Lords Sitting of 19 July 1963

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich
The Lord Vernon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Matrimonial Causes and Reconciliation Bill this day through its remaining stages.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

HERRING SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1963
11.6 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1963, a copy of which was laid before Your Lordships' House on July 4, 1963, be approved. I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships if I also speak now about the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1963. At this time last year your Lordships approved similar subsidy schemes. My duty is therefore to draw to your Lordships' attention any major variations in the schemes laid for this year. The pattern of these schemes is, as your Lordships know, based on the 1962 Act. Total subsidy payments this year will run at some £4½ million which, in perspective, is about 9 per cent. of the total turnover.
To turn first to the herring industry, catches in 1962, as compared with 1961 suffered the normal fluctuations. Overall catches were only slightly better in quantity, but the total value of the catch was up by almost 20 per cent. Because of this improvement in earnings we have
394
felt justified in reducing the daily rates by £1 a day for all categories. For the boats under 40 feet the stonage rate will remain unchanged. A variation under which we hope the industry will do slightly better has been made in the arrangements for the purchase of herring sold for conversion into oil or meal. Instead of selling their product to the Board the fishermen will now get a subsidy of 25s. per cran as laid down in paragraph 2, and they will make their own arrangements for sale.
The only structural change in the White Fish Subsidy is in paragraph 15. During the last two years the smaller inshore vessels qualifying for a stonage rate of subsidy have been able to claim the full rate of subsidy for fish sold for pet
food and fish meal. The new lower rate of 6d. for such sales will discourage fishermen from landing large quantities of fish for which there is no market other than pet food and fish meal. The new rate applies only to ungutted fish and will still give a reasonable subsidy where the fisherman has not been able to find a market for human consumption.
There are of course necessarily changes in the daily rates for vessels over 80 feet. The basic subsidy rates are reduced by 7½ per cent., which is the minimum permitted by the Act of 1962. A change, we think for the better, has been made in the handling of the special rates which amount in all to some £350,000. Last year these rates were fixed for a year ahead and a balance
was left to be added to meet need in the latter part of the year. This year less than half the sum has been fixed to meet need for the first six months period, leaving nearly £200,000 to be allocated, if and as necessary, over the last six months.
These then are the main changes. The current overall picture of our fishing industry is that, in England and Wales, the near and middle water vessels have been doing very much better in 1963 than in 1962, though there has been little improvement in Scotland. The distant water vessels have done worse in 1963. As always, the pattern is changing constantly. Subsidies can help but they cannot be regarded as a long-term solution to the problems of the industry. A permanent basis for prosperity can be found only by international agreement on trade, catching and conservation. As announced

395
by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal on April 29, the Government are arranging to convene a conference of EFTA, E.E.C., and neighbouring countries at which these and related matters, including the question of fishery limits, will be discussed. I beg to move that the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1963, be approved.
Moved, That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
11.10 a.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I shall not detain you very long, but there are one or two questions I should like to put to my noble friend. He finished his speech with a moving peroration, if I may say so, in exactly the same terms as every Minister who has been discussing the fishing industry has ended every speech that he has made over the last forty years, by saying that he very much hoped for long-term solution, and that international conferences were duly to be convened to deal with the question of fishing limits and all the other problems involved. We have heard that again and again. But I got a specific assurance from Her Majesty's Government about three years ago that a special committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, upon which our own scientists would be adequately represented, was to be set up—had, I think, in fact been set up—to examine the whole problem of the shortage of herring in the North Sea generally, which is quite unprecedented. It has happened only in the course of the last six or seven years; otherwise, herring have been abundant since the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First without a moment's pause. The committee were to examine also the curiously erratic movements of the shoals, and whether this was due to over-fishing of small fish for industrial purposes—that is to say, for conversion into meal and oil, particularly in Denmark.
This committee seem to have been sitting, if your Lordships will forgive the expression, for a hell of a long time, and nothing has happened at all; we have not heard a word. I should like my noble friend to tell me, if he can, whether they are still sitting and whether
396
he anticipates that any report from them will ever be made. That would be extremely interesting. All those concerned, the Danes and the Dutch particularly, and the Germans, are represented on this committee, and so are we. What have they been doing for all these three years? I believe they have been sitting in The Hague—a most agreeable town. But you can get some work done there, and it seems strange to me that no work of any kind appears to have been done for several years by this committee, and I am wondering whether they have just given up altogether, or whether they still sit, perhaps once every six months or so.
The second point was raised by the noble Lord himself at the conclusion of his speech—namely, the vexed question of fishery limits. This is the only other point I want to raise. Most other countries have now raised or extended their fishery limits—almost every country, I think, which has a deep interest in the fishing industry has extended its fishery limits. Why have Her Majesty's Government absolutely refused to do anything about this question for the last forty years? It is the biggest and greatest and most prolonged failure, among many failures, of my life, because I started asking the Government to extend the fishery limits in the year 1924, which is a long time ago. They, and they alone, will not do it. What inhibits them?
If they want an answer, it is, I think, the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office, as we now know well and learn every day, are extremely out of date. They are not up to it. To use a modern expression, they are not quite "with it" I think that is the best description one can give of the Foreign Office these days, and I do not think that they are "with" the fishing industry. I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government are giving serious consideration to this question, because many other countries have extended their fishery limits, and I think we ought to do the same. I would just conclude by saying this. Foreign trawlers, not British trawlers, are allowed to go in and trawl the spawning grounds of the Minch and the Moray Firth. They have been doing that for forty or fifty years—well, indefinitely. That should be put a stop to. I believe it could be put a stop to without

397
the slightest international friction of any kind. Why do not the Government stop it? They will not let our own trawlers in, but the foreign trawlers can come in, right up to Inverness in the Moray Firth, and go right through the Minch and through the great spawning grounds there. In conclusion may I say that if the Government refuse to take any action in regard to the protection of our own spawning grounds from the depredations of these foreign trawlers, which drag the whole of the bottom of the sea, then I should almost be driven to the conclusion that these subsidies are a waste of time and money.
11.15 a.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord asked what we were doing about fishery limits. I drew the attention of your Lordships to the announcement that my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal had made. I think the noble Lord does not give us credit for the fact that it is we who are taking the initiative in this matter, and it is we who have only recently announced quite clearly what our position is regarding our own fishery limits. There is nothing I can add to the statements that have already been made.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, how can the noble Lord say that Her Majesty's Government have taken the initiative, when the other countries have actually extended their fishery limits, and we have done nothing at all?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend does not suggest that the Government should take unilateral action in this matter. On the question of foreign trawlers there is some doubt, I am advised, as to whether much foreign trawling does take place within the twelve-mile limit. The noble Lord spoke about the committee and he asked whether they were still sitting. They are still sitting. Extensive explorations are being carried out with scientists of all the other North Sea countries under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. I think I might also tell him that the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 1959
has now been ratified by all the signatory countries, and the new Commission will be in a position to consider whether measures should be taken for the conservation
398
of herring stocks in the Convention area. Any such conservation measures will, of course, depend on the scientific evidence as to their necessity. So I must tell the noble Lord that I think good progress is being made.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must say I find the attitude of the noble Lord much too smug in regard to foreign trawling. This has been a burning question in Scotland for a great many years, and I would add, in the interests of the Scottish fishermen that I hope the Government will show a little more energy than just talking about countries having ratified an agreement. Are the countries putting the agreement into practice? The information I have is that the position is still serious, and that if this goes on much longer the spawning beds may be permanently destroyed; and of course that means that the fishing industry goes with them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, may I say one word on this? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, asked what the Government were doing about fishing limits. No doubt the noble Lord is aware that there are certain Treaty obligations which affect the matter, and that notice has to be given of an intention with regard to those obligations. It is easy to criticise, but in fact we should have been doing wrong if we did not give the required notice; and the announcement referred to that particular fact of giving notice.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, speaks, perhaps I could say to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that my only complaint was that we did not give the notice forty years ago.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite sure that that is the only answer, either. When the Minister of State for Scotland talks about unilateral action, the important fact is of course that it is quite clear that in the last twelve years there has been a considerable extension of unilateral action—by Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Russia. Of course, Russia rides roughshod over everything. Russia is to be found with 3,000-ton and 4,000-ton manufacturing fishing ships in the English Channel and the North Sea.

399
We get them in the fishing grounds around the North-East of Scotland, close in. I should have thought that the urgent thing, on many grounds, especially in the conservation of herring, is for the Government to take their own action in defence of their own fisheries and their own countrymen. I think that something ought to be done about that.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, there is little I can add to my noble friend's remarks. As he has said, we have taken what we consider to be the right action in the right way. We are not at all complacent about the whole position of foreign trawlers; we are very worried about it. But I can assure him that everything possible is being done and will be done.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1963
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme 1963 be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) REGULATIONS, 1963.
11.22 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to the two sets of Cinematograph Regulations together. The Cinematograph Films Act, 1957, lays down that the Board of Trade shall, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, provide by regulation made by statutory instrument for the imposition on cinemas of a levy, the proceeds of which are to be paid out to makers of British films. There are before the House draft Regulations to amend further the existing Regulations relating to the collection of the levy and to amend and consolidate those relating to its distribution.
Taking first the simpler Collection Regulations, all that is proposed is that
400
levy shall be collected from exhibitors every four weeks instead of, as hitherto, each week. Exhibitors' liability to levy will continue to be calculated on a weekly basis, but actual collection will be less frequent. This will be to the advantage of the exhibitors, by whom the proposal has been made. The closures of cinemas in recent years show that many exhibitors have been finding it difficult to continue in business. They are the source of the levy, and it is right that they should be given this minor measure of relief, especially since there will also be economies in it for Customs which will, in turn, permit that Department to reduce what it has to charge producers for its collection of the levy.
The new Distribution Regulations embody altogether fifteen changes. First, newsreels are to get an increased rate of payments; secondly, a loophole will be closed in the present Regulations under which a film could obtain (this has not happened so far, but it could) double-levy life if it had both a standard (that is to say 35 mm.) version and a nonstandard one; and, thirdly, films jointly produced by British and foreign makers in accordance with the terms of an intergovernmental co-production agreement are to become eligible for levy benefits. There are nine more changes which are either themselves designed to accelerate the process of distributing payments to producers or derive logically from such changes. In addition, the British Film Fund Agency, which distributes the levy, will be empowered to recover payments made in respect of films whose registration as British quota films is cancelled within 12 months and to require such certificates as it may deem necessary in support of claims. Finally, the Agency will be relieved of what has proved to be an unnecessary obligation to pay interest into a separate bank account.
First of all, a word about newsreels on which the change is a major one. Newsreels' entitlement to levy is calculated at present in direct relationship to their commercial earnings, whereas the entitlement of other short films is calculated on those earnings multiplied by two and a half. Competition from news presented on television has largely displaced the old-style black and white newsreels and

401
cut down the number of companies producing them. The surviving companies have found, however, that cinema audiences still enjoy newsreels if they are on suitable subjects, and especially if their appeal can be enhanced by the use of colour. In view of the increased costs that the producers must incur in order thus to appeal to audiences, and not forgetting the useful job that they do in the normal course of their business by way of presenting Britain factually overseas, we think it right to treat the newsreels more nearly equally with other short films. The Regulations before the House therefore provide for the calculation of newsreels' benefit from the levy on the basis of double their commercial earnings.
The proposed admission of co-production films to levy is an important change, though not novel in principle, since Section 19 of the Films Act, 1960, already provides for Orders in Council enabling co-production films to be treated as British for quota purposes. Similar provision in respect of levy benefits can be made by subordinate legislation. The first moves towards co-production agreements with France, Italy and Germany have recently been made. The Regulations now before the House therefore include the changes necessary to enable us to offer the benefits of levy in our efforts in the forthcoming negotiations to secure the maximum benefits for British film makers.
The background to the nine changes relating to acceleration of distribution is that the British Film Fund Agency is at present taking about eighteen months after the end of each of the 52-week distribution periods to effect its final share-out of money to producers in respect of that levy year. The aim of these new Regulations is to reduce this period of eighteen months. In order to do so it is first proposed to free the Agency from the need which it finds at present to reach a final settlement with all the claimants before determining, so to speak, the rate of dividend. Henceforth the Agency will be able, subject to the consent of the Board of Trade, to avoid undue delays over difficult claims by bringing them in on a provisional basis when striking the rate of dividend and 10 adjust its account with the claimant concerned by drawing on, or paying into, the Levy Fund in
402
whichever subsequent year the final settlement falls. All this involves three changes.
The power to adjust differences in a subsequent year makes it possible and desirable to effect a further change in the form of the elimination of a provision in the existing Regulations for the creation of a contingencies reserve. This provision was originally put in as an attempted solution to the problem of awkward minor claims, but has proved unworkable. The new Regulations would overcome that difficulty. The new Regulations further provide that there shall be a standing time limit of two months after the end of the levy year for the submission of film makers' notifications to the Agency of their intention to make claims. The existing Regulations empower the Agency to stipulate the time within which actual claims must be made; the new provision will lay the onus on intending claimants to identify themselves to the Agency in reasonable time in order that it may have a definitive list of those to whom it needs to make known its requirements as to the manner and time of the submission of the claims themselves.
The changes to accelerate distribution finally include four relating to notice periods. Two of these reduce from three months to one month the periods during which the Agency may withdraw its notice of rejection of a claim for levy and may amend its notice of the determination of the earnings of a film. The other two reduce from four months to one month the periods during which the Agency's rejection of a claim for levy and its determination of a film's earnings may be disputed. The notice periods are rarely used and the existing ones have proved in practice to be excessive. I am sorry to be so long, my Lords, but this is fairly complicated.
There is only one other change which calls for explanation, and that is the one relating to the recovery of payments in respect of films whose registration is cancelled within twelve months. Section 14 of the Films Act, 1960, provides for correction of and deletions from the register of films. Owing to the large number of registrations the possibility of erroneous registration cannot be excluded. Provision is therefore made for recovery by the Agency of payments

403
made in consequence of erroneous registration, but the power will lapse once a film's registration has stood for twelve months. So if there is an error and the registration has stood for twelve months the money is irrecoverable. Moreover, this power will not apply to payments made before the commencement of these Regulations; it is not retrospective in that sense.
My Lords, all these changes have been recommended by the Cinematograph Films Council. I trust that the Regulations incorporating them will commend themselves to your Lordships, and I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 3) REGULATIONS, 1963
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations, 1963, be approved.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE AREA (REMOVAL OF WEST CAMEROON) ORDER 1963
11.32 a.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the effect of the Order before the House, if approved, will be to remove West Cameroon from the Commonwealth Preference Area as from October 1, 1963. Noble Lords will expect me to explain why Her Majesty's Government want to do this, and in order to make the reason clear I must remind the House—I will do so as briefly as I can—of the sequence of events over the last two years or so.
On October 1, 1961, as a result of a plebiscite held earlier in the year, the
404
United Nations Trusteeship Territory of Southern Cameroons, hitherto administered as part of Nigeria by Her Majesty's Government, joined the Republic of Cameroon. The Republic subsequently became a Federal Republic composed of two federated States. These were called East and West Cameroon. East Cameroon is the former French Cameroons and West Cameroon is the former Southern Cameroons. The Import Duties Act, 1958, provides that any country administered by Her Majesty's Government under the trusteeship system of the United Nations shall form part of the Commonwealth Preference Area. If nothing had been done, West Cameroon would automatically have lost her status as part of the area from the date on which she ceased to be British trusteeship territory that is to say on October 1, 1961. In the interests of the West Cameroon economy, however, Her Majesty's Government decided that the status quo at that period should be maintained for a year, in order to give the territory time in which to adjust its trading arrangements to its new political circumstances, and an appropriate clause was included in the Finance Act, 1961, which had the effect of continuing West Cameroon's position as part of the Commonwealth Preference Area until October 1, 1962.
A year later we were engaged in the Brussels negotiations which involved, among many other subjects, the difficult questions of the appropriate tariff arrangements for tropical produce, our relationship with the overseas associated territories of the European Economic Community and the possibility of negotiating association arrangements for countries which were part of the Commonwealth Preference Area. Given these developments, we thought it right to maintain West Cameroon's position in the area for another year, by which time we expected to be clear about the outcome of the Brussels negotiations. Effect was given to this decision by an Order in Council made under Section 2 (4) of the Import Duties Act, 1958. In announcing this decision in June 1962, my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade said the present intention was
"that the inclusion of West Cameroon in the area shall be maintained until September 30th, 1963, but not beyond that date."

405
The question would, he said, be reviewed again not later than the following April—that is, April this year. We are now, of course, clear about the outcome of the Brussels negotiations, and there was no uncertainty on that score in the review of the West Cameroon question which has now been carried out by Her Majesty's Government, but other factors had to be carefully considered.
The effect of the removal of West Cameroon from the Commonwealth Preference Area will be to make her produce liable to the same rates of import duty as any other foreign country. Her main export is bananas, and these will become dutiable, if the Order is approved, at £7 10s. 0d. per ton, equivalent to about ¾d. per lb., after the end of September, instead of being admitted, duty-free as they are now. Those concerned with the trade have expressed grave anxiety about the possible effect of the imposition of this duty on the prospect for West Cameroon banana-growers of selling their produce at economic prices. They fear that they may not be able to sell the bananas elsewhere at equally remunerative prices. This aspect has been very carefully considered. While the duty will clearly be a handicap so long as our severe restrictions on imports of dollar bananas are maintained, the price of bananas in Britain is likely to remain higher than in most other major consuming countries. The Cameroon will have the advantage of this. Their bananas, unlike the dollar area bananas, will still come here without any quantitative limit. Moreover we expect West Cameroon in due course to develop outlets in the markets of the Six.
As against these factors, we have to take into account the philosophy underlying the Commonwealth Preference system. It is self-evident that there Is absolutely no reason why we should have a tariff at all on any tropical produce except—and this is important—to provide a margin of advantage for Commonwealth producers. Our main suppliers of bananas are Jamaica and the Windward Islands, both vitally concerned to increase their export earnings and worried about the tendency, especially in the winter months, for the British market to be over-supplied with bananas, with consequent effects on the price that can be obtained for them. These coun-
406
tries do not see why they should share their preferential advantages in our market with West Cameroon, which is not only outside the Commonwealth but part of a country—and I ask your Lordships to remember this—in an associated relationship with the European Economic Community. This means that the Federal Cameroon Republic enjoys tariff advantages for her produce in the markets of the Six.
We had to balance the merits of these opposing considerations. We had already given West Cameroon two years' grace. My right honourable friend had made it quite clear last year that Her Majesty's Government's intention at that time was to maintain West Cameroon's preferential status only until the end of September. West Cameroon is now entitled to preferential access to the markets of the Six. It is anomalous to continue to grant preference to part only of an independent country which has never been remotely associated with the Commonwealth; that is, the other part of the Federation of Cameroon. Her Majesty's Customs could never be happy with an arrangement which obliged them to differentiate in tariff treatment between two parts of the same sovereign State; it obviously would not work. Jamaica and the Windward Islands were strongly of the view that the status of West Cameroon as part of the Preference Area should now be terminated. The decision was not an easy one to take, but the cumulative weight of these considerations led Her Majesty's Government to decide, with some reluctance, I admit, that it would be right to take West Cameroon out of the Commonwealth Preference Area after the end of September this year. My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Commonwealth Preference Area (Removal of West Cameroon) Order 1963 be approved.— (Lord Derwent.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for explaining this Order so fully and, in my view, so fairly. He came to one conclusion that I do not share with him, but he gave us a fair résumé of the facts as I know them. The situation is, I think, a difficult one for this country. West Cameroon has been part

407
of the British Empire and of the Commonwealth since the 1914–18 war. It was formerly the German Cameroons, taken over by British and Nigerian troops in that war. The territory then received a mandate from the League of Nations, that
was subsequently turned into a Trust, and a Trust Agreement was entered into with the United Nations. During that whole period of forty-odd years trade with this country was built up by the West Cameroons; and, as we all know, trade, as it ebbs and flows, cannot suddenly be switched away almost at a moment's notice without great hardship.
The United Nations, of which I am a strong supporter, occasionally does, I must admit, some extraordinary things. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has on many occasions pointed out with great force to your Lordships the extraordinary results of their action with West Irian; and I am very glad he does so, because unless we are careful there is going to be a most awful tragedy there, with the Indonesian Government having control of these unfortunate and primitive people. But that is not the question this morning: the question is the results of the extraordinary action of the United Nations in the Cameroons. They determined on a plebiscite, and they asked two questions, both of North and of South. They asked, "Do you want to go in with Nigeria, or do you want to go in with the French?" That was the only alternative that was put to these people. Many of them would undoubtedly have liked to stay with the British; they would have liked to stay in the Commonwealth; they would have liked to become an independent country of the Commonwealth. They have a certain amount of assets—far more assets, I may say, than many others who have been admitted into the Commonwealth as independent countries. But they were never allowed that choice.
Now what happens? They are now part of the European Economic Community, in an associated status. What the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, says is quite true, and they will get certain advantages from that. But the fact is that their trade is with this country, and they will lose £7 10s. a ton on bananas, or, at least, their bananas will be £7 10s. a ton more
408
than West Indian and other Commonwealth bananas. This comes at a most unfortunate time for the Cameroons because last year, in common with those of most other primary producers, their products were very severely affected. As we all know, as the world gets richer, the rich countries become richer and the poor countries become poorer, not only in comparative terms but in actual terms; and this is an example in point. Last year, oil palms, rubber and tea were all down in price; the only commodity up in price was cocoa. So far as bananas are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, they are the staple export crop. Last year, bananas had their worst year for very many years indeed. I should have thought that it was the worst year so far as price is concerned for at any rate the last ten or fifteen years. One cannot raise an objection to this Order because they are not any longer in the club, and if you are not in the club you cannot expect the perquisites of membership. As I say, I think they were not given the opportunity, or very much of an opportunity, of remaining in the club, but they did choose to go with the French. That has of course made certain difficulties of language and things of that kind; but there we are; they have got to accept that.
What I am asking the noble Lord is whether the Government—and I am sure they can—will do everything in their power to make easy the transitional position. It will be some years before the Cameroons will be able to swing their trade to any large extent either to Scandinavia or to the Community. There is no question about that. After a country has been trading for forty years with this country—and we are the main market for their bananas—it cannot within six months swing the trade anywhere else. We all know that: it is impossible. I would ask the noble Lord, and through him the Government, to do everything possible to make this transition easy. This is almost a matter of life and death for this territory. I do ask him to look at that most favourably.
There is just one other point I should like to make, and this is the point on which I do not agree with the noble Lord. He says he does not think there is going to be any difficulty about the

409
market; that we shall be able to take all the supply. I only wish I felt that, but in view of the fact that the West Indies does not feel that—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord—I will answer his other points later—I did not say quite that. What I said was that they would not have any quantitative limits put on their exports to us, unlike the dollar area bananas which have a quantitative quota.
LORD OGMORE: I appreciate that may be some slight advantage—provided, of course, that the West Indies cannot supply us with all the bananas we need, because of course they will get the tariff preference. The West Indies will obtain Imperial preference. Therefore, if they can supply a very considerable amount of the bananas we need that dollar point will not be much satisfaction to West Cameroons. However, I do not want to press this any further this morning. I would ask the Government, who have shown themselves sympathetic in this matter—they have given an extension of the term, for the Imperial preference to run on; they have already shown considerable sympathy for these people—to extend that sympathy in every way they can into the future in order to help these poor people.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, it is with great hesitation that I venture to say anything on the spur of the moment on this subject, on which I claim no expertise at all, but I should like to say just a few words in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. I was in West Cameroon earlier this year for a few days. I found that great anxiety prevailed there among the banana exporters regarding the continuance of Imperial preference, which they felt was so vital to them. I also found an anxiety among the importers of British products regarding the duties that the French area of the Common Market were likely to impose upon them, to some extent in retaliation. I must at this moment declare an interest, because some of the stout which bears my family name goes to the Cameroons, and that is how I came to hear about these things.
It seems to me that our entry into the Common Market, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, rightly pointed out,
410
would have removed these difficulties. Is it not possible that some degree of cooperation in these matters might be arrived at with the French authorities for our mutual benefit—for the mutual benefit of the French Commonwealth and our own in these territories? With the history of their British connections, could they not be treated in an exceptional way? Is it not better, instead of striking the first blow in a commercial war, to negotiate a special arrangement? Have we even discussed this question on its merits with the French authorities? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has admitted that the West Cameroon is not in our club. Can we not form a little special club with our friends the French in this small but primitive and, in many ways, rather poor area which deserves the help of both our great countries?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but this discussion has become, I think, so interesting and important that I should like to make just two observations. First of all, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, that this Order is inevitable, even though we may regret it, because it is always the case that a Colony or a Trust territory which either becomes foreign or joins a foreign country loses the advantages of Imperial preference. I do hope that, as both noble Lords have said, the Government and the noble Lord opposite who is responsible in this matter will do everything they can to soften the blow for West Cameroon.
To my mind, this raises the much broader issue of trade policy. As both noble Lords have said, if we had gone into the Common Market this problem would not have arisen. Then there would have been free trade in bananas between us and the
Six (we should have been the seventh) and the Cameroon Republic. We have not gone in, and the result is that this foreign country will have to pay the same rate of duty as other foreign countries for its agricultural products.
Does this not really raise the issue of trade policy in relation to developing countries? We all know that these developing countries will benefit more from an increase in trade than from aid; and the most important responsibility of the developed or industrialised countries

411
like our own is to see that they are able to expand their trade. Is there not an overwhelming case for the free entry of tropical agricultural products into all the three trade blocs to which the developed countries belong—into the United States, the United Kingdom and the Six? Will Her Majesty's Government do all they can in negotiations with GATT and, of course, through normal diplomatic channels to urge on the United States Government and the Governments of the Six that restrictions on the entry of primary agricultural products—I will limit it at this moment to agricultural products and foodstuffs—should be removed altogether at the earliest possible moment? That is my second observation.
Now may I ask one question? Of course, the removal of preferential treatment on imports from the Cameroons also means that the Cameroon Republic will remove preferential treatment from exports from the United Kingdom. Can the noble Lord tell us what exports are likely to be affected and what rate of duty there will be in the Cameroon Republic on British exports?
11.52 a.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on the clarity with which he explained this Order, and also Her Majesty's Government most heartily on their bringing the Order into being. At this stage I must declare a small interest in the subject, in that I grow bananas in Jamaica; but it is not so much on my own behalf that I am speaking as on behalf of the whole of the banana growers of the West Indies, to many of whom bananas represent their staple, and often their only, considerable and very valuable cash crop. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, put forward a rather pathetic plea on the ground that the West Cameroons had been under British administration for something over forty years. I would remind your Lordships that Jamaica has been British for over 300 years and that the Windward Islands have all been British for a period of from 150 years upward. Therefore I think that we owe them more consideration. Furthermore, they became ours by conquest whereas the Cameroons were
412
taken over only by agreement with our allies at the end of the 1914–18 war.
If this Regulation were not brought into effect, the result on the West Indian banana trade might well be serious. Bananas are one of the most considerable products of Jamaica. At one time—although I am not absolutely sure of this—bananas were the third most important export; in fact, they were second only to sugar. Now bauxite has taken the lead. In the Windward Islands bananas are becoming an ever-increasing export. I would remind your Lordships that a great deal of the ground in these Islands is not suitable for growing anything else. Therefore, in my opinion, it is essential that British markets should remain open preferably to bananas from our own territories; and however much we may sympathise with the unfortunate position in which the West Cameroons has been placed by one of the all too numerous ill-considered acts of the United Nations, I feel it is to the West Indies, who, after all, are almost everywhere "bursting at the seams" and whose inhabitants have very few other resources on which to make a living, or to exist, that our first loyalty is due.
11.55 a.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as an old "West Coaster," I venture to support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. I would call attention to the extreme inconveniences that are going to arise through the erection of high tariff barriers in West Africa. The failure of Britain to enter the Six will inevitably create increasing barriers among Colonies which form essentially a geographical and commercial unit. What temptation are we placing upon banana exporters of the Cameroons to slip a few crates of bananas across the Nigerian frontier, receiving perhaps in return a few crates of Guinness! This is a problem to which we all should devote careful attention. The frontiers between these countries cannot become high tariff barriers without grave inconvenience.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I must apologise for having missed Lord Derwent's introductory speech; but I feel I ought to support very strongly what has been said by the noble Earl,

413
Lord Mansfield, in relation to the West Indies. I ought to declare an interest, as I am Chairman of the London Committee of the Jamaica Banana Producers' Association. Surely charity and consideration of this kind begins at home. I know a good deal about this question, because I started the Cameroons Development Corporation at the time when I was the Governor of Nigeria and we were looking after that particular territory; and I know very well the amount of competition there is and was between Jamaica, the country I had come from, and what was at that time the Cameroon section of Nigeria.
I cannot see why we should make this particular exception. It may be unfortunate for some people there; but where is this sort of thing going to end if you start making exceptions? Surely one of the advantages of belonging to the Commonwealth must be the mutual aid and consideration in regard to trade. I do not wish to repeat what has been said so much better by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, but I feel that any plea put in on behalf of the poverty of people in the Cameroons could well be matched by those who know very well the difficulties of the West Indies, and any country like Jamaica, which find it extremely difficult to support an ever-growing population with an inadequate area for sustaining them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I start by briefly thanking my noble friends, Lord Milverton and Lord Mansfield, for their support. I will mention the points they raised in the course of my reply. I should first like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said. He wanted to start a separate club in West Africa. May I remind him again that the West Cameroons has, rightly or wrongly, by its own choice, become part of an independent country which has never had any Commonwealth connections? It enjoys preferential advantages in the markets of the Six which are not shared by any other part of the Commonwealth.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I admit that but I was really suggesting a little bargaining, so that both sides, French and British, would get trading advantages for the benefit of that area.
LORD DERWENT: I will deal with that and the point of the noble Earl,
414
Lord Iddesleigh, when I answer the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. But I repeat that there would be no tariffs on any of the primary products from any of these countries of West Africa into this country if it were not a question of protecting part of our Commonwealth other than ourselves. This applies to countries outside the Community and will not vary for us, so we are no worse off in this respect than anyone else. This will affect our trade with West Cameroon, but we do only about £1 million worth of trade a year with them. At this moment we are having talks with West Cameroon, because we are anxious to help, if we can.
The noble Earl also asked how this would affect our exports to these primary producing and backward countries. He will remember that it was announced some time ago that tea and tropical hardwoods were to be freed of tariffs. We had hoped to get these negotiations completed so that the tariffs could be done away with late this summer, but we had agreed to do it at the same time as the Community, and they have been held up in their negotiations. We hope to sign an agreement with the Community shortly and to do away with these tariffs on January 1. But the fact that we have started with these two particular products does not mean that we shall not continue with our efforts to make other products free of tariff. We shall go on doing our best to work with the Community in doing away with these tariffs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATISTICS OF TRADE ACT 1947 (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE) ORDER 1963
12.5 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 3rd instant. The Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, gives statutory authority for the collection of statistics necessary for the appreciation of economic trends. It supersedes the previous Census of Production Acts, the first of which was passed in 1906, and

415
gives the Government wider powers to collect information than were available under those Acts.
The House will know that the Statistics of Trade Act had its genesis in the 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy, which recommended that the economic statistics built up during the war years should largely be continued and, where necessary, supplemented. To ensure that these needed statistics would be available Section 1 of the Statistics of Trade Act gave wide powers to a number of Departments. The economic statistics which have been obtained under the Act and through the
voluntary co-operation of industry have been of the utmost value to the Government in its guidance of the economy. Section 2 gave effect to the recommendations of the two Committees on the Census of Production and the Census of Distribution, obliging the Board to take annual censuses of production and giving it powers to taken censuses of distribution. The emphasis at his time was on having adequate information about industry and trade, particularly about employment, output, orders and about the level of and changes in the aggregate demand on resources.
The Act has worked well, and the sixteen years since it was passed have seen a considerable extension in the statistical information now available about the economy. This is, of course, not a Party matter. The White Paper on Employment Policy was produced by the Coalition Government, and we all agree that policy is best developed in the light of free discussion based on the fullest possible information available to the Government, industry, the universities, the Press, and hence to all interested persons alike.
The Schedule to the Act lists the matters about which persons carrying on an undertaking may be required to furnish estimates or returns. Broadly speaking, they are confined to industrial and commercial subjects. In the event, of course, particularly since 1951, experience has shown that our economic situation is dependent not only on the broad direction of economic policy, but also upon the establishment of satisfactory financial conditions, both as regards our relationships with other countries and as regards the domestic
416
monetary position. Indeed, the primary post-war economic problem has been how, while maintaining full employment, to achieve a satisfactory balance of payments and reasonable stability in our domestic financial and monetary arrangements. The Statistics of Trade Act, however, does not give the Government powers to obtain information on many of the matters which are now seen to bear most directly on these two aspects of our affairs.
Under Section 5 of the Act, the Schedule to the Act may be amended by Order in Council by adding to the matters specified therein any other matter. The purpose of the Draft Order, which we are discussing today, and which was laid before the House on July 3, is to add to the Schedule the following matters:—
"Assets (other than fixed capital assets) and liabilities of the undertaking, including the acquisition and disposal of those assets and the incurring and discharge of those liabilities; prices of articles and services."
In particular, this covers financial assets and liabilities about which information cannot in general be collected under the Schedule as it stands at present. The Draft Order also gives statutory backing to the wholesale and retail price statistics. The importance of statistics of retail prices among our economic indicators is universally understood and it is only right that this should be recognised by the inclusion of retail prices among the subjects in the Schedule. Statistics of wholesale prices are of considerable value to industry, and indeed to all of us, since the price mechanism plays such an important part in the working of our economy. This is information no less important than that on other subjects in the Schedule.
The case for obtaining better information about the market in capital and credit and generally about our financial affairs was very well expressed by the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System. They argued that for wise direction of our monetary policy by the authorities, and a proper understanding and healthy criticism of the policies they may follow, much better information is needed about the distribution of the ownership of assets of different sorts and of the liabilities against which they are held, and about the transactions in these financial assets

417
which take place, particularly between different categories and sectors of the community.
In the debate in the House which followed the publication of the Radcliffe Report, the Government warmly welcomed the advice of the Radcliffe Committee on statistics, and your Lordships will be aware of the considerable expansion in the information now available. This expansion has been achieved, as the Committee hoped, by the voluntary co-operation of the institutions concerned. Most of the key financial and monetary statistics of the United Kingdom, including several which have been collected only since the Radcliffe Committee reported, are brought together every month in Financial Statistics, prepared by the Central Statistical Office, which has been appearing since May, 1962, and has been recognised as a valuable addition to the armoury of statistical information. Our object in all this has been to provide a clearer picture of the functioning of the capital market, who owns the various financial assets and liabilities, including the various kinds of securities, and the transactions that take place in them.
The proposed extension of the existing powers will give legal backing to our work and ensure that for our financial, as well as for our industrial and commercial affairs, the Government will be able to get the information they need. With the recognition of the importance of financial matters this seems to be clearly right. The Order is, in fact, doing no more than making the Act apposite to changed conditions and needs. I have no doubt, however, that, as in the past, we shall be able to secure the greater part of the information the Government need on a voluntary basis, through the co-operation of the business community, to whom I should like to express my appreciation for their repeated, numerous and unobstrusive acts of public service in providing statistics.
Our purpose in making these inquiries is to inform ourselves about the economic situation and prospects, and about the working of a highly complex social mechanism. Firms in industry know this full well, and they also know how confidential we hold the information which we receive. I am glad to take this opportunity of making clear that all the
418
information supplied by individual concerns is held in the utmost confidence, as the Act itself enjoins. National statistics, and statistics for particular sectors of the economy, to which we all look for guidance about our affairs, can, in general, be built up only from the figures supplied by individual undertakings. It is to get these totals and aggregates that we ask for statistics from businesses, and not to conduct an inquisition into their affairs.
Although the Order extends the range of subjects about which the Government may be able to obtain information, the same confidential provisions which have
worked so satisfactorily during the past sixteen years will extend to the new information as to the old. The provisions are set forth in Section 9 of the Act. No particulars can be published which would reveal the business of an individual undertaking without its previous consent in writing. Section 9(1) of the Act, however, empowers information about individual firms collected under the Act to be disclosed to a Government Department—that is, to a Department other than the collecting Department—on the direction of the Minister in charge of the collecting Department, and nobody else.
The purpose of this proviso is, as was made clear in the original discussion in this House in 1947, to prevent unnecessary duplication of inquiry. It has, in the event, been sparingly used, and so far as the Board are concerned the information thus passed has mainly been to help Departments to identify firms engaged in particular trades, so that inquiries may be directed as economically as possible. The few cases where data about individual firms have been passed have been for such objects as helping in the compilation of an Index of Production for Scotland or assisting the Government Actuary in the inquiry into pension Schemes.
I think I should add that in making this Order the Government do not intend to change their practice of looking to the Bank of England to collect the statistics which they need about banking. The Bank stands in a very special relationship to the banking community, and has its own statutory powers for collecting statistics, embodying a clause that prevents it from asking for information about the affairs of any particular

419
customer of a banker. We have no intention of disturbing this situation by collecting banking statistics under the new powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 3rd instant.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND RECONCILIATION BILL
12.15 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
LORD HODSON LORD HODSON moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Adultery not to be revived.
". Adultery which has been condoned shall not be capable of being revived."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is no new Amendment. It was moved last Friday, at the Committee stage, and I think it speaks for itself. At the Committee stage the Amendment received support from the Committee, and no one spoke against it. I think the most reverend Primate was here, and although he did not speak on this Amendment then, he had spoken in its favour in his earlier speech. The Amendment was withdrawn, on the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in order that my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who is in charge of the Bill, should have an opportunity of considering the matter with his friends. The noble Lord, having considered the matter, has been good enough to cooperate, by adding his name to the Amendment, so that it is now agreed. In these circumstances, I do not think it necessary for me to explain the Amendment further. It brings the law of England
420
into line with the law of Scotland, and it seems to me, as I said earlier, to be something that speaks for itself: that this particular kind of hatchet which has been buried should remain buried. May I conclude by again thanking my noble friend Lord Shackleton for his assitsance in bringing this matter to what I hope is a happy conclusion? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hodson.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hodson. I was confronted last Friday with a slight difficulty, in not fully knowing what the import of the Amendment was; and I confess that I suspected a slightly sinister intention—although I should not be inclined to attribute any sinister intention to my noble and learned friend. His courtesy at all stages has been such, and obviously the knowledge that he brings to these matters is such, as to commend any Amendment—at least this Amendment: luckily the others he had down were less effective—that he moves. I have consulted the sponsors of the Bill. Without being tremendously enthusiastic about it and without being completely wedded to the idea of adopting Scots law, which I am told in other respects, particularly in regard to alimony and maintenance, is far behind the law of this country, I can say that I appreciate the force of my noble and learned friend's argument. Whatever Canon Law may say about condonation or forgiveness, he believes in forgiveness; and if this new clause helps towards that end, then I am happy to support him; and that is why I have joined my name to the Amendment, in the hope that another place will accept it. I should like only to add that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for helping us to secure time to consider this matter more fully.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, construction and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit from the Title of the Bill "and Reconciliation".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords I hope that this Amendment will

421
not be regarded as of any sinister significance by reason of the fact that it resembles in content an Amendment previously on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson. I think that the earlier Amendment was put down because in the noble and learned Lord's mind it was linked with the Amendments which were then under consideration, and which were rejected by your Lordships. I am not moving this Amendment on any ground in relation to that: there is as I say, no sinister intent.
The Bill is a Bill, as your Lordships will see if you look at its content, which deals with matrimonial causes, and not with anything else. I quite agree that Clause 2 contains the words, "with a view to a reconciliation;" but all the other clauses—and, indeed, that clause also—deal with matrimonial causes. I submit to your Lordships that as a matter of principle the Short Title of a Bill ought to indicate the subject matter of the Bill, rather than the motives which prompted its sponsors. The Amendment I am moving makes not the slightest difference to the content or effect of the Bill, but as a matter of precedent we have always sought to secure that the Short Title indicates as shortly as possible the subject matter of the Bill. Beyond doubt, here the subject matter is matrimonial causes.
There is a further reason why I am asking your Lordships, and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, to agree to this Amendment. I think I am right in saying that all the earlier Acts dealing with this particular topic are described as Matrimonial Causes Acts. I do not suppose for one moment that this is the last Act of this kind which will be passed through Parliament. When you come to cite a number of Acts in a series, it is very convenient to have them all bearing the same name. You can then refer to them as the Matrimonial Causes Acts from, say, 1900 to 1963 inclusive. It becomes difficult, however, if in the course of a series of Acts, there is one that has a different Title. Also, from the point of view of practitioners, there is a great advantage in having the shortest possible Title.
Those are the reasons why I am moving this Amendment. There is nothing more in it that that, but I ask the noble
422
Lord to consider it very seriously. I can assure him that the Amendment is moved merely because of the desire to keep some degree of uniformity in our Statute Book; to keep Short Titles short, and to assist those who constantly have to refer to the Acts in the course of their practice. I recognise full well that one of the main objects of the promoters in moving this Bill, when it was initially introduced, was to make it easier to secure reconciliation. In the course of the speeches I have made on the passage of this Bill I have, as your Lordships are aware, supported that object. The Amendment I am moving does not mean any criticism of that object or detract from the motives of the promoters of the Bill. This is a technical Amendment, moved for technical reasons, and it is for that reason that I beg to move that we leave out from the Short Title the words, "and Reconciliation".
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("and Reconciliation.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have liked to accede to the plea of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this stage of the Bill; but frankly I cannot do so. Let me say straight away that I entirely accept the reasons behind this Amendment as being connected purely with technicalities and making no difference to the actual operation of the Bill. But this is a reconciliation Bill. It was intended as a reconciliation Bill, and although it "mopped up" certain other matters on the way, it has even been known popularly in the Press as the "Kiss and make up Bill". The noble and learned Lord wishes to call it the Matrimonial Causes Bill, which is rather like calling it another Divorce Bill. I hope that if this means a change in the list of Titles, it also means a change in our approach to these matters.
There were issues at an earlier stage on which the House disagreed quite strongly, over the question of a different approach to divorce. But there is one issue on which I am sure we agree, and that is the desirability of achieving reconciliation as a means of strengthening the institution of marriage. I should be very sorry if we were—and when I say "for a purely lawyers' reason" I mean nothing disrespectful to lawyers in

423
this House—to alter a Title which is clearly, in my view, related to much of the subject matter of the Bill. As I say, some of your Lordships may not have agreed as to whether the force of Clauses 1 and 2 was likely to be valuable from the standpoint of reconciliation, but the House decided that they were, and by a considerable majority left them in the Bill. Even Clause 3, which is concerned with certain Amendments to the law relating to collusion, will, we hope, provide opportunities for reconciliation through the aid of lawyers and others—indeed, even some lawyers who are inclined to regard their work as social engineering, which is a strange phrase to apply to lawyers. But they have a positive rôle to play.
This Bill has been to another place, and it has nearly passed from this place. The first we heard of the anxiety in regard to the Title was when I saw an Amendment which was starred as having been put down only on Wednesday. The
clause which includes the Title of the Bill was, I understand, drafted either with the help or approval of the Law Officers. No approach has been made to the sponsors. No approach was made to me or to my friend in another place, and it seems to me that a last minute thought of this kind, although perhaps possessing some convenience, is not of sufficient merit to change the emphasis which we wish to give to the Title of the Bill. I submit to your Lordships that this is intended to be a reconciliation Bill, and that it would be desirable, therefore, that we should not change the Title. I think we should make a mistake to alter the Title at this stage.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, had an Amendment down in similar terms, which he did not move: an Amendment to leave out Clause 2 which was defeated. I hope we shall rest where we are: that we shall recognise that although this Title may not be convenient in relation to previous Matrimonial Causes Bills, it may be the first of a line of Bills which will be deliberately and consciously dealing with reconciliation. On the Committee stage, the most reverend Primate referred to the desirability of a move towards this end. For this reason, I hope that we shall retain the Title, which, in my view, accurately describes the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry I did not hear the earlier part of my noble friend's remarks on this Amendment, for maybe they would have made an impression on me which I do not at the moment feel. But I think he is making rather heavy weather of it.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask the noble Lord how he thinks I am making heavy weather if he did not hear my speech?
LORD SILKIN: As I explained, there may have been something in the noble Lord's speech which would make me think otherwise, but at the moment I feel he is making rather heavy weather of it. After all, the substance is contained in the Bill, not in the Title; the Title is merely descriptive. I had a word with the Lord Chancellor, and am satisfied that there were good reasons for simplifying the Title. I think that the House would be well advised to accept the Amendment for the reasons which were given to me, which seemed to me perfectly satisfactory, that this is one of a line of Bills dealing with matrimonial causes and when the time comes for consolidation, as it certainly will before very long, it will be much more convenient to have these various Bills with similar Titles but different dates. But there is really nothing in it, and I am afraid my noble friend is unduly touchy about this. The Bill will be just the same whether the Title is altered or not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say just one word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who, with the greatest respect, I think is making rather heavy weather of this. If we look at Clause 1 we see that it deals with matrimonial law of divorce; Clause 2 contains the words "with a view to a reconciliation"; Clause 3 deals with the amendment of the law of collusion; Clause 4 deals with maintenance and alimony; and Clause 5 with attempts to defeat claims for financial relief. Many of those matters are dealt with in earlier Acts which are all described as Matrimonial Causes Acts. I am not seeking to move an Amendment to alter the Long Title of the Bill, which sets out the purpose and the motive which the Promoters have, and I am perfectly content and indeed would not seek to move an Amendment to the Long Title, which reads:

425
"An Act to amend the law relating to matrimonial causes; to facilitate reconciliation in such causes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
All I am seeking to do is to move an Amendment to Clause 6. In Clause 6(1) the noble Lord will see that he is providing that
"This Act may be cited as the Matrimonial Causes and Reconciliation Act 1963."
The next subsection says that the Act shall be
"construed as one with the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950".
I suggest to the noble Lord that this is only a question of making no other Amendment than to alter the citation of this Act; and if we are going to cite it with other Matrimonial Causes Acts I think that strictly, and also for the purposes of consolidation, it is desirable that it should bear the same name. Therefore, I must ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I briefly support this Amendment on the grounds stated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? I am quite confident that if there were any practising members of the Bar present in your Lordships' House to-day they would support this Amendment on the grounds of convenience. It is quite certain that sooner or later there will be a Consolidation Act, and Consolidation Acts are always more readily made if the Acts to be consolidated bear similar titles. For this reason I very much hope that this Amendment will be passed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, I feel that the main part of this Bill deals with reconciliation, and if there were any danger of that being cast out or affected by this Amendment I should be very much against it. But, having listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has nothing to fear. The reconciliation question remains in the Long Title, and that is the important part. I think the other matter is really for the convenience of the draftsmen, lawyers and others who have to deal with this question, and I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that he really has no reason to fear this proposed Amendment and, in fact, there may be some advantage in it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend in this matter,
426
and may I say in the very first instance that the heavy weather or the storm to which my noble friend Lord Silkin and the Lord Chancellor referred could well have been prevented if the noble Lord or one of his representatives had approached my noble friend Lord Shackleton in the matter instead of springing it upon both him and others connected with the Bill at the very last stage.
I understand that the definition of matrimonial causes, according to the late Lord Chancellor, Earl Jowett, was an action for divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation, all matters reflecting an action for divorce. This Bill—and its main purpose has been stated many times both at Second Reading and on Committee, and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, it is denoted in the Long Title—is to facilitate reconciliation. I understand that in the early days of the Bill the Long Title was in fact the only Title and that a Short Title has been brought in as a matter of convenience. All previous legislation on divorce which has come under the heading of Matrimonial Causes has been Acts to outline and define the causes under which divorce could be obtained, the action to be taken by courts and its general administration.
I speak subject to correction, but I think this is the first Bill which may become an Act in which reconciliation plays a part, and I feel that on that ground alone this particular word should be included in the Bill to differentiate it from what the previous Acts have been dealing with: the causes of divorce and the actions to be taken in its administration. In this particular Bill, however, reconciliation undoubtedly plays a part because it is the main purpose of the Bill. I cannot myself see that administrative difficulties will arise upon the words "and reconciliation". The intention of this Bill is reconciliation. It is the first Bill, to my understanding, in which reconciliation has been the predominant theme. If that is the case, then I would say that those words should be included in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just say one word in reply to the noble Lord, because he made some complaint of non-consultation? I am sorry if there was not sufficient consultation, but, really, the

427
question of what should be the Short Title is usually not a controversial issue at all. This is, I think, the first time I have heard it raised as a controversial issue. There is no question here of affecting the content of the Bill and the whole question is how it should be cited in future and in dealing with the proper entry on the Statute Book.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I, with leave, say one more word? I am not complaining about the possible lack of courtesy. My noble friend Lord Silkin had the advantage that it was
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words, and they will be very few, about this Bill. As I have said before, I regard as extremely important the reconciliation part of this Bill; that, in my view, is by far the most important part. I have been a little disturbed recently by the judicial doctrine on divorce. The recent doctrine by the House of Lords sitting in a judicial capacity is that one can now have a
not necessary for him to hear the Lord Chancellor's speech since he had it privately before. I attach some importance to this point. A Bill is known by its Short Title and not by its Long Title. The object is clear, I think it has been well argued out, and I am inclined now to leave it to the House to decide how they wish this Bill to be known.
12.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Ferrier, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Amulree, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Atholl, D.

Fortescue, E.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Bossom, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Carrington, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Cawley, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Hodson, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Courtown, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cowley, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Samuel, V.

Craigton, L.

McNair, L.

Silkin, L.

Derwent, L.

Massereen and Ferrard, V.

Sinha, L.

Devonshire, D.

Merrivale, L.

Spens, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor)

Merthyr, L.

Strang, L.

Dudley, L.

Milverton, L.

Summerskill, B.

Exeter, M.

Monsell, V.

Waleran, L.

Ferrers, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Monson, L.

Chorley, L.

Listowel, E.

Moyne, L.

Effingham, E.

Lucan, E.

Shackleton, L. [Teller.]

Latham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

divorce for cruelty even if the person who is the offending party did not mean to be cruel. This has resulted immediately in a lady getting a divorce because her husband called upon her to tickle his feet. It does, I think, open the door to all sorts of absurdities—the Reno sort of divorce.
I do not believe in divorce at all, or at any rate in only very rare cases. I look with horror upon this attitude on the part of the Judges, and I hope that they will pay very great attention to the reconciliation part of this Bill and that we shall not have the absurdities which now occur in certain States of America creeping into our law, by which anybody who wants a divorce thinks up some silly reason for it and gets it. The position in this country is bad enough as it is. The real stronghold in this country is, first of all, religion, and, secondly, family life, and the two are

429
very closely bound together. Anything which detracts from religion or family life is much to be deprecated and fought, and I, for one, will do everything in my power to fight it. Therefore, with those few words, I hope that the Judges will not continue with this extraordinary idea of theirs about loosening the idea of cruelty, bringing it down to an absurd degree, and will have regard to what Parliament has now said about reconciliation.
12.50 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill, and should have been well content that the Bill should pass, were it not for the speech to which we have just listened. I have never known an occasion like this to be seized upon by a noble Lord, particularly a noble Lord connected with one branch of the law, in order to attack a judicial decision of this House. I think that his speech was foolish, immoderate and altogether improper, and I thought it right to say so.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I just say that I am not attacking the Bench at all. There is nothing to prevent anybody in this House or outside from criticising a decision. I am not attacking the Judges or the judicial system. I am only saying that I do not like this decision. It is about time that in Parliament—it is about the only place one can do it in this country—one should speak out on these things.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I do not mind the noble Lord speaking out in the least, on a proper occasion. He has seized upon an improper occasion. What in fact he was doing was this. He is sufficiently conscious of the law to know that the decision of the House of Lords as a judicial assembly is now the law of this country. He can alter it, no doubt, if he brings forward an appropriate Bill for that purpose. This is not such a Bill. I should have thought that fact would have been obvious to any layman; but it certainly ought to be obvious to a solicitor.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I intervene at this point? I had intended to make my few valedictory remarks on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I must say that I support the
430
noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in that I had understood it to be the practice on Third Reading that one debated only what was in the Bill rather than what was outside it. I certainly should not wish to be drawn into discussing a decision which I know has given rise to some interest and controversy, and in fact was the result, I believe, of a divided decision; and I hope that we shall not get into that discussion on this occasion.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has made his valedictory speech, may I take this opportunity, since I have been instrumental in opposing him at almost every stage of the Bill, of thanking him for the way he has conducted the Bill, and congratulate him on his conduct of this measure through this House?
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed; and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC LAVATORIES (TURNSTILES) BILL
12.53 p.m.
Read 3a, (according to Order) and passed.

DEER BILL
12.54 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether your Lordships would desire to start the debate on the Amendments before the adjournment in five minutes time, or whether it would be convenient now to adjourn during pleasure?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I think if your Lordships will agree, it would probably be better to start after lunch.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on the understanding that noble Viscount agrees, I beg to move that the Committee do adjourn during pleasure until two o'clock.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at five minutes before one o'clock and resumed at two o'clock.]
Clause 3:
Unlawful weapons, etc.
3.—(1) Subject to sections 10 and 11 of this Act, if any person—
(d) uses, for the purpose of killing any deer, any knife or similar instrument, without humane pre-stunning of the animal;
he shall be guilty of an offence.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (d). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment, I will not weary your Lordships by going over all the old ground again. In moving to delete sub-paragraph (d) on page 2, line 23, I do so entirely on humanitarian grounds. In my speech on Second Reading and in my remarks during the Committee stage I pointed out that the Scott Henderson Committee had recommended that, while the humane killer and the gun were always to be used, there were certain circumstances in which one had to use the knife. For instance, the case could arise where a man runs his car into a deer. One does not carry a gun or humane killer in one's car, but one might have a knife available, and in that case one would, of coarse, use the knife.
As to the effect of this Bill on stag hunting on Exmoor, I would point out that there are instances where a humane killer or a gun are not available. One could not always use a gun there because there are people about; nor could one always use a humane killer, because if it is to be used the animal has to be very passive. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment, because under this Bill the knife will be used only in exceptional circumstances, for humane reasons. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (d).—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am reluctantly obliged to support the noble Viscount, and if a Division were taken I would vote against my previous decision. The real reason for that is not that I am in any way in disagreement with what I did before, but because, if these Amendments in your Lordships' House to-day are not agreed to, the whole Bill will be lost. This is a case in which it is very much better to get three-quarters of a loaf rather than no bread at all.
432
Even those who have been strongest in pushing forward the Amendments which it is now proposed to delete will agree that the Bill is going to do a great deal of good in the reduction of cruelty. For the last quarter of a century I have been protesting against the way in which Bills have reached your Lordships' House late in the summer, when we are informed: "This is a very nice Bill; you will like it; but if you try to amend it, the Bill will be lost altogether." I am not saying in this case that this is any fault of Lord Massereene and Ferrard, but it is a most regrettable sort of procedure and it seems to me inevitable that it will be repeated year after year.
In regard to the Amendment immediately before us, no one who has seen Lord Crook's transparent honesty would imagine for a moment that he would make inaccurate statements intentionally, but there is no doubt that some of the statements he made during Committee stage were inaccurate. I strongly suspect that this is because he had been provided with information by the League Against Cruel Sports, a body of fanatics who have never scrupled to distort the truth for the purpose of obtaining their ends—namely, destruction of the historic field sports of this country. But I hope very much that the noble Lords on the Benches opposite, who have been very reasonable over the conduct of this Bill, will be prepared, however reluctantly, to accept these Amendments. And if they choose in the next Session to bring forward a Bill carrying on still further the purposes of this one, they will certainly receive, I think, considerable support from this side.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crook unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, for a reason of which the noble Viscount will be aware. That is the fact that he has a board meeting which he must attend. That is the only reason why he is not here to resist the two Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount. In moving this Amendment, the noble Viscount really did not produce any further information or case matter in opposition to what was, I think, the undoubted will of this House on Committee stage. My noble friend's first Amendment was passed with 23 Members Content and 16 Not-Content and on the later Amendment, of course, the majority was more overwhelming.

433
I do not believe that there is any case at all for the Amendment which the noble
Viscount has moved to-day. The stunning weapon which has been referred to, and
which is in common use, is, in fact, carried by the majority of hunts. I do not believe it is a weapon from which there is any great danger, even if it had to be used in a street. It is a weapon or instrument which has a captive bolt, which does not fly out as a bullet from a gun would. But I suspect that the real reason for the noble Earl's support of the noble Viscount on this Amendment, is a fear of losing this Bill. The noble Viscount did not mention that point, but I have been hearing this all around the corridors of the House for the last two or three days. I appreciate that this is a fear which is in the minds of most noble Lords who are here this afternoon.
I agree that the Bill goes a good way towards providing some form of humanitarian protection to deer which are hunted. But there a re two aspects—the use of the knife and, of course, carted deer—on which I think it was overwhelmingly felt in the House that some amendment should be made to the Bill, to make the humanitarian side stronger than the proposers of the Bill were prepared to offer to the House. First of all, I agree there is a risk that this Bill might be lost. I do not believe, if these two Amendments were introduced in another place even in the short time left, that the other place would resist them on grounds of principle. I do not believe there would be any divergence of view between this House and the other place upon the merits of the Amendments.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him, I think there is a grave danger that the promoters of the Bill will not be prepared to go on with it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Now we are really getting down to the crux of the issue. It was suggested that the difficulty would be the other place, on a question of time. That was my understanding—that it was a question of time.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Both matters come into it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Both matters; but, so far as I am concerned, listening to what has been going on in the corridors of this House, it was the
434
problem of time: that if your Lordships' House were to amend the Bill and were to send it to another place there would not be time for consideration of those Amendments.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I understood it was a question of time. I have always understood that.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will deal with that in a moment; but I think there is point in what the noble Earl has said—and this is quite a different reason: that the promoters of the Bill themselves will not accept the view of your Lordships' House in Committee on two matters, in support of which there was a decided opinion. Therefore, there is on this issue a clash between the opinion of the House and that of the promoters, although I should not put it in quite those strong words because we have not yet got from the noble Viscount whether that is in fact the case.
On the question of time, we have this morning amended the Matrimonial Causes Bill in two respects. It is true that those Amendments were agreed, but they could well be challenged. One of them could be regarded as controversial, and
they could well be challenged by some Member in another place. There is that risk; but, my Lords, I believe, and the promoters of that particular Bill believe, that in the end the Commons will not take a view contrary to that of your Lordships' House. Now the two Amendments to this Bill that were moved during the Committee stage were not considered in another place at any stage. They are Amendments which were discussed and agreed to after a full debate; and we have no reason at this stage to believe that there would be a majority in another place opposed to them.
My feeling in this matter is that these two particular Amendments raise an issue
of considerable principle. The Amendment which we are now discussing would remove from the Bill the requirement that a humane killer should be used before an animal is despatched or killed by the use of a knife. Perhaps, as the noble Viscount has said, a person whose car has run into a deer by accident may, on humanitarian grounds, use a knife. I do not believe that a magistrates' court, even though the Bill says it is an offence, would take the view, in

435
the spirit and terms of this Bill, that an offence had been committed.
The part of the Bill which the noble Viscount wishes to take out makes it obligatory upon a hunt to carry a humane killer. We have heard—I think it was from the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue—that hunts, by and large, do carry humane killers. The Bill as it now stands would make it obligatory in every instance, in the case of a hunt, for a humane killer to be carried.
EARL FORTESCUE: They invariably carry them now.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, it is the rule that every hunt has to carry a humane killer; even fox hunts, under the rules of the M.F.H.A.
LORD SHEPHERD: But it is not obligatory under this Bill, or under any Act. It is not statutorily required. The noble Viscount has surely made my case and defeated his own. He has said that it is a rule of the hunt. Is it the association of hunts who say it?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The Masters of Foxhounds Association say it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg your pardon; I am not "up" with the hunting fraternity. But the organisation responsible for the good behaviour and the proper sportsmanship of these hunts say it is obligatory. Therefore, if that is the case, what fear is there that the other place would oppose the Bill as it is now before us and which the noble Viscount seeks to amend? I think there is no fear of that, and I would ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I think there has been a good deal of misconception on this question. It was said in Committee that hunt servants carry humane killers and two if not three guns, and that these are used in preference to knives where possible. I do not know the figures regarding the occasions when knives are used, but these occasions are exceptional and occur only when the other weapons are not readily available. he is beset by hounds, to keep him waiting for the arrival of the more complicated I think it can be fairly represented that the use of the knife is humane in order to kill the stag quickly rather than, when apparatus. On the last occasion I gave
436
an account of an incident which I remembered well; and I am certain that, despite any amount of legislation against the use of the knife, neither my father nor any other sportsman would have stood by with a knife in his pocket and seen a stag waiting for possibly ten or fifteen minutes before the complicated apparatus could arrive. I am equally certain that no bench of magistrates would have convicted in those circumstances. I represent that the ability to use the knife is a humane measure and not a cruel one, because if a humane killer or guns were available then these would be used instead.
I am most unwilling to refer to the Timberscombe affair which we discussed the other day, because the matter is sub judice and it is questionable whether we ought to have gone into the detail that we did. I would only say that the story we were given was a little more than slightly inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the magistrates who heard the case also heard a somewhat similar story and turned it down.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if a knife is so cruel, how is it that it is allowed to be used throughout slaughterhouses in England and Wales for religious purposes? It cannot be as cruel as is suggested.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Viscount at this point. He is quite wrong in saying that the knife is
allowed to be used throughout the country in slaughterhouses. With the sole exception of ritual slaughter by Jews and Mohammedans, it is not allowed at all.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the animal does not mind whether it is going to be eaten by Christians, Jews or Mohammedans: it will suffer just as much.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that in that case the animal is in a particular pen, and that an expert is operating the knife? Even in this respect there are some of us in your Lordships House who have their own particular feelings, although we have not pressed this point because of the religious consequences. But there is a considerable difference, as I am sure the noble Viscount will agree, between the killing of an animal in a slaughterhouse by an expert and the slaughter of deer in the open by somebody perhaps untrained in the task.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I point out that we are on Report stage. I believe it is the custom of this House that on Report stage noble Lords should each speak only once.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I voted for this Amendment on Committee stage but, without going into the alternatives of whether there is not time or whether the Promoters of the Bill will not accept it, I feel strongly that humanitarians in this House would be very foolish to kill this Bill by insisting on Amendments at this stage. I cannot go quite so far as to say that this Bill is three-quarters of a loaf, but it is certainly a good half loaf, and although I voted for this Amendment and introduced another Amendment on Committee stage, I will support those who take the view that we should not risk killing the Bill by insisting on Amendments at this stage.
2.21 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could step into the discussion for a brief moment? I do so with considerable diffidence and I speak personally, because this is a Private Member's measure and I gave my views on the Bill and the Government's reaction on Second Reading. I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard for not having been here on Committee stage, but I had a longstanding and unavoidable engagement to fulfil.
I would dwell for a second on the point of substance in this Amendment. I am not a stag-hunter and my knowledge is second-hand, but I have read carefully what the Scott Henderson Committee had to say on this point and in some measure it bears out the case that my noble friend submitted to your Lordships just now. Paragraph 226 of the Report said:
"To use a humane killer effectively, it is necessary to place the muzzle against the animal's head, and this is not always easy, especially if the animal is a stag struggling to defend itself".
I am not arguing whether or not the animal should be in that position, but when it is, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, conditions are not those of a slaughterhouse. And it may well be that in such an instance the most humane method is to use a knife, as my noble friend Lord Fortescue said. Of course, this is apart from the possible
438
accidental cases, to which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard alluded.
Again speaking with diffidence (because I am not a lawyer), it seems to me to be dangerous to write into a Statute something which it will be left to the courts to decide. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, argued that the courts would let off somebody who was involved in an accident and used a knife; but if the Amendment is not accepted, we shall be retaining very explicit language.
But it is not with this matter of substance that I wish mainly to deal; nor do I wish to enter the controversy between my noble friends Lord Mansfield and Lord Massereene and Ferrard on whether time or the promoters' intention is the main factor here. I feel that there is a practical issue before your Lordships at this stage. We all know that this Bill is the result of what, at the moment, is a delicately poised compromise. I cannot speak as to the promoters' intention here. It may be that if this Amendment were allowed, they would go ahead with the Bill; but, on the other hand, they might feel unable to do so. I have consulted the promoters, and I understand that it is their definite view that, if these two Amendments are not agreed to, whether or not they decide to go ahead with the Bill, there will be no chance of this Bill receiving the Royal Assent this Session.
For that reason, I hope your Lordships will pay great attention to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, has said. We know that on the merits of the case he would not like to see these paragraphs removed; but, given the facts of the position—given the stage we have reached in the Session, and the fact that this Bill is the result of a compromise—it is his advice that we should accept the Amendments to-day. I am inclined to feel, as I said on Second Reading, that this Bill, so far as it goes, is a good Bill. As to whether it represents 75 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what the humanitarians among us would like to see—and I would claim that I am not less humanitarian than others who have spoken—I would not wish to bandy words. I think we all agree that pit is a good Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will reflect carefully before taking action which, in the light of the advice I have received, would seriously jeopardise it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to say something about the two considerations before your Lordships in deciding whether or not to support these Amendments. I make these observations because I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, who is willing not to move the Amendments that he has on the Marshalled List if your Lordships think fit to delete the Amendments that were made on the Committee stage, which is the proposal of the noble Viscount who has put down two Amendments at this stage of the Bill. The first consideration is clearly the merits of the Amendment we are now discussing and the following Amendment. On the merits of the Amendments, your Lordships are divided. Your Lordships opposed the noble Viscount in Committee, and I must say that, personally, I am in sympathy with my noble friend Lord Shepherd and my noble friend Lord Crook, who introduced the two Amendments during the Committee stage, and who succeeded in getting the support of your Lordships in the Lobby.
The other consideration is clearly the prospects of the Bill. I am satisfied, from what I have heard, that if any Amendment were put in the Bill which gave rise to discussion or controversy in another place the Bill would be lost. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this is a useful Bill. It is the first Bill to protect deer in England and Wales, in that it provides a close season and removes certain methods of taking deer which are undoubtedly cruel, and it would be of real value if it were to reach the Statute Book. To my mind, the primary consideration—and I know that my noble friend Lord Huntingdon takes the same view—is to get the Bill through during this Session. For that reason, both my noble friend and I believe that, although these provisions which it is proposed to delete were both desirable on the Committee stage, and are equally desirable now, it is better to accept the proposal of the noble Viscount and allow them to be struck out than take a risk, which is almost a certainty, that the Bill will be lost.
I agree with the noble Earl that it is a complaint we make every year, and with entire justification, that Bills are brought before us at a stage when it is too late to amend them. This is a diffi-
440
culty which cannot be remedied with Private Members' Bills, but can be remedied in the case of Government Bills. I think the Government should consider seriously carrying Bills from one Session to another; it has been considered in the past, but I think it should be considered in the light of the pressure of work we are having at the end of this Session. In view of the paramount importance of getting this Bill on to the Statute Book, I hope your Lordships will decide to follow the advice that has been given by the noble Viscount the promoter of the Bill in this House, and allow the major Amendments to be deleted.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I with leave of the House—
LORD DERWENT: Order, order!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish to explain this. I shall seek to have the Amendment negatived because I could not myself support it, but I will not press it to a Division. I feel I should say that in case there should be some misunderstanding, having myself called opposition to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships wish me to speak on this Amendment. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his remarks, and I would therefore beg leave to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (c).—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I think I should say a word or two about this Amendment. It does not seem to me to fall into the same category as the Amendment which has just been discussed by your Lordships. I have a great interest in establishing the Bill as it now stands in regard to this matter. This is a purely local affair, affecting the stag-hounds in Norfolk. I think I can speak for Norfolk when I say that we in Norfolk think that this particular practice as adopted by the staghounds should cease. It has been said that if the Bill goes through or not, this hunt will gradually die out. At the present time, it is the only hunt in the country which adopts the method to which we have referred. For I am certain, with all due respect to other I that reason, I think it is a local matter, and

441
Norfolk Members who may be here at the moment, that the whole of the county is against the practice adopted by this hunt, and we should like to see it abolished. It can be abolished under this Bill if this Amendment moved in Committee stands. I cannot for the life of me see the Bill falling merely on this point. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment and will leave the Bill, so far as this subsection is concerned, as it stands at the moment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I put the noble Lord's mind at rest regarding the carted deer? Under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, a carted deer is covered because he is a captive, semi-domesticated animal. In Section 1 it says:
"If any person—
(a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill treat, override, overdrive, overload, torture infuriate, or terrify any animal "—
under this section he shall be guilty of an offence. It was the noble Lord, Lord Crook, I think, who complained of the deer being taken to the meet in trailers and trucks and bumped about the roads. Section 1(1)(b) says:
"If any person shall convey or carry, or cause or procure, … or, being the owner, permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such a manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering; … he shall be guilty of an offence".
If you have any instance of cruelty regarding carted deer you can abide by that Act and have an action in the courts. Carted deer are completely safeguarded under that Act.
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like briefly to reply to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and also to some of the more wrongheaded ones from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. In regard to the justification for the promoters, if they are prepared so to withdraw this Bill, I would say that surely if a Bill goes so far beyond the intention of its promoters that it is no longer acceptable, then there is nothing wrong in their doing so. A few days ago, owing to the kindness of your Lordships, I was able to get my Sale of Dead Wild Geese Prohibition Bill through; but had your Lordships been pleased to alter that Bill so that it became the Sale of Dead Wild Geese and Duck Prohibition Bill, and made the sale
442
of dead duck also illegal, I should not have proceeded with the measure because it would have gone far beyond what I intended. Therefore, if the promoters did not see fit to go on with the Bill because it contained something obnoxious to them, I do not think they could be blamed.
With regard to the point concerning time, I do not think anyone will gainsay that if the Government realise, as they would realise, that the renewed discussion on this Bill in another place would mean an acerbitous debate lasting for several hours, the Bill, in view of the crowded condition of the Government programme, would get no time at all for consideration and would die. As I and other noble Lords have said, this is a valuable Bill and we want to get it through, however much it falls short of the requirements of certain noble Lords on the far side and possibly even on this side of the House, too. It is for that reason that I would ask your Lordships not to oppose this Amendment. I voted for the substance of the paragraph at the Committee stage and I have not the slightest regret for so doing, and I would do so again. I understand that my attitude has not met with the approval of certain sporting bodies, but, so far as I am concerned, that does not matter one little bit. I supported the original Amendment, and I am now, with the greatest reluctance, obliged to support its deletion in order that we may not lose this valuable Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would just rise to say that, like the noble Earl, we on this side—although I should not really say "on this side" because the feeling in Committee was right round the House and there was no kind of Party feeling—take the view that in the circumstances which have been put to us this afternoon we shall ask for the Amendment to be negatived, but we will do our best to come back to this matter in the next Session.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a third time, I should like, very

443
briefly, to answer a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Champion; and although he is not in his place this afternoon I hope he will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow what I say, and perhaps be satisfied with the position.
The noble Lord asked whether a man who earned his money by piecework rates would be covered by the provision to allow loss of earnings to be taken into account and repaid to members of a local authority as expenses in attending a conference. There is no definition, either in this Bill or in any of the other relevant Acts of Parliament, of what is meant by "loss of earnings" in this context. But of course there have been many occasions under the existing law where this problem has arisen, and a member who does earn his wage in this way has always been able to present the loss of earnings he has suffered to his local authority treasurer and, subject to that treasurer being satisfied that this is a proper claim in respect of loss of earnings, and also subject to the audit provisions, which always apply, there has never proved to be any difficulty about it at all. Consequently, I think it would be unnecessary and perhaps would be a pity, to put in this Bill a definition which does not exist in other Acts of Parliament of a similar character. And since there has never been any difficulty about this, I hope your Lordships will feel it is all right to leave this Bill without definition. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Champion asked me to say that he regretted he had to leave the House to catch his train, and on his behalf I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass there is one other thing that I might perhaps usefully say on it, and it arises out of a conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, outside the Chamber. He asked whether it was a good thing to encourage the members and officers of local authorities to go to these conferences; that is to say, to encourage them by having their expenses and, in the case of numbers,
444
loss of earnings, paid for. He thought perhaps this was becoming too prevalent in local government in this country, and suggested that he would like to say something on it—though he is not, I see, in his place.
I have thought about this point in the intervening period, and it seems to me there are now so many technical matters with which local authorities deal, and which are of great importance to the citizens they govern, that it is entirely suitable that members and officers should go to technical conferences, and to all conferences which provide agendas to help them, in order that they can be proficient in their work, up to date in current ideas, and also to exchange views with officers and members of other local authorities so that there is some sort of uniformity throughout the whole Kingdom. Consequently, I think that your Lordships will perhaps agree that this is not an unfortunate extension in this Bill, and will not object to it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LIMITATION BILL
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Limitation Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before three o'clock.