Lords Sitting of 24 April 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LIMITED
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, shortly after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a Statement on Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move this Motion formally so that the main discussion can take place on the Motion that this House doth not insist, which I propose to move in respect of each of the Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I say a word before this Motion is put to the House? I am interested to see the Reason why the first
354
Amendment was not agreed to by the Commons; namely:
"Because the Amendment might prevent the making of provision appropriate to the needs of a section of the livestock, or livestock products, industry."
Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the Amendment which was proposed and carried by this noble House was that the compulsory powers which the Government had put into this Bill for the purpose of the work of the new Meat and Livestock Commission should not operate for the first five years of its life.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I have not yet moved a Motion on this Amendment. That will come after the formal Motion. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to continue, or will wait until the Motion on the Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I will wait.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (167) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1]
Clause 9, page 10, line 30, at end insert—
"Provided that no provision having compulsory effect shall come into force before the expiration of five years after the coming into force of this section."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment might prevent the making of provision appropriate to the needs of a section of the livestock, or livestock products, industry.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not sit quiet while the noble Lord moved the rejection of the Motion I was about to move. I do not know if that is what he was going to do. It might have made my task a little easier, but I think it is not too difficult a one at the present time. I do not want to discuss this Amendment in any great detail, not out of disrespect for your Lordships' views but because I think that in our earlier discussions we went into all these matters in considerable detail. I will give a brief résumé of the situation and of the Reason for the Commons' disagreement.

355
As it left your Lordships' House, the Amendment would have prevented any compulsory provision for rationalisation or concentration of a development scheme made under Clause 9 from taking effect until five years after the Bill had been enacted and Section 9 had been brought into force. This, as I say, was discussed at considerable length in Committee, when we went into all the arguments. Her Majesty's Government consider, and I myself consider very strongly, that what we have to do in this case is to decide whether or not we are to trust the Meat and Livestock Commission. I suggest to your Lordships that, whoever these gentlemen may be, they will be extremely eminent and able, honourable and reliable people. Therefore, if we are to give such people very important jobs to do with regard to the whole development of the livestock industry, it would be extremely wrong of us to fetter them in any one particular aspect, not because we want them to use that particular power, or even because we think it would be right for them to do so, but because it shows mistrust in their abilities and in their discretion.
I know that noble Lords opposite have contended that the Commission should be content to use their powers of encouragement rather than compulsion, at least until five years have elapsed. I agree entirely that we want the Commission to use their powers of encouragement rather than compulsion, but I am quite sure that they will never use compulsion unless it is absolutely necessary; and it may be that encouragement is sometimes rather more effective if there might conceivably be the possibility of compulsion in the final analysis. So it seems to me that if noble Lords insist on this Amendment they will to some extent be defeating their own purpose, because they will weaken the encouraging powers of the Commission. As I say, I should certainly expect the Commission to use its powers of encouragement wherever it can, but I do not accept the view that there is no possibility whatsoever that a scheme containing compulsory powers will be needed within the period of five years. The Commons have now rejected this Amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is not an issue on which the passage of a
356
Bill should be delayed. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment (No. 1) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his charitable correction and for now explaining why the Commons in another place have disagreed with the Amendment which this noble House sent them. May I join with the noble Lord in saying that I hope, as he does, that the members of the Commission will be eminent and reliable people? I referred to the necessity for the Government paying for such people when I dealt with the subject on Third Reading.
The only observation I have to make about the reason for the Commons disagreement is that evidently the Government feel that compulsory powers are an essential element in the successful working of the Commission. We, on the other hand, have felt throughout that this Commission has an extremely difficult job to do, with this vast, complex industry which spreads from production on the farm to the auctioneers, the wholesalers and the retail butchers. We believe that to use compulsory powers in this industry and in those circumstances is so unlikely to be successful that it would be much better to set up the Commission without those powers at all in the first place. The quite marginal Amendment which this noble House made, to withhold compulsory powers for the first five years, seemed to be an entirely wise measure. I cannot believe that the Commission will use compulsory powers to start with in any circumstances and I very much regret that the Commons have felt unable to accept such a wise Amendment.
What is quite clear on the Record is that at the end of the day the Government prefer to rely on compulsion rather than on co-operation and the voluntary assent of the industry to measures which they see are wise measures as the work of the Commission proceeds. But if noble Lords opposite wish this to be on the Record as their choice, I should certainly not advise your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment. Clearly, it is not something which is going to make the

357
Earth fall. I should have thought it wiser for the Government to accept it, but, with great regret, I must bow to their will.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 2]
Clause 21, page 22, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) The Chairman at any such inquiry shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing and shall be assisted by such members of the Commission as the Commission may nominate."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the provision made by the Amendment would not be appropriate to the sort of inquiry which the Meat and Livestock Commission will hold.
2.47 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lord-ships will remember that this Amendment would provide that all the inquiries held under Clause 21 of the Bill should be presided over by a qualified lawyer, with at least 10 years' experience, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Again we discussed this fully, and I know that noble Lords opposite were genuinely and quite properly concerned that the chairman at these inquiries should be a man who would ensure that the inquiry would be fair, which naturally we all want, and would also be seen to be fair, which is also a matter of great importance.
I do not for a moment quarrel with that desire, but I still hold to the view which I expressed at the time we discussed this Amendment, and which was expressed later in another place with great clarity and forcefulness: that the original proposals of the Government not only contained no unfairness whatsoever but were framed in such a way that there would be no appearance of unfairness, or reason for anybody to think that there
358
had been unfairness. For that reason, I suggest to your Lordships once more that this Amendment is unnecessary.
You will remember that it applies to all inquiries undertaken by the Commission, whether they be formal or informal; and this, I think, would be both unworkable and a considerable waste of time and of effort, particularly in relation to the time of the chairman, if he were indeed a senior qualified barrister. But the main objection to the Amendment is that which has come from the Commons: that it would in fact be entirely inappropriate to the types of inquiry for which Clause 21 provides. I will repeat, if I may, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, that such inquiries relate only to the acquisition of information, and could not be used in any circumstances to decide cases, or for disciplinary or any other penal purposes. That being so, this is not a matter which involves the need for a senior qualified jurist. Therefore I hope that here, too, your Lordships will agree that this is not an issue of sufficient importance to delay the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 2) to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for explaining the Commons Reason for disagreeing to this Amendment? I will not trouble your Lordships with repeating the arguments we used on the earlier occasion when this Amendment found favour with this House. I will only say, with regret, that I am sorry to learn that the Government do not feel able to accept the Amendment, which I thought would have helped the Commission in its public relations to look a more presentable and respectable body; but if the noble Lord prefers it to look like this, I feel that this must be a decision for the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Prevention of payments' being made by public for watching competitive sports, &c., taking place between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m.
2.—(1) This section applies to a spectacle—
(c) taking place in such circumstances that any part of the time occupied by it falls on Sunday between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m.
(2) If the occupier of any land permits it to be used on any occasion for enabling members of the public to enter on it for the purpose of watching thereon or therefrom a spectacle to which this section applies, he shall, if those persons or any of them make payment for the privilege of doing so (whether for the benefit of himself or another), be guilty of an offence.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1)(c), to leave out "2 p.m." and to insert "12.30 p.m." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, I would say at the commencement that all my Amendments bear some relation to each other. I myself have laid emphasis on motor sport, which includes of course sport connected with motor-cycles, because of my family connections with and our knowledge of this particular sport, but I am sure that this matter also relates to various other types of sporting event, to which I daresay other noble Lords will be prepared to refer. The object of this Amendment is to alter the time of starting. It is designed to alter the requirement in the Bill that spectacles on Sunday at which charges are made for the admission of spectators should not commence before 2 p.m.
The proposed prohibition of the commencement of events before 2 p.m. would seriously prejudice the interests of many motor sporting clubs affiliated both to the R.A.C. and to the subsidiary organisation, the A.C.U., which controls motorcycle sports. Events connected with motor sport normally start at a very much earlier time. The sport now has a huge following, and I can only emphasise the fact that from what I have seen of motor sport in this country it has a following as great as, if not far greater than, any
360
other sport one can name. It holds numerous events, far more than before the war, and is extremely popular both with competitors and spectators. It must be obvious to your Lordships that in winter it will get dark at a very early hour, and there is bound to be a serious restriction of the time available for motor sporting events on Sunday if this requirement of 2 o'clock starting time is not altered. Therefore, I move in Clause 2 that in place of "2 p.m." there should be inserted "12.30 p.m.". This, incidentally, would accord with the recommendations of the Crathorne Committee, in Chapter 9, paragraph 120, and as mentioned later in their Report.
I am fully aware of the fact that my noble friend Lord Chesham moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage of this Bill, and that it received some opposition from certain noble Lords, on the ground that it would discourage more people from going to church on Sunday mornings and would interfere with the Sunday dinner, which quite naturally is considered to be an important family occasion. Notwithstanding this argument, it would seem desirable for this proposal to receive further consideration. Frankly, I personally feel that it is doubtful whether acceptance of this Amendment would have any major effect upon attendances at church on Sunday mornings or upon the occasion of Sunday dinner. Although I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will accept 12.30 p.m. as the starting time for permitted events, I am not so wedded to this particular time that I would not accept a compromise in order to satisfy conflicting interests, and would consider a time between 1 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("2 p.m.") and insert ("12.30 p.m.")—(Earl Howe.)
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of the noble Earl's Amendment. I belong to a motor club which for years has held its meetings on Sundays. It is a very well known hill climb, and no great objections have been made by the local residents. So far as I can see from the Bill as it stands, these hill climbs in the mornings will have to cease, and I cannot think that this is what my noble friend Lord Willis wants.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I should like to intervene, quite briefly. While it is true that, on (the whole, the Churches regard this Bill with a certain amount of tolerance, and in some cases almost an enthusiasm, this is a very serious Amendment. In my judgment, if the Sunday morning service were imperilled by the Amendment, it would destroy that good will on the part of many Christian believers. I notice that the noble Earl, in moving his Amendment, used the words "notwithstanding the objections", but I was hopeful that he might then have gone on to say what he meant by "notwithstanding". However, he did not amplify this point, except to say that he did not feel it would make much difference.
I beg him to reconsider that position, because it would make all the difference. The time of 2 o'clock permits people to go to church, come home and have something to eat, and then, if they want to, set about their pleasures and pursuits in the afternoon. But if a time of 12.30, or even 1 o'clock, were substituted, I feel that it would effectively prevent a great many people from doing both; that is to say, going to church on Sunday morning and then watching some motor racing in the afternoon. If the noble Earl makes a particular plea for motor racing, I would make an even stronger plea for the thousands of people who look with some favour on this Bill, as I do, and as the Methodist Church has done; but we should be determined to resist the whole purpose of this Bill if it did in fact imperil Sunday morning, as I am sure the hour of 12.30 would most effectively do.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I agree with the last speaker on the point that by moving to 12.30 we should be getting into the morning of Sunday. I thought that it was a wonderful thing that there could be any agreement in this country about entertainments on Sunday and that we should get new legislation to improve our present law. But if we begin in the Bill by saying that the time should be 2 p.m. and then we give way and say that it should be 12.30, I am quite certain that there will be a great deal of opposition in this country; and I am one who will oppose such a change. I thought that we made it
362
quite clear at the start, as did the sponsor of the Bill, that we are dealing with entertainments on a Sunday afternoon. One may well say that 12.30 is the afternoon; and I agree that logically it is. But I also feel that this Amendment is cutting into that time.
Further, let us remember that it means that those who have to make preparations for their particular sport will be working practically from the middle of Sunday morning. People may say that, after all, they need not do it; people will probably say that it makes very little difference whether it is 12.30 or 2 o'clock. But I think it does, because, as I say, I felt that it was a wonderful thing that we could get as much agreement as we have done so far on this Bill. If we lose this opportunity, we shall all regret it.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I wish to resist this Amendment, and I should like the House to resist it. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, knows, I have a great deal of sympathy with the sport which he represents, and a great deal of interest in it; but one cannot please everybody, and to create a Bill on Sunday entertainment which would please everybody would be really to create a great hotchpotch and a mess. There is no magic about the time of 2 p.m., but it neatly divides off the morning from the afternoon and allows time for the Sunday lunch.
I cannot imagine, from what I have seen of motor sport and, particularly, of motor-cycle and motor scrambling, that anybody who had eaten a Sunday lunch would take part in it immediately afterwards. But that is as may be. I believe it would be quite wrong to cut back further the time of 2 p.m. The Bill has now been published and debated both publicly and in this House, as well as in the Commons and in the Press. The time of 2 p.m. has received general assent and agreement, and I think it would be a mistake to go back on it.
I would emphasise, for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Raglan, that nothing in this Bill will cut across amateur activities on Sunday. If hill climbing of the sort he mentioned is done by amateurs, even if a charge is made for them to be watched, it does not matter when it takes place; it can take place on a Sunday morning or a Sunday afternoon,

363
just as it does now. But if it is entirely professional—and the Bill's criteria is that the participants must be paid as professionals and the people who watch them must pay for that privilege—then the Bill strictly lays it down that the event cannot start until 2 p.m. If there are circumstances which mean that the present practice may be altered as a result of the Bill, then I regret it; but it is the case that one cannot please everybody.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say one word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on this point? Many of us do not like all of the Bill, as I shall say on the next Amendment, but we want to see it go through. It is perfectly true that the Crathorne Committee recommended the hour of 12.30 p.m., but what I think is important is that when the Report of the Crathorne Committee was debated both Houses of Parliament wanted 2 o'clock. It would be very unwise to alter the time of 2 o'clock because the Bill has still to go through another House and many of us do not like 12.30, a point that was obviously agreed upon in both debates.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am naturally very sorry that that view has been taken, and a large number of people are going to be most disappointed. I suppose one might say that we shall have to wait until we get into the Common Market. If we do go in, we might then follow the Continental method of holding motor races only on Sundays. That seems to be the one chance. Bearing in mind all that has been said, I do not want to upset the apple-cart completely, but I stress the fact that I think it is a mistake not to permit an earlier starting time for these sporting events. Tremendous disappointment will be caused to a very large number of people—promoters, spectators and competitors. I shall have to consult my advisers on this matter, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.4 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), after "them" to insert "are required to". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the proposed amendment of the law to permit charges to be made for ad-
364
mission to spectacles on Sundays will not make the legal requirements in some respects more restrictive than at present. As I understand it, under the existing law it is not an offence to accept voluntary contributions from spectators, to make charges for programmes, to pass the hat round at a meeting of this kind, or to accept voluntary contributions in respect of the use of car parks, if such arrangements do not impose conditions relating to entry on to the land to watch the spectacle.
It would seem possible, however, that some arrangements might be illegal in respect of events which would not comply with the requirements of the Bill, if it should be passed in its present form. The proposed Amendment will ensure that this would not be so, and that it will be an offence only if the occupier of the land requires—and I use the word "requires" with emphasis—spectators to make payments for the privilege of entering to watch the spectacle. I feel that the courts might have a different interpretation from the sponsors of the Bill and, therefore, the insertion of "are required to" after "them" would make the position abundantly clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after ("them") insert ("are required to").—(Earl Howe.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, this Amendment is similar to one which was considered in Committee on the Bill, when assurances were given by my noble friend Lord Willis and by my noble friend the Leader of the House, but perhaps the noble Earl would like to have those assurances repeated. The effect of the Amendment, as the noble Earl explained, would be to expand the formula for, as it were, identifying an offence under Clause 2 relating to admission charges. Therefore, if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted, the decision would turn upon whether any persons were required to make payment for the privilege of watching, instead of on whether they simply made payment.
The noble Earl made it clear that what he was concerned about was the present position. But where a match is, perhaps for charity, and where a charge is made

365
for programmes or something of that kind, or even for a chair inside, it would not be affected by the provisions of the Bill. I can give him that firm assurance. The reason is that it is implicit in the concept of paying for a privilege that the privilege could not be enjoyed unless a payment was made. In the kind of cases with which the noble Earl is concerned, someone can come in and can stay and watch the event without paying. It is up to him whether he voluntarily pays for a programme, or something of that kind. I can assure the noble Earl that the form of words now in the Bill makes it clear that Clause 2 applies only to those payments which the spectator has to make in order to watch the event. I have to tell him, therefore, that the words he proposes to add are quite unnecessary, and that the purpose which he wishes to achieve by the Amendment is already achieved in the Bill.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what my noble friend Lord Stonham has said in his very clear explanation. I should just like to say something which I ought to have said before; that is, how much I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Stonham is now back with us on this Bill after his illness. I hope that the explanation my noble friend has given will satisfy the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's courtesy. To quote what my noble friend Lord Chesham said, I now feel doubly assured. I should like to have it in writing but, nevertheless, I have the noble Lord's assurance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that no occupier of any land shall be guilty of such an offence if he permits it to be used for enabling members of the public to enter on it on Sunday between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m. for the purpose of watching thereon or therefrom a spectacle to which this section does not apply, whether or not those persons or any of them make payment for the privilege of doing so."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it appears to me that, with this Amendment, it would be made clear that before 2 p.m.
366
—again this time arises—members of the public may be permitted to enter on to land on which an event commencing after 2 p.m. will take place on a Sunday, whether practising is then in operation or not, and may be charged for admission at such a time, even though they may be able to watch practising in operation. It is desirable, especially where necessary in order to avoid serious traffic congestion on public highways, that spectators attending a motor sporting event should not all arrive shortly before the event commences. Motor sport, as I have already mentioned in connection with a previous Amendment, has great spectator appeal, and thousands flock to the Sunday events. Surely we do not want to take up the valuable time of our police officers and increase the already heavy Sunday traffic jams, especially since many of these events take place adjacent to our principal roads. With those brief remarks, I beg to move the Amendment to insert this proviso.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe).
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, here again, I am able to reassure the noble Earl on the point that he has raised. The spectacles to which his Amendment relates are those which take place after 2 p.m.—that is, those to which this clause does not apply, as he has made clear by the words in his Amendment. He wishes to authorise any person who has planned to watch an afternoon sporting event—an event beginning at 2 p.m. or later—to be able to pay his money and enter the grounds before 2 o'clock, before the time when the event is allowed to begin. I am happy to tell him that his Amendment is superfluous, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent what he is asking for. What is prohibited is for the charge to relate to a spectacle that itself starts before 2 p.m. That, of course, would be one to which this clause would apply.
The noble Earl referred to practising, and he is concerned, quite rightly, that the occupier of land should be able to allow people who have paid their entrance money for an afternoon event—and I agree with him that if it is going to start at 2 o'clock one can expect the spectators to be coming along before that time; some of them well before that time—to

367
enter the ground in the morning and watch competitors go round the course; for instance, in his own field, the practice laps which are run at Brands Hatch on Sunday mornings. This might be held to constitute an offence under subsection (2), but I have to tell him that that no such risk would arise unless the practising by the competitors was of such a character and was so organised as to constitute a spectacle designed for the entertainment of members of the public. Certainly young men warming up their machines in practice laps round the course, cricketers practising at the nets or happenings of that kind would not cause any trouble.
The mere fact that an admission fee has been paid to watch the afternoon spectacle, though the spectators came in earlier, would not invalidate the position. It would only be if there were, as it were, spectator trials run as a separate event in the morning for the attraction of spectators that any difficulty would arise; but, as the noble Earl has made clear, that is not his concern. Again I have to tell him that the Bill already fulfils what he wants to be fulfilled and that his Amendment is therefore not necessary.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, once again I should like to thank the noble Lord. I am sorry; does the sponsor of the Bill wish to speak?
LORD WILLIS: No, my Lords.
EARL HOWE: So far as I am concerned, that, again, gives me some assurance. I suppose the noble Lord realises that practising for a motor event or for a motor-cycle event might involve the competitors in putting up times sufficiently fast to achieve a good place on the starting grid. It is not a race; it is purely practising, as the noble Lord suggested in the case of cricketers at the nets. Bearing that in mind, and after what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I just reply to that point? We are here concerned with a spectacle designed for the public and not with whether men are warming up their machines, or whether a mechanic is working on them, or something of that kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after subsection (2), to add as a new subsection:
"( ) Nothing in this section shall make it illegal for the occupier of any land to permit it to be used on Sunday between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. for practising in preparation for a spectacle—

(a) designed for the entertainment of members of the public

(b) consisting in a competition in a sport or game or a demonstration of prowess in a sport or game; and

(c) taking place in such circumstances that no part of the time occupied by it falls on Sunday between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel rather like a jack-in-the-box, springing to my feet every now and again, but it is rather important to get assurance on some of these points, as there are many people and organisations involved. I shall be brief. This Amendment is designed to make it clear that the proposals in the Bill will not make it illegal for practising to take place before 2 p.m. on Sunday in preparation for an event which will commence after 2 p.m. It is essential that clubs affiliated to the R.A.C. and the A.C.U., the Auto Cycle Union, when arranging motor sporting events should be able to permit practising before the events commence. Without this essential practising, competitors and spectators would be put into a position of unnecessary danger. In fact, it would be quite impossible to stage the event at 2 o'clock. Throughout these Amendments I have laid emphasis, as I have said, on one sport, but it obviously involves other sports. I should be grateful for an answer, and if it is satisfactory I will again, of course, withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can at once give the noble Earl the assurance for which he has asked. The provisions in the Bill dealing with the kind of sporting events which will be permitted under the Bill after 2 p.m. will also permit practice in the mornings without risk of attracting to the occupier of the land the penalties under subsection (2). There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which would make it illegal to do any of the things described in the noble Earl's Amendments. The Bill is not concerned with the status or intentions

369
of the participants in spectator sport or demonstrations with prizes but with whether or not the public is charged to watch them; and the public will be charged to watch the events which would properly take place in the afternoon. We are not concerned at all with the practising in the morning.
EARL HOWE: In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Application of section 2 to certain games etc. watched by the public taking place between 2 p.m. and midnight.
" .—(1) The provisions of section 2 of this Act shall apply to any spectacle as defined by the next following subsection which falls within subsection (1)(a) and (b) of the said section 2 and which takes place in such circumstances that any part of the time occupied by it falls on Sunday between 2 p.m. and midnight.
(2) In this section 'spectacle' means any game of Association Football or Rugby Foot ball played internationally or by professionals or any cricket Test Match or any additional spectacle specified by an order made under the next following subsection.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order specify additional spectacles or classes of spectacles to which this section shall apply.
(4) An order made under the last foregoing subsection shall not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Power to make an order under this section includes power to vary or revoke any such order."
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like first to express my sincere gratitude to a number of people who have taken part in the process of its formulation although not necessarily agreeing with its purpose. First among those I would put the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who tried very hard to see whether common ground could be established between us. Then there are the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who gave a great deal of time to assisting us in the formulation of our Amendment; Her Majesty's Ministers at the Home Office; and, of course, my co-mover, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
That does not mean that I can give universal approval to everything that has
370
happened in the course of these negotiations. I was disappointed that the Home Office, through the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made it quite clear at an early stage that they were not willing to accept the responsibility of deciding what events could or could not be allowed after 2 p.m. The Home Office seemed to me to be excessively cautious, even to the extent of being pusillanimous, in this matter. I should have thought the Home Secretary had to decide many more important and serious matters than whether certain games could or could not be played. However, one can understand how a Minister's mind works. I know nothing about the mind of the present Secretary of State; but one can imagine that, in view of his interests (he had the picture of being a great libertarian Home Secretary; instead, he has had to give an enormous amount of time to trying to get prison doors safely barred, and drugs removed from those whom they would harm), he was determined that he was not going to have another unpleasant task thrust upon him; namely, the putting into force of any remaining vestigial Sabbatarian laws. And one can understand that attitude. However, what the Home Office could not face has now been left to us to face, and I am certain that your Lordships will not be affected by this spirit and will be willing to face up to any responsibilities that fall upon you.
Another aspect of the matter which surprised me—and puzzled me a little—was the fact that in the official notices circulated to your Lordships over the franking signature of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I found what was nothing less than a canvassing notice over the signature of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, asking, first of all, for support against the Amendment which I have it in mind to propose. It was addressed, "Dear Colleague". I do not quite know the meaning of that. I am glad to recognise myself as a colleague in the House of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I am willing even to be called "comrade", if necessary, but I was not so pleased to see in the letter a description of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, as "opponents of the Bill". Quite apart from the morality of sending out notices at Government expense, another question arises of whether we have been rightly described.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the fact that the right reverend Prelate mentioned my name, I think I should explain the position. It has been the practice for some time—for as long as I can remember—that if a noble Lord wishes to seek support by letter for Private Members' legislation, the envelope of the Government Whip has been used to transmit such letter to Members of the House. But this certainly does not mean that I, or the Government, are in any way involved in the contents of such letters.
LORD DERWENT: May I intervene? The noble Lord said that it has been the practice "for some time". I think this has occurred only since the present Government came into office.
LORD REA: If it has been the practice, it should be discontinued immediately.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: I do not want to make unduly heavy weather of this point. All I would say is that if I had known that a similar privilege was open to me I would gladly have sent a note balancing that of the noble Lord.
Having got those few details out of the way, I must hurry to the substance of the Amendment, and I am afraid I must weary the Committee by reminding your Lordships once more of the way in which this whole matter has developed. When this was discussed under the terms of the Crathorne Report, it was discussed in terms of "professional sport" and "amateur sport". It was felt at that time that such a distinction would suffice. Now, I think, experience has shown us that in practice it will not. In fact, the matter has polarised to this: that practically nothing is allowed before 2 p.m. and everything is allowed after 2 p.m.
The question that has gradually clarified in the minds of some of us is that if one makes a distinction as simple and clear as that, one begins to imperil what was at one time agreed by almost everybody who considered this matter; namely, that Sunday should be, in some sense, a different day. And if one thinks for a little, one can see that it would not be so very different a day—in fact, hardly a different day at all—if, shall we say, the Cup Final were played on a Sunday afternoon; for it has never been
372
played in the morning, so far as I know. It would simply mean that in this respect Sunday was exactly like every other day.
So we have been trying—and in this Amendment have expressed our views—to find a form of words which would still make a distinction between Sunday, even after 2 p.m., and the rest of the week. The reason for that I will not enlarge upon now; but I may say that in my mind going to church has nothing whatever to do with it. Personally, I do not want to get one single person into church by force of the law; that is the last thing in my mind. What we are concerned with is the social values that have gathered round the English Sunday. Nobody thinks these social values are entirely positive or that the present state of the law is satisfactory. We are in favour of a very widespread, far-reaching reform of the law. But, in our view, there is still something worth preserving, and what we have tried to preserve is the absence from Sunday of really large-scale national sporting events. That is really the substance of subsection (2) of my new clause.
It has not been easy to define, but we have endeavoured by this Amendment to rule out large-scale professional football—not because it is professional but simply because professional football has that kind of national status and kudos that we think is best kept out of the way on Sunday. We have not ruled out county cricket. If my eyes do not deceive me, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is wearing a Kent County Cricket Club tie—a tie that I myself am proud to wear at times. I have come to the conclusion—not with the agreement of all my friends and colleagues in the Church—that no great harm is done, and perhaps even some good, by some quiet games of county cricket on a Sunday. They are not ruled out.
I noticed that one newspaper, in defining our purpose, said that we were trying to rule out "Test and other cricket". The phrase "other cricket" was put in by the newspaper or by its informant, but not by me. I accept the fact that county cricket has come; and is likely to stay, at any rate in some counties, until county cricketers themselves tire of it. But I think that a great Test Match at the Oval, such as the climax of a series between ourselves and Australia, is something quite different

373
from an ordinary county cricket match. So we have tried to describe the events which would not be allowed even after 2 p.m. We have allowed the Secretary of State to define other spectacles—if he is willing to do so, and provided that Parliament agrees—but whether or not he would ever wish to exercise that power is not for us to say.
I am not suggesting that this Amendment is entirely tidy and absolutely logical. It is empirical; it is an attempt to preserve something that we think is still worth preserving. I have just come back from a post-Easter cruise and holiday in comparatively distant parts of the world. I have been in countries where the customs governing Sunday observance are entirely different from our own, particularly in the land of Israel (where, of course, our Sunday is a perfectly ordinary working day) and in other countries where the so-called Continental Sunday fits the pattern. All these traditions can play their part in the historic circumstances of the nations where they prevail.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate would inform us what happens in Israel on the Sabbath, on Saturday, and what happens in Mohammedan countries on a Friday, so that we may have a real comparison.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I cannot say what happens in Mohammedan countries on Friday, except that I noticed that the children were all away from school. That is the only thing I can contribute on that particular question. On the first question, my reply is that the Sabbath in Israel is observed, although I cannot say in exactly what particulars. The shops are shut and there is no public transport—in fact it is very much like an old-fashioned Scottish Sunday, if I am not entirely unjust in so describing it. If I may I will leave that little oral examination and go on to the main conclusion.
We are trying to preserve something of what we believe has helped to make England what it is. The test is whether or not we are confident in ourselves, confident in what we have become, and confident in those causes that have contributed to our national character. It is simply to express that remaining part of faith in the English Sunday (if I may
374
use the word "English" for a moment, because it is in common use) that I ask your Lordships favourably to consider the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope it may be helpful if I intervene at once to state the Government's viewpoint on the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I was most grateful to him for his kind reference to the helpful work of the Home Office in this matter, although I thought it was somewhat of a fall from grace when, after that reference (and, indeed, after we had done our utmost to try to meet the position), the right reverend Prelate said that our attitude was "cautious to the point of pusillanimity." But we will pass that over.
I would remind your Lordships of what was said by my noble Leader on Second Reading about the Government's neutral attitude to this Bill on questions of Sunday entertainment. When it was a question of principle (as in the first Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about whether prohibition should start at 12.30 or 2 p.m.), your Lordships may have noticed that I did not intervene. But it is my duty, on behalf of the Government and indeed I hope on behalf of your Lordships' House, to state clearly if in our view an Amendment is impracticable or unworkable, as we think is clearly the case with the present Amendment. Its effect is to prohibit certain sports which the public have to pay to watch from being played on Sunday afternoons: first, professional soccer and Rugby League matches and any soccer or Rugby international matches; secondly, Test cricket matches, and thirdly, any sporting event or classes of event falling within the framework of the proposed new clause that the Secretary of State may choose to specify.
May I take the specific prohibition first? It is entirely for your Lordships' House to decide on merits whether it agrees with the selection of cricket and football which has been made by the sponsors of the Amendment. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that this Amendment, in his view, was necessary in the interests of those things upon

375
which the nation had been built. Obviously, in the view of the sponsors of the Amendment, and in the view of the right reverend Prelate, it would be damaging, as it were, to the national spirit if these football matches and cricket Test matches took place on a Sunday afternoon, but not, apparently, if an ordinary county cricket match was played.
My Lords, you also have to decide (and I think this is most important of all) whether it is satisfactory that these two exceptions to the general rule on Sunday afternoons should be arbitrarily listed, without any reference to any principle of selection; and also whether it is right that, in so far as a general criterion like professionalism has been applied, it should be applied to only one of the two prohibited sports; that it is all right for professionals to play Sunday cricket, but not all right for professionals to play Sunday football. These, my Lords, are matters for you to decide. So far as drafting is concerned, no particular administrative difficulties will arise, in our view, over the reference to specific sports. There is only one kind of Association football; Rugby football would apply to both Rugby Union and League. I have no doubt that this was intended, though I am not aware that there are any professionals in Rugby Union.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, there are, of course, international matches in Rugby Union.
LORD STONHAM: That brings me to a point which I was proposing to come to later. The inference from the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is that the players might be mixed: some might be amateurs in international matches and some might be professionals. There is only one series of cricket matches that anyone describes as "Test matches" and there is no difficulty there. "Played internationally" means, presumably, where the teams represent different countries. Although, of course, it could be argued that Wales is not a separate country for this purpose, it seems unlikely that the courts would take that view in this context. But would a Rugby Union match played on Sunday between, say, a team from New Zealand or
376
Australia and the Barbarians, a club side, be counted as an international match? It would certainly attract a large crowd. Is it proposed that that should be caught by the provisions in this clause or not?
Then difficulties could arise over the formula "played … by professionals" mentioned in the clause, even if it is here applied only to football, where the no-man's-land of "shamateurism" does not exist to anything like the extent that it does in some other fields of sport. For example, we heard recently, on what was presumably good authority, that some tennis amateurs get as much as £400 a week. They would attract large crowds on a Sunday, but presumably that is regarded as being all right. Each sport has its own code of practice regarding what makes a player count as a professional, and the codes are not by any means necessarily identical, even, for instance, as between Rugby Union and Rugby League, as every sport enforces its own code with equal strictness. In many sports, as we are all aware, many prominent amateurs have no visible means of support except that normally they are employed by business houses connected with sport. In the circumstances the courts might find some difficulty in deciding, on the basis of the conflicting criteria, what constitutes a professional, and the courts would have to decide for themselves. Fortunately, the results would no doubt demonstrate the robust common sense of the Bench in determining the point at which a man could be said to have taken up sport as his profession.
But the judgment of the courts would not necessarily match his amateur or professional status in the sport itself, which means that a spectacle billed as between amateurs could, on being tested in the courts, prove to have been between professionals. This would place the proprietor of the land on which the event was watched in a very invidious and difficult position. For it is on him that the penalties fall, and yet he may not be in a position to know whether an offence would be committed if he were to charge for admission. In the case of Association football there is an added difficulty, in that matches are on occasion played with mixed teams, including both amateurs and professionals. It is not clear whether or not that case would be caught.

377
I have so far dealt with the specified exclusions under subsections (1) and (2), and these are by no means small difficulties. In many cases, we could not be certain until they had been decided in the courts, which is not, I submit, a desirable position when we are framing legislation. But the greatest difficulties, from the Government's viewpoint, arise on subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The effect of this provision is to give the Secretary of State unfettered discretion (subject only to the Affirmative Resolution procedure) to add whatever he likes to the list of prohibited sporting events set out in subsection (2). The only limitation on his power is that the events to be prohibited must fall within the general scope of the proposed new clause; that is, they must be spectator sports. But subsection (3), which we are now asked to accept, gives my right honourable friend the Home Secretary no sort of indication of the principles which should govern his choice. Nor is any such principle deducible from examination of the range of sport already prohibited under subsection (2).
The right reverend Prelate referred to the fact—and it is quite true—that my right honourable friend has to make very grave and difficult decisions almost every day. But those decisions are based on legislation and on principles laid down by Parliament, whereas in this proposed subsection no principles whatever are laid down for the guidance of my right honourable friend. There are many precedents for giving Ministers power to exercise their discretion in carrying out in detail the declared intentions of Parliament as set out in principles of general application incorporated in the Statute. But there is no precedent whatever for conferring powers of legislation upon a Minister without an indication of the purpose to which that legislation is to be directed. That is what we are asked to accept in subsection (3). In other words, we are seriously being asked to give a Minister carte blanche to interpret the unknown will of Parliament in subordinate legislation.
It will be argued—I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will argue this—that the new clause proposes that this subordinate legislation would be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in both Houses. But this does not mend matters at all. For if the Act does
378
not indicate what subsection (3) is supposed to be aimed at, in considering an Affirmative Resolution the House will hardly be in a position to judge either, unless on every one we resume the debates which Parliament in the passage of the Bill is concerned to resolve. Moreover, the Home Secretary has no guidance on the spectacles that he should allow in, or those against which he should lay Orders.
To sum up—and this is, I think, unanswerable—if the House itself cannot decide on a principle of general application to be incorporated in the Bill to determine what kinds of events should, exceptionally, be forbidden on Sunday afternoons, your Lordships should not seek to place this responsibility on a Minister. This is not a responsibility that any Minister should be asked to accept, and I trust that your Lordships will agree that it would not be proper for him to do so.

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology in another place about the independent Inquiry which the Minister of State announced on April 5 would be instituted to examine the circumstances of the Bristol Siddeley case. It is as follows:
"The Committee of Inquiry is being set up jointly by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. Its terms of reference will be:—
'To investigate the circumstances of the pricing of certain contracts for the overhaul of aero-engines in the period 1959 to 1963, leading to repayment in March, 1967, by Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited to the Ministry of Technology; and matters relating thereto; and to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Technology as soon as possible. The Committee should feel free to make any recommendations they may consider necessary, in the light of their inquiry, on the need for further investigations into any aspects of Government contractual operations; or to request an extension of their terms of reference for this purpose'.
"As in the case of the Lang Inquiry, this will be a committee of three. I

379
am glad to say that Sir Roy Wilson, Q.C., the President of the Industrial Court, has accepted our invitation to act as Chairman. He has wide experience of the conduct of committees of inquiry. Sir Leslie Robinson and Mr. C. J. M. Bennett have agreed to serve as members. Sir Leslie had many years of Government service, and since he retired from the Board of Trade in 1963 he has been in industry. Mr. Bennett is a partner in a well-known firm of chartered accountants and has considerable experience of official inquiries.
"It will be seen that the Committee's terms of reference have been so drafted as to require them, in the first place, to investigate all the circumstances of the case itself; and to leave it open to them, if they see fit, to propose either that they themselves should go on to examine wider aspects of Government contracting or that some other body should be required to do so.
"It is hoped that the Committee will be able to produce a first report by the end of July this year."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for having repeated that Statement. So far as I know, the people who have been chosen to sit on the Tribunal seem to be admirable. May I ask the noble Lord whether the first Report and subsequent Reports will be published? Secondly, although I think this is so, it is not entirely clear from what the noble Lord has said whether it will be possible under the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry to investigate what happened between the years 1963 and 1967, when obviously a certain amount was happening. The years 1963 to 1967 are specifically mentioned in the terms of reference, and that is why I ask the question. Lastly, I would ask the noble Lord whether the Committee have powers to call witnesses before them.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Report will be published. With regard to the period over which the Committee will be inquiring, I mentioned that the particular contract related to the period 1959 to 1963. As they have power to consider any matters relating thereto, it will be competent for them to go into anything
380
that happened subsequent to those years. So far as powers are concerned, the Committee are not being appointed under the 1921 Act, but they will be given complete co-operation by the Department concerned. The company concerned have also offered their complete co-operation, and I have no doubt that they will be able to take evidence from whomsoever they choose.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think that, in themselves, the gentlemen selected are three excellent gentlemen. I have no objection to the Committee except as regards one point, and it is this. May I ask the Government whether they do not think it would be better either to add to the number or to substitute for one of the gentlemen chosen a person who has experience in the aeronautical indusstry? So far as I understand it, the experience of these three gentlemen has been in Government, in the law and in chartered accountancy. As this Inquiry is going to affect not only what has happened in the past with regard to the aeronautical industry, but what may happen in the future, would it not be better to have on the Committee someone who is experienced in that field?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I take the point the noble Lord makes. But, of course, we are considering here a field of contract and commercial activity, and not specifically technical matters relating to the aircraft industry. I have no doubt that if the Committee wish to he informed about any particular technical aspect, they will, as I have said, get complete co-operation from the Ministry.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that when a Statement was made on the subject previously, the House was informed that it was a very difficult matter because of the technical aspects concerned in the aeronautical industry, in the production of aero engines, and the like? Surely the Government cannot have it both ways. Either it is a technical matter, in which case there should be someone with experience of the industry on the Committee of Inquiry, or this defence should not have been raised previously.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. But I

381
still feel that the problems into which the Committee will be inquiring are problems which they are perfectly competent to handle; and should they require any technical assessor to assist them, I have no doubt that one can be provided.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, can the Minister say whether those who appear before the Tribunal, or who are represented at the Committee of Inquiry, may be represented by counsel?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not my impression that this is the procedure which has been followed in the past.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that the report will be published. Does that mean that the evidence submitted will be published with the report?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I doubt whether that will be the case. But I will look into the point that my noble friend has mentioned.
What I had in mind, in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, was the fact that the committee's report will follow very closely the lines of the Lang Report. When I said that the procedure that he mentioned would not be followed, that is what I had in mind, although, as I implied, there is nothing laid down specifically relating to this. If anyone wishes to be represented by counsel, there is no reason why he should not be so represented.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to make one comment first, if I may, and deal with what Lord Stonham said, and then go on to the Amendment itself. The comment I should like to make is that I resent the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has sent round a letter, at Government expense evidently, saying that I am opposed to this Bill. I have never opposed this Bill at any time, and I resent very strongly that this has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that it is the usual practice. I have made inquiries and, so far as we know, it was most unusual on
382
a Private Member's Bill until this Government came into office.
May I deal next with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. The right reverend Prelate was going to call the Home Office—in fact he has called them—cautious and pusillanimous. I was going to call them timorous and weak-kneed. But I do not think I will call them that, because I particularly understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on subsections (3), (4) and (5). I would remind him that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has promised the right reverend Prelate and myself, if we can get an Amendment in proper order except for its drafting—and these are largely drafting questions—that the Government would give us all the help they could in getting it right. But may I deal with subsections (3), (4) and (5)?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I am fully aware of the promise given by my noble Leader, and indeed I am honestly of the feeling that that promise has been met. We have done all we could.
LORD DERWENT: I do not for one moment suggest that the promise has not been kept, but I was going to suggest that we might come back to the noble Lord for further help. That is why I was reminding him of the promise. The principal instrument in his somewhat un-neutral speech, I thought, was the question that the Secretary of State should be able to introduce Orders for Affirmative Resolution. We are not told what are the criteria on which he should make out an Order. This is partly a question of drafting.
This Amendment is based on the Report of the Crathorne Committee. What the Crathorne Committee in fact said was that there should be relaxation over all kinds of entertainments, provided that no undue disturbance was caused to other people on a Sunday, and provided that no undue extra employment was made. If we can get these two criteria into these subsections at a later stage, then I do not think the Home Secretary would have to work very hard in making up his mind whether to put down an Order. No Home Secretary in his senses (and I think we must presume that all Home Secretaries are in their senses) would introduce

383
such an Order unless there had been something in the nature of a public outcry—not necessarily regarding an existing sport or entertainment, but none of us knows what will arise in the future. Therefore, if your Lordships accept this new clause, as I hope you will, I suggest that perhaps the Government or ourselves—preferably the Government—can amend this on the next stage of the Bill.
I do not accept, I am afraid, that the courts would find any difficulty in interpreting subsection (2). The subsection reads:
"In this section 'spectacle' means any game of Association Football or Rugby Football played internationally"—
that is, between countries—
"or by professionals or any cricket Test Match or any additional spectacle specified by an order …".
If that wording is really doubtful, I shall again ask for the Government's help in making it comprehensible, but I really cannot see any difficulty, and I think this is really making a mountain out of a molehill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt again? Certainly the Government's offer to help with drafting holds good until the Bill is through, and if the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate want help with further Amendments it will be given. But this is not a Government Bill; it is a Private Member's Bill, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to produce an Amendment on Third Reading to amend the noble Lord's Amendment, presuming that the House carried it.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I quite take the point. Perhaps I am pressing the noble Lord a little bit hard on this question of help. But what I would suggest that the House should do to-day, if it is agreeable, is this. Bearing in mind that the second part of this new clause, dealing with the Home Secretary, will have to be amended, I agree, on Third Reading, if your Lordships agree to the new clause to-day I would suggest that to-day is the day when we ought to come to a final decision on whether the main principle of the clause is acceptable or not to the House. That, I think, should happen to-day. I think I may on behalf of the right reverend Prelate—he has nodded to
384
me—and myself give an undertaking that, if your Lordships agree to the new clause in principle, we shall put down an Amendment on Third Reading dealing with subsections (3), (4) and (5). Your Lordships will then be able to accept this or not on the Third Reading. I think I saw the noble Lord, Lord Willis, also nod to me. I do not think he wants to leave the main principle of the clause hanging over any longer, either. So I hope that your Lordships will agree to that course.
Now may I very briefly again remind your Lordships what the Crathorne Report was recommending? First of all, the Crathorne Committee, composed of very different kinds of people, were unanimous. There was no Minority Report; the Report was unanimous. As I have already stated, they thought there ought to be a great relaxation on entertainment, sport and so on, on a Sunday, compared with the present Sunday observance laws—I entirely agree with that—provided that there was no undue disturbance to other people who wish to spend Sunday reasonably quietly, and provided that this does not cause a great deal of extra employment. They made certain recommendations.
On the Committee stage I put down an Amendment which, after much discussion, I agreed would not have worked satisfactorily, but even that did not go quite so far as the Crathorne Report recommendations. Owing to the debate which took place on the Committee stage the right reverend Prelate and I have made another attempt to carry out what was behind the Report of the Crathorne Committee, and I have Lord Crathorne's permission to say that although this is much less stringent than the Committee recommended, he is in entire agreement with the principle behind this Amendment.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is going to resist this Amendment. I only hope he will not use the two arguments which, although I do not remember the actual words I used, I insinuated on Committee stage were pretty far-fetched. The first point he had to meet was that of disturbance. It is because of disturbance that we have chosen these particular games. They draw extra large crowds and, as we know to our cost, in professional football the main noise and disturbance does not take place inside the ground but going home afterwards. The argument put forward by the noble Lord,

385
Lord Willis, was that it was better to have all the noise in one place, such as a football stadium, because otherwise it would be spread all over the country. In other words, presumably every individual on a football ground who was making the sort of noise one does make at a football match would make individually exactly the same noise if he was walking through a country wood.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Most convincing.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has quoted my phrasing slightly incorrectly. I think he is now, if I may say so, putting up rather a distorted argument.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, that was indeed the gist of the noble Lord's argument. He went at some length into the question of spreading the noise about the countryside. But the noise inside a football ground does not exist outside. People may talk outside, they may even shout, but a lot of them are quite quiet.
His other argument concerned employment. I am sure it was good Socialism, but I found it faintly repugnant. I will quote his actual words, if I can find them. He said, in effect, that because many people have to work at the present time on a Sunday there is no reason why a lot more should not be made to work. I cannot find his actual words, at the moment but I will come back to that point. He then went on to say that there was going to be a lot of extra employment, but that we lived in that kind of society and it was something which, while one wanted to control it, we had to face. My Lords, why should we have to face it? If something is happening unnecessarily on a Sunday, causing disturbance to other people, why should we have to face the added problem of extra employment? It is not just the people on the ground but also extra catering staff, extra transport staff and, above all, extra police—particularly when dealing with football crowds. Those were the recommendations of the Crathorne Report and I suggest that as far as possible we should try to keep to them. Therefore, subject to saying that if your Lordships accept this Amendment there must be a further Amendment on Third Reading, I hope to-day your Lordships will agree to this new clause.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I rise to say that, with some regret, I find myself in a different camp from that of my right reverend friend on this Amendment. I will leave my noble friend Lord Willis to deal with his own reminiscences of what he said and the actual facts of the debate to which your Lordships listened some time ago. I am not concerned with the practicability of this Amendment, although, as a matter of fact, I think my noble friend Lord Stonham made a completely unanswerable case that the Amendment as it stands is impracticable. I am concerned with the principle of it, to which, with all due deference, I suggest my right reverend friend did not advert.
I will describe what I think to be the legitimate Christian position. As the right reverend Prelate said, we do not wish to compel people to go to church—that would be perfectly stupid, as well as quite impracticable— but the desire we have is that as many people as possible should be free on Sunday from the kind of occupation to which they are addicted, or not addicted, during the week, so that they may pursue their own form of relaxation. I quite see that at some point it would be deleterious to that general proposition if in fact many who wanted to enjoy Sunday in that way were compelled by a widespread practice of commercial spectacles and events to go to work. But what is more important in the judgment of some of us is that we should present a picture of the Christian faith which is realistic and does not cause such confusion in the public mind that very often contempt is the result, and not understanding.
I cannot see how we can defend the idea of Sunday as a different day merely by talking in terms of the number of people who, on one Sunday or another, will be occupied in the watching or the profession of sport. This is the old argument that the illegitimate baby is to be defended on the ground that it is a very small one. The argument does not commend itself to me and I do not think it will to the vast proportion of the community which has at least some affection for the Christian faith but regards our claims as being in many respects obdurate and in many respects unrealistic. If there is to be a reclamation of the true prestige of the Christian faith—and I speak unashamedly of that—then this

387
Amendment will do nothing but create more confusion in the minds of those who will say, "What is the difference in principle between a Celtic Rangers match and an international match?"
What is the difference in principle? I suggest noble Lords will find that there is no difference in principle. Therefore although there are many ways in which I believe this actual law will, in the long run, have to be amended by the pressure of events, I think now to disable it by creating a further impracticable and unrealistic and unprincipled Amendment will do nothing but cause further distress among those who are endeavouring to present a coherent Christian pattern, and further confusion among those who want to enjoy the kind of life in which they believe this particular Bill will give them aid and support.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I suggest that the correct thing to do is first of all to pass this Amendment and then for the noble Lord, Lord Soper, to put down another Amendment on Third Reading to alter the text in the way he wants. I am personally very much in sympathy with his arguments. I do not think this Amendment goes far enough. For instance, I have heard it suggested that this Bill will be the salvation of county cricket, but I think that is far from being the case. Forty years ago county cricket was a bright and brilliant game, which it was a great pleasure to watch. To-day it is dreary in the extreme, and the reasons for this are not far to seek: all the rules have been changed. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion put to me in the last conversation I had with my old school colleague, Douglas Jardine, before he died, and very few men knew more about cricket than he did. The rules have put a premium on a certain type of bowling, a certain type of fielding and catching; and even, my Lords, people bowl to catch the man off bat and pad. One cannot imagine a more ignominious game than that. Sunday playing will give it a slight financial shot in the arm, but it will not bring any nearer the reform it needs, so we shall find that a dreary spectacle will go on and people will live in a fools' paradise, thinking that this Bill is going to cure their ills.
388
If the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Derwent had stuck to their guns and tried to make the line of division professional, I think it would have been all to the good. I know that it is extremely easy for a Government spokesman to poke fun at anybody who tries to draw a line; I have done it myself. But it is necessary to draw a line somewhere. I do not think anyone should take too much notice of it. Every conceivable decision in life involves a line having to be drawn somewhere and one can poke fun at the narrow cases on each side. I think the right thing is to pass this Amendment now, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, can produce a stronger one on the next round.
4.12 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the matter is quite so simple as my noble friend has just suggested. It seems to me that, when we are altering the criminal law, we ought to introduce some certainty into our alteration, whatever it may be. I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Derwent tells me is his object: to avoid events which would cause a great many people to have to work on Sunday who would not otherwise have to do so. If that purpose appeared anywhere in this clause as drafted I should have a good deal of sympathy with it, and should understand the view of my noble friend Lord Hawke, that all that was needed was tidying up. But I honestly cannot see that the new clause as drafted embodies any ascertainable principle whatever. I have much faith in the purpose declared by my noble friend Lord Derwent, and, if I may say so, by another friend, the right reverend Prelate; but they really have not embodied any statement of that purpose in the clause which they are asking the House to accept. Subsection (2) was the subject of a good deal of comment by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, some of which I thought had great force, but I shall not say another word about that.
What I wish to concentrate on is subsection (3). Subsection (3) does not seem to me to introduce a matter which is mere detail that we can subsequently clear up by an Amendment on Third Reading. It seems to me to be doing something which this House, I think, has not done before and which I am quite

389
certain, on legal principle, this House ought not to do; namely, to say that, in effect, this Bill can be wholly transformed by subordinate legislation for which no principle of any kind is laid down. That seems to me, with respect, to be a point of substance. If this Amendment is now pressed to a division I cannot possibly support it, though whether I vote against it or abstain I have not yet quite made up my mind. I am convinced that we cannot cheerfully adopt this Amendment at this stage in the hope that an Amendment on Third Reading may make the thing all right. To adopt that course, I think, would he for this House to act almost irresponsibly.
I wonder whether an alternative course could he considered. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has assured my noble friend that the help of the Home Office or Parliamentary draftsman (I forget how he put it) would still be available. My suggestion would be that my noble friend should make use of that continuing offer to try to carry out the principle which he and the right reverend Prelate support; namely, that we should not give sanction to events which would cause a great deal of employment and so forth on Sunday. Could they not use the offer of the Home Office to try to get an adequate Amendment drafted to carry out that object? I cannot say whether the House on Third Reading would accept or reject such an Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, might still be against it; others might be for it. But at least we should be voting one way or the other on an Amendment that was legally respectable. While I have the utmost respect for the ideas that underlie the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend in their own minds, I do not believe that the legal principles, or lack of legal principles, embodied in the Amendment as drafted arc such that this House could support them.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, for that penetrating analysis of the Amendment. It seems to me that there arc two issues here, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I feel, really put his finger on them. There is the issue of whether the Amendment is properly and legally drafted, and has sufficient criteria or prin-
390
ciple in it to substantiate what it is trying to do; and there is the general issue of principle which is embodied in the Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has argued that this afternoon we ought to get the opinion of the House on the general principle, and if the House is in favour of the general principle then I, as sponsor of the Bill, shall of course be only too delighted to discuss with the sponsors of this particular Amendment how to get it right when it is embodied in the Bill. I have been rather patient and have waited a long time for people to he available for this Report stage, and I should like this afternoon finally to settle the issue of the principle, if that is the wish of the House. I regret very much indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the state of the rules of cricket, and I suggest that after this Sunday Entertainments Bill has been passed we might perhaps jointly sponsor a Private Member's Bill to improve cricket; but this is not the issue of this particular Bill.
Before I deal with one or two of the arguments—and I do not intend to delay your Lordships long—I ought perhaps to apologise for the letter to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the right reverend Prelate. The letter was indeed sent out in my name. It was a mistake that it went to non-members of the Labour Party in the House, and a mistake for which I apologise. I apologise even more humbly for the actual wording of the letter. I should be the very first to admit that, far from being opponents of the Bill, both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, have supported it all along in general broad principle. They have been most helpful and considerate about it, and have opposed it only on particular issues, such as that set out in the Amendment that we are discussing. I take entire responsibility for the letter, and I hope that they and the House will accept my apologies.
I would now turn to the arguments that were used by the right reverend Prelate in moving this Amendment. And, if I may say so respectfully, he did so with great wit and perception, and with a brave effort to meet what he himself has said was not so much a need as a

391
feeling that he had about Sunday afternoons. I think the most revealing statement that he made was towards the end of his speech, when he spoke of the Amendment in itself as not having a logical basis, as being illogical. I think that on this hinges the argument about this particular Amendment. It is a quixotic, untidy and well-meaning Amendment, and one which, I think, would, in effect, do more harm than good. It reminds me about the old story about the bikini: that it is attractive at first sight, but provides little cover, and there is not much that can hold it up.
I was glad that the right reverend Prelate said that there was not a Christian purpose behind the Amendment—that this was something that Crathorne came out strongly against in his Report—and that in fact the Christian Church does not believe in the effectiveness of legislation to drive people into church. But if that argument is removed you come down to the one big basic argument which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and by the right reverend Prelate, about noise and disturbance on Sunday afternoon. But this really will not do. In effect, what does this Amendment say? It says that something is bad because it is popular. It says to the population, "You can do what you like after two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, but you cannot do what you like, or, at least, you cannot do what you like best, and that is to follow the most popular sports." That really is the height of illogicality.
My noble friend Lord Stonham dealt most effectively with some of the main illogicalities; but you could sit down for ten minutes and make out a tremendous list. It bristles with more illogicalities than a porcupine bristles with its bristles. For example, on a Sunday afternoon you might well have a fantastic attendance at the final of the Gillette Cup in cricket—just as big as you may get at a Test Match, or, which is most unlikely, if Lancashire were pressing Yorkshire for the championship, and it was the last but one match with only a few points in the balance. I can imagine that you could get almost as big an attendance at a Lancashire versus Yorkshire match.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord really ought to keep it within the bounds of possibility.
LORD WILLIS: Perhaps I might move a further Amendment, to delete "Lancashire" and substitute "Middlesex" or "Kent".
The Amateur Cup Final, which was played on Saturday at Wembley, attracted, I understand, an attendance of something like 75,000. That is not caught by this Amendment. We have already mentioned "rugger". A university match, or a match between two great club sides on a Sunday afternoon might attract equally large crowds. So it is in fact illogical to create this kind of apartheid in a sport, and to say that some things may take place and some may not, and that the things you like most of all, dear British public, are the very things that you are precluded from watching or doing on a Sunday afternoon.
It is not so stupid to talk about spreading noise. Let us take the argument that Sunday has to be a different day. Well, it is a different day. I think we shall all accept this. What makes it particularly different? I think two, or perhaps, three factors. The first is that it is a day on which church-going is available to the vast majority of the population who wish to attend church. Secondly, it is a day when the vast majority of the population do not work; it is a day of leisure. Thirdly, as a result of centuries of tradition and so on, a certain atmosphere has grown up around Sunday, partly connected with the fact that it is a day of leisure, which makes it a family day also. Here we get the point about Sunday lunch, and Dad taking the kids fishing or rowing on the lake, and so on.
These are three qualities of Sunday. Nobody is going to suggest that Association football matches on a Sunday afternoon are going to ruin this particular picture. On the contrary, not a great many more people are going to work, organising a match between Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal than would work organising a cricket match between Surrey and Middlesex. That is the first point to be made. Secondly, it does not seem to be any less Sunday-like, Sabbath-like or family-like for Dad to take his son to watch Tottenham Hotspur play football than to take his son fishing or

393
driving in the car, as he does now. So it is not going to affect the actual character of Sunday all that much. It is going to make a change, as I said on the Committee stage and on Second Reading of the Bill. But we have to face the fact that Sunday is already changing, and this legislation is in itself almost a catching-up operation.
So far as noise is concerned, I recognise that this is not an illogical argument. The point is that now opportunities for entertainment are limited, and the few avenues that are open are overcrowded. One thing that is overcrowded on Sundays is our roads. As I said on Second Reading, I know somebody who has bought a flat in London to use at weekends because his country cottage is so noisy with traffic at weekends. This is not such an exaggeration as one might imagine, and the argument that I used about spreading the load of noise is precisely that: that if 50,000 people are going to Wembley to watch soccer, they are going, perhaps, in a thousand cars, which means that there are a thousand cars less on the Brighton Road and a thousand cars less on the other roads heading for the coast. There is no less number of cars, certainly, but at least the total is spread around a little. I do not say that that is a strong argument, but it is certainly a logical argument; and it is right.
Finally, if I may briefly come back to this question of principle, I believe that we should decide here to-day the general principle that is embodied in the Amendment. We should make up our minds about that, and the rest can follow, if necessary, on Third Reading next week. Certainly my own feeling on this question is that if the House itself cannot decide, because, as we have heard, the actual basis of the Amendment is illogical and arises from a feeling which I respect but which is not in itself logical, then I do not think it is fair, or reasonable, to ask the Home Secretary or the Government to decide. I ask the House in this case to be bold. Do not create new problems or complicate something that is already clear and simple.
Ever since I introduced this Bill I have been astonished at the comparative lack of opposition to it. I have had opposition on various aspects but, by and large, there has been a great change of public opinion,
394
a great moving forward, even since the Crathorne Report was published, and there is a desire to have done with this problem. I think that to "pussy-foot" around in the way this Amendment does, with small things which complicate the issue, is wrong. Let us get it clear and simple. Let us be bold. Let us recognise that not all the results will be liked by everybody; but, by and large, the division has been drawn, and this is a division which will please and be in the interests of the vast majority of people.
4.30 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that we have got to come to the crunch over this, and come to a decision on the main point. In relation to this question of the help of the Parliamentary draftsmen, I should like to say that it was made quite clear to us by the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the help of the draftsmen would be available, once the House had expressed itself in favour of this Amendment or something like it. It was equally clear that the help of the draftsmen would not be available until the House had expressed its mind. I think that that was a perfectly reasonable point of view and I do not feel any desire to quarrel with it, but it means that we cannot avoid coming to our own decision on the main substance of the Amendment.
With regard to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may I first say that we are glad to have him back with us; but if I may say so he must get back into practice a little so far as his argumentative powers are concerned. He did not exactly try to confuse the House, but he spoke in such a way as might easily confuse your Lordships. At a certain point in the negotiations we gave the clearest possible indication as to the principles on which this Amendment was to be based. We wrote into it the words, "events which, owing to the scale of the employment or disturbance caused, would be not deemed to be in the national interest". We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that that was quite impossible, and that we must define exactly the things that were to be allowed and the things that were to be forbidden. We then asked whether it would be helpful if we said, "Events deemed not to be

395
in the public interest"? We were told: "No, the only thing that is any good is an actual definition". So we gave a definition as well as we could of the things which we felt were undesirable at present.
We are now told by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that we ought to have written a moral essay on the philosophical principles on which we arrived at these particular decisions. I am not in the least confused or disturbed by the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I myself felt that there was great force in what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, that this really is a catching-up operation. It is an attempt to mould the law so as to bring it into line with general feeling at the present time.
Whatever ambiguities there may be about our Amendment, one thing is clear. If this Amendment is not passed, we open the door for Sunday afternoon to be exactly like Saturday afternoon, with a whole range of football matches going on all through the winter and very large sporting events of another kind in the summer. It is not that I think any of these things are wrong or immoral, or anything of that kind at all. But one thing is perfectly clear, that is, that the Bill takes Sunday and moulds it into a pattern so that it is virtually indistinguishable from Saturday, and therefore acts as a militant force against all those individual, personal and family activities which are liable to be ruled out by a very large, strong commercial organisation such as professional football or even Test cricket. So, unlike the
noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was able to turn each of his runs into a practice run and say that after all we would not have a real contest, I am afraid that I cannot let your Lordships off so lightly. We shall be ready, if the Amendment is passed, to make any helpful proposals or to co-operate with those who make them to correct any little faults or errors that there still may be in the drafting of this Amendment.
As for the powers of the Home Secretary, it seems to me that a great deal of difficulty is being made over this. If these powers are so utterly distasteful then the Home Secretary has a simple answer: he does not use them. He is given power to use them only if he wants to do so. Supposing somebody proposes introducing bull-fighting on Sunday afternoon. Here is a measure that would enable him to deal with that. If he wants bull-fighting and says, "This is popular; people must have what they want": therefore he does not use the power. I am sorry, but I must put your Lordships to the trouble of asking you to divide on this Amendment. Nowadays, it is generally thought that all the older traditions of our country and its religious principles are everywhere on the defensive. We may not be the strength which we once were, but that which we are we are, and let us put it to the test this afternoon.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 79.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Merthyr, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Airedale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Alport, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Rea, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reith, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sinha, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Dudley, L.

Ironside, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Leicester, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Beswick, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Blyton, L.

Byers, L.

Archibald, L.

Bowden, L.

Caccia, L.

Auckland, L.

Bowles, L.

Carrington, L.

Bessborough, E.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Chorley, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Rusholme, L.

Clwyd, L.

Inchyra, L.

St. Davids, V.

Conesford, L.

Jackson of Burnley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Serota, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Lindgren, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Silkin, L.

Faringdon, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Simey, L.

Feversham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Soper, L.

Foley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sorensen, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Meston, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mitchison, L.

Stonham, L.

Goschen, V.

Moyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strang, L.

Hacking, L.

Pargiter, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Swaythling, L.

Harlech, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Vivian, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Walston, L.

Hereford, V.

Raglan, L.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Hill of Luton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Royle, L.

Ypres, E.

Hunt, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

SUPERANNUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROYAL ASSENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL
4.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, since the Empire Settlement Act 1922 the Secretary of State has been empowered to cooperate financially with other Commonwealth Governments, and with public and private organisations, on agreed migration schemes. The British contribution to those schemes has been limited to half the total cost, with a ceiling of annual expenditure which was fixed by and has remained since the 1937 Act at £1·5 million. The provision in the Acts which enables this financial contribution lapses on May 31 this year. The purpose of this Bill is to extend that provision for a further period of five years.
The scale of British financial aid to migration has varied considerably over the past 45 years, and a study of the
398
reasons for this variation would need to take into account all the economic and social strains and stresses to which our people have been subjected as the result of world war and economic depression. But for whatever reason individuals and families have left Britain over this period to settle in Commonwealth countries overseas, I think we shall all agree that they have not only added to the development of the countries to which they have gone but, by strengthening the ties which join us to those new and growing communities, enriched us too.
I hope, therefore, it is not necessary for me in this House to justify at length any legislation which has encouraged Commonwealth migration. Though to-day we sometimes talk of the brain drain, and it is possible to argue that other economic facts have to be taken into account if we try to strike an exact balance of advantages, I still believe that all of us here would wish well to those who, for their own good individual reasons, decide to start a new life among others largely of British stock and who speak the English language in other parts of the world.
In the period 1946 to 1965, 1,802,000 people have migrated from the United Kingdom to Canada, Australia and New Zealand—about one-third of all the immigrants to those countries. Over a more recent period, from 1962 to 1965, of the 860,000 people who have emigrated from Britain nearly two-thirds have made their way to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In the case of New Zealand almost half of their entire entry of migrants in 1965–66 came from this country. Movement of people on this

399
scale cannot but have a profound and beneficial affect upon present and future relationship between us and our Commonwealth partners.
I may be asked how much of this permitted annual sum we have been spending. The answer is approximately £160,000 in recent years. All but about £10,000 of this is the amount spent to meet our contribution towards the cost of the Assisted Passage Scheme to Australia. This scheme, which noble Lords will know, provides subsidised passages for selected British migrants to Australia who pay £10 towards their fare. From 1962 to 1965 some 214,000 migrants have taken advantage of this scheme. The cost of the scheme amounts to about £8 million and our contribution of £150,000 can almost be regarded as a token payment. Nevertheless, is is highly regarded by the Australian Government. It is an indication of our real interest, and it also has the practical advantage of enabling us to discuss with the Australian Government the nature of the selection made. The Australian Government have been most ready to meet our wishes that the selection should include a cross-section of our population and should not be restricted to those with highly-skilled and especially valuable or scarce qualifications.
Approximately another £10,000 a year is used to support the four voluntary societies in this country which make arrangements for the migration of children to Australia, and for their care and training after arrival. At one time this child migration related mainly to unaccompanied children, but nowadays no child goes alone and each is accompanied by one parent. Of the four societies with which the Government have made arrangements under the Act, the Fair-bridge Society accounts for some 80 or 90 per cent. of the children assisted in this way. No great imagination is needed to appreciate how valuable a scheme this can be in certain cases. The children go to one of the Fairbridge Homes in Australia, where a parent can visit them as frequently and as regularly as they wish. There is also usually a joint British Government and Australian State Government contribution to an outfit allowance and to a weekly maintenance allowance. The other three societies—Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Church of
400
England Council for Commonwealth Settlement and the Catholic Immigration Committee of Australia—have similar schemes.
Noble Lords may wonder why the permitted ceiling remains at £1·5 million if only about one-tenth of this sum has in recent years been spent. The answer is that we do not wish to appear to be restricting the scope of the Australian scheme, and we should like to be in a position to respond if any other Commonwealth Government decided to ask us for similar co-operation. All of what I have said so far relates to Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 2 gives the Title of the Bill, and merely tidies up a situation which should have been dealt with in the 1937 Act. My Lords this is a short, simple but symbolic Bill. I believe this House will support not only what it does but what it stands for, and I invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading and a speedy passage through remaining stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear description of the purposes of this Bill, which we on this side of your Lordships' House certainly welcome and endorse. The scheme, as the noble Lord has said, was designed to help Commonwealth countries increase their populations with immigrants from this country, and it is fair to say, as I think the noble Lord has also said, that since 1922 it has certainly served its purpose well. Our Commonwealth friends still prefer to accept immigrants from this country, where we have a common bond of language and reasonably high standards of education to offer. I understand that Australia has been the country principally to benefit from this scheme.
As we have heard, the Bill authorises the expenditure annually of up to £1,500,000 to assist with passages, training and so on—though not with the provision of accommodation and housing. And the receiving countries, especially Australia, have also contributed vast sums to assist the immigrants. Our contribution, as the noble Lord has

401
said, is only a very small percentage, a token. It will be seen from what the noble Lord has said, and from the Explanatory Memorandum, that over the last five years only about £160,000 has been spent. I appreciate the reasons for this—indeed, they were put forward by my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys when a similar Bill was being considered in another place in 1962.
He said that the retention of a figure greatly in excess of the amount used was then—and I emphasise the word "then"—important to indicate to Commonwealth countries that we are prepared to assist with these schemes, and so that, if new applications are made, we shall be able to consider them. But in view of the continuing low demands since that date—demands remaining approximately level every year—this very large provision of £1,500,000 seems to me to be somewhat absurd. There is, after all, a tremendous gap between £160,000 and £1,500,000, and I think that perhaps we should now take a more realistic view about the allocation of these funds. After all, my right honourable friend's remarks, which I have just quoted, and which the noble Lord quoted to-day in almost the same terms, were made five years ago.
In another place this year, during the Second Reading of the Bill there, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs said they were
"taking powers to continue the provision of…£1½ million, clearly with a view to consideration of other schemes and requests which may he made to us from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/4/67, col. 175.]
But during the past five years we have had considerable experience of how the scheme operates, and, as will he seen from the Explanatory Memorandum, there has been a variation of only something of the order of £5,000 each year.
One of the difficulties in administering this fund is, I gather, the lack of relevant statistics about migration. Apparently the shipping lines furnish such information, but the airlines do not. Could the noble Lord inform us whether there is any likelihood of further, more accurate, statistics being made available? It may be that not enough use is being made of the facilities offered under this Bill, and that the long-overdue provision of this information may be able to assist in a more realistic assessment of the actual monies likely to be required. In view of the country's current economic position, I hope your Lordships will agree that it
402
is necessary to ensure that the allocation of such funds should bear a close relation to approximate requirements.
In saying this, however, I do not wish to detract from the welcome given to the Bill. I am all for spending more money in this way if worthwhile projects come forward. But will they? What is the likelihood of sizable projects being forthcoming this year, for example? I should like to ask the noble Lord that question, and to know what he feels about this. It is certainly interesting, and indeed significant, to note that, of the 860,000 migrants who left these shores to settle overseas in the years 1962 to 1965, nearly two-thirds, as the noble Lord said—over 550,000—found new homes in the old Commonwealth. They obviously greatly strengthen the ties between our respective countries, and in my view indicate very clearly that the Commonwealth spirit still exists and that our association of nations continues to mean something in the world to-day. We hear so often nowadays that the Commonwealth no longer has the influence that it had, largely because of certain divisive issues within the family, so to speak. It is therefore very gratifying to observe that voluntary migration from this country is still largely in the direction of Commonwealth countries. It is clear from this that even if Governments, legal or illegal, have their disputes, the people themselves, and particularly those who migrate, recognise the great value of the Commonwealth as a whole in the world to-day.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, for his welcome to the Bill. I must confess that I do not quite understand this anxiety about the fact that in recent years we have not spent all the money which Parliament authorised. I could understand it if it were the other way round, if the danger was that we were spending more than we were authorised to spend.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree that that would be worse.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl's position is that he is keeping the options open; he wants to criticise us no matter which way we go. I do not think that I can add much to what I have already

403
said. We have kept the same figure in the Bill, but only for a limited period of five years. If we had chosen to reduce the amount, this might have been construed as an indication that our interest was lessening. As I said in my opening remarks, we wanted to be able to assure the Australian Government, should they make further demands on us by increasing the numbers of people that they wish to assist in this way, that we should be in a position to help. And similarly, should other Commonwealth countries seek assistance for the same kind of scheme, again we wanted to be able to react positively and not have to come back to Parliament for further authorisation.
I hope that the noble Earl will now feel that it will be possible to accept the figure in the Bill. It has nothing to do with statistics. It is not that there is any lack of over-all statistics in this field. The trouble—and this, I think, the noble Earl had in mind—was the reference in the Report of the Overseas Migration Board which calls attention to the fact, not that total statistics are unknown, but that the analysis of the categories of people choosing to migrate was less than satisfactory. I would point out that, as the result of the recommendation made by that Board. A good deal more was done to get the overall total broken down into categories, and the sampling technique was employed so far as air traffic is concerned.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, do I understand that the airlines will now supply the information?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, it was not a question of airlines supplying the information as is supplied by the shipping lines. There is not a count of every passenger, but there is a sampling technique, and the figures which were published last year were gathered as a result of this sampling technique. As the noble Earl will realise, there are many people who think the modern techniques in this field are most effective. However, the Report of the Board said that we would study the results obtained in this way, and if it were necessary to have a more sophisticated method of collecting statistics then suitable action should be taken. An interdepartmental committee is now studying the results of the first figures assembled by the sampling tech-
404
nique, and what they recommend will be considered in due course by the Government. With that explanation I hope that the noble Earl will be responsive to the invitation to support this Bill. I know that he approves of the objectives.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES BILL
5.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to incorporate into the law of the United Kingdom two measures intended to govern the relations between seller and buyer in different countries. One of them, the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, is concerned with the relations arising under the contract of sale; the other, the Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, with the formation of the contract. Both form the subject of Conventions which were drawn up at The Hague in 1964 and which have been signed by the United Kingdom. The Conventions were printed in a White Paper, copies of which have been made available to noble Lords.
The Conventions require each Contracting State to incorporate the Uniform Laws into its own legislation, and the passing of this Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Conventions. The Conventions come into force six months after the deposit of the fifth instrument of ratification. The Bill, subject to its passage through both Houses of Parliament, will be brought into operation by Order in Council at the same time. Ratification of the Conventions means acceptance of the Uniform Laws as they stand. We cannot amend the individual provisions. It would therefore be a waste of your Lordships' time to go into the Laws themselves in detail. For those of your Lordships who are interested, I have placed in the Library a commentary on the Uniform Laws by Professor Andre Tunc, Professor in the Faculty of Law and Economic Science at Paris, so there

405
is ample opportunity for any noble Lord who has not already done so to study this in considerable depth.
The first draft of the Uniform Law governing International Sale of Goods was prepared between 1931 and 1934 by a Special Commission of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. The final version was drawn up and formed the subject of the Convention at a Diplomatic Conference in The Hague in 1964. The Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts was also drawn up at The Hague in 1964. Both of these Conventions have been signed by the United Kingdom. Lawyers of the United Kingdom have played a prominent part in the formulation of these conventions; in particular Professor Wortley of the University of Manchester and Mr. John Donaldson (now Mr. Justice Donaldson) and his colleagues on the Committee, Mr. Gimson and Mr. Pearson.
The great majority of the amendments proposed by the Donaldson Committee were accepted. Moreover, the Conference accepted proposals made by the United Kingdom delegation which enable Contracting States on ratifying the Convention on Sales to declare that the Uniform Law will apply only in cases where the parties have expressly adopted the Law as the law of their contract. It is proposed that we should take advantage of this provision, which means that our ratification of the Convention will in no way compel our traders to adopt the Uniform Laws ratification will mean, however, that the United Kingdom will have a voice when amendments to the Laws are being considered. This will be of great importance if general acceptance of the Laws abroad, or at least in other countries in Europe, means that in practice our traders are compelled to contract subject to their terms.
The Uniform Law applies to contracts of sale of goods entered into by parties whose places of business or, if they have no place of business, their habitual residences, are in different States, if the contract involves carriage of the goods sold from one State to another or if the offer and acceptance have been effected in different States, or if delivery of the goods sold is to be made in a different State from that in which the offer and acceptance were effected. However, the Convention relating to the Uniform Law
406
on Sales enables reservations to be made which would have the effect of limiting the field of application of the Law. It is intended that the United Kingdom should take advantage of reservations which would exclude the application of the Uniform Law where: (a) one party had his place of business in a country whose legal system was similar to that of the United Kingdom; or alternatively (b) where one or both of the parties had their place of business in a State which was not a contracting party; or (c) where the parties have not expressly adopted the Uniform Law as the law of their contract. In any case, Article III of the Uniform Law makes it clear that parties are free to contract out of all or any of its terms if they wish to do so. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very important provision. The Uniform Law governs the obligations of seller and buyer under a contract of sale and the remedies available to each in the event of breach by the other of rules relating to the passing of risk in the goods sold.
The Uniform Law on Sales differs from the Sale of Goods Act 1893 in many respects, but when we consider the difference it must be remembered that the rules laid down in the Sale of Goods Act apply only where the parties have not agreed otherwise. Therefore the fact that a provision of the Uniform Law differs from a corresponding provision in the Sale of Goods Act does not necessarily mean that it differs from current commercial practice. It must also be remembered that even if the parties to an international contract of sale adopted some of the provisions of the Uniform Law. They would be free to contract out of others, which means that they would be able to adopt, if they wished, the rules laid down in the Sale of Goods Act or any other rules which may be agreed between them.
The Uniform Law on Formation of Contracts represents something of a compromise between Continental and English Law—and I may say that Scots law in this field is closer to Continental than to English law. It applies to the formation of contracts of sale which, if they were concluded, would be governed by the Uniform Law on Sale. It lays down rules governing the offer to enter into a contract of sale and the acceptance of such an offer.

407
My Lords, to my mind one of the most important provisions of the Convention is in Article XIV. This allows for a revision conference to be held if a quarter of the contracting States request one. The recommendations annexed to the Final Act of The Hague Conference require the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law to collect and circulate particulars of judicial and arbitral decisions in contracting States relating to the interpretation and application of the Uniform Laws and to review the application of the Uniform Law on Sales and to prepare recommendations for any revision conference which may be called.
The Uniform Laws are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill and they are given the force of law by Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 also includes provisions which would enable effect to be given to the reservations to which I have already referred. The most important, from the practical point of view, is Article V of the Convention on Sales which enables provision to be made that the Uniform Law shall apply only where the parties have expressly adopted it as the law of the contract. The Government intend to take advantage of this right, so that the Uniform Law will apply under the Bill only where the parties have expressly adopted it as the law of the contract. I hope that some businessmen will adopt the law as the law of their contracts, by way of experiment. If it proves satisfactory and comes to be generally used, the United Kingdom may be able, in due course, to withdraw the reservation, so that the Uniform Law will apply to international contracts unless the parties otherwise agree. But in the initial stages, at any rate, so far as this Bill is concerned that will not be so.
I should point out that this Bill cannot, of course, affect the law in other countries and that many, if not all, of them will ratify the Uniform Law on Sales without the Article V reservation. This means that if a contract is subject to litigation in another country, or even if it is subject to litigation in this country and the British court holds that the proper law of the contract is that of another country, then the Uniform Law may apply to the contract even though the parties have not expressly adopted it as the law of the contract. If businessmen want to be
408
absolutely certain that in no circumstances will the Uniform Law apply to their contracts, they would be well advised expressly to contract out of the Law, even while the Article V reservation is in force as regards the United Kingdom.
Apart from this, the Bill will at the outset affect the relations of parties to contracts only where they have expressly agreed that their relations should be governed by the Uniform Law on Sales. They will be free to adopt some terms and to exclude others. They will be free to adopt entirely different terms if they wish to do so. Therefore those trades, such as the timber trade, which have devised standard forms of contract applicable to their transactions can carry on using them. Moreover, the adoption of the Uniform Laws will not jeopardise the degree of uniformity which already exists between Common Law countries.
Another reservation which we are entitled and intend to make allows for relations between the United Kingdom and the Common Law countries to be excluded from the scope of application of the Law. Therefore British businessmen will not find that their contracts with their opposite numbers in, for example, Canada, the United States or Australia, are governed by the Uniform Laws. However, the Uniform Laws will be available for those who wish to use them. If experience shows that they are unsuitable, or that there is no real need for them, the business community has its own remedy—it will not adopt them. If, however, they do come into general use, the United Kingdom, having ratified the Conventions, will be able to play an active part in any revision which may be necessary. If we were not to do this we should be unable to take part in any revising activities.
The passing of this Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify both Conventions. There are three main reasons why we should do this. First, differences between international systems of law, especially the law of sale, are undoubtedly obstacles to international trade. They can, and do, lead to mutual misunderstandings, bad feeling and even serious losses to the parties concerned. The Uniform Laws are designed to facilitate international trade by reducing these differences and their incorporation into the law of the United Kingdom would be a step, albeit a modest step, in the right direction. Secondly, all countries of the Common Market have

409
already signed the Convention and are likely to ratify it before long. It has also been signed by Greece, Israel, San Marino, the Vatican City and Hungary; other countries among the 28 present at the 1964 Conference, including some more from Eastern Europe, will almost certainly sign before very long. United Kingdom traders may find therefore a growing tendency on the part of their trading partners, particularly in other European countries, to insist on their contracts being governed by the Uniform Laws. It is therefore important that the United Kingdom should be in a position to influence the development of the Laws at any conference which may be called to review them.
Thirdly, until the 1964 Conference it was widely thought on the Continent that our Common Law was so different from that of other European countries, and that our attitude to it was so insular and inflexible, that any degree of unification of the two systems would be impossible. Our participation at the Conference and our ability to reach a considerable measure of agreement there have shown that this is not so and that the differences between the two systems are nowhere near so irreconcilable as had been thought. This has created considerable good will towards the United Kingdom which would be lost if we failed to ratify the Conventions. Indeed, in view of the concessions made to us, failure on our part to ratify might quite conceivably prove most unfortunate at a time when co-operation with Europe is of such great importance to us.
For these reasons, my Lords, without suggesting that this is a matter of enormous commercial or international importance, I commend this Bill to you as being a very realistic step in the direction in which I think we all wish to go, and one that will be of considerable benefit to our individual traders and to the trade of the whole country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walston.)
5.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord's exposition of this Bill has been exceedingly clear, and we are grateful to him for that. Until his last few words, I could not help feeling that his support of the Bill was, to use his own description, a tiny bit modest. But he
410
has characterised it as a first step, and, personally, I think it is a good one. Since the Convention was signed by the previous Government and the Bill was introduced by the present Government there is unlikely to be much Party controversy about it, and Her Majesty's Opposition can certainly promise, in so far as it is within our power, a speedy passage for the Bill. We cannot, in any case, amend the Schedules, so we must either pass the Bill with them as they are or reject the Bill. I am certain that noble Lords on this side of the House would not wish to reject it.
On this occasion, we certainly cannot reproach the Government on the score of delay, since I understand that if this Bill goes through reasonably quickly Great Britain will be the first to ratify the Convention. That, in itself, may be a good answer to our friends on the Continent who have perhaps criticised this country for not being sufficiently cooperative because they think our law is irreconcilable with their own. If we are the first to ratify, then I think they will be pleased.
No doubt, also, the Government reason for speeding the Bill is to encourage the other 28 signatories to ratify before the date on which it appears that the signatories themselves intended that the Convention should come into force. The date mentioned in the document as the target date is, I think, May 1, 1968, but, as the noble Lord said, it will be six months after the time when five ratifications have been received. I do not know whether it will be the intention of the Government to defer ratification should the necessary ratifications not have been received before that date, but I gather from what the noble Lord has said that the Government will not introduce a pew Order into the House until six months after the five ratifications have been received, or, at any rate, in time for it to come into force at the same time as the Convention.
On this particular point, before passing to the Bill itself I should like to ask two questions. First, will Her Majesty's Government be ratifying on behalf of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? It is not entirely clear from Clause 4 of the Bill whether that is so or not. Secondly, will they ratify on behalf of Great Britain's dependent territories? It

411
seems that subsection (5) of Clause 1 has some bearing on this matter, but it is not entirely clear.
This Bill is the first with which I personally have been concerned that was discussed on Second Reading in Committee in the Commons. This is a new procedure there. It has been the practice for a long time in regard to purely Scottish Bills, as noble Lords who have been in another place will know, but it is of some interest that this practice, which has been found of great advantage so far as Scottish Bills are concerned, is now being extended to United Kingdom Bills, and in this case to what appears to be an international Bill. The reason for the Bill's being taken in this way was, I think, stated to be that it was "lawyers' law ". I prefer to think that it was because it was a non-controversial matter, for it is of considerable significance and importance, at least potentially, for the future. I would not deny that what is "lawyers' law" may be of considerable importance, but this Bill is, I think of great commercial importance for the future.
We in Great Britain ought to welcome any steps taken to make trade easier for the traders. We can no longer expect that a large proportion of trade transactions, or as many as in the past, in which traders in this country are involved will be governed by English law, except so far as Scotland is concerned. The next best thing would be if they were governed by a single code in international trade, to he applied by the courts throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, we are a long way from that in this Bill. The Uniform Laws are to have the force of law in the United Kingdom, but, as the noble Lord has said, only if the British trader agrees in a particular transaction that they shall. Even if our adoption of Article V of the Convention is revoked—that is, the Article under which we arc indicating that the universal laws shall apply only if the British trader contracts in—it will still be possible for any deal to be taken outside the scope of the laws, either wholly or in part, by agreement between the parties. The noble Lord commented on this as a good thing which will make the proposal easier of acceptance in this country. I have no doubt that in the initial stages it does make it easier to accept, but I
412
look forward to the time when the universal law becomes more truly universal in international dealings abroad.
In practice, the contracting-in clause contains a pitfall, which the noble Lord mentioned. If a British trader contracts with a trader in a signatory country which has not invoked Article V, any proceedings in Great Britain would be under English or Scottish law, but the proceedings in the other country would be under the universal laws. It follows, I imagine, that the trader will have to watch the Board of Trade Journal very carefully and keep his list of countries which have ratified on a contracting-out basis up to date; and certainly, as the noble Lord has said, he will be wise to specify quite clearly in the contract if he does not intend that that contract shall be governed by the universal laws.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to tell us how he intends to bring to the attention of trade and industry in this country the merits and the difficulties involved in universal laws. He said that he had been good enough to place in the Library a commentary or treatise on the subject. I, for one, shall be interested to look at that, but I doubt whether many of the traders in this country will do so.
There are three other aspects of interest that I should like to mention. First the Convention recognises that, quite inevitably, different countries will interpret universal laws in different ways. For one thing, although the authetic copies of the laws are made in English and French, it is inevitable that the laws will be translated into the various languages of the signatory countries, and in the translation there may be some slight differences of meaning. The preliminary Annex (if I may call it that) to the Convention contains two recommendations. The first recommends that contracting States are to file with the International Institute each year a list of judicial and arbitral decisions—and I quote—
"of major importance relating to the interpretation and application of the Uniform Laws".
It goes on to indicate that a report will be sent out each year, as I think the noble Lord mentioned, by the International Institute. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether any other steps will be taken to harmonise

413
such interpretations, other than by sending out that annual report. It does not seem to me that that alone will be sufficient to keep the interpretation of the international law in line.
Then he mentioned the provision for revision of the law. Clause 3 of the Bill also refers to this periodic revision of the law, and it enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, subject to approval of each House of Parliament, to amend the two laws which appear as Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill.
Article XIV of the Convention provides that any Contracting State, after the Convention has been in force for three years, may request that a conference be convened to revise the universal laws, and that such a conference shall be held if at least a quarter of the Contracting States agree. I gather from the noble Lord that the International Institute itself will be preparing, as it were, the ground work on which such a conference could work. But nothing is said about the procedure at any such conference. Am I right in supposing that changes at such conferences can be made only by unanimous consent? If not, a very odd situation could arise. It would be difficult for Her Majesty's Government to recommend to Parliament an amendment which the Government themselves had strongly opposed, and still objected to, but which had been carried against them by a majority. The clause is, of course, permissive. It says that Her Majesty "may" by Order in Council introduce these amendments. But, while the Government would not be obliged to make such an Order, if they did not the universal law would cease to be universal: it would be different for different countries. There would be reservations, which would completely alter the universality of the law.
My last point is, I suppose, really a Committee point, but as we are unlikely to have a Committee stage on a Bill of this character, perhaps I may be allowed to put it now. It arises out of subsection (5) of Clause 1, to which I have already referred. Article II of the Convention says:
"Two or more Contracting States may declare that they agree not to consider themselves as different States for the purpose of the requirements as to place of business or habitual residence laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 "—
414
that is, the contracts must be between persons resident in different States—
"or Article I of the Uniform Law, because they apply to sales which in the absence of such a declaration would be governed by the Uniform Law the same or closely related legal rules."
Then Clause 1(5) enables Her Majesty to cover dependent territories—and this may be the answer to my previous question—but it goes on to refer to declarations under Article II of the Convention. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether this relates to countries which are not dependent territories; for example, Commonwealth countries with the same or closely related legal rules; or what does it mean? Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us.
In conclusion, may I say just this? It is noteworthy that the six countries of the Common Market are signatories; so are the seven other countries of EFTA, including Finland; so are the United States, Japan, Spain, Yugoslavia and (a queer combination) Israel and the U.A.R., and so is Ireland. But not one Commonwealth country, other than ourselves, is a signatory of this Convention. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us why this is so, and what effect he considers this will have. My Lords, with these comments, we give a welcome to this Bill and wish it a speedy passage.
5.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say just a word of welcome to this Bill. It has a long history in one sense, with which to some extent I have been a little bound up, because the earliest attempt to do this kind of thing was made in connection with bills of exchange and negotiable instruments on which the Geneva Conventions go back to the time before the First World War. The first efforts made to secure a greater uniformity in connection with sales, which, after all, are the very basis of international trade—a bill of exchange is an adjunct to the commodities which since the beginning of time have been passing from country to country and overseas—were directed to getting a greater uniformity of the actual rules in relation to sales of goods between the Common Law countries and the countries whose codes were governed by the civil law.
I should like to pay tribute to the great contribution which was made at that time by my own predecessor in the

415
Cassels Chair of Commercial Law in the University of London, the late Professor Gutteridge, a very great commercial lawyer and one of the leading builders of comparative law in this country and in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I well remember the tremendous amount of work which he put into this subject in conjunction with the great German-Jewish lawyer, the late Professor Rabel, who eventually became a victim of Hitlerism and had to take refuge in the United States of America, where he continued his splendid work in this connection. I am sure that they would have been enormously proud when this Convention, imperfect as it is in quite a number of ways which I do not propose to enter into at this stage, was finally ratified by so many Continental countries, and, of course, by this country.
That this Convention should have been secured is, I think, a great step forward in international trade. In between the Bills of Exchange Convention ratified at Geneva, of course we had The Hague Rules in relation to the carriage of goods by sea, in which this country certainly played the major part; and it was undoubtedly as a result of efforts made here that The Hague Rules—the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924, as we know it—became the law here and in nearly every other maritime country.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has drawn attention to the fact that British Commonwealth countries have not so far ratified this Convention, might possibly take heart from the fact that The Hague Rules were only slowly ratified throughout the British Commonwealth. I think Canada must have waited 12 years before she, with an important overseas mercantile fleet, ratified; and Australia was even later, I believe. So it is perhaps rather a habit in the British Commonwealth to wait to see what happens and to follow suit when it is seen how well it is working—and of course The Hague Rules have justified themselves in that way. Therefore, I think it is very likely that this Convention will eventually be ratified and accepted as the law in other parts of the Commonwealth. As the hour is fairly late I do not think it is necessary for me to say more. In any case, I am afraid that I am getting a little technical, and there
416
fore I will content myself with saying how much I welcome this Bill.
5.41 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords who have spoken and have welcomed this Bill. I am also grateful to them for sharing with us their considerable legal knowledge of these somewhat abstruse matters. In particular, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Chorley about the great work of Professor Gutteridge in all these problems. We certainly owe him, as well as those I have mentioned, a great debt for what they have done, not only for this country but in showing to other countries of the world what scholarship and knowledge of law we have here, and, as I said earlier, how our law is perhaps not quite so different from theirs as they sometimes think it is.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the five questions asked by the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn. He asked, first of all, whether this applied to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands, and what is the position of the dependent territories. The authorities in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands and also in the dependent territories, will all make their own decision as to whether or not they wish to adhere to these Conventions, but in the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands the Bill, if they so wish it, will be extended to them without any need for further legislation on their part. In the case of the dependent territories, if they so wish it they will have to enact their own legislation in order for it to be applicable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will they then ratify separately, or shall we ratify on their behalf?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am afraid that, offhand, I cannot tell the noble Lord the answer to that question. With regard to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands we should undoubtedly ratify on their behalf. In the case of the dependent territories, I believe that where we are responsible for their overseas policies we shall have to ratify for them, but where they are empowered at the present time to conduct their own overseas negotiations I imagine that they will do it themselves. However, I will

417
let the noble Lord know specifically in writing the answer to his question.
The noble Lord's second question was how traders will know which countries have ratified, and how they will be able to follow the complexities of all these matters. As the noble Lord suggested, I hope that they will read and study the Board of Trade Journal and that they will make use of their qualified legal advisers in all these matters. I do not think the noble Lord would suggest that it is up to Her Majesty's Government to usurp the duties of professional legal advisers, although naturally we shall do all we can to give such help as is proper in unravelling these complexities. But the onus of ascertaining the position undoubtedly lies with the traders themselves, and they will use their own legal advisers.
The noble Lord also asked what other steps might be taken to harmonise the interpretation that might be placed on these laws in different countries, other than those which I mentioned in my opening speech. In the first instance, of course, it is naturally up to the courts of the individual countries to make their own interpretations, and no other country or international body can usurp the privileges of the independent courts of the countries in question. However, it will be one of the functions of the Revision Conferences which have been mentioned, if there do appear to be discrepancies in the interpretation given by courts of different countries, to suggest revisions which will harmonise the differences which have appeared. That is probably the best way in which these potentially difficult matters could be dealt with.
The noble Lord asked whether we shall be bound by majority decisions when these revisions come along; and when a Revision Conference takes place, how will it work, and will the decisions be binding upon all the signatories or only upon those who wish to be bound? The actual working out of the Revision Conference will be up to the Conference itself; it will determine its own procedure, but clearly it would not be right for something that is not a universally accepted decision, and where there are some reservations or abstentions, to be binding in advance upon all those who at present have signed the Conventions.
418
Clearly, each country will have the right to disagree, if it feels it must, with any revisions which may be passed by the majority. But I hope that, as time goes on, and as the advantages of a uniform system make themselves felt, there will not be any occasions on which there are differences of opinion and that, if it is felt that any revision is necessary, there will be a unanimous decision.
The noble Lord then asked whether any Commonwealth countries were there. No Commonwealth countries were present at The Hague, but, as my noble friend Lord Chorley pointed out, the fact that they have not been present at past conferences does not in any way mean that as times goes on they do not subscribe to the decisions which were taken there. I hope that, if they see that this works, as indeed we all hope it will, they will find there are some advantages in adhering and will sign at a later date. I thank noble Lords for their support, and their helpful words.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action, if any, they intend to take to strengthen the safeguards of depositors' money under the Protection of Depositors Act 1963. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the reason why I put down this Unstarred Question for to-day will, I am sure, be quite clear to those few of us left in the Chamber. It is because, over the past six months, four large deposit-taking companies coming within the ambit of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 have crashed, leaving some 20,000 depositors in peril of losing their money and involving in all some £18 million worth of investments. These cold facts in no way describe the anguish of those affected, many of whom are elderly couples, whose whole life savings have been put in jeopardy at a time when they hoped for nothing more than a few years of enjoyable retirement free from financial anxiety. To those people there is no relief, no compensation for their loss, only the bitter realisation that their hard-earned savings have been frittered

419
away, either through incompetent or inexperienced management, or even through reckless management.
The House will recall that the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 was introduced and passed at a time my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale was President of the Board of Trade. At that time there had been a number of sinister looking deposit-taking companies advertising for funds and offering very high and attractive rates of interest. Those companies varied from operating pig investment schemes to devising and running casino systems; and I believe that one of those casino companies was reputed to have offered 250 per cent. return on any investment within one year. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that a number of these highly speculative companies collapsed, leaving behind the usual trail of misery. Perhaps the most notable and shocking case in the early 1960's became known as the M.I.A.S. affair, a Manchester investment company which operated fraudulently, as it later turned out, for four years at a cost of £750,000 of small investors' money. This case, perhaps above all others, demonstrated the weak powers of control of the Board of Trade at that time, and the need for reforming the law in the interests of protecting the public.
With this background no doubt in mind, the 1963 Act was introduced. Its aim, as I see it, was to retain a balance for the public between a free choice of investment on the one hand, and a measure of protection against dubious and fraudulent deposit-taking companies on the other. The Act imposed two main obligations on any company or body—that is, both public or private—who sought deposits by means of advertisement. I might perhaps add that it excluded certain reputable channels of finance, including building societies and banks, some of whom, of course, are already covered by legislation. The first obligation under the Act was that all companies were to lodge with the Board of Trade every year, both half-yearly and annual accounts; and the second obligation was that any future advertisement by a company had to receive Board of Trade approval before it was sent out. Both these controls were set out by means of regulations. With the help of those regula-
420
tions it was thought that the public would be given sufficient information about deposit-taking companies to be able to judge the soundness of their investment, and beyond that point the architects of the Bill no doubt felt that the law could not protect fools.
It is my submission to-night that the past three years have shown and proved conclusively that the present safeguards do not offer sufficient protection for the public, and that further measures should now be taken. It is not good enough, in my view, to argue that because a deposit-taking company is offering 8½ per cent. return, and a building society is offering 7¼ per cent. return, the investor should automatically assume that an investment in the deposit company will be highly speculative. Again, in my view it is not good enough to argue that an unqualified, inexperienced or even illiterate person may solicit savings from the public and invest them in whatever dubious speculative venture he may choose. It is not good enough, surely, that deposit funds may be transferred into associated companies which have no binding obligation under the Act to produce balance sheets to either the investors or the Board of Trade.
I have tried to obtain as accurately as possible certain statistics of the deposits held by companies since the Act came into force, and unless my arithmetic is very incorrect the facts are quite startling. There have been, I believe, 117 companies operating since the Act was passed. Here perhaps I may add that before the Act came into law there were 600 companies operating, which shows the considerable deterrent effect of that Act. In those 117 companies approximately £290 million of deposits has been invested by over 175,000 individual investors. Twelve of these companies have so far crashed, involving approximately £20 million and over 23,000 investors. In other words, since 1963 15 per cent. of the total deposits—that is, £290 million—have been either partially lost or completely lost, and 12 per cent. of all the depositors have been affected. These figures I believe demonstrate the very high risk the poor unsuspecting investor is taking, and show clearly, in my view, that whilst no Government can possibly legislate against company failures, there is a need for more control.
The reason I believe so many companies have failed in the past few months is due to a culmination of adverse trading conditions, and a faulty investment policy of borrowing short and lending long. This was particularly so in the case of Pinnock Finance, a company recently in the news. No investor could have known that out of the £8·3 million that was deposited with this company £7½ million was repayable within twelve months. And surely no investor could have guessed either, and certainly not from its brochure, that a company with an association going back to 1891 and deposits over £8 million was in danger of collapse, But on the other hand, no investor could have known or could have assessed where the investments of this company were going, because here was a company which was using British funds in its associated companies both in Australia and in Belgium.
It was said during the passage of the 1963 Act that as in the future full information was to be made available by deposit companies about themselves, the financial Press could play an important role as custodians and advisers to the public. This mantle, I would suggest, has been fully accepted so far as the laws of libel will allow. But the Press themselves have to retain a certain commercial sense, and it must be very tempting not to refuse large advertisement revenue. Furthermore, any inquiry on their part into a company often proves very costly in time, and the subsequent articles may only result in preaching to the converted.
I appreciate that deposits handled by companies under the Act are only a small proportion of the total deposits invested throughout the country through other financial channels. They are, however, in my view a most important minority, for they come largely from small investors who can least afford to lose their savings. As I have already said, I believe the case for stricter control of these companies to be most urgent. What controls should be brought in is luckily not my headache, and I appreciate that it is most difficult to legislate successfully in order to preserve the important principle of free choice of investment.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment. There is a company called Anglo-Norness, a shipping com-
422
pany in which I have no interest whatsoever. According to my information a great part of the profits of that company have been siphoned off by the managing director into a subsidiary or associated company, and therefore the shares have dropped by about 50 per cent. There is no legal redress at present for this sort of thing. It is all wrong, and the noble Earl is absolutely right in all the arguments he is putting forward.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. There are, I believe, a number of shining weaknesses under the present law. In the first place, the two most important features of a deposit company—that is, its management and its investment policy—appear not to be covered under the Act. Other channels of investment, such as unit trusts, have, I believe, carefully laid down standards of control, and one wonders why it is not possible for deposit companies to have similar standards. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply to this point later.
Then again, deposit companies have no standards of liquidity ratio as building societies are required to have. Another apparent weakness is that associated companies who receive the funds have no binding obligations to produce balance sheets to the Board of Trade. This is a point that I have already made. Yet perhaps another weakness is the way Bahama-based deposit companies are allowed to trade under the disguise of the most high-sounding names which, if they had applied to Companies House to be registered as British companies, would not have been allowed.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, in my opinion the Government should set up a form of insurance scheme which would pay compensation to luckless deposit holders who through no real fault of their own get caught up in the collapse of these companies and stand to lose, as in many cases, their entire life savings. If some compensation scheme of this nature could be set up under the Act, at least a partial measure of protection would be afforded to depositors and much of the present hardship suffered would, I suggest, be averted.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter because, as he has so

423
rightly pointed out, it is one of considerable topical interest, as well as being a matter which creates a great deal of personal hardship in most undeserved cases. I hope that if, at the end of my reply, he feels that I have been unhelpful, he will realise that it is not because I have any lack of sympathy or understanding in regard to the actual hardships which have occurred.
Here, there is really a deep basic issue which the noble Earl has raised: how far should the private individual be protected against other members of society? Clearly, the private individual must be protected against other members of society when they are committing illegal acts. But in this connection there is no suggestion here that illegal acts have been carried out. If there have been, there are all the provisions dealing with obtaining money under false pretences, fraud and so on, under which the aggrieved party can proceed, even though he may find it difficult to get any actual financial recompense. Here. I take it, we are concerned simply with protecting individual members of society against the incompetence or recklessness (I think those were the noble Earl's words) of others. And here, I must say, I begin to part company with the noble Earl.
Although, as I say, I have great sympathy with the individuals who have suffered from this sort of thing, I do not really think that it is the duty of the State, or of the Government, to meddle unduly in transactions between two perfectly honest, perfectly free and, so far as we know, perfectly intelligent groups of people, parties, individuals, whatever it may be. If one person wishes to borrow and another wishes to lend at a certain rate of interest, with a certain element of risk, I do not think it would be right, and I do not think many noble Lords, on either side of the House, certainly not on the other side of the House, would feel that it would be right, for the Government to step in. What we do want to do—and it was what the previous Government attempted to do, and succeeded with our help, I should like to think, in doing—is to offer some element of protection in this particular matter of depositors and of high interest rates and so on; and I think that that Act of Parliament, the Protection of Depositors Act 1963, was a good one.
424
As the noble Earl has said, from the statistics it appears that it has had some valuable effect. But I think it had one weakness, perhaps a rather serious weakness; and that was in its Title, because it does not give protection to depositors. I think that the words of my right honourable friend the present Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Diamond, during the debate on that particular measure when it was before another place, were absolutely true He said that the Title ought really to have been something like "Sources of Information for Certain Depositors Bill", or some wording of that kind, because this Act does not, and cannot, give complete protection to the depositor. All it can do is to ensure—and it has done this—that these companies which are taking deposits at a certain relatively high rate of interest shall provide the depositor, and also the Board of Trade frequently—every six months—with the full sources of information concerning their assets.
It is perfectly true that, even though these companies are constrained to do this by law, there are always certain delays in preparing the accounts. There are always ways for dishonest people so to present the accounts that, unless there were the most searching investigation by a highly qualified team of accountants, it would be impossible within a reasonable space of time to get at the true facts of the case. I am not suggesting that in regard to any of the names the noble Earl has mentioned there has been a desire to defraud, but what I am saying is that if there were this desire it would always he possible to circumvent any legislation which we were able to enact here. Even without that desire, owing to the complexities of the modern financial system and the complexities of the old-established business of Pinnock's, to which the noble Earl referred, operating in Australia and Belgium, as well as in this country, and with a large number of subsidiaries, again it would take an enormous number of man-hours by highly skilled accountants for the Board of Trade to be able to look into this sufficiently rapidly to do any good.
I suggest to your Lordships that we must accept the fact that the onus here must rest with the depositor. He has many different ways of investing his money if he has any money to invest.

425
He can invest it in Post Office Savings. He can invest it in what are well known to be gilt-edged securities. He can go and ask his bank manager for his advice. If he has a large sum, he can go to a stockbroker and ask his advice. He can go to a great array of highly qualified people who will give advice and who, in fact, will be studying all these figures which are produced in the annual accounts of public companies in the ordinary course of business, and in the provision of six-monthly accounts in these particular companies. In this way the advice of the professionals will be available.
While repeating my sympathy for the luckless depositors if for one reason or another they are unable or unwilling to make use of the professional advice which is available, and if, at the same time, they want to gain a higher rate of interest for their capital, their deposits and savings than they could do, with complete safety, in a whole variety of other investments, then the risk is theirs. All we can do is to draw attention to that risk. That is the second reason why I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this matter, because I think this short debate will once more underline the risks which people run when they feel that they can with no risk get a higher rate of interest than that which is normally prevalent at any given moment.
When the noble Earl suggests that there should be a Government insurance scheme to help these people, I am afraid that I must quite emphatically and categorically say, No.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it was not a Government insurance scheme, but a scheme to be operated by those coming within the Act.
LORD WALSTON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. He was suggesting that there should be some levy on all those who come within the Act which would create this insurance scheme. That is certainly a suggestion well worth following up; that any of those who come within the ambit of the scheme should make their contribution. It may well be, of course, that the cost of the premium the would have to pay would be such that their interest rates would immediately come down below the level which brings them within the ambit of the existing Act. I think that
426
that is a matter which could profitably be looked into; and there are other suggestions which have been made from many experienced and valuable quarters.
I do not want to give the impression that our minds are closed on this matter, that we are sitting back quite satisfied and saying, "All is well. We have the Protection of Depositors Act; we have the Companies Bill, soon to become an Act, and that is all we need to do." We are always looking for practical methods of giving greater protection to the public against fraud in the first place, against dishonesty, and, within the limits of our power, against recklessness and stupidity. But, my Lords, having said that, I must emphasise again that the greatest protection against recklessness and stupidity must lie with the investor himself. Whatever the Government do to help—and we have done something, as have noble Lords opposite, and we hope to do more—the ultimate responsibility must rest with them. I hope that the sad and tragic events in these companies about which we have all read will make people all the more aware of the importance of getting professional advice if they do not have the knowledge themselves; and, if they do not wish to do either of those things, induce them to be content with a lower but safer form in investment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. In the sphere of advertising for depositors, one of the difficulties, as the noble Lord mentioned, is the time-lag between the time of the latest balance sheet or the latest accounts and the time when the advertisement is submitted to the Board of Trade for approval. By the time the advertisement is submitted it may be misleading as to the state of the company. It may well say something about security which in fact does not exist, but which the Board of Trade cannot possibly know does not exist merely by studying the accounts.
There are two questions which arise. The first is as to what further inquiries the Board of Trade make as a matter of routine or in special circumstances. The second question is, what should be done where it is subsequently found that the Board of Trade have been misled as to the state of the company, even though the accounts which were submitted to them were in order—misled, that is, in

427
terms that the situation of the company had deteriorated very severely since the time when they were submitted, and that the advertisement which was submitted to the Board of Trade for approval took no account whatsoever of that situation. It seems to me that these two points might be further looked into, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider them.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 9th February and the 18th April last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past six o'clock.