Lords Sitting of 22 June 1965

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers, including the following Special Prayer, were read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester:
"Almighty and Eternal God, Thou Judge of all the earth, Who hast been our refuge from one generation to another, we humbly seek Thy blessing as we meet to commemorate the 700th Anniversary of the Parliament of Simon de Montfort.
"We praise Thy name, O Lord, for the goodly heritage bequeathed to us by those who, in bygone days, have served Thee here and for the guidance of Thy Spirit throughout the ages.
"Especially do we thank Thee for that Thou didst inspire the minds of our rulers in times past to call into consultation those representatives of the Shires, Cities and Boroughs of England who, in due time, were to constitute the House of Commons.
"Grant that truth and justice, liberty and righteousness may ever flourish and abound among us and that, as we seek to know Thy will, we may have strength and power to fulfil it to the glory of Thy holy name and the good of all mankind.
"All this we ask for the sake of Him who is the only sure foundation of men and of nations, even Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Amen."
The Lord Trevethin and Oaksey—Took the Oath.

PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSES TO THE QUEEN
11.5 am.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform the House that I have received from other Legislatures of the Commonwealth Messages of Congratulation upon the Anniversary that we are celebrating to-day. I propose to arrange that these Messages should be placed in the Library and to convey, on behalf of the House, our cordial thanks for these expressions of good will.
May I also, on behalf of all your Lordships, welcome the Presiding Officers of Commonwealth Senates who are present with us to-day, below the Bar. They come from all the five continents of the
452
world, and I shall be proud to lead them in procession to Westminster Hall, there to present, on behalf of the House, our humble Address to Her Majesty The Queen. This is, I believe, the first time that a Lord Chancellor has been accompanied by colleagues to a ceremony of this kind, but I hope that it may not be the last.
On behalf of all your Lordships, may I extend to them a warm welcome. I hope that their stay in this country will be a happy one and that they will have a safe return to their own homeland.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Wednesday last to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two o'clock.
Moved, That the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Wednesday last to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two o'clock.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Whereupon the House proceeded to Westminster Hall, the Lord Chancellor being accompanied by the following Presiding Officers of Commonwealth Senates:

President of the Senate of Ceylon.

President of the Senate of Australia.

President of the Senate of Nigeria.

President of the Senate of Malaysia.

President of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago.

President of the Senate of Jamaica.

Speaker of the Senate of Kenya.

Speaker of the Senate of. Northern Ireland.

President of the Senate of Bahamas.

President of the Senate of British Honduras.

President of the Senate of Basutoland:

And the Lord Chancellor there presented to Her Majesty the humble Address from the House of Lords in accordance with the Resolution of Wednesday last, and Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Commons (also assembled in the Hall), presented to Her Majesty an Address from that House.
The Address from the House of Lords was as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion of commemorating and celebrating with Your Majesty and with Members of the House of Commons the seven hundredth anniversary of the Parliament to which were summoned for the first time to our certain knowledge the Citizens and Burgesses, as well as the Knights of the Shire, to join with the Lords in deliberation upon the needs and affairs of the Realm. The Parliament summoned to meet in January 1265 by Your Majesty's forbear, King Henry the Third, at the instance of Sinom de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, thus contained all the essential elements of later Parliaments. With the civil war yet unfinished, it met in the shadow of strife, and was itself conceived as an attempt to end that strife. Then as now, one of the purposes of Parliament was to provide for the settlement of dissension by debate, by discovery of common views, and by agreement rather than by bloodshed.
"The Citizens and Burgesses thus summoned added a new representative element to Parliament. The pattern then established has matured into Parliament as we know it to-day. The experience of seven hundred years has shown that it is the Crown in Parliament which endures; in separation, the partners fail. Together they have provided an inspiration and a model to the world. Together they have fostered the liberty of the subject and upheld the rule of law. Those assemblies throughout the world in which men regulate their affairs in freedom have been inspired by the example of our own Parliament at Westminster, of which we recognise the germ in the Parliament of Simon de Montfort seven hundred years ago. In living demonstration of that fact, we welcome at this commemoration many Presiding Officers and Speakers, representing Houses of Parliament from every continent, and all members of the Commonwealth.
"It is our hope and wish that our great institution of Parliament may grow and continue to benefit mankind
454
all over the world, but specially this Kingdom; and that under God's providence we, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, may loyally work in Parliament for many years to come under Your Gracious Majesty, to whom we humbly wish a long and happy reign."

HER MAJESTY'S REPLY
Her Majesty's gracious Speech in reply to the Addresses, delivered to the Members of both Houses, was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the loyal and dutiful Addresses which on your behalf the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker have presented to me.
"The event, whose 700th anniversary we are celebrating to-day, occupies a most important and distinguished place in the history of our Country, of the Commonwealth, and of free institutions throughout the world. In the manner of constitutional developments in this country, what was at the time little more than an expedient devised from earlier practice, became first an example and then a convention. It is now memorable as the prototype of our Parliamentary system which has, itself, served as a model for many others.
"To-day we celebrate more than the event itself. We are here to commemorate together the long and often troubled evolution of Parliamentary processes which stemmed from that first meeting, to which, in the course of time, the customs and traditions of Scotland and Ireland have so fruitfully contributed, and which now forms a common legacy cherished by the sister nations of the Commonwealth, whose Parliamentary Representatives it gives me particular pleasure to welcome today.
"It is a legacy of practice and also a legacy of intent. The evolution of our system owes much to the mixture of shrewdness and caution which prompted our predecessors throughout the centuries not hastily to devise and then to discard new forms of Government, but always where possible to adapt old forms to new needs; and to

455
their ability to recognise the forms and precedents most suitable to that purpose.
"The Parliament of 1265 has a particular significance in relation to the events of the time, but its importance to us to-day is that it stumbled upon and gave expression to ideas and principles which have been recognised and maintained with growing conviction ever since.
"The combination of Knights and Burgesses, strengthened and confirmed in the following century by the convention that the Knights should sit in the same House as the Burgesses and not with the greater nobility, was the growing point of our Parliamentary Institutions. They were to be fashioned and adapted during the succeeding centuries, at first with the encouragement of the Crown, later in conflict with it, and finally in happy union; but all the time expressing more surely the aspirations of the people as a whole.
"No one would claim that Parliament has maintained an unblemished record in its evolution but never has it abandoned its care for the liberties of this Kingdom, as succeeding generations have conceived them. The fulfilment of those liberties has been its greatest glory. Nor can this task ever be at an end; for each generation must still interpret and assert its liberties anew.
"Whatever mistakes may have been made in these 700 years, the persistent attachment to the great guiding principles of our way of life has served again and again to evoke that idealism and spirit of self-sacrifice that is interwoven in the normal sober and pragmatic character of our peoples.
"This combination of idealism and pragmatism has never been more needed than to-day when we are called to adjust ourselves to rapid changes of world influence, to new social forces and to unprecedented advances of science and technology. We are proud to say that never has Parliament failed in these qualities. Had it been otherwise, then what happened 700 years ago would be remembered now only as a discarded constitutional curiosity, and
456
there would be no cause to which to rededicate ourselves to-day.
"We are glad to meet here in the Great Hall of Westminster. We do not know for certain whether the Parliament of 1265 met here or not, though it seems that the conclusions of that Parliament were proclaimed here. But this Hall has been the scene of so many events, splendid or sombre, which have marked the course of our history, that it is forever associated in men's minds with those great principles for which Parliament has constantly striven. It is from that magnificent past, enshrined in the shadows of this Hall, that we can most surely look towards what the future may hold."
House resumed at half-past two o'clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Pender—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
2.32 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the membership and terms of reference of the Natural Environmental Research Council adequately reflect the need for this country to take a leading role in oceanographic research.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are quite satisfied in this respect. The membership of the Council includes Professor M. J. Lighthill, Sir Edward Bullard, Professor J. E. Harris and Dr. C. M. Yonge, all of whom are distinguished scientists who have made important contributions to various aspects of oceanography or related fields of science, and have served on the National Oceanographic Council. The terms of reference of the Council are fully adequate to enable it to continue and

457
advance the national effort in scientific oceanography, in home waters and overseas, and the fact that there will now be one source of funds for basic oceanographic research will be conducive to this end.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Defence will be represented on the Environmental Research Council, in view of the likely defence implications of much of the Council's work, and in view, more especially, of the contribution which the Royal Navy has made, and has to make, towards oceanographic and underwater research.]
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence will have an assessor on the Natural Environment Research Council and will also be represented on the Committee of the Council responsible for oceanography.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in view of the close connection between the military and civilian aspects of oceanographic research, can the noble Lord tell me why the Minister of Defence is not represented on the Council itself, not only in respect of oceanography, but in respect of many of the other sciences with which the Council will be concerned, and which have an important military application?
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, the Minister of Defence is represented on the Council. He has representatives in the form of assessors. The purely formal distinction between a member and an assessor is unimportant, but is apparently desirable because of the professional standing of the man who is there. The Minister is, indeed, anxious to co-operate in the future, as he has in the past, and the Royal Navy's representatives on the Committee are determined that their Service's interest will be as strongly pursued as it has ever been when the Admiralty have administered the National Institute of Oceanography. But it is obvious, as the noble Earl said, that there must be a close participation between the Navy and any research into oceanography,
458
and, as I think has been announced in another place this last year, the Navy spent £590,000 on oceanographic research of one kind or another. The amount they are spending is increasing quite quickly; their interest is obviously great, and I hope that the co-operation will be as fruitful as it can possibly be. It is certainly our hope and intention that it will be.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the supplementary answers the noble Lord has given me. Is he aware (I am referring now to both Questions) that there is a general feeling among those most knowledgeable in this subject in this country, among whom I include myself, that oceanographic research comes far too low in our scale of national research priorities? Can I take it from the noble Lord's answers that it is the Government's intention to do everything in their power to give that research higher priority, both in the civilian and in the defence fields.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, the priorities for research programmes of various kinds are to be assessed by the Council of N.E.R.C., which has yet to consider the matter—I believe it is to do so on the 30th of this month. But certainly within the limits of its resources and the advice it gets from its Research Councils it is the Government's intention to do what they can. On the last occasion that I answered a supplementary question on them I said, because I am convinced that it is true, that oceanography is entering on its golden age, and I am sure that this is one field, at least, in which this country can play a proper part. There may be some fields of research from which we are excluded because our resources do not come up to the demand, but this is one field in which we should and can play a great part; because, after all, our living depends on our succeeding.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord has just said. Do I take it that it would be in accordance with the noble Lord's wishes if I put down either an Unstarred Question or a Motion which would give this House a further chance of discussing this important matter at greater length?
LORD BOWDEN: Yes, indeed.

ANGLO-GERMAN YOUTH EXCHANGES
2.36 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take political action to follow up the very successful visit to Germany by Her Majesty the Queen, and, in particular, propose to the Federal Government an Anglo-German Treaty containing provisions for an exchange of students and other young people, comparable in scale to the far-reaching programme organised under the Franco-German Treaty.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, though Her Majesty's Government are, of course, anxious to follow up in every possible way the highly successful State Visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Germany, they see no need for a formal treaty. Adequate machinery for Anglo-German co-operation already exists. As regard an exchange of young people, Her Majesty's Government and the Federal German Government are inaugurating a new programme this year to increase youth exchanges between the two countries.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. He says that adequate arrangements are already in hand, but would be not admit that our Treasury contribution of £25,000 a year does not compare very well with the Franco-German contribution of between £3 and £4 million a year for this sort of exchange? Would not the noble Lord agree that it is most important that the young people of both countries should interchange experience, forgetting the past and looking rather to the future? I know that Her Majesty's Government are not in any way responsible for the Rhodes Scholars and the Trustees of the scheme, but would he bear in mind that there have been no German Rhodes Scholars for many years—not, I think, since the end of the last war—and would the Government do what they can to try
460
to re-start this important flow of students from one country to another?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question, I think he will agree with me that comparisons are not always desirable, nor do they always give a fair picture of the actual state of affairs. Therefore I should not like to enter into an argument as to the relative merits of the contributions of the French Government in this matter, or indeed in other matters. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the greatest possible exchange of young people and professional people of all kinds between countries of all kinds is most desirable, and particularly in the case of Germany, and Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do all they can to help in this matter. The sum of £25,000 a year is an earnest of our desire. It would be misleading to suppose that this is all that is happening. A great deal of this already comes, and exchanges take place, with funds provided from other sources.
So far as the third part of the Question is concerned, I will certainly see that the noble Lord's views are passed on to those who make these decisions, which, as he rightly says, have nothing to do with the Government. But I think it will be known to those who make the decisions how we feel about these matters.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say how many German students are coming here, and how many of our students are going to Germany, compared with the German-French figures?
LORD WALSTON: I cannot give the noble Earl the precise figures. I can certainly agree with his implication that there are far fewer exchanges of students between this country and Germany than there are between France and Germany. The exact figures I cannot give the noble Lord, though I will write to him.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the figures between France and Germany are in the neighbourhood of 500,000 students per year?

JAPANESE SQUIRRELS
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: 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 are satisfied that survivors of the recently imported Japanese squirrels will not escape and become a pest.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the small rodents which arrived recently at London Airport were Asiatic chipmunks. It is impossible to be certain whether any which might escape could survive and breed here, or, if they did, whether they would become a pest. If there were any such risk, my right honourable friend's field staff would soon become aware of it; but we have no information suggesting that chipmunks are regarded as serious pests in their own countries.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the very grave menace to the countryside of imported grey squirrels and imported mink, and whether they are prepared to hold the amenities of the countryside at hazard for the sake of this highly unnecessary importation?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are aware of what happened with the grey squirrel and of the consequences of its escape. The Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, was introduced largely as a result of what happened in that case. We feel that the circumstances of the threat are not yet such as to cause us to use the powers contained in the 1932 Act, but we will watch the position very carefully, because we are anxious to ensure that no destructive pest like the grey squirrel shall ravage our countryside again.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, while sympathising with the noble Lord about the possible escape of these squirrels, I should like to know whether any steps have been taken to
462
ensure that, if they are again imported, it will be under far better conditions, from the point of view of the animals themselves, than has been the case in the past, and whether anything has been done to make the arrangements watertight.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a slightly different question, but it arose out of the report in some newspapers as to the suffering caused to these animals, which we deplore. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, makes it an offence to convey, or, being an owner, to permit to be conveyed, any animal in such a manner as to cause unnecessary suffering. Anyone, of course, if he so desired, could prosecute under that Act, but the Government could not. B.O.A.C., I understand, tend to say in this case that they feel it would have caused greater suffering to leave the animals behind at the airport abroad than to have them brought in. But, clearly, we are aware of the public disquiet about the unnecessary suffering.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
2.44 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 Mitchison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendments of Act of 1945. 1945 c. 18 (9 & 10 Geo. 6.).
1.—
(4) After section 3(4) of the Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) Where in the opinion of the Chairmen a petition presented as a petition for amendment involves amendments of the order which, if the order were a private Bill, could not be made except upon a petition for additional provision they may refuse to certify the petition as proper to be received, provided that if the petitioner satisfies the Chairmen that some only of the amendments are such as aforesaid, the Chairmen may direct the deletion of so much of the petition as requires such amendments and certify the remainder thereof as proper to be received.";

463
and in section 3(3) of the Act for the words" they shall certify that the petition is proper to be received "there shall be substituted the words" they shall, subject as hereinafter provided, certify that the petition is proper to be received".
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON) moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This Bill deals with Orders of a special kind, involving some policy and some private interest. It had a Second Reading from your Lordships with little comment and no opposition, and in the course of moving the Second Reading I explained that this subsection might have to be removed and replaced, as it is now, by a change in Standing Orders.
The particular point involved in this subsection is that when one of these Statutory Orders is subject to Petition for Amendment and the Amendment would affect the interests of third persons, which would not have been affected without the Amendment, then some action has to be taken to safeguard their interests. It was proposed in the Bill that the two Chairmen, the Chairman of Committees here, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, should take action under this subsection, but they have now agreed that it can better and more conveniently be done by a change in Standing Orders which has not yet been made. It has been agreed that it will be required, that it is a better way of doing it and there is no dispute as to the wording. For those reasons, I beg to move this Amendment, and so to take the course which was foreshadowed on the Second Reading and is so reported in Hansard on that occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Mitchison.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): I should like to intervene very briefly, mostly to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Minister who moved this Amendment.
464
It is not a very simple point, but I think it will be sufficient if I say that I shall be most glad to co-operate in adopting the suggestion he has now put forward. I will take the necessary steps to produce an Amendment to the Standing Orders in due course, and I understand that a similar step will be taken in another place. I think the procedure which the noble Lord has outlined to-day is more satisfactory; that is, to do it by Standing Order rather than by legislation, and I am most grateful to him.
LORD HASTINGS: Unfortunately, I was not able to be here on Second Reading but I have read what occurred on that occasion. Naturally, I have also read the Bill, the Amendment and the relevant part of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. I have also taken the opportunity of speaking with the Lord Chairman of Committees and with counsel, and I am quite clear in my own mind about three things. The first is that it is desirable and necessary to approve this Amendment and to deal with the matter by way of Standing Orders rather than by Act of Parliament, which would prove subsequently more difficult to change, should any change prove to be desirable. The second thing is that, much to my own astonishment, I can understand the reasons why this should be done; and the third point is that I should be quite incapable of explaining it to your Lordships.
LORD MITCHISON: Before the Amendment is put, may I take this opportunity of thanking the two noble Lords for their courtesy and kindness in this matter? I think we are doing the right thing on a small and rather dull point, but it does help a number of people, public authorities and others, who rely on these Orders.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

FIREARMS BILL
2.50 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 Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Carrying firearms with intent to commit a serious offence or resist or prevent arrest
1.—(1) Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit, while he has it with him, an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "intent" down to and including "another," and insert:
"to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him,".
The noble Lord said: We consider this is really a drafting Amendment in which we are substituting what we believe to be a better form of words so as to clarify our intentions and remove ambiguity. The Clause 1 offence of carrying a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence was, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will remember, amended in the other place to include the intention of resisting arrest or preventing the arrest of another. Therefore, an offence under Clause 1 has three limbs: first, having a firearm or imitation firearm with one; secondly, intending to commit an indictable offence or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, and, thirdly, the intent to have a firearm with one while committing an offence or resisting arrest or preventing the arrest of another. The third of these limbs would be very difficult to prove affirmatively. Therefore, subsection (2) of Clause 1 permits this third limb to be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In subsection (2) the reference to having a firearm or imitation firearm with one is linked, quite properly, with committing the offence and with resisting or preventing the arrest of another, but in subsection (1), owing to what we now regard as faulty drafting which arose, as it were, out of the insertion of these words on Amendment, the reference to having the firearm or imitation firearm with him qualifies only committing an indictable offence and it does not qualify resisting arrest or preventing the arrest of another. Clearily it should, and indeed must, qualify both. The present Amendment corrects this and removes any inconsistency between subsection (1) and subsection (2). Apart from rectifying that drafting fault, the Amendment makes no change at all in what was the plain intention of the other place and, I believe, what is our intention, too.
LORD DERWENT: I accept that the clause needs Amendment, because I now see that, as drafted, the question of a person having a firearm on him might only refer to his intending to commit an indictable offence; but I think this Amendment is even worse. The trouble arises from the words "in either case". Presumably those words refer to what the noble Lord has called the "second limb"; in other words, having a firearm with intent to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another. The words "in either case" obviously refer to two of the limbs and not more and it would omit the first of the limbs—namely, the intent to commit an indictable offence. That is clearly not the intention of the Amendment.
May I suggest to the noble Lord that there are perhaps two ways of dealing with this question? The first is in the Bill as at present drafted, to delete the words "while he has it"—the firearm or imitation firearm—"with him". The clause would then read as follows:
"Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit "
one of the three offences. Surely that covers the whole question. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord wishes to paint the lily and make matters even more certain, he can delete the words "in either case" and insert instead:
"provided that in all cases he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him".

467
I believe that either of those two solutions would be far better than the original drafting, which the noble Lord himself does not like, or his intended Amendment.
I would ask the noble Lord whether he would have another look, with his draftsmen, at this Amendment, and then on the Report stage, whatever is decided as being the appropriate form of words, after reconsidering the matter in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord could put down a better Amendment. I do not know whether he is prepared to take that step, but I cannot agree to the Amendment in its present form.
LORD STONHAM: Despite the noble Lord's persuasive words I am advised that his point is misconceived. We must in any event insist on keeping the words "while he has it with him", which of course we have substituted. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is aware, they were the outcome of prolonged discussion in Committee in another place, and if we did not retain them there would be many cases where people who had intent to commit a crime might escape. We have included those words in order to make it clear that the intention is to commit the offence, the offender having the firearm with him. To paraphrase it in another way, he has the firearm with him in order to assist in the commission of the offence.
As the noble Lord put his point, it appears to have merit, as might be expected, and I will certainly look at it again and give an undertaking that if we find the form of words suggested by the noble Lord is better we will come forward with our own Amendment at Report stage. But I should prefer that, with that undertaking, the Committee accept the Amendment I have moved.
LORD DERWENT: of course, accept what the noble Lord has said, that he will have another look at this point. I myself will put down an Amendment also, which I may of course withdraw if I like the noble Lord's Amendment better. He already has in the subsection the words, "Any person who has with him … with intent to commit … The clause starts off that way. I cannot see that anything else is necessary. I shall leave
468
it for the moment and not resist this Amendment. I shall put down an Amendment to replace the noble Lord's Amendment, and I hope that he will find himself in a position to do exactly the same on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), after "another" to insert:
"or who threatens another person by pointing it at him".
The noble Viscount said: On looking at it again, I think that my Amendment reads even better after the first Amendment that has been made than it did with the clause as it stood. I put it down in order to cover what I consider to be a gap. If a man is resisting arrest with the aid of a gun, where does the seriousness of the crime lie? It does not lie so much in resisting arrest—no doubt that is an offence; but the seriousness of the crime is threatening another with a gun. I may be told that this point is covered somewhere else in law but I think it should perhaps appear in this Bill at this particular point to bring the whole into one line, and to make quite clear that it is a serious offence for one man to threaten another with a gun, whether he is doing it in resisting arrest, or in the course of some other crime, or doing it, as so many of these hooligans do, simply for fun.
What is more, one sometimes finds armed trespassers, as we know, wandering about our fields. Sometimes a farmer goes up to them and tells them to "Get out of here", whereupon they proceed to threaten him with a gun. They are not at that point resisting arrest: they are not being arrested; they are simply being asked to depart. I think we should bring this Amendment in at this point to make the threatening with a gun as serious an offence as the rest of the matters already covered by this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("another") insert the said words.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
LORD STONHAM: I have the greatest sympathy with my noble friend in thinking that his Amendment grew ever more beautiful the longer he looked at it. I used to look at mine in the same way,

469
and when I came to move them I thought they were perfect. But, of course, that illusion did not last very long. My noble friend referred persistently to pointing a gun, but I must remind him that in subsection (1) we also have the expression, "imitation firearm"—it is the only place where it appears.
Clause 1 deals with the most serious offence involving use of a firearm, short of its actual discharge at someone; namely, use by or on behalf of the criminal of the terror which the sight of a firearm inspires, in order to commit an indictable offence or avoid arrest. I am sure we are right to single this out, and I am equally sure that in those circumstances an imitation firearm may be just as effective in inspiring fear as a real one. Therefore we have included imitation firearm in this subsection. But to include in this subsection any occasion on which an imitation firearm may be pointed at another person goes much further, and, I should have thought, much further than my noble friend intends. Everything depends on the circumstances in which the firearm or imitation firearm is pointed. They can range from the hooligan who points an imitation firearm at a passer-by who may be remonstrating with him to the child playing with a cap gun or water pistol. I can quite understand my noble friend would like to deal, as I should, with the hooligan, but he will also understand that I cannot accept an Amendment which would also make the child a criminal.
My noble friend foreshadowed that I might say that his real point, the substance of the reason for the Amendment, is already covered in law. I am assured that if he reads the 33rd edition of Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, page 991, he will see that an assault includes presenting a loaded gun at a man who is within the distance to which the gun could carry, and if a person presents a firearm which he knows to be unloaded at another who does not know it is unloaded, and so near that it might produce injury if it were loaded and went off, this is an assault. The interpretation clause of the present Bill defines an imitation firearm as:
"anything which has the appearance of being a firearm (other than such a prohibited weapon as is mentioned in Section 17(1)(b) of the principal Act) whether it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile or not."
470
For the further comfort of my noble friend I can assure him that in our view any serious offence of pointing a firearm or imitation firearm at a person can be dealt with under the present law, because threatening a person with a firearm—and that would include pointing it—would in many cases amount to an assault under the present law. Common assault (Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861) is one of the offences listed in the Third Schedule to the Firearms Act, 1937, which is the principal Act that we are now amending and augmenting. Any person in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm at the time would be liable under Section 23(2) of the 1937 Act to seven years' imprisonment, in addition to the penalty for the assault. Thus it would appear that in the type of case to which my noble friend has referred an offence would be committed. As I pointed out, under the Amendment as it stands there would be circumstances where the act which my noble friend seeks to proscribe would clearly not be an offence at all. That is, in the case of children at play. Therefore, I have to say that this Amendment, which is absolute in its terms, appears to be unnecessary in the circumstances in which my noble friend wishes it to apply and undesirable in other circumstances. I accordingly hope that in the light of my explanation my noble friend will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON: Could I ask the noble Lord this question? It may be I have not fully understood the point. It seems to me the short answer to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is this: that the greater includes the lesser, and in this clause it is an offence to have a firearm or imitation firearm, and you cannot point it unless you have got it with you.
LORD STONHAM: I am afraid I did not understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. It is an offence under this Bill to have a firearm with you with intent to commit an indictable offence. My noble friend's Amendment was not merely concerned with having a firearm but also pointing it at a person, and I have been at some pains to point out that the fact of pointing, with all the kinds of cases with which my noble friend is concerned, would under existing legislation be an offence carrying heavy penalties; but if we insert in this Bill the

471
words of the Amendment, they also create an offence in the case of children at play, and that we do not want. Therefore, I said that the Amendment is unnecessary in serious cases, and wholly undesirable in the non-serious cases.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: While greatly consoled with the answer which I have received from my noble friend, which I had in any event rather expected to be consoled by, it leaves me with the thought that the fellow who finds himself looking down the muzzle end of a gun is not in a good position generally to know whether he is having it pointed at him in pure fun, whether it is a real gun, or whether it is an imitation gun; but he is usually able to tell whether it is being pointed at him by a child in the course of a game. Usually, one is able to distinguish that it is a child at the other end, and that the thing is a joke; whereas at other times one is able to distinguish that it is a criminal or hooligan, and that the thing is not meant to be funny, or is meant to be funny only in the hooligan's own terms. That is why I put this Amendment down. It seemed to me that any normal person, and certainly any normal court, could tell the difference between a child at play and a hooligan at his own hooligan's games. However, I see that the case is quite broadly covered by the existing law, as my noble friend has explained, and therefore I am happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Carrying firearms in a public place]:
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move the third Amendment on the Marshalled List. Clause 2 of the Bill makes it an offence to have in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse a loaded airgun, or shot gun or any other firearm whether loaded or not, together with the appropriate ammunition. If the firearm is an air weapon the offence is a summary offence only. The present Amendment is purely drafting. It does not change the sense at all but merely puts Clause 2 into a much neater and more compact form, analogous to the form we have used in Clause 3 dealing with armed trespass in a building, which was introduced into
472
the Bill in Committee in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, leave out from ("gun") to end of line 5 on page 2 and insert ("or air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm shall

(a) be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or both;

(b) unless the firearm is an air weapon, he liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both.").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT: Although I am in favour of this Amendment, I am afraid that I do not read the result of the Amendment quite in the same way as the noble Lord does, and I wish he would explain it to me. As I understand it, in the Bill as drafted an airgun in a public place was an offence only if it was loaded; I think that that is correct. But as I read the new Amendment, to carry an airgun in a public place will be an offence, subject to the terms of the clause, whether it is loaded or not. The original clause referred to "any loaded shot gun or any firearm". Now it refers to "any loaded shot gun or air weapon". As I read it, it does not refer to the airgun being loaded at all. Therefore it is a change. I see the noble Lord shaking his head. If it is not a change, I wish he would explain its meaning, because I have not quite understood it.
LORD STONHAM: I have great sympathy with the noble Lord because I felt exactly the same way when I looked at this Amendment myself. I can only suggest that we read the subsection slowly first of all as it stands, and then as it would be when amended. As we have it now it is
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse … has with him in a public place any loaded shot gun or any firearm (whether loaded or not)"—
and in this context "whether loaded or not" merely applies to the firearm—
"other than a shot gun or air weapon, together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, shall be liable …".
Then is set out the penalties. Then we go on over the next page to subsection (2), which reads
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse … has a loaded air weapon with him in a public place ".

473
Therefore, Lord Derwent was quite right in saying that, as it stands at present, it applies only to a loaded air weapon, subject of course to an offence which could be committed by a young person under the Act.
If we now start again and read the subsection as it would be when amended, we find it reads:
"Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in a public place any loaded shot gun or air weapon"—
the word "loaded" qualifies the term "air weapon"; both must be loaded—
"or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) …".
So on the point which the noble Lord has in mind, this Amendment in fact makes no material difference, and it will still apply only to a loaded air weapon.
LORD DERWENT: I have completely understood the point. May I ask the noble Lord, as it is so difficult to understand this wording, as he has admitted, whether he will have another look at the drafting here? I am sure he is right, but it depends how it is read. It can be read as
any loaded shot gun or air weapon or other firearm (whether loaded or not)".
In my view the "air weapon" can still go with "any other firearm" and not with the loaded shot gun. All I am saying is that I was misled, and the noble Lord tells me he was misled in the first instance. Other people have got to read this Bill, apart from Parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers. I would ask the noble Lord to look again, to see whether we cannot alter the wording slightly to see that the airgun goes with the shot gun and not with the other firearm. It is not at all clear at the moment to the layman. We are particularly anxious that the layman should understand this Bill.
LORD STONHAM: That is extremely fair. Of course I will have another look at it.
LORD DERWENT: One of my noble friends has suggested that it would make it clearer if we put:
"or loaded air weapon or other firearm".
Then there can be no doubt. Perhaps the noble Lord would think about it.
LORD STRANGE: Perhaps I can contribute one small point on this matter.
474
Our local salmon poacher in the off-season went to Liverpool and held up a bank with a water pistol. It did not come off, but very nearly did. He returned after a period in Dartmoor. The point is that a water pistol does not seem to be covered by the words "air pistol".
LORD STONHAM: I was not quite sure from what my noble friend said what it was that did not go off ", whether it was the water pistol or the bank robbery.
LORD STRANGE: It was the bank robbery that did not come off.
LORD STONHAM: I am sure the noble Lord is right in saying that this does not cover a water pistol, because we have no intention whatever of covering water pistols in this subsection. At an earlier stage I mentioned a water pistol as an illustration of a point I was making to my noble friend Lord St. Davids, but in this case it does not arise. I am very grateful to Lord Derwent for his suggestion, and of course I will look at it. If we feel that it is a better form of words and makes the matter clearer, then we could come back to it again. But I am confident that if this Amendment is accepted and the Bill is reprinted, when one sees the continuous form of words as set down there will not then be any doubt that the adjective "loaded" qualifies both "shot gun" and "air weapon". Nevertheless, we will look into the suggestion that the word "loaded" should be used again.
LORD DERWENT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at it again. I am sure that there is no possible doubt in the mind of the noble Lord, of his advisers or of the draftsman. The point is that there has been a doubt in my mind, and there might be the same doubt in the public's mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Conditions of registration of firearms dealers]:
3.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. Clause 8(1) of the Bill authorises a chief officer of police at

475
any time to impose conditions of registration in the case of firearms dealers and to vary or revoke any condition either of his own motion or on the application of the dealer. Subsection (2) requires the conditions to be specified in the registration certificate; and, where conditions are imposed otherwise than on first registration or are varied or revoked otherwise than upon the grant of a new certificate, requires the chief officer of police to give the dealer particulars in writing and empowers him to recall the registration certificate on 21 days' notice for the purpose of amending it.
Under Section 9(2) of the Firearms Act 1937 registration certificates have to be renewed annually, and the effect of subsection (2), as it stands at present, is to require a chief officer of police to give notice to a firearms dealer of a condition which is being imposed or even merely reimposed on the renewal of a certificate of registration. This is clearly unnecessary and burdensome to all parties. The present Amendment will ensure that notice is only required where a condition is imposed, varied or revoked during the currency of a certificate. I am confident that on this occasion at least the purpose is perfectly clear, and that the insertion of the words makes the clause read a good deal better, quite apart from the fact that it will do away with a good deal of unnecessary work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("certificate") in line 5 and insert ("varied or revoked during the currency of a").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I agree that this Amendment is a great improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (4) to leave out all words after "and", and to insert instead:
"the appeal shall lie to the court of quarter sessions (or, in Scotland, to the sheriff) within whose jurisdiction there is situated the appellant's place of business in respect of which the condition is in force".
The noble Lord said: This is essentially a drafting Amendment, although a very necessary and substantial one.
Section 8(5)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1937, provides that any person aggrieved by the refusal of a chief officer of police
476
to register him as a firearms dealer, or by the removal of his name from the register by a chief officer of police, may appeal in England to the court of quarter sessions within whose jurisdiction there is situated any place of business in respect of which the appellant has applied to be, or in the case of an appeal against removal from the register, has been, registered. There is a corresponding provision for appeal to the sheriff in Scotland.
Clause 8(4) of the Bill widens section 8(5) of the 1937 Act to take in appeals by a dealer aggrieved by conditions imposed under the Bill. This involves defining the locality of the appropriate court of quarter sessions. The Bill as printed does this in the latter part of Clause 8(4) by amending Section 8(5)(a) of the 1937 Act so as to use the words "by a person already registered" to cover the ex-dealer whose name has been removed from the register and who is appealing for re-instatement and the dealer whose name is on the register and who is appealing against a condition. This is an unsatisfactory and ambiguous use of words, and it is put right by the present Amendment, which leaves the wording of Section 8(5)(a) of the 1937 Act unamended and specifically identifies the court of quarter sessions to which an appeal against a condition may be made. The Amendment provides that it shall be the court within whose jurisdiction there is situated the appellant's place of business in respect of which the condition is in force. This is a necessary Amendment which I hope your Lordships will accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Miscellaneous amendments of principal Act
9.—
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the said section 16(1)(a), sections 7 to 10, 12 and 13 of, and Schedule 2 to, the principal Act (requirement for firearms dealers to register, and provisions with respect to the registration of such dealers, their places of business and their firearms transactions) shall have effect as if any reference therein and in the definition of firearms dealer in section 32 of that Act to firearms to which Part I of that Act applies included a reference to shot guns, but in its application to shot guns so much of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2 as requires

477
particulars of the areas in which the firearms certificates were issued to be entered in the register of transactions kept under the said section 12 shall be omitted.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (2), the first being to leave out "its" and insert "their". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a piece of drafting which is consequential upon the acceptance of Amendment No. 7. Therefore, for the convenience of your Lordships, I think that it will be better if, in moving Amendment No. 6, I speak to the substance of Amendment No. 7. We all know what are the principles which the Government are seeking to establish by means of this Bill and I am sure that we all approve them, and that, I may add, goes also for the Gun Trade Association. I shall not conceal from your Lordships that it is the Gun Trade Association which has basically inspired this Amendment which my noble friend and I have put down. We see it as an administrative Amendment only, and certainly can see no breach of the principle of making it much more difficult for people to steal guns from places where they are legitimately kept in the course of business or trade. Indeed, I can assure your Lordships that the Gun Trade Association and my noble friend and myself would not have put forward this Amendment if we could see any such breach. I believe that it is only a matter of administration.
It concerns a situation peculiar almost to the gun trade, in that so many parts of the modern gun are made by out-workers in their own small workshops, or on their own premises by people—master craftsmen, most of them, most valuable workers—working in what I hope is considered a valuable industry. They process, manufacture and repair bits. I had not realised it myself, but if you strip a modern shot gun down into its absolute component parts you will find that there are about 150 of them. That is going to an extreme and separating every screw, every spring, every pin. It is not unfair to say that the average gun is really composed of about some 80 to 100 pieces and the great majority of the workers work only on these pieces. They file barrels, they make barrels, they file various pieces making up the action, they file top levers, they join little pieces most expertly together and, above all, they
478
engrave in a most expert way very many small and curious looking parts of a gun.
These are the people who, with the Bill as it stands, would not only have to register as firearms dealers but keep the records that the Bill imposes on a firearms dealer. There is no argument that they should not be registered under the Bill. The only concession which I seek by this Amendment is that they should not be forced to keep records of the pieces on which they are working, and the reason is this. These men work on their own, they work very hard and they get extremely dirty, so that record keeping, perhaps in small workshops, in a dirty trade is not the easiest thing to do. But, more important, I can see no possible object in their keeping these records, because of the great variation of the parts they are making and the fact that, as such, they are quite unrecognisable and quite unidentifiable, except, of course, to the men themselves.
It may be argued that they will have so many of these parts in their shops that one could steal the lot and make oneself a gun. I suppose it could be said that there is a 100 million to 1 chance that that could happen, but I would remind your Lordships that if, by chance, these workers should have a whole gun in their possession for repair or for working on it in any way, they would be obliged to keep a record of that. It is merely the records of the pieces that I want them not to have to keep. Just to give your Lordships an example of the pieces and the difficulty of making them all into a gun, although I am well aware that Standing Orders prohibit me from bringing a weapon into your Lordships' House, I have in my pockets at this very moment 17 fairly major portions of a shot gun, and I think I can be seen to be standing here quite unarmed. If I were to show these to your Lordships—as I shall do afterwards to anybody who wishes to see them—you would merely be puzzled by the curious look of this handful of assorted ironmongery.
If records were duly kept as the Bill prescribes, the next snag, as I see it, is that merely knowing that a certain man had received 55 blank pieces of something or other that started off looking rather like this piece in my hand and looked a little different when he had finished filing it, is not going to help the

479
police at all. As I see it, their problem is confined to whole weapons. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is the principle which we all support. If there are to be whole weapons in the possession of these men, they will be recorded as is prescribed; if there are only odd parts they will not. This seems to me a very sensible Amendment which I ask your Lordships to accept.
I asked the Birmingham police whether these people were troublesome. I understand that there has never been any trouble of any kind, and that they are looked on as responsible craftsmen and workers. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will think that this very small concession in fact, but one which is very helpful to a valuable industry—if you consider as valuable exports now topping the £1 million mark—should be made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment, moved on behalf of a number of worthy craftsmen, is an Amendment of a type which is always likely to find ready sympathy and understanding in your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, mentioned, the Gun Trade Association inspired the Amendment. They are a very worthy Association of whom the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, is President, and they have been of considerable assistance to the Government in the many discussions on this Bill. We are very grateful to them for the help and advice that they have given us. But freely and gladly acknowledging that, does not make the Amendment any more acceptable.
The noble Lord quite rightly said that it is essential for the craftsmen to be registered. There are some 150 of them, mainly in the Birmingham area, mainly elderly men with ages ranging from perhaps 50 up to 70 or more. They are independent persons engaged always in work with their hands and are not very amenable to the keeping of records, and the noble Lord has therefore asked that they should be excused. But I am afraid that we have not found a way to do what the noble Lord asks without, as it were, driving a carriage and pair through the arrangements and making it possible for
480
criminals to obtain whole weapons. The trouble about excluding these outworkers is in drawing the line between those who handle one or two types of component and those who handle the whole firearms or sufficient components to make a firearm. With all the good will in the world, we have so far found it impossible to provide a definition which would include the one and exclude the other.
I would point out that the Amendment as it stands is defective in form, since it would exempt from keeping records any person who manufactures even complete firearms, provided that he also manufactures, tests or repairs component parts of a firearm for a registered firearms dealer. So the Amendment is quite unacceptable on that account, but since I am sure that that was not what was intended by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I am not going to make very much of that, but will deal with the principle and substance of his argument.
As the noble Lord pointed out, these outworkers undertake for the gun trade work such as barrel blacking, engraving, action filling, stocking, and so on; and the question has come to the fore because of the requirement in subsection (2) of Clause 9 that dealers in shot guns shall register and keep records in the same way as dealers in Part I firearms—that is, those which require a firearm certificate for their possession. Section 32 of the Firearms Act, 1937, defines firearms dealers as persons who by way of trade or business manufacture, sell, transfer, repair, test or prove firearms, including component parts; so there is no question about such persons being required to register. Section 12 requires them to keep a register of transactions, and the Second Schedule prescribes what particulars shall be recorded. That is what brings these outworkers into the terms of Clause 9 of this Bill.
There would be other difficulties in defining the term "outworker" so as to exclude outworkers from the ambit of the Bill, but, in any case, even if we could get over that hurdle, we think it would be wrong in principle to do this because even those—the majority—who process one component for one firm may, and do, also carry out odd jobs involving handling a complete weapon for members of the public. So it must be admitted that there is an unavoidable risk of theft or malpractice. I understand that, after the

481
Firearms Act, 1920, became law, a number of outworkers who worked on Part I firearms should have registered, but by some administrative arrangement, the records of which cannot now be traced, a blind eye was turned to them by the Birmingham police so long as they worked solely for registered dealers. Therefore, I am quite sure—in fact, I have had a letter from the Chief Constable—that, as the noble Lord said, the Chief Constable regards these craftsmen as respectable people. I am also aware that it has been said that if some of these craftsmen had to keep records they would feel that they would prefer to give the work up altogether.
We have looked at this position very sympathetically, but we really cannot see our way clear to accepting this Amendment. The Second Schedule of the Firearms Act, 1937, requires firearms dealers to keep records of the quantities and descriptions of firearms and ammunition manufactured, purchased, acquired, sold or transferred; the dates of the transactions; and the names and addresses of the persons concerned. It is not very much information to keep. A great deal of the information would be kept in the ordinary way of business—the dates of the transactions and the names and addresses of the people with whom the transactions were done. Every trader except a retail tobacconist, or somebody like that, has to do that sort of thing. In practice, we do not think that the records which would have to be kept by outworkers would need to be nearly as elaborate as those normally kept by firearms dealers, because the components with which the outworkers deal do not normally have the individual registration numbers which complete firearms have. But it does seem to us desirable that they should keep the minimum records prescribed, otherwise we are convinced that it would provide an opening of which criminals might make use.
I would suggest that if there is real substance in this complaint about the great difficulty of keeping records, and if the manufacturing firms so greatly value, as I am sure they do, the work of these craftsmen outworkers who work for them, surely they could arrange to help them and simplify their records system, so as to make the work as light as possible. As I have said, the actual Amendment
482
as worded is defective and cannot be accepted; but, in any case, since we have not found any way in which to produce a form of words which would exclude from the need for keeping records those who make only certain components but not those who make complete firearms, I am fraid I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: In my view, the noble Lord and his Department are being unduly legalistic, and are creating difficulties where I do not believe any really exist. He has complained that if this Amendment—I accept the wording may be wrong—is agreed to, it will drive a coach and horses through the Bill. But the coach and horses is not there; it is going through the records of the work done. If it is a complete firearm, there is a record kept. What is going to happen in regard to these very small men working on their own?
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I say that if the Amendment were agreed to and one of these craftsmen made a complete firearm, no record would be kept. That is the objection to the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: Under the existing law, as I understand it, a record of a complete firearm would have to be kept, and would still be kept if this Amendment were passed.
LORD STONHAM: The point is that if these 150 (or however many there are) craftsmen are exempt from the need to keep records of their work, and if one of them makes up a complete firearm from components, there would be no record of it.
LORD DERWENT: There would seem to be no difficulty in putting into the Bill a provision that any of these men in possession of a complete firearm must keep a record of it. He has to if he hands one in, and if he makes one he should have to. But what is going to happen in practice? It is not a question of perhaps working with dirty hands and keeping books: it is a fact. What is likely to happen, of course, is that when they are doing a big job they will probably enter it if they have to, but when they have finished a small job they are not going to wipe their hands clean and make an entry about one bit of

483
filing on one bit of a gun. They are going to make up an invented list at the end of the day, I am quite certain, however honourable and honest they are—because those sort of nonsensical entries are always wrong, whatever the trade. It is only when you have an entry which has some real purpose behind it that you find the records are properly kept.
Behind all the thinking of the noble Lord and the Home Office there appears to be the idea that, if one of these men is a criminal, he may find it easy to commit a criminal act by making a dun and, presumably, selling it. If the man is a criminal, he will do that whatever law is passed until such time as he is caught. I believe that the Government's refusal to consider this matter further and to make this important work easier is simply due to their being entirely legalistic and inventing difficulties which in practice will not exist. I do not know what my noble friend is going to do. Obviously, from what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, this Amendment will have to be amended in some way. Apart from that, whether my noble friend is going to press the matter I do not know, but I do know what I shall do if he does press it.
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: I must confess that I have been extremely disappointed in the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put forward against this Amendment. I am not going to repeat the words of my noble friend Lord Derwent, but I think this Amendment has been met with some of the most niggling and miserable objections than I have ever heard. I do not want to argue for a moment about the drafting of the Amendment—it may or may not be defective—but if that is the only bone of contention I should be very pleased to withdraw the Amendment and have consultations. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to consult with me.
But, apparently, that is not the bone of contention. There is this extraordinary charge of driving a carriage and pair through the Bill. I simply cannot see that, because this Amendment was, I thought, deliberately designed and deliberately drafted not to do any such thing. The noble Lord did not say that he
484
could not accept the Amendment because it is defective; he said he cannot accept the principle of the thing because a registered firearms dealer, which is what this man would become, although he does not keep a record about the components, might accept a whole weapon from somebody else, a member of the public. But as a registered firearms dealer he would be breaking the law if he did that, irrespective of whether he keeps a record about the components or not. It would not make any difference. The likelihood of his having sufficient components in little boxes or in tins on shelves to be stolen in their entirety to make a gun is really so remote that it could be called a blue galaxy or something like that. If, on the other hand, he has made a gun, he is in the same position of having to keep a record of it.
Really, I do not see what all the fuss is about. I am going to look again at what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. I expect I shall be only miserably disappointed again when I look at it. But I want him to have a look at what I have said. I want him to think this matter out really sensibly; because, frankly, he has not thought it out sensibly. I am going to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now; but I assure the noble Lord that, having had regard to what he has said (and I agree that possibly the drafting is defective) I certainly intend to come back with it at a later stage.
LORD STONHAM: I appreciate all that the noble Lord has said and, of course, I will study it very carefully in the printed word. But I think he knows, because he was kind enough to come to the Department and discuss the problem, that our difficulty, as I have tried to make clear, is not a niggling one. It is a real difficulty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will think about this also between now and the Report stage: how is it possible to distinguish between a dealer repairing parts which could easily be made up into weapons and a dealer who is repairing small parts that could not? It is a question of definition. It is not a question of criminals breaking into a place; nor is it a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, suggested, of the dealer himself being a criminal. It is not that at all.
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to interrupt; but the noble Lord must get this point clear. He has twice used the phrase "which could easily be made up". Who is going to make them up so easily?
LORD STONHAM: The craftsman. The noble Lord is not trying to tell me that a number of these craftsmen have not in the past made up firearms and sold them. They may do so even now. Many of them do almost all their work merely as outworkers making up components for the manufacturers. The difficulty I have mentioned is a very real one; because we want to make this provision as watertight as possible. The object of the Bill is one which the House wholly supports. We want to prevent firearms falling into the hands of criminals and, if they do get into the hands of criminals by any means and they use them, then to punish them with the strictest severity of the law. That is the object, which everyone supports, of this Bill. We cannot agree to a condition which leaves what we regard as a serious loophole whereby whole firearms might, by one means or another, be obtained and fall into the wrong hands. There would be no record if we accept this Amendment, as there would be for a bona fide registered firearms dealer other than one of these component makers. That would be the difficulty. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that if we could find a way of answering that question I have just put, we might be able to get somewhere. It is not just a matter of being niggling.
Before I sit down I want to deal with one point which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made and which I think is a serious reflection on the members of the gun trade. He said—and I am not quoting him exactly; I am merely paraphrasing his words—that if entries are insisted upon they will be false; that these people will enter up anything. I think that is a very serious allegation. I hope he is not going to persist in it, because if I were in the gun trade that is an allegation that I would seriously resent.
LORD DERWENT: I gladly withdraw those words if they bear that interpretation. But I know what happens in all trades when fiddling things must be
486
entered. I do not think I said "false"; I think I said that they would be frequently inexact. That is not quite the same thing.
LORD NEWTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question to clarify my own mind about this matter? Do I understand him to say that at the moment, the law being as it is, if outworkers make up guns out of individual parts which they have made or acquired they do not have to keep records of the fact that the complete gun is in their possession?
LORD STONHAM: I have dealt with this point, and I have said that under the 1920 Act these people have had to be registered; but a somewhat blind eye appears to have been turned to this point. That is the law as it is. Now we are proposing, under this Bill, to see that they are registered; and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, agrees that they should be registered. These outworker craftsmen who make components, although they are registered firearms dealers under this Bill, would not have to keep the records required of other registered firearms dealers. The question the Government ask is: how do you differentiate between a firearms dealer who makes or sells whole weapons and the craftsman firearms dealer who, in the main, makes components but who could make up a whole firearm? If this Amendment were carried, he would not have to keep records, and therefore we could not trace him.
LORD NEWTON: I am obliged. This is the other point I was coming on to. This being so, what is the difficulty in writing into the Bill that if an outworker does assemble a complete gun from parts he must keep a record of that fact, but that, provided that he does not do that, he need not keep a record of his other manufacturing activities?
LORD STONHAM: It is difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done it the other way round in this Amendment. He has left it so that the person who made a whole firearm would not have to keep records if at the same time he also made components. The noble Lord has had that difficulty. We have tried to do it the other way round, and so far it has defeated our efforts.
LORD NEWTON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Chesham will accept that the

487
way in which he is trying to do it is not right, and that the Amendment is defective. But I cannot believe that it is past the wit of the Home Office, or the draftsmen, to devise an Amendment to provide for what I was just mentioning, that records would have to be kept by out-workers if they made one or more complete guns out of parts.
LORD STONHAM: I have already said that I will look into this matter most earnestly. I cannot say more or give any other assurance, for the reason that this point was made in another place and people tried hard to find a solution. They have not done so yet. I will look at it again, particularly in the light of the discussion, which has, at least to my mind, clarified it down to a fine point. It is now a question of legal definition.
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that because, finally, he has got to where I was trying to get him at the start: that if there is anything defective about this Amendment—other than drafting, which is really of no account—if the noble Lord has any objection to the principle, it is based on nothing more than a question of definition. Therefore, if he will forgive my saying so, I think that many of the arguments in his original speeches to which I referred as being miserable and niggling were so; and they were also redundant. In point of fact, since he has been good enough to inform your Lordships that I consulted his Ministry about these matters and heard the arguments, I may say that I thought at that time they were miserable and niggling.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord did not say so.
LORD CHESHAM: I did say so.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord did not say so at the time.
LORD CHESHAM: I thought that my comments on some of them would have made the matter extraordinarily obvious. However, we will not argue about that.
What we are left with here—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the fact that he has come round to this extent—is that if a more adequate and watertight definition can be found we may perhaps get somewhere. Those were almost his
488
words—I am not putting anything into his mouth. Perhaps we can get somewhere. I hope so. I should like to assure the noble Lord again that it is absolutely no part of our desire to breach the principle in the slightest degree. I shall most certainly want, before the next occasion, to have a look at all he has said, to do him justice, and try to come back with that improved definition. The noble Lord is making signs that he will be prepared to have a consultation, for which I am extremely grateful to him. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (5) and to insert instead:
"(5) The exemption in section 24(1) of the principal Act for registered firearms dealers shall cease to have effect; but that subsection shall not prevent any such dealer from shortening the barrel of a smooth-bore gun for the sole purpose of replacing a defective part of the barrel so as to produce a barrel of not less than twenty-four inches in length."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to give effect to an undertaking given by my honourable friend Mr. George Thomas, the Joint Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, on Report stage of the Bill in the Commons, when he promised to find some way of meeting the representations of the Gun Trade Association that firearms dealers should continue to be allowed to repair shot gun barrels by the "sleeving" method.
The repair of shot-gun barrels by sleeving consists of cutting off and discarding all but three inches of the old barrels, boring out the breech-end and soldering in new tubes. The Gun Trade Association fear that this practice will be prevented by Clause 9(5) which abrogates the exception in favour of registered firearms dealers contained in Section 24(1) of the 1937 Act. That section makes it an offence for anyone, other than a registered dealer, to shorten the barrel of a shotgun to less than 20 inches—which is amended to 24 inches in this Bill. On Report in another place Mr. Thomas expressed sympathy with the Gun Trade Association's difficulties. I understand that as many as 1,000 shot gunsaresleeved in the course of the year in this way, and that it is quite a useful business. Mr. Thomas gave an assurance that we would give the matter earnest consideration, and

489
I am glad that the earnest consideration has provided the desired result in the shape of this Amendment, which amends the ban. The prohibition on shortening shotgun barrels to less than 24 inches stands, but a limited and, I think, valuable exemption is given for repair by sleeving.
The exemption is limited in three ways. First, it applies only to firearms dealers; secondly, it applies only to cases of repair; and, thirdly, the barrel as repaired must be at least 24 inches in length. I think we are all agreed that a normal shot-gun barrel is never less than 25 inches in length if it is used for the purposes for which a shot gun should be used. The shorter barrels are mostly used for anything but desirable purposes. I think this is a small but useful Amendment, and one that will help the Gun Trade Association and sportsmen, and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Increased sentences under principal Act]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM had given Notice of four Amendments to Schedule 2. The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will agree that we can take the four Amendments to the Schedule together. They correct two minor anomalies. As the Bill is worded at present, it increases from three months imprisonment, and/or a £20 fine, to six months imprisonment, and/or a £200 fine the penalties under Section 10(5)(b) of the 1937 Act, which relates to making a false statement for the purpose of procuring the entry of a place of business in a register of firearms dealers. It leaves untouched the penalties under Section 10(5)(a), for being a registered firearms dealer but dealing at an unregistered place of business.
Similarly, the Bill increases, from and to the same amounts, the penalties under Section 12(4)(b) of the 1937 Act (knowingly making a false entry in the register of transactions), but leaves untouched those under Section 12(4)(a)
490
(failure to comply with any of the provisions for keeping a register of firearms transactions). It is arguable whether or not offences of omission in paragraph (a) of each subsection are as serious as those of commission in paragraph (b) of each subsection. But in the 1937 Act they were regarded as equally serious, and it seems right that we should follow the line taken in the principal Act. The purpose of the present Amendments is to bring the penalties into line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, column 1, leave out ("(b)").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, at beginning insert ("Dealing in firearms at unregistered places of business; and").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, column 1, leave out ("(b)").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, column 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert ("Failure to enter firearms transactions in register, and false entry in register.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

HIGHWAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Bill, which I am going to ask your Lordships to read a second time, is a modest measure, dealing with a small point, but one which, as I shall hope to show, has definite usefulness to the community.

491
Section 129 of the Highways Act, 1959, provides that if there is an obstacle on the highway resulting from the accumulation of snow or anything else the highway authority shall cause it to be removed. That, I think, is acceptable to everybody and this Bill preserves that provision. But Section 129 also provides that the highway authority shall cause the obstruction to be removed within 24 hours, if a notice is served upon them to do so by a justice of the peace. This means that if a justice receives a complaint about an obstruction and finds that the complaint is valid he has no option but to serve notice, and he has no discretion whatever to extend the time limit beyond 24 hours.
What this provision can mean was shown in the Borough of Barnes in January, 1963. There a householder complained of a small heap of snow lying outside his house in the road—as a matter of fact, it turned out to be outside somebody else's house, but I am not going to tell your Lordships the whole story unless I am asked to do so. He rightly complained and the local magistrates found that they must serve notice to the borough council, which they did. But, at the same time, they expressed concern at the situation that could arise if many different complaints of the same kind were made, because then the authority would be spending their time removing little heaps of snow outside houses instead of getting on with clearing the streets to the general benefit of the public. The resources of local authorities for clearing snow are necessarily limited. Even with the most up-to-date equipment, it is physically impossible to clear every road within a town area within 24 hours, especially if, as happened at Barnes, it is also freezing.
What is needed is that, when making an order, the magistrates should be able to take into account the size of the task that the highway authority faces and the requirements of an efficient programme of work and be able to give priority where priority is needed. The Bill indicates the kind of things they should have in mind and it would give the magistrates discretion to make such an order as they thought reasonable in the circumstances. If this happens, they would be free from the possible dilemma of having to satisfy the complaint of an individual at the expense of the rights of others, either
492
other individuals or the public at large. Of course, the individual retains his rights just the same. I think that this small measure will commend itself to your Lordships. I certainly commend it, and beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chesham.)
4.17 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his brief but very lucid description of the Bill and the necessity for it. May I assure your Lordships that this Bill is welcomed by Her Majesty's Government and also by every highway authority in the country? Therefore, I commend it to your Lordships for Second Reading.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I mention one matter which I think is rather a curiosity—the manner in which the minds of the draftsmen who draft Bills seem to work? Here we have the case of a draftsman thinking of the different ways in which a road is liable to be obstructed. He thinks of a fall of snow and mentions that; he thinks also of the collapse of a cutting and puts in
"the falling down of banks on the side of the highway".
But I think that that is a very unlikely and unusual occurrence. Then he apparently does not think of what most of us would regard as an ordinary, everyday cause of obstruction: the blowing down of trees in a gale. That is omitted. Then apparently the draftsman says to himself that he cannot think of all those things, so puts in "or from any other cause", and that is that. I should have thought that a draftsman should either try to make a comprehensive catalogue or else say that it is beyond him to think of all these things and just put in the words, "from any cause", and leave it at that. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, to give an answer this afternoon, but it is a matter which I have never quite understood. Perhaps some day I shall be told what the answer is.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I cannot answer for the workings of the minds of Parliamentary draftsmen. I sometimes have some difficulty in answering

493
for my own! But there are many sections of the 1959 Act which I think most people, particularly those associated with local government, would like to amend. So far as the Ministry are concerned, we agree with that, and we are going to try to bring in an amending Bill. The question of a falling tree comes under another section and it is not dealt with in this manner. The problem here is that the magistrates in this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said—this goes back to the year 1835—when they came to make their judgment, said: "This is the law, and we cannot help ourselves. We think it is silly, and it ought to be altered." We are altering it in relation to this one point, and we will bring in an amending Bill for the others later.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think there is any more that I need to say, in view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, except to express the view finally that, on the whole, it is probably true that Parliamentary draftsmen do their work in the way that we are told because otherwise the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would not have so much to talk about on these occasions. I should like to thank your Lordships for giving this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOST PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small and not very exciting Bill, but at least it has the merit of being uncontroversial, and it fills a gap in Scottish legislation. It is an uncontroversial Bill, and I think that is evidenced by its history to date. It went through Second Reading in another place without discussion. It then went to the Scottish Standing Committee, and the fact that it went through that Committee in about 36 minutes does not mean that it was considered in a perfunctory manner or that it was not examined; it only means, I think, that the Scottish Members of Parliament on the Standing Committee
494
could find no fault with the Bill. When it went for Third Reading it was discussed for about 29 minutes; it had the blessing of the Scottish Office, and passed its Third Reading unanimously. I hope that its experience here to-day will be in line with its previous history.
I need only say a few words about the Bill itself. Clause I was requested by the Association of County Councils in Scotland, because there are at present no statutory arrangements for disposing of lost and found property in county areas. Putting it quite simply, Clause 1 amends the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892. That Act provides for the disposal of lost property (I suppose one ought to say lost and found property) when it is handed in to the appropriate police officials of the burghs. But there is no similar or parallel position for the disposal of lost property when handed in to the police in the landward areas of counties. This Bill gives similar power to the police in landward areas as that now enjoyed by the police in the burgh areas. To that I cannot imagine that there will be any opposition.
There is a further provision in the Bill which applies to burgh of landward areas, and this is in respect of perishable lost property. As the powers stand at present, the police have no authority to dispose of perishable lost property until the end of the six months' period which applies to non-perishable lost property. One can easily see that there are some types of perishable lost property which might create considerable problems unless there is an amendment. This Bill, therefore, gives power to both burgh and county police authorities to dispose of perishable lost property if unclaimed by the owner after the expiration of such period as the chief constable or other officer thinks fit. I should think that in some cases that might depend on the keenness of sense of smell of the chief constable or other officer dealing with the matter.
LORD MITCHISON: Whisky improves.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I heard the remark that whisky improves. I should not normally regard whisky, safely bottled, as being perishable lost property. I need only add, for the benefit of those who have expressed concern, that this Bill does not affect the law as applying to treasure trove. As I said to begin with,

495
this is a simple but useful Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Archibald.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as one who is continually losing property of every kind, although to do justice to myself I think I can claim that I have never yet done anything quite so dreadful as to lose a bottle of whisky, nor have I had the good fortune to find any treasure trove, I am glad to welcome this Bill. All I want to do is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, for what I think was his full, thorough and satisfactory explanation of the Bill, and to say I agree with him that it is generally acceptable. I have no criticism to make of the Bill, and I hope that the amount of time which all its stages take in this House will be less than that in another place.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I should like to associate Her Majesty's Government and my humble self with the thanks which have already been proferred to my noble friend for introducing a small but useful Bill. One wonders what the Scots did with found property in landward areas before they had this Bill—but that is another matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 1st instant discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.