CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL (Hansard, 4 July 1967)

HL Deb 04 July 1967 vol 284 cc520-624 520

§ 4.4 p.m.

§ Further considered on Report (according to Order).

§ Clause 79 [Prohibition on possessing or acquiring a shot-gun without a certificate]:

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (5)(b), after "relates", to insert: and so much of section 2(3) as relates to ammunition".

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The difficulty with this Part of the Bill is that one has to construe several different documents—first, the provisions of the Bill, then the provisions of the Firearms Act 1937 and then relate to them the Amendment. Clause 79(1) requires one to have a certificate authorising one to possess a shot-gun; otherwise, one is guilty of an offence. Subsection (5) provides that a number of provisions of the Firearms Act, including Section 2(1) to (4) and other sections, shall apply in relation to shot-guns and shot-gun certificates as they apply in relation to firearms to which Part I of the Firearms Act applies. I leave out the exceptions. So, in reading this Bill and trying to understand it, one has to relate subsection (5) as if it 521 included Section 2(1) to (4) of the Firearms Act 1937.

§ Section 2 of that Act deals with the grant, removal, variation and revocation of certificates. Subsection (3) reads as follows: A certificate granted under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the conditions (if any) subject to which it is held, the nature and number of the firearms to which it relates,— and I ask your Lordships to note these words— and, as respects ammunition, the quantities authorised to be purchased and to be held at any one time thereunder. So, incorporating that provision as it stands in subsection (5), this clause clearly means that the certificate is to state the quantity of ammunition one can buy for one's shot-guns and the quantity one can hold at any one time thereunder.

§ I do not believe that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, under the guise of shot-gun certificates, to impose a control over the number of cartridges one can buy or possess; and if that is not their intention, then these words of Section 2(3) of the Firearms Act are inappropriate in relation to Clause 79 and ought to come out. It is not enough to say that one can ignore them because Clause 79(1) deals only with certificates for the possession of shot-guns. We are including this part of the Firearms Act, which in terms provides that on the granting of a certificate control can be exercised over the number of cartridges that can be bought and held. Therefore I have put down this Amendment to delete that part of Section 2(3). There is a modification of Section 2(3) in paragraph (b) on page 64 of the Bill, but, curiously enough, in making that modification Her Majesty's Government have not made the modification of taking out this reference to ammunition on the certificate. Presumably this has been done for some particular reason, but what the reason is completely escapes me.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 6, after ("relates") insert the said words.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, yesterday afternoon the noble and learned Viscount pulled my leg in suggesting that I was reading, however clearly, a brief prepared for me by the Home Office. To-day I am not going to do that. I have been at 522 great trouble to go through this matter, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will not mind if I read fairly clearly from notes I myself have prepared. As I see it, the noble and learned Viscount's object in these Amendments is to exempt the shot-gun certificate system from applying to ammunition. I am advised that Clause 79 does not in anyway refer to or mention ammunition and the clause does not change the law relating to it.
These Amendments, if made, would only cause confusion, as they support the opposite. The only shot-gun ammunition one can buy without a firearms certificate is buckshot and blank cartridges. All the other ammunition is already subject to the full firearms certificate procedure, whether it is ammunition for shot-guns or not. This is all very difficult, but if the noble and learned Viscount has a point, it arose probably on Section 9(2) of the Firearms Act 1965, which applied inter alia, Sections 7, 11 and 12 and Schedule 2 of the Firearms Act 1937, when it—that is to say, the 1965 Act—required all dealers in shot-guns to register as firearms dealers and keep a record et cetera, but it did so in regard to shot-guns only and not to shot-gun ammunition. The method of drafting is the same, and no difficulty has ever arisen. That being so, it is clearly desirable that the same formula should be upheld again.
I know that the noble and learned Viscount feels strongly on this matter. I think he feels very confident that he is right. He is a highly respected lawyer. But I am advised by the legal advisers from the Home Office, who may be equally respected and able, that he is wrong in what he thinks is the position. However, next year, as I said on an earlier occasion, all this part of the legislation will be consolidated, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will see his way not to press this Amendment this afternoon. In any case, my noble friend Lord Stonham said during our debate on Clause 79 yesterday evening that he would be making a statement on the position of ammunition in this clause, and perhaps I may leave the matter there.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for all the trouble he has taken, but I am not in the least satisfied by what he has said, because if what he has said is correct, then the Bill incorporates in Clause 79, 523 by subsection (5), references to ammunition which are completely otiose. May I put this point to the noble Lord? At the present time there is no control over the number of ordinary shot-gun cartridges you can buy and the number you can hold in your possession. Under this system you are imposing a certificate system for the possession of shot-guns. As part of the machinery in introducing that certification you incorporate subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1937. That is clear beyond doubt, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree so far.
Then when you do that, I would point out to the noble Lord that you are incorporating that part of subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 1937 Act which refers to ammunition. This means, quite clearly, that a certificate shall state the quantities authorised to be purchased and the quantities to be held at any one time thereunder. If you are not intending that, why not leave out those words? That is the point to which I would ask the noble Lord to direct his mind. If it is not intended that the certificate should prescribe the quantities you can purchase and the quantities you can hold, those words are unnecessary. But they are being brought in by subsection (5), which does make one modification to subsection (3) of Section 2, in paragraph (b) on page 64, but it does not make this modification. If the noble Lord is right in saying that it is not intended to apply to ordinary cartridge ammunition, then the words in Section 2(3) are unnecessary, and they ought to come out of the Bill.
But the matter is a little more complicated than that, because "ammunition" is defined in two places in the Firearms Act 1937, and neither of the definitions is attracted to this Clause 79 of the Criminal Justice Bill. Under Section 16 of the 1937 Act, which applies to Part I and Part II, it is provided: This Part of this Act"— that is the first Part—shall not apply to (a) cartridges containing five or more shot, none of which exceeds nine twenty-fifths of an inch in diameter. That excludes the ordinary cartridge. But that is not applied under Clause 79(5) at all. You are left with the incorporation of the word "ammunition" in Section 2(3), but not the incorporation 524 of either of the two definition sections in the 1937 Act.
I have great respect for the legal adviser at the Home Office, whoever he may be, but I have known legal advisers at the Home Office to be wrong. I know that I have been wrong on a number of occasions, but on this occasion I say with some confidence that if it is not intended to apply the certification procedure to ammunition, if it is not intended that the certificate shall apply to the quantities of cartridges you can buy and the quantities you can hold at any one time, then we ought to take out from Section 2(3) all the references to "ammunition". It will still mean that one must have a certificate for one's shot-guns, but it will mean that in the granting of the certificate there will be no limitation on the quantity of cartridges or ammunition for shot-guns that one can purchase or hold at any one time.

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, in line 41, on page 63, it says: but shall so apply subject to the following modifications and exceptions". With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think he has used the word "modifications" once or twice, and I should have thought that that was the word to apply, and not "exceptions", when we come to deal with paragraph (b). What it says is modification of so much of section 2(3) of that Act as requires a certificate to specify the nature and number of firearms to which the certificate relates shall not apply in relation to shot-guns. That is, in my opinion, excluding all the references to the question of ammunition in Section 2(3).

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, with respect, and with the leave of the House, it is not doing that at all. I am sorry to persist on this matter, but it is not doing that. If the noble Lord looks again at Section 2(3), the provision as it stands says that it will specify the nature and number of the firearms to which it relates". The exception made by paragraph (b) is to take that requirement out, because it says that Section 2(3) of the Act shall not apply to specify the nature and number of firearms… That is not to apply in relation to shotguns. But that is an entirely different 525 thing from ammunition. It is because you have not an exception or modification in relation to ammunition that I raise this point. It is not met by referring to paragraph (b). That paragraph takes out of Section 2(3) something which it is not required to apply, and it ought to go on and take out "ammunition'.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, perhaps I can intervene, because it seems to me that my noble and learned friend is entirely right in this matter, but the Government think they are right; therefore the House must try to find a way through this rather complex subject. Line 34 on page 63 of the Bill says that various provisions of the Firearms Act 1937, including subsection (3) of Section 2, shall apply in relation to shot-guns and shotgun certificates… subject to the following modifications and exceptions". Then on page 64, at line 4, the Bill says: so much of section 2(3) of that Act as requires a certificate to specify the nature and number of firearms to which the certificate relates shall not apply in relation to shot-guns. Those words which I have just read would appear to mean that the words, the nature and number of firearms", to which it relates, are to be excluded from subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 1937 Act, but that no other words are to be excluded. So may I read out subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1937, which is to apply to shot-guns and shot-gun certificates—that is to say, to apply to this new legislation—omitting the words which lines 4 to 7 at page 64 of the Bill provide shall be omitted? Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 1937 Act, which is to apply to the new legislation with the amendment I have mentioned, will read: A certificate granted under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the conditions, if any, subject to which it is held"—

§ LORD STONHAM
Full stop.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
— and as respects ammunition the quantities authorised to be purchased and to be held at any one time thereunder".

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He read out how this subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Firearms Act 1937 will be, after this 526 subsection (5) is applied, correctly up to the words, "subject to which it is held". That is to say, it will read: A shot-gun certificate granted under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the conditions, if any, subject to which it is held"— Full stop. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. Subsection (5) of the Bill we are now considering reads: …that is to say…(provisions relating to firearms to which Part I of that Act applies, that is to say firearms other than shot guns and air weapons) shall apply in relation to shot guns and shot gun certificates as they apply in relation to firearms to which the said Part I applies". If the noble Lord will look at Part I of the 1937 Act, and in particular at subsection (2)(a) of Section 16, which the noble and learned Viscount read out, he will then see that if you apply the Act, shot-gun ammunition is specifically included because it is excepted in Section 16(2)(a).

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, if I may speak again, my noble and learned friend has already pointed out that Section 16, and particularly subsection (2)(a) of Section 16, of the 1937 Act, does not appear, on the face of the Bill, to be attracted to this Bill, and therefore we have to read subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 1937 Act by itself. Reading it by itself, it appears to include this reference to ammunition. I feel quite certain that Parliamentary counsel have advised the Government that somewhere in Part V of the Criminal Justice Bill 1967 there are words that have the effect of excluding references to ammunition in the 1937 Act. It is that which we are trying to discover. I do not think we have discovered it yet.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, just one question arising from his original reply? I thought he said that the only form of shot-gun ammunition which was not subject to licence at the moment was buckshot and I think he said one other. Surely that is incorrect. My recollection is that almost any ironmonger has on display vast number of cartridges which can be bought perfectly easily over the counter, without producing any for of gun licence, game licence or anything else, and I should be very interested to know whether I am incorrect in thinking so.

527

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, to the best of my advice, it is blank cartridge and buckshot that you can buy, but nothing else.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, that seems very surprising, because of all the cartridges which are dangerous, I should have thought that buckshot were the most dangerous and therefore the least likely to be sold in that way. I see the reason regarding blank cartridges. I think that this law is universally unobserved.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I cannot say that I am in the least degree satisfied; I am sorry. But I have listened with the greatest attention to what the noble Lords, Lord Bowles and Lord Stonham, have said. So far as the purchase of cartridges is concerned, I am afraid that Lord Bowles has been woefully misinformed. No doubt the brief from the Home Office was inaccurate in this respect. But it shows how inadequate is the knowledge that lies behind the whole of this Part of the Bill, and it is very serious.
The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in seeking to resist this Amendment, was an entirely different one from the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles. When my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor was reading out Section 2(3) as it applied in relation to this particular Part of the Act he read this: A certificate granted under this Section shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the conditions, if any, subject to which it is held"— and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, "Full stop". That is the effect of my Amendment—to make a full stop there. The noble Lord is really reading the Bill as if my Amendment has been accepted, but he is resisting it. It is getting into a completely topsy-turvy world.
What I want to leave out are the words that follow: and as respects ammunition, the quantities authorised to be purchased to be held at any one time thereafter". The words: the nature and number of the firearms to which it relates are taken out. But for some mysterious reason, not in the least apparent to me, with great obstinacy there is resistance to taking out the other words which are 528 wholly surplusage, on any view. It is no use the noble Lord relying on the words in subsection (5) as saying that the words which are brought into this section do not apply, because you are taking in those particular words of Section 2(3). As my noble friend read it out, quite rightly, you say: shall apply in relation to shot-guns and shot-gun certificates". Now shot-gun certificates are dealt with in Section 2—or they will be—and that gives the control over ammunition.
It really is very tiresome to deal with legislation in this form, because if we had it all set out I might be able to convince the noble Lord that he is entirely wrong in saying that Section 2(3) ends with a full stop where he says it does. It does not, unless he accepts this Amendment. If he accepts it, I can see no harm that can conceivably be done. You will not have on any certificate any reference to ammunition. That, I think, is his intention. I will deal with the other ammunition questions later, because they are very important, but this is dealing with the grant of the certificate.
When you apply for an ordinary firearms certificate for a rifle you get a certificate giving the number of the rifle, telling you the amount of ammunition for the rifle you can hold at any one time, and the amount you can buy at any one time; and you are taking in words in relation to ammunition for shot-guns which enable the police to say on the certificate how many cartridges you can have at any one time, and how many you cannot. Either that is intended or it is not, and I gather it is not intended, and, on any view of what the noble Lord has said, these words are surplusage. I do not want to divide the House at this stage, but perhaps it would be better to do so and to see whether the Government can find another formula, unless the noble Lord can be more forthcoming than he has been up to the present moment.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, unless I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, I think it rather important that the Government spokesman should make it quite clear that at this very moment anyone who sells ordinary shot-gun cartridges loaded with ordinary game shot across the counter to anybody without any 529 form of certificate is acting perfectly legally and within the law.

§ 4.28 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I should like to give that assurance at once, and not only to give that assurance that anyone who is selling shot-gun ammunition across the counter without any kind of certificate is acting perfectly legally, but to add that if subsection (5) in this Bill is enacted as it is drafted, that will still be the position.
If the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to try again, and will carefully consider my argument, I will try to show what the difference is. It seems to me quite astonishing that he, with his very great experience, both Parliamentary and legal, cannot see this. Why I interrupted Lord Brooke of Cumnor at that point was because subsection (5) in the Bill, which we are considering, by definition excludes references to ammunition. The words in subsection (3) of Section 2 of the 1937 Act, which the noble and learned Viscount seeks to have left out—if I may have his attention—

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I was listening. I heard every word the noble Lord said.

§ LORD STONHAM
The words the noble Viscount seeks to leave out have not been applied to the Bill we are considering, because the 1937 Act has not been applied so far as it relates to ammunition. Section 2(3) of the 1937 Act says: as respects ammunition, the quantities authorised to be purchased and to be held at any one time thereunder. No ammunition is authorised to be purchased and to be held under a shot-gun certificate. May I ask noble Lords to read with me subsection (1) of Clause 79, which is the clause we are now considering? That says: Subject to any exemption having effect by virtue of this section any person who has in his possession or purchases or acquires a shot gun without holding a certificate authorising him to possess shot guns shall be guilty of an offence. There is not a single word about ammunition; indeed, the whole of Clause 79 excludes it. That is the reason why, under the modifications in subsection (2)(b), for example, we have not mentioned ammunition, because it is already taken up in subsection (5).
530 Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to read to him subsection (5), omitting the unnecessary words. Subsection (5), so far as relevant, reads as follows: The following provisions of the Firearms Act 1937, that is to say"— and then the provisions are listed— …shall apply in relation to shot guns…as they apply in relation to firearms to which the said Part I"— That is of the 1937 Act— applies… If we now look at Part I, Section 16(2)(a), of the 1937 Act we find that the exceptions there to Part I ammunition are, first, cartridges with five or more shot; the diameter of the shot not to exceed nine twenty-fifths of an inch in diameter, which is precisely the type of cartridge to which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was referring. They are not Part I ammunition. We are applying Part I to shot-guns, and therefore the question of ammunition does not arise at all.
Last evening the noble and learned Viscount told me that perhaps I would feel differently in the cool of the morning, and it may have been in the heat of the evening that he described this drafting as "disgraceful". Why did not the noble and learned Viscount apply the same appellation to the drafting of the 1965 Firearms Act? May I read exactly the same section from that Act, Section 9(2)? So far as relevant, it reads like this: Notwithstanding anything in the said section 16(1)(a), sections 7 to 10, 12 and 13 of, and Schedule 2 to, the principal Act shall have effect as if any reference therein and in the definition of firearms dealers in section 32 of that Act to firearms to which Part I of that Act applies included a reference to shot guns; That is virtually the same language and the same references as we are now using in this clause.
Surely we are all agreed that it is customary, when we have a new Act of Parliament, to list the statutory provisions which we have in mind and to provide that those provisions shall apply in relation to shot-guns as they apply in relation to Part I firearms. That being so, and it must be so, we all accept—and none will accept it more readily than the noble and learned Viscount—that a 531 Statute of the realm has to be construed so as to give effect to every word in it. Therefore it is not open to the Government to agree to include words which have no function other than to say that the clause does not do something it does not do. Parliament, like nature, is assumed to do nothing in vain. Therefore we cannot insert in this subsection words such as, "Since this clause contains no reference to ammunition, it must not be construed as having any effect on ammunition". Does the noble and learned Viscount wish to interrupt me?

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, it is not doing that. I do not know that there is much point in pursuing this, but he is arguing (I personally do not think validly) that Clause 79 as it stands cannot apply to ammunition at all. That is the intention. Then it seems to me to be utterly pointless to incorporate Section 2(3), with its reference to ammunition, without a modification taking out those words, because then there will be a conflict between one part of the section (if we read Section 2(3) in as well) and it will only make the position as the noble Lord was seeking to argue it, perfectly clear if we make that modification in exception to Section 2(3) and taking out the words which are already in Section 2(3).

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I really cannot accept that from the noble and learned Viscount, because in the words we have used in subsection (5) we have, by definition, excluded ammunition. We are only making an enactment—

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If it read: as was applied in relation to firearms to which the said Part I applies". and stopped there, then I would agree with the noble Lord. But it does not stop there. It goes on to say, "and firearms certificates"; and it is the firearms certificates which, under the 1937 Act, cover ammunition.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, as I have said, precisely the same sections are mentioned in some sections of the 1965 Act, and I have quoted them. This was 532 purely a Shot Guns Act, and the Act required that shot guns should be equated with Part I firearms for the purposes of the listed provisions. On that occasion, when we adopted exactly the same form, and almost the same words, there was no question that the provision made any change in the law relating to ammunition; and although that Act was passed nearly two years ago no one has ever suggested that, as a consequence, a person who sells ordinary shot-gun cartridges requires to be registered as a firearms dealer, or that the law relating to shot-gun ammunition had been changed in any way. Certainly in my mind there is no doubt about this. Whether ammunition is Part I ammunition depends entirely on whether it has the benefit of the exemptions from Part I contained in subsection (2) of Section 16. I do not think the noble and learned Viscount has applied his mind to that particular subsection and its consequences, by reason of the fact that it is in Part I.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. I am anxious to be helpful. Could he say whether it would be quite impossible to make it clear on the face of Clause 79 that it does not apply to ammunition? I am not a lawyer, but I have some experience in reading Bills and I will tell the noble Lord what misled me here. I read in subsection (1) of Clause 79: Any person who has in his possession or purchases or acquires a shot gun without holding a certificate authorising him to possess shot guns shall be guilty of an offence. I then read, further down in subsection (5), that certain provisions of the 1937 Act shall apply in relation to shot guns and shot gun certificates as they apply in relation to firearms to which the said Part I of the 1937 Act applies and firearms certificates. Then I read subsection (1) of Section 1 of the 1937 Act, which says: No person shall purchase, acquire or have in his possession any firearm or ammunition to which this Part of this Act applies unless he holds a firearm certificate in force at the time. That certainly conveys to my simple mind that, putting together subsection (1) and subsection (5) of Clause 79, it would be necessary to hold a shot-gun certificate before you could have in your possession any ammunition for a shot-gun. I think I understand from the 533 noble Lord's explanation why the clause can be read in a different way. But it would be vastly simpler if some Amendment could be devised on Third Reading to make it absolutely plain on the face of the Bill that Clause 79 does not cover ammunition for shot-guns. I think that would meet my noble and learned friend's point.

§ LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON
My Lords, at the risk of making confusion worse, may I suggest that we are all apparently aiming at exactly the same thing with a difference of wording. Would it not be possible to add a subsection at the end saying that, for the removal of doubt: Nothing in this section shall be taken to apply to ammunition"?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, coming from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that seems almost like legal heresy. If the opinion is held that it is already covered and that the words are quite unnecessary, it would mean that he would be attempting to suborn me into agreeing to do something absolutely improper. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord's remark that there is no difference between us in what we want to achieve. Certainly when, as we hope next Session, firearms legislation is consolidated there ought not to be any room for any kind of doubt whatsoever. The difficulty I am in at the moment with the noble and learned Viscount's two Amendments is this: if we took out of subsection (3) of Section 2 the references to ammunition we should also have expressly to remove all the references to ammunition in Part I of the 1937 Act. In our view, this is unnecessary, in view of the terms of subsection (5) of Clause 79 which we are now considering. We should also have to do the same for subsection (2) of Section 9 of the 1965 Act.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to withdraw this Amendment, on my repeated assurance that there is no question at all of altering the law with regard to shot-gun ammunition. Secondly, I will very carefully consider what he has said and the criticisms he has made. Thirdly, perhaps he will look objectively at what I have said and at the possibility—I will put it no higher than that—that I may be right. I know that this method 534 of legislating by reference is always difficult to follow, but, as I said, it will become clear on consolidation. If I can find a way, without using what I think are entirely unnecessary words, to meet this point and to make it clear, I will.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, as this is Report stage may I say one word before my noble and learned friend speaks? I find this is a very complicated legal matter. Even assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is right, I cannot see how the ordinary people who have to operate under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, could possibly know what it means. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is asking is whether we can possibly have an Amendment which people like me can understand, and that seems to me reasonable. We have heard so much lately about the abstruse methods of drafting. Here is a Bill which the public will have to operate. If the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who may be right; if my noble and learned friend, who may be right; and if my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who may be right, all take a different view; if they all think they may be right, what are the poor devils like me going to do? We really ought to have an Amendment, even if it is not the usual practice. What the noble Lord has not explained is why, if we had such an Amendment as suggested by the Lord Chief Justice, every reference to Part I in the original Act has to be taken out. I cannot see it.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, this is a curious position, when there is absolutely nothing between what the Government intend to achieve by this Bill and what I am seeking to achieve by this Amendment. It is most remarkable. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the legal advice of the Home Office, takes the view that he has achieved his purpose. I take a different view; I do not think he has. When we get consolidation I think the position will become even more obscure if it is left as it is now.
In these circumstances, I would ask the noble Lord to bear in mind this fact. If this matter came before the courts, before my noble and learned friend, it would not be possible to refer to what the Government have said about 535 the Government's view, about the legal advice they have had, or about anything that has been said in this Chamber on one side or the other. What I am asking for, and I stress this very strongly, is that there should be clear intimation in this clause. The noble Lord may think that there is no doubt. Putting it at its lowest, I should have said that there certainly is a doubt. And if there is a doubt, there can be nothing wrong in putting in a provision for the removal of that doubt. It is done. If that were done here, there would be no need to incorporate later Amendments about ammunition. It would solve everyone's difficulty and make the matter clear. I hope that the noble Lord, when we come to the next stage, will agree to that. I will not press it now, but I hope he will see there is genuine doubt, whether it be right or wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount withdraws, may I say how grateful I am for the way this matter has been considered. I will certainly try very hard between now and Third Reading. I am up against this difficulty: that precisely what we are doing now has been done since 1965 in the other Firearms Act and has caused no trouble to the public. But I will do my best.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 67 because that is related to No. 65 which we discussed last night. I have not fired off all my ammunition, but I think we have discussed ammunition enough this afternoon, and therefore, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just said, I do not intend either to move Amendment No. 68.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to add to subsection (5): ( ) The following paragraph shall be added at the end of Section 11(1) of the Firearms Act 1937 (prohibition on transferring firearm to person not producing certificate):— '(c) a person returning to another a shot gun which he has lawfully undertaken to repair, test or prove for the other.'

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment 536 is to add a paragraph at the end of Section 11(1) of the Firearms Act to relieve the owner of a gun who has taken his gun to his gunmaker or merchant of the obligation to produce his gun certificate in order to recover possession of his gun. I think that that would be extremely tiresome and would not serve any useful purpose, particularly as for the time being the Government have retained the provision that when he takes the gun to the gunmaker he must produce his certificate. It is surely unnecessary that to get it back he must again show the certificate. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 7, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, we agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it would be rather ridiculous to demand that a customer should solemnly produce his gun certificate when he goes to fetch his gun after repair, having been required to produce it when he took the gun in for repair. We agree that this Amendment would remove that unnecessary duty and have pleasure in recommending your Lordships to accept it.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 4.50 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to add to subsection (5): ( ) In section 6(2) of that Act for the words 'the constable may seize and detain the firearm or ammunition and may require that person to declare to him immediately his name and address', there shall be substituted 'the constable may, if the person believed to be in possession of the gun does not give his name and address and undertake to produce the certificate within seven days at a named police station, seize and detain the gun'.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this may be a slightly more controversial Amendment, but I hope it is not. Under the Firearms Act as it stands, if a constable approaches you and finds you in possession of a rifle but without your certificate upon you, he can seize and detain the firearm and any ammunition for the firearm that you have, and require you to declare to him immediately your name and address. That seems rather draconian in relation to shot-guns. If any noble Lord was out shooting and had not got his certificate in his pocket, the constable could come 537 up to him and ask him for his certificate. The noble Lord not having the certificate, despite the fact that he gave his name and address, the constable would be legally empowered, as the clause now stands, to take his gun away.

§ I cannot think that that is necessary. I had a shot at re-drafting it, to provide that the constable may, if the person believed to be in possession of the gun does not give his name and address and undertake to produce the certificate within seven days at a named police station, seize and detain the gun. If one is involved in a motor accident, I think one has five days within which to produce a certificate of insurance and one's driving licence, and it seems rather unnecessary to insist that any person who, perfectly lawfully, takes out a gun to go shooting, must carry with him his gun certificate or be at risk of having his gun taken away from him.

§ It may be that the Government will say that what I propose is too restrictive. What I should like to ask the Government to consider as a possible alternative is this: that if a person does not have his certificate upon him, the constable should be entitled to ask for his name and address, and that unless the person can satisfy the police constable that the name and address is genuine, the police constable should have the right to seize the gun. Putting it round that way would mean that the police constable would not have to say, "I had reasonable grounds for disbelieving the name and address that he gave me". It might be an address which is a long way away. But if someone who did not appear too reputable was found on another person's property with a gun, and could not satisfy the police constable that he really had given the right name and address, then I think the police constable ought to be entitled to seize the gun. That is a slightly different Amendment to the one on the Marshalled List. I do not propose to press this, but if the Government will say that they see the force of the point that I am making—that it is really too strong a power in this context—and will consider that kind of modification, I would withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 7, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

538

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount said that he was moving one Amendment and he has spoken in support of a variation of it. We do not know at the moment whether we can agree to his words, but certainly I will give him an undertaking that they will be considered. We feel that it is most unlikely that the ordinary police officer would be so irresponsible as to go into a crowd of respectable people in a shooting party—such as the noble and learned Viscount might find himself in—and, because he is perhaps an anti-blood sports policeman (if there are such things), suddenly say, "Have any of you gentlemen not got a licence?"; and then, finding that there was one who had not, that he would say, "I want your gun". I do not really think that would happen.
This was not put forward as an argument by the noble and learned Viscount, but it is a possible argument. I should much prefer to think that the policeman would behave in a more responsible way and would not take the gun away unless he was really suspicious that a man was of a rather hooligan type. In such a case he would be perfectly entitled to take the man's gun away rather than to take his name and address and let him retain the gun in his possession and possibly do more damage than he does normally. There is also the point that if the constable took the gun away wrongly, he would have the rather tedious duty of returning the gun in due course to a person who may have had a certificate all the time.
I feel that as the Amendment is drafted, if the person concerned gave a false name and address which the police constable knew was wrong, he would not be entitled to take away the gun because the man had not refused to give a name and address. It is not quite so difficult legally as the last Amendment. Here it is a question of one's feeling about the police and one's experience of men and women.
I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount was quite right to make a comparison with the production of a car licence or insurance certificate. The courts have no power to take away or to seize a motor car, and they have no power to prosecute a person for not producing a shot-gun certificate. But I can give the noble and learned Viscount 539 an assurance that the Government will look at any other Amendment, or Amendment to this Amendment, that he cares to put down at the next stage.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will look at the suggestion that I have made in the course of moving this Amendment, because I think that would meet the point.

§ LORD BOWLES
Yes.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
As a matter of principle, I am against giving the police or anybody else wider powers of seizure than they really require. The noble Lord said that if the police are given the power in relation to shot-guns they will not use it except on suitable occasions. I think they ought to have the right to use that power on suitable occasions, but not on unsuitable occasions. I think a formula could be devised in relation to that which would not be embarrassing. I hope it can. Perhaps we can have further talks about it. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, subsection (6) provides that an overseas visitor who has been in Great Britain for not more than one month in the previous twelve is exempt from the shot-gun certificate system. It is possible that doubts might arise as to whether a period equalling four complete weeks or a particular calendar month should apply. To make the period clear beyond peradventure it is desirable to express it in days, and thirty days is a fair period to equate to one month. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 9, leave out ("one month") and insert ("thirty days").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (7), after "use a shot-gun at a", to insert "time and". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from a discussion we had in Committee which was mainly carried on by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and here we have endeavoured to meet a particular point which he raised. The effect of our Amendment is to provide specifically that when a chief constable authorises a place for shot-gun shooting at artificial 540 targets, such as clay pigeons, he may do so in respect of a specified period or periods of time. Power to limit approval in this way is implicit in the subsection as drafted, but we felt that it was perhaps a little difficult to understand. This Amendment has been put down not only to meet the point but to make it clear on the reading of the clause that the local chief officer of police may approve both the time during which, and the place at which, persons who have not got shot-gun certificates may none the less shoot at artificial targets. We are concerned only with the people who have not got certificates. In regard to those who have them there is no kind of restriction at all.

§ The debate which we had on the subject during the Committee stage indicated that there was a basic misconception in some quarters about the purpose of this subsection. I would take this opportunity of making it clear that this subsection of the Bill does not in any way empower chief constables to authorise the holding of actual events or the places and times when they shall be held, or the use of places for shot-gun shooting generally. Those activities will continue, whether or not chief constables give or refuse approval. All that the approval does is to say that at such and such a time and place people who do not have shot-gun certificates may, exceptionally, shoot at artificial targets. It is envisaged that before giving carte blanche in this way to people who may well be novices, chief constables will wish to assure themselves that shooting will be properly supervised and that adequate safety precautions will be taken. It will enable international shooting competitions to be held more conveniently at places such as Bisley, and novice shoots to be run at places such as agricultural fairs. I think the Amendment will be helpful. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 13, after second ("a") insert ("time and").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.3 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (7), to insert as a new subsection: ( ) A person may without holding a shot gun certificate borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use the shot 541 gun on those premises in the presence of the occupier.

§ The noble Lord said: This relates to another point raised in our previous discussion, and again it is an effort to meet what we thought was a very fair point. The effect of the Amendment is to permit guests who do not possess shot-gun certificates to accompany their host when he goes shooting and to borrow and use his shot-gun on his land. It is designed to deal strictly with the sort of case which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, during the Committee stage, of a person who has friends down for the weekend who would like, in his words, to "have a bang" at some clay pigeons in the field behind his house. We think it is reasonable to grant an exemption in those circumstances. But it is the policy that all shot-gun owners, and indeed all regular shot-gun users, should have shot-gun certificates and that any exemption must be formulated with the problems of enforcement in mind. In order to secure this, we have limited the exemption for guests to having or using a shot-gun on their host's land and while in his company, and in respect of shot-guns borrowed from him. This means that the guest cannot borrow his host's gun to shoot over somebody else's land or to shoot in the absence of his host. Otherwise, in our view, every stranger on private land might to all appearances, with or without the permission of the owner, have the benefit of the exemption, and we think that that would be wrong. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions about this Amendment. I quite understand its purpose, but why is one restricted to borrowing a gun from the occupier? Suppose the occupier is there with a whole party of people and somebody else has a spare gun. Why should you not borrow a gun from the other person and not the occupier? I agree that it is necessary that the occupier should be there and that it should be with his consent, but it seems to be an unnecessary requirement that the gun should be borrowed from him. If the gun is borrowed from anyone and used in the 542 presence of the occupier on the occupier's land, surely that would be sufficient.
Then I was puzzled about the phrase "private premises", which struck me as a little unusual in this context. One usually contrasts "public premises" and "private premises". Here the stipulation is that it should be borrowed from the occupier of private premises and used on those premises in the presence of the occupier. I would put forward the suggestion that "land" might be a more appropriate word in this context than "premises". I do not put much weight on that, but I suggest to the noble Lord that he should consider whether it is necessary to insist that the gun which is borrowed must be borrowed from the occupier. I should have thought that it would suffice to say "borrowed with the knowledge and consent of the occupier and used on the occupier's land".

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I must admit that this new subsection rather worries me. If we are going to have this form of certification—and I think that it has been accepted on all sides that we are—these are exactly the sort of people who are usually the most dangerous. They are not people who shoot regularly, and therefore they are people who are liable to make mistakes with a gun, such as not emptying the gun when they climb over a fence or something of that kind. These are the very people one wants to discourage from having shot-guns unless they are extremely well supervised. If anybody who does not hold a shot-gun certificate borrows a gun, I should like him to be extremely well supervised, and I should not have thought that "in the presence of the occupier" would necessarily mean that he was very well supervised. The occupier himself may not be a great shot and may know very little about it, but may happen to have a gun in the house and therefore be able to lend it to the person who comes down. If this Bill is to do any good at all in reducing the number of accidents with shot-guns—and we should all like to see the number of accidents reduced—this appears to me to be a retrogressive provision.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, enlarge a little on what is actually meant by the words "in the 543 presence of the occupier"? May I give an instance? Supposing a guest goes out in the evening with his host in different parts of a wood shooting pigeons, would that be considered "in the presence of the occupier", or does it mean that he has literally to be standing beside the lender of the gun?

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, we are making such happy progress with the Bill that I do not want to raise what some of your Lordships may consider to be a quibble. However, I recollect that on Second Reading I addressed myself to this particular Part of the Bill. I pointed out that when I had a place in the country some years ago I used to invite my father down there from time to time. Being an old soldier, he would sometimes say to me, "Lend me your gun. Let me have a morning's shooting". I let him have the gun, and I pointed out that under the terms of the Bill as originally drawn he and I would have been committing an offence. The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Stonham is moving is certainly, on the surface, a genuine attempt to cope with such a situation as that.
What I am troubled about is the use of the words "in the presence of the occupier". If, in those days, I had had a gamekeeper—which I had not—and if I had said to my father, "Yes, here is the gun. You go out with the gamekeeper and have a morning's shooting", he would still have been committing an offence, because he was not shooting in the presence of the occupier. I think we all know what we want with this Amendment, and I think we are all agreed on it, but I suggest that probably some little alteration of the wording might make it more generally useful and acceptable.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, there are a number of rather difficult words in this new provision, some of which have been mentioned. As to "private premises", I suppose a landowner's land could be called "private premises", but the vast majority of landowners out shooting will probably be renting land from someone else. Is that their private premises? Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, pointed out, there is the question of its being "in the presence of the occupier". I think of the case of the formal shoot, where the host walks with 544 the beaters and may be half-a-mile away in thick woods from the person whom he would be expected to supervise. Is that "in the presence of"? Then there is the further anomaly, where a guest comes to stay with a farmer and they go out on a shoot. Apparently, so long as they are on the farm belonging to the person from whom the guest has borrowed the gun he is within the law. But when they cross to the next farm, the next farmer also being a member of the party, he is promptly breaking the law.

LORD INGLEWOOD
My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, because I think he is in error there. The Amendment does not say the owner of the premises, but the occupier of the premises; and that is something different.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I am talking about a party of farmers occupying joint farms over which they propose to shoot. All these matters want a little explanation and clearing up. I think the noble Lord should tell us exactly what he means by these various words.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
My Lords, the solution is very simple. You have only to put in the words "with the permission of the occupier of land", and that appears to me to cover the point. I cannot see that anything more is needed.

LORD INGLEWOOD
My Lords, in the interests of clarity may I ask one question? The Amendment we are discussing refers to borrowing a gun from the occupier of premises and to using the shot-gun on those premises. It frequently happens that an owner of land rents the land to a tenant, who then becomes occupier of the premises, but the owner retains the sporting rights. In such a case, is the owner of the land the occupier of the premises for the purposes of the noble Lord's Amendment, or will it be somebody else?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am in the presence of experts and, as always happens when you find yourself in the company of experts, they disagree; and that somewhat simplifies my task. Of course, when it comes to what words mean, only the courts can finally give a decision. I do not say that in an attempt 545 to be clever, which I am not, or unhelpful, which I am certainly not, but merely to indicate that what I now say is my best attempt to answer the questions that have been put to me. Perhaps I ought to answer them in reverse order, because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, seems to have left his place for a moment.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, he had to leave his place for a moment, but if the noble Lord likes to answer the question I will tell the noble and learned Viscount what he says.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, then I shall start with the noble and learned Viscount who raised two points. One was the question of private premises: he thought the word "land" should have been used. My understanding is, and always has been, that "premises" includes land; and, in any case, the shooting would mostly be on land and not within buildings. I think one can be positive about the answer to that.
The one point of substance that has emerged is the point which the noble and learned Viscount made about borrowing a gun, because my Amendment provides only for borrowing a gun from the occupier and that would be a somewhat over-limiting factor. The gun might jam and a man might want to borrow one from someone else. So I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that we will look at that point; and the form of words he suggested appeared to me to be a form which might be worth looking at to meet the point about getting a gun with the approval of the occupier. I think we shall have to stick to that, as we do not want an importation from all and sundry. I think they were the two points raised by the noble and learned Viscount.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, introduced a somewhat different note. It was one with which I had every sympathy, but I do not think we can be very helpful about it. He was concerned about the tyros who might be his house guests and who were a positive menace with a gun. But I think he would have to use his customary tact there, rather than the Act of Parliament, to prevent their being too much of a menace if he lent them a gun on his land. He suggested that they were the most dangerous 546 of all people. That may well be so, as in the case I heard about recently (I think during the Committee stage), when the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said that there were fellows who could drink about four pints of beer and three ports after lunch and then go out and "shoot like a king". But I should prefer that they shot like kings in a different country from that which I was inhabiting. But I think the noble Duke will agree that it would be quite impossible for us to ensure that people like that, who were acting legally, were effectively supervised. To be supervised in the sense that he means is something which we should have to leave to the occupier.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland asked for the meaning of the words "in the presence of the occupier". Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, as you are going round you might legitimately be a mile or so from the actual occupier. But we must have regard to the fact that if any offence is alleged to be committed it will in the first instance be in the view of a police officer, and I cannot imagine any police officer being so foolish as to go on an estate where the occupier was in the farmhouse, or even going round shooting with his friends, and alleging that if they had his permission to shoot they were not doing so in his presence. But what the phrase does not mean—and I want to be very specific about this—is that they can go on performing in this way if the owner is in the South of France, or if they are up in Yorkshire and he is down in London; because that would merely mean sanctioning a paper transaction which was designed to circumvent the terms of the Bill. And that, of course, we do not want.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, put a question which again will have to be interpreted, as it were, or answered, by the courts. But I should have thought it reasonable to say that if a party of occupiers—several farmers, for example—or the owner-occupier of an estate, together with some of his tenant farmers, were going over land and they passed from one occupancy to another, then so long as the land was in the occupancy of a member of the party and they were acting with his agreement, then at any given point in their peregrinations they 547 would be in the presence of the occupier. That seems to be a reasonable way of looking at it, if they have the permission.

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I am sure that it would probably be all right; but they would not be on the premises of the occupier from whom they borrowed a gun.

§ LORD STONHAM
Yes, my Lords. That, of course, is a very sobering thought. We will have to look at that point in connection with borrowing a gun. It seems to me that the words suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, "with the permission of" or "with the approval of" the occupier, might even cover that eventuality. But it seems to me that these are difficulties which would not present a real problem to the average rural police officer. I hope that I have dealt to your Lordships' satisfaction with the very interesting and useful questions that have been raised on my Amendment. I hope that you will now approve this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN
My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the Question from the Chair, I hope the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government will realise that the best thing to do in this case would be to withdraw this Amendment. It will not achieve anything. The Bill is already a very long one and this is merely an addition which will not affect anything. It is just legislation for the sake of legislation. I am not going to detain your Lordships, but I can remember, a few years ago, staying with my noble friend Lord Crathorne, who happens to be sitting beside me. I borrowed a pair of guns from him, in order to no 30 miles to shoot with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who does not happen to be here at the moment. Of course, nobody considered whether I was using my own guns. I had not got them, so I had to borrow some. So off we went. The grouse may have got off better because I had not got my own guns—they benefited. But no damage was done. It seems to me absolutely pointless to put in this new subsection. To my mind it is quite unnecessary. I therefore suggest that the Government withdraw it; and if, later, for no known reason to me, they want to put down another Amendment, that of course is up to them.

548

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Might I suggest that in place of the last words, "in the presence of the occupier", we might have, "while the occupier is in residence"?

§ LORD DERWENT
May I add one word in answer to my noble friend? Under this Bill he, like me, would have a certificate, and so this provision would not apply to him. This is only for people who do not shoot and do not have certificates.

§ LORD LOVAT
Perhaps I could ask just one question in a general sense. A good many of the Amendments which have been referred to this afternoon seem to increase considerably the occupational hazards of a village constable. I hope that that will be borne in mind. To expect him to go up to somebody and ask for his gun if he has not got a licence, or to interfere with a clay pigeon shoot on New Year's Day in Scotland, is to place on him a highly dangerous additional burden.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.23 p.m.

§ LORD DERWENT
moved to leave out Clause 79 and to insert the following new clause:

§ Shot gun certificates

(". (1) Any person who has in his possession or purchases or acquires a shot gun without holding a certificate authorising him to possess a shot gun shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any such certificate (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a shot gun certificate) shall be in such form as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe.
(3) There shall be payable on the issue of a shot gun certificate a fee of twenty shillings.
(4) Shot gun certificates shall be issued at such places as will enable persons conveniently to obtain such certificates.
(5) Shot gun certificates shall be issued only by such officers as are authorised by the Secretary of State who shall have regard to the last foregoing subsection.
(6) A shot gun certificate shall unless previously revoked be in force from the time it is taken out until the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the first day of the month in which it is taken out.
(7) A shot gun certificate may be revoked by any court before whom the person who holds the certificate is convicted of an offence involving the use or possession of a firearm or ammunition as defined in section 32(1) of the Firearms Act 1937, and where the court revokes a certificate it may by order prohibit that person from again obtaining a shot gun 549 certificate for any period not exceeding five years from the date of the order.
(8) Where the court revokes a shot gun certificate under this section—

(a) the court shall—

(i) cause notice of such revocation to be sent to the Secretary of State; and
(ii) order the holder of the certificate to surrender it to the clerk of the court who shall transmit it to the Secretary of State; and

(b) if the holder fails to surrender the certificate within 21 days from the date of such order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20.

(9) If any person, against whom an order under subsection (7) of this section has been made, obtains, within the period specified by that order, a shot gun certificate, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(10)—
(a) The Secretary of State shall keep a register of all shot gun certificates issued by him under this section, specifying the name and place of abode of the person to whom any such certificate is issued and the date of each certificate.
(b) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which such register shall be kept and such regulations may in particular prescribe—

(i)the procedure whereby a register of all such persons, whose place of abode is within any police area, as shall be holders of a shot gun certificate, and any alterations to such a register, shall be made available to the police authority of that area; and
(ii) the persons or classes of persons who may inspect or obtain copies of any such register as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph.

(c) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a proportion of any fees paid under this section which may be retained by—

(i) any officer authorised by him under subsection (5) of this section; and
(ii) any police authority

in respect of any expenses incurred by them on work done by them under this section or under regulations made thereunder, and for the payment of the remainder (if any) of such fees to the Treasury.

(11) A person guilty of an offence under this section (other than an offence under subsection (8)(b) hereof) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £200 or both.
(12) In Scotland, a contravention of this section which, if it had been triable on indictment, could competently have been libelled as an additional or alternative charge in an indictment charging a person with an offence involving any injury or attempted injury of, or any threat or intent to injure, any person or property by the use or attempted use of a firearm, may, not-withstanding anything in this section, be so libelled and tried.
(13) Subjection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person holding a firearm certificate issued in Northern Ireland authorising him to possess a shot gun.")

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has asked me to move his Amendments this afternoon. He apologises to your Lordships for not being here, but he is undertaking legal duties in a different part of the country. To begin with, may I say that I am not going to press this Amendment and I am not going into too great detail. But I want to go into some detail, because what I have to say may bear on the regulations which have not yet been formulated. I hope that what I have to say may guide Her Majesty's Government in the right direction in their conversations with the interested parties which I understand they are to have before they make the regulations.

§ The reasons my noble friend drafted this clause to take the place of the existing Clause 79 were really threefold. The first reason was that he wanted to simplify the clause. We have seen to-day that legislation by reference not only can be very difficult to understand, but can lead to misunderstandings. My noble friend felt that a clause drafted on these sort of lines would be far better than what is in the Bill; and I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, comes to reply, he will tell us why the Government did not adopt a fairly simply-worded clause like this. The second reason my noble friend had was that he thought Clause 79 as now drafted would be a considerable nuisance—no more; not a hardship, but a nuisance—to quite a lot of ordinary people. He thought that if his new clause were put into force much of that nuisance, as I shall explain in a moment to your Lordships, would not occur. The third reason was that, however well the regulations are drafted, the Bill as it is drafted will cause a great deal of extra work for the police, and particularly the police in certain areas, because it has already been agreed, I think, that the number of certificates to be issued will be really quite vast. My noble friend therefore thought that if he drafted a clause such as this it would take much of the burden off the police.

§ I will not go into all the details of the new clause, but the scheme of it, roughly, 551 is that you have to have a shot-gun certificate—my noble friend goes along with that—but instead of having to apply to the police for it you take out a certificate as you would take out other certificates, probably at the Post Office, for which you would pay 20s. Each certificate would have a counterfoil, and on the counterfoil would be the man's name and address. I shall come back to that point in a moment. The counterfoils are then sent in and, under the orders of the Secretary of State, they are sent to headquarters and distributed by areas to local police forces. That would not have been possible a few years ago, but it is now a perfectly simple and quick task by computer. So the police would have information about all those in their area who had certificates. The effect of all this would be that one would go into a Post Office, as one does for other licences, and get one's certificate; the lists would then go to the police; the police could run through the lists and, if they saw the name of somebody they thought should not have a licence, they would be able to remove that certificate, subject to appeal and so on.

§ The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may say that something as easy as this would be easy to evade; in other words, that a criminal or somebody who intended to use a firearm for a criminal purpose could give the wrong name, the wrong address or both. I do not know whether he really imagines that that is not going to happen under the Bill. Of course it is, though why a criminal should bother to do it in nine cases out of ten I cannot think, because as a general rule he could perfectly legally get a certificate. All he has to do is to take up residence where he is not known and apply for a certificate. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has told us on behalf of the Government, as a general rule there will be an automatic issue of the certificate on application. It is only where the police happen to know something against a particular man that they will say, "No". If he goes and lives somewhere else for a short time, somewhere where he is not known, and then gives his correct name and address, he will get a certificate. Why should he cheat in order to get hold of a shot-gun without a licence?

552

§ This Bill, as has been said time and again, will not prevent criminals getting hold of shot-guns; and in my view they will be able to get hold of them perfectly legally. It would be far easier, I should have thought, for the police to have lists to check through, rather than to take the odd shot at perhaps making fuller inquiries about whoever it may be. I should have thought that this was a far better way of handling this matter, and I should like to hear from the noble Lord why the Government do not like a simple clause of this kind. Of course the drafting may be wrong, but that does not particularly matter at this stage. That is the first question I would ask the noble Lord.

§ The second question I would ask the noble Lord is this. He said, I believe—I hope I have got him right—that the Government were going to consult all the interested organisations before they made any regulations, and also, although I am not actually quoting him, that in spite of the complications of the Bill he thought that the regulations would make everything very much easier to operate than at first appears. All I can say is that I have never known any regulation that made anything easier to operate. I know it may be too late now, but why have the Government set their face against legislation which is as simple as possible, instead of this complicated machinery? Much of the legislation which is by reference back is quite incomprehensible to the ordinary person. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 79 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend is not moving this new clause seriously, because it is one which from a practical point of view seems to me to be the best and most effective control method of shot-guns. In fact, it follows very much a suggestion which I think I made on the Committee stage on this matter. I think that the Government have this completely out of perspective. I have always been led to believe that the Firearms Acts were not passed in order to deter criminals from using firearms: they were passed in order that the authorities might know the whereabouts of all firearms in the country in the event of the populace rising to try to turn 553 them out. It seems significant that at this moment, when Her Majesty's Government seem quite incapable of doing anything right, they should choose to register all the firearms in the country—lest an irate populace should turn on them in lieu of their going to the ballot box.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, yesterday gave various statistics relating to the increase in crimes involving firearms. On reflection, it seems to me that he was not really putting forward any effective arguments for registering shot-guns. What he was, in effect, doing was to argue in favour of bringing back the death penalty, which I believe we probably made a great mistake in removing. What is required is a deterrent to the criminal from using firearms and a simple method of registering shot-guns—which this clause could have provided.

§ 5.32 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, it seems that one virtue of the Government's proposals in this Bill is that they have provided a magnificent opportunity for noble Lords to work off their various prejudices on all sorts of subjects, many without any real relation to the matters under discussion. Not that the Government expect to get any thanks for that! I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the very great care he has taken and the hours of work he has spent in devising an entirely new Clause 79; and I am grateful that in his absence the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has moved it so succinctly. But I would say at once to the noble Lord that it is not enough that wording should be so simple that almost anyone who reads it understands—or thinks he understands—what the author has in mind; for if I were so disposed I could read this clause in a way which would lead to a good many misunderstandings. It must be not only simply worded, but workable; it must also do what we want it to do. In many respects, the noble Viscount's new clause is not workable; in almost all respects, it does not do what the Government want Clause 79 to do.
In our view, the principal defect of the new clause is that which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, seemed to regard as its prime virtue: that its main purpose is to substitute for the modified firearm 554 certificate of Clause 79 a system of simple registration of shot-gun owners and users. The noble Viscount's clause makes his intention clear: that there should be a register of shot-gun owners and users which could be maintained by requiring the persons to be registered to take out annual certificates on the lines of, say, dog licences. The essence of a proposal of that kind is that anyone has a right to such a certificate unless a court makes a prohibitory order. In this, it resembles the now extinct gun licences system whereby revenue was raised by requiring certain categories of gun-users to obtain Revenue licences which were issued without inquiry and from which local Excise authorities maintained great lists of persons who had paid that particular due.
My Lords, the unacceptable difference between the clause of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and Clause 79 of the Bill is that of control. I know that at various stages in the discussions noble Lords have suggested that such control would not be very effective, or even that it would not be effective at all. But the purpose of this Amendment is that there should be no control of any kind; and this is quite unacceptable. Under the noble Viscount's proposal there would be no discretion in the issuing authority to refuse a certificate. However socially undesirable it might be, they would still have to issue a certificate, for example, to a person suffering from a serious mental disturbance; to a criminal, and so on. Our purpose in introducing Part V of the Bill is to embody in various ways a form of control to deal with the situation caused by an increase in recent years in the number of serious crimes involving the use of shot-guns. And this is, of course, a matter of grave public concern. This is what led to our decision to end the present unrestricted sale of shot-guns.
But if, as the noble Viscount proposes, there is no discretion vested in the certificate-issuing authority, then there is no restriction on the sale of shot-guns save as a result of court orders—which, under the Amendment, can be made only where a person is convicted of an offence involving the use or possession of a firearm; and then only for a period of five years. Incidentally, although the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that we should not bother about drafting points—and I 555 am not going to do so—I will mention just one example. Subsection (7) of the clause is drafted in such a way that there would be no power at all to prohibit registration where the offender had no certificate at the time of conviction for a shot-gun offence. This is a rather serious point: one would have to be rather kind to call it a drafting defect.
The Amendment envisages a central licensing system administered by the Home Secretary who might employ local agents for part of the work. The shot-gun certificate system in the Bill is complementary to the firearm certificate system which is a local one administered by the police. We think it highly undesirable that one part of a control system over firearms should be a local one and the other part centralised. If a centralised control system is to be set up it should include firearms as well as shot-gun certificates. But this would involve a radical re-shaping of the existing system and could be undertaken only after an exhaustive review of the existing system.
The question of control—which we must have—and the method of achieving it are the main reasons why we think this proposed new clause totally unsuitable. But there are other reasons. For example, the provision in the Amendment for various things to be done by regulations made by the Secretary of State does not fit in with the Secretary of State's rule-making powers under Section 30 of the 1937 Act, which are attracted by Clause 82 to the whole of Part V of the Bill. Secondly, the provisions for payment of receipts of police authorities to the Treasury could lead not to less work but to a disproportionate amount of accounting work, since they do not fit in with the existing procedure for adjustment in respect of local receipts and the grant paid by the Home Office to police authorities in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked me about the rules which the Home Secretary, after the passing of this Bill, will make after consultation, as he has said, with the various interested parties and organisations. Of course, until we have those discussions, no decision can be made about the precise detail of regulations. It could not be otherwise. If we had made up our minds—which we have 556 not—there would be no purpose in having the discussions. But I can mention the kind of matters which we shall discuss with the interested organisations. They are, first, the form of shot-gun certificates. For example, should they include photographs? I know that we provide for that in the Bill, but we have not decided that they will have to go in: we are simply putting in powers to make regulations to that effect. The form of shot-gun certificates will be discussed with the interested parties. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who thought that the rules might make things more difficult to understand for the ordinary people. If we discuss these matters with interested parties, particularly with the trade, and also other organisations representing users, and the police, between us we ought to be able to devise regulations which will be well and easily understood; and since they will all be based on the Bill when it becomes an Act, we should make things understandable.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but as the noble Lord is on that point, will he bear in mind that there will be interested parties who will want to see that the public have as little interference with their daily lives as possible, and experience as little trouble as possible, and that when that happens it frequently means extra work for the police? I hope that at these joint consultations the Home Office will make strong representations about the additional work for the police.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, most certainly. We have full regard for the work of the police. We had consultations with the police long before these measures in the Bill were framed. I may say that I have listened to arguments from the Opposition Benches for Amendments which the police would deplore, because, if accepted, those Amendments would add to their difficulties and, in the view of the police, lessen their power to apprehend those who break the law.

LORD HAWKE
Would the noble Lord give some sort of undertaking that, instead of the undermanned police force being taken from its task of catching criminals, more lay clerks and other people will be enlisted to do this job? A great amount of manpower will be needed to work this Bill.

557

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, certainly I will give an assurance about that. This matter, of course, has been discussed and is under continuing consideration. It is extremely relevant, and we have in fact raised it.
Among the matters we shall be discussing with regard to making the rules, are such things as whether the particulars on the application forms should need to be verified; and the question of fees; that is to say, the cost of certificates. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, suggests £1. At present, I think the price is 5s. This point does not arise under the Bill, but power exists under the Local Government Act 1966 to vary the fees. This point also we shall discuss with interested parties. We shall discuss whether the Secretary of State should impose conditions in the licence, such as having to report the theft of one's shot-gun. Those are the kind of matters we want to discuss. Those are, broadly speaking, the main heads under which shot-gun rules will be discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was kind enough to say that he was seeking for information and he did not propose to press this Amendment. I am grateful to him for that. I hope he feels I have tried to give an adequate answer.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for taking so much trouble in answering, particularly about what might happen in the regulations, which is important. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Hawke that my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross, did not want me to press this Amendment. We thought, as he did, that it was not in a suitable form. It in fact goes directly against certain objects of the Bill. It was an exercise to show Her Majesty's Government that their own legislation was far too complicated, which I believe to be the fact, but it is not, as I say, a suitable Amendment to press.
May I also say to my noble friend, Lord Hawke, that this is one of the great points of difference between some of us and the Government regarding the Firearms Act. The particular firearm, with its number, is registered, as well as the firearm owner. The certificate is issued to the owner but it contains that information. There is nothing in this Bill to control shot-guns, but only the owners 558 and the users of shot-guns. Many shot-guns are not numbered, and so long as you have one certificate you can have a dozen shot-guns; there is nothing to stop you. That is one of the reasons why some of us believe, and I believe very strongly, that what is wanted is a record system and not a control system, because I am convinced that the control system, however you operate it, will not work with that number of guns unless you make it almost impossible to get a certificate. One of the great advantages of Lord Colville of Culross's Amendment was that it was a very good record system—I suggest possibly better than this one, because there was a central record office. Having said that, and, for the last time, having said I do not think control under this Bill will work, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AILWYN)
Before calling the next Amendment, No. 75, I have to advise the House that Amendments Nos. 75 and 78 are alternative Amendments in the same place in the Bill. Both Amendments pre-empt Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. Therefore, if either Amendment No. 75 or No. 78 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.

§ 5.48 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert: (1) No person under the age of fifteen shall accept as a gift any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun, and no person shall give any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun to any person under that age.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment makes no change in the substance of the subsection. All it does is to reverse the order of the two sentences which comprise it, so that the words "accept as a gift" appear before the word "give". I hope this will make its meaning clearer. This was a point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, during Committee stage, when he said that the effect of Clause 80 might be to prohibit a child under 15 being taught to fire a shot-gun. The noble Duke will remember saying that. The argument was that although a child is permitted to use someone else's shot-gun under adult supervision, this clause might not permit him to use live ammunition, since the process of handing a cartridge 559 to him and his firing it might be caught by the prohibition of "gifts" of ammunition.

§ The word "give" in the subsection means a gift in the sense of a transfer of the legal ownership, and the fact that the child is given the cartridge, or ammunition, in the sense of being handed it, and then fires that other person's cartridge under supervision, does not in itself make the transaction one of a gift to him. During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, suggested that the meaning might be made clearer if the order of sentences were reversed, as in Section 1 of the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act 1962, and we have adopted that suggestion. The substance has not been changed.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

§ THE DUKE OF ATHOLL had given notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 75, to leave out from beginning to "no" in line 2. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment, but I must say frankly that I prefer No. 78, which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has put down on exactly the same point. If we accept Amendment No. 75 which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will No. 78 be called?

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
My Lords, Amendments Nos. 75 and 78 are alternative Amendments.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, it might be convenient to discuss Nos. 75 and 78 together, if they are alternatives, and then vote at the end of the discussion.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, it might be helpful if we discussed Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78 together.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
My Lords, if No. 75, or No. 75 as amended, is agreed to, I shall then call Amendment No. 78 with reference to Amendment No. 75.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, it may be better if I did not move No. 76, and therefore I do not move it.

560

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I hope that I am in order to suggest at this stage that we should discuss the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful about this matter. I am grateful to the noble Duke for the course he has taken. I would submit to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that it would be better to have a discussion later on Nos. 78 and 80, and some other Amendments on virtually the same point.

§ LORD DERWENT
I do not quite understand the position, because the noble Lord's Amendment is to leave out subsection (1) and insert new words. My noble friend's Amendment, No. 78, is to leave out subsection (1) and insert other new words. Surely we must discuss No. 78 with No. 75.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, I am agreeable to anything that makes for progress. But the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker made a ruling on this point. It was that if No. 75 were carried, Amendment No. 78 could only be considered having regard to Amendment No. 75. If that is the case, I should have thought that we should dispose of No. 75 before we went on further.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I have a certain interest in this matter, as Amendment No. 80 in my name deals with the same point. If No. 75 is carried, am I right in thinking that No. 80 will fall? I hope it will not, but I think it would. The difference between Nos. 80 and 78 is that No. 78 relates to the age of fourteen and my Amendment relates to the age of fifteen. I think that fifteen is a better age—but I do not know what is the most convenient method of discussing all these matters. It seems to me that if we carry No. 75, my Amendment is prejudiced, so I had better speak against No. 75. I should be grateful for guidance.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the only guidance we can have is from the Deputy Speaker. My own feeling is that, as the noble Duke has not moved his Amendment to my Amendment, my Amendment should be carried and subsequent Amendments can be considered in the light of that fact.

561

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
My Lords, if either Amendment No. 75 or Amendment No. 78 is agreed to, I cannot call Nos. 79 and 80.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that guidance. It has been suggested to me that if either No. 75 or No. 78 is carried it would not be out of order for me to move a manuscript Amendment to, say; No. 78 to make the age fifteen instead of fourteen. So, if we get rid of No. 75, we can get on to No. 78.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, if that be the case, I would start by suggesting that we do not accept Amendment No. 75. It says that no person under the age of fifteen shall accept as a gift a shot-gun or ammunition for a shot-gun, and no person shall give them as gifts. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and I think that it is absurd to make it an offence for a child to accept a present. Uncle Dick comes to young George and says, "You are now fifteen and I am giving you a gun for Christmas". Young George is then supposed to turn around to Uncle Dick and say, "But under the Criminal Justice Act, Section 80, I cannot accept it". Has anyone ever heard such nonsense! My Amendment provides that no person shall make a gift of a shot-gun or ammunition, which is something quite different, and there is a later Amendment which provides that only the grown-up shall be penalised and that the child's gun may be taken away from him when Uncle is run in. That is merely widening the powers of the court. The question between the ages of 14 and 15 is, I think, simply this: 14 is the age that is mentioned in the Firearms Acts, and I should have thought it was better to keep the age the same.
There is another rather extraordinary anomaly. If we have the age 15, it will be an offence to be given a gun between the age of 14 and 15, but at the age of 14 you will be entitled to shoot without supervision. That does not seem to be quite sensible. I do not feel very strongly on this question of 14 or 15, but 14 seems to me to be the more sensible choice. However, I do feel strongly about making a child commit an offence by accepting something as a gift. On these grounds, I personally object to Amendment No. 75.

562

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, may I intervene at this stage, with great respect? The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was out of order in almost everything he said, because what we are discussing here is Amendment No. 75, which merely suggests a different form of words to do precisely the same thing, and the Amendment is made to accord with suggestions which were put forward by two noble Lords from the Opposition Benches. We are not discussing at the moment the age 14 or 15, or whether it is funny that Uncle George shall tell his nephew why he could not do this or that. All we are discussing is what form of words or expression should be used in subsection (1) of Clause 80. We are not discussing the principle of the matter—we shall be coming to that later. I thought that at Committee stage—and I hope that the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, will support me in this—the sense of the Committee was that we should re-word this subsection in exactly the way that we have now re-worded it. That is all we are considering on this Amendment, and I hope that we can have the wider discussion on the later Amendment.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I do not think I am out of order. The noble Lord has moved an Amendment to an existing clause. If that Amendment is agreed to, the alteration to the clause is not possible, because, as the Deputy Speaker has just told us, if Amendment No. 75 is passed, then No. 78, which cuts out subsection (1), cannot be passed.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I think my noble friend has it wrong. As I understand it—and I hope that I shall be confirmed about this—if Amendment No. 75 is accepted now, then No. 78 will be treated as an Amendment to take out what is No. 75 and put No. 78 in its place. I understand that this is the procedure, and therefore it really does not matter if we let No. 75 be carried into the Bill, because we can take it out by No. 78, if the majority of the House feel that it should come out.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I am not surprised that I got it wrong, because it was not in the least clear. In that case, I apologise for the step that I took. I entirely misunderstood the situation, and 563 I withdraw my opposition to Amendment No. 75.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, I should like to refer to a point raised on the Committee stage—one which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said he would look into but which has not so far been mentioned. It is something that was said by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, and perhaps the simplest thing is for me to quote what he said: …what happens if the child in question under the age of 15 is not given the gun by his grandfather but is left it by his grandfather, who died rather sooner than expected, when the boy was 12?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/6/67; col. 875.] Guns by well-known makers can be valuable bequests these days, and it is important to know what happens in a case of this sort.

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, reads a little further on, he will see that I said it was the duty of the trustees not to hand over the gun until the boy had attained the age of 15.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
My Lords, it seems to me rather a new procedure to say that one should carry Amendment No. 75 and you can then move an Amendment to it. I should have thought that the correct order was to move No. 78 as an Amendment to No. 75, and then vote on No. 78 first. If No. 78 is carried, it is a substitute; if it is defeated, then No. 75 stands.

LORD LEATHERLANTD
My Lords, far be it from me to try to tender advice to your Lordships, many of whom are very experienced in matters of this kind. My experience has been confined to presiding over some boisterous Labour Party conferences. But it seems to me that if we accept Amendment No. 75 that becomes subsection (1), and then we get down to Amendment No. 78. The Amendment there is to leave out subsection (1)—in other words, Amendment No. 75—and substitute the words as set out in No. 78. It seems quite simple to me. We adopt Amendment No. 75, and then we go on to No. 78 and either adopt it or not, as the case may be.

LORD MERTHYR
My Lords, may I intervene on this matter of procedure and 564 express the humble opinion that what has just been said is correct? The procedure should be to debate Amendment No. 75 now, and if that is carried then Amendment No. 78 would be called by the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker. If the Amendment is carried, it would be called in the amended form, because subsection (1) would have been amended. If Amendment No. 75 was not carried, it would be called as it is now. If I may say so with respect, I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is correct in what he suggested.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, as this is an occasion when the noble and learned Viscount and I are in complete agreement, and as we are supported by the immediate past Lord Chairman of Committees, I hope that we may proceed on those lines.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 6.9 p.m.

§ LORD DERWENT moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert: (1) No person shall make a gift of any shot gun or ammunition for a shot gun to any person under the age of fourteen.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I am in order now in moving this Amendment. I have already explained it, and I do not think I need do it again. We think it is senseless to make a child who accepts a gift virtually into a criminal by accepting it. We are all in favour of somebody who makes the gift being held to have committed an offence, but not the child because he accepts it. It is as simple as that. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, because the subsection really does not make sense in any other way. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 64, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I should like to support very strongly my noble friend. I think it is entirely wrong that we should make children under the age of 14 or 15 criminals if we can possibly avoid it, and I feel that on this occasion we can easily avoid it. Undoubtedly in the giving of a gun, the person who gives the gun is the person who commits the crime, and not the person who receives it. I should have 565 thought that this could have been easily recognised by leaving out any reference to persons under the age of 14 or 15 accepting the gift of a gun.
Further, on the Committee stage we asked whether one of the noble Lords who speak for the Government could tell us the number of times that this provision has in fact been used in regard to airguns. I think I am right in saying that there is this provision in the 1962 Act, that no child under the age of 14 may accept an airgun. Has that provision ever been used? Has any child ever been prosecuted during the five years or so in which that Act has been in operation? If so, was the person who gave the gun also not prosecuted? If during the five years no child ever has in fact been prosecuted, as I suspect is the case, I should have thought it much better to leave out this particular provision.
I should like to correct one thing my noble friend said in his original speech—at least I think he said it. That was that under the 1962 Act children under the age of 14 had to be supervised when shooting with shot-guns. I am fairly sure that the age for supervision is 15—although I may be wrong about this—and that this is how the age of 15 crept into this Bill, and not 14. I think it would be an advantage if we could clear up that point.
On the whole, I am in favour of the age of 14, because I feel that the giving of a shot-gun is a little different from the giving of an airgun, except that in my opinion airguns are rather more dangerous, though less lethal, in the hands of children. Airgun pellets are much easier and much cheaper to obtain, and on the whole there are very few children under 15 who will be able to afford cartridges, whereas there are many whose pocket money is quite sufficient to enable them to afford a fairly substantial supply of airgun pellets. I think that the economics of the situation may mean that an airgun is, on the whole, a more dangerous weapon in the hands of young children. I think that the age of 15 or 14 is a comparatively unimportant point, but the fact that a child who accepts a gun is liable to prosecution is an important point, and a very undesirable one.

566

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I should like to add one word. It seems to me very odd, when I remember that the Party opposite pressed very strongly that the age for criminal responsibility should be raised, that we now find a proposal being put before the House that a young person under 15 shall be guilty of a criminal offence if he accepts the gift of a gun, even though he may have no intention of using it until after his 15th birthday. I should have thought that all that was necessary was to make it an offence for someone to give a gun, as the Amendment moved by my noble friend proposes. The issue is clear-cut, and I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to give way on this. But, if they are not, I hope that my noble friend will press the matter to a Division. I do not know that any further argument can carry the matter further. I personally do not think that the age of 14 or 15 makes much difference, as my noble friend has just said, but I think it is an important question whether you should make it a criminal offence for a young person to accept a gift of this kind.

§ LORD PARGITER
My Lords, I do not know whether any other noble Lord will be in difficulties, but I am in some difficulty on this matter, because I should prefer the age to be 15. But I certainly would support the Amendment in so far as it would prevent any question of a child being prosecuted for a criminal offence. I wonder whether there is any way of clearing this matter up, so that we may have a true voice on this particular issue.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I think that the Amendment dealing with age is the next one; it is a different Amendment.

LORD INGLEWOOD
My Lords, may I agree with what the noble Viscount said. It never strikes me whether the age of 14 or 15—

§ LORD PARGITER
My Lords, it says "under the age of 14" as part of the Amendment.

LORD INGLEWOOD
My Lords, there are many people a great deal older than 14 or 15 who are quite irresponsible people to have a gun in their charge. It is very largely a question of character and supervision, rather than a question 567 of age. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House remembers that when he outgrew a very good 16-bore gun, when he must have been about 16, it was passed on to me as my first gun, and I was then 13½; and at that time he and his then advisers must have had somewhat different views from what they have to-day.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, on that particular point of detail, I think that at that time it was thought, quite rightly, that the noble Lord at 13½ was much safer with a gun than I was at 16.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, say something about the point raised by the noble Lord opposite? There is an Amendment down in my name to make the age 15, but if the noble Lord wishes that will not be called. If the noble Lord, after this Amendment was carried, wished to change the age from 14 to 15, it would, I believe, be possible for him to hand in a manuscript Amendment.

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, the noble Duke first of all asked some questions about children in possession of airguns. I think he confined his questions to airguns. The position very simply is that between August 1, 1962, and July 31, 1963, there were 590 cautions and 618 prosecutions. Between August 1, 1963, and July 31, 1964, there were 485 cautions and 600 prosecutions. I have more figures, and perhaps I might show them to the noble Duke.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask what they were for? Were they for children accepting airguns, or were they for children using airguns in an unauthorised way, in a dangerous way, or without supervision? What I am objecting to has nothing to do with the supervision side, which I think is absolutely essential. But I think children ought not to be made criminals, or made to have committed a criminal offence, when they accept an airgun or a shot-gun when under the age of 14 or 15.

§ LORD BOWLES
The heading of the column is, "Possession of air weapons or ammunition by children under 14 except as authorised". I raised this matter my- 568 self when I was going into the question, both as regards the first year, 1962–63, when there were about 1,200 cautions and prosecutions, and the following year, when the number came to about 1,100, and the particular category was, "Possession of air weapons or ammunition by children under 14 except as authorised". At first I thought that that was rather a lot, but noble Lords opposite know more about the number of shot-guns in the country, and perhaps it is a very small figure indeed. Therefore, I do not feel that those figures are all that important.
The feeling was expressed in Committee that it was going too far to make it a criminal offence for a child under 15 to accept a shot-gun as a gift. The Amendment that the noble Lord moved just now is therefore intended to delete that provision and, as the logic of the case requires, to repeal certain provisions whereby it is an offence for a child under 14 to accept a Part I firearm or ammunition, or an air weapon or ammunition.
The existing provisions under the 1937 and 1962 Acts have not given rise to difficulty in practice, and there are no grounds for expecting any to arise as a result of the Bill. Statistics for prosecutions of children, to which I have just referred, are probably not very helpful. The numbers are almost certainly small; and it goes on to different categories of prosecutions and it is necessary to be able to deal with them.
The effect of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is to enable the courts to deal with neglectful parents or guardians, who are not exercising proper control when a child is charged with an offence. In the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, this does not seem to be a time to relax control over all forms of firearms. Moreover, if any child under age gave his gun to another child under age, under these Amendments it would be odd if proceedings could be taken only against the child who gave the gun.

§ LORD SOMERS
My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Could he tell us whether it would be possible for a child to accept a gun unless he was given it?

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, I do not know. He must not be in possession of it. It could be given either by the trustees, 569 which would be illegal, if he was under 15; it could be given to him by his "Uncle Dick", to whom we referred a little while ago, and in those circumstances he cannot accept it unless he has been given it.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, what about the young child who inherits it under a will?

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount could not have been here a few minutes ago, or possibly he was talking to somebody else. The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, asked me that question, which was raised in Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I made inquiry, and the position is that the trustee of the will is not allowed by law to hand the gun over to the child until he reaches the appropriate age.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, may I—

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, may I appeal to the noble Duke to give the noble Lord a chance? He has hardly been able to get a sentence out in this little speech he is trying to make.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had let slip something which he did not mean. I thought I heard him say in answer to my noble friend Lord Somers that the child could not be in possession of a gun; but the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to which we have just agreed, was to make it perfectly clear that the child can be in possession of a gun, provided that it has not been "given" in the legal sense of the word, and provided that the child has a shot-gun certificate.

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, the Amendment we have just disposed of does not seem to have been clearly understood. We had a long debate on it in the Committee stage and, using my own words, the position roughly is that if a man gives a gun to a child in order that he may fire it, that is not a gift in law—there is no transfer of legal ownership. It is purely and simply handing over the gun for the purpose of allowing the child to fire a cartridge or two. What we were trying to do in Amendment No. 75 was 570 to change over the wording at the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who said that in an earlier Act it was the other way round. So what we have said in effect is: No person under 15 shall accept as a gift any shot-gun or ammunition for a shot-gun and no person shall give a shot-gun or ammunition for a shot-gun to any person under that age."— "giving" in the sense of not handing over. It means really giving or legally transferring the ownership, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, understands that.
The Government are opposing this Amendment. I rather hoped that some of the other Amendments might have been taken at the same time, but in view of the discussion we had on whether Amendment No. 78 would fall if No. 75 was carried it was impossible for me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, whether he was going to take others at the same time. But he has not sought to do so, so I suppose we shall have a Division on this Amendment.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I am told that I am entitled to move a manuscript Amendment to my own Amendment, and in view of what various noble Lords have said I intend to do that. I wish to move an Amendment to—

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord on whose authority he has been advised that he can do this? I think I am entitled to know that.

§ LORD DERWENT
The Table. My Lords, the point is this: that it is evidently more popular among noble Lords that the age shall be 15, so under my manuscript Amendment to the Amendment the last line would read "under the age of 15". So the full Amendment will be to leave out subsection (1) (that is, the new subsection (1) inserted by Amendment No. 75) and insert instead: No person shall make a gift of any shotgun or ammunition for a shot-gun to any person under the age of fifteen. My Lords, I simply cannot give way on this. I think it is absurd that we should say that a child who accepts a gift in any circumstances is committing an offence, and I shall ask your Lordships to agree with me in the Lobby.

571

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that on behalf of the Government I was opposing the Amendment which proposed to reduce the age to 14. I have no objection to the age of 15, because that was one of the three sections of the discussion. If I am wrong I shall be overruled at the next stage, but at the moment I think I am authorised to oppose the reduction from 15 to 14 years of age.

LORD GRENFELL
My Lords, on a point of Order. I think the correct solution would be to have the manuscript Amendment to this Amendment called first, so I think the Lord Speaker should—

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD JESSEL)
We have not had a manuscript Amendment since I have been on the Woolsack.

§ LORD MOLSON
My Lords, surely in the interests of convenient business there are two separate points which are included in the original Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, on behalf of the Government, has indicated that his opposition to the Amendment was largely directed to the reduction in the age from 15 to 14. Now that my noble friend Lord Derwent indicates that he is prepared to amend that Amendment so as to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, surely the simple and convenient thing, if there is agreement on both sides of the House, would be for your Lordships first to agree to amend the Amendment in a form that is acceptable to both sides of the House, and then, if it appears that the Government are not prepared to accept the second point in the Amendment, which is the question of whether a child shall be made criminally liable for accepting a gift, surely that could be put (if I may respectfully say so) from the Woolsack, and if it is necessary to have a Division upon it we can do so. I think we can get the first point out of the way with complete agreement.

§ LORD DERWENT
I am sorry, my Lords, but surely if the Government intend to agree to this Amendment as amended by me, it is only necessary to have the Question put.

572

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, perhaps I may say one word about what I understand to be the general attitude of the Government, without trying to entangle myself in these procedural points. I gather that the Government are not now in dispute with the Opposition about the age of the child, but that they are in dispute about whether a child can be prosecuted for accepting a gift. If accepting this Amendment really means that we are asked to withdraw from our position on that, of course we cannot accept it. I hope that makes is quite clear.

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, I was about to say to the noble Lord, Lord Molson that I am agreeing to the age of 15, instead of 14, but that I still think it wrong that a child under the age of 15 should be in possession of a gun or ammunition.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, may I suggest that the Question be put on the manuscript Amendment, that 15 should be inserted in place of 14 in Amendment No. 78. That is an Amendment to the Amendment. There is no dispute about that. Then the Amendment as amended will be put; and that the Government are not prepared to accept. Accepting the Amendment to make the age 15, instead of 14, does not compromise the Government at all. But, with the greatest respect, surely the first Question to put is, that the Amendment to the Amendment, to insert "fifteen" in place of "fourteen", be agreed to.

§ LORD PEDDIE
My Lords, then I take it we should return to the original Amendment?

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
Certainly, my Lords.

§ Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 3, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("fifteen").—(Lord Derwent.)

§ On Question, Amendment to Amendment, agreed to.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
We now take Amendment No. 78, as amended.

§ LORD PEDDIE
My Lords, I rise merely to invite my noble friend on the Front Bench to make it a little clearer to his own supporters why he is opposing this Amendment. Quite a lot has been 573 said, and so far as I can understand the situation all parts of the House want to ensure that children below the age of 15 are not in possession of these lethal weapons; and as far as I am able to see, from a simple approach to this matter, the object is attained by making it illegal for someone to give a gun to a person under the age of 15. I would assume that a person of 14 or 15, by the very nature of things, would be totally unaware of any clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill, and therefore I cannot for the life of me see where lies the objection to this Amendment. We are all agreed upon the purpose, and I would invite my noble friend to state in specific terms, which he has not done so far, why he insists that we should cause people below the age of 15 to be exposed to the threat of criminal prosecution. I think we are entitled to a specific reply.

§ LORD MITCHISON
My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I get up in sackcloth and ashes and confess that I have before now given a shot-gun cartridge to a child under the age of 15. I would not have given it a shot-gun, but I have given it a cartridge, and I am bound to say that it never occurred to me that anyone would make that a crime.

§ LORD BOWLES
I do not think it is a crime.

574

§ LORD MITCHISON
It says "or ammunition".

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, the position is this—

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
With the leave of the House.

§ LORD BOWLES
With the leave of the House—I hope the noble and learned Viscount will remember that when it comes to his repetitive speeches. The position is this: that we are really anxious, as a Government and, I think, as a House, to say that we do not want children under the age of 15 to be in possession of these particular weapons. If they are, they will not have to go to prison—I hope my noble friend does not think that. They are prosecuted, but the people on whom the penalty falls will be their parents or guardian. I think that in such circumstances it is just as well to have some penalty, so that parents and guardians will see to it that children are not in possession of these lethal weapons.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I think we had better come to a decision.

§ 6.33 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 78), as amended, shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided:—

§ Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 33.

575

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Falmouth, V.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Albermarle, E.	Ferrers, E.	Milverton, L.
Atholl, D.	Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Molson, L.
Audley, Bs.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	Monsell, V.
Berkeley, Bs.	Greenway, L.	Morrison, L.
Birdwood, L.	Grenfell, L.	Mowbray & Stourton, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Gridley, L.	Muirshiel, V.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.	Oakshott, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Hacking, L.	Raglan, L.
Buckton, L.	Hawke, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Henley, L.	Sandford, L.
Craigavon, V.	Horsbrugh, Bs.	Somers, L.
Crathorne, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Daventry, V.	Ilford, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Inglewood, L.	Swinton, E.
Derwent, L.	Jessel, L.	Templemore, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Killearn, L.	Terrington, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Lambert, V.	Teynham, L.
Dundee, E.	Latymer, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.	Lothian M.	Windlesham, L.
Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Wolverton, L.
Falkland, V.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Wrottesley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arwyn, L.	Bowles, L.	Chorley, L.
Beswick, L.	Burden, L.	Gaiskell, Bs.
Boothby, L.	Champion, L.	Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]
Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Moyle, L.	Snow, L.
Hughes, L.	Phillips, Bs.	Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Kennet, L.	Popplewell, L.	Stocks, Bs.
Latham, L.	Sainsbury, L.	Stonham, L.
Leatherland, L.	St. Davids, V.	Stow Hill, L.
Lindgren, L.	Samuel, V.	Summerskill, Bs.
Longford, E. [L. Privy Seal.]	Shackleton, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Maelor, L.	Shepherd, L.	Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

§ 6.40 p.m.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 65, line 2, leave out ("giving") and insert ("making a gift of").—(Lord Derwent.)

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, in anticipation of the result we have just had in the Division, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross thought it right to put down this Amendment, the effect of which is simply that now that children cannot be prosecuted for being given a gun, where the giver of the gun is prosecuted the court will, under this Amendment, be allowed to confiscate the gun although in fact it will belong to the child. That seems to be right and proper. If the child is to have a gun when he gets to the proper age, his father will buy him a second gun. This is the object of this Amendment which I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ After Clause 80 insert the following new clause:

§ Power of court to order forfeiture of firearm, etc.

§ (".—(1) Where any person is charged with an offence under section 19(2) of the Firearms Act 1937, section 1(1) of the Air Guns and Shot Guns etc. Act 1962 or section 80(1) of this Act, if the Court is of the opinion that, in addition to or instead of dealing with the person so charged, an order should be made as to the forfeiture or disposal of the firearm, air weapon, shot gun or ammunition in respect of which the charge has been brought the Court may make such order in that respect against the person to whom the gift of the firearm, air weapon, shot gun or ammunition was made or to whom the firearm or ammunition was lent as the Court shall think fit.

§ (2) An order under this section may be made against a person who, having been required to attend the Court, has failed to do so, but save as aforesaid no such order shall be made without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.

576

§ (3) An order made under this section against any person may be enforced in the like manner as if the order had been made on the conviction of that person for an offence.

§ (4) Any person against whom an order is made under this section may appeal against the order—

(a) in England and Wales to a Court of quarter sessions; and
(b) in Scotland to the Sheriff Court.")—(Lord Derwent.)

§ LORD BOWLES
My Lords, special provision has been included to enable the court to confiscate a weapon owned by a child in proceedings brought against another person, the donor. Instead of having a novel procedure of this kind, however, it would be a more convenient course to use the ordinary power of forfeiture and combine this with an absolute or conditional discharge. The problems of dealing with offences by children (which can be more trifling than accepting gifts of firearms; for example, walking on the grass in a park) are better left to the general law of children and young persons than by attempting to make provision in specialised legislation. The Amendment, which would put an end to the offence of a child under 15 accepting a gift of a Part I firearm, would leave unaffected the complementary offence under Section 19(3) of the 1937 Act of a child under 15 having such a weapon in his possession. I have just had a note from my advisers that this is consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted; so I have pleasure in accepting it on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Clause 81 [Amendment of enactments relating to firearms]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is just a drafting Amendment. Its only purpose is to correct the accidental use of the wrong word in the drafting of Clause 81(1). In the context it is clear, I hope, that the word "substituted" should be "inserted". I beg to move.

577

§ Amendment moved— Page 65, line 8, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("inserted").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 66, line 1, leave out ("giving") and insert ("making a gift of").—(Lord Derwent.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this, again, is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to carry through to Section 24 of the Firearms Act 1937 the expression "shot-gun" in place of the expression "smooth bore gun", on the grounds that "smooth bore gun" might be construed as including an air-gun. Section 24 makes it a serious offence to shorten a shot-gun, but clearly the same considerations do not apply to air-guns. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 66, line 13, at end insert: ("( ) In section 24 of the said Act of 1937 (shortening shot-guns and converting imitation firearms into real) for references to a smooth bore gun there shall be substituted references to a shot-gun; and in subsection (4) of the section for the words 'or a firearm which has been converted as aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words 'contrary to subsection (1) of this section, or a firearm which has been converted contrary to subsection (2)'").—(Lord Stonham.)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
My Lords, Amendment No. 91 pre-empts Amendment No. 92. Accordingly, if Amendment No. 91 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 92.

§ 6.49 p.m.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, may I move Amendment No. 91, to leave out subsection (6) of Clause 81? This subsection deals with rules that may require an application for a firearms certificate or shot-gun certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant, and may require verification of the likeness of the photograph. I know that my noble and learned friend intended to ask whether these provisions were really necessary. Is it absolutely essential, in order to make this shot-gun cer- 578 tificate procedure effective, to insist not only on having photographs of the applicant, but upon having those photographs verified in a prescribed manner? This links up with what I said at an earlier stage of our discussion on this Part of the Bill, that whereas all of us are anxious that we should enact arrangements which will be effective against criminals, we on this side of the House are not anxious to clutter up the Bill or the criminal law with provisions which are not really necessary. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 66, line 14, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

LORD HAWKE
My Lords, these two paragraphs look uncommonly as if Her Majesty's Government are making up their minds to require these certificates to be something like a passport. If the noble Lord is going to argue in favour of this matter, he might at the same time tell us what crime, or what entry into or departure from this country of a criminal, has been seriously inhibited by the lack of a passport. I do not believe that it interferes at all with criminal activities. The whole apparatus of this certification procedure is becoming more and more complicated. It reminds me of the old Government of India system, which was that certificates to own firearms, particularly shot-guns, were awarded only rarely, and even then to firm Government supporters alone.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor for putting forward the argument for this Amendment so persuasively and convincingly. I do not want to add to what he said, except perhaps to ask one question. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, last night made some reference to the gun trade. Could he say whether this requirement is at the instance of the Home Office, or whether it has been asked for by the chief constables; and, if not by either of those two, by whom? We have had the Firearms Act since 1937, and we have never had to provide a photograph in order to get a firearms certificate for a rifle. What trouble has that caused? If the noble Lord says that it is only a matter of taking power to do this and that they have not made up their minds to require it, I would venture to suggest that that 579 is no ground for putting this provision in the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
My Lords, this provision seems to be most unnecessary. Presumably, if these photographs have to be taken and sent in, it will all have to be done at the expense of the unfortunate person who is applying for a licence. If one takes a power to do this, it means that it must be applied to everybody. I should like to ask what value these photographs will have when one gets them. When the photographs are produced, presumably certified by a justice of the peace or somebody similar, rather like a passport photograph, what then is to be done with them? Presumably they are to be filed away with the certificate or with the duplicate of the certificate which is kept. What earthly value is that going to be? If one is to provide photographs, why not fingerprints also? We all want to make the Bill a success and prevent firearms getting to the wrong people, but one will be bringing the law into contempt if one forces 999 ordinary reputable people to have to apply for new certificates for guns which they have always had and if one attaches all these extra conditions. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that we all want to stop criminals having firearms. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said a moment ago, as he said last night, that none of us would wish to oppose measures which seemed to be reasonable precautions for preventing, if possible, firearms getting into criminal hands or for making detection easier if they do find their way into those wrong hands. I ventured to say last night that almost all our discussions of Clause 79 had been on Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite, all designed to remove from the Bill those precautions and safeguards which the Government regard as necessary to make it more difficult for criminals to have and to use shot-guns and, if they do get them and use them criminally, to make it easier to locate them and detect them. That is the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, when he asked what possible reason there was for asking a 580 great number of law-abiding citizens to be required to have a certificate. Well, I have outlined the use.
I do not think that it has ever been alleged that, because we want all law-abiding British citizens to have passports, it is an unbearable burden that they should have to apply for those passports, with photographs, so that they can be recognised, and that they should have to be renewed every ten years. As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, that does not prevent criminals getting abroad, because they can get forged passports. It is also true that having that passport procedure makes it that much more difficult for criminals to ply their trade and to get abroad once they have committed a crime. That is the justification for having photographs on passports. I concede that, if it is finally decided that photographs should be affixed to shot-gun certificates, it will put people to that extra bit of expense in having a photograph taken and in having it verified in some respect. But I consider that it is something to which we ought to agree, because in nearly all cases it will make identification easier.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked whether we had had discussions on this matter with the gun trade and with the police, and whether it was at their instance, or just at the instance of the Home Office, that this power to make this requirement was put into the Bill. Certainly we have discussed it with the police. We have not yet discussed it in any detail with the gun trade, but it is one of the things that we shall be discussing with them. I do not think I can accept that, because we have not yet finally decided whether or not a photograph should be affixed to the certificate, for that reason we should not take power to do so.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I did not ask the noble Lord whether he had discussed it with the gun trade, but whether this provision was inserted at the instance of the police or at the instance of the Home Office. The provision is not for a photograph to be attached to the certificate, but for the application for the certificate to be sent in with a photograph, which is a different thing.

§ House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

581

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I think the straight answer to the noble Lord is that this provision was included in the Bill by the Home Secretary, after discussion with the police. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, asked, "What earthly good will it do?" Surely the noble Earl can conceive of a situation where someone who was a criminal could have someone else apply for a certificate. Alternatively, he could simply get a certificate from someone else who was an honest person, against whom there would be no bar by the police. But, of course, if there was no photograph on it there would be no ready means of identification. That, again, is an example of where a photograph would be useful.
I have an apology to make to the noble and learned Viscount. I was rather categorical about saying that this suggestion did not come from the gun trade, and of course that was my honest view when I said it a moment ago. I now learn that the suggestion about photographs was indeed made by the Gun Trade Association, but what I do not know is whether it was during discussions with a number of organisations. I thought it advisable to make that correction at once. That being the case, I think it makes the proposal of greater value and appeal than I at first thought.
The subsection which the Amendment seeks to delete is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will be aware, a common form provision in current legislation, which is designed to give flexibility to the rule-making power. So far as the shot-gun certificate system is concerned, different provision for different cases will obviously be essential. We shall have the problem of short-term certificates, and the application forms for overseas visitors staying here for longer than 30 days will clearly have to differ from the standard three-year ones for residents. In regard to firearm certificates, different cases will also arise. It might be decided, for example, to provide for different statutory conditions to be attached to different weapons if the range of weapons is very wide. What is appropriate for a starting pistol may not be appropriate for a signalling gun. We appreciate that putting this power in the Bill is an indication that it may well be used, but it is by no means certain that it will be used.

582

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? What is troubling me is that though this whole question of shot-guns has been in the minds of the Government for many months (the first consideration must have started long before this Bill was introduced), even now at the final stage of the Bill the Government have not yet made up their mind whether they want to use this particular safeguard. It seems to me unreasonable to ask Parliament to agree to what is certainly going to be an imposition on every applicant for a shot-gun, without the Government's having made up their mind whether they really want to use this power. I resent the idea of Parliament giving blanket cover to a Government unless the Government have already decided that they need to act in the way in question and can explain and defend to Parliament the reason why they need the power sought.
Obviously, photographs must be attached to passports. What use would a passport be to someone travelling in Afghanistan, if the Afghan authorities had no means whatever of knowing whether that piece of paper was rightly attached to the person? But we are talking here about internal controls, and to my mind the Government have not yet given a convincing explanation about why they require photographs. They cannot, I think, give that explanation because they have not yet made up their minds whether the need exists.

§ LORD WOLVERTON
My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask him whether this will be done by regulation? It is in the Bill, but the Government have not yet made up their minds whether or not they are going to bring it in. Will it then be brought in by subsequent regulation?

§ LORD STONHAM
Most certainly, my Lords. That is what we are discussing. Subsection (6), which the noble and learned Viscount seeks to delete, provides power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in this and other regards. I think that on this occasion, at least, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has been somewhat less than fair. I did not introduce the subject of passports. I was replying to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. As for saying that 583 photographs on passports have no internal significance, of course they have significance when a person is going to leave the country. That is quite an important reason for having photographs.
But leaving that aside, the noble Lord said that it is not reasonable for the Government to insist on permissive power in the Bill to make regulations which would enable the Secretary of State to insist on photographs on certificates, because they have not finally made up their minds. If the noble Lord will cast his mind back over his own experience of legislation, I am sure he must recall many occasions when he asked Parliament to give him permissive power to make regulations which had not been in any way fully worked out, and on which a final decision had not been taken. If he reflects, I think he will consider that it would be far more unreasonable to suggest, as the Amendment does, that we deprive the Secretary of State of this regulation-making power when it may well be necessary. I do not think it is fair to suggest that, because the Government decided months ago to have this subsection in the Bill, to have this kind of control, we should necessarily without final consultations with many interested parties—and we should be blameworthy if we did—make a final decision. All we are asking in this subsection is for this permissive power.
I do not want to go over my remarks again, but it must be obvious to all noble Lords that if we have this permissive power and it is used, and if we then have photographs on certificates, it most certainly will be a help to the police in maintaining the necessary control. I can think of many examples where it would be a help. Since noble Lords are as anxious as we are to help the police in dealing with wrongdoers who use shot-guns for bad crimes, I think that the House ought to agree that this power should remain in the Bill.

§ LORD MITCHISON
My Lords, I do not think there is any need to postulate criminals or to think that this is necessarily a formidable oppression of the subject. On the contrary, I think all you need to postulate is a village policeman who does not know everybody by sight, and the chap who is going out poaching 584 or shooting with a rifle. In this case, I do not mind whether he is poaching or not. He borrows a rifle and he borrows a certificate with it—he would be wise to borrow a certificate as otherwise he might get into trouble. If he met a village policeman who did not know everybody by sight, he could no doubt, if there was no photograph, pass himself off as the owner of the rifle.
I quite agree with everything that has been said about passport photographs. From one point of view, if ever there was an industry that ought to be nationalised it is the industry for making passport photographs, because the results are painful and inaccurate. The photographs cause a great deal of trouble, not only to those who are photographed but to those who have to strain their consciences by swearing that they are true photographs of someone who really looks much nicer—because I have never yet met a passport photograph which improved the subject, although I have met many that did not. But apart from that, what is the sense in saying that there is to be no photograph? I dare say that the requirement has not been there before, but that is a criticism of former legislation and not of this particular provision. How, otherwise, is somebody whose duty it is to stop someone using a firearm, possibly dangerously, which he has borrowed with a licence, going to know that he has got the right man?
With great respect to noble Lords opposite, I cannot see what the "heavy weather" is about. It is a nice little bit of fun, I agree. I have myself played that sort of game and found it most amusing; but as a serious effort surely it is quite sufficient to have a permissive power as there is in this clause—and not only a permissive power, but one that can be used in some cases and not in others. To deny it completely to the Government in a case like this seems to me to be encouraging perhaps even serious crime—though I am not talking about that now—but certainly a great deal of casual evasion which I should have thought would be common enough in ordinary village life. I am not thinking of criminals: I am thinking of people I know. Perhaps I happen to know a particularly naughty village, though I do not think so. It is really rather absurd, is it not, to pretend that something which 585 has to be done only at intervals is in any way an oppression of the subject, except in the sense that any passport photograph is always, in the nature of the case, a gross oppression of the subject, but not one by the Government.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, my noble friend very kindly moved this Amendment for me, and with the leave of the House I should like to reply to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was in a great difficulty. He started off by saying that if this subsection were not included it would really be wrecking the Bill and making it easier for criminals to get guns, and so on. That sounded all very impressive until he went on to say that the Government had not made up their mind whether or not to make rules of this kind.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the Government have made up their mind that it will be necessary to make rules. The only question to be decided is the form of particular rules.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
I thought the noble Lord said in perfectly clear terms that the Government had not made up their mind to make rules requiring an application for a firearms certificate to be accompanied by a photograph. If that be so, and bearing in mind that this Bill was brought from the Commons on April 28, and that it must have taken a long time in the other place (and he and I know how long it takes in the

586

§ Home Office before a Bill is even printed), for him to come to this House and say, "We want this power to make rules, although we have not made up our mind whether we shall use it or not" is, I think, indefensible.

§ I have certainly always taken the view—and I think the noble Lord did when he was in Opposition—that Parliament should not give power under a Statute to make rules unless a case for them has been made out and it is intended to exercise that power. The noble Lord has not been able to say that he intends to exercise this power. I deliberately put the question whether the police had asked for this, because if he had been able to say—which he carefully avoided saying—that the police had asked for this, it would have had a great effect on me. But he has not said that. Consultation with the police and the gun trade, and so on, is one thing; but the noble Lord has not said that the police asked for this. They have had experience of the working of the Firearms Act since 1937, and it has been working, I should have thought, perfectly satisfactorily without all this business of photographs. I have listened with the greatest attention. I think the case has not been made out by the noble Lord, and I shall ask the House to divide.

§ 7.16 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 39.

587

CONTENTS
Albemarle, E.	Emmet of Amberley, Bs.	Latymer, L.
Atholl, D.	Falkland, V.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Audley, Bs.	Falmouth, V.	Milverton, L.
Berkeley, Bs.	Ferrers, E.	Oakshott, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Redesdale, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Greenway, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Grenfell, L.	Sandford, L. [Teller.]
Buckton, L.	Gridley, L.	Somers, L.
Carrington, L.	Hacking, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Hawke, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Craigavon, V.	Henley, L.	Swinton, E.
Crathorne, L.	Horsbrugh, Bs.	Terrington, L.
Daventry, V.	Ilford, L.	Windlesham L.
Derwent, L.	Inglewood, L.	Wolverton, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Lambert, V.	Wrottesley, L.
Elliot of Harwood, Bs.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Burden, L.	Collison, L.
Beswick, L.	Burton of Coventry, Bs.	Crook, L.
Bowles, L.	Champion, L.	Darwen, L.
Gaitskell, Bs.	Longford, E. [L. Privy Seal.]	Segal, L.
Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]	Mitchison, L.	Shepherd, L.
Henderson, L.	Pargiter, L.	Snow, L.
Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]	Peddie, L.	Sorensen, L. [Teller.]
Hughes, L.	Phillips, Bs.	Stocks, Bs.
Kennet, L.	Popplewell, L.	Stonham, L.
Latham, L.	Ragian, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Leatherland, L.	Rhodes, L.	Summerskill, Bs.
Lindgren, L.	Sainsbury, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Samuel, V.	Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who earlier asked me if "premises" included land. I said that it did. This Amendment makes that absolutely certain; it will insert in the Firearms Act 1937, where the word is not defined, the definition of "premises" which exists in the Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act 1962. This will ensure that the word has the same meaning throughout the legislation. I am sure your Lordships will approve. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 66, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) In section 32(1) of the said Act of 1937 (Interpretation) after the definition of 'offence under this Act' there shall be inserted the following definition:— '"premises" includes any land'").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Clause 82 [Supplemental]:

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, after subsection (1) to insert as a new subsection: ( ) This Part of this Act shall not apply to shot-guns made before 1867.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment quite shortly. As the Bill now stands you will have to have a certificate for every shot-gun in existence in your possession. There are a number of people who have collected old shot-guns which are very antique weapons and probably very dangerous to the person who tries to fire them—probably more dangerous to him than to anyone who is aimed at. What is curious is that under the Firearms Act 1937, which applies to rifles and not to shot-guns, there is a specific clause exempting from the requirements of certification rifles described as "trophies". I am suggesting here that it is really unnecessary to have the 588 certification procedure applied to very ancient muzzle loaders which are never likely to be used. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that just as there is an exemption for trophies in relation to rifles there should in the application of Part V of the Bill be an exemption for what might be called very antique shot-guns.

§ I know one place where there is a tremendous collection of very old shot-guns and things of that sort. They are nailed to the wall as a form of decoration. It would be very tiresome to the owners and tiresome to the police to have to go round granting certificates for each one of those. I think there ought to be some exemption for that kind of weapon as a class. I put down in my Amendment "1867", which is 100 years ago; but I am not wedded to that particular date. If the noble Lord cannot accept my Amendment now—perhaps the date I have chosen does not go back far enough—can he assure me that he will give serious consideration to this question? I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 66, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the effect of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would be to exclude from the shot-gun certificate system shot-guns which are 100 years or more old. Clause 82(2) of the Bill which is now being considered attracts, inter alia, Section 33(5) of the Firearms Act 1937, which will exempt from the shot-gun certificate system antique shot-guns sold, acquired, or possessed as curiosities or ornaments. This has the advantage of not tying the weapon concerned to a particular date and of relating the exemption to the purpose for which the exempted weapon is kept. Shot-guns before 1867 were, for example, muzzle-loaders; and competitions of muzzle-loaders, some of considerable age, are held fairly regularly. The difficulty 589 is that the dating of these weapons may often not be easy or very certain; but it will usually be clear whether or not the 1937 Act criterion is satisfied.
Since the shot-gun and firearms certificate systems are complementary, it is desirable that the provisions for exemption should be the same. There are no known grounds for claiming that the provisions for antique shot-guns ought to differ from those for Part I firearms. This brings me to the basic difficulty with regard to the noble and learned Viscount's proposal. It is that if a change is to be made, it ought to be made in both certificate systems. Does the noble and learned Viscount follow my argument?

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, would the noble Lord give me the section which he says is attracted by Clause (82)(2)?

§ LORD STONHAM
It is subsection (5) of Section 33.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, I think I can save time. With all this legislation by reference, I had missed the reference in Clause (82)(2) which attracts Section (33)(5). That meets the point I had in mind. Therefore, I do not think I need trouble the noble Lord to say anything more, if he would agree to my interrupting to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I certainly have no objection to that. The only difficulty between us is that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, wants to say 100 years, whereas we want to say "antiques".

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 85 [Drunkenness in a public place]:

§ 7.30 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I should be grateful if you would allow me to submit for your consideration Amendments Nos. 97 and 98. Clause 85(3), as it stands, enables the Secretary of State to repeal any provision of a local Act which appears to him to be "superseded by" subsection (1). Some provisions in local Acts have come to 590 light which correspond to subsection (1) but are not in precisely similar terms. In order to place beyond doubt the Secretary of State's power to repeal these provisions, the first of these two Amendments substitutes the words "a provision corresponding to" for the words "superseded by". Some local Acts also prescribe imprisonment as a penalty for simple drunkenness, or for being drunk and incapable. These offences are not punishable by imprisonment under the general law. It follows, a fortiori, that the Secretary of State should be able to repeal such provisions of that kind, and the second of these two Amendments places beyond doubt his power to do so. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 68, line 15, leave out ("superseded by") and insert ("a provision corresponding to").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98.

§ Amendment moved— Page 68, line 16, at end insert ("or to impose a liability to imprisonment for an offence of drunkenness or of being incapable while drunk").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Clause 86 [Increase of fines]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this Amendment is one more which demonstrates the immense ramifications of the Home Office of which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will be cognisant. It brings within the scope of Clause 86(3) Orders made under Section 3 of the Plant Health Act 1967, which deals with the control of pests. The effect is that when such an order at present prescribes the maximum penalty laid down by the Act, the new maximum penalty laid down in Schedule 3 to the Bill will apply immediately, without the need to make a fresh order. I do not think the noble Lord requires me to explain why the Ministry of Agriculture are interested in this matter. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 69, line 11, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 13.—(Lord Stonham.)

591

§ Clause 89 [Probation and after-care areas and committees]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100—a very lucky number. This is a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 71, line 31, leave out from ("from") to end of line 32 and insert ("'additional' to 'appointed' there shall be substituted the words 'number of additional justices who are members of a court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the area as may be specified'.").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Clause 91 [New provision as to appeal against sentence passed at assizes or quarter sessions]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this Amendment introduces a "transitional" provision in subsection (3) of Clause 91, which provides rights of appeal to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal against sentences passed by assizes or quarter sessions otherwise than on indictment. The Amendment makes it clear that those rights apply to persons dealt with after the date of the commencement of the clause and not to those whose cases have already been disposed of. Certain existing rights of appeal are replaced by those in Clause 91(3); that is, those under Sections 20(5) (d) and 20(3)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and Section 91 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, both of which are being repealed by Schedule 6. For persons sentenced before the commencement of Clause 91 these rights are preserved by paragraph 17 of the new Schedule, "Transitional Provisions and Savings", which I shall move later. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 72, line 22, after ("offender") insert ("who, after the commencement of this section, is").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a new clause which gives effect to the transitional provisions and savings contained in the proposed new Schedule after Schedule 4. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:

§ Transitional provisions and savings

§ ". Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) to this Act shall have effect for the 592 purposes of the transition to the provisions of this Act from the law in force before the commencement of those provisions and with respect to the application of this Act to things done before the commencement of those provisions."—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Clause 97 [General provisions as to interpretation]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 76, line 28, at end insert— ("'suspended sentence' means a sentence to which an order under section 35(1) of this Act relates.")—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Clause 98 [Extension of powers of Northern Ireland Parliament]:

§ LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause: ("( ) Any reference in this Act to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or to an enactment which that Parliament has power to amend, shall be construed, in relation to Northern Ireland, as a reference to that enactment as amended by any Act of that Parliament, whether passed before or after this Act, and to any enactment of that Parliament passed after this Act and re-enacting the said enactment with or without modifications.")

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and with it I would ask your Lordships to consider Amendment No. 129 and the Amendment to page 128, line 35, in Schedule 5. The first Amendment, the Amendment to Clause 98, is technical. It provides that references in the Bill to an enactment of the Northern Ireland Parliament, or to an enactment by which that Parliament has power to amend shall be construed as references to that enactment as amended or re-enacted by that Parliament—that is the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Amendment to Schedule 5 inserts a similar provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1961. These are useful provisions which avoid the need for subsequent amending legislation. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 77, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

593

§ Clause 99 [Short Title, extent and commencement]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment which extends to Scotland the provisions of the new Schedule after Schedule 4. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 77, line 23, leave out ("and 87(3) and (4)") and insert ("87(3) and (4) and section (Transitional provisions and savings)").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 77, line 25, after ("62") insert ("(Computation of sentences of imprisonment)").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a technical Amendment which will facilitate the bringing into force of the different provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 78, line 27, at end insert ("and any such reference to the commencement of a provision of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the day appointed for the coming into force of the provisions referred to.

§ ( ) Without prejudice to Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) to this Act, any order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or any provisions of this Act then in force as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act (whether before or after the day appointed by the order)").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, we have now concluded the clauses, and I am very grateful to your Lordships for your help in doing so. I think this would be a convenient stage at which to adjourn for dinner, and resume at 8.45 p.m. I therefore beg to move that we adjourn for dinner during pleasure.

§ [The Sitting was suspended at 7.40 p.m. and resumed at 8.45 p.m.]

594

§ Schedule 2 [Provisions as to Prison Licensing Board and local review committees]:

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments made yesterday to Clause 55. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 5, leave out ("Prison Licensing") and insert ("Parole").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in paragraph 1(a), after "held" to insert "high". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, I beg to move Amendment No. 109. This Amendment is of considerable importance. Schedule 2, which deals with the composition and affairs of the Prison Licensing Board, was inserted at a comparatively late stage of the Bill in another place. The Bill as originally introduced did not contain any provision for a Prison Licensing Board, so there was not full opportunity to examine the Schedule from all points of view when it was before another place. That perhaps increases the responsibility upon your Lordships to make sure that this Schedule is drafted as we should wish.

§ Paragraph 1 of the Schedule lists certain categories of people who are to be included among members of the Board, and they include: (a) a person who holds or has held judicial office;". The Amendment I am moving on behalf of my noble and learned friend is to insert "high" before "judicial office". I feel sure that my noble and learned friend will wish to speak in greater detail to this Amendment, but the principal point is that there are (I say this with respect to them) all kinds of people who have held judicial office—far more than 347 of them—and all kinds of people who are now retired from various judicial offices which they held with greater or less distinction in years gone by.

§ I know that it is in my noble and learned friend's mind that this is an important appointment, which should be held by somebody who has had the rank of a High Court Judge or the equivalent; and I entirely agree with him. It seems 595 to me that the words now in the Bill would not be sufficient safeguard for the kind of status we all want this Board to have. It will have the responsibility of advising the Home Secretary directly on whether certain people, some of whom may have committed serious crimes, shall be released on licence at an earlier stage. There is no difference between us as to the importance of having somebody with judicial experience on this Board and I know that it is the desire of my noble and learned friend, in putting down this Amendment, to secure that the person who is appointed to fill this requirement shall be a person with great judicial experience, whose presence on the Board will command the confidence of the law and the public. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 6, after ("held") insert ("high").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor for moving this Amendment, as I was delayed for a minute or two. We discussed this point at considerable length in Committee. As I think the Lord Chancellor knows, I am one of those who are very keen on the creation of this Parole Board, as it is now called. I think it is most important that on this Parole Board there should be a High Court Judge or someone who has held high judicial office, and preferably, I would say, someone who is acting as a High Court Judge. It is important that there should be a link between the Parole Board and the judges dealing with criminal cases. When we discussed this subject before—

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)
My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, I have a lively recollection of waiting about for some hours for the noble and learned Viscount to move his Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount said that we discussed this subject at length in Committee. My strong recollection is that the noble and learned Viscount was not here to move his Amendment, and therefore we did not discuss it at all. I remember that because I was about for some hours, waiting for the noble and learned Viscount to move his Amendment.

596

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should have been inconvenienced in that way. I was wrong in what I said; I remember now that we discussed it in some detail on Second Reading. I intimated—and I am sorry that it did not reach the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that I was not going to move the Amendment in Committee. I remember giving notice to the Government that I was not going to move it, and I am very sorry indeed to have inconvenienced the Lord Chancellor if that information did not come to his notice. If I remember rightly, the Amendment would have come on at a very late hour indeed in Committee, and I was hopeful that it would have come on at a time not so late and when the Lord Chief Justice might have been able to be present.
Having said that, I think it was made clear in Committee—and I believe the noble Lord will agree with me—that it was not the Home Office who were objecting to the insertion of the word "high", but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in view of the many commitments, obligations and duties that High Court Judges have to fulfil. I think it is true to say that every Lord Chancellor, no matter of what political Party, has, because of the pressure on the High Court Bench, a strong inclination to refuse the acceptance of more duties to be performed by High Court Judges. When I occupied the Woolsack that was certainly my reaction to any requests from Ministers for the services of a High Court Judge, and I am sure that it is the reaction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
But on this question I think the case for a High Court Judge being a member of the Parole Board is overwhelming. There are no Party politics in this, and I sympathise with the reaction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment. I am fortified in this resolve by the fact that the Lord Chief Justice is firmly of the opinion that not only is it just desirable, but it is essential that it should be a High Court Judge. It is true that the present wording of the clause will permit of the appointment of the most recently appointed Recorders. 597 I am sure that this would not be done, and it would not be the intention. But I think that at least initially, and probably permanently, it is essential that a High Court Judge should sit.
We all want this scheme to work well. I do not think the task of the Parole Board is going to be at all easy. I think it will be most important to avoid the conflict that has occurred in some other countries between the Parole Board, on the one hand, and the Judiciary, on the other. It is to avoid any possibility of that, that I urge on the Lord Chancellor, with whom I respectfully think the decision rests, that here the case is really made out for saying it should be a High Court Judge.
My Lords, I do not want to take up time on this. I sympathise with the Lord Chancellor's attitude, because it was indeed my attitude when I occupied his position: I would fight very firmly against the appointment of High Court Judges to extraneous duties. But when this request comes with the support of the Lord Chief Justice, and when this Parole Board is going to have a most important function to perform in relation to the administration of justice, and when it is so desirable this it should work in the closest liaison with the Judiciary, I really do think—and I say this with the utmost sincerity—it is essential that it should be a High Court Judge. It is for that reason that I tabled this Amendment. The Lord Chief Justice asked me to say that he felt this very strongly, as indeed I do, and I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend for moving it.

§ 8.57 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, we discussed this very briefly on the Second Reading of the Bill, but, as the noble and learned Viscount now agrees, we did not discuss it at all on the Committee stage of the Bill. I very much regret having to trouble the House with it at this hour of the night, but as the noble and learned Viscount has said that he proposes to divide the House on it, and as it is one of some importance, I am afraid that I shall have to trouble your Lordships with it. I disagree with very little which the noble and learned Viscount said. I disagree only with the Amendment. I think it is of importance that there should be a Judge on the 598 Parole Board; I think it is of importance that he should be a High Court Judge, particularly to start with, and I think that in general he should be a High Court Judge. The only difference between us is whether this should be compulsory in any conceivable circumstances, or whether there should be room to deal with emergency conditions.
During all my time at the Bar there has been, in my view, a chronic shortage of Judge power. Our work is always so arranged that there is put into most Judges' lists every day more cases than they can try, so that if cases are settled the Judge will not have any spare time. It has always seemed to me that it is not the most awful thing in the world if a Judge has an hour off, or even an afternoon off, but the result is, of course, that everybody's time is wasted. Of course, I quite agree that you do not want too many Judges, or this would lower the quality. But, at the same time, we ought to have sufficient Judges to do the work. I have corresponded with every Law Minister in Western Europe and in our old Dominions, and made inquiries in America, and it is clear that we have a far smaller number of whole-time professional Judges per million of the population than any other Western democracy. This, of course, is partly because of our justices of the peace, but also partly because of the very tight rein which is always kept on the number of Judges.
The first point perhaps to observe is that there is always a statutory limit—a statutory limit to the number of Lords of Appeal, another statutory limit for the numbers of Lords Justices, another for the number of puisne Judges, and also of course for county court judges. With the increase in work, and the increase in population, too, the time arrives when that number is not enough. Then there has to be an Act of Parliament, and when that time arrives, the Lord Chancellor of the day has to compete for any Bill he wants with all the Bills which all his colleagues want.
I mention all courts, because "High Court Judge" includes them all; although the Amendment is, if I may respectfully say so, somewhat defective, because I think the noble and learned Viscount is assuming that a High Court Judge should be construed in the same way as in the Judicature Acts. I think 599 he would agree that that is what he intends, but the Amendment does not say so. There is nothing at the moment in the Bill which would define "High Court Judge" in the same way as in the Judicature Acts. I am assuming that that is the intention, and that would include, therefore, Lords of Appeal, Lords Justices and High Court Judges. The total number of Lords of Appeal is nine, by Statute. There is a similar fixed number for Lords Justices and a similar fixed number for puisne Judges. We already have nine Lords of Appeal, so we are up to the limit there. We already have the limit for the number of Lords Justices, and we are within one of the limit of puisne Judges, so that I could not appoint another Lord of Appeal or Lord Justice, and only one other puisne Judge. This is the situation that no Lord Chancellor likes to be in, but it happens periodically before a Bill can be prepared and put before Parliament to increase the numbers.
At the moment things are difficult. I I agree that there may be a Lord of Appeal or a retired Lord of Appeal. As to retired Judges, of course a Lord Chancellor can always appoint a Commissioner, who can be a retired judge or a county court judge or Queen's Counsel, to act as a High Court Judge. At the moment, out of all the retired judges there is only one who is prepared to sit in an emergency, provided that it is at the assize near where he lives in the West Country. So it is not much good relying on retired judges.
As for the nine Law Lords, it requires five for appeals to your Lordships' House, three for appeals to the Privy Council, or, in the case of appeals from Australia, New Zealand or Ceylon, five. So in the case of those appeals one starts one down; because, of course, they sit simultaneously. The House of Lords, sitting judicially, and the Privy Council Board each require five, making a total of 10. So we start, as I say, one down.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, about a year ago became Chairman of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, and I have virtually not seen him since. That gives me eight. From time to time, of course, someone is ill. Your Lordships may ask how I have been managing. I have thought 600 ahead and done what I could. I could not have managed at all if I had not obtained help from the Chief Justice of Australia, the President of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand, the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago (who was the first Caribbean Judge to sit in the Privy Council and was made a Privy Counsellor for that purpose) and another Judge from the High Court of Australia. These come for a month or two at a time, and there are sitting now this Judge from Australia and the President of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand. That is the only way in which I have been able to manage.
When the Court of Criminal Appeal was abolished recently and we substituted the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, the last two remaining Lords Justices were appointed, both of them Judges with long experience of criminal cases. One of them was Lord Justice Edmund Davies. Almost as soon as he had started in this work he went off to Aberfan and I have not seen him since One also has to deal with illness This is inevitable. A Judge fell down stairs and broke his leg. Another Judge was ill a little more than a year ago. His doctor did not say that he could not make a complete recovery, the reason being that nobody knew what was the matter with him. He continuously lost weight and went from one specialist to another. The result of that was that he was not available for a year. Recently he died and, so far as I am aware, the doctors never discovered what was the matter with him. Two of the Lords Justices have had to go into hospital this term, each to have an operation on an eye.
I agree that High Court cases ought to be tried by High Court Judges, and that criminal cases which are of such importance that they can be tried only by the Red Judge on Assizes ought to be tried by the High Court Judges on Assizes. If I had no loophole of any kind, the whole of the administration of justice would break down. My loophole is that I am entitled to appoint a Commissioner—a retired judge or a county court judge or a leading Queen's Counsel—and he then has jurisdiction to try cases which otherwise only High Court Judges could try.
With the amount of illness there has been this year, since October 1, I have 601 on 15 occasions, to my great regret, had to appoint a Commissioner. The Lord Chief Justice rings up and says, "There has just been committed to such-and-such Assize a long fraud case which is expected to last six weeks, and if the Assize Judge there tries it he will not be able to try any other civil or criminal cases set down for that Assize. I must have a Commissioner." A senior County Court Judge has been sitting as a Commissioner at Cardiff for a few months now. It would be quite impossible to meet emergency conditions unless one had some let-out.
I entirely agree that it is very important that there should be a Judge on the Parole Board and that he should be a High Court Judge, and it would be my intention and hope that it would always be a High Court Judge. The reason why I object to this Amendment is that this Amendment makes it compulsory, whatever the emergency conditions may be; the Parole Board cannot meet validly at all unless there is a High Court Judge there. It means that of all calls there may be for a High Court Judge, it does not matter how many innocent people are in prison awaiting trial, it does not matter how far the cases are in arrears, the first and foremost duty of every High Court Judge will be to fill the vacancy on the Parole Board. I think it is very desirable indeed that there should be a High Court Judge on the Parole Board, and it would be my wish, and I am quite sure the wish of every Lord Chancellor, that that should be so. But it cannot, I think, be right that this Board should have the first call over any other duty which High Court Judges may have to perform. If the Amendment is accepted, it follows, since one cannot leave the Parole Board not functioning at all, that that would have to be the first call.
All I am asking for is that the House will accept my assurance that I fully agree with the great desirability that the Judge who serves on the Parole Board should always be a High Court Judge. I am sure that is right. But if emergency conditions arose—and I cannot tell, and no Lord Chancellor can tell, at any time whether there may not be a large sudden access of illness among High Court Judges—I cannot think the skies would fall if some whole-time professional chairman of quarter sessions, for example, attended the Parole Board instead. Most of the 602 prisoners with whom the Board will be dealing will, after all, not be prisoners who have been sentenced by High Court Judges but prisoners sentenced by chairmen of quarter sessions. It is conceivable even that it might be a good thing sometimes—I do not know—to have a change.
At the present moment the Lord Chancellor, except for one puisne Judge, has no Judges in hand. Even if a Judge dies, the Treasury have to agree that it is necessary that he should be replaced—this is a second bar. Whatever the Treasury may say, at the moment, until an Act of Parliament is passed, except for this vacancy in hand, no further Judge of any kind can be appointed to any of these courts. So we are approaching what is from the Lord Chancellor's point of view going to be a more difficult year than last year. I would ask the House to trust me when I say that I agree, as I fully agree, that it is important that the Judge on the Parole Board should be a High Court Judge. I do not think the public as a whole regard other Judges in the same light as High Court Judges. I think it should be a High Court Judge, and I can assure the House that as long as I occupy the position I do, except only in emergency conditions, it always will be a High Court Judge.
If we had an Act of Parliament which said that no High Court case, whether criminal or civil, may be tried, whatever the circumstances, by anybody except a High Court Judge, the administration of justice would break down. It only functions because of this reserve power which Lord Chancellors have, and which I do not like exercising, of appointing a Commissioner, because I think the public have a right to expect that their High Court cases will be tried by High Court Judges, and those who commit serious crimes such as are tried only at assizes ought also to have the right to have them tried by a High Court Judge. If one appoints a county court judge somebody has then got to do his work; it is only "robbing Peter to pay Paul". If one appoints a senior counsel he has often at the last moment to return cases which clients are relying upon him to conduct. Occasionally I try to argue with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice as to whether a Commissioner is really 603 necessary in a particular case; but in the circumstances which arise, it just has to be done. I am only asking for the same latitude with regard to membership of the Parole Board. It is for those reasons that I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.

§ 9.11 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, if I may reply by the leave of the House, I do not recollect saying in the course of my speech that it was my intention, before I had heard the reply made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to divide the House upon this Amendment. With a great deal that the noble and learned Lord has said I am in agreement. He has explained the difficulties he has in staffing the House of Lords in its judicial capacity and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and he detailed the eminent Commonwealth Judges, who, under a system which was started in my day, are now available to give assistance. I had hoped that the help that I was giving in these capacities had also contributed—

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am sorry; it was pure inadvertence on my part. I had two names which I should certainly have mentioned as having been of most assistance. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount who has been most kind in sitting frequently, both in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council, and also to the Chief Justice of Northern Ireland who, when he can be spared from his home court, has also come over to assist me. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for the assistance which he has been good enough to give.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I would thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said about myself and the Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. As I think he knows, I fully appreciate his difficulties. Indeed, I had the same or similar difficulties when I occupied his office. I will not enter into argument as to whether they were more acute or not. I also had the same difficulties with regard to High Court Judges and Lords Justices, and, again, I resisted requests for the appointment of Commissioners because I, 604 too, was of the opinion that it was most desirable that High Court cases should be tried by High Court Judges.
I am very glad indeed to hear the Lord Chancellor say so emphatically that he accepts the proposition that the judicial member of the Parole Board should be a High Court Judge, and he has given a firm undertaking about that. He says that if this Amendment were carried it would prevent the Parole Board sitting if a High Court Judge was not available. I do not know how often it is contemplated that the Parole Board will have to meet. I am in complete ignorance about that. But I am fortified by the Lord Chancellor's assurance that in the normal way he will appoint a High Court Judge.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord has discussed it with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and I know that he regards it as of the highest importance that a High Court Judge should be a member of the Parole Board. I will not develop that any further. At the same time, I certainly should not like to see the Parole Board, which at least initially would have a great deal of work to do in dealing with the cases that are already there—there would be a great deal of work to start off, which may diminish as the Board deals with the backlog—held up in its operations. I would not go so far as to say that a chairman of quarter sessions would be a satisfactory substitute for a High Court Judge on this matter. This might be the case if emergency conditions arose. I should prefer to see some very experienced recorder, like the Recorder of London, or of Manchester or of Liverpool as a possible alternative; and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would not exclude that.
In view of the assurances which the Lord Chancellor has given, it would not be right to press this matter to a Division: because, as I understand what he has said, unless an exceptional situation occurs, a situation which he cannot foresee or provide against, a High Court Judge will be appointed to the Parole Board. If an exceptional situation does arise, he will make a temporary appointment only in order to enable the Parole Board to continue. I accept the noble and learned Lord's assurances on these matters, and in these circumstances it would be wrong to press this Amendment 605 to a Division. I hope that I have interpreted the matter correctly, and, if so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I moved this Amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend; and I am somewhat doubtful whether he is in a position to withdraw it on my behalf. I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, particularly that it would be his intention, except only in abnormal circumstances, to appoint someone of the rank of a High Court Judge. I feel sure that the statement which he has made will be recognised and adhered to by all his successors—if not a number of noble Lords would call the attention of the Government of the day to the fact. But, as always, I am at one with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and I will reinforce what he sought to do and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 9.18 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to leave out sub-paragraph (d). The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, to avoid any possible misconception I may say that I do not intend to divide the House on this Amendment. I put it down for this reason: that I am not sure that a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders —referred to in sub-paragraph (d)—is necessarily the right person to consider whether the licensing procedure should be adopted. What one is concerned with is whether there is a likelihood of the person who is released on licence committing more offences. I feel that it would be better if this sub-paragraph were left out. If the right person was available it would be open to the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, to appoint a person having such qualifications, if he considered him to be the right person. But I do not think that it ought to be an essential feature of the operation of the Parole Board that a person with these qualifications must be a member of it.

§ I hope that the noble Lord follows what I am saying. It may be that one would get a person who had made a study of these matters and was the right person, a person whom one would appoint anyhow; but the fact that someone has 606 made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders does not necessarily mean that he is the best person to decide on whether there should be any licensing. If sub-paragraph (d) were left out, it would give the Secretary of State more room for manoeuvre. He could appoint other people if he thought fit, and I think it would be better if he had more room for manœuvre, more flexibility. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (d).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has moved this Amendment, which in effect proposes to delete the provision in the Schedule that the Parole Board shall include among its members a person appearing to my right honourable friend to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders. The noble and learned Viscount says that he doubts whether such a person is likely or qualified to be the best judge of whether a man is likely to go straight when he is released from prison, and that a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders is not best qualified to assist in that decision.
I would not dissent at all from that proposition, but we are providing in this sub-paragraph that the Board shall include among its members a recognised criminologist and penologist—a person who is familiar with the results and techniques of research which are relevant to the areas on which the Board will base its decisions. Of these matters we regard research as of very great importance, and it is the firm intention of the Government that right from the beginning of the Parole Board research shall be built into the operation of the selection machinery, including the proceedings of the Parole Board So we consider it important that the Board should contain an expert in this general field, who would be able to make available to his colleagues on the Board his understanding of the evidence available from research.
It may help the noble and learned Viscount if I give some indication of how we think the Parole Board will 607 work, with particular reference to its membership. Naturally and inevitably, we have had to write into the Bill that the Board shall consist of a chairman and four members, and the approximate qualifications of the four members are written into the Schedule. But when rules are made we envisage that they will enable the Board to take its decisions through panels, each panel consisting of a minimum number of members. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned that the Parole Board will have a big backlog of work to start on, with the very substantial number—the thousands of prisoners—who at the time of the appointed day will be technically qualified for consideration for release on licence.
We envisage that we shall prescribe in the rules the minimum number of members on each panel, and we think that that number will be at least three, but that for each panel there will be no provision corresponding to the qualifications in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. Although there must be four members of the Board satisfying the qualifications in paragraph 1, not every member who is appointed will be formally allocated to one, or indeed to any, of those qualifications. There will almost certainly be some members of the Board who will satisfy none of those qualifications, and it will be left to the Board to select the members of the panels. Therefore, the inclusion of an expert on delinquency and the treatment of offenders does not exclude others who are not so qualified from serving on the Board. Indeed, we might well have the position—I do not say we shall—that there might be only one such member who is a member of the Board, and we think it is essential that there should be at least one such member.
In conclusion, I would mention to your Lordships that the wording of this sub-paragraph is similar to that of Section 77(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which allows the Secretary of State to incur expenses in the conduct of research into the causes of delinquency and the treatment of offenders. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will feel that there is almost nothing between us in this matter. We accept the objective that he has in mind, but we feel that it is essen- 608 tial as far as concerns the basic framework of what I might call the original four members plus the chairman who are appointed, that one of them should have these qualifications. Having given that explanation, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will feel that it has been useful to ventilate this matter but that it will not be necessary for him to press the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, I said, before I said anything else, that I was not intending to press the Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation which he has given with regard to this matter, which I think is very informative. I have been seeking to suggest that the Secretary of State's powers should be less fettered than the Bill itself proposes, but as he does not wish to remove one of the fetters upon his discretion I will certainly not insist on trying to remove it from him. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 9.27 p.m.

§ BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE moved, after sub-paragraph (d), to insert "( ) a woman". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 111, which is designed to ensure that the Parole Board will include a woman amongst its members. The whole of the Report stage of this important Bill, both yesterday and to-day, has so far been conducted entirely by men, so I hope I shall be forgiven for breaking in on this male preserve; but it is perhaps appropriate that an Amendment to insert the words "a woman" should be moved by a woman.

§ There are three reasons why I hope the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. First, one of the duties of the Parole Board will be to watch the interests of the public as well as those of the prisoners in this important matter of early release of prisoners on licence; and as half of the public consists of women it is not unreasonable to ask that at least one member of the Board should be a woman. Secondly, a topic which the Board will presumably have to consider from time to time is the family background of the prisoner and the effect for good or evil of his early release; and it is at least reasonable that when 609 family questions are being discussed a woman should be there to make her contribution.

§ Thirdly, the Board will, of course, have to consider cases of women prisoners as well as of men. Now I know that women are so much better behaved than men that men prisoners outnumber women prisoners by something like 30 to 1, but I am sure it would be thought anomalous if the release of women prisoners on licence came to be considered by a Board consisting exclusively of men. It is also important that the Board should be seen to act with complete impartiality when advising on cases of men prisoners and women prisoners. On all these grounds, my Lords, I hope the House will see fit to accept my Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 13, at end insert—("( ) a woman").—(Baroness Brooke of Ystradfellte.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will acquit the Government right away of any attempt to stifle the voice of women in the various stages of this Bill. I have had nothing whatever to do with the fact that it is only at this very late stage that "the better half" of the Brooke family has at last been heard. The noble Lord cannot be so ungallant as to deny the impeachment. Certainly we have been very glad to have at this late stage an Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and moved in such lively and convincing terms as immediately to ensure the sympathy of the whole House.
I would ask noble Lords to consider the effect of this particular Amendment which requires that the Parole Board must include a woman among its members. I would just mention—I do not want to make an issue of it—that if the Amendment were accepted we should have to amend Clause 55(1), which requires that the Board shall consist of a chairman and not less than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State, to provide for five other members; but that is not a major objection. Schedule 2, which we are now considering, requires that the Board shall include among its members:

"(a) a person who holds or has held judicial office;

(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;
610
(c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of the supervision or after-care of discharged prisoners; and

(d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders."

The noble Lady's Amendment would add a fifth to the list: a woman.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Hear, hear!

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am gratified to hear the loyal and gallant cheers. Of course, it could be argued in support of the Amendment that it is proper as a matter of principle that the Board should include both sexes; and that it is appropriate, since women prisoners will be among those to be considered by the Board, that a woman should be included. I should be the last to dispute either of those conclusions—or, indeed, anything that the noble Baroness has said—and the Government do not dispute any of the propositions which have been put; but the Government certainly do not think the right course is to require the appointment of a woman—or of a man, for that matter—as such. It would be almost a confession of their occupying a different class, it would be almost a question of inferiority, to say that you cannot have a woman who is:

"(a) a person who holds or has held judicial office;

(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;

(c) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge and experience of the supervision or after-care of discharged prisoners; and

(d) a person appearing to the Secretary of State to have made a study of the causes of delinquency or the treatment of offenders."

and that because you cannot have a woman who is in any of those four categories you must therefore have "a woman" as a special class.
We entirely reject that suggestion and do so for the best of all reasons: that the Government envisage a Board consisting of a chairman and one or more of each of the four specified classes, and possibly a few other persons who may or may not be expert in any particular field but whose main qualification is that they can be relied upon to bring a balanced judgment to bear on the cases coming before the Board. The aim will be to 611 secure the best people for the job, irrespective of their sex. In my submission it would be an unwarranted reflection on womanhood to suppose that a woman will not be appointed unless this is made obligatory. I can give a firm assurance that the Government will not approach the selection of members with any preconceived idea of picking men rather than women, and that we confidently expect that on the basis of merit we shall inevitably select a number of women to serve on the Board. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Board to have to include a woman—or a man—as such, in addition to any who are selected on the basis of professional qualifications and experience. I hope that what I have said has given the noble Baroness even more than she could possibly have expected from her Amendment.

§ 9.35 p.m.

§ LORD ILFORD
My Lords, the last thing I desire to do is to appear unsympathetic to the point of view which has been advanced by my noble friend. But I think it may be helpful if I recall my own experience as chairman of a public body which was constituted in the way in which the noble Baroness suggested, by making an express provision that one member of the Board should be a woman. From the time the Board was constituted until the time when I was chairman, and able to make certain representations to the Government of the day, there was never more than one woman appointed to the Board, and successive Governments considered that they had discharged their responsibility if one woman, but not more than one woman, was appointed. The constitution of the body which I have in mind is very much the constitution of this body. It may well be that if the Amendment of the noble Baroness was accepted, the result would be the same with the Parole Board as it was with the old National Assistance Board.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, in the past 34 years my noble relative and I have generally thought, but maybe not universally seen, eye to eye. This is an occasion when I cordially support the purpose which she is seeking to achieve. I do not know whether the right way of securing the result is by an 612 Amendment to this Schedule, or by extracting a promise from the Government. I feared at one time that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was going to raise an argument similar to that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with regard to the high judiciary office, that there might be some shortage of women, and that it might not be possible to find anybody willing to serve on this board.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, if I may interrupt, my real fear was that if we accepted the Amendment that the members of the Board may be women, we should have to have another clause that one of them should be a man.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I feel that my noble relative's purpose is to secure that the Parole Board is not exclusively a male body. I hope the Government will agree that it would be disastrous if that situation were ever to arise. I am not questioning whether a woman will have all these various, specific qualifications set out here—she may or may not—but certainly there are women in this country who are well capable of discharging the duties of a member of this Board. To my mind the Board will not carry the requisite authority, either with the public, with the Prison Service, or the prisoners, unless at all times at least one member of the Board is a woman, whether or not she possesses specific qualifications. If that is what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, meant by his speech, then I hope my noble relative will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I think it would be helpful to all of us to have an absolutely specific statement that it was the intention of the Government that this should never be an exclusively male body.

§ VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN
My Lords, I should like to ask a question, but I do not want to delay matters. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, and to my noble friend who has just sat down, that I was not here at the beginning of the Amendment. I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench could declare his interest in this matter. It seems to be a matter of some importance. He referred to a certain noble Lady who is sitting behind me as his relative. I think I am correct in saying that the noble 613 Lady is not a blood relative, but it is a sort of legal contract is it not? I do not know whether he would declare his interest!

§ LORD STONHAM
I can assure the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, most certainly declared his interest in a most charming way, and I could also give the assurance the noble Lord asked for, that it is inconceivable, and not the Government's intention, this Board should be an all-male body. It is quite inconceivable. And if I take the ultimate disaster which should befall this country, that it should not have a Labour Government, then even a Conservative Government would not make it an all-male body.

§ BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has received the Amendment which I had the temerity to move. It has been my experience always that it is necessary for a woman not to be as good as a man but to be much better before she ever gets on a level stage with a man, and that is why I was so anxious to call attention to the fact that I hope very much that on this newly constituted Parole Board there will be at least one woman in some capacity or other. We have elicited an assurance from the noble Lord and I shall watch the constitution of the first Board with great interest. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Page 89, line 48, at end insert—
("Section 40	Failure to comply with notice requiring houses in filthy state to be purified.	10s. 0d. for each day on which offence continues.	£20")
Page 96, line 54, at end insert—
("Section 83(2)	Failure to comply with notice requiring cleansing of filthy or verminous premises.	£5	£20")
Page 98, line 33, at end insert—
"Section 269(7)	Contravention of provisions and conditions of licences as to keeping and use of movable dwellings.	£5	£20")
Page 103, line 33, at end insert—
("The Prison Act 1952, c. 52.
Section 40	Unlawful introduction of liquor or tobacco into prison.	£20	£50
Section 41	Unlawful conveyance of letters or other articles into prison.	£10	£50
The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, c. 61.
Section 30	Unlawful introduction of tobacco, spirits or other articles into prison.	£5	£50")

614

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, despite the rather Shakespearian version of my name which appears on the Marshalled List, I beg leave to move this consequential Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 14, leave out ("Prison Licensing") and insert ("Parole").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 80, line 23, leave out ("Prison Licensing") and insert ("Parole").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

§ Schedule 3 [Increase of fines]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 114, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will also move Nos. 115, 116 and 117. These Amendments increase the maximum fines under various Acts. They are particularly linked to the need for the stricter control of camping sites, to contraventions of the by-laws relating to movable dwellings and to the offence of unlawfully introducing articles into a prison. They are all necessary Amendments and I hope that they will be approved.

§ Amendments moved—

§ —(Lord Stonham)

615

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, designed to give a more accurate description of the scope of the by-laws made under the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937 and to remove any possible suggestion that the increase in the fine may be limited to those byelaws relating to damage. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 114, line 48, column 2, leave out ("prohibiting damage, etc.,") and insert ("relating").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ Schedule 4 [Miscellaneous Amendments of Enactments relating to Criminal Appeal]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 119, which applies to Northern Ireland only and makes a drafting correction.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 118, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("An") in line 20 and insert— ("In section 3(2) (consequences of appeal against conviction being allowed) for the words 'direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal to be entered' there shall be substituted the words").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a technical Amendment to bring Section 11 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 into line with the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, as amended by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 119, line 29, at end insert— (". In section 11 (appeal to be heard in absence of appellant) the words 'rules of court provide that he shall have the right to be present or' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 120, line 7, at end insert— (". In section 4 (costs on appeal to House of Lords in criminal cases)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word 'payment' there shall be inserted the words 'to the accused'; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to 'shall' there shall be substituted the words 'Any amount ordered to be paid under this section shall, except where it is a specific amount ordered to be paid towards the accused's expenses as a whole'.")—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this Amendment adds a new paragraph to Schedule 4. It amends Section 9(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 in a manner similar to the Amendment made to Section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907 by paragraph 6 of the Schedule. Section 9(3) provides that a defendant who is detained pending an appeal to the House of Lords shall not be entitled to be present on the hearing of the appeal, or of any preliminary or incidental proceedings, unless an order of the House of Lords or rules of court authorise him to be present, or the House of Lords or the Court below gives him leave to be present.
The Amendment deletes the reference to rules of court authorising a defendant to be present. No such rules have been made and the provision is unnecessary, since the House of Lords is able to give any defendant leave to be present. As the enactments relating to criminal appeals are being consolidated it is desirable that this provision, which is not in practice required, should be omitted. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 122, line 22, at end insert— (". In section 9(3) (provision as to presence of defendant on hearing of appeal) for the words 'or rules of court as the case may be authorise' there shall be substituted the word 'authorises'").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ 9.47 p.m.

§ LORD STONHAM moved, after Schedule 4, to insert the following new schedule:

§ "TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

§ Juries

§ 1. Section 13 of this Act shall not apply to the verdict of a jury on the trial of any person who was arraigned before the commencement of that section.

§ 2. Section 14 of this Act shall not apply to any person summoned to serve on a jury in any criminal proceedings before the commencement of that section.

617

§ Prisoners sentenced to corrective training or preventive detention

§ 3. A person sentenced to corrective training or preventive detention in England and Wales who was or ought to have been detained in pursuance of his sentence immediately before the commencement of section 56 of this Act shall be treated for purposes of detention, release, recall and otherwise as having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of the same length as the term of his original sentence and, if he was originally sentenced to preventive detention, he shall also be so treated as if an extended sentence certificate had been issued in respect of him.

§ 4. A person sentenced to corrective training who immediately before the commencement of the said section 56 was subject to a licence under section 26 of the Prison Act 1952 (release on licence of prisoner sentenced to corrective training or preventive detention) shall be treated for all purposes as if his sentence had expired.

§ 5. A person sentenced to preventive detention who immediately before the commencement of the said section 56 was subject to a licence as aforesaid shall be treated for the purposes of Part III of this Act as if he had been released on licence under subsection (2)(a) of that section and as if the requirements specified in the licence under the said section 26 were conditions specified in a licence under the said paragraph (a).

§ Release of prisoners, etc. on licence

§ 6. A person serving any part of a sentence of imprisonment after the commencement of section (Computation of sentences of imprisonment) of this Act, being a sentence which fell to be reduced under section 17(2) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act 1962 (duration of sentence) shall, for the purpose of determining under section 56(1) of this Act whether he has served one-third of his sentence, be treated as if any period spent in custody between conviction and sentence and taken into account under the said section 17(2) were included in his sentence and as if he had served that period as part of that sentence.

§ 7. A person sentenced to a term of imprisonment within the meaning of section 56 of this Act for eighteen months or more and subject immediately before the commencement of that section to a licence under section 25 of the Prison Act 1952 or section 20 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (release on licence instead of remission in the case of prisoners under twenty-one) shall be treated as if he had been released on licence under section 56(2)(b) of this Act and as if the requirements specified in the licence under the said section 25 or 20 were conditions specified in a licence under the said paragraph (b).

§ 8. A person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for less than eighteen months and subject immediately before the commencement of the said section 56 to a licence under the said section 25 shall be subject to supervision under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (supervision of persons released from detention centres) until the expiration of the period for which he would have been subject to super- 618 vision under the said section 25 and as if the requirements specified in the licence under the said section 25 had been specified in a notice given to him under that Schedule; and that Schedule and section 59(2) of this Act shall apply to any such person as they apply to a person mentioned in section 59(1) of this Act with the substitution for any reference in that Schedule to a period of twelve months from the date of a person's release of a reference to the period between his release and the expiration of the time for which he would have been subject to supervision as aforesaid.

§ 9. Where a person was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for less than eighteen months and was immediately before the commencement of section 56 of this Act in prison by reason of having been recalled under the said section 25, the said Schedule 1 and section 59(2) of this Act shall apply to him as they apply to a person mentioned in section 59(1) of this Act subject to the modification mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, and he shall be treated for the purposes of that Schedule as if he had been recalled thereunder.

§ 10. A person subject immediately before the commencement of section 57 of this Act to a licence under any of the following enactments, that is to say, section 27 of the Prison Act 1952, section 21 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (persons serving imprisonment for life), section 53(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or section 57(4) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (young offenders convicted of grave crimes), shall be treated as if he had been released on licence under section 57 of this Act and as if the conditions contained in a licence under any of the said enactments had been specified in a licence under section 57 of this Act and, in the case of a person released after being sentenced under section 53(2) of the said Act of 1933 or section 57(2) of the said Act of 1937 to be detained otherwise than for life, as if a licence granted to him under section 57 of this Act had specified the date of the expiration of his sentence as the date until which the licence is to remain in force.

§ 11. Where any person sentenced to imprisonment for life or sentenced under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or section 57 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 to be detained was notified before the commencement of section 57 of this Act that the Secretary of State proposed to release him under any enactment mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the Secretary of State may release him on licence under section 57 of this Act, whether or not recommended to do so by the Prison Licensing Board or the Prison Licensing Board for Scotland.

§ 12. Any person who immediately before the commencement of sections 56 to 58 or section 63 of this Act was unlawfully at large or liable to be arrested without warrant under any enactment superseded by any provision of those sections shall, so long as he is at large be (or continue to be) unlawfully at large.

§ Non-payment of fines, etc.

§ 13. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, sections 69 and 70 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, as in force immediately before the 619 commencement of sections 40 to 42 of this Act, shall continue to apply, and the last-mentioned sections shall not apply, to a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a magistrates' court if before the commencement of the last-mentioned sections a magistrates' court has fixed a term of imprisonment for default in paying that sum.

§ 14. Where a magistrates' court has before the commencement of section 87 of this Act fixed or imposed a term of imprisonment for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid, but has not issued a warrant committing the defaulter to prison, no such warrant issued thereafter shall be void by reason that the term specified therein exceeds the period applicable to the case under the relevant enactment specified in that section (as amended by that section)if it does not exceed the period so applicable under that enactment as in force immediately before the commencement of that section.

§ Legal aid

§ 15. Where free legal aid has been granted in connection with any criminal proceedings under the enactments superseded by Part IV of this Act those enactments shall continue to apply, and the said Part IV shall not apply, in relation to those proceedings and the legal aid so granted:

§ Provided that section 68(7) of this Act shall apply in relation to free legal aid granted under any enactment so superseded as it applies in relation to legal aid ordered to be given under section 67(4) of this Act.

§ 16. Where legal aid is ordered to be given under Part IV of this Act to a person who applied for it before the commencement of the said Part IV, so much of that Part as relates to contributions in respect of costs of legal aid shall not apply to the legal aid so ordered, and the court which orders legal aid to be so given shall not be obliged to require him under section 69(4) of this Act to furnish a written statement of his means.

§ Criminal appeals

§ 17. The repeal by this Act of sections 20(5)(d) and 29(3)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 and section 69 of the Mental Health Act 1959 shall be without prejudice to appeals thereunder in the case of persons dealt with at quarter sessions before the commencement of section 91 of this Act."

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this Amendment, I should be grateful for my noble and learned friend's advice with regard to the consequential Amendments to this Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Should I deal with these at the same time?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, my noble friend addresses himself to Amendment No. 123, and then, before putting the Question on that Amendment, I shall call Amendments Nos. 124 and 125. which are Amendments to No. 123.

620

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I was only anxious to save time. I can say at once that I gladly accept the two Amendments to my Amendment. This is a long and new Schedule which contains a number of miscellaneous provisions and savings which will operate on the commencement of the different provisions of the Bill. The Schedule raises no major issues of substance, and I hope the House will feel that the wording is sufficiently clear to make a full explanation of the Schedule, paragraph by paragraph, unnecessary. It is perhaps sufficient for me to say that the details are based on two guiding principles: first, that defendants and offenders whose cases or sentences are current at the commencement of the Bill should not find their position materially worsened thereby; and, secondly, that the transition from the old law to the new operates with the least practical inconvenience to the courts. I shall be glad to answer any questions that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may want to put to me, but I hope that this explanation will be sufficient. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Schedule 4, insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 124, which is in line with the previous Amendments which I have moved on Clause 55, and onwards, and which have been accepted by the Government. To save time, perhaps I may say that I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is helpful to have all these transitional provisions collected together in a new Schedule. I appreciate, for example, that paragraph 3 in the new Schedule stood originally in one of the clauses of the Bill, and it has been taken out of there and has been put with all the other transitional provisions in this new Schedule. I have read the Schedule. There is nothing to which I would wish to take exception, and, as I said, I think it is a good plan to have all these transitional provisions together in the new Schedule.

§ Amendment to Amendment moved— Paragraph 11, line 9, leave out first (Prison Licensing") and insert ("Parole").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

621

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment to Amendment moved— Paragraph 11, line 9, leave out second ("Prison Licensing") and insert ("Parole").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

§ 9.52 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, your Lordships may remember, although it is a long time ago now, or seems a long time ago, that when I was proposing Amendment No. 17 I asked leave to mention this Amendment, No. 126, because it was consequential on Amendment No. 17. Your Lordships were good enough to accept Amendment No. 17, and therefore I formally propose this one.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 126, line 14, at end insert— (" . In section 14(3) (adjournment for inquiries after conviction and before sentence) after the word 'so' there shall be inserted the words 'the adjournment shall not be for more than four weeks at a time unless the court remands the accused in custody and where it so remands him'. In section 26(1) (remand for medical examination) at the end there shall be inserted the words 'where the court remands him in custody nor for more than four weeks at a time where it remands him on bail'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 127.

§ Amendment moved— Page 127, line 10, leave out ("sums") and insert ("fines").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, this Amendment will enable persons sentenced in Northern Ireland to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or to detention for certain serious crimes, to be supervised in England or Scotland on release. There is a gap in the present law which Northern Ireland would like to see filled. I beg to move.

622

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 128, line 29, at end insert— ("( ) section 55(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950.")—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 129.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 128, line 35, at end insert— (" .In section 40 (Northern Ireland) at the end there shall be added the following subsection— '(2) Any reference in this Act to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or to an enactment which that Parliament has power to amend, shall be construed, in relation to Northern Ireland, as a reference to that enactment as amended by any Act of that Parliament, whether passed before or after this Act, and to any enactment of that Parliament passed after this Act and re-enacting the said enactment with or without modifications.'")—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD STONHAM moved to add to paragraph 23: and for the words 'the shorthand notes' there shall be substituted the word 'the record'".

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to Section 2(5) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1964, and it remedies an oversight in the Criminal Appeal Act 1966. Subsection (5) of Section 2 of the 1964 Act provides that when the Court of Appeal orders a re-trial, the transcript of the shorthand notes of the evidence of witnesses at the original trial may in certain circumstances be read as evidence. Since that Act was passed, however, Section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 (which is not yet in force) has provided for records of trials to be made by mechanical means as well as by shorthand notes. Section 2(5) of the 1964 Act should have been amended consequentially by the 1966 Act to make it clear that the transcript which could be read at a re-trial did not necessarily have to be a transcript of shorthand notes. This is achieved by the present Amendment.

§ My Lords, as this is the last Amendment to which I shall speak, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all noble Lords who have taken part and been so helpful, and I would express 623 my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who always, when, as it were, it was necessary to introduce a note of calm reason, was there to do so. In that way he has greatly helped me in the passage of the Bill, and I am most grateful to him. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 129, line 3, at end insert ("and for the words 'the shorthand notes' there shall be substituted the words 'the record'").—(Lord Stonham.)

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, I am sure that this is a wise Amendment to make. It amends the Criminal Appeal Act 1964 for which I was responsible—but I was not responsible for the 1966 Act in which somebody slipped up. But may I seriously express my warm appreciation to the noble Lord for what he has said, and congratulate him. May I also, with respect, congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the progress made with this Bill. We have had two long days, and although the two sides of the House have 624 not always been in complete agreement I think there will be unanimous agreement that the work that this House has done on the Bill has very substantially improved it.

§ Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 133, line 18, column 3, at beginning insert—("Section 17(2)").—(Lord Stonham.)