and young persons, whom the noble Lord and others of your Lordships have called no less than hooligans.
How far it might be possible to eradicate this kind of mischief entirely by means of further legislation is, as your Lordships will no doubt appreciate, largely a matter of conjecture. It was hoped that the existing prohibition on the sale of firearms—and that includes air guns and shot guns—to young persons under 17 might have ensured that such weapons were used only with the knowledge of parents or guardians, who would have exercised proper control over the circumstances in which they were used. Unhappily, as we have heard confirmed this evening, this is not so. There is, moreover, the practical problem of catching the offender, to which my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Derwent have referred. If a person who causes wilful injury or damage can be caught, there is usually some provision of the law under which he can be dealt with, and I fancy that would have a particular reference to the sort of nuisance from which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, suffers, as he explained to us a moment ago.
Now the noble Earl's Bill is not going to make it easier to prove that any damage was caused by a particular individual, but it is clear that if it were possible to prevent the carriage of air guns, and to a lesser extent shot guns, in public places, the mischief, in so far as it consists of damage done in public places, would also be prevented—and there will be the assistance to the local policeman that my noble friend Lord Derwent mentioned. I would accept, too, that it is easier to prove that a person was in possession of a particular weapon at a particular time and place than it is to prove that a person caused particular damage—again the sort of damage from which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, suffers. This point has been brought out by both my noble friends, Lord Mancroft and Lord Derwent.

1381
Here we come, my Lords, to enforcement. I most heartily endorse the view that the general public could play a very large part in assisting in the enforcement of the measure of my noble friend. We come, too, to penalties, which were particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I would draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers to Clause 3 (1), where he will see that the heavy penalty of £20 is also coupled with a term of three months' imprisonment. That, my Lords, makes it that much more serious a type of penalty, which no doubt the magistrates would consider. Of course, imprisonment does not apply to children, who are probably the targets of this Bill; nevertheless, technically it means that the penalty is that much more serious, and those penalties would apply to them.
I noted a request that a guide might be published at some time, when all these provisions with regard to weapons, shot guns, and now air weapons, might be consolidated. I will certainly bring that suggestion to the notice of my right honourable friend, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his idea. Your Lordships may therefore think that the Bill, thus limited in its scope, would assist the police and the authorities to some extent in preventing the wanton damage that occurs in public places from the misuse of air guns and shot guns in the hands of irresponsible people. I should like also to draw your Lordships' attention, as did my noble friend, to subsection (3), which makes it illegal for anyone under 17 to have an air pistol, covered or uncovered, in a public place.
In considering how far it is necessary or desirable to impose further restrictions on the possession and use of weapons of the kind with which the Bill deals, we begin to find ourselves faced with a conflict of views, although I think that in your Lordships' House there is no conflict of views this evening. On the one hand, there were those who considered that the possession of all weapons by children and young persons should be forbidden, and in that class of thought is the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, and also my noble friend Lord Mancroft. On the other hand, there are those who take the view that persons who are likely to have a legitimate use for a gun later in life
1382
should be trained to use it from an early age. There is a long argument either way, and I am not going to "argue the toss", because I can see that your Lordships' minds are already made up, However, even if it is accepted that there is a case for further restrictions on the possession and use of air guns and shot guns by young persons—and, as your Lordships know, possession of weapons other than air guns and shot guns is already rigidly controlled by the Firearms Act, 1937—there is room for considerable argument about the extent to which controls should be made absolute and about the precise ages at which the controls should operate.
We come to the point of the qualification of an adult, which my noble friend Lord Auckland mentioned. This point raises a great many issues, including that of the licensing of an adult; and again we come back to the problem of enforcement. I know that my right honourable friend will bear all those points in mind; and I note, as indeed we all in the Home Office have noted, what he has said. The question of legislation to deal with the mischief to which the noble Lord referred in introducing the Bill is by no means as simple and as straightforward as might be supposed, and the fact that this Bill has progressed thus far is a tribute to the efforts of those who introduced it in another place to reach such a reasonable compromise between the many conflicting views. But since there are these conflicting views (though not in your Lordships' House), Her Majesty's Government feel that the appropriate course at this stage would be to leave the matter to the judgment of your Lordships.
I ask the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—and, my Lords, he did send me an apology; he has had to leave to attend to other business this evening because of a previous engagement—to bear in mind the kind and helpful advice of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, on his side of the House, and of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, with regard to Amendments to this modest Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount's Whip will be able to take that humble advice from me also this evening. My Lords, if your Lordships are content that this Bill should be read a second time, then we will, of

1383
course, give the matter such further consideration as may be necessary in the light of the proceedings in its later stages.
5.27 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I feel very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, because it has shown quite clearly that everyone who has taken part in the debate is of one mind, and that is that the Bill basically is one that should go forward. It has also shown that the need to curb the irresponsibilities of some younger members of the country is a great one. It is basically an uncontroversial Bill, but if there is any controversy at all it is over the age at which this restriction should take effect. I was particularly grateful for the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and also for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Champion; because this Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and one must remember that it is merely a question of precisely how far down the line the axe is to drop; there will always be arguments that it ought to be higher or that it ought to be lower. I draw to the attention of your Lordships the fact that, although the age for using a shot gun when the person using it is unattended by anybody else is 14, in fact that person may not have an air weapon in his possession in a public place where it could be used until he is 17. Although technically the age is 14, in practice the age where the danger is most likely to occur is governed by the fact that the person may not use this uncovered weapon till he is 17.
But I would echo very much the plea that this matter should be taken on its merits. This is a Private Member's Bill which has been very successful, in my opinion, in coming thus far. We are all basically agreed that it is a good Bill, and it would be a very great pity to throw away a half loaf of bread in the vague hope of trying to get a whole one. So, with that thought in mind, I should like to express once against my gratitude to noble Lords for having taken part in this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (AIRPORTS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, although short, this Bill at first sight appears to be extremely complicated. However, its purpose is fairly simple. It is to define, once for all, I hope, what is meant by the phrase "for private gain" in relation to clubs and societies. The necessity for this Bill arises out of a ruling given in your Lordships' House in the case of Payne v. Bradley on June 1, 1961, which concerned the Huddersfield Friendly and Trade Societies Club. This is a working men's club, which had been organising tombola, Bingo and other games, the profits of which were paid into the club's general fund. The money was used to finance various social activities of members and to provide facilities for members. The Huddersfield Club acted in the widely held belief that Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, would allow this appropriation of the proceeds of its activities for the general purposes of the club. But your Lordships' House ruled that that was not so.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Goddard, Lord Morton of Henryton and Lord Guest, held in their ruling that
"Section 4 of the 1956 Act did not allow the application of proceeds to the Club and that if the proceeds were paid into the general fund of the Club, the Club, and that means the individuals forming the Club, do obtain private gain."
On the other hand, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, maintained that Parliament had intended the words "the purposes of private gain" to mean
"the direct benefit which accrues to an individual where money goes into his pocket or money's worth gets into his hands as distinct from indirect benefit which accrues to him as member of a society or a club."
As a result of this majority ruling by your Lordships' House, any club which organises a lottery for the benefit of club funds is at the moment breaking the law,

1385
and this position is not the wish of Parliament. Section 4 implemented a recommendation contained in paragraph 419 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949–51, that whist drives organised in support of local institutions should be made lawful. The conditions in that section laid down that the element of gaming must be small. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that clubs and institutions should be allowed to organise games and lotteries in support of their funds. This Bill enables them to do so.
I will try to explain the Bill itself. I fear that I shall take a little time, as I am not so experienced as some of your Lordships in explaining these rather difficult provisions, and if I look at my notes a little more than usual, I trust that I shall be forgiven. Your Lordships will see that the Bill consists of one main clause. Subsection (1) (a) covers Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, which exempts from the general prohibition lotteries which are promoted incidental to entertainments such as bazaars, sales of work, fêtes, dinners, dances and sporting and athletic events. Paragraph (b) covers small gaming parties for members and bona fide guests, including whist drives, bridge drives, the famous Bingo and other games of that description. As I have already explained, Section 4 of the 1956 Act is inoperable. Paragraph (c) covers certain provisions of the 1960 Act which were intended to allow gaming machines in places such as golf and social clubs and also the giving of prizes at bazaars, sales of work and activities of that description.
Subsection (2) covers small lotteries promoted on behalf of a society registered by a local authority under the 1956 Act. The reason for covering this activity in a separate subsection is purely one of drafting convenience. The provisions referred to in subsection (1) include as a condition that the proceeds of the entertainment, lottery or gaming must be devoted to purposes other than private gain. Subsection (1) of the 1956 Act is drafted differently. It authorises the promotion of lotteries by a registered society, being a society which is itself established and conducted wholely or mainly for purposes other than private gain. Subsections (1)
1386
and (2) of the Bill are designed to enact that the proceeds of the various activities promoted on behalf of a club or society, calculated to benefit the club or society as a whole, shall not be held to be applied for the purposes of private gain—this is really the purpose of the Bill—by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual. In short, these subsections mean that if proceeds are applied to club funds, in the case of a non-proprietary club, the law is not broken.
Subsection (3) deals with hiring charges for gaming equipment. First of all, there are the gaming machines commonly known as "one-armed bandits". The subsection makes it clear that it is lawful for a club to rent a machine and pay a fixed rental for it, but that it is not lawful for a club to pay a rental which is dependent in any way on the amount of the takings of the machine. I think the easiest way to explain that is to say that in the past some clubs have not rented a machine but have gone "fifty-fifty", or some other percentage of the takings, with the owner. That is not legal. What is legal is to pay a fixed rent for the hire of that machine. This subsection also deals in a similar manner with any hiring charge for equipment for carrying out other gaming activities. For example, sideshows involving the use of gaming equipment might be provided at a fete organised by a club for the benefit of its funds. Under Section 23 of the 1960 Act (which concerns amusements with prizes at such entertainment) the expenses incurred in connection with the provision of such amusements are an allowable deduction from the proceeds of the entertainment; and an argument might well arise in connection with gaming machines provided under Section 17. A similar situation could conceivably arise in relation to the hire equipment for gaming parties organised under Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956. It therefore seems desirable to close these possible loopholes also by specific provisions of this Bill.
My Lords, the Bill has no application to proprietary clubs, and it is not intended that any provision should be made to go beyond what is laid down. If this were not the case it might be

1387
possible for the proprietors of these clubs to gain from their own activities. Subsection (4) is specially designed to avoid infringement by payment of the proceeds into an account, separate from the proprietor's account, which was controlled by the members for the benefit of the club as a whole. The proprietor would not then himself obtain any direct benefit, but he might get indirect benefit in so far as more people might join the club on account of the activities; or the provision of facilities for members out of a separate account might relieve him of financial obligations normally paid out of his gross profits. Subsection (4) makes this impossible. The intention of the Bill is that proprietary clubs shall be excluded unless they are of a sporting or athletic nature—that is to say, golf clubs, cricket clubs and the like. All these clubs must be registered with a local authority under the 1956 Act. The need for registration still stands.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that this Bill, which was so skilfully piloted in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, was unopposed. There are three other comments I would make on it. The Bill does not extend facilities for gambling; it has nothing to do with commercial gambling; it seeks to permit people to do what Parliament intended them to be able to do under the three Acts which are quoted in the Bill. I am authorised to quote from a letter from the Churches' Council on Gambling which was written to my honourable friend in another place and which states:
"This Council's Executive Committee has considered the Lotteries and Gaming Bill and has decided to make no effort to oppose it. This is simply because it appears to be a logical measure, following the judgment in the Huddersfield Club case. If the Bill becomes law, it will enable people to do what it was generally thought they could legally do before under the existing Acts."
I trust that I have explained this rather complicated measure sufficiently well to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Goschen.)
5.45 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I say just a word in welcome to this Bill, and to thank my noble friend for intro-
1388
ducing it and for explaining its complicated provisions so lucidly? I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest. In truth, when the Huddersfield Working Men's Club started this game of Bingo it was done only to enable that club to pay its way. By having these games of Bingo once or twice a week the club managed to make sufficient profit to be solvent; and so the members had the benefit of it.
Unfortunately, and rightly, as I must now say, the majority of this House held that it was conducted by the club for the purposes of private gain: each of the individual members made a private gain because the whole of the members made a gain. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and I dissented from that view, but as the majority of this House in judicial cases is always infallible, the ruling must be accepted. I should like to add that in other countries in Europe, and in the United States, the counts are permitted to look at what happens in the Legislative Assembly. If that had happened here, and the courts had been permitted to look at what was said by the spokesmen of those who introduced the earlier Bills, they would have seen that the words, "purposes of private gain", meant when money went into the individual's pocket, and did not apply to a case of this kind. This shows how careful we must be to get our words exactly right in the Bill.
What does the decision in the Huddersfield club case lead to? Not only is it unlawful for the Huddersfield Working Men's Club to organise a game of Bingo, or a lottery to be held for the parish fête which desires to raise by means of a raffle funds for heating the church or the parish room—that is, for the benefit of people as a whole—but under this ruling the event is "for the purposes of private gain". And so, indeed, where a working men's club, or a youth club, and so on, takes advantage of the opportunity which it now has under the Act of putting in a "one-armed bandit" or a fruit machine—they may put in two—if the proceeds go simply towards helping the running of the club, to help it to be solvent, it is held to be for the purpose of private gain.
Before this ruling, I believe that for some years people had acted on the basis that it was lawful with clubs of this

1389
kind—not profit-making clubs, but members' clubs—to carry on small raffles, lotteries or games of Bingo in this way. By supporting this Bill, your Lordships will only be putting in force what was the practice previously. I do not say anything about games of Bingo in other places, or about the by-products of profits that are made on refreshments and so on; that does not touch this case. This Bill is concerned only, as I see it, with deserving organisations that are making money, not for private gain but purely to help the concern to run. I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Goschen for the very precise and lucid way in which he has explained this highly technical Bill to your Lordships. I should like also to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for intervening in the course of this Second Reading. I would only say that at one moment I thought there might be two noble and learned Lords intervening, in which case we should have been in the middle of an argument. Suffice it to say that the noble and learned Lord has put his side of the argument to your Lordships, as always, with brilliance and lucidity.
Your Lordships will be aware that this Bill is concerned with only one narrow point, which is of considerable importance to members of social and sporting clubs all over the country, as the noble and learned Lord has told us. It is concerned with the interpretation of a single phrase which occurs in several places in Statutes dealing with lotteries and gaming. All those Statutes are most complicated. The various provisions of these Statutes, to which my noble friend Lord Goschen has already referred, permit certain activities which, unless certain specified conditions are fulfilled, would contravene the general rules laid down in those Statutes. One alone, which is common to the various provisions, concerns our debate. This is a condition that the proceeds of the activity shall be devoted to "purposes other than purposes of private gain", and my noble friend has described these purposes to your Lordships. I say, quite frankly, that this was the Government's understanding of the phrase—that the club
1390
could use the proceeds of these activities for the club's funds—when we used it in the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. I am most flattered to think that the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues should read through words of mine, or my noble and learned friend who normally sits upon the Woolsack, whenever they are taking on judgments in such cases. I think perhaps it is better from the noble and learned Lord's point of view that our affairs are run as they are, letting alone what may happen in the United States and elsewhere.
In these circumstances, your Lordships will readily understand why, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I welcome this Bill, the purpose of which is to permit the raising of money by a club or institution for its funds by such activities. The Bill puts Parliament's intended meaning of the "purposes of private gain" into legal language, and hence the complication. This time, as the noble and learned Lord has said, the definition of "private gain" must be as precise as possible.
I particularly welcome subsection (3) of Clause 1 of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Goschen has explained, these provisions were added to the original Bill following fears expressed in another place that Clause 1, as originally drafted, might leave the door open for abuses of the proper purposes of the Bill. My noble friend has pointed out—and I only want to echo it to your Lordships—that the purpose of this subsection is to preclude any possibility than an individual, namely, the lessor of a machine or other equipment, might derive private gain under the cover of a general benefit to the society as a whole. I am sure that we should all agree that this is a wise and laudable precaution to take, and that the inclusion of the subsection is an improvement to the Bill.
However, I am advised that the drafting of this most important but somewhat technical subsection might still further be improved in some minor particulars, and I should welcome, therefore, the opportunity to discuss this point with my noble friend before the Bill comes before your Lordships in Committee. At this stage, I should mention that in the Home Office we have received a suggestion that the wording of another largely technical provision—Section 20

1391
of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960—might be improved. I should like to consider with my noble friend whether this very technical Amendment might be included in his Bill.
From what I have said, your Lordships will realise that the Government are in sympathy with the general intention of this Bill which, put simply, is to reverse the decision in the case of Payne v. Bradley, or, in other words, to lay down that the phrase "purposes other than purposes of private gain" should not preclude the raising of money by a club for its funds by the activities organised under the various provisions mentioned in the Bill. If your Lordships agree that this intention should be carried into effect, I advise your Lordships that this Bill is a suitable instrument for the purpose.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his support, and also my noble friend Lord Bathurst for what he has said. Of course, I am willing to discuss the Amendment to subsection (3), and also the technical Amendment which he mentioned. When I took on what I believed to be a legal Bill I was reminded that my legal training is nil, except for one or two courts-martial. In one case I was defending, and a friend of mine, who was a subaltern at the time and is also now a Member of your Lordships' House, was prosecuting. We got into desperate trouble in the end because we called each other "my learned friend". I do not think there is anything more I need say about this Bill, except that I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, of course we on this side of the House support the Bill. It is a Bill to remove a doubt. We can only hope that, in the consideration indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, when he said that he wished to discuss certain drafting points, we shall not have doubt introduced in some other place in the Bill. Legal refinements can be very dangerous in that respect. We support the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GRANGEMOUTH BURGH BILL [H.L.]
Special Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed.
DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
RIVER DART NAVIGATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before six o'clock.