Lords Sitting of 16 July 1964

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

POLICING OF THE THAMES
3.6 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have consulted or will consult Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary regarding the setting up of a Joint River Police Force to patrol the upper reaches of the Thames (i.e., from Staines towards Lechlade) to curb increasing hooliganism and vandalism on and alongside the river; and whether steps are being taken to urge (a) the Police Committee's concerned to supply the necessary boats and (b) the Chief Constables affected to provide the requisite staff, bearing in mind too the valuable assistance that could be given by special constables.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the policing of the upper reaches of the Thames has been given close attention by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in consultation with the chief officers of police concerned, and the conclusion is that the circumstances do not warrant the establishment of any kind of joint force. In the upper reaches of the river, offences are usually committed from along the river banks and adjoining recreation grounds, and, in the view of the responsible officers, can most effectively be dealt with by policemen on foot, rather than by boat patrols. The riparian police forces already co-operate with one another and my right honourable friend does not consider it necessary to urge police authorities or chief constables to take special measures for policing the river.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, which is not completely satisfactory, may I ask him why it is felt that
368
such policing can better be undertaken from the bank, when in effect I understood my noble friend to say, on May 11 last, that the Metropolitan Police were considering extending their river patrols beyond Teddington Lock to Staines? If they feel that the policing of the river can better be done by river patrols, why is it that other chief constables cannot act in a similar way? May I ask a further question? Is my noble friend aware that, since I raised this matter on May 11, approximately twenty cases of vandalism, mainly between Staines and Wallingford, have been brought to my notice, and could not some start be made in that area to curb this nuisance?
LORD DERWENT: As regards the second supplementary question, the number of offences is really not the question under consideration. We are discussing the best method of dealing with them. There is general agreement among the police forces that the most effective method of policing the river for these kind of offences is the foot patrol. Policemen in boats cannot catch offenders on the river bank, and in the upper reaches of the river this is where the offenders almost invariably are. As a generalisation, the further down the river one comes, the more useful boat patrols are—there is more river traffic. The banks are more populated, and there is more scope for co-operation between observers in the boats and those on the shore.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, while I am not against joint action by police forces in appropriate cases, is the noble Lord aware that to compare the provision for the upper reaches of the river with the provision for the main part of the river, down this end, would be a mistake? Would it not also be a mistake to think that everything can be solved by joint committees or joint actions, because joint authorities can be a lot of joint without much authority? I hope the noble Lord will not give way to the principle of joint committees unless there is a good case for it. I agree with him that in this instance there is not a strong case.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as regards the first question, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord. As regards the second question, we are not

369
talking about joint committees here, but about co-operation between neighbouring police forces, and that, of course, takes place all the time.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend how a constable on foot can deal with the problem of the cutting of mooring lines to vessels, which has occurred at Windsor, Maidenhead and Henley recently? Also, how can he cope when there is a question of lack of good manners and inconsiderate use of these small drive-yourself powered boats, resulting in some cases in accidents? At Marlow a boat was rammed and left to sink. How could police on land take action in that case?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I was saying that the majority of cases of vandalism, which is what the noble Lord was talking about, take place on the banks. Mooring ropes can be cut just as well from the bank and, in fact, are more likely to be cut from the bank.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could I add one point? Is my noble friend aware that a number of outboard motors have been stolen from moored boats at Marlow and Wallingford, for instance? Again, that was done on the river and not on the bank.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the police officers who have to look after the river and the riverbanks on the upper reaches of the Thames are all agreed that it is much easier to do so from the bank.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the matter would be made much easier if there were a continuous towpath on the Thames, so that a patrol could move at speed and, if necessary, follow people on the water? Admittedly such a towpath could not follow the bank at all places, and some of the old towpath could not be used where there were no ferries. Would the noble Lord not admit that the proper opening up of the towpaths there are would materially help in this object?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot see that towpaths have anything to do with police duties.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Would the noble Lord not agree that there must be some way by which a policeman can
370
pursue these people, if he is after them? How does he move along the river if there is no towpath and he is on shore?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is pursuing the question too far.

BEEF SUPPLIES AND IMPORTS OF CHAROLAIS CATTLE
3.8 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the serious beef position, they will now agree to the importation of more Charolais bulls, and also of Charolais cows and heifers.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I am able to reassure the noble Lord that there is nothing serious in the beef position. The present shortage is in imported supplies, not home-fed—and this short-term need could not be met by switching a part of home-fed production to another breed. The current trials are intended to establish whether, in the longer term, Charolais bulls will produce beef more efficiently from the dairy herd. There is no present requirement for more Charolais bulls, demand on those in the A.I. studs being well short of their potentrial. As regards an importation of cows and heifers to establish the pure breed in this country, the present trials are not yet complete and in the light of their outcome my right honourable friends will be considering where the balance of advantage lies. I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision by November or December.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I would suggest that, had he had time when he visited his own local agricultural show to see the Milk Marketing Board Exhibition on Charolais cattle, he would have found some information which may not yet be available to his own Ministry. I would also ask him whether he is aware that there is

371
considerable demand for the export of Charolais semen, and, indeed, Charolais bulls, from this country, and that until such time as British farmers are given freedom to import Charolais cows and heifers from France we shall be unable to meet that demand; and, in the meantime, the chances are that those who wish to have the semen and pure-bred animals will go elsewhere, to Southern Ireland? Will he not agree that if that were to happen it would be the dilatoriness of his own Ministry, and their refusal to allow a certain amount of personal freedom to breeders who wish to progress in these matters, that would be responsible for the loss of these exports?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, so far as the information available to us is concerned, I think we must have as much information as is available to the noble Lord. This very information, perhaps even more, will be under discussion and review by the Working Group on Monday, and they will be hoping to be able to give advice to my right honourable friend, who will, in fact, be answering a Parliamentary Question on this matter in another place on Wednesday.
As regards the possible export of semen, the first object of importing the 31 Charolais bulls on the recommendation of the Terrington Committee was, as the noble Lord knows, in order to see what use they could be in making more efficient beef production from the dairy herd. What the noble Lord has in mind must be secondary. I do not want to discourage him, and certainly not to discount what he has said, but the fact is that we are thinking first in terms of producing more efficient beef from the dairy herd.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's first Answer, can he say why, if there is no shortage of beef, the price of beef is so high and is now beyond the means of most old-age pensioners?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord must have misheard me. I did not say that there was no shortage of beef. I said that the beef position was not serious; there are, of course, supplies of other forms of meat which are very plentiful at the moment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the intention of the Government to produce a report giving detailed effects of the importation of Charolais bulls? If the Government have such an intention, at what date can we expect such a report?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not think I should anticipate the considerations of the Working Group; but, as I have said, they will be meeting on Monday to discuss the information which is now available.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his reply to my noble friend Lord Shepherd means that if there is plenty of pork available there is no beef shortage, even if there is no beef?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord would be entirely wrong to read that into my reply. As he knows, the point is not that there is no beef, but that there is a certain shortage of beef caused by a shortage of imported supplies.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, while I certainly do not expect the noble Lord to anticipate the report of the Working Group which meets on Monday, I would ask him whether he is not aware of the urgency of this problem, particularly with regard to exports. I would also ask why, if the Working Group is to meet on Monday, we may not anticipate any further decision by the Ministry until November in this matter?—which I think is the date he gave us in his original Answer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord appreciates—though I should expect him to, because of his great knowledge of this subject—that in fact there is no question of being able to import more Charolais, either bulls or heifers, during the course of this year because it is the custom in France to vaccinate the calves shortly after birth. As we cannot import vaccinated calves, we have to ask the French breeders to set aside a number of calves for us. We then inspect them in June and select a number of those calves. There is no question whatever, on animal health grounds, of importing any more Charolais in the course

373
of this year, or, indeed, until about the autumn of next year; so that in fact no time is being lost.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe a Statement on the disappearance of Major Macey.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, both this Bill and the next are Bills of a kind which your Lordships are accustomed to receiving from time to time, but I do not think there are any particular points in either of them to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. Therefore, I would suggest that these both be taken formally. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Chesham, I beg to move that the first Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIDEFORD HARBOUR) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

AGRICULTURAL LIME SCHEME (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER, 1964
3.20 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1964, a copy of which was laid before the House on July 9, be now
374
approved. Parliamentary authority to pay subsidy to farmers on the use of agricultural lime was last renewed from August 1, 1959, by the approval of an Order similar to that now before the House. It expires on July 31 this year, and the purpose of the present draft Order is to obtain approval to the payment of this subsidy during the course of a further five years from August 1 of this year.
The draft Order applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. It deals only with this authority. The Scheme under which this subsidy is paid is a separate matter. Your Lordships will have seen that a new Scheme—Statutory Instrument 1964, No. 903—which is subject to the Negative Resolution procedure was laid last Thursday. It is to come into effect on August 1. I will say a few words about this in a moment.
This subsidy, which now dates back to 1937, continues to serve a valuable purpose in underpinning the general system of support to farmers, and expenditure on it, as your Lordships will know, is taken into account in calculating the total value of the guarantees to agriculture. During this past five years the annual use of lime in the United Kingdom has been 6·2 million tons, and that figure is of much the same order as in the five years prior to 1959. This quantity is calculated to cover the annual losses of lime from our agricultural soils through leaching and other factors which make the soil acid, with a margin towards the further upgrading of the lime status of the national farm. There is, of course, some land which may still be said to be acid. On the other hand, the fact that the use of lime has now averaged something over 6 million tons for several years past is indicative of the general order of lime requirements in the United Kingdom in relation to present patterns of land use and commodity output, and is a fair reflection of the continuing need for lime by our agriculture.
This level compares very healthily with that which obtained when the subsidy was first introduced. At that time there had been a considerable run-down in the fertility of our soil and the annual consumption in the 'thirties was of the order of half a million tons a year. Meanwhile, the positive results of the subsidy in fully restoring the practice of

375
liming by farmers are abundantly evident to all who travel through the countryside and see its good condition compared with earlier time.
Perhaps I may now say a few words on the method of paying this subsidy. Since the beginning of the scheme in 1937 it has been paid as a contribution at a fixed percentage rate, which is now 65 per cent, of the costs actually incurred by the farmer. As I have said, a different Scheme (laid on June 25, 1964) shortly takes effect. Unlike its predecessors it provides for contributions to be assessed according to a schedule of flat rates per ton for different kinds and qualities of lime, together with a contribution according to the distance over which the lime has to be transported, and no subsidy will be paid until the lime has been finally spread. These contributions will therefore no longer be related to the specific costs incurred by each individual farmer, and, as one consequence of this, measures to control prices and charges to protect the subsidy will no longer be necessary and can go. In making this alteration we have been at pains to avoid any significant chance in the present amount of the subsidy in relation to the quantity of lime being used.
This new Scheme will give greater incentive to the farmer to shop around and to lime his land at the least net cost to himself. It will fit in more suitably with the way in which trade in lime has developed, especially in recent years, and will have certain advantages in administration, not the least of which will be in helping to keep the Scheme free from irregularities and fraud. The new arrangements, which rid the Scheme of incentive to falsify charges, and involve a thorough system of checks, should preclude serious irregularities and make attempts at lesser infractions suitably unrewarding. I am confident that this will be so. I am equally assured of the need for continuing to encourage the liming of agricultural land. I therefore commend this Order to Your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order, 1964, laid before the House on June 16, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a full explanation of a Scheme which I understand is to come into operation at some future date, but to-day we are concerned only with the question of the extension of time of the existing Scheme. There is no objection whatever from this side of the House to the extension of that particular Order, because I think it is beneficial to the farming community. But I gather from what he has said that there will be an opportunity later on to discuss the new Scheme. Is that so?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, so that if the noble Lord wished to discuss it, it would be a matter of moving a Prayer.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity of considering what the noble Lord has said. My only concern was the Scheme before the House at the present time; and, as I have said, there is no objection on our side of the House to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CEREALS (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1964
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not propose to spend a great deal of time in speaking on this Order. Its provisions, though complex, are logical. It is concerned entirely with arrangements for calculating and paying the subsidies to cereal growers, and the need for the Order arises from the new standard quantity arrangements for wheat and barley which were announced after the last Annual Review.
In the White Paper dealing with that Review Her Majesty's Government set out new arrangements to apply to wheat and barley for the 1964–65 crop and specified standard quantities and target indicator prices. The Order before your Lordships' House provides statutory authority for these arrangements in general terms. The precise standard quantity and target indicator price arrangements for a particular year are, of course, matters for annual determination by Ministers in consultation with growers' representatives. Your Lordships will recall that the growers' representatives were consulted on the new

377
arrangements and agreed to them in the context of the 1964 Annual Review settlement. The new Order does not change the method of calculating and paying subsidy on rye, oats and mixed cereals; nor is any change made in the tonnage basis on which the wheat guarantee is paid or in the acreage basis for barley payments. I commend this Order to your Lordships' House as a necessary step in the implementation of the Government's policy for cereals on the domestic front. I beg to move.
Moved That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I regret that on this occasion the noble Lord did not, as is his custom, explain the Order we are asked to approve, but perhaps in this matter he was following the path of discretion. I should like to ask him one minor question and one major question. The minor one concerns the inclusion in the Order of rye, oats and mixed cereals. We are told in the Order that
"'millable rye' means rye which is sweet and in fair merchantable condition, reasonably free from sprouted grains"
and so on. The explanatory note at the back of the Order, which we are told "is not part of the Order, but is intended to indicate its general purport" states:
"The changes effected by the order relate only to wheat and barley…"
Therefore my minor question is: why do we have to include rye, oats and mixed cereals?
The major question I wish to put is, of course, in respect of wheat and barley. I want to ask the noble Lord how, in his view, this Order will give farmers any indication whatever of the price they are likely to get for their crop? Obviously this is a matter of importance to farmers in determining what they will grow. The Order provides, for example, in the definitions, a definition of the word "determined" and it says:
"'determined' means determined by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury…".
For many people those are extremely ominous words. As I believe the noble Lord said, this Order provides that there shall be determined for wheat and barley a guaranteed price per cwt., a target
378
indicator price and a standard quantity, all of which are intended to determine between them what will be the final price which is received by the farmer for the wheat or the barley that he grows?
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation 4 of the Order. I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will tell us, in his own inimitable fashion, what precisely this Regulation means. Regulation 4 contains these words:
"If in any year the annual production of wheat or barley—
(a) is not less than the standard quantity the guarantee payment shall be the amount, if any, by which the guaranteed price exceeds the target indicator price, or the average realised price, whichever is the higher, after that amount has been divided by the proportion that the standard quantity bears to the annual production".
That is a perfectly clear statement; any one can follow it. But of course it is full of imponderables, and so, although you can follow the statement and probably know exactly what it means, it is utterly impossible to carry out what it means in pounds, shillings and pence. This is a matter which is of some importance to farmers in helping them to decide whether they are going to grow wheat or barley and, if so, what acreage; or whether they go out of business altogether and do not grow either. So we cannot dismiss this lightly, even if we erudite Members of your Lordships' House understand what that paragraph means.
Then paragraph (b), which is also a qualifying paragraph, says this—it is still the same regulation, and you can take your choice:
"(b) is less than the standard quantity and the average realised price is higher than the target indicator price the guarantee payment shall be the amount, if any, by which the guaranteed price exceeds the average realised price to which amount shall be added a proportion of the amount by which the average realised price exceeds the target indicator price, arrived at in accordance with arrangements determined by the Minister."
I may say that I have paused in reading that paragraph to indicate where commas would normally appear. I can assure your Lordships that I am not making this up. This is actually in the Order. I will spare your Lordships paragraph (c), which I am quite sure you have all studied as carefully as I have, but will bring you to

379
the end of Regulation 4, which reads:
"Provided that where the annual production falls short of the standard quantity by such amount as may from time to time be determined by the Minister and the average realised price is lower than the target indicator price, any guarantee payment under this paragraph shall be reduced by a proportion of the difference between the average realised price and the target indicator price arrived at in accordance with a scale determined by the Minister."
I point out that of course the Minister cannot possibly determine any of these things, and certainly cannot determine the scale until well after the harvest.
I know that we can either reject or accept this Order; we cannot amend it. But I would submit, in all honesty, that we shall have to invent a new word for this kind of verbiage, because "gobbledygook" no longer applies; it must be something which takes us further than that. The important thing is that it is quite impossible for farmers to have the slightest indication of the price they are likely to receive for their crops. At one time, when my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh was in charge of the agricultural affairs of the nation, when a farmer put his plough in the field, although he did not know what kind of crop he was going to get, he did know what price per cwt. he was going to get for the crop which he finally realised. These conditions no longer apply.
It is true that we have what is generally supported, although not by me: the deficiency payment system. But what is also true, unhappily, is that this Order, which we are now asked to approve, is completely incapable of being understood by anyone or explained honestly; it destroys any chance of a farmer using it to decide what he should grow, and of course destroys, finally and for all time, the illusion that there is any longer a guaranteed price. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would throw some light on this subject, which he did not do in his speech commending the Order to your Lordships.

THE COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will, if I may, repeat a Statement which
380
is being made in another place by the Prime Minister on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. These are his own words:
"Honourable Members will no doubt already have seen the final communiqué issued last night at the end of this meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers but I think it will be for the convenience of the House if, with permission, I circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"Honourable Members will wish to study the text in detail but it may be helpful at this stage if I make a few comments on this meeting.
"I would like to say first that in the opinion of those who took part in it, the meeting was judged a success. For all those who have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart this was a most encouraging meeting. I think all my colleagues in the Commonwealth would agree that we expressed our real views freely and frankly to each other; and out of it came a degree of understanding which is remarkable when one considers the diversity of the interests and peoples and cultures represented round the table.
"It is because the Commonwealth is a community of many different races that the statement at the outset of our communiqué about our relations is of such importance.
"In our review of international affairs we welcomed the gradual relaxation of tension which is of benefit to the unaligned countries as much as it is to those who are members of military alliances. But as old problems are resolved new ones take their place. So we had to consider the problem of Malaysia and all of us assured the Prime Minister of Malaysia of our sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries.
"While we maintained the convention that we do not discuss among ourselves the substance of differences between members of the Commonwealth we felt that we should note with satisfaction the friendly public statements which have been made by

381
the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India; and we expressed our hope that the problems between their countries will be solved in the same friendly spirit. The House will understand, I am sure, that despite the interest which all of us have in this problem it would be wrong for me to go beyond the words of the communiqué.
"The House will expect me to say something about Southern Rhodesia. The first point to which I would like to draw attention is that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers saw this question in the context of the continuing progress of British Colonial dependencies towards independence within the Commonwealth. The communiqué deals in some detail with this question and I will not attempt to summarise it beyond saying that it recognises two essential facts. First, that responsibility for decisions on the progress of Southern Rhodesia towards independence rests with the British Government. Secondly, that as the history of the progressive move towards independence within the Commonwealth illustrates, there are certain basic prerequisites on which all of us agree before a territory moves towards full independence.
"I have said that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is our responsibility and that all the Prime Ministers recognise that it is. On this basis, I promised to give full consideration to all the views that they expressed because the final resolution of this problem must affect all of us and all of us will benefit when it is solved.
"I have kept to the order of the communiqué but in many ways the most important part lies in the economic section and the proposals for increased Commonwealth co-operation in many fields.
"Honourable Members will find these listed in the communiqué and I hope they will feel that they are all desirable in themselves and mark a collective will to increase our co-operation and contacts. In the long term the strengthening of the Commonwealth depends on such things as development projects, administrative training, educational assistance, the pooling of medical knowledge, and
382
increased contacts between the professions, and here I would mention the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other initiatives of this kind which are of real and direct benefit to the ordinary people in every Commonwealth country. The proposal for a Commonwealth Secretariat is also significant. It is a symbol of the desire of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to maintain a continuing expression of the spirit of the Commonwealth and to continue to strengthen our association for the work we shall do together in the years ahead."
3.41 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the Leader of the House for giving us the statement by the Prime Minister, which was in answer to a Parliamentary Question in the other House. We do not debate these things when they have been issued by this great body of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to remark that if the members of the Conference consider that it has been a success, then it is an achievement. Secondly, I greatly welcome the assurances given of general Commonwealth support for Malaysia in her difficulties; and I like the kind references that were made in relation to the matters lying between India and Pakistan. The other essential thing I note is that the British Government have made it quite clear, and it has obviously been accepted, that the question of the independence of Southern Rhodesia is a matter for the British Government. I am happy about the economic references, and I hope the Government will always remember them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this statement here to-day. I should like to congratulate our Prime Minister on the skill and patience which he has shown in bringing to a conclusion this most successful Conference. I have personally been in touch with some of the members of it and I feel certain the Prime Minister's efforts have played a great part in the success which has been achieved. Secondly, I should like to thank Mr. Sandys and the officials of the Commonwealth Relations Office for the hard work that they have put in during the Conference. This is not the

383
time, as the noble Earl has said, to debate this Statement. We shall have an opportunity of discussing it in broad terms on the 29th of this month, when the noble Lord has a Motion before the House. I should like to ask one question. Is not the success of this Conference proof that those who have talked about the Commonwealth being a farce and a thing of the past have been talking nonsense, and that there is not one iota of truth in what they have said?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for what they have said. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the tribute he paid to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which I know is endorsed by everybody in all quarters of the House. He did, I know, a magnificent job at this Conference. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the Conference has shown once again the strength and purpose of the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would include in the Hansard report of our proceedings this afternoon the text of the communiqué? It is probably the longest communiqué that has ever been issued after a Conference, and many of us, I am sure, would like the chance to study it in greater detail.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, I will do that.
Following is the communiqué referred to:

MEETING OF COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS, 1964

  FINAL COMMUNIQUÉ
  The Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers ended to-day. Pakistan, Ghana and Tanganyika and Zanzibar were represented by their Presidents. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya and Malawi were represented by their Prime Ministers. India was represented by the Minister of Finance; Cyprus by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Jamaica by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
  This was the first Meeting at which Uganda and Kenya were represented as independent
  384
  Members; and the other Commonwealth Heads of Government were glad to greet their Prime Ministers. They expressed their satisfaction at the establishment of Malaysia which they had welcomed at their last Meeting in 1962 and they greeted Tunku Abdul Rahman as Prime Minister of Malaysia. They also welcomed the attainment of independence by Malawi on July 6, 1964, and agreed that Malawi should be admitted to Membership of the Commonwealth. They invited the Prime Minister of Malawi, Dr. Banda, to join their Meeting; and Dr. Banda took his seat on July 9. They noted that Northern Rhodesia would become independent on October 24, 1964, as the Republic of Zambia; and they looked forward to welcoming Zambia as a Member of the Commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.
  In the course of their discussion, the Presidents and Prime Ministers reviewed the major issues of the day.
  They agreed that one of the most important of these is race relations. It was agreed that the Commonwealth has a particular role to play in the search for solutions to the interracial problems which are threatening the orderly development of mankind in general and of many particular areas in the world to-day. As a community of many different races, the Commonwealth is itself an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among peoples of several races and continents. Within their own borders many of its members have faced and are facing issues raised by the co-existence of differing cultures within a democratic society. The Prime Ministers affirmed their belief that, for all Commonwealth Governments, it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The Commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to exist and develop as free and equal citizens.
  The Prime Ministers recalled the critical international situation which had developed shortly after their last Meeting in the autumn of 1962 and the grave threat to peace which it had implied. They believed that the fact that it was successfully resolved may have been in some sense a turning point in the relations between the major Powers and may have marked the beginning of a new period in international affairs in which the world may hope for a gradual relaxation of tension. This will not be a short or simple process; but the Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the further steps which had already been taken to reduce the causes of friction, particularly the conclusion of the Tests Ban Treaty and the subsequent agreements between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union not to place nuclear weapons in outer space. They also welcomed the reductions in the output of fissile material for military purposes which these Governments have made.
  Against this background, the Prime Ministers expressed their hope that these steps would lead progressively to general and complete disarmament. They reaffirmed their support for the work of the Geneva Disarmament Conference and their determination to seek to extend the scope of disarmament in accordance with the principles expressed in their statement of March 17, 1961, particularly by endeavouring to promote an agreement to prohibit the further dissemination of nuclear weapons and of knowledge relating to their manufacture and use. They will maintain their efforts to reduce the areas of international disagreement by all the means within their power, while maintaining both the strength and the resolution to resist aggression from without or subversion from within. In this connection they assured the Prime Minister of Malaysia of their sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries.
  They discussed the great significance of China for South and South-East Asia. They also discussed the question of relations with China and of her membership of the United Nations. They expressed anxiety about the continuing tension in South-East Asia and affirmed their support for all measures which might promote a just and peaceful settlement and help to re-establish stability in the area.
  The Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the friendly public statements by the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India and expressed their hopes that the problems between their countries will be solved in the same friendly spirit.
  While recognising that it was not a function of the Commonwealth to act as an arbiter in disputes between member nations, the Prime Ministers agreed that Commonwealth countries could play a rôle of conciliation and, where possible, consider using their good offices to help towards the settlement of disputes between member nations provided the parties concerned accepted such mediation.
  The Prime Ministers, renewed their support for the United Nations in its efforts to resolve disputes in various parts of the world. They reaffirmed their adherence to the principles of the Charter and emphasised the importance of reinforcing the strength and capacity of the United Nations to respond to the demands which it must meet ill the Charter is to be fulfilled.
  The Prime Ministers expressed concern about the situation with regard to Cyprus. They reaffirmed their full support for the United Nations Security Council Resolutions of March 4, March 13 and June 20, 1964. The Prime Ministers asserted that the Cyprus problem should be solved within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with the principles of democracy and justice.
  They appealed to all countries concerned to refrain from any action which might undermine the task of the United Nations peace-keeping force, to which a number of Commonwealth countries are contributing, or might prejudice the endeavours of the United Nations to find
  386
  a lasting solution in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
  The Prime Ministers undertook to consider practical measures to strengthen the peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations and to reduce the degree of improvisation required in an emergency. They agreed that consultation and co-operation among interested Governments in this matter could be of great value in contributing to the improvement of the peace-keeping effectiveness of the United Nations.
  The Prime Ministers expressed their concern at the possible effect on United Nations operations in all fields of a prolongation of the United Nations financial crisis. They expressed a common desire to work towards a long-term equitable solution of the problem of financing large-scale United Nations peace-keeping operations and agreed that any such solution should be based on the principles of collective financial responsibility and relative capacity to pay.
  Britain made the following statement to the Meeting about the progress of British Colonial dependencies towards independence.
  Already more than twenty countries (with a total population of some 700 millions) had achieved sovereign independence under British guidance. This process was continuing all the time. Northern Rhodesia would be independent in October and the Gambia very soon after. Basutoland had been promised that she could have independence in about eighteen months' time; Bechuanaland would be free to follow when she wished; and Swaziland's new constitution had now set her on the same course. In addition it had been agreed that the Federation of South Arabia should become independent within the next 3½ years. British Guiana would become independent as soon as she was able to assure internal peace. Southern Rhodesia would attain full sovereignty as soon as her governmental institutions were sufficiently representative.
  There were a number of other Colonies which already enjoyed a wide measure of self-government. These included the Bahamas, Barbados, British Honduras and Mauritius. In addition there were some twenty other Colonies and Protectorates with a combined population of about five million. Of these over three million were in Hong Kong where the circumstances were exceptional. Of the remainder only two territories had a population of more than 100,000. Several had less than 10,000. The smallest (Pitcairn) in the Pacific had only 90 inhabitants. It was clear that no uniform pattern would fit all these very different territories. Some might feel strong enough to proceed to independence on their own. Some might join with others to form larger and more viable units. Some might wish to couple independence with a treaty of friendship such as Western Samoa concluded with New Zealand. Some would for the present prefer to remain as they were.
  The Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries welcomed the progress of British territories to independent membership of the Commonwealth. They recognised that the authority and responsibility for leading her remaining Colonies to independence must continue to rest with Britain.
  At the same time, Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth countries expressed their views to the Prime Minister of Britain on the question of the progress of Southern Rhodesia towards independence within the Commonwealth. They welcomed the decision already announced by the British Government that, as in the case of other territories, the existence of sufficiently representative institutions would be a condition of the grant of independence to Southern Rhodesia. They also noted with approval the statement already made by the British Government that they would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence; and the other Prime Ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. The view was also expressed that an Independence Conference should be convened which the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend. The object would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the Commonwealth at the earliest practicable lime on the basis of majority rule. With a view to diminishing tensions and preparing the way for such a conference, an appeal was made for the release of all the detained African leaders. The Prime Ministers called upon all leaders and their supporters to exercise moderation and to abstain from violence; and they affirmed their belief that the best interest of all sections of the population lay in developing confidence and co-operation, on the basis of tolerance, mutual understanding and justice. In this connection, they recognised the necessity for giving confidence to the minority community in Southern Rhodesia that their interests would be protected.
  The Prime Minister of Britain said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. At the same time he emphasised that the Government of Southern Rhodesia was constitutionally responsible for the internal affairs of that territory and that the question of the granting of independence was a matter for decision by the British Parliament.
  The Meeting expressed concern at the political rivalries in British Guiana which had led to disorder and inter-racial strife and had prejudiced the attainment of independence. While several different views were expressed on the methods to be employed, a number of Prime Ministers expressed the hope that the political leaders of British Guiana would seek urgently a basis for collaboration in the interest of their fellow countrymen of all races in order to restore mutual confidence among the races and to strengthen a spirit of national purpose and unity. Only in these circumstances could British Guiana hope to sustain true independence.
  The question of the progress of the smaller dependent territories in the Caribbean to independence was raised. It was emphasised that the problem for the territories was mainly one of viability: and the hope was expressed that every practicable effort would be made to help them to strengthen their economies and so enable them to sustain the obligations of independence whether in a federation or in some other form of association.
  The Prime Ministers reaffirmed their condemnation of the policy of apartheid practised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Some Commonwealth Prime Ministers felt very strongly that the only effective means of dealing with the problem of apartheid was the application of economic sanctions and an arms embargo. It was recognised however that there was a difference of opinion among Commonwealth countries as to the effectiveness of economic sanctions and as to the extent to which they regarded it as right or practicable to seek to secure the abandonment of apartheid by coercive action, of whatever kind. But the Prime Ministers were unanimous in calling upon South Africa to bring to an end the practice af apartheid, which had been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and was deplored by public opinion throughout the world.
  The Prime Ministers expressed their regret that Portugal had not so far given recognition to the principle of self-determination for her territories in Africa.
  The Prime Ministers agreed that the issues of Commonwealth and international relations which confront them in the political field, however complex and contentious, must be seen in perspective in relation to the many factors which bring together the peoples of the Commonwealth and enable them to make a unique contribution to the promotion of peaceful development. The Commonwealth now consists of 18 independent Member countries, widely distributed over the globe and accounting for nearly a quarter of the population of the world. It is, indeed, a cross-section of the world itself; and its citizens have an unparalleled opportunity to prove that, by mutual co-operation, men and women of many different races and national cultures can live in peace and work together for the common good.
  The Prime Ministers reviewed the world economic situation as it affects their countries and re-affirmed the resolve of their Governments to promote the economic development of their countries. To this end they emphasised the need of developing countries for improved and more remunerative outlets for their trade and for increased financial aid on easier terms and on a continuing basis. They took note of the problems presented to developing countries by the conditions and terms often attached by donor Governments to their aid, of the desirability of the encouragement of private investment in developing countries and also of the upward trend in the level of financial aid extended by the more developed countries in the Commonwealth and of the easier terms on which it is offered.
  There was agreement on the importance for all Commonwealth countries of following up the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in particular with regard to expanding international trade in primary products through freer access to markets and, in appropriate cases, through commodity agreements and stabilised prices at equitable levels; working out arrangements for increasing access by preferences or otherwise to markets in developed countries for manufactured goods from developing countries; and

  389
  elaborating proposals for supplementary finance to assist countries whose development might be threatened by adverse movements in their export earnings. The Prime Ministers affirmed their intention of working for a solution of these and other problems of the developing countries through the new institutions resulting from the Conference as well as through existing international bodies such as the GATT.
  The Prime Ministers reaffirmed the resolve of the Member countries of the Commonwealth to promote the economic and social progress of developing countries. They wished to maintain their support of the work of the United Nations, its specialised agencies, the Colombo Plan and other similar arrangements in this field. At the same time they wished to establish how best the members of the Commonwealth could make a further distinctive contribution of their own to the development of its Member countries. They conceived that the purpose of any new initiative in this respect should be not merely to increase the economic strength and material well-being of the recipients, vital through these considerations ate, but also to strengthen the links between the countries of the Commonwealth by encouraging their peoples to work more closely together in a variety of practical ways. For this purpose they selected for further examination several fields of action in which they believed the practice of Commonwealth co-operation might be extended; and they agreed that these schemes should not be in substitution for existing arrangements but supplementary to them.
  Commonwealth Development Projects
  In particular they considered a proposal that development projects might be launched in individual Commonwealth countries, which would be implemented by various Members acting in close collaboration and contributing whatever resources—in men, money, materials and technical expertise—they could most appropriately provide. Such projects, which would be additional to the support which Commonwealth countries already provide to the United Nations Special Fund and Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance could be directed to a number of different purposes—the improvement of agricultural production and the development of natural resources through extension services, training and research; the enlargement of professional and technical training; the development of new industries; and so forth. But they would all be inspired by the common purpose of promoting the development of the Commonwealth by a co-ordinated programme of joint or bilateral projects. The British Government said that they would be prepared to make a substantial contribution to projects of this kind within their expanding programme of development aid. The other Member governments expressed support for the objective of the proposal and agreed that further consideration should be given to the basis on which such a programme might be established.
  Administrative Training
  Development projects of this kind would need to be planned, carefully and thoroughly,
  390
  at all stages in their execution; and the Prime Ministers therefore considered that it might be valuable to supplement the existing arrangements for promoting the study of the techniques of administration and development planning throughout the Commonwealth. They considered that there might be advantage in making arrangements, which could include the formation of a new Institute, to provide facilities for specialised training and research for senior administrators concerned with administrative and development problems in relation to the needs of new countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the most appropriate form for arrangements for additional training, including the strengthening of existing institutions.
  Education
  The Prime Ministers took note of the scope which exists for co-operation between the Government and peoples of the Commonwealth in social, as well as economic, development. They noted with satisfaction that the Third Commonwealth Education Conference will be held in Ottawa in August; and they expressed warm wishes for its success, together with appreciation of the British Government's offer to increase to an average of £5 million a year, over the five years starting in 1965–66, the capital assistance which they already provide for higher education in developing Commonwealth countries, both independent and dependent.
  Medical Conference
  They decided in principle that an initiative similar to that which was launched in the field of education by the first of the Commonwealth Education Conferences several years ago should now be taken in the field of medicine and that for this purpose consideration should be given to the convening of a Commonwealth Medical Conference during the course of 1965. Such a Conference would enable the members of the Commonwealth to discuss mutual assistance in medical education including links between institutions; the provision of ancillary staffs, the development and planning of health services; and the supply of medical equipment and facilities for research.
  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  The links between the countries of the Commonwealth are strengthened not only by co-operation between their Governments in initiatives of this kind but even more by frequent personal contacts between individuals who share common professional interests.
  The Prime Ministers recorded their support for the valuable work which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association performs in bringing together members of the Parliaments of all Commonwealth countries. The British Government stated that they would be prepared, if other Commonwealth Governments would do the same, to increase their contribution to the Association.
  Commonwealth Foundation
  The Prime Ministers considered that further steps should be taken to promote contacts in other fields and that it might be desirable to

  391
  establish a Commonwealth Foundation to administer a fund for increasing interchanges between Commonwealth organisations in professional fields. This Foundation could be administered by an independent Board; and, while it could be financed by contributions from Commonwealth Governments, it would also welcome support from all quarters, whether public or private.
  Satellite Communications
  The Prime Ministers also took note of the current international discussions on the establishment of a global system of satellite communications. They endorsed the desirability of establishing such a system and considered how Commonwealth countries could best co-operate with each other and with other countries in its development. They discussed the provision of technical assistance to the developing countries in this field, particularly as regards the establishment of ground stations and inter-connections in Commonwealth countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the feasibility of such a plan and the basis on which it might best be implemented.
  The Prime Ministers directed that the Commonwealth Liaison Committee with the assistance of special representatives should now give more detailed consideration to all aspects of these new initiatives in the hope that they could be launched and carried forward at an early date. They noted that thereafter further opportunities to review many of these projects would be afforded by the Third Commonwealth Education Conference in Ottawa in August and by the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council meeting in Kuala Lumpur in September.
  Commonwealth Secretariat
  Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire, which had been evident through their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engage their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth secretariat, which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all Member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields; and to help to co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparations for future Meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and, where appropriate, for meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers. This secretariat, being recruited from Member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.

CYPRUS: DISAPPEARANCE OF MAJOR MACEY AND DRIVER PLATT
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Defence for the Army. It is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement about Major Macey and Driver Platt, who disappeared some weeks ago while serving with the United Nations Force in Cyprus.
"The House will be aware that enquiries have been going on in Cyprus into the whereabouts of Major Macey and Driver Platt. I regret to have to tell the House that information has now come to hand from which it appears virtually certain that the two men are no longer alive. During the past twenty-four hours this information has been communicated to the United Nations and to the Cyprus Government, and urgent investigations are in progress.
"I have taken the earliest opportunity of informing honourable Members of the position, and I will keep the House informed. For the time being, however, it is important that nothing should be said which might prejudice the course of the inquiries.
"We have been in touch with the next of kin early this morning, and the House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy with them in their ordeal."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement, and I am sure your Lordships will wish to be associated with that expression of sympathy.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sure the Statement which the noble Earl has made will have been received with deep sorrow by the House, with some feeling of emotion and of regret, and perhaps some degree of indignation, too. But the matter is now subject to inquiry by the United Nations, as the report has gone to them, and we all hope that arising from those inquiries some clear results will be achieved which will enable us to make proper judgment

393
of the matter as it develops. In the meantime, I am sure we should wish from this side of the House to be associated with the sympathy which is tendered to the relatives of these men who have met such an unhappy end.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I wish to express our regret at the information which has been given to us to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and also to express our sympathy to the relatives of these men.

CEREALS (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1964
3.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will do my best to answer Lord Stonham's major and minor questions, though I expect to have more success with the first than with the second. In reply to his minor question there has to be reference to rye oats and mixed corn in this Order because it is a consolidating Order and therefore repeats the provisions of previous Orders. The noble Lord said that I had failed to explain the Order; he said so no doubt with justice. I wholeheartedly agree with him in saying that this is extremely complicated, but I hope the farmer will know more about it than the noble Lord thinks. He will certainly know both the standard quantity and the target indicator price at the time of the Annual Review announcement each year. The target indicator price is tied directly to the minimum import price. What happens is that the target indicator price is "declared" at the beginning of the cereals year; it is "determined" at the end, because in between it may be that the minimum import price will change and therefore adjustments have to be made at the end of the year in accordance with any possible changes in minimum import price affecting the target indicator price.
As regards the farmers' understanding of this system, the 1964 White Paper contains a full description of the new arrangements. A simplified statement was issued in the form of a leaflet distributed to all cereal growers at the beginning of May and there was a good descriptive article in the edition of British Farmer
394
of July 4. I myself did my best to describe, at what appeared to me to be absolutely intolerable length, this system in my winding-up speech in the Review debate—for which I cannot give the Hansard reference at the moment. In the unlikely event of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, wishing me to do that piece of research, I would glady do so. I referred in that to page 42 of the White Paper where three examples are given, which I think do more than I can do today to illustrate the way the system will work and the need for it. I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to go into greater detail than that to-day, but if he wishes we could, as we have done on other occasions, put our heads together and try to understand it between us. But I think that, if he reads the publications and official documents that I have named, he will understand the Order better than he does at the moment and certainly as well as I do.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESALE PRICES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
PROTECTION OF BIRDS ACT 1954 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL
5.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, owing to other engagements I did not find it possible to be present when this measure was previously on the Order Paper. But, I suspect like a great number of your Lordships who have been connected with this matter, I am grateful that it has

395
been brought in. Like so many other Members of this House I have been associated with horses all my life, both in a civilian and a military way, and it has been a matter of great pleasure to see the extent to which riding, particularly by children, has been developed in the country in recent years, largely as a result of the aid of riding establishments which, as was brought out in the course of the discussions, have increased in number so very greatly over recent years. While undoubtedly humane and compassionate behaviour has been the usual rule towards the inmates of these establishments, it is well known to all of us that there have been a great number of cases which might be said to be abuses, and which without doubt have caused great pain to the inmates, when commercial considerations exceeded considerations of compassion and mercy.
I have read very carefully through the whole of the proceedings in the Bill's passage here, and as one who has always in the past admired Lord Silkin's handling of matters on which he intervenes, both those in which he is interested and those on which he is the formal spokesman, I appreciate the line he took. I must admit that I have never regarded him as a dedicated horseman, in spite of his many other talents; but the way he pressed for qualifications appealed to all those who have an interest in this Bill. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who regretted with a certain nostalgic feeling that we no longer have the Yeomanry Regiments, with the effect they had in producing possible masters of riding, and the fact that they are no longer a source from which riders can be drawn. Just as there is on the traffic in horses, there is a very widespread feeling, actuated by mercy and compassion, over the matters covered by the Bill; but there is confidence that many abuses will now be corrected. I wanted to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for bringing in the Bill, and of congratulating him upon the skilful way, which I am sure we all admire, in which he dealt with the many Amendments introduced. I therefore seize this opportunity to support the Third Reading of this measure.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the
396
noble Lord who has just sat down for his extremely kind remarks, though they are quite undeserved. The people who ought to be thanked in this matter are all the various organisations which have, of course, done all the groundwork for this Bill: I have been only the spokesman. I will not detain your Lordships any longer.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EMERGENCY LAWS (RE-ENACTMENTS AND REPEALS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ANIMALS (RESTRICTION OF IMPORTATION) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
FINANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TRADING STAMPS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FISHERY LIMITS BILL
3.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Bill has come to us with a fair wind from another place, and I should like to think that it will also sail through at almost the speed of the last series of measures. I am confident that it will be well received by your Lordships. Its purpose is to extend British fishery limits from 3 miles to 12. So the importance of this measure is not to be judged by its length, and I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to begin by offering a short explanation of the background.
As your Lordships know, Her Majesty's Government have traditionally upheld the validity of the 3-mile limit in International Law. In recent years, however,

397
there has been an increasing tendency for States to claim wider fishery limits. This was not a welcome development for us, for our deep-sea fishermen had long fished in grounds close to the shores of other countries, but we were, above all, anxious that if change had to come it should come by agreement on some new rule of International Law. We played a leading part in two United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and 1960. The second of these Conferences failed by one vote to reach agreement on a new rule of International Law. We nevertheless continued to work for agreement in these matters, and we subsequently made various bilateral Agreements with other countries.
By the beginning of 1963 it was cleat that 12-mile limits were in process of becoming established in nearly all the areas in the North Atlantic of interest to our deep-water fishermen. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government decided that the time had come when some extension of limits could no longer in justice be denied to our own coastal fishermen. In keeping with our desire to proceed in these matters by agreement, we convened the London Fisheries Conference, which completed its work in March of this year. This Conference agreed upon a Convention embodying a 12-mile régime of fishery limits, which was signed by most of our neighbours in Western Europe. We hope and believe that this Convention will contribute significantly to the stabilising of International Law as related to fishery limits.
The Bill now before your Lordships will enable us to establish the regime adopted by the London Fisheries Conference. I can state its main effects very briefly. Clause 1 extends the British fishery limits from their present breadth of 3 miles to a breadth of 12 miles, divided into two 6-mile belts. Foreign fishermen will be excluded altogether from the inner 6-mile limit round our coast after a short phase-out period provided for in Clause 2. In most places, this will end on the last day of 1965. In a few places, notably off the West coast of Scotland, where our limits are being extended by the drawing of new base lines, as well as by the extension of limits itself, foreign fishermen will have an extra year's grace. Between 6 and 12 miles, foreign vessels will still be allowed to fish if they have habitually done so
398
in the past, but they will be limited to the areas and to the species of fish for which they have habitually fished. To give effect to these arrangements, subsection (3) of Clause 1 empowers the Ministers to make orders designating for each country the area in which its vessels may fish and the stocks of fish they may exploit.
Within the 12-mile limit the Bill enables us to apply to foreign vessels the rules of conduct and rules for the conservation of the fish stocks that already apply to British vessels. We have had many complaints about damage to gear suffered by inshore fishermen from foreign vessels, and about the loss of fishing which may result from the use of small meshed nets by foreign vessels. The rules that will apply to the conduct of fishing operations and to conservation are not new. The new feature of the arrangements is that within our limits they will be enforceable by us on foreign vessels, as well as British. This is a solid gain. At the same time, it is only a first step on the road to more effective international measures of enforcement, for which we shall continue to work in consultation and co-operation with all other fishing countries in the North-East Atlantic.
There is little else in the Bill to which I need draw your Lordships' attention at this stage, but perhaps I may pick out one or two minor points of interest. Clause 3, subsection (2), extends to salmon the same protection against foreign fishing that is given to other fish. Clause 3, subsection (5), preserves special arrangements of long standing between ourselves and France around the Channel Islands. Clause 4 extends the domestic jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Parliament in parallel with the extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Westminster.
Your Lordships will wish to know what action we propose to take under the Bill. We intend to bring the new regime into force in September. We are in touch with the countries which signed the London Fisheries Convention about the extent and nature of their habitual fishing rights. There remain three other interested countries, who are not parties to the Convention: Norway, Russia and Poland. We have already had discussions with Norway,

399
to whom we have treaty obligations in this matter. Officials were able to agree upon certain recommendations, subject to the conclusion of a formal Agreement between Governments. We have also had preliminary talks with Russia and Poland about the possible effect of the extension of our limits on their interests, and we shall be following up these talks.
My Lords, what is being done in this Bill is, even at first sight, a change of historic significance for our inshore fishermen. It goes beyond that. After two unsuccessful attempts at Geneva in 1958 and 1960 to reach general agreement on International Law relating to fishery limits, we have in the London Fisheries Convention succeeded in establishing a very large measure of agreement for the North-East Atlantic with our neighbours, and I hope that in the coming months we shall succeed in extending that area of agreement further. Agreement on fishery limits is an important beginning, and will help to pave the way for agreement on such problems as conservation and the regulating of fishing, which must be faced and solved on an international basis in the coming years. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister a question before we go any further? He mentioned that foreign trawlers are to have a year's extension, so far as fishing within the limits of the West Coast of Scotland is concerned, but that they are to be restricted to certain types of white fish. May I ask my noble friend exactly how this restriction will be regulated, seeing that, under present conditions, our fishery protection cruisers are quite incapable of carrying out their duties and their normal function of preventing poaching in this area?
4.6 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, this is one of the rare occasions when I can almost compliment the noble Lord upon the production of this small measure. Having read the whole of the Report of the debate on Second Reading in another place, and having now listened to the noble Lord here this afternoon, I
400
am quite satisfied that, within the Government's intentions, this small measure will be a welcome addition to our fishing legislation. Honourable Members in another place took full advantage of the omissions from the Bill to raise a wide variety of problems and questions, most of which had little or no relation to this particular Bill, although they were of great importance either to their local constituencies or to the fishing industry generally. However, those points having been raised in another place, the Bill received a really warm welcome and there was no opposition to Second Reading. Better still, from the point of view of the Minister, there were no Amendments down on Committee stage, so only a few minutes were required before it was on its way to Report and Third Reading. And the Minister can take it from me that there will be no more opposition in your Lordships' House than there was in another place.
Although, as the Minister in another place said, it is a very small measure, in terms of size and clauses, it will be of some value to certain sections of our fishing industry, especially, of course, the inshore fishermen. The problem of fishing limits has a very long history, as the noble Lord hinted in his short speech, and, on the whole, I should say that nations have been very reasonable and moderate in their demands. As a matter of fact, by common consent, I believe, the 3-mile limit became almost universal in the last century. As the noble Lord has said here this afternoon, United Kingdom Governments down the ages have always preferred international Agreements where they could be obtained, but it was not always easy to get an international Agreement either on fishing limits or, indeed, on conservation and many other problems.
So far as the trawler industry in this country are concerned, they produce by far the greater proportion of our fish, and they do so by having extended their operations to more distant waters, many of them fairly close to the shores of foreign countries. It was therefore not altogether unexpected that the time would soon come when other countries would seek to extend the limits around their coasts within which foreign vessels could not operate. Since the end of the war, several countries, acting unilaterally, have either increased their limits or are about to do so at present, and this modest

401
measure is our only answer: it provides a little more scope to our inshore fishermen, at least within the 3-mile, 6-mile and 12-mile limits. One can call it retaliation or reciprocation; but once unilateral action was taken by several countries it was inevitable that other countries would follow suit. So far as I can recall—and I was at one time responsible for several Bills dealing with the fishing industry—the United Kingdom always preferred international Agreements, whenever and wherever possible. But, as I said a moment ago, international Agreements are not always easy to get; and in dealing with production, conservation and trade generally, negotiations can be long-drawn-out affairs, and very frustrating. Casual outbursts of unilateralism are almost inevitable. This small measure is the result of one of those occasions.
I said earlier that this small Bill could be very useful to our inshore fishing industry. I think they have been one of the most impoverished sections of the community. It will not only do them a fair amount of material good, but will have also a psychological effect. As the noble Lord has said, the substance of the Bill is in Clause 1 which provides for the extension of our limits from 3 to 6 miles and from 6 to 12 miles, and it gives the Government the right to control access by foreign fishermen to fisheries in what is termed in the Bill, the Outer Belt, the outer 6-mile limit. Conditions on which foreign vessels can fish within the Outer Belt are set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 1; and as the noble Lord explained them in reasonable detail, there is no reason why I should repeat his words.
I am pleased to see that in the Outer Belt the Government have reserved the right, among others, to exercise control over conservation; for the fish that are caught within the 6-mile and 12-mile limits are often those of the highest quality; and there is no wisdom in killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Honourable Members of all Parties in another place expressed some apprehension as to whether the Government would police these new limits better than they apparently have been policing the 3-mile limit in various waters around this country.
402
I cannot believe that the new problem of these extended limits, will cause the naval authorities any great anxiety. In any case, it will be the duty of the Minister, whoever he may be, to see that these new limits are observed. If our fishermen are caught inside the prohibited limits of certain other countries, they are made to pay "good and hearty". We do not want to see the rules broken; we should prefer to see them observed. I think that when the new limits come into force the Navy will do its duty efficiently from the word "Go". Then there will be no prosecutions, no "pinching" the nets and all the rest of those unpleasant international problems. I repeat that I think this is a fairly useful little Bill. The number of omissions could be multiplied by scores; but we also know something about the timetable for Government Business. So we shall not hold up this Bill but will help to speed it through your Lordships' House.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I think this is a good Bill which will be welcomed by all who have the interests of fresh-water and sea-water fishing in mind. It is a Bill which has been brought about with the abandonment of the three-mile limit, and in a situation which has not been brought about by this country, but by others. If this Bill succeeds in its purpose of conserving our white fish industry, it will do a considerable measure of good to the East Coast of Britain.
There is one point upon which I hope the Minister will give me some information. As I understand it, the Amendment in Schedule I to the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, gives the Minister power to control any efforts by foreign vessels in the Outer Belt to catch salmon. Already we know that the Inner Belt distance has been ravaged by new methods of salmon fishing which were stopped only by an Order in Council pending the Report of the Hunter Commission. Drift netting is out until the final Report of the Hunter Commission. But it will be a bad day for salmon if, by modern scientific methods, it is ever discovered where the salmon go in salt water, so enabling the salmon to be trapped and caught in deep water. If that ever comes

403
about it will be a bad day, for salmon are a wonderful fish and a great national asset in England and Scotland. So I welcome the powers, as I understand them, to control all types of fishing in the Outer Belt by foreign vessels. That is one of the most valuable parts of this measure, which I think all of us welcome greatly.
4.17 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome this Bill. I would make one suggestion to my noble friend, which is that these base lines may cause trouble. I was wondering whether he could tell me if there is an authoritative map showing where are the six-mile and twelve-mile limits from the base lines. This need will apply in the West of Scotland where the coastline is broken and where the base lines will make a considerable difference, compared with the old method of calculating the three-mile limit. If no map is available, I wonder whether his Department would consider publishing such a map so that all people who have an interest in fishing of any sort know exactly where they could and where they could not fish.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in also welcoming this Bill I feel bound to say with many others that I could wish it had been possible to bring it into force earlier. But the time is fixed by the Bill and by arrangement. However, this is an opportunity to urge Her Majesty's Government (and this point was made also by noble Lords opposite) to use their fullest powers to enforce the regulations which exist to-day and—especially in the light of the tragedy which took place off the East Coast of Scotland recently—to use that power to the maximum extent so that regulations are complied with and the safety of British fishermen, their vessels and gear is ensured between now and the time when this extended area becomes a fact.
4.20 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance of this Bill and the recognition of its importance. The noble Lord, Lord, Williams of Barnburgh, said he could almost congratulate the Government. He then pro-
404
ceeded to deliver something which, coming from him, across the Floor of the House, was positively laudatory, I thought; and I am very grateful for it. Both he and my noble friend Lord Cromartie referred to the protection necessary. My noble friend felt more anxiety than did the noble Lord opposite, and on this occasion, not particularly tit for tat, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh. At any rate, at the beginning I think we need not feel any enxiety about the inadequacy of protection vessels. Regular patrols are operating at present, and without a quite unreasonable amount of expenditure it would not be possible to ensure that there is absolutely no poaching. We are satisfied that an adequate degree of protection is provided. We shall not need to make any particular change at the beginning, due to the phasing-out provisions. We shall have time to learn about what additional protection, if any, is required.
My noble friend the Duke of Atholl asked about maps. Of course, maps will have to be drawn. The points upon which the base lines rest must be established on their proper co-ordinates. And these authoritative maps will have to be published by the time that the provisions become effective—that is to say, in mid-September, we hope. My noble friend Lord Ferrier would have liked it to come earlier, but in view of the degree of agreement we naturally have to obtain from other nations affected I do not see how we could have brought it in any earlier. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked a question about salmon. I can tell him that the Bill does not affect in any way legislation governing salmon fishing by British vessels, but it does make it an offence for a foreigner to fish for salmon within our fishery limits. This is to be found in Clause 3(2), at the top of page 3. I think that this will be a gain for protection. I think those are all the substantive questions I was asked. I am most grateful for the reception given to the Bill and hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NEW TOWNS (No. 2) BILL
4.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Molson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Orders to be subject to annulment]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD TAYLOR: On the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that I wished to oppose it. I have not done so and I have not put down any Amendments because I am persuaded, by the discussions I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that he is right and I am wrong. I objected to this Bill because I thought it would delay the establishment of New Towns. I am satisfied that it will not do so and that the setting up of development corporations can go ahead while a Prayer is being made in another place or in this House, and that there will be no delay. I objected on a second ground—namely, that a Prayer was a poor method of Parliamentary control of the place where a New Town was to be established or of the nature of the area' to be covered. I still think it is a poor method, but I believe it is the only method, and I therefore think that my noble friend Lord Molson is right. I am very pleased that the Bill is to have a happy Committee stage.
LORD BARNBY: I realise that this is a technical measure, but is it possible for enlightenment to be given on this point, since we are all much interested in the large areas which are progressively being embodied in these New Towns? Clause 1(2)(b) specifically refers to areas of not less than 500 acres. In what way and by what instrument or procedure will an amount of land of less than 500 acres be embodied in a New Town?
LORD MOLSON: At the outset, let me say that I have found the noble Lord,
406
Lord Taylor, a doughty opponent, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, and when he is convinced and gives me support, then he does it in an extremely gracious and charming manner. I think that this is the first time I can ever remember any politician making so cordial an acknowledgment across the Floor of the House that he has been convinced and now thinks that he was wrong. My noble friend Lord Barnby has asked me to explain what would be the effect of this Bill in the case of an extension of a designated area of a New Town which was less than 500 acres. The procedure is provided for in the First Schedule to the New Towns Act, 1947, and this Bill amends it in the case of extensions of more than 500 acres and at the same time of more than 10 per cent. If it is a smaller extension than that, the provisions of the Act of 1947 are unchanged. An order is made, but it is not a statutory instrument and not prayable in either House.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.

DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL
4.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Penalisation of unauthorised possession of scheduled substances]:
LORD AIREDALE: I think that this Amendment and the next one will stand, or fall, together. I shall be very surprised if they do not. The Bill uses the rather cumbersome expression "medical store-carrying ship". I think that if one went down to Grimsby and asked one of the skippers "Is this a medical store-carrying ship?" he would say, "I beg your pardon, mate, say that again", and if you asked him again, "Is this a medical store-carrying ship?" he would say, "No,

407
of course it isn't; it's a ship carrying medical stores. "I am all for Statutes making use of the ordinary language which ordinary, sensible people use. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("medical store-carrying ship") and insert ("ship carrying medical stores").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I must resist this Amendment—and as the noble Lord has said the next one goes with it—on three grounds. In so far as the Bill is concerned, there is no possibility of misunderstanding, because what this means is described in Clause 9, which is the clause explaining what certain phrases and words mean. Secondly, this is wording used in previous Statutes, and it is inadvisable in different Statutes to use different words for things that are the same. Thirdly, at this stage of the Session I suggest to your Lordships that it is not sensible to carry an Amendment which is unnecessary.
LORD AIREDALE: Perhaps this means that Bills which go through early in the Parliamentary year may have to be in good English, but those which go through towards the end of the Session can be in bad English. I should not have thought that was a sensible proposition. Nor do I accept from the Minister the contention that a solecism once committed in legislation has to be with us for all time and every subsequent Act of Parliament dealing with the same subject has to repeat the solecism purely for the sake of slavish uniformity. I should not have thought there was the slightest difficulty in coming to the conclusion that a "ship carrying medical stores" meant exactly the same thing as a "medical store-carrying ship", but it is rather better language.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
LORD AIREDALE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("medical store-carrying ship") and insert ("ship
408
carrying medical stores").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD FERRIER: I feel it is only fair to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for at least one to raise his voice in support of the wording which he prefers to use rather than that which the noble Lord on the Front Bench has said is used in other enactments. At the same time, I feel that my noble friend Lord Derwent is probably right in saying that it would not be wise to accept the Amendment at this juncture.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AIREDALE: I am afraid we are still on the same line of the Bill, that is the first line on page 7 which reads:
"'medical store-carrying ship' means a ship on board of which a supply of medicine and medical stores is required to be kept…".
I think this is something that we really cannot have. It is one of the curiosities of the English language, perhaps, that although you may have a ship on the decks of which cargo is carried, it is nevertheless not a ship on board of which a cargo is carried. If you use the expression "on board ship", you do not need the qualification of the word "of". I beg to move that we get rid of this entirely superfluous word.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("of").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD DERWENT: I rely here on the Standard Oxford Dictionary. It is quite clear from the Standard Oxford Dictionary that the expressions "on board of" and "on board" are equally permissible, the former being the older form and the more traditional. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I venture to suggest that the newer and contemporary form is more appropriate to legislation in 1964. I do not think this is an Amendment that I ought to withdraw.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule, agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a Bill of some little substance, but fortunately, unlike some Private Members' Bills which have to be explained to your Lordships, this has been so fully discussed—indeed, every word of it, I think, was scrutinised in another place—that it will not be necessary for me to go into it in such detail as is sometimes necessary. Noble Lords will find that there were thirteen sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee on this Bill, and they amended it considerably and inserted a number of new clauses which were not there originally. I think, however, there are certain basic characteristics which still remain, and which will, I hope, help to commend the Bill to the House.
The Bill deals with powers of local authorities, and gives them some additional powers, which I understand they very much wish to have: first, in order that they may be able to carry out more development in their areas; and secondly, to improve their financial structure and the ease with which they can deal with their funds. But these powers in the Bill are all permissive, and are not going to be forced down the throat of any local authority in Scotland if they do not wish to use them. There is no danger in this for the ordinary member of the public. There is no compulsory purchase in the Bill, and no onerous requirements are made on owners of land or anyone else. I do not think, therefore, that there is any need for caution on your Lordships' part on that account. It is also in the Bill's favour, I think, that it contains quite a lot that will help to preserve, and indeed improve, the amenities of parts of Scotland in the hands of the local authorities where they choose to use the powers conferred on them.
This Bill is in three Parts. Part I deals with development, in the form of building and other works, and it gives powers to all local authorities, including district councils. The second part is financial. Clause 1 gives all these authorities power
410
to develop land by erecting any building and constructing and carrying out works for the benefit or improvement of their area, with the consent of the Secretary of State. I think this will be useful because, of course, whereas the local planning authorities already have powers to carry out development themselves (and this is preserved in Clause 1 of the Bill), there are at present certain limitations on the powers that other local authorities, such as small burghs, have. They may be able to carry out development for housing purposes, but if, as quite often occurs, they are doing some minor redevelopment scheme in the middle of their burgh, they may find that they have no power to put up offices or shops. This clause will give such power to them.
The clause will also give all these local authorities powers to erect advance factories for industry, within their area, if they so desire. Your Lordships know that this has been the most effective method of attracting industry to areas which are not so well off, and Scotland has some of these.
Clause 2 is concerned with the development of land, and it gives local authorities specific power to carry out works themselves, without reference to the Secretary of State, for preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of land, or to enable unsightly or derelict land to be brought back into some reasonable shape. No doubt the pit tips or bings are a case in point where this could be extensively used to great advantage. This part of Clause 2 will be complementary to the powers in the Local Employment Act, whereby grants can be made for this particular purpose of reclaiming derelict land where it will help to bring about industrial prosperity in the area.
The second part of Clause 2 gives local authorities powers to provide such things as footpaths, picnic places, jetties and ferries, to enable members of the public to enjoy the countryside, the lochs, the rivers, and so on. I am told that local authorities have anxiously been seeking these powers for some time.
Clause 3 allows a local authority to exercise the powers under the two preceding clauses, not only on its own land but, by agreement, on other people's

411
land. It can also, as it were, delegate, under agreement with the other person, the local authority functions. But where appropriate, and as public money may be involved, there is a provision that public access shall be maintained under the terms of the agreement, if that is the right thing to do in any specific case. Clause 4 deals with the perennial and, I am afraid, ever-increasing problem of litter. Whereas the Litter Act makes it an offence to drop litter about in a public place, there is no consistent power in Scotland which allows local authorities to pick it up again, or to deal with it afterwards when they have picked it up. The position in the burghs is different from that in the landward areas of the countryside; and although some local authorities have got round this difficulty, there is a mass of confusing legislation which will all be cut through by this clause, and I think the situation will be very much more satisfactory hereafter.
Clause 5 gives county and district councils the same powers as burghs have at the moment to advertise their attractions and amenities. There is one point in Clause 5 for which I must apologise to your Lordships, because I think subsection (4) is one of the most atrocious examples of legislation by reference that I have seen for a very long time. But it is too late in this Session to put this right, and I can only say, as an extenuating circumstance, that this is a reference to the limitation on the amount of rates that can be spent for these purposes, and so perhaps it will not incommode members of the public too unduly if they come to read the Bill. I wish it could have been expressed otherwise.
Clause 6 is a supplementary clause at the end of Part I. As your Lordships will see, it allows local authorities to make contributions towards the expenditure incurred by other local authorities or by voluntary organisations in doing anything that they could have done under Part I of the Bill. This ties up with the power in Clause 13, in Part III of the Bill, which allows the local authorities to pay subscriptions to rights-of-way societies. These two complementary provisions will help local authorities to give the proper support which they would like to give to the
412
voluntary bodies who are helping them in this particular field.
In Part II there are matters of finance. Clause 7 enables county and town councils to advance money on repayment terms to people to whom they may have sold, let or feued land, or agreed to do so, so that that person can effect a building on the land. This is a useful power for local authorities—perhaps in the sort of case where somebody contemplated putting up a factory and the local authority desired to assist him. Indeed, under the Local Authorities Land Act, of last year this could be done by local authorities in England and Wales, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that Scottish local authorities should not be hindered by lack of powers. I hope your Lordships will not expect me to explain the distinction between the various legal charges set out in Clause 7(6)(b). I believe that these are the Scottish method of securing payment of money.
Clause 8 and the next two clauses give town and county councils powers to set up funds: first of all, capital funds, details of which are in Clause 1; and secondly, renewal and repair funds, details of which are in Clause 10. These funds can be built up by the local authorities so that they can more easily undertake items of capital expenditure. So far as the capital fund is concerned, I think it is worth noting in that where the money is collected from ratepayers over a certain area (and it can be done over various different types of area) it is provided in Clause 8(5) that the money shall be spent for the benefit of people in the area from which the money was collected, and not for only part of it, or for some different selection of the ratepayers altogether. I think this is fair if the money is to be collected by means of rates, as it could be.
Clause 11 allows the local authorities to issue bonds to attract investment. This again was a power given to English and Welsh local authorities in the Act which I helped to conduct through this House last year. Schedule I sets out the form of the bond, and this is an easy way to raise money, and quite a safe one. Clause 12 encourages the quick payment of rates by giving the ratepayers a small discount if they pay within a certain time. I believe that Edinburgh

413
(I suppose under a Private Act) has a scheme of this nature, and although most citizens of that great city always pay their rates very promptly anyway, I gather that it has helped to speed up the few laggards there are. So it may be a useful thing to have in the armoury of the local authorities elsewhere in Scotland.
I think that these are useful provisions. I hope they are not controversial, and that I have not left out any points that your Lordships would like me to answer. If I have, I will do my best to deal with them at the end of the debate. Meanwhile, I hope the Bill commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
4.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the clear and concise way in which he has introduced this useful Bill. The Bill adds to the powers of local authorities a number of permissive powers they are indeed anxious to have, and I can assure them and your Lordships that my right honourable friend will give them all the help he can. I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I want to say just a quick word of welcome to this Bill. I know that the tourist industry in Scotland will be extremely grateful to my noble friend for piloting this Bill, as I hope he will be successful in doing, through your Lordships' House and I think local authorities will take full advantage of it, especially Clauses 2 and 4.
I should like to ask my noble friend a question concerning Clause 4(4)(a), which says:
"only with the consent of all persons having an interest in the land on which the place is situated".
This is with regard to putting litter bins on private land, presumably neat rights of way or roads. I am rather worried about the wording: "having an interest in the land "because, if I as an owner and a tenant, as the occupier, agree to having a litter bin there, I am wondering if anyone else has an interest in that land. I can visualise that where
414
a cottage is situated, say, 100 yards away from that litter bin the owner or tenant or occupier of that cottage may consider that he has an interest in that particular piece of land. I should like my noble friend to confirm that this is not the case, and that the only people who have an interest in that land are the owner and occupier.
4.53 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, if we were not accustomed to hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, expound the contents of a Bill, we should be inclined to congratulate him on the clarity with which he has submitted this Bill to us to-day. I should very much like to express my own support of this Bill, which is, as your Lordships know, a Private Member's Bill. Having gone through the debate of the Scottish Grand Committee which took place, I have been very deeply impressed by their spirit and the extent to which they have improved the Bill as it was originally presented to them. So much so that when I obtained a copy of the Bill as it first appeared in another place, I found that it was a pretty little Bill of about eight pages, but as it comes now to your Lordships' House, after the Scottish Grand Committee have completed their deliberations upon it, it is twelve pages in length and a good deal more detailed. So, on the whole, knowing the examination through which this Bill has passed in Committee stage, there is nothing objectionable in the Bill that I can find to refer to to-day.
The only question that occurs to me is this—and no doubt there is a satisfactory explanation if only I could think of it. In the Bill as it formerly appeared in another place there was a note under the heading of "Financial effects" which read as follows:
"Local authorities are not expected to incur significant extra expenditure under this Bill, though it may lead to a slight increase in Exchequer equalisation grant".
That referred particularly to Clause 4 of the former Bill, but that clause is not Clause 4 in the present Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is Clause 1.
LORD GREENHILL: Subject to being given information on that, in which I am very much interested, I have much

415
pleasure in supporting this Bill. It is true that some of the major decisions can be carried out only by consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but that, too, is a commonplace experience in Bills of this kind, and, provided that the attitude of the Secretary of State for Scotland in office for the time being continues, I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.
4.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to noble Lords for the welcome they have given this Bill. I can assure my noble friend the Duke of Atholl that the interests which are mentioned in Clause 4, to which he referred, are a legal interest and the cottager who is going to look at the litter bin would not have any locus standi to object to its being put up, although he might suggest that it be painted an attractive colour.
So far as the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, is concerned, I think the answer is this. First of all, the reason why there is no note about it in the Explanatory Memorandum in your Lordships' copy of the Bill is that I believe it is a matter with which we are not intended to interest ourselves, and therefore it is meant to be beyond our ken. But in actual fact there is nothing very sinister about it. As I understand it, if a local authority increase or decrease their expenditure in any way, it is bound to have some marginal effect upon the Exchequer equalisation grant, and if they use some of their powers, particularly under Clause 1, to develop land, to put up factories or offices, and so on, it is inevitably going to have an effect on the calculations on which the Exchequer equalisation grant is based. The same applies to any other expenditure by a local authority, so I do not think there is anything in the least out of the way about the note or, indeed, the financial clause in the Bill, which comes at the end of Clause 13, which gives power to make the ordinary adjustments for the purposes of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will be satisfied with this explanation. I do not think there is anything strange in the point he raised.
LORD GREENHILL: I thank the noble Viscount very much.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Therefore, with my thanks to your Lordships for the welcome given, and indeed for the help given me by my noble friend Lord Craigton, I commend the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS) BILL
4.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Auckland)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Pecuniary interests of members]:
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved in subsection (1) to leave out "him" where that word occurs a second time and insert "a member". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Amendment is put down in answer to a query in another place about the effect that the Bill has on councillors as a whole. As the Bill is worded, in Clause 1 this would appear to apply to one particular type of councillor. In other words, it might well apply to a man who is a relatively poor man and who could be very severely embarrassed by Clause 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933, as it now stands. The purpose of this Amendment is to make the clause more objective and to apply not merely, so to speak, to him or to her but to councillors as a whole.
In another place my honourable and learned friend the Attorney General explained that the clause presented a subjective test on the question of remoteness and insignificance as related to the individual councillor who may be accused; and went on to say that it would be wrong for the rich and well-to-do councillor to have a defence on significant

417
interests for which a relatively poor councillor may not. Therefore this Amendment could be regarded as a levelling Amendment and would apply to any councillor, whatever his or her means. I hope that explains the purpose of the Amendment. I may say that it has been put down after consultation with the local authorities concerned and has their full support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("him") and insert ("a member").—(Lord Auckland).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Pecuniary interests of officers and servants]:
LORD AUCKLAND: This Amendment is designed to apply exactly the same terms and conditions to an officer of the council, such as a town clerk or employee of a council, and I think the rest is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("him") and insert ("an officer or servant").—(Lord Auckland).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMUSEMENTS WITH PRIZES) BILL
5.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
The EARL OF KINNOULL The EARL OF KINNOULL moved, before Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Gaming machines
"In section 33(2)(b) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (which imposes the condition with respect to gaming by means
418
of a gaming machine that the stake required to be hazarded in order to play the game once does not exceed sixpence) the words 'required to be' are hereby repealed."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This is a new clause which has been put down at a rather late stage in the Bill in view of the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of Rosenbaum v. Burgoyne. Under Section 33 of the 1963 Act—your Lordships will recall that that section deals with club premises—there were laid down for these premises conditions which were originally embodied in the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act and which are far less stringent than those for premises such as cafés and restaurants, which are, of course, open to the public. Under Section 33 there were three conditions: first, no more than two gaming machines may be in operation in any one place; secondly—and here I quote—
"that the stake required to be hazarded in order to play the game does not exceed sixpence";
and thirdly, that no profit should go towards private gain—or, in other words, into the pockets of the club owner.
No limit was set for prizes that may be won, either in cash value or in kind. The intention of Parliament, as I understand it, under Section 33(2)(b) of the 1963 Act was to limit the maximum stake that could be hazarded at any one time to sixpence. However, by the recent ruling of the House of Lords the interpretation of this paragraph now has what appears to be the completely opposite effect. The question posed by the noble and learned Lords was: what stake is required in order that the game shall be played? It was clearly denned that the legal interpretation of this paragraph was that there would be no maximum limit on the stake so long as any one of the machines could be played for sixpence or less. In other words, it is optional—and this is the important word—whether the player wishes to stake more than sixpence or not.
The effect of this could lead, I submit to your Lordships, to serious danger, and it strikes at the fundamental principle Parliament laid down that such machines should provide only an innocuous form of gaming. The effect of the interpretation is considered so serious by some that they believe that

419
unless steps are taken immediately unscrupulous operators could well step in. A further effect arising out of the interpretation is that clubs would now appear to have an unfair advantage over such premises as public houses which may be competing in the same business and in the same area. Such an advantage was never intended by Parliament. This Amendment I regard as important, and I would ask your Lordships to consider it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Before Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I have had some notice of the problem to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention, and I would recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, on one condition: that the Government assure us that the drafting is right. I am assuming that the noble Earl has had some consultation with the Government and has had the use of the Parliamentary draftsmen I want that assurance because I recognise the difficulty of Back-Benchers in producing Amendments, not only for Private Bills but for Public Bills. If we had that assurance, I would recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: Her Majesty's Government have certainly acted with alacrity in this matter; in some quarters it might be considered with unbecoming alacrity. The cause of Rosenbaum v. Burgoyne to which my noble friend referred was decided in the House of Lords I think on July 7. It had travelled the full distance from the magistrates' court via the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal and eventually arrived in the House of Lords, and there it was decided that the appellant's contention was right. In those circumstances it is, as I say, sometimes thought to be unfitting that the Government should then promote legislation in order to put right something which the parties have contested at considerable expense in the courts.
My noble friend has explained very clearly the purpose of this Amendment and I propose to acquit the Government of anything unbecoming in promoting it. I think what has happened is that the decision of the House of Lords has really
420
defeated one of the main purposes of the principal Act. The principal Act was intended to restrict the use of these machines to a type of machine on which the stake was relatively small. The House of Lords decision has really destroyed the purpose of that enactment, and in those circumstances, undesirable as it usually is, as I think, to correct too soon by legislation something which has been decided in the courts, perhaps this case stands on rather a different footing. For my part, I do not propose to direct any real criticism at Her Majesty's Government for what has happened.
LORD AIREDALE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the successful appellant in the Rosenbaum case got his costs? I expect he did. I hope he did.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Lord must not put questions to me; but as he has done so, all I can tell him is that I do not know whether costs were awarded or not. Successful parties in the courts usually expect to get their costs, but they often find that the sum which is awarded does not, by any means, cover the expenditure which they have incurred.
EARL FERRERS: I think it might be helpful to the Committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if I were to say that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the wording of this Amenment; that indeed the Parliamentary draftsman has seen it, and has been able to assist in the wording of it. In fact, this does not alter the intention of the original Act one bit. As noble Lords appreciate, the intention of the original Act was that 6d. should be the maximum stake; but it has transpired that you can have a machine with a 6d. slot and, if you like, four or five other 6d. slots. Indeed, it would be possible under the judgment which was given for a machine to have one 6d. slot and then 12 slots which would take 2s. 6d., all of which could function by one operation of the lever. Frankly, that was not the intention of the original Act, and this Amendment would clarify that intention.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment, and I ask your Lordships to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 [Provision of certain amusements with prizes at certain commercial entertainments]:
5.13 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, at the beginning of Clause 1, to insert:
"(1) After section 49(1) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (which relates to the conditions to be observed in connection with the provision of amusements with prizes at certain commercial entertainments) there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section a local authority may by a resolution determine not to grant permits for the provision of amusements with prizes in respect of

(a) premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, and

(b) premises where, in the course of a business, food is supplied for immediate consumption on the premises,

and a resolution passed by a local authority under this subsection may apply to part of the whole of the area of the local authority.'"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible for a local authority by resolution to determine that they will not grant permits for these machines in a defined class of premises. It would enable a local authority by resolution to decide that they would not in any circumstances grant permits for these machines in, for example, public houses or in cafés, or in certain classes of café or certain classes of public house. When the Bill was in another place, it was, I think, made reasonably plain that its purpose was to facilitate the granting of permits for these machines, not in public houses or in cafés, but in the major amusement parks, as they are called, or, if I may employ an expression with which your Lordships are, no doubt, more familiar than I am, in fun fairs. I have never derived any fun from visiting one of these places myself, but a great many people do so. The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the granting of permits for places of that sort, and not for the ordinary public house or café.
As the Bill stands, the local authorities have to examine, in circumstances which we shall come to later on, the conditions in which the applicant proposes to make use of these machines, and they have to give what is really a semi-judicial decision. Sometimes there are a large
422
number of public houses, and in many towns there are an even greater number of cafés. I should have thought that these machines were certainly unsuitable for installation in cafés, and that a local authority might quite reasonably say, "We ought not to be overwhelmed with applications from the proprietors of all these cafés when we consider that the use of these machines in a café is really out of place, and we ought not to grant a permit to anybody on that ground".
I had hoped that my noble friend might have met me about this. At any rate, if he thinks that it is too hard on the public houses, he might at least consider giving me some help over the cafés. That would certainly ease the burden of the local authorities considerably. This is going to be a not inconsiderable burden. In some towns, the local authorities will be overwhelmed with applications, all of which have to be determined individually and independently. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may think it reasonable that if the local authorities should, in their discretion, consider that the use of these machines in a particular class of premises was undesirable, they might pass a resolution to that effect and spare themselves the burden of examining all these applications which, on the common ground that they considered the premises themselves not to be suitable, they felt it desirable in any case to reject. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: AS the noble Lord has said, this Amendment has the purpose of giving to the local authorities, as a matter of general policy, the power to refuse to grant any permits for gaming machines in their area. The Amendment has been given the most careful study, and it is felt that it widens the power of authorities under Clause 2 to far too great an extent. It jeopardises the important principle of each application being considered on its merits. The effect of the Amendment would not be beneficial to the Bill, for three reasons: first of all, local authorities already have adequate powers to grant or refuse permits under the Bill; secondly, it is considered as an important principle that applica-

423
tions should be considered individually; and lastly, it is felt that in practice the effect of this Amendment, if passed, would lead to results not foreseen originally by the local authorities.
To illustrate this last point, I would say that if a general resolution were made forbidding permits to premises described in paragraph (b) of this Amendment, it might affect not only restaurants but also genuine amusement places. While this particular objection might be met by drafting alterations, it illustrates the danger of generalising as a whole. The noble Lord made a point about local authorities being overwhelmed with applications. I am informed that this is not considered to be the case, and that the principle of individual applications should be accepted. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he might consider not pressing this Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: I had hoped that my noble friend might be prepared to meet me, at any rate so far as the cafés were concerned. I see that he is quite stubborn about it and has no intention of doing so. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Permits for the provision of amusements with prizes]:
5.20 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "used" to insert:
"or having regard to the character and record of the occupier of the premises".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the definition in the Bill of the grounds upon which a local authority may decide to refuse or to grant or renew a permit. The Amendment proposes to introduce among the grounds which the local authority may consider in determining to refuse or grant a permit one additional ground: the character and record of the applicant. Clause 2(1) of the Bill sets out in some detail the grounds on which the local authority may act. They may refuse to grant or renew the permit
"on the ground that, by reason of the purposes for which, or the persons by whom, or any circumstances in which, the premises are, or are to be, used, it is undesirable that amusements with prizes should be provided thereon."
424
It is significant that one ground which is not included in this enumeration of grounds is the character and record of the applicant. It is of special significance for the reason that the courts, in construing the similar section in the principal Act, have held in express terms that the character and record of the applicant may be one of the grounds upon which the permit may be refused.
The difficulty that I apprehend about this definition is this. The courts having defined in fairly clear terms the grounds on which the local authority may act, shortly afterwards legislation is passed and one of the grounds which the courts have held to be a good ground is omitted. That will be taken by persons who have to construe this Bill to mean that Parliament did not intend to include among the grounds upon which the local authority can act the character or record of the occupier. I cannot see that any harm would be done to the Bill by introducing these words. They will, I am sure, forestall much difficulty and argument amongst those whose duty it will be to carry out the Bill. It seems to me that it will inevitably be interpreted as meaning that Parliament, in enacting a specific enumeration of the grounds on which the local authority may act, has deliberately excluded the record and character of the owner. If there is a danger of this section being construed in that way, I should have thought that my noble friend might have been able to agree to these words being included so that any doubt would be eliminated.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, after ("used") insert the said words.—(Lord Ilford.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am in some difficulty in that I am not a lawyer and have to accept the advice I am given. On the point the noble Lord makes, I am told that legally this Bill only adds to existing legislation and would not alter the effect of the case of Hewison v. Skegness Urban District Council. In that case Mr. Justice Salmon in his judgment held that local authorities had discretion to refuse a permit on the grounds of the character and record of the occupier. As to the harm the Amendment may cause, I should like to say that the Amendment possibly could weaken the important discretion under Schedule 6 of the 1963 Act. It is considered that it

425
would be wrong to over-emphasise the conditions upon which local authorities have to decide whether to refuse or accept a permit. I would suggest to the noble Lord that, for the reason that this Amendment may do harm to the Bill and, furthermore, that legally his point only adds to existing legislation, he should withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: May I ask the noble Earl one question? Am I to understand him to say that this will in no way alter this part of Schedule 6 of the 1963 Act in such a way as to prevent the local council from taking into consideration the character and record of the occupier? As I understand it, that will remain. But is the noble Earl suggesting that it would be wrong to import the words in Schedule 6 of the 1963 Act into Clause 2 of this Bill?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: That is the very point. I agree with the noble Lord, and I am grateful for his putting it so clearly.
LORD AIREDALE: I should have thought that this Amendment was worth further consideration, for this reason. It would be open to an ingenious advocate to create some confusion in the minds of the court by pointing out that this Bill omits specifically to mention one part of the existing law, and thereby to contend, perhaps quite wrongly, but in good faith, that the law has been changed by the omission of the Bill to mention those matters, when that was not the true situation.
EARL FERRERS: Perhaps I could help the noble Lord?. I should have thought that this Amendment was in fact unnecessary because the whole purpose of a permit's being granted by the local authority is that they should have discretion to do so. This Bill in fact extends the local authority's discretion, and to a certain extent removes doubts by specifying a little more what they can do. In the judgment that Mr. Justice Salmon gave in Hewison v. Skegness U.D.C. what he said was:
"When a local authority considers an application…what it has to decide is whether, having regard to the character and record of the occupier of the premises, the nature of the premise and the general requirements of the neighbourhood, it is desirable that there should be gaming machines on the premises."
426
It would therefore seem to me to be a pity to make explicit in the Bill what is implicit from the judgment which I have just read. I think there is a danger that if one categorises too much what local authorities may do one may narrow the scope of their discretion.
LORD ILFORD: That is exactly what the Bill does: it enumerates the grounds on which the local authority is required to act. The point of my Amendment is that, although the Bill enumerates the grounds, it expressly omits this particular ground. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is right when he draws attention to the difficulty which is going to arise in the construction of this clause. Of course that is exactly what will happen. If I may differ from him in this respect, I do not think that the advocate who argues this point would have to be a very ingenious one. It is in fact a very obvious point of interpretation.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Lord decides what he wishes to do in regard to this Amendment, may I make an appeal to the noble Earl and to the Government that they should offer to reconsider this matter between now and the next stage? I well remember the effect on the Factories Act—a law that had been in existence, I think, for nearly 70 or 80 years—when the Act was being consolidated and a particular provision was inserted. The provision was of so little importance, in the view of the Government, that they made no speech about its inclusion; and no member of the Opposition took any notice of it—possibly because the Government had not drawn attention to it during the debate. But in fact that provision altered very radically the law which had been in existence for 70 or 80 years, and, if I may say so, to the disadvantage of the factory worker. That position still exists and we have not been able to amend it.
If, as I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, there is a doubt as to the way this clause may be construed in the future, I think we should insist that the Government consider this matter and give us their advice on Report stage. There is no fear that the Bill will be lost if this Amendment is passed, or if

427
another is proposed and accepted, because the Bill has already been amended and will in any event have to go back to another place. So the question of time and the saving of the Bill do not therefore arise. I should have thought, in view of the weight of argument that has been put, admittedly briefly but with a good deal of unanimity, that the Government ought to say immediately that they will consider this matter with their own legal advisers and Parliamentary draftsmen, and give us their answer on Report stage.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: AS we have another opportunity to look at this Bill again at the Report stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has mentioned, perhaps my noble friend would agree to withdraw the Amendment at this stage on the understanding that we can discuss it again at a later stage.
LORD ILFORD: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am quite sure that he is right in deciding that this matter should be looked at again. On those terms, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential on Amendment No. 1, to which your Lordships have agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("(Amusements with Prizes)").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
"(6) An authorised officer of a local authority shall, on producing if so required some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a right to enter any premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of the performance by the local authority of their functions under the said Act of 1963."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of a much simpler character than the other two which I ventured to move earlier this afternoon. All this Amendment does is to make it possible for the local authority's duly authorised inspector to enter premises, either before an application is determined or at any
428
other time afterwards. The local authorities attach some importance to this right of inspection, and I think it is reasonable that if a local authority is to be expected to give a semi-judicial decision on these applications, it should at least have the opportunity of sending its inspector into the premises first, to report what the circumstances are. I hope that my noble friend will be as forthcoming over this Amendment as he was over the last, and will undertake to look at this matter again. It is a matter to which the local authorities, I think reasonably, attach importance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This Amendment, along with the others, has received the most careful attention by those who drafted the Bill. The Amendment is couched in very wide terms, and seeks to confer a power of entry on local authorities not only under the scope of this Bill but under the entire 1963 Act. The local authorities have already been granted under that Act certain powers of entry—and the registration of pool promoters is one example. I feel that this point is important, because at the moment we are considering only this Bill, and I feel that to go outside the scope of the Bill may be dangerous.
With respect to the noble Lord, it is felt that in practice this Amendment in relation to Clause 2 of this Bill, which deals with public premises, such as public-houses, would really have little effect for two reasons. First, the premises involved are public premises and therefore, even if a refusal of an official inspection were made, unofficial and probably more informative inspection could be made as a member of the public. Secondly, it would seem unlikely that any applicant would refuse the local authority entry for inspection, as without doing so the local authority is hardly in a position to judge either whether the premises are suitable, or whether any conditions should be imposed. To refuse entry would appear likely to have the direct consequence that an application for a grant, or for renewal, of a permit would be refused. Finally, if there were reason to suppose that offences were being committed on the premises, it

429
would seem more appropriate for the police to intervene, under the powers given to them in Section 51 of the 1963 Act. For these reasons I would suggest that the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Earl indicated that the local authority has power of entry into premises where these machines are in existence and are being operated. I think he then indicated that the local authority, if it had grounds to refuse a permit, was able to do so. May I take it that it would be a ground for refusing a licence if the local authority was not permitted to inspect the premises?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Yes. If the local authority could not enter the premises there would be a right to refuse, on the ground that it had not been able to judge whether the premises were suitable.
LORD ILFORD: The applicant would have the right, of course, to appeal against that decision. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asks my noble friend whether it can be assumed that a refusal of entry would itself be a good ground for refusal, one cannot answer that question. It would depend entirely upon the view which was taken by the appeal tribunal.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could the noble Earl help us between now and the next stage, and see whether this could be one of the grounds for the refusal of a licence by the local authority?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Yes. I will certainly look into this.
LORD ILFORD: I am very grateful to my noble friend for the way he has handled these Amendments, and, if I may say so, for the clarity with which he has developed his arguments.
EARL FERRERS: Might I just interrupt the noble Lord before he withdraws this Amendment, if he is going to do so, merely to say that in fact the drafting
430
of his Amendment is couched in such wide terms that it affects a great many more places than the actual places which have these gaming machines. Therefore, I think he is going very much wider than the scope of the Bill itself.
LORD ILFORD: The Government have themselves gone outside the scope of the Bill. They themselves are amending the principal Act by this Bill. It does not lie in the mouth of the noble Earl to complain. One of his Amendments proposes to do the very same thing. But I am very grateful to Lord Kinnoull for the way he has handled this matter, and on the undertaking he has given I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1, which the Committee have already agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("(Amusements with Prizes)").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: This Amendment, also, is consequential upon Amendment No. 1, to which the Committee have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 2, after ("to") insert ("gaming machines and with respect to").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
5.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR In the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of section 7(1) of 1938 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL FERRERS: During the Second Reading of this Bill I referred to an undertaking which was given by my right honourable friend in another place, that he would promote consultations with local authority associations on the Bill, and particularly on the question of introducing some form of licensing or exemption for the entertainment industry. I thought that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships' Committee if I were to explain what were the outcomes of these consultations. Of course, these associations had extremely short notice to supply detailed observations, and I should like to pay tribute to them for the manner in which they succeeded in studying the problem and letting us know their views. Those concerned were the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Urban District Councils Association and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. The London County Council, because of the large number of night clubs which it has in its area, was also consulted and supplied extremely helpful comments. Therefore, all the local authorities as defined in Section 6 of the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, were covered by the consultations.
Two main questions were posed in these consultations. The first concerned the views of the associations on the Bill as it now stands, with reference to the responsibilities of local authorities under Section 3 of the 1938 Act for its enforcement. To this, all replied that they had no observations on, or indeed criticisms to make of, the Bill as it now stands. The
432
second and main question concerned the possibility of some procedure of licensing or exemption for young persons in the entertainment industry, perhaps on the lines of an Amendment which was tabled but was not in fact called in another place, and which might apply to the performer, or to the performance, or indeed to the premises in which the performance takes place. On this, the majority view was that no such provision should be included in the Bill. One association expressed the opinion that the Bill was not unduly restrictive on the employment of young entertainers, and the general view was that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce or to operate any licensing procedures.
The view was expressed that it would be an invidious task for anyone to decide which premises or which performer or which performance should be exempted, and it was held to be impossible to lay down satisfactory conditions in a licence to protect the health or the welfare, whether moral or physical, of a young person aged 16 or 17 in his or her appearances in a night club. One of the bodies consulted placed particular emphasis on the fact that the 1938 Act is concerned with the health and welfare of young persons, and their health and welfare are just as much affected whatever is the precise job performed. A few municipal authorities, albeit reluctantly, were prepared to try to operate a licensing procedure, but there was doubt about the real need for such a procedure.
The Government themselves are in no doubt as to the wisdom of the majority view of the local authority associations, and therefore have not tabled an Amendment on the lines which my noble friend Lord Aberdare suggested on Second Reading. In reaching this decision, Her Majesty's Government have not been unmindful of the remarks that were made by my noble friend and, indeed, by noble Lords opposite. Our advice, however, is that the careers of young artistes under the age of 18 would not be unduly inhibited by a ban on appearances in night clubs. This is equally true of the period when they are relatively unknown, of their rise to stardom and, indeed, of the struggles which they have to remain stars. They are not brought to stardom on the basis

433
of the reaction of small audiences in night clubs, which, in any case, prefer and receive a rather more sophisticated form of entertainment of a kind which is not usually associated with the teenage performer. It is the recording industry, television and the live shows in dance halls and cinemas, before audiences of hundreds of teenagers, whether screaming or not, which tend to provide them with more popular performances. While appreciating the considerations put forward by noble Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not feel that, in prohibiting the employment of these young people in night clubs after 10 p.m., they are preventing them from learning their trade; nor are they seriously prejudicing their opportunities for employment at the age of 16 or 17.
If further argument were needed, it lies in the fact that, as some of the bodies consulted were quick to point out, this is a Bill dealing with the health and welfare of young persons in employment, and the conditions laid down in Section 1 of the 1938 Act can be regarded as a statutory minimum. Any exemption in respect of a particular occupation in a night club is clearly open to objections. The first is that it is impossible to demonstrate any difference in the relative importance of the health and welfare of an employee in one occupation, as opposed to that of an employee in another occupation—for instance, the dancer as opposed to the electrician, or the page boy as opposed to the drummer. They all need an interval for meals, not too long working hours and a good night's rest, all of which are provided for in the 1938 Act; and this Bill gives it to them. The second objection lies in the fact that any exemption must, by its very nature, leave a loophole for evasion.
Therefore, if I may sum up briefly, I would say that the local authorities who are responsible for enforcing this Bill support it in its present form. The evidence that young entertainers—or, indeed, young persons in any other occupation—would be seriously prejudiced or deprived by its provisions is hardly convincing, and is certainly not proven; and to draw distinctions between one occupation and another in a night club, or between one night club and another, would be invidious. Further, such a
434
distinction would be difficult, even impossible, to operate, and attempts to do so would almost certainly give rise to evasion.
LORD SHEPHERD: Having supported my noble friend Lord Willis on the Second Reading on this point, may I say that I am sure that my noble friend would join with me in agreeing with the attitude of the Government on this matter. We spoke to the point because there was some concern in the entertainment world and we felt it was right that it should be put. Having said that, I am sure that we are all in agreement with the Government in their attitude here. In fact—and here I must be careful because I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to rise in wrath—frankly, the statement that the noble Earl has made about the need for protecting the moral welfare of young persons in these establishments only adds to and enforces our view that these requirements are necessary. But they should not start merely at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. as was the case in previous legislation; there should be some control where these establishments operate whether it be at 2 o'clock in the afternoon or at 11 o'clock in the evening.
LORD ABERDARE: It is rather unusual, I think, to have a long discussion on the absence of an Amendment on the Committee stage; but I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the trouble he has taken in consulting with local authority organisations and to say that, like the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Willis, I felt that there was a case for some Amendment, but that I am thoroughly convinced by what my noble friend has said, and I am grateful to him.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.15 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Tenancy of Shops (Scotland),

Universities and College Estates,

Films,

Hire-Purchase,

British Nationality (No. 2),

Perpetuities and Accumulations,

Housing,

Adoption,

Resale Prices,

Protection of Birds Act 1954 (Amendment)

Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals),

Animals (Restriction of Importation)

Shell Company of Australia,

Norfolk Estuary,

Saint Paul, Portman Square, Saint Marylebone,

Worcester Corporation,

National Provident Institution,

Saint Dionis Backchurch Churchyard (Amendment),

Isle of Wight River and Water Authority,

London Transport,

London County Council (Money),

London County Council (General Powers).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.